Disturb the Calm
When stability gives a false sense of organizational health
Photo by Risto Kokkonen on Unsplash
“Can’t we just have peace in the land?” This executive’s exasperation was innocent enough, but I couldn’t let it linger. “No sir, that is not your measure for success.” Behind his cry was an appeal for calm, comfort, and confidence that what he is leading and the way his organization operates is actually working. Fair enough, but dig a little deeper, and that pursuit becomes a desert mirage. A fantasy that feels fun to flirt with, but leads to an even deeper appetite for what will always remain elusive, especially at levels of executive leadership.
When calm becomes an aim for customer comments or a company’s culture, the Antagonist is winning, not you. Successful organizations do not succeed by avoiding chaos; they succeed by being willing to disrupt calm.
In the mid-2000s, Nokia was the undisputed global leader in mobile phones. Internally, the company culture was described as disciplined, deferential, and fearful of sharing difficult opinions or feedback, especially upward. This had the appearance of calm. Meetings were orderly because everyone was focused on what was discussed, not what needed to be discussed. Concerns were filtered carefully upward because the backlash from bad news could be brutal. Demotions and firings were commonplace.
After Apple’s iPhone launch in 2007, engineers saw the threat. Middle managers sensed the risk. Senior leaders, however, experienced calm. Market share was still strong. Revenue still looked healthy. The organization felt “under control.”
Post-mortems later revealed a culture where:
Leaders asked for solutions, not problems.
Dissent was interpreted as disloyalty.
Conflict was managed out of the room before it reached the top.
A similar story played out at Boeing in the years leading up to the 737 MAX crisis. Boeing’s executive culture was widely described as controlled and confident. Financial targets were met. Schedules were tight. Concerns from engineers were escalated but repeatedly reframed to avoid disruption. The leadership experience remained calm even as the system beneath it grew brittle.
Nokia and Boeing did not fail because they lacked intelligence. They failed because calm was a signal of success. By the time urgency broke through the surface, the ground had already shifted.
Organizations that are experiencing the comforts that come with calm—hitting goals, retaining top talent, celebrating happy customers—should go deeper. Calm is the question, not the conclusion.
What tensions have been resolved too quickly? What contradictions are being smoothed over? What truths are being withheld in the name of stability?
Healthy organizations know how to use friction as a source of focus. They create space for disagreement before it becomes rupture. They surface risk while it is still theoretical, not catastrophic.
The Antagonist does not announce itself with chaos. It whispers through comfort. Leaders who learn to listen—before the noise arrives—discover that calm, properly disturbed, can become a productive force for good.
Calm is not the enemy because it is wrong. It is the enemy because it is insufficient. Treated as a signal rather than a destination, calm can become the starting point for clarity, alignment, and renewal. But only if leaders are willing to disturb it. On purpose.
The Antagonist is already at work. Are you?
Antagonist Check
Where does stability feel earned, and where does it feel uncomfortable?
What conflict would you invite, assuming history will be kind to any backlash
What is the cost of leaving this Antagonist unnamed?
Does this content resonate?
Hi, I’m Brad. If the challenges I write about sound familiar, it’s because I spend my time helping executives and their teams work through them. Over the past 30 years, I’ve been a founder, principal, CEO, chief of staff, and board chair. If you’re interested in a conversation about working together, I accept a limited number of new engagements each year. You can send me a message here.