Crushed in the Middle

David B. Kellerman, top financial officer of Freddie Mac, hanged himself. This was a good man, committed, decent, hard-working. Maybe too decent, too good, too hard-working, too committed. He succumbed to the most intense middle crunch. He began working non-stop round the clock, sometimes pausing only to change clothes. He was caught between the competing pressures and priorities of regulators, investors, internal executives, lawmakers. Whatever action he took or planned to take might please some constituencies while sure to infuriate others. He told friends that it was impossible to appease everyone. Tragically, if that is the goal of a decent, humble man he is destined to fail.It is possible that there was no way to succeed in that crucible. Leaving was one option - suicide another form of leaving - was another. There is a familiar pattern that develops when one is in this middle crunch, and I don't presume to know if this was David Kellerman story, but I believe it is worth considering. The story goes something like this: When we are in the middle condition, trying to deal with conflicting needs, pressures, and priorities, the tendency is for us to slide in between others' issues and conflicts and make them our own. We become responsible for resolving their issues, and they hold us responsible for resolving their issues. We feel like we're a failure if we don't succeed, and they consider us a failure. It is easy for us in that middle condition to lose our independence of thought and action. All that matters is what other people want/demand. And our focus is on attempting to please them. The challenge in the middle place is first to understand that these are their issues, not ours. And further to understand that our job is not to please others but to do what we believe the system needs. We can take in all the inputs from others, all the time understanding that these are their issues, but ultimately it is our independent judgment that must prevail. Being in the middle is always a difficult condition to be in, and the more intense and conflictful the issues are the more difficult the condition. And the nicer we are and the more desirous we are of pleasing others, the more excruciating the condition and the more likely are we headed for failure.

When it comes to systemic knowledge, we enter the jungle of politics like naked babes. No one should ever enter organizational life without a deep understanding of middleness, how it can weaken us and diminish our contributions, and what it takes for us to withstand the pressure and do what we believe needs to be done.

Comments

[Joe Brodnicki]

It's ironic that this blog came right after the one called "Killer Cults." I think this describes the larger system that engulfed Mr. Kellerman. The mortgage system wanted stability and volatility. Integrity and unethical special interest influence. Fiscal soundness and wide accessibility.

While managing paradox is a desirable skill at any level of an organization, the chances of any success are about the same removing sulphur contaminants from the metaphysical underworld.

Which begs the question: What happens when systems become too complex or paradoxical in their demands?

[zechariah aloysius hillyard]

I am deeply saddened by this. You raise an excellent question about the systems whose paradoxes create a series of Hobson's choices within their webs.

I'm not sure leaving a dangerous paradox is an unwise thing. The trouble is in the asssesment of paradox driven by malavolence. Because the very heart of paradox is tha many multiple meanings can still be vaild, what types of logic or intutioo does it take to recognize a paradox whose paths all lead to destruction?

In Mr. Kellerman's case, he still had many options, and yet, blinded in the system, one apparently present itself as much more feasible than others. I feel deeply for Mr. Kellerman's dilemma and grieve for his family.