Dealing with a leader who bends rules and makes people feel small 3/12
We show that logic loses when power becomes personal. We argue the solution is mandate and governance, not louder debate. We invite small, consistent steps to restore structure and dignity.
This is a weekly essay series about power, undercurrents, and agency.
No diagnosis — just a sharp view of patterns that damage work and people.
Read slowly; choose one move you can make today.
There is a trap that especially competent people fall into: you try to win the debate.
You come with arguments. With analyses. With reasonableness. Deep down, you believe that if you explain it well enough, the penny will drop.
But in a context where power becomes personal, status rarely loses to logic. Then the rule of the game is: whoever can most forcefully decide what is true, decides what is true.
The way out is not to speak louder. The way out is to shift from content to containment. From improvisation to mandate. From the person to the role. That sounds formal, but in practice it is a form of protection: governance as civilization.
Governance is the silent agreement that decisions are not dependent on mood. That roles are bigger than relationships. That rules do not only apply to those with little power.
What does that look like in language? It is the questions that call the structure back into the room. Not accusatory — more curious, almost boring.
“What is the mandate here?”
“Who owns this decision?”
“What criteria are we using?”
“Where do we document this?”
If you do this well, it feels like you are slowly resetting the room into an adult mode. You take the electricity out of the duel. You lay down a track that the conversation has to run on.
Psychodynamically, this breaks with the implicit family system that often forms. The leader as parent, the employees as children trying to guess what will be safe today. Mandate-language places you back in an adult position: you are a role-holder in a system. You are not asking for permission; you are asking for a framework.
You can expect resistance. In dominant environments, governance is often mocked. “Bureaucracy.” “Slowing things down.” “Not entrepreneurial.” But look closely: what is really being defended is freedom without accountability. And that is exactly what harms the system.
It helps to connect governance to something everyone wants: speed, quality, predictability. Not because you need to justify yourself, but because you want to keep the conversation in a place where it cannot be manipulated.
Keep it small. One format for decisions. One place where agreements can be found again. One rhythm where decision-making and execution do not blur into each other.
And then: be consistent. Not dramatic. Not militant. Just — every time.
Take fifteen minutes today. Choose one recurring topic that keeps shifting. Write down: which table decides, what input belongs there, and where it will be recorded. Then ask yourself a simple question that says a lot:
Where have you been trying too long to be right, when what you actually needed was to restore mandate?
Take what fits, leave what doesn’t match your context.
If this resonates: don’t discuss it alone, discuss it in plural.
What one step brings you closer to dignity and containment this week?