What happens when two people avoid addressing a problem between them and redirect their anxiety toward someone—or something—else?

In this episode of Leadership Limbo, Josh Hugo and John Clark introduce the concept of emotional triangles: relationship patterns in which tension between two people gets redirected toward a third party. That third point might be another employee, a supervisor, a child, a union, senior leadership, or an entire organization.

Using examples from families, schools, and workplace relationships, Josh and John explore how triangles allow people to avoid difficult conversations and shift responsibility away from themselves. Two colleagues may bond over their frustration with a shared enemy rather than address the conflict between them. A manager may bring an employee problem to a supervisor seeking agreement or rescue instead of taking responsibility for managing it.

Supervisors can unintentionally reinforce these patterns. They may join the manager in criticizing the third person or immediately prescribe a solution, bypassing the manager’s responsibility to think, act, and develop as a leader.

Recognizing a triangle creates an opportunity to slow the pattern down and restore responsibility to the people who can actually address the problem. Rather than absorbing someone else’s anxiety or solving the issue for them, leaders can ask questions that return attention to the person’s choices, actions, and influence.

This episode introduces the framework and helps listeners identify where triangles may already be operating in their teams. A future conversation will explore additional ways leaders can respond to them.

An emotional triangle forms when tension between two people is redirected toward a third person, group, or problem.

Triangles are a natural feature of human relationships, but they can become dysfunctional when they allow people to avoid direct conversations.

Two people may strengthen their relationship by blaming a shared third party without resolving the actual problem between them.

Managers sometimes bring employee problems to their supervisors seeking affirmation, rescue, or a prescribed solution.

When supervisors solve a manager’s problem for them, they may unintentionally weaken that manager’s authority and development.

Questions can help return responsibility to the person who owns the relationship and the problem.

Asking what someone is gaining from an unresolved problem can reveal why the pattern continues. Avoidance may provide comfort, preserve status, or protect someone from an uncomfortable conversation.

Recognizing a triangle is not an invitation to judge yourself. It creates a chance to pause, reclaim your agency, and respond more deliberately.

00:00 – Introductions, Naps, and Podcast Updates

03:10 – When Managers Model the Problem They See in Others

05:30 – What Is an Emotional Triangle?

07:48 – How Triangles Develop in Families

11:07 – When Coworkers Unite Against a Shared Problem

14:15 – How Supervisors Get Pulled Into Managers’ Problems

18:24 – Using Questions to Restore Responsibility

20:18 – What Are You Gaining From the Problem?

23:46 – Why Leaders Need to Recognize Triangles

25:45 – Listener Homework

Think of one unresolved workplace relationship. Where might a third person, group, or problem be absorbing attention that belongs between the two people involved?

Identify your part, then consider what direct conversation or action would return responsibility to the right place.

A Failure of Nerve by Edwin H. Friedman

Images of Triangles, as discussed on show

Can you hold someone accountable when you know your own leadership—and the system surrounding them—is imperfect?

In this episode of Leadership Limbo, Josh Hugo and John Clark explore that question through a recent college football controversy and an article by Will Leitch in The Athletic. The article argues that college football’s leaders profit from an unhealthy system while continuing to lecture players about their conduct. Josh and John agree that the system deserves scrutiny, but question whether its failures should release individual players from responsibility for their choices.

The same tension appears in organizations every day. Some managers hesitate to offer feedback because they have made similar mistakes, contributed to the problem, or fear appearing hypocritical. Others focus entirely on an employee’s behavior without acknowledging how their own leadership or the surrounding culture may have influenced it.

Neither approach gives people what they need to grow.

Josh and John discuss how leaders can hold both realities at once: individuals have agency and responsibility, and their behavior also occurs within a larger system. Effective accountability requires leaders to examine their own contribution, acknowledge imperfect conditions, and still help others understand the gap between their actions and what is needed.

Leadership does not require perfection before offering feedback. It requires enough humility to own your part, enough courage to address another person’s part, and enough commitment to keep everyone moving toward something better.

An imperfect system does not eliminate individual responsibility.

Individual accountability does not excuse leaders from examining the culture and conditions they have helped create.

Some leaders over-index on integrity, believing they cannot offer feedback until their own behavior is beyond criticism.

Fear of appearing hypocritical can prevent managers from having conversations that would help someone grow.

Acknowledging your own mistakes can strengthen feedback, but it should not bury the message or release the other person from responsibility.

People do not behave independently of the systems around them, but they still retain agency within those systems.

The purpose of accountability is not to demand perfection. It is to help people recognize a gap and make meaningful progress.

Self-awareness requires more than naming your shortcomings. Leaders must visibly work on changing their own behavior.

00:00 – Imperfect Introductions and Podcast Updates

05:26 – The College Football Controversy

11:03 – Accountability Inside an Imperfect System

15:53 – Who Am I to Give This Feedback?

22:55 – When Leaders Ignore Their Own Role

27:33 – Identifying Your Part in the Problem

29:57 – Using Feedback to Develop People

31:42 – Why Imperfection Cannot Stop Progress

35:17 – Making Your Own Growth Visible

38:05 – Two Questions for Better Accountability

41:33 – Listener Homework

Think of one piece of feedback you have been withholding. Are your own imperfections—or problems within the system—preventing you from helping someone grow?

Identify your part, acknowledge it honestly, and then have the conversation.

“College Football Gets Rich Off Its Players. Then We All Lecture Them About Their Behavior” by Will Leitch, published in The Athletic