WHEN THE NEED TO BE LOVED DESTROYS WHAT ONE INTENDS TO PROTECT
The Violence That Hides in Kindness
There is a peculiar kind of violence that operates under the disguise of goodness. It does not shout, does not confront, does not disturb surfaces. It moves through calculated silences, empty agreements, and hesitations that drag on until they become decisions by omission. This subtle violence inhabits the space where the need to be accepted outweighs the responsibility to be truthful, and it manifests with devastating frequency in environments where someone holds power over the trajectories of others.
The phenomenon is rarely recognized by those who practice it. The person who leads while desperately seeking not to displease believes they are preserving something precious — harmony, collective well-being, human connections. They do not realize that, in reality, they are outsourcing suffering, pushing it forward in organizational time and space, where it will grow and multiply until it becomes unrecognizable in its original form. What began as fear of momentary discomfort transforms into a structural collapse of trust, clarity, and purpose.
The root of this destructive dynamic does not lie in empathy or the valuing of human relationships — fundamental attributes for any genuine form of influence. It resides in a prior, more primitive territory: the psychic architecture that confuses identity with external approval, that builds self-worth on the unstable foundation of others’ reactions. When someone in this condition assumes decision-making positions, a silent corrosion begins that compromises not only measurable results but the very ethical texture of the environment.
When the Refusal to Think Disguises Itself as Harmony
Observe how this perverse mechanic operates. A clearly inadequate proposal is presented. The person in a leadership position immediately recognizes its flaws, identifies the risks, foresees the consequences. But then comes the second movement — faster, more visceral than reasoning: the fear of disappointing the proposer, of being seen as an obstacle, of losing the sympathy that supposedly sustains their authority. And so, tacit assent is chosen, approval diluted in reservations that no one will take seriously, verbal support that internally sabotages by not providing the necessary resources.
What will follow is predictable to any external observer: wasted energy, eroded trust, time turned into rework, talented people witnessing the failure of initiatives that could have been stopped before consuming collective resources. But the most serious damage occurs on a less visible level — the gradual development of the perception that this environment does not value truth, that sincerity is punished with discomfort while complacency is rewarded with superficial acceptance. Hannah Arendt warned us about the banality of evil that emerges not from monstrosity, but from the refusal to think — and here we witness its organizational manifestation: systematic destruction through the absence of intellectual courage.
People who operate with internal integrity begin to experience a specific form of emotional claustrophobia. They recognize dysfunctional patterns, identify more effective paths, but understand that pointing out these realities means violating the tacit code of compulsory kindness that governs the environment. They then face a brutal choice: adapt to consensual mediocrity or carry alone the weight of a consciousness that finds no echo in the surrounding structures. Many will choose to leave, taking with them exactly what the organization needs most — the capacity to see clearly and communicate with courage.
The Paradox of Compassionate Cowardice
There is something deeply paradoxical in this process. The person who so fears being perceived as harsh, inflexible, or authoritarian becomes, through their refusal to exercise clarity, the most significant source of collective suffering. Their neurotic need for acceptance produces exactly what they fear most: resentment, distancing, loss of respect. Because people are not naive. They recognize, even if unconsciously, when someone is prioritizing their own emotional comfort disguised as concern for the well-being of others. They detect cowardice dressed as compassion.
Outsourced Anguish
Consider the situation where someone clearly does not meet the demands of a role. Not due to fundamental incompetence, but due to misalignment between profile and need. Any honest analysis would reveal that prolonging this situation harms all parties involved — the person trapped in a position where they cannot flourish, the team overburdened by compensating for gaps, the organization unable to move forward at the necessary speed. Yet the person in a decision-making position delays, ponders, seeks increasingly elaborate alternatives to avoid the necessary conversation. Kierkegaard deeply understood this existential anguish that leads us to flee the responsibility of choosing — and this is exactly what we witness: the vertigo of decision being anesthetized through paralysis disguised as prudence.
