The Argument · 03
Without acceptance, change is impossible.
Leaders who struggle with change typically aren’t against it. They just haven’t accepted the necessary facts to make it.
I learned this the hard way. And I’ve observed it happening with many leaders since. It looks like this: a leader knows — consciously, articulately — that a certain behavior is costing them. They want change. They’ve committed to it. And yet, the behavior continues.
Understanding alone isn’t enough.
Understanding the “why” behind behavior is necessary to accurately identify “what” to change. This understanding requires tolerating what is revealed. And that is where leaders reliably get stuck — not with the awareness itself, but the frequently associated feeling of shame.
Leaders need their understanding to be validated, or make sense. By themselves, a trusted person, or someone who can hold complexity without making it worse. Without validation, shame takes over. It causes leaders to hide, pushing toward concealment rather than acknowledgement. And hiding doesn’t generate change. It prevents it.
Hiding interferes with accepting the brutal facts, which is exactly where change begins. Understanding why a behavior makes sense — and accepting it as the natural result of the environment rather than a character flaw — is where curiosity and growth become possible.
Acceptance doesn’t mean resignation.
The assumption is often that accepting the brutal facts means agreeing with them. That’s inaccurate.
Acceptance stabilizes emotional arousal. It creates the psychological space needed to assess a situation accurately — not from fear, but alongside it. It makes intentional action possible.
Without acceptance, change becomes reactive or avoidant: driven by the same activation that initially created the behavior.
Without change, acceptance becomes passive resignation: a sophisticated way of justifying costly behavior.
Without full acceptance, full change is unattainable. Change and acceptance need to be balanced, simultaneously. And that’s the dialectic: holding acceptance and change in tension, not resolving one in favor of the other.
Assumptions worth examining.
How do we go about facilitating deeper understanding that promotes effectively balancing acceptance and change?
Leadership development offers strategies for building mindfulness practices, pausing before reacting, developing self-awareness, naming emotional experiences, and self-reflection.
These are all useful. And, they rely on the assumption that leaders have the regulatory capacity to enact these strategies under pressure.
The assumption that leaders know how to observe, name, and modulate emotions. That they know how to challenge automatic cognitive interpretations and think flexibly. That they know how to override behavioral impulses and act intentionally.
These assumptions require closer examination.
Some leaders do have regulatory capacity. They need openness, curiosity, and flexibility to adapt to evolving demands.
Some leaders don’t. They need scaffolding to learn, develop, and sustain this capacity under pressure.
And all leaders need reinforcement over time. New learning doesn’t translate to behavior after a workshop. It happens from repeated practice, feedback, and structured support for generalization.
Even after a decade of teaching regulatory skills, I’m still learning, modifying, and expanding my capacity when my own protective behaviors emerge (more frequently than I’d like to admit). What’s changed isn’t their absence. It’s the recovery time. And the ability to identify them earlier.
Regulatory capacity doesn’t mean behavioral patterns disappear. It means faster acceptance and quicker change.
PREVIOUS ARGUMENT
NEXT ARGUMENT