Role is the bridge between the person and the system. It represents both expectations and identity: what is given to you and what you choose to take up. A role carries tasks, authority, and accountability — as well as the projections, fears, and hopes from the broader organization that often remain unspoken.
A role has an inordinate number of demands biting at all of its surfaces. From the demands we bring as the person in role, to the needs and expectations of the system in which the role operates, a role holder is pushed and pulled in extraordinary ways. Courage in role requires staying grounded in one’s purpose, values, and tasks — and maintaining clear boundaries amid a system’s fear, noise, and competing expectations.
Role Given and Role Taken
Every role has two sides: what is handed to you and what you inhabit. The intersection of these two is where most dynamic forces play out — and why two people in the same role will have very different approaches, outcomes, and experiences.
Role given and role taken are further shaped by two systems present in all organizations. The task system is the set of responsibilities and deliverables for a role — the inputs and outputs that create a system of work. The sentient system is the subjective quality of experience: what it feels like to hold the role, including the feelings, emotions, and unspoken meanings that form around it. Ignoring the sentient system is how leaders end up carrying unspoken anxiety, unresolved conflicts, and the emotional labor of the organization without realizing how it shapes their performance and well-being.
Knowing the Role Before You Take It
Before committing to, shaping, or reshaping a role, courageous leaders study the role itself. They look beyond the job description and ask deeper questions about culture, colleagues, values, and the many “given” aspects that come with the seat. They also explore their own expectations, desires, ambitions, and the personal history they bring into the role.
Leaders must consider what psychologists call the “projective field” — the matrix of conscious and unconscious expectations, wants, needs, perceptions, and biases projected onto the role holder by those around them. At minimum, ask:
Tolerating Fear, Uncertainty, and Risk
Every role carries risk. Will I succeed or fail? Do I have what it takes? Not all roles hold the same degree of risk, even within the same executive team. Roles that are more senior, have greater span of responsibility, and require long-term vision inherently carry more risk. Leaders should assess the risk profile of a role and consciously decide whether they have the tolerance, temperament, resources, and support system to hold it. Beyond immediate responsibilities, consider three dimensions of role risk:
Much of this risk is subjective and only revealed once we’re in the seat. Courageous leaders develop the capacity to tolerate not knowing — to act amid uncertainty while staying connected to values and purpose.
Managing Fear and Reducing Unnecessary Exposure
While tolerating uncertainty and taking risk is essential, courageous leaders also find ways to manage fear and reduce unnecessary exposure:
How Courage Shows Up: Confidence, Character, and Credibility
Research on courage in teams identifies three dimensions that bolster courageous action in role. These dimensions interact with both role given and role taken, shaping how leaders act under pressure — and they reinforce one another. Confidence without character becomes arrogance; character without credibility risks moral intention without impact; credibility without confidence erodes authority.
The Leadership Paradox: Authority and Control
Not all leadership roles carry equal risk. A leadership paradox emerges when mapping formal authority against personal and organizational risk: as authority increases, actual control over outcomes often decreases.
An individual contributor might have limited formal authority but control the vast majority of outcomes through direct execution. A CEO may hold full formal authority yet control only a fraction of the company’s fate — due to delegation, market forces, regulation, competition, and capital availability. This widening “authority–control gap” as one moves up the hierarchy fundamentally changes what leadership requires and how courage must be exercised.
Roles tend to cluster into four risk zones when considering formal authority and personal/organizational risk:
| Zone | Typical Roles | Core Risk Dynamics |
|---|---|---|
| Safe Zone | Early-career leaders, senior ICs | Low authority, low risk. Success driven by personal competence and direct execution. |
| Building Zone | Mid-level managers, some directors | Moderate authority, moderate risk. Success requires influencing others and navigating politics. |
| Pressure Zone | Functional heads, senior directors | Moderate authority, high risk. Outcomes depend on multiple teams beyond direct control. |
| Crisis Zone | CEOs, C-suite executives | High authority, extreme risk. Maximum responsibility with limited control over key outcomes. |
Inherited Baggage and Unseen Risk
When accepting a leadership role, you inherit far more than a job description. You inherit organizational history, a previous leader’s failures or successes, unresolved conflicts, and what psychoanalyst Christopher Bollas calls the “unthought known” — the unconscious organizational patterns that everyone acts on but no one names.
This baggage may show up as skepticism if prior leaders failed, impossible comparisons if they succeeded, or deposited anxiety as the organization uses the role as a container for fears that should be distributed across teams. Leaders with high GSE and LSE are better equipped to navigate this. Their confidence allows them to observe projections more clearly and differentiate between what is legitimately theirs to hold and what is being put on them.
The distinction between visible and unseen role realities helps illuminate undercurrents that increase role risk. Visible risks include clear performance targets, budgets, and timelines. Unseen risks include unresolved power struggles, cultural taboos, and conflicts between stated and actual values. Exploring both allows leaders to enter roles with realistic expectations rather than the idealized description they were sold.
Four Questions for Courageous Role-Taking
Courageous role-taking requires assessing at least four dimensions before saying yes to — or deciding how to reshape — a role:
Courage in role is not fearlessness — it is clear-eyed assessment of risk, the wisdom to distinguish legitimate demands from deposited dysfunction, and the confidence to set boundaries that serve both leader and organization.
What Comes Next: From Role to System
Leaders who explore these questions enter roles more intentionally, with a greater capacity to act courageously amid uncertainty — and a finer sense of what to take on, what to challenge, and what to put down.
But courageous leadership does not end with the individual or the role. The next article turns to the System dimension of the PRS framework — exploring how organizations can be designed to attend to the person, align roles, contain noise, and enable courageous action at every level.
Work with Hoola Hoop
If this series resonated and you’re navigating a leadership challenge, we’d like to talk.
