When the Leader Breaks
What AI anxiety does to teams whose managers can't hold it
This is the fourth essay in The Depth Layer, a series that reads AI through the lens of systems psychodynamics. Each article moves between the personal and the organizational. What you are experiencing in your own work is examined through what the larger system is doing around you, because the two are not separate phenomena. The series gives you language and frame to read both at once.
You are the one the room turns to when the ground moves.
It might be your title. People leadership comes with authority that is assumed and often need not be named. It might also be that you own the project, or the deliverable, or that you are the one people treat as the authority on it. Leadership gets taken up in all of these forms, and the room turns to you either way.
Then the room breaks down, and they still look to you. You react, you keep everyone on task, you hold the space so the work can be done. This is containment.
The previous essays in this series, as well as “The Leader as Container” essay, helped you to see yourself and the system. This article asks: can you hold others’ anxiety when you haven’t fully processed your own? We will examine the leader as container, absorbing, metabolizing, and returning the group’s anxiety in a form it can work with. Most leadership development doesn’t prepare you to contain collective anxiety. When facing change, these questions come out into the open. You might be seeing it in AI initiatives across teams. The goal of this read is to allow you to arrive at the point where you say “My job isn’t to remove the anxiety. It’s to hold it so my team can function.”
But what happens when no one is holding you? You take on everyone else’s anxiety without the means to manage your own, and you might have already started to free fall.
This arrangement has a predictable end that I often see in client conversations one-to-one. You break first before the team does. Instead of it looking like something is structurally wrong and the system is the cause, it looks like something is wrong with you.
If you break containment, or if you yourself break down under the weight of the anxiety, this essay looks at why you break first, what your breaking does to the team, and what it takes to hold the person everyone else is holding on to.
The labor no one logs
Under real pressure, teams produce more fear than it can think with, both consciously and subconsciously. They may not understand what is driving the thinking and the behavior that follows. The work you do with that fear, to observe and try to understand what is really going on and what really pushes your people, is the most important thing you will do all week. And it is nowhere in your objectives.
You take in what the group cannot hold: the panic that a project is slipping, the dread that the reorg has your name on it, watching in real time while the skills people spent a career building are being re-priced overnight by a machine. Picture it concretely. In the daily standup someone asks whether the restructure is going to touch the team. The room goes still and everyone watches your face, not your words, and your own stomach drops, because you do not know either. Or leadership demos a tool that does in nine seconds what your best analyst spent four years learning to do well, the team laughs a beat too long and then goes flat. What has just entered the room is loss, the grief of a skill made cheap. In both moments something raw is transferred to you that no one can yet deal with, and what you do with it in the next minute, whether you take it in and hand it back usable, drop it, or make it worse, is the labor this piece is about.
You take it in, you metabolize it, and you hand it back in a form the team can actually use. What does this look like, and how do you know what you need to do in these moments?
Call it three moves: catch it, name it, and hand it back with a handle.
Catching it is the first, and the one most managers skip. You are not correcting, defending, or jumping to a fix. You simply acknowledge that it is there, that something is happening. You ask the next question and you actually wait for the answer, and you let the discomfort reach your own chest instead of staying numb to it. People leadership mastery is made up of managing self and others in discomfort.
Naming it is the move that does the real work. You say back, in one plain sentence, the thing they could not say themselves. “You are not worried about the workload”, or “you are worried about whether [the thing you are good at] still counts”. You know it lands because they go still, they nod, something unclenches. The fear that had no words now has words, and a fear with words is one a person can begin to work with.
Handing it back with a handle is where you return it as something usable. The fear stops being contagious, someone picks the task back up, and what you gave them was a next step or a cleaner question, never a pep talk or a promise you cannot keep. The solution is theirs to reach. Their own capability does that work and what you hand back is the room to do it.
You will also know when none of it happened. The same fear comes back next week wearing a different costume. People go quiet in exactly the meetings where the real problem lives. The room finds someone to blame. The feeling came back because it was never digested, and it is heavier to hold the second time. Oh! This again?!?!
Bion was the first to name it “containment” and formalized the concept as a relationship between a container and the thing it holds (Bion, 1962). The prototype is a mother and an infant. The infant has experience it cannot yet process, raw and unbearable, fit only to be got rid of rather than thought, what Bion called beta-elements. It projects them into the mother, and in the state he called reverie she takes them in, holds them, and through her own thinking turns them into something the infant can eventually use (Bion, 1967).
