"Leadership as a responsive, relational act"

There’s a version of leadership I sometimes long for.

The version where everyone agrees.
Where the plan makes sense.
Where values are shared, alignment is high, and things just move.

But that’s not the version I live.

Over the past few days I wrote about being in a difficult series of conversations with a Team Lead. We were discussing a change to a legacy system, one I’d worked hard to make inclusive, careful, and considered.

He kept raising the same concerns. Again and again. And I’ll be honest, I didn’t enjoy those conversations. I found them draining. In the moment, I just wanted it to be over. I wanted him to say, “Fine, this is good enough,” so we could move on.

He didn’t.

And because he didn’t, we stayed in the conversation longer than I wanted to.

What came out of that discomfort was something better. A more nuanced path. A decision that wasn’t just technically solid, but more human in its implementation. I wouldn’t have gotten there alone.

Ralph Stacey said that leadership isn’t about control, it’s about participation.
That organizations don’t change from the top down, they change in local interactions.

But here’s what that actually feels like:
It’s uncomfortable. It’s slow. It’s uncertain.
And it’s tempting to shut it down.

To pull rank.
To enforce alignment.
To surround yourself with people who agree.

But here’s the thing: shutting down diverse thinking doesn’t make it disappear.
It just goes underground. It shows up later as resistance, disengagement, subcultures.
It becomes a “yes” on the surface and a “no” in reality.

Leadership as a responsive, relational act means staying in the room, even when you want out.

Until next time,
Dermot
​The Messy Middle

​

✉️ Enjoying The Messy Middle?​
If this sparked something useful, consider forwarding it to a colleague or friend, it might help them too.

If someone sent this email your way and you’d like to get it direct, you can sign up here.