Michael Koehler: Welcome to Episode 6 of On The Balcony. My name is Michael Koehler and I am your host.

In today’s episode, we continue to examine Ronald Heifetz’s landmark book Leadership Without Easy Answers, and look at Chapter Six with the title “On a Razor's Edge”.

If you’ve been following along the season you know that we have explored the distinction between leadership and authority quite a bit. One of the biggest myths is that leadership becomes easier the higher you get in an organization. While it’s true that authority comes with an enormous set of resources for the practice of leadership, it also comes with constraints. And that is what this chapter is about.

People in high roles of authority are expected to protect, to direct, and to organize. And that all works beautifully when the nature of the problem is technical - when it is a routine problem. But when the work is adaptive, when it requires learning, that is where it gets tricky.

Instead of providing direction, you need to frame the challenge and help people come up with their own new approaches and capacities.

Instead of protecting people, you need to disclose the threats to the people.

Instead of orienting people, you need to let conflict surface and challenge roles and norms that are no longer working.

This work is hard – and that’s why we often see people in authority roles being more protective of the status quo and somewhat risk averse.

Our guest this week has a lot of experience with these dynamics. Ian Palmquist has worked as an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights for over 20 years. He has held roles of authority, but also worked with senior authority figures, such as state legislators, to address issues of social justice. Ian is currently the Deputy Director at Equality Federation and the President of the Adaptive Leadership Network.

Our conversation taps into the difficult work of partnering with the opposition, with people in power while disappointing your own people when the speed of change is not as fast as it could be.

A quick heads up, the conversation took place about a week after the US Supreme Court overruled Roe and the right to abortions.

Let’s dive right into the conversation with Ian.

Welcome, Ian! It’s so good to see you.

Ian Palmquist: Hey, Michael. I’m so glad to be here.

Michael Koehler: It's such a joy to have you on the show. We'll get started with the chapter that we'll look at today, which is ‘On the Razor's Edge.’ I'm really curious, as you re-engage with the book, I re-engage with the book, like, what core ideas stood out from this chapter?

Ian Palmquist: Yeah! I mean, I think what's really amazing about this chapter is that it hones in on how limiting the role of authority can be and how few tools an authority figure has in some ways to lead, but how vital those are and that that role authority figures can provide holding a group to a task, and really staying focused on that adaptive work at hand can be so critical.

Michael Koehler: Yeah. It's surprising often, the constraints of authority that I think this is the chapter where he introduced the metaphor, the straitjacket, authority as a straitjacket, because we often think that once you're in charge, that's where all the power is - the power for change-making, the power for progress, but apparently not.

Ian Palmquist: Yeah, absolutely. And I think the other thing that stood out for me was, that it feels like this is the chapter that really starts to get into raising the heat and the authority figure's role in raising the heat and modulating that conflict to hold a group to task.

Michael Koehler: Yeah, and we talked about that throughout the season in several chapters, kind of the idea that disequilibrium comes with adaptive work, that heat comes with adaptive work, and the idea that authority figures are often called in to reduce the heat, to restore order, to fix the problem, but what if these, not technical problems but adapted problems can't be fixed and solved, that needs some collective learning and need some people to face into some losses. I think that's what I'm sensing. That's at the heart of this chapter.

Ian Palmquist: Yeah, exactly. That expectation of delivering stability, solving problems, and taking care of things for the group, is one of the real key limitations that authority figures face.

Michael Koehler: I can't wait to dive into that more deeply with you, Ian. I want to give you a little space to introduce yourself. I think it's particularly interesting, though, that we have this conversation with you on the role of authority because it's very often that in the work that you do the authority figures out on the other side of the table, but I'm sure you'll tell us a little bit more about that. Ian, who are you?

Ian Palmquist: Yeah, there are questions about authority on my mind rereading this. But yeah, to start, I'm a cisgender, white guy. I grew up in the American South in North Carolina. I'm a gay man. I have spent most of my career for the last 20 years working for LGBTQ+ equality, starting at first in North Carolina in a tiny, scrappy nonprofit. I was half of a one-and-a-half-person staff right out of college.

