Sharpening Your Leadership Skills By Understanding Stress in Volatile Situations

by Dr. Kevin Dean, President & CEO, Tennessee Nonprofit Network

My new favorite hobby is studying human behavior under pressure. Yes, this includes watching videos of public freakouts on YouTube, which can be both hilarious and terribly sad. Or shows like Walking Dead where, in the face of a zombie hoard, people make really bad, impulsive decisions and get eaten! I also love reading books about the tumultuous, dysfunctional, and high-stress world of work (If you haven’t read it already, Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism by Sarah Wynn-Williams is….wow.). I’m the son of a psychologist, and I’ve grown up picking apart everyday interactions and viewing them from a psychological perspective, often without editorializing them. There’s always a kernel of truth that can help us learn.

I’m fascinated by the raw, unfiltered dynamics at play in high-stakes interactions, particularly how individuals react when faced with unexpected challenges or direct accountability. No, I don’t love watching people at their worst or watching them get in trouble. What captivates me are the myriad responses: some individuals might become defensive, others might withdraw, and some might lash out. The spectrum of human reaction is vast and often, profoundly unsettling. I’m fascinated by how often people fall into the trap of being the victim of their own story, even when their behaviors are so obviously problematic from an outside perspective.

This fascination has inadvertently become a potent reminder that, as a leader in the nonprofit sector, I have a profound role to play in addressing sensitive conversations, whether it’s redirecting poor behavior or holding a staff member accountable. It’s not just about delivering a message but about navigating a complex human interaction where emotions, perceptions, and personal histories collide. The intense, high-stakes scenarios I observe illuminate the emotional undercurrents that can surface during tough conversations with staff, especially when accountability for poor behavior is on the table. The big responses, the defensive postures, the emotional outbursts—they all highlight the intricate nature of interpersonal dynamics in the workplace.

The Unveiling of Human Behavior: What Shows Up in Conflict

Let’s delve deeper into what surfaces when individuals are confronted with uncomfortable truths or challenging feedback, especially from a psychological perspective. These insights form the bedrock of understanding difficult conversations in any professional setting.

1. The Fight, Flight, or Freeze Response Under Pressure: This is perhaps the most fundamental psychological phenomenon on display when individuals face a perceived threat – be it a reprimand, an uncomfortable truth, or a significant change. The human brain reverts to ancient survival mechanisms:

• Fight: This manifests as arguing, verbally attacking the supervisor, denying responsibility, or even outright aggression. In an office setting, this might look like a staff member becoming defensive, raising their voice, blaming others, or challenging your authority directly. They feel cornered, and their instinct is to push back.
• Flight: While literal flight is rare in an office, psychological “flight” is common. This can be seen in individuals who shut down, avoid eye contact, become evasive, or try to change the subject. In the workplace, it might be a staff member who avoids your gaze, gives one-word answers, or suddenly remembers an urgent task they “have to” attend to.
• Freeze: This is often the most misunderstood response. The individual appears dazed, silent, unresponsive, or stares blankly. In a supervisory context, a staff member might go completely silent, appear stunned, or seem unable to articulate their thoughts. They might be overwhelmed, unable to process the information, or simply paralyzed by fear of consequences.

2. The Power of Perception and Misinterpretation: A significant portion of what goes wrong in these interactions stems from misaligned perceptions. A supervisor’s calm, authoritative tone might be perceived as threatening by someone already in a heightened state of anxiety. Conversely, a person’s nervousness or fidgeting might be interpreted as deceptive or uncooperative.

• Attribution Bias: We tend to attribute others’ negative behaviors to their internal character (“they’re lazy”), while attributing our own negative behaviors to external circumstances (“I was having a bad day”). In the office, a supervisor might see “lack of commitment,” while the staff member feels “overworked and unsupported.”
• Confirmation Bias: Both parties may unconsciously seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs. If a supervisor already believes someone is disengaged, they might interpret neutral behaviors as evidence of disinterest. Similarly, if a staff member already feels unfairly treated, they might interpret a supervisor’s feedback as further proof of bias.

3. The Role of Procedural Justice: This psychological concept is paramount. When individuals perceive that the process by which a decision is made or an interaction unfolds is fair, transparent, and respectful, they are significantly more likely to accept the outcome, even if it’s unfavorable. When supervisors explain the reason for the discussion, listen patiently, and treat individuals with dignity, they often achieve better outcomes. The opposite is also true: interactions where supervisors are dismissive, rude, or unclear often escalate.

