Copyright Forbes
Daniela Aneva, OD Consultant, Executive and Team Coach and Leader at MentorsPro. Abandonment in leadership is not a theoretical concept—it’s a lived dynamic that quietly drives overreaction, overcontrol and inconsistency in decision-making. Leaders shaped by early experiences of emotional instability or unreliable caregivers may develop what schema theory defines as an "Abandonment/Instability" schema. This deeply held expectation that others will eventually leave or fail them often hides behind high-functioning behavior: urgency, vigilance and constant scanning for loyalty. Yet under stress, this schema can hijack rational leadership, replacing strategic steadiness with fear-driven choices. How The Abandonment Schema Shows Up In Organizations In organizations, this schema shows up as inconsistency; leaders oscillate between overinvolvement and withdrawal, micromanagement and detachment. The leader who fears being left may overcontrol to ensure people stay close, creating dependency rather than accountability. When that control fails, they may detach emotionally to protect themselves from perceived betrayal. The cycle undermines psychological safety and breeds a culture of instability. Teams feel simultaneously over-managed and under-supported, never knowing which version of their leader will appear next. The risks are significant. Decision quality suffers because the leader’s focus drifts from strategy to relationship management, trying to secure loyalty rather than drive outcomes. Talented people may leave not because of workload or pay but because the emotional climate becomes volatile and unpredictable. The leader’s internal narrative—"I can’t count on them"—becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Over time, trust collapses, innovation slows and the organization adopts the leader’s anxiety as its operating rhythm. The abandonment schema also shapes how leaders handle succession, delegation and conflict. Leaders trapped in its logic may struggle to delegate, seeing independence as potential rejection. They may avoid developing successors out of unconscious fear that being replaced equals being forgotten. In conflict, they may alternate between appeasement (to avoid loss) and attack (to preempt betrayal). These are not leadership strategies; they are survival mechanisms masquerading as authority. At the personal level, the cost is exhaustion. Constant hypervigilance drains cognitive and emotional energy. Leaders caught in abandonment dynamics often report chronic stress, sleep problems or burnout, without understanding that the root driver isn’t workload; it’s fear of disconnection. Their nervous system remains in a constant state of alertness, searching for signs of being left behind. This internal pressure narrows their perspective, reducing their ability to inspire or empower others. How To Start The Healing Process Healing begins with awareness. Schema-driven leaders must learn to differentiate between what is real and what is remembered. When feelings of rejection or instability surface, the first task is to pause and assess: "What is actually happening here, and what am I reliving?" Grounding in data, not emotion, is the bridge from schema to sanity. Trusted colleagues, supervision or coaching can serve as mirrors, helping the leader separate present dynamics from old narratives. This shift from reaction to reflection restores agency. Leaders who address abandonment patterns gain a new level of steadiness. They become capable of building teams that function on mutual respect rather than control or compliance. Their leadership becomes anchored in consistency rather than volatility. They recognize that loyalty cannot be forced—it is earned through reliability, fairness and transparency. By modeling these qualities, they create cultures that are psychologically safe, where people stay because they are inspired, not because they are managed through fear. A Better Leadership Paradigm Organizations also benefit when leaders do this inner work. A leader aware of their abandonment triggers can respond to turnover, conflict or feedback with proportionate action. They can distinguish between a normal business decision and a personal threat. This maturity has ripple effects: calmer communication, reduced reactivity and clearer decision frameworks. Stability replaces suspicion. Teams perform better because they no longer waste energy interpreting emotional signals—they trust the process. The path forward requires disciplined reflection. Leaders must normalize the practice of self-inquiry, especially after moments of emotional intensity. A simple reflection loop might include: What triggered me? What story did I tell myself? What evidence supports or contradicts it? What would my "healthy adult" do instead? Over time, this practice rewires default responses, strengthening the leader’s capacity to stay centered under pressure. Leadership is not about erasing vulnerability; it’s about managing it wisely. The abandonment schema reveals itself most clearly in moments of uncertainty, when leaders must trust others without guarantees. Choosing steadiness over control is an act of courage. It signals maturity: the ability to hold fear without transmitting it. When leaders embody that steadiness, their teams mirror it back, creating a virtuous cycle of trust and performance. Ultimately, the leaders who do this work redefine what power looks like. Instead of clinging to people to feel secure, they invest in structures, clarity and culture that make connection sustainable. They no longer confuse presence with possession. They understand that people leaving does not mean loss; it means growth—for them and for the organization. In healing their abandonment patterns, they model the kind of emotional regulation and integrity that corporate systems desperately need. They become not just more effective leaders but more whole human beings. Reflective Questions For Leaders 1. When uncertainty or change arises, do I respond with control, avoidance or connection? 2. What situations make me feel most at risk of being left, replaced or unseen? 3. How does my fear of loss influence how I delegate, communicate or retain people? 4. What would leadership from my healthy adult look like in these moments?