More recently, you know, kind of moving into a national space. I'm Deputy Director in the Equality Federation, now helping support state LGBT advocates across the country. But I really love that small nonprofit space. I love bringing people together and showing them how they can help create change in their communities.

We connected through our connections to Kennedy School. It was really interesting and intimidating for me. I kind of first got connected to this framework because I was sort of drafted into a fellowship to do a 3-week Exec-Ed program at Kennedy School. And I think we just had like, a few hours with Marty Linksy, who, with Ron, wrote the second book, and it really just gave me the sense of, ‘Wow! There's like language to talk about all of these things that I've been grappling with and haven't known how to even speak about, much less solve some of those problems.’

So, in this adaptive leadership space, I'm primarily a practitioner. I do bring some of these concepts into my work supporting leaders on the ground, but I'm really primarily thinking about it as a tool for my own practice of leadership within my organization, within this ecosystem that is the LGBTQ+ movement or movements, and within our states and communities and all of the political systems that we're a part of as well.

Probably the last thing I should say is, that I'm also the Board President of the Adaptive Leadership Network, which has been such a wonderful opportunity for me to bring some of the organization-building skills that I have to work and support this global community of changemakers, who engage with adaptive leadership in some way, and are really creating this space where we can support each other and learn from each other and continue growing as we all are trying to figure out how do we track this leadership, and whatever system we're in, and in this moment that feels so urgent with everything that's happening in our country and the world right now.

Michael Koehler: We'll make sure for those listeners who are interested in getting more with the Equality Leadership Network, and also with the Equality Federation to add links in the show notes so you can find both of these organizations.

But what's fascinating for me as I'm listening to you is really that you're coming from a sort of advocacy activist space, and yet, you’re also holding authority roles in these nonprofits, where over the time, these organizations are growing as their sort of influence is getting bigger. You have both, right? You're helping activists out there in the field, but you're also in charge of managing the operations of these organizations. So, we'll be curious to hear both angles.

Ian Palmquist: Yeah, absolutely! I think that's true of most folks. We are in positions of authority, in some ways, and then we're also doing these things out in the world that nobody has authorized us to do.

Michael Koehler: Terrific! Ian, what quote from the chapter have you brought for us to chew on today?

Ian: Well, Michael, the chapter is titled ‘On a Razor's Edge.’ What really stood out to me was this one sentence. “Yet in either case, the authority figure cuts his feet.”

Michael Koehler: “Yet in either case, the authority cuts his feet.” I'm curious, maybe we can start by orienting that sentence in the chapter. Where are we? What image is sort of Heifetz referring to here?

Ian Palmquist: This is the moment where he really brings in this metaphor of the razor's edge, and the idea that the balance and authority figure is trying to strike, it's so delicate and so narrow that if you're challenging your community or your group too quickly, it's so easy to be rejected or shut down for failing to provide that stability, for failing to solve the problems for them.

And at the same time, if you don't challenge the group enough, then you end up getting rejected for not making progress on this problem that the group is facing. And so, this authority figure is trying to walk this very narrow razor's edge, this balance beam to stay balanced.

I just thought this quote, “Yet in either case, the authority figure cuts his feet,” really brought home for me the cost of trying to hold that balance, right? Trying to exercise leadership from a position of authority is going to invite physical and mental wounds, potentially.

Michael Koehler: Wow! I'm so excited to explore this quote with you. So, the first place I would love to go is actually to soak a little bit away from the text and the story.

Invite you to let your sort of inner eye wander a little bit into the sphere of story, image, metaphor, and loose associations. So, I'm going to read the quote to you one more time and sort of let it wash over you and see what images come up for you. “Yet in either case, an authority figure cuts his feet.”