• Lack of Explanations: When feedback is delivered without context or explanation for its importance, it can feel arbitrary and punitive.
• Lack of Voice: When individuals feel they are not being heard or given an opportunity to explain themselves, frustration and resentment build.
• Inconsistency: Perceived inconsistency in how rules are applied can lead to feelings of injustice and undermine trust.

4. Cognitive Overload and Impaired Decision-Making: Under high stress, cognitive function can decline rapidly.

• Working Memory Impairment: It becomes harder to remember instructions, process complex information, or articulate thoughts clearly. This is why people might struggle to provide specific details or formulate coherent responses.
• Tunnel Vision: Focus narrows to the immediate discomfort, making it difficult to consider long-term consequences or alternative solutions.
• Emotional Reasoning: Emotions, rather than logic, drive responses. Fear, anger, or shame can override rational thought, leading to impulsive words or actions.

Applying These Insights to Nonprofit Leadership: The Supervisor-Employee Dynamic

The parallels between managing an intense situation and navigating a difficult conversation with a staff member are striking. Both scenarios involve power dynamics, accountability, and the management of potentially strong emotions.

Nonprofit leaders, by nature, are often driven by mission and empathy. However, this can sometimes make direct, uncomfortable conversations challenging. We might shy away from conflict, fearing it will damage team morale or our relationships. But just as any leader must address problematic behavior, we, as leaders, must address poor performance or disruptive conduct to maintain a healthy, productive, and equitable work environment aligned with our mission.

Let’s apply these psychological insights to specific examples within a nonprofit setting:

Example 1: Addressing Poor Performance Due to Overwhelm

Imagine you have a program manager, Sarah, who has been missing deadlines, making errors, and her communication with beneficiaries has become abrupt. You’ve noticed a significant decline in her usually stellar performance. This isn’t a malicious act, but it is impacting the organization’s mission.

• What might show up (psychological responses): Sarah might display “freeze” responses. She might become quiet, avoid eye contact, seem overwhelmed, or even tear up. Her cognitive load is likely high due to the pressure she’s feeling. She might be experiencing the “freeze” response because she feels she has failed or is unable to cope.
• Supervisor’s Accountability:
  • Prepare and Plan (Avoid Escalation): Clearly define the issue with specific examples (missed deadlines, specific errors). This preparation reduces ambiguity and minimizes the likelihood of defensive “fight” reactions.
  • Create a Safe Space (Procedural Justice): Choose a private, neutral location. Start by stating the purpose of the meeting clearly and calmly, not accusingly. “Sarah, I’ve noticed some changes in your recent work, specifically with X and Y, and I wanted to talk about what might be going on and how we can support you.” This sets a tone of concern, not immediate accusation, fostering a sense of fairness.
  • Listen Actively (Give Voice): Ask open-ended questions. “Can you help me understand what’s been happening with these deadlines?” “What challenges are you facing?” Be prepared for her to express overwhelm, external pressures, or even personal struggles. This addresses the “lack of voice” issue and demonstrates respect.
  • Manage Your Own Emotional Response: If Sarah becomes defensive (fight) or cries (freeze/flight), regulate your own emotions. Do not become defensive in return. Maintain a calm, empathetic, yet firm demeanor. If she’s overwhelmed, suggest a short break. Your emotional stability provides a grounding force.
  • Focus on Behavior, Not Character (Avoid Attribution Bias): Instead of “You’re disorganized,” say “The reports have been submitted late, and they contain X errors.” This focuses on observable actions, which are less likely to trigger personal defensiveness.
  • Collaborate on Solutions: Instead of dictating, “What strategies do you think might help you get back on track?” “How can the team or I support you?” This fosters a sense of agency, shared responsibility, and reduces the feeling of being “held accountable” in a purely punitive way.
• Staff Member’s Accountability:
  • Acknowledge the Problem: Sarah needs to acknowledge that the performance issues are occurring, regardless of the cause. This is the first step toward resolution.
  • Communicate Challenges: She needs to articulate what she is struggling with. This is an opportunity for her to practice self-advocacy rather than just reacting defensively.
  • Commit to Solutions: Sarah should actively participate in identifying and committing to solutions to improve her performance.

Example 2: Addressing Interpersonal Conflict or Unprofessional Behavior

Consider a situation where Mark, a senior program associate, has been consistently making sarcastic remarks during team meetings, undermining junior staff, and creating a subtly toxic environment. Other staff members have privately expressed discomfort.

