Power Without Enemies: Choosing Kind Leadership

Power Without – A career reflection on why chasing “power” through hostility can backfire—and how leading with respect can build teams and growth.

What if the question “Who are your enemies?” is really asking you to perform a specific kind of power?

During an interview loop that followed her for much of her career. “Who are your enemies?” was posed again and again. and she said she always came up blank.. Each time she couldn’t list convincing antagonists. the feedback carried the same message: if she had no powerful enemies. she couldn’t be competent enough to be taken seriously.

Over time. she began to connect that enemy-testing mentality to a broader “male idea of power.” In that model. winning is framed as a zero-sum exchange: for one person to win. another must lose.. The implicit instruction was stark—be “powerful enough” to attract enemies—and she came to see how quickly that guidance can slide into aggression and bullying as a way to climb.

Her skepticism wasn’t theoretical.. She had been bullied as a child, and she described how damaging that experience was.. That history shaped a personal boundary early: she would not choose the same behavior that had hurt her.. If it cost her professionally. she told herself she would find another way to build a career without becoming the kind of person who harms others.

That choice left her wrestling with doubts she said many leaders quietly face.. Did being “too nice” actually limit career prospects?. Was leadership supposed to look a certain way even when she didn’t feel personally powerful?. Even when she held major roles—with thousands of employees. budgets measured in millions. and growth tracked in billions—she said she didn’t feel the kind of power she was told to embody.. What she felt instead was crushing responsibility and insecurity about what she thought “power” required.

The moment that clarified her thinking came during a client visit on Long Island.. In a small conference room sat a VP of technology described as dominant and intimidating. alongside one of his direct reports. whom she referred to as Seth.. She recounted that the VP blamed “the problem” on Seth—saying Seth made stupid mistakes. wasn’t good at his job. wasn’t listened to. and was messing everything up.. In her account. Seth appeared small and mortified. and she felt heartbroken because she recognized what it means to be bullied.

She said she had worked with Seth before and knew Seth held far more expertise than the VP allowed on the surface. In her reading, the real issue wasn’t Seth’s competence. It was the VP’s behavior—an abuse of authority that turned harsh criticism into a performance of dominance.

Then came what she described as a “weird” shift.. After the VP walked her out. they encountered the VP’s boss in the lobby. and she said the bully instantly changed into a cowering. ingratiating subordinate.. She was “appalled” by the spectacle. because it suggested the aggression wasn’t strength at all; it was a strategy that worked only when there was someone lower in the hierarchy—and fear of being truly powerful with a superior.

That lobby scene pushed her toward a new interpretation she said she couldn’t unsee.. She began to wonder whether the insecurity driving the VP’s intimidation was internal and personal, not something Seth lacked.. From that point on, she described seeing the hurt little boy behind “big, scary men” acting like bullies.. Her instinct wasn’t to escalate conflict. but to defuse it mentally—implying that what looks like dominance can be a cover for fragile self-esteem.

Her approach to leadership changed with that realization.. When aggression showed up at work. she said she could step aside and let it pass without being swallowed by it.. She also credited a piece of advice from her mother that she carried for years: bullies need to make you feel worse than they feel on the inside. and it’s always about them—not about you.

She said that reframing helped her stop assuming bullies were innately endowed with a kind of power she lacked.. Instead, she began to view aggressive behavior as insecurity dressed up as strength.. In practical terms. she shifted her leadership focus toward kindness and respect as non-negotiables. arguing that people don’t perform well when they’re constantly self-protecting.

According to her account, her teams delivered on commitments and the business grew.. She said her organizations became more capable over time because she invested in people and treated their well-being as part of performance.. In that framing. leadership success wasn’t about “owning” power; it was about sharing it in ways that make collective execution possible.

She described her definition of real power as something not personally held.. By contrast, the bullying version of personal power was portrayed as insecurity masquerading as strength.. True power. in her view. is cultivated by making room for others to contribute and by building together toward “big. amazing things done” across the team.

She acknowledged that aggressive bullies sometimes do advance. Still, she argued it isn’t the only path. She said she made a different choice—declining to model the “power” she was shown by the men—and that staying “too nice” did not limit her career. She went further, stating it accelerated it.

She attributed that acceleration to building a team that stayed productive and motivated because it felt powerful in its own right.. Rather than getting trapped in a win-lose mindset. she said she let confrontations among bullies play out internally while she created a path aligned with her belief that kindness and strength can work side by side.

On the question of enemies, her stance was direct: if both sides can win, why treat conflict as the default? In her view, leadership doesn’t have to be structured around opposition to prove competence—especially when respect and psychological safety are what unlock sustained performance.

leadership power workplace bullying win win leadership team motivation psychological safety corporate culture career growth