Ian Palmquist: I think it really raises for me, particularly when I was Executive Director in Equality North Carolina. I was in my 20s and somehow the most visible queer person in the state, and just as all of the pressure that brings on from this community, I'm trying to work with, trying to support, trying to mobilize, and often the anger that provokes. It's easy to take the anger from our opposition, right? But when the folks in our own community think we're not doing enough, think we're compromising when we shouldn't compromise, it's so hard not to internalize that and come away feeling like you've failed or you're harming your community. And so, the emotional toll of that work was really significant at times.

Michael Koehler: Yeah! I can feel that. It's interesting that the association went to not the people that are in the opposition, right? You think about activism. It's so hard because you get pushback from the opposition, but you're talking about your own people that are impatient. What was the hardest about their impatience?

Ian Palmquist: I think I was in this role, where I could see much more closely the political system that we were trying to change. I was in my suit at the State Capitol, every day during the legislative session, working with legislators on our side, talking to folks who you're trying to persuade.

It gave me so much more sense of: What are the constraints? What are the pressures? What is really possible for us to achieve? And then, folks out in the community are saying, ‘That's not enough. We need more.’

They're absolutely right. We do need more, we needed more, and we continue to need more. So, sometimes, trying to be that bridge of, ‘We need more, you're right. Like, the system we're operating in is fundamentally wrong in many, many ways, and how it's treated our people, and this is what we can do now.'

Michael Koehler: Yeah. I guess I'm listening to you and it sounds, like, torn. I guess I was reacting to this, like, I think that the metaphor Heifetz is using here is really intense on the razor's edge and cutting one's feet, like, ouch. Yet, I'm thinking, torn, which is also really intense. It's brutal.

Ian Palmquist: Yeah, it's trying to manage all of those expectations. It's, of course, bringing me back to that wonderful line that Ron has used many times that leadership requires us to disappoint our own people at a rate they can absorb. I feel like I did a lot of disappointing at times in my work on the front lines.

Michael Koehler: Would you share a little bit more about that? What was the moment of disappointment that was really hard?

Ian Palmquist: One of those moments was we had been fighting for many years to try and stop an anti-LGBT marriage amendment from being put into our State Constitution. We've narrowly been able to hold it off thanks to the Democratic leadership we had at the time in the state. They weren't going to do anything good for us at that point in the south, but they were holding off some of the bad stuff. This was the mid-2000s.

And then, in 2010, the legislature shifted and Republicans took over. We knew that it was going to happen. That there was no way. And of course, we had to fight. Of course, we had to use that moment to try and change the conversation.

But having the community looking to us to keep this from happening was almost unbearable. I actually was already planning my exit when that happened. And I ended up leaving before the ballot campaign started.

But I just remember those last 6 months, I was at Equality North Carolina, just feeling this overwhelming sense of everybody looking to me in this organization, and probably internal sensing more than I should, but this sense that people were looking at me to stop this, and I just didn't know how, it didn't seem possible and probably wasn't possible.

Michael Koehler: I'd love to shift the perspective a little bit. Much of the work, the advocacy work is towards people, if I understand it correctly, who hold major authority roles, people who are elected officials and lawmakers.

And so, I'm going to invite us to read the sentence one more time and imagine yourself into an experience where you dealt with somebody in authority, and how you engaged with them. And let's see what comes up as we re-engage that sentence, right? “Yet in either case, an authority figure cuts his feet.”

Ian Palmquist: Yeah. One of the things that I really learned in my time lobbying in the Capitol and people may not know, a State Capitol in most states here, it's not like the Congress. It's just legislators walking the halls. They have maybe one staff person each.

So, it's this very tight community. They are literally bumping up against each other in the halls of the staircases. I found a lot more empathy for some of the people who were frustrating our progress at times. I'm thinking about people like the majority leader in the Senate for many years, Tony Rand, who was from Fayetteville, kind of a conservative democratic community, trying to hold his majority in a state that was moving in a conservative direction, politically, and going in and saying, ‘We need you to pass LGBTQ equality bills, we need you to protect gay and trans kids from bullying in our schools. We need comprehensive sex education in our schools.”