In this process of postponement, something corrosive happens. The person in question perceives — because functional adults always perceive — that they are not meeting expectations. But without direct feedback, without clarity about their position, they develop narratives of self-consolation or paranoia, waste energy trying to decipher ambiguous signals, miss opportunities to redirect their trajectory while there is still time. Simultaneously, colleagues witness the inaction and draw inevitable conclusions: performance does not matter, standards are negotiable, commitment is optional. The message that settles in is toxic and permeates the entire organizational fabric.
When the exit finally happens — because it always does, only later and sometimes under much worse conditions — no one is spared. The person dismissed feels betrayed, surprised, robbed of time they could have used in other directions. The team experiences cynicism, questions why so much time was wasted sustaining the obvious. And the one who was leading, now forced to do what they could have done months earlier with less damage, confirms their original fear: being seen as harsh and insensitive. A self-fulfilling prophecy orchestrated by their own avoidance.
The Silent Erosion of Standards
This pattern replicates on smaller but no less devastating scales. Suppliers who consistently deliver late or below standard but are kept out of fear of confrontation. Agreements flexed until they lose all meaning because verbalizing boundaries would seem hostile. Problematic behaviors ignored until they become normalized, creating precedents that gradually corrode any structure of mutual accountability. Each individual concession seems small, manageable, human. But together they constitute a systemic abandonment of everything that sustains healthy professional relationships.
Clarity as an Act of Generosity
What remains hidden to those who operate at this frequency is that clarity is the most generous gesture available in complex relational contexts. Saying no when no is the honest answer preserves the integrity of future communication. Establishing consequences for inadequate behaviors protects those who operate with integrity. Ending bonds that no longer serve frees all parties to find more fruitful alignments. None of this needs to be cruel, personal, or destructive. It can be done with humanity, recognizing the dignity of all people involved, but without confusing dignity with the absence of truth. This reminds me of how Emmanuel Lévinas teaches us that responsibility for the Other is not optional — it ethically constitutes us before any choice. And this radical responsibility manifests precisely through the courage not to abandon the Other to the comfort of illusions, but to confront them with the reality that will allow their genuine growth.
The critical distinction lies here: between authentic kindness and avoidance disguised as goodness. Genuine kindness operates from a place of inner strength, choosing compassion without sacrificing clarity. It recognizes that truly serving people sometimes means causing temporary discomfort to avoid prolonged suffering. It understands that softening difficult conversations is different from avoiding them entirely, that diplomacy is not synonymous with dishonesty.
In contrast, the compulsion for acceptance inhabits the territory of structural weakness, where the fragile ego constantly needs external validation to confirm its right to exist. This psychic configuration turns every interaction into a test, every disagreement into an existential threat. And thus, what is necessary is systematically sacrificed on the altar of what is comfortable, what is true for what preserves appearances, what serves the collective for what protects the precarious self-image of the one who should be serving.
When the Environment Becomes Sick in Silence
Environments governed by this logic develop a specific toxicity. Superficially harmonious, they proliferate a form of passive violence that frustrates, confuses, and exhausts. Decisions are not made — they are dissolved in false consensuses. Problems are not solved — they are pushed to adjacent departments or buried under layers of procedures. People are not confronted — they are marginalized through implicit exclusions more cruel than any direct confrontation. And all this under the banner of kindness, concern for the climate, and valuing relationships.
The cost of this configuration goes beyond obvious metrics of productivity or financial results. It manifests in the degradation of the collective capacity to deal with reality. When uncomfortable truths are systematically avoided, teams lose the cognitive muscle needed to face genuine complexities. They develop sophisticated strategies of collective denial, building increasingly elaborate narratives to explain failures that could have been prevented through timely honesty.
Simultaneously, something more fundamental drains away: the possibility of real trust. Because authentic trust is not built on perpetual agreements or the absence of friction. It emerges from the repeated experience that someone will say what needs to be said even when it is difficult, that boundaries will be maintained even when tested, that commitments will be honored even when inconvenient. Where these experiences do not occur, what develops is a false harmony sustained by exhausting performances of cordiality without substance.
