Most leadership challenges can be framed in more than one way, and every turn of the kaleidoscope offers a different image of the problems and possibilities. Put yourself in the shoes of Olivia Martin, headed to work for your first day in a new job. Your company has transferred you to Atlanta to lead a customer service unit. It’s a big promotion, with a substantial increase in pay and responsibility. You know it won’t be easy. You’re inheriting a department with a reputation for slow, mediocre service. Senior leadership blames the rigid, bureaucratic style of your predecessor, Jack Davis. Davis is moving to another job, but the company asked him to stay on for a week to help with your transition. One potential sticking point is that he hired most of the staff. Many may still feel loyal to him.

When you arrive, your welcome from Rosa Garcia, the department secretary, feels frosty. As you walk into your new office, you see Davis behind the desk in a conversation with three other staff members. You say hello, and he responds by saying, “Didn’t the secretary tell you that we’re in a meeting right now? If you’ll wait outside, I’ll be able to see you in about an hour.”

You’re in the glare of the spotlight, and the audience eagerly awaits your response. As Olivia Martin, what would you do? If you feel threatened or attacked—as many of us would—your feelings will push you toward either fight or flight. Fighting back and escalating the conflict is risky and could make things worse. Backing away or fleeing could suggest that you are too emotional or not tough enough.

This is a classic example of a leader’s nightmare: an unexpected situation that threatens to explode in your face. Davis’s greeting is stealthily designed to throw you off stride and put you in a bind. It would be easy to feel trapped and powerless or to do something rash and regrettable. Either way, Davis wins and you lose.

The leadership lenses suggest another set of possibilities. They offer the advantage of multiple angles to size up the situation. What’s really going on here? What options do you have? What script does the situation suggest? How might you reinterpret the scene to create a more effective scenario? In tough situations, reframing is a powerful tool for generating possibilities other than fight or flight. Keep your Leadership Orientations Profile (Appendix) in mind as you explore different scenarios for avoiding the trap that Jack Davis has set for you.

An immediate question facing you, as Olivia Martin, is whether to respond on the spot to Davis’s provocation, or to buy time. If you’re at a loss or you’re tempted to do something you might regret, take time to “go to the balcony.” Try to rise above the confusion of the moment long enough to get a better angle and develop a workable strategy. Even better, though, is to find an effective response in the moment.

Each of the frames generates its own alternative scenarios. Depending on how you apply it, each frame could work well or poorly. Success depends on the script you choose and on your skill and artistry in execution. We describe different scenarios Martin could choose, showing that each of the four lenses can produce either effective or ineffective reactions.

You may wonder what structure has to do with a personal confrontation, but the structural scenario in the box can be scripted to generate a variety of responses.

Here’s one example:

In this exchange, Olivia places heavy emphasis on her formal authority and the chain of command. By invoking her superiors and her legitimate authority, she takes charge and gets Davis to back down, but at a price. She risks long-term tension with her new subordinates, who surely feel awkward during this combative encounter. They may see their new boss as autocratic and dangerous.

There are better options. Here’s another example of how Martin might exercise her authority:

This time, Martin is still clear and firm in establishing her authority, but she does it without appearing harsh or dictatorial. She underscores the importance of setting priorities. She asks if Davis has a plan for making the transition productive. She emphasizes shared goals and defines a temporary role for herself as an observer. She focuses steadfastly on the task instead of on Davis’s provocations. By keeping the exchange on a rational level and outlining a transition plan, she avoids escalating or submerging the conflict. She also communicates to her new staff that she has done her homework, is organized, and knows what she wants to accomplish. When she says she would like to hear their personal objectives and progress, she communicates an expectation that they will be heard, but that she is in charge.

Some people, though, go a little too far in making an effort:

In the effort to be friendly and accommodating, Martin is acting more like a waitress than a manager. She defuses the conflict, but her staff is likely to see their new boss as weak. She could instead capitalize on an interest in people:

Here, Martin is unfazed and relentlessly cheerful; she avoids a battle and acknowledges Davis’s perspective. When he says she is not ready for the job, she resists the temptation to counter his salvo. Instead, she recognizes his concern but calmly communicates her confidence and focus on moving ahead. She demonstrates an important skill of a human resource leader: the ability to combine advocacy with inquiry. She listens carefully to Davis, but gently stands her ground. She asks for his help while expressing confidence that she can do the job. When he says they have things to finish, she responds with the agility of a martial artist, using Davis’s energy to her own advantage. She expresses part of her philosophy—she prefers to trust her staff’s judgment—and positions herself as an observer, thus gaining an opportunity to learn more about her staff and the issues they are addressing. By reframing the situation, she has gotten off to a better start with Davis and is able to signal to others the kind of people-oriented leader she intends to be.

Some leaders translate the political approach as meaning that they should manage by intimidation and manipulation. It sometimes works, but the risks are high. Here’s an example:

Moviegoers cheer when bullies get their comeuppance. It can be satisfying to give the verbal equivalent of a kick in the groin to someone who deserves it. In this exchange, Martin establishes that she is tough, even dangerous. But such coercive tactics can be expensive in the long run. She is likely to win this battle because her hand is stronger, but she may lose the war. She increases Davis’s antagonism, and her attack may offend him and frighten her new staff. Even if they dislike Davis, they might see Martin as arrogant and callous. She lays the ground for a counterattack, and may have done political damage that will be difficult to reverse.

Sophisticated political leaders prefer to avoid naked demonstrations of power, looking instead for ways to appeal to the self-interest of potential adversaries:

In this instance, Martin is direct and diplomatic. She uses a light touch in dismissing Davis’s opening salvo. (“I’d prefer to skip the games.”) She speaks directly to both Davis’s interest in his career and her subordinates’ interest in theirs. She deftly deflates his posturing by asking if he wants to go with her to talk to the vice president. Clearly, she is confident of her political position and knows that his bluster has little to back it up.

Note that in both political scenarios, Martin draws on her power resources. In the first, she uses those resources to humiliate Davis, but in the second, her approach is more subtle. She conserves her political capital and takes charge while leaving Davis with as much pride as possible, achieving something closer to a win-win than a win-lose outcome.

At first glance, Olivia Martin’s encounter with Jack Davis might seem a poor candidate for the symbolic approach outlined in this scenario. An ineffective effort could produce embarrassing results, making the would-be symbolic leader look foolish:

Martin’s symbolic direction might be on the right track, but symbols work only when they are attuned to the context and make sense to members of a group or organization. As a newcomer to the department culture, she needs to pay close attention to her audience. Meaningless symbols antagonize, and empty symbolic events backfire.

Conversely, a skillful symbolic leader understands that a situation of challenge and stress can serve as a powerful opportunity to articulate values and build a sense of mission. Martin does both, in a well-formed symbolic approach to Davis’s gruffness:

Notice how Martin recasts the conversation. Instead of engaging in a personal confrontation with Davis, she focuses on the department’s core values. She brings her “customer first” commitment with her, but she avoids positioning that value as something imposed from outside. Instead, she grounds it in an experience everyone in the room has just shared: the way she was greeted when she entered. Like many successful symbolic leaders, she is attuned to the cues about values and culture that are expressed in everyday life. She communicates her philosophy, but she also asks questions to draw out Davis and her new staff members. If she can use the organization’s history to advantage in rekindling a commitment to customer service, she is off to a good start.