Talking to him, he knew what the right thing was. That wasn't his limitation. He's maybe not the most comfortable with LGBT people. He was kind of a southern good old boy. But he knew what the right thing to do was. He was trying to figure out, 'How do I hold this majority and what is the cost of potentially losing? What would that mean for reproductive rights?' - thinking about this week here in the United States - 'For education, and all of these other things that matter to the state?'

And so, working with him, and others, I really saw this person in this position of authority, this person who was going to play a key role in whether anything we proposed ever made it anywhere. He was a good human who was trying to figure out the right things to do for his state and really worried about going too far, about what happens if he or even just two or three of the folks in his caucus lost their authority, lost their next election. What would the consequences be?

Michael Koehler: Yeah, what became possible as a result of that?

Ian Palmquist: I think we were able to change our approach a little bit. We tried to hone in on issues that seemed ripe enough that maybe we could move them forward without a lot of political backlash.

We honed in on our big push, after years of trying to pass non-discrimination legislation and hate crimes legislation and getting nowhere. We shifted and we said, 'What if we just tried to do something that said, bullying in schools is not okay? And that includes bullying, based on sexual orientation, based on gender identity, and schools have to have a way of grappling with it. Let's put our opposition in the position where they have to be on the side of bullies, essentially, to oppose us.' And that made the issue easy enough, in some ways that the conservative Democrats, the folks who were in districts that were right on the edge, could say, ‘I can do this. Like, I'm not sure I can do these other things yet. But I can do this.’

That got us real protections that mattered for LGBTQ+ young people. But it also got us a little bit of momentum, to say, 'Okay, for the first time in North Carolina, sexual orientation is in state law, for the first time anywhere in the South gender identity is in the state law, even if it's in one narrow place.'

That gives us an opportunity to move forward that we might not have had if we weren't tuned into what were all of these pressures that these, basically good-hearted people were feeling that were keeping them from letting us move forward.

Michael Koehler: So, Ian you've been sharing these beautiful examples of boundary crossing, of working with people who are different and you mentioned where, at this moment at a very significant point with the Supreme Court ruling that just happened last week. I'm hearing more and more people who have a track record of boundary crossing, who are kind of working for progressive issues, but who are sort of able to maneuver both sides of the aisle more and more saying, like, ‘I'm done with it. I'm losing hope.' I'm really curious, as much as you can tell, it's very fresh, at least the Supreme Court development, but I'm really curious: Where are you now? Do you still believe in that approach? Or are you saying like, you know, something is fundamentally shifting?

Ian Palmquist: I think it's a little bit of both for me, honestly, on one hand, I do think that the LGBTQ+ movement, when it's been kind of at its best, and at its most successful is when we've been willing to meet people where they are, and take them on a journey with us and try to go in with as open hearts as possible.

I think that work is still really important. I think there are still a lot of people in this country, who just don't understand what it means to be trans, much less, what it's like to be a trans 13 or 14-year-old, wanting to play on your sports team that matches who you are.

So, I think we still have to find ways to be open and to engage with folks who are willing to engage, who are willing to have some curiosity. And at the same time, we know that this is a very calculated attempt by the far-right to upend freedoms by a number of other organizations. And they don't care about whether trans kids are actually on the sports teams. They care about activating fear. They care about mobilizing a base that is terrified of difference and terrified of the sense of losing the country and losing their place in the country.

So, it's really hard to find a way to engage with the folks who are really pushing this. It's hard to find a way to cross that boundary when you know it's not a genuine difference of opinion or lack of understanding, it's a really calculated attempt to gain power at the expense of others.

And so, I struggle. In my time in North Carolina, I spent a lot of time trying to work with Republican legislators, and we're still doing that work, but it's gotten harder and harder to find folks who are even willing to engage. And when they are willing to engage, the price they see of sticking their neck out at all on our issues is so much higher even than it was 10 or 15 years ago. So, it's just gotten really hard to move people, particularly elected officials, when these issues have become so polarized.

