Do you ever wonder when to take a stand and when to stay out of a contentious issue altogether? Research offers a useful clue, but the deeper insight comes from family systems theory. People respond to a leader who can be a “self.”

Ike Silver and Alex Shaw at the University of Chicago were struck by how strongly the public reacts to public figures who avoid taking sides. Their studies show that staying neutral on controversial issues rarely lands as neutral. Instead, people tend to interpret non‑positions as strategic concealment. In other words, when someone refuses to define themselves, people assume they are hiding something for their own benefit.

From a family systems perspective, this makes sense. Edwin Friedman wrote that a self is more attractive than no self. When a leader cannot or will not define their own goals, values, or convictions, the system experiences that as either wishy‑washy or deceptive. Both interpretations raise anxiety. Both make the leader harder to trust.

One of Silver and Shaw’s studies illustrates this dynamic clearly. College students watched a video of the Kansas City Chiefs’ owner declining to comment on players kneeling during the national anthem. Some students were told he was speaking to a conservative audience; others were told he was speaking to a liberal one. Each group inferred that he secretly held the opposite view of the audience he was addressing. In other words, they assumed he was hiding his true beliefs to avoid upsetting the people in front of him.

More importantly, participants rated this avoidance as less sincere and less trustworthy than simply stating a position—even if that position disagreed with their own. Across multiple experiments, the pattern held: when someone refuses to define themselves, people assume strategic concealment, and trust goes down.

Family systems theory explains why. People want to know what a leader thinks and believes.  

When a leader withholds their position, anxiety fills the gap. People begin to guess, project, and interpret motives. The leader becomes a screen for others’ reactivity rather than a non-anxious presence.

Self-differentiation offers a different path. A non-anxious leader can say, calmly and without pressure, “Here is where I stand,” while giving others the freedom to disagree. This is not force. It is not persuasion. It is simply defining self. And paradoxically, it lowers anxiety—even among those who hold a different view.

The research confirms this. In one study, participants played a version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, where cooperation leads to mutual benefit. Before choosing a partner, participants were shown whether potential partners had shared their position on gun control or declined to take a stand. Most participants (61.2%) chose to partner with someone who disagreed with them politically rather than someone who refused to share a position at all. They trusted the person with a clear stance more than the person who stayed silent.

This is exactly what family systems theory predicts. People can work with clarity. They can adapt to difference. What they cannot tolerate for long is ambiguity that feels strategic or self‑protective.

Here’s the takeaway. You are better off defining your position calmly and clearly than avoiding it altogether.

You will feel anxious inside—that is normal. The work is self‑regulation, self‑awareness, and intentionality. When you can express what you believe without emotional pressure, you are exercising integrity in the moment of choice.

And when you do that, the system is more stable. Trust increases. Collaboration becomes easier. People may disagree with you, but they no longer have to guess who you are.

That is the essence of leadership through self-differentiation: say what you believe while giving others the freedom to disagree. It’s counterintuitive, but it works.