We often assume that power equals confidence. The evidence suggests otherwise.
A recent Harvard Business Review article by Jeffrey Polzer and Dritjon Gruda explores a dynamic that many professionals recognise but few openly discuss: managing an insecure boss or colleague.
Drawing on peer reviewed research into attachment theory and organisational behaviour, the authors argue that insecurity is not confined to early career professionals. It is common at the most senior levels of organisations.
Research suggests that around 36 per cent of adults have an insecure attachment style. A 2024 Korn Ferry report found that 71 per cent of US CEOs and 65 per cent of other senior executives report symptoms associated with impostor syndrome. In parallel, Pew Research Center data from 2023 indicates that more than a third of American workers describe their managers as dismissive or unpredictable, traits often linked to underlying insecurity.
This matters for inclusion because insecurity at the top does not stay private. It shapes behaviour, decision making, and culture.
When insecurity drives leadership behaviour
The article highlights two broad patterns that show up in workplaces: anxious and avoidant insecurity.
Anxious leaders often seek reassurance and approval. Under pressure, they may micromanage, overreact to feedback, change direction abruptly, or interpret professional disagreement as personal rejection. Their energy can be motivating, but it can also create emotional turbulence for teams.
Avoidant leaders, by contrast, may appear calm and highly rational. Yet beneath that composure can sit discomfort with vulnerability and a strong need for control. They may resist feedback, shut down when challenged, or distance themselves emotionally. Teams can experience them as hard to read or inaccessible.
In both cases, the impact on inclusion is significant. Psychological safety can erode. People may withhold information, avoid raising concerns, or overaccommodate to protect the leader’s ego. Over time, this contributes to stress, burnout, and reduced voice.
Three common traps
Polzer and Gruda identify three counterproductive responses that colleagues often adopt.
- Overaccommodation involves smoothing everything over, rewriting work to avoid triggering anxiety, or shielding a leader from difficult information. While well intentioned, this reinforces insecurity and can damage credibility.
- Withdrawal is the opposite response. Colleagues disengage, limit communication, and stop raising issues. This reduces transparency and trust, often confirming the leader’s fears that others are unreliable.
- Uncalibrated confrontation, even when accurate, can be perceived as a threat. Without psychological safety, direct challenge may trigger defensiveness rather than reflection.
Each of these responses can quietly undermine inclusive climates by narrowing honest dialogue and shared accountability.
A practical framework: regulate, relate, reason
The authors propose a three step process, adapted from psychiatrist Bruce Perry’s work on attachment and brain development.
- First, regulate. When people feel threatened, logic alone does not land. With anxious leaders, calm tone and steady pacing can reduce escalation. With avoidant leaders, structure and clarity reduce perceived intrusion.
- Second, relate. Consistency, predictability, and subtle signals of alignment build safety. For anxious leaders, reliable follow through and inclusive language matter. For avoidant leaders, respecting autonomy and communicating through preferred channels can preserve connection.
- Third, reason. Only once emotional intensity is reduced and connection is established should problem solving begin. Framing options clearly, documenting decisions, and inviting input strengthens agency rather than triggering defensiveness.
For inclusive leaders, the message is nuanced. Inclusion is not only about supporting those with less power. It also involves understanding how insecurity operates in positions of authority, and responding in ways that protect psychological safety without colluding with unhelpful patterns.
Managing up is rarely comfortable. Yet when done thoughtfully, it can reduce stress, improve dialogue, and create conditions where more voices are heard.
Inclusion is shaped as much by emotional dynamics as by formal policy. Leaders who understand this are better equipped to build cultures grounded in trust rather than fear.
Read the original article here: https://hbr.org/2026/03/how-to-manage-an-insecure-leader