The Love That Has the Courage Not to Be Loved
There is a kind of love for people that expresses itself through the courage to not be loved by them at all times. This more mature, more structural love recognizes that genuinely serving sometimes means frustrating immediate expectations to preserve future possibilities. It understands that allowing someone to remain in a clearly inadequate situation is not kindness, but complicity with the waste of human potential. It knows that refusing to confront destructive behaviors does not protect relationships but gradually delivers them to the corrosion of unexpressed resentment. It is worth bringing here Simone Adolphine Weil, the French writer, mystic, and philosopher who became a Renault factory worker to write about daily life inside factories, leaving us with a rare understanding: true attention is the purest form of generosity. And paying authentic attention to the Other means seeing them in their entirety — including their flaws, misalignments, and needs for redirection — and acting from that complete vision, not from the edited version that would allow us to remain comfortable.
This more robust form of relating to the responsibility of leading requires something our culture often avoids naming: inner presence solid enough to withstand temporary disapproval. The capacity to distinguish between the social role one performs and the fundamental identity one is. Courage to accept that doing what is necessary will not guarantee universal approval, and that seeking such approval constitutes in itself a form of abandonment of the people one claims to serve.
This is not about becoming emotionally hardened or cultivating insensitivity. Quite the opposite. It is about developing sensitivity refined enough to distinguish between genuine compassion and avoidance disguised as care. To realize that the discomfort of a difficult conversation today will spare the multiplied suffering of an inevitable collapse tomorrow. To recognize that timely clarity, even if momentarily painful, constitutes the foundation on which truly respectful professional relationships can be built.
What emerges from this deeper understanding is a radically different way of inhabiting positions of influence. A leadership that does not confuse authority with authoritarianism, that does not fear exercising discernment because it understands that well-applied discernment serves everyone involved. That can be simultaneously firm and human, clear and compassionate, decisive and respectful. That recognizes the limits of harmony as the supreme goal and values, above it, the integrity of relationships and the possibility of collective growth through shared truths.
When we observe organizations that navigate complexities with grace, we inevitably find relational structures where truth circulates with relative freedom. Not truth as brutality disguised as frankness, but truth as a shared commitment to reality, with the willingness to name what is observed even when it generates tension. In these environments, kindness coexists with clarity because both emerge from a common substrate — the genuine valuing of people, expressed through respect for their capacity to deal with complex realities without needing infantilizing protection.
The transition from leadership sustained by the need for acceptance to one anchored in purpose and clarity does not happen through techniques or superficial behavioral adjustments. It requires more fundamental work — the deconstruction of the internal structures that condition self-worth to external approval. This process is rarely comfortable. It involves confronting ancient fears, questioning familiar identities, developing new ways of relating to the inevitable discomfort of existence in complexity.
But what is gained on this journey transcends the development of managerial skills. It is the possibility of inhabiting human relationships with greater authenticity, of contributing to environments where people can flourish because they operate in clarity, of exercising influence that genuinely serves rather than serving oneself from those it claims to benefit. It is the transition from performative kindness that corrodes to relational integrity that builds.
Because in the end, the definitive test of any form of influence does not lie in how comfortable it keeps surfaces, but in what texture of reality it allows to emerge. And realities built on postponed truths, sacrificed clarity, and outsourced responsibility invariably collapse, taking with them not only organizational structures but fragments of the human dignity of those who inhabited them. The kindness that avoids confronting this pattern does not deserve the name it claims. It is merely cowardice disguised as virtue, silently destroying everything it claims to protect.
Want to dive even deeper into the foundations of human behavior that shape organizations and relationships?
Visit my blog and explore hundreds of articles on cognitive-behavioral development — individual and organizational — and on how to build truly conscious and evolutionary human relationships. Texts that challenge the obvious and expand your understanding of what moves us, limits us, and transforms us.
Access now, right now: www.marcellodesouza.com.br
#humandevelopment #consciousleadership #organizationalpsychology #humanbehavior #relationalintelligence #corporateculture #selfknowledge #peoplemanagement #organizationaltransformation #authenticleadership #humanrelations #organizationalconsciousness #marcellodesouza #marcellodesouzaoficial #coachingevoce
