From Fear to Agency: Another Underrated Leadership Skill

Fear is an unavoidable companion of leadership. It appears whenever leaders confront uncertainty, disruption, or decline in a core business. What distinguishes effective leaders is not the absence of fear, but their ability to convert fear into agency—by reframing situations, widening the questions they are willing to ask, and expanding the range of solutions they are willing to explore.

The most effective antidote to fear is deceptively simple: get people to ask, in every situation, “What is within our control or power to do that can influence the outcome?” That question shifts attention from paralysis to possibility, from anxiety to action.

I learned this early. More than sixty years ago, I watched my mother, by herself, raise the level of service at the Rochester Motor Vehicle Bureau. Faced with indifference from a clerk and a manager, she calmly explained what she would do next: call a local radio show, write officials in Albany, and tell everyone she knew about the experience. She understood something essential: agency is not about formal authority; it is about using the tools you actually have.

Converting fear into agency is not only good for business outcomes; it is an underrated driver of employee health and wellbeing. People who believe they can influence outcomes experience less stress, make better decisions, and perform at a higher level.

Early in my career, I experienced this firsthand. In 1986, before I was an executive officer, I challenged my company’s IT department when they insisted that the Legal Department deploy only IBM technology. I won only a partial victory, but something more important happened: I demonstrated agency in a situation where most people deferred to experts. Years later, the CEO told me that moment mattered to him because he himself felt insecure challenging the technologists.

Four later episodes reinforced for me how powerful this conversion from fear to agency can be.

1. Suing the U.S. Postal Service

In 1995, the U.S. Postal Service terminated a 17-year contract under which we operated the Postage by Phone revenue collection system—then issued a regulation ordering us to continue operating it without compensation. We believed the action was unlawful.

We had never sued the Postal Service. It was both our regulator and a powerful counterparty. Many feared retaliation, and those fears were understandable. But in my judgment, we had no choice.

Equally important was how we talked about the lawsuit. We needed to avoid overstating its significance, which could hurt our stock price, or understating it, which could damage credibility. Gershon Kekst proposed a simple message we used repeatedly:

“We have the technology and product leadership, the customer loyalty, the financial strength, and the talent to thrive—regardless of the relationship with the Postal Service.”

That statement did more than reassure investors. By internalizing it, we changed how we thought about ourselves. It strengthened confidence and reinforced a sense of agency across the organization.

2. Responding to 9/11 and Anthrax

In the fall of 2001, we faced two existential shocks. We lost four employees in the 9/11 attacks. Shortly thereafter, deadly anthrax spores were detected in the U.S. House of Representatives mailroom, which we operated.

Fear was unavoidable. But the questions we asked mattered: What can we do to reduce risk for employees and customers?And what opportunities might emerge from responding effectively?

Risk