THE LEADER'S PARADOX: Why Your Drive for Control Is Killing Your Team's Ability to Learn

🌪️ The Great Disconnect: Why We're Losing the Race in a VUCA World

We all live it. The constant, dizzying spin of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity (VUCA). It’s not just a buzzword; it's the air we breathe. Markets shift overnight, competitors emerge from nowhere, and last year's proven strategy is this year's case study in failure.

In response, organizations have doubled down on "learning." We pour millions into training programs, leadership off-sites, and e-learning modules. We're developing individuals.

And yet, most organizations are failing to learn where it matters most: in groups.

Think about it. Real work—the work that solves complex problems, innovates a new product, or navigates a crisis—doesn't happen in the isolation of a training module. It happens in project teams, in cross-functional committees, and in tense executive meetings. It requires multiple people, often with different perspectives and disciplines, to access knowledge, build a shared understanding, and then—most critically—act in a coordinated way.

This is the hard, messy, vital work of collective learning. And it’s the only way to adapt fast enough to survive.

But there’s a problem. A huge, invisible wall that stops this crucial process dead in its tracks.

What Made a Group Unwilling to Learn and Take Initiative?

❓ The Million-Dollar Question We're Afraid to Ask

Take a hard, honest look at your own team meetings. When was the last time someone:

• Admitted a mistake openly, without a long list of excuses?

• Asked a "stupid" question to clarify a complex point?

• Offered a "half-baked" idea that wasn't fully formed?

• Challenged a senior member's proposal... and was thanked for it?

• Asked for help when they were overwhelmed or confused?

• Gave direct, honest feedback to a colleague (or their boss)?

If you’re squirming in your seat, you've just put your finger on the gap. These actions are not just "nice-to-haves." They are the essential, observable behaviors of group learning. They are the micro-transactions of adaptation.

And in most organizations, they are terrifying.

Why? Because each one involves interpersonal risk. We hold back not because we're incompetent, but because we're masters of self-preservation. We've been trained since our first job to manage our image. Don't look stupid. Don't be the one who brings bad news. Don't rock the boat.

This is the "Great Disconnect." We need these risky behaviors to learn, but our organizational cultures actively punish them.

🔐 Unlocking the Room: Psychological Safety

For decades, we've danced around this problem. We've tried "open-door policies" and "team-building" exercises. But we've been missing the foundational concept that gives these behaviors life.

That concept is psychological safety.

Pioneered by Harvard Business School professor Amy C. Edmondson, it’s "a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking."

It's not about being "nice" or lowering standards. In fact, psychological safety is what enables high standards, because it's the only way to have the kind of candid, high-stakes conversations that innovation requires. It is the soil from which group learning grows. Without it, you get silence, conformity, and—eventually—irrelevance.

This isn't just theory. When Google launched its "Project Aristotle" to find the secret to its most effective teams, they studied hundreds of variables. It wasn't the mix of personalities, the co-location, or the 'A-player' ratio. The single most important factor was psychological safety.

⛰️ The Leader as the Stifler (and the Key)

This brings us to a painful truth. If this safety is so critical, why is it so rare?

Look in the mirror. More often than not, the single biggest destroyer of psychological safety is the leader.

The image and the accompanying quote from Dan Cable hits the nail on the head:

"Power...can cause leaders to become overly obsessed with outcomes and control, inadvertently ramping up people's fear — fear of not hitting targets, fear of losing bonuses, fear of failing — and as a consequence...their drive to experiment and learn is stifled."

This is the Leader's Paradox. In a VUCA world, the leader's instinct is to grip the wheel tighter, to demand more certainty, and to control the outcome. But this very act of "control" sends a powerful, unspoken message: "Do not fail. Do not bring me problems. Do not surprise me."

And in that moment, learning stops.

People don't experiment when they fear failing. They don't share information openly when they fear blame. They don't seek feedback when they fear it will be used against them.

As Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline, has long argued, true "learning organizations" are built not on compliance, but on surfacing our "mental models"—the deep-seated assumptions that govern our actions. The leader's mental model of "control" creates a team mental model of "fear."

Case in Point: The Price of Silence

We don't need to look far for the wreckage.