• What might show up: Mark might display “fight” responses. He might deny the behavior, argue that others are too sensitive, or even try to turn the tables and accuse you of something. He might also use humor or deflection to avoid direct accountability. His behavior might stem from a feeling of insecurity or a perceived threat to his status.
• Supervisor’s Accountability:
  • Be Specific and Objective: Gather concrete examples of Mark’s behavior (dates, specific comments, who was present). This counters his potential denial. “Mark, on Tuesday during the team meeting, you said X to Sarah. This created an uncomfortable environment.”
  • Explain the Impact (Procedural Justice): Don’t just state the behavior; explain its negative impact on team morale, productivity, or the organizational culture. “When you make comments like that, it makes junior staff members hesitant to contribute, and it undermines the collaborative spirit we need.” This provides context and demonstrates the fairness of addressing the issue.
  • Set Clear Expectations: “This kind of behavior is not acceptable in our workplace. Moving forward, I expect you to communicate respectfully with all team members, even when you disagree.” This establishes clear boundaries.
  • Address the “Why” (Empathy, Not Excuse): After setting expectations, you can explore the root cause. “Is there something contributing to these reactions from your side?” This opens the door for Mark to share underlying frustrations, stress, or misunderstandings, without excusing the behavior itself.
  • Maintain Professional Boundaries: If Mark attempts to turn it into a personal attack or deflects, gently but firmly redirect him back to the issue at hand. “Mark, we’re here to discuss your communication in team meetings, not X.”
  • Follow Through: Document the conversation and outline next steps. If the behavior continues, there must be consequences, communicated clearly in advance.
• Staff Member’s Accountability:
  • Acknowledge the Behavior: Mark needs to acknowledge that his comments are having a negative impact, even if his intent wasn’t malicious.
  • Take Responsibility: He must own his contribution to the problem.
  • Commit to Change: Mark should commit to altering his communication style and actively seek to rebuild trust with his colleagues.

Example 3: Addressing Resistance to Change

Your nonprofit is implementing a new donor management software, which will ultimately make everyone’s jobs easier, but requires significant upfront learning. One long-tenured employee, David, is openly resistant, complaining loudly, refusing to attend training, and spreading negativity among colleagues.

• What might show up: David might exhibit “flight” (avoiding training) and “fight” (complaining, spreading negativity). His resistance might stem from fear of the unknown, fear of appearing incompetent, or a deeply ingrained preference for the old way of doing things. He might feel a loss of control or a threat to his established competence and experience cognitive overload when faced with new information.
• Supervisor’s Accountability:
  • Acknowledge the Difficulty of Change (Empathy): “David, I understand that learning new systems can be challenging, and it’s natural to feel frustrated during a transition.” This validates his feelings, reducing the likelihood of a “fight” response and creating a sense of psychological safety.
  • Reiterate the “Why” (Clarity and Vision): Clearly articulate the benefits of the new system for the organization and for his role. “This new system will allow us to track donor engagement more effectively, ultimately helping us secure more funding for our programs.” This provides a compelling reason beyond mere compliance.
  • Address Specific Concerns (Active Listening): “What specific concerns do you have about the new software? What makes it feel difficult for you?” Listen for underlying fears (e.g., “I’m worried I won’t be able to learn it,” or “I feel like my expertise is being devalued”).
  • Set Non-Negotiable Expectations (Firmness): While empathetic, be clear that adopting the new system is not optional. “However, David, this is a necessary change for the organization, and full adoption is a requirement for everyone on the team. Your participation in training and your efforts to learn the system are essential.” This balances empathy with clear expectations.
  • Offer Support and Resources: “What support do you need to make this transition easier? Would a one-on-one tutorial help? Are there specific modules you’re struggling with?” This demonstrates a commitment to his success and mitigates cognitive overload.
  • Address Negative Influence: If his negativity is impacting others, address that directly but privately. “While it’s okay to express concerns to me, your vocal complaints to colleagues are undermining the team’s efforts to adapt. We need everyone on board.”
• Staff Member’s Accountability:
  • Acknowledge the Organizational Need: David needs to accept that the change is happening and is necessary for the nonprofit’s mission.
  • Engage with Support: He should utilize the training and support offered.
  • Manage Personal Reactions: While he can express concerns privately to his supervisor, he needs to take responsibility for how his negativity impacts team morale and productivity.