“A well-balanced mother can accept [the infant's projected feelings] and respond therapeutically: that is to say in a manner that makes the infant feel it is receiving its frightened personality back again, but in a form that it can tolerate.” (Bion, 1967)
What comes back has been digested: the same feeling, handed back in a form that can be thought. Do that across enough cycles and the infant takes in more than the calm; it takes in the apparatus itself, the capacity to think under pressure and to stay in not-knowing.
He scaled the same mechanism from the nursery to the group (Bion, 1961). Whether a group keeps working its task or collapses into fight, flight, dependency, or pairing turns on whether its fear is contained and thought or evacuated and enacted. When containment fails at that scale, the raw feeling does not stay put.
The result is that the group can no longer contain the emotional situation, which thereupon spreads with explosive violence to other groups. (Bion, 1961, p. 126)
Swap the infant for your team and the mother for you, and you have the job no one wrote down. It asks two things that are genuinely hard: to tolerate your own uncertainty long enough to think, and to survive what gets projected into you without retaliating or going under. The failure mode is worse than simply leaving the fear unheld. When the container cannot take the projection, the feeling comes back stripped of meaning, and worse, is amplified.
A team whose manager cannot hold its anxiety does not just stay anxious. It gets handed back a dread it can no longer name or locate, and that is the point where people stop thinking and start reacting.
The moment a working group stops working the problem and starts fighting, fleeing, or waiting to be rescued, containment has run out. The tell from the inside is “the sense one can have of being unable to think or to find a new thought in the moment” (French & Simpson, 2010, p. 1868). You have seen it. The agenda is abandoned and the room turns on a scapegoat, goes silent, shifts work to an easier topic, or looks to you to make the fear disappear.
What’s often most frustrating is that containment is invisible when it works. No one thanks you for the panic that never spread, the resignation that never happened, the fear absorbed in a one-to-one so it never erupted in the team channel. Do it well and you look, from the outside, less like the champion and more like the person that you really are, the calm and safe place of resolution and progress.
Why you go first
The team is not the first thing a change breaks. You are.
Everyone in an organization carries a private picture of it, an “organization in the mind”, in David Armstrong’s phrase (2005). It has little to do with the org chart on the wall or the strategy on the slide. It is built out of every meeting, every alliance, every slight and every reassurance. Your felt sense of who really holds power, what is safe to say, where you stand, and what the whole place is for. Most of it runs below awareness, and it is the map you actually steer by.
“a model internal to oneself, part of one’s inner world” (Hutton et al., 1997 as cited in Armstrong, 2005).
Yours might be the most detailed in the room, because as a leader, you have invested the most in building it. Right now the ground is moving because a technology is rearranging what competence even means. When these shifts happen, it rearranges the construct of your internal map first, and you have the most to lose. Kurt Lewin would say the field you stand in is being restructured, and your job is to hold it steady while it reorganizes (Lewin, 1936, p. 155). What no one tells you is that the field is also yours, and it is reorganizing under your own feet.
Then it goes deeper than a map. Your competence and your control are where you keep your sense of who you are. Leadership runs on a narcissistic investment, an identification with being the capable one, the one who knows (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1985). So when the change exposes that you do not know, it lands as an injury to the self. The same investment that makes you want to be the admired, capable one also leaves you afraid you cannot sustain it, braced for the moment it fails (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985). That is why the reaction runs so far ahead of the facts, why a competent adult can be undone by a tool, why the person who has run three transformations lies awake convinced this is the one that finally exposes them as a fraud.
He will be respected and admired, but he worries about his ability to do so. He is afraid of failure. (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985)
It shows up in the body before it shows up in your language. The heart beating against your chest on a Sunday night. The email you read four times and still cannot find the right answer. The flash of a thought you would never say aloud, a spike of resentment toward the very people leaning on you, a wish, for one ugly second, to be rid of the whole team so the pressure would stop. While you think that means you are failing, it’s really reminding you that you are the container, and the container is full.
Under strain, “leaders externalize and act out their inner theater on the public stage of the organization” (Kets de Vries, 2006, p. 322). Long before this job, you assembled an internal cast, the authority you had to please, the parent you had to reassure, the version of yourself that was only safe when it was competent. Under pressure, that old cast walks back on stage and you play the scene again, in a meeting room, with your team as the audience. The leader who cannot see the play believes the room is the problem.
What your fracture does to the room
You will not keep it fully hidden. No matter how well you think you hide it, a flag goes up in others. They might not be able to identify the flag, but they know it’s there.
When the container starts to defend instead of hold, it does it in one of a few recognizable ways. Performed certainty, where you announce a confidence you do not feel. Over-control, where you grip every decision because the not-knowing is unbearable. Or absence, where you go missing, cancel the one-to-ones, answer in one line. The team reads all three instantly, because people are exquisitely tuned to the state of whoever is holding them. Then they act it out on your behalf.