• Think of Nokia. In the mid-2000s, they had a functioning smartphone prototype years before the iPhone. Why did they fail? Subsequent analysis revealed a culture of fear. Middle managers were terrified to report the "bad news" (that their Symbian OS was clumsy and unworkable) to senior executives, who were famously aggressive. The fear of control stifled the very information the company needed to survive.

• Now, contrast that with Pixar's "Braintrust." As described by co-founder Ed Catmull in Creativity, Inc., the Braintrust is a meeting where directors present their unfinished films to a group of trusted peers. The feedback is "frank, deep, and often difficult," but it operates on two rules: 1) The feedback is not prescriptive (they don't give "fixes"), and 2) The feedback is not a "note from the boss"—the director is free to take it or leave it.

The Braintrust is a masterpiece of engineered psychological safety. It’s a formal structure designed to remove fear and personal ego from the process, focusing everyone on one goal: "Make the movie better." This is high-stakes group learning in action.

🧭 Charting a New Course: 3 Jobs of the Adaptive Leader

If your control-centric habits are the problem, then shifting them is the solution. For HR professionals and executives, your job is no longer to have the answers. Your job is to create the conditions for the answers to emerge.

This requires three fundamental shifts in how you lead.

1. Reframe the Work: From Execution to Learning

Stop pretending you're on a factory line. Most modern work is not a predictable task to be executed. It's a complex problem to be solved.

Start by saying it out loud. Use language that creates safety.

• Instead of: "We know what to do; let's not fail."

• Try: "This is a complex challenge, and we've never done it before. We're going to hit roadblocks, and we'll need everyone's brains to figure it out. Our job is to learn faster than the competition."

As Amy Edmondson puts it, the leader must "frame the work as a learning problem, not an execution problem." This small shift in language gives permission to be uncertain, to ask questions, and to experiment.

2. Model Vulnerability: Go First

Your team is watching you. They take their cues on what's "safe" by observing how you react to challenges. If you pretend to be infallible, you create a culture where everyone else has to pretend, too.

Vulnerability is not weakness; it is the prerequisite for trust.

• Say "I don't know." It's the most powerful phrase a leader can use. It opens the door for someone else to say, "But I have an idea."

• Admit your own mistakes. "I was wrong about that last assumption. What did we learn from it, and how do we pivot?"

• Ask for help. "I'm struggling with how to position this. What do you all see that I'm missing?"

This is the core of Emotional Intelligence, as popularized by Daniel Goleman. Your self-awareness and self-management of your own ego are what make it safe for others to be human.

3. Reward the Process, Not Just the (Successful) Outcome

This is the hardest part, because it fights against the very quote from Dan Cable. We are obsessed with outcomes.

But if you only reward successful outcomes, you will implicitly punish intelligent, well-run experiments that happened to fail. And if you do that, you will get no more experiments.

You must create "blameless" systems for learning.

• Institute Blameless Post-Mortems. When a project fails, the question is never "Whose fault is it?" The question is "What did the system teach us?" What did we assume that was wrong? What data did we lack? How can we prevent this class of error in the future?

• Celebrate the "Beautiful No." Reward the team that runs a fast, cheap experiment and proves an idea won't work. They just saved the company millions. This is a successful outcome, even if the project is "failed."

• Ask better questions. Instead of "Are we on track?" try "What are you learning?" "What are you worried about?" "What's the 'bad news' I haven't heard yet?" As Otto Scharmer (Theory U) suggests, we must shift our listening from simple "downloading" to "empathic" and "generative" listening that allows a new future to emerge.

🚀 Your Call to Action: The First Risk

This isn't easy. It requires leaders to unlearn decades of behavior that got them promoted. It requires HR to shift from being a "policy-enforcer" to a "safety-builder."

The VUCA world won't wait for us to get comfortable. The only sustainable advantage you have is the speed at which your teams can learn together. And they cannot learn if they are afraid.

So, here is your call to action.

In your very next meeting, take a risk. Be the first one to do it.

Ask a "stupid" question. Admit you don't have the answer. Or, better yet, find someone who made a mistake, and publicly thank them for the valuable lesson it taught the team.

It will feel uncomfortable. It will feel inefficient. But you will be doing the most important work of a modern leader: you'll be building the safety that unlocks the learning that will ensure your survival.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Leksana TH