What Supervisors Should Hold Themselves Accountable To

Beyond these specific examples, there are overarching principles supervisors must embody to navigate uncomfortable conversations effectively in a nonprofit setting:

1. Self-Awareness and Emotional Regulation: Supervisors must manage their own emotions. If you enter the conversation feeling angry, frustrated, or stressed, you are more likely to escalate the situation. Be aware of your own biases and triggers. Practice mindfulness and self-care before engaging in these challenging discussions.
2. Clear Intent: Go into the conversation with a clear purpose: to address behavior, improve performance, and support the staff member’s growth, all in service of the mission. It’s not about punishment or personal attack. This positive intent will often subtly influence the tone and outcome.
3. Preparation and Specificity: Never go into an uncomfortable conversation without specific examples and data. Vague accusations (“you’re always late”) are easily dismissed and lead to defensiveness. “On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday this week, you arrived at 9:15 AM.”
4. Empathy, Not Sympathy (or Excuses): Understand and acknowledge the other person’s feelings (“I can see this is upsetting for you”), but don’t let empathy derail the need for accountability. Empathy opens the door; firmness ensures the message is delivered.
5. Focus on Behavior, Not Character: Always address actions and their impact, not perceived personality flaws. “Your communication style in meetings is creating defensiveness,” not “You’re arrogant.” This aligns with avoiding attribution bias.
6. Active Listening and Giving Voice: Create space for the staff member to speak, even if what they say is difficult to hear. Ask open-ended questions and truly listen to their perspective. This validates their experience and can reveal underlying issues or mitigating factors.
7. Maintaining Professional Boundaries: While you might care about your staff, these are professional relationships. Avoid getting drawn into personal drama or becoming overly involved in issues that aren’t directly workplace-related, unless they are impacting performance and require compassionate consideration (e.g., offering Employee Assistance Program resources).
8. Consistency and Follow-Through: If you say there will be consequences for unaddressed behavior, ensure there are. Inconsistent application of rules erodes trust and makes future accountability conversations much harder. If you agree on next steps or a plan for improvement, follow up.
9. Documentation: Keep concise, factual notes of the conversation, the agreed-upon next steps, and any timelines. This provides a record for future reference and protects both parties, contributing to procedural justice.
10. Mission Alignment: Frame all feedback and accountability within the context of the nonprofit’s mission. “We need everyone performing at their best to serve our community effectively.” This elevates the conversation beyond personal grievances, reminding everyone of the larger purpose.

What Staff Members Should Hold Themselves Accountable To

While supervisors bear the primary responsibility for initiating and guiding these conversations, staff members also have a critical role in how these interactions unfold and how they benefit from them.

1. Emotional Regulation: Just as supervisors need to regulate their emotions, staff members should strive to manage their immediate “fight, flight, or freeze” responses. Taking a deep breath, asking for a moment if overwhelmed, or consciously trying to stay present can be helpful.
2. Active Listening to Feedback: Instead of immediately formulating a defense, listen to understand the supervisor’s perspective and the specific feedback being given.
3. Self-Reflection and Acknowledgment: Consider the feedback honestly. Is there truth in what’s being said, even if it’s uncomfortable? Acknowledge the impact of your behavior, even if your intent was different. “I understand how my comments might have come across as sarcastic, and that wasn’t my intention.”
4. Taking Responsibility: Own your part in the situation. Blaming others or external circumstances prevents growth. “I realize I missed those deadlines, and that impacts our project timeline.”
5. Seeking Clarification, Not Arguing: If you don’t understand something, ask for specific examples or clarification, rather than debating or denying. “Could you give me an example of when I cut someone off in a meeting so I can be more aware?” This shows a willingness to understand and learn.
6. Constructive Engagement: Instead of just reacting, try to engage constructively. Ask questions about how to improve, suggest solutions, and commit to action. “What specific steps can I take to improve my communication?”
7. Openness to Growth: View uncomfortable conversations as opportunities for personal and professional development, even when they sting. Recognize that feedback, even difficult feedback, is often given with the intention of helping you improve.
8. Professional Conduct: Regardless of how the conversation feels, maintain professional decorum. Avoid personal attacks, yelling, or unprofessional language.

Conclusion

My studies of human behavior under pressure have, in an unexpected way, sharpened my understanding of conflict dynamics and, by extension, improved my approach to leadership. The raw emotion, the struggle for control, the fight for perception—all of it has profound implications for how we, as nonprofit leaders, navigate the essential, yet often uncomfortable, terrain of accountability and difficult conversations.

We can approach these moments not with dread, but with a strategic empathy. We can hold ourselves accountable for creating an environment where feedback is delivered with clarity and respect, where staff members feel heard, and where the ultimate goal is not just compliance, but growth, improved performance, and a stronger team united by our mission. We must master the art of navigating human volatility, ensuring that even the toughest conversations lead to positive outcomes for individuals and for the vital work of our nonprofits.