“The group has met to fight something or to run away from it” (Bion, 1961, p. 152).
Lewin, from an entirely different tradition, watched frustrated people regress to more primitive behavior whenever a goal was blocked. Regression, in his terms, is “a change which is opposite to development” (Lewin, 1941, p. 216). Two schools of thought, one collapse. On your team it looks ordinary at first. The able ones go silent in exactly the meetings where the real problem lives. Chris Argyris (1986) called it “skilled incompetence, whereby managers use practiced routine behavior (skill) to produce what they do not intend (incompetence)” (p. 74). The genuine anxiety becomes undiscussable, and your most talented people become the most skilled at keeping it that way. Everyone competent, nothing said. The team splits into a good camp and a bad camp, complies without believing, finds someone to blame, or starts drifting toward the exit.
The stage above that, when the fear beneath a change gets built into the structure itself, is called defensive organizing (Fitzsimons et al., 2025). It holds “when it can shield leaders and members of an organization from anxiety while letting them perform their roles,” and when it cannot, “it collapses, taking the leaders with it” (Fitzsimons et al., 2025). The organization stops being a place that does work and becomes a place that manages its own dread.
One reframe before you read your team as broken. Winnicott, watching children whose holding had lapsed, argued that the acting-out was a bid, a demand for the holding to come back, and therefore a sign of hope as much as damage.
“The antisocial tendency implies hope” (Winnicott, 1958, p. 309).
The team that scapegoats and stalls and grumbles has not given up on you. It is telling you, in the only language available to it, that the container slipped.
What holding actually asks of you
The solution is letting the break be seen just enough without dropping it onto the team.
Winnicott’s holding environment rests on one unglamorous quality, reliability. Good-enough, not perfect. Without it, “these stages cannot be attained, or once attained cannot become established” (Winnicott, 1960, p. 589). The team survives the change when the holding holds, which means you do not have to be unbroken. You have to be reliable. “I don’t have the full picture yet, and here is how we are going to work while I get it” is holding. It shows the break and keeps the floor under everyone’s feet at the same time.
Then there is the line you do not cross, and it is a fine one. There is a version of showing the break that is really the team catching you. Processing your fear at your people, narrating your own free-fall in the stand-up, is a handoff dressed as honesty. It asks the ones you are meant to hold to hold you instead, and they feel the weight land even as they smile and nod.
Winnicott named the thing that makes this difficult to acknowledge and one that certainly no one wants to say out loud. The person who holds also hates, at moments, what they hold. He wrote about hate in the countertransference, the hostility the caregiver feels toward the very thing they are caring for.
A mother has to be able to tolerate hating her baby without doing anything about it. (Winnicott, 1949, p. 73)
You will resent the team you are asked to absorb. The work is not to be rid of that feeling. The work is to survive it without retaliating and without collapsing, to feel the resentment and still keep the holding reliable. Marianna Fotaki is right that care is the ground we stand on rather than a soft extra, “a human need and capacity without which we cannot survive and flourish” (Fotaki, 2023, p. 1), but care that has never met its own hatred is only performance.
Who holds you
Everyone in this piece has been leaning on you. The question is who do you get to lean on? You cannot contain from an empty tank.
Kets de Vries put the leader on the couch for a reason. Leaders “need to be prepared to symbolically ‘lie on the couch’—that is, permit an audit of their attitudes and activities to assess the mental health of their organization” (Kets de Vries, 2006, p. 327). The person doing the containing needs their own place to be contained, a room where they are the one who is held rather than the one holding. That room is part of the system’s load-bearing structure. This must be separate from the room where your team sits, as the held cannot hold the holder. The alternative is the inner theatre running you unexamined, the old cast making your decisions while you believe you are being rational.
You are, in part, a prisoner of the people you lead. Your authority is something they grant, held in place by how they see you rather than by anything fixed in you (Kets de Vries, 1988). The idealization they place on you, the projection that you can absorb anything, is a real weight, a transference load. It is why you feel strained before any external pressure has even arrived. The room needs you to be the one who holds, so the room arranges, without ever saying so, for you to carry what it cannot.
You cannot ‘contain’, in Bion’s sense, the inevitable disturbances associated with an authority-cum-leadership role, unless you yourself have not only been ‘contained’ in your own development, but also that you have identified with your ‘container.’ (Obholzer, 1996, p. 53)
Resilience is not what is missing here. Holding is, and it has to be built. When the organization will not build that holding, people build it for themselves, in the form of a peer, a coach, a supervision group, a structured place to think.
