Some working relationships constantly put you on the defensive. And that’s no coincidence.
I once worked with a manager who made me feel constantly on the defensive. It was as if I was already 1-0 down before I’d even started. And the longer it went on, the angrier I became. Because it didn’t feel right and it felt unfair. The tasks were broad (“Rewrite that article”), but when I asked for clarification: “Surely you understand that yourself? How long have you been working here now?” After delivery, I’d often hear: “How could you do this?!” and I’d find myself explaining and defending myself again.
What became apparent later: this wasn’t an isolated incident, but a pattern that my colleagues recognised immediately. The assignment was vague, the assessment afterwards razor-sharp. The standard existed only in the manager’s mind. So you’re delivering to a standard you don’t know. That’s not only unclear, it creates inequality. All the responsibility lies with you, with no influence over the parameters. That is not collaboration, but a power dynamic. Implicit expectations keep control in the hands of one side. Perhaps not consciously, but it is a learned leadership pattern.
At the same time, you see that this also puts pressure on the manager themselves, which can lead to more control or harshness. For employees, this feels stifling. And logically so: you go on the defensive, because you have to deal with an uneven playing field. This is therefore not a communication problem, but a leadership problem. Without clear frameworks, collaboration shifts to retrospective assessment. Also important: regulators, HR and CEOs often do not see this as a systemic problem, whereas that is precisely where the key lies. What I take from this in my work is that this is a predictable systemic pattern that arises as soon as responsibility and expectation diverge.
In my coaching, I work with managers and teams where this is stuck in practice: collaboration that has shifted towards assessment and where a lack of clarity creates structural tension. We first make visible what is actually happening in behaviour, language and interaction. We then explore what sustains that pattern in the undercurrent of power, ownership and responsibility. Only then does space emerge to steer differently, lead more clearly and redistribute responsibility. This does, however, require a willingness to examine one’s own leadership behaviour. That is where the boundary of real change lies. Because ambiguity is never neutral. It is always a form of steering.
The key question is: is there a shared understanding of what constitutes ‘good’ before we start, or does that only emerge afterwards? And if that is not the case structurally, it is not just about what you as a leader can do differently, but also about what you as an employee are still able and willing to bear.
Good collaboration starts with clarity from the outset. Otherwise, tension arises. Not just about work, but about power and responsibility.
