The Wrong Variable
I met with an executive recently who described a previous work environment as challenging, tenuous, and destabilizing – the kind that forces a reckoning. He was pushed toward recognizing the dissonance between his personal values and professional behavior. That gap, once visible, was something he decided to work with.
He self-reflected. Named his triggers. Identified the stories he was telling himself. Observed the behaviors that showed up when things got hard. And that work – uncomfortable, slow, not done in a single workshop – strengthened values-consistent behavior across personal and professional domains. It changed how he now leads.
I asked him how often he sees other leaders do the same: take hardship and frame it as an opportunity for growth. He said it’s rare. And that the “how” of effective change is almost always missing from leadership development.
Doing what you know is straightforward when conditions are simple. It gets complicated under pressure. And pressure – economic instability, technological change, organizational complexity – isn't going away. Executing behavioral integrity is becoming increasingly difficult.
Across conversations with executives, the biggest challenges are consistent: embracing change and accurately naming what's wrong. That second is harder than it sounds.
Effective solutions require accurate diagnosis. And leaders are often reluctant to do it.
That reluctance makes sense. They carry significant responsibility. Their reputation, and their organization's, is on the line. Acknowledging a deficit can feel like exposure. And yet, inability to name the problem, for the sake of appearance management, keeps the deficit in place.
Problem avoidance is reinforced in the short-term when reputation is protected. In the long-term, corrective action stalls. The change needed to move forward gets blocked. The longer this continues, the harder the reckoning becomes.
This isn’t a knowledge problem. It’s a regulation problem.
How do we build leaders who can tolerate that discomfort and still act with integrity?
The answer is regulatory capacity. The ability to skillfully navigate paradox, take accountability, and regulate effectively – not despite pressure, but under it. Balancing action with reflection. Accountability with self-regulation. Problem-solving with the willingness to fully see reality.
The executive I mentioned confirmed what research suggests: developing this capacity takes real effort and commitment. It's not learned in a single session and then mastered. It requires practice, self-reflection, and refinement over time. And many leaders, as another executive described, don’t want to do the work. They prefer a quick fix.
I've heard the same thing from people I tell about this project. I describe what I'm building, they say it's great, and then they say it's too time-intensive.
They're right – it is intensive. And I think they're focusing on the wrong variable.
I'm mildly (okay, maybe more moderately) obsessed with the “fancy” DBT version of pros and cons. It examines short-term and long-term outcomes of any decision. More on that later.
For now: yes, developing regulatory capacity requires significant upfront investment. And with practice, these skills become automatic – replacing the same protective patterns that currently drive behavior under pressure. The long-term outcome is clear: more effective leaders, stronger relationships, more resilient organizations.