Michael Koehler: And what has shifted? As you are looking into that community, have their constituencies actually shifted? Have they shifted? Or the new people who are in these elected roles? What's your sense on what is shifting?

Ian Palmquist: I think there's a lot of complicated answers, probably. But the one thing that I think about is that for years, the Republican Party had formed this coalition of business and elite interests with evangelical Christians, and with the dog whistles, kind of the more racist part of white America.

But the folks in leadership tended to not think that those elements were ever going to take over. And it feels like they really have come to the forefront in the last 5-6 years, especially.

So, I don't know that it's entirely a different group of people. But the power dynamics have shifted. And I think that there are a lot of straight white Americans who do feel like change is happening too quickly, that they're not sure about their place. And that's something I really want to try to stay open to and engaged with. And it's hard when it's manifesting in an attempted coup.

Michael Koehler: So, from a professional advocate, like, if I'm listening to this and thinking about like, 'Boy, you know I have an uncle in my family who may fall into that camp, what can we learn from you?'

Ian Palmquist: I mean, we've learned a lot, actually. And I think, when people can have those hard boundary crossing conversations, and I want to say, when it's physically safe to do that – not asking anyone to go, not asking kids to get kicked out of their house right now or whatever, people need to take care of themselves.

But I think what's so important is to really go in, not with arguments, but with listening, and real curiosity, and trying to connect. I think this plays out in interpersonal relationships. We actually did some research a few years ago where we had canvassers going door to door, talking to people in Atlanta and Cleveland, and other cities about trans rights. And really going in with some curiosity about out, what do you think it means to be trans? Have you had an experience of what it felt like to be treated differently because of something about who you are? When you see what our opposition is putting out there that is so fear-inducing, what does that provoke in you? And really having this curiosity to like: Where are you coming from? What is actually worrying you? And being willing to share our own stories of how we got there.

As queer people, most of us didn't grow up with queer parents, some did, but most of us didn't. So, we had to go on our own journey to come to some understanding of this. So, how do we recognize that we need to give folks some space to come on those journeys as well, but they're not going to start where we are, at this point in our journey when they're just beginning?

Michael Koehler: It sounds like the gay man in me is in touch with how hard that work is, particularly if you're part of the marginalized community, and how big the opportunity here is potentially also for allies for whom that pain around that topic, may not be as, as present.

Ian Palmquist: Yeah! I hear that there's a narrative in progressive communities now that marginalized people shouldn't have to do that work for people who are in systemic power. I think that's right, like, we shouldn't have to. When those of us who can, who have whatever other sets of privileges we have to be able to do that work, that can be incredibly powerful.

Michael Koehler: I love that! You know what? This reminds me of this binary that we were exploring between, I think it wasn't one of the earlier shows, it's not just like engage in or don't engage, right? There's a whole set of ways to engage.

The beauty about disequilibrium is if it's too hot, it's danger zone, panic zone, not good. If it's too low, it's comfort, sometimes necessary, right? Sometimes it's important to recover and to rest and take care of yourself and heal. But there's the learning zone that's right in the middle, where there's some heat or some sweat. And if there are ways of engaging in the collective learning, in that learning zone – maybe that is not confronting the aggressor directly, but maybe you're working on the periphery, maybe you're working with allies - there are all kinds of ways to engage maybe more nuanced than, like, either 'I'm out there in the streets, or I'm not doing anything.'

Ian Palmquist: Absolutely. I don't at all want to sound like this sort of open engagement is the only way. I think outsider strategies, direct action, and things that do turn up the heat that make people uncomfortable, can be incredibly valuable as well.

So, you're right, it's about choosing: How do I intervene? How do I engage in this moment that I feel up to? Maybe it pushes my boundaries a little, but I feel up to, and that might make a difference.

Michael Koehler: So, one more question before we go to our last reading of that text and the case study in this chapter, most of the chapter we're sort of in Lyndon B. Johnson's world and here, sort of Ron Heifetz's interpretation of how he may or may not have practiced leadership from a position of power and this idea of strategic waiting and letting things ripen to then make a move.

The question I have for you, Ian, is this; For people who are in power, who may find themselves kind of in that torn position where they may fall off on either side or cut their feet on either side of the razor's edge, for them, what are some strategies you've seen people in authority, legislators, make good use of activists? Because that partnership is often underutilized, right? And I think it's beautifully described in that chapter, kind of that dance between people in power and people on the streets. So, if somebody in power is listening, like, what can they do to make use more of activists?

Ian Palmquist: Smart elected officials operate in partnership with advocates. I had the opportunity to learn so much working with Representative Rick Glaser who sponsored the bullying bill that I was talking about earlier.

He was brilliant at figuring out 'When do we need a ton of media attention? When do we need a lot of emails and calls going into offices? When do we need to let it alone?' And partnering with folks out in the community who can make those things happen with us to create the narrative that helps him make his colleagues do the right thing, bring them along and see that there was public support.

So, there's always this interplay between what can elected officials do and where are the hearts and minds in the community that they have to navigate. And so, I think smart elected officials find a way to do that.

I remember, I'm going to probably butcher the quote a little bit, but soon after Barack Obama was elected, he said to a group of activists, ‘You got me elected. Now make me do it.’ Meaning, bring the pressure - I think it was around ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell, actually - bring the pressure that helps me align these generals, these members of Congress on the Armed Services Committee, bring the pressure. It might be directed at Obama, who's on our side, right? But bring the pressure that forces action now.

Michael Koehler: Wow! Ian, I'm gonna read the quote one final time and I'm actually going to include the sentence before closing this out. And then, we'll finish with one final question of this chapter, which is called ‘On a Razor's Edge.’

‘To stay balanced on the edge, one needs a strategic understanding of the specific tools and constraints that come with one's authority. Yet, in either case, an authority figure cuts his feet.’ Ian, what actions, looking forward, are you being called to take?

Ian Palmquist: Well, Michael, I think you touched on one of the big tensions that we feel in the movement right now: What is the balance between compromise and our aspirations? What is the balance between engaging with folks who don't like us very much and being true to who we are, and being true to our values?

And I think one of the roles that I end up playing with some of the informal authority I have in this movement space, is trying to help groups grapple with that, and I don't pretend to know what the right balance is. I don't think anybody does. But there are conversations that we have to keep having and have to keep grappling with.

Michael Koehler: Ian, I wish you all the best for that dance on the razor's edge. I hope you're not cutting your feet. I’m so grateful that you were here with me today.

Ian Palmquist: Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me! It's been a real delight coming back to this book and following along with you on the podcast.

Michael Koehler: We’ll be back in two weeks with Chapter 7 of Ron Heifetz’s book Leadership Without Easy Answers - with the title “Falling Off the Edge” – you can imagine this chapter directly builds from the razor’s edge metaphor from this week.

We’ll be joined by Jevan Soo Lenox, Chief People Officer at the biotech company Insitro. Before that, Jevan was the Chief People Officer at Stitch Fix and Blue Bottle. I can’t wait to learn more about his perspective on how this framework has helped him think about people and culture development in these high-growth Bay-area companies.

If you like the show press the subscribe button and leave a review. That helps others to connect to these powerful adaptive leadership cases.

On The Balcony is brought to you by KONU. Growing and Provoking Leadership and hosted by me, Michael Koehler. We are produced by Podigy Editing: Riley Byrne, Daniel Link. Cover Art by Kenneth Amoyo and Rosi Greenberg. Our music is called 'Change in Blue" by Hannah Gill and The Hours.

Thanks for listening. We’ll see you for Episode 7, On the Balcony.