That is the container I have to create for myself. I have to decide: what is the requisite structure that will keep me comfortable and buoyant and satisfied in my work, and neither create too much nor too little. (Petriglieri et al., 2019, p. 141)
Susan Long and John Newton built the method for exactly this, organizational role analysis, “a form of consultation for role holders in organizations” (Sievers & Beumer, 2006, p. 65), a disciplined space to look at your own role from the outside, so the play stops running you and you finally get to read the script. This tool has become one of the most often used in 1:1s with my clients where we map all needing to be caught, named, and handed back in usable format.
So, Monday, if you are the manager, find the one place where you get to be the contained and not the container, and treat it as part of the job rather than an admission of weakness. If you lead the managers, stop assuming the container is self-sustaining. Budget for it. Build the holding. The manager you have asked to absorb everyone else’s fear is the single point of failure in your entire change, and right now you almost certainly have no read on how close to the edge they are.
The one question
You can see almost everything in a change. The plan, the training numbers, the dashboard, the week-by-week progress. The one thing you cannot see from there is the state of the person the whole thing runs through.
So the real question is not whether your people are being held. The question is the one no one asks you, the one this whole piece has been circling. Who is holding you? If the honest answer is no one, then that gap is the next thing to build.
Questions for your own reflection
When your team hands you its fear this week, what do you tend to do with it: take it in, drop it, or pass it on louder?
Think of the last anxious moment on your team. Did you catch it, name it, and hand back something usable, or did you reach for reassurance or a fix?
What fear are you holding for your team right now that no one, including you, has put into words yet?
Where is this change moving the floor under you, not only under your people?
What part of your role have you fused with your sense of who you are, so that a threat to it feels like a threat to you?
When your strain leaks, which is your default: performed certainty, over-control, or going missing?
Where is your team already signaling, through silence, blame, or drift, that the container has slipped?
Can you let your team see that you do not have the full picture without asking them to carry you?
What resentment are you carrying toward the people you are meant to hold, and can you feel it without acting on it?
Who holds you? Name the person, the room, or the practice. If the honest answer is no one, what will you build first?
Ways We Could Work Together
If what you have read here struck a chord, there are a few ways we could take this conversation further.
Talks and Offsites. If you are shaping a leadership retreat or planning a gathering where you want people to think differently about themselves and the systems they inhabit, I can help spark that dialogue.
Executive Coaching. For leaders navigating complexity, change, or the unspoken dynamics in their roles, I offer one-to-one coaching as a thinking partner in the work.
You can reach me directly if one of these feels like the right next step.
References
Argyris, C. (1986). Skilled incompetence. Harvard Business Review, 64(5), 74-79.
Armstrong, D. (2005). Organization in the Mind: Psychoanalysis, Group Relations and Organizational Consultancy. Karnac.
Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in Groups and Other Papers. Tavistock.
Bion, W. R. (1962). Learning from Experience. Heinemann.
Bion, W. R. (1967). A theory of thinking. In Second Thoughts: Selected Papers on Psycho-Analysis. Heinemann. (Original work published 1962)
Fitzsimons, D., Petriglieri, J. L., & Petriglieri, G. (2025). The fury beneath the morphing: A theory of defensive organizing. Academy of Management Journal, 68(2), 409-435. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.0564
Fotaki, M. (2023). Why do we desire and fear care. Organization Theory, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231159683
French, R., & Simpson, P. (2010). The “work group”: Redressing the balance in Bion’s Experiences in Groups. Human Relations, 63(12), 1859-1878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710365092
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1988). Prisoners of leadership. Human Relations, 41(3), 261-280.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2006). The Leader on the Couch: A Clinical Approach to Changing People and Organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relations perspective. Human Relations, 38(6), 583-601.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology. McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1941). Frustration and regression. In R. G. Barker, T. Dembo, & K. Lewin, Studies in Topological and Vector Psychology. University of Iowa Press.
Long, S., & Newton, J. (2006). Coaching in Depth: The Organisational Role Analysis Approach. Karnac.
Obholzer, A. (1996). Authority, power and leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(6), 53-56.
Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019). Agony and ecstasy in the gig economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 124-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218759646
Sievers, B., & Beumer, U. (2006). Organizational role analysis and consultation: The organization as inner object. In S. Long & J. Newton (Eds.), Coaching in Depth: The Organisational Role Analysis Approach (pp. 65-82). Karnac.
Winnicott, D. W. (1949). Hate in the counter-transference. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 30, 69-74.
Winnicott, D. W. (1958). The antisocial tendency. In Collected Papers: Through Paediatrics to Psycho-Analysis. Tavistock. (Original work published 1956)
Winnicott, D. W. (1960). The theory of the parent-infant relationship. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 41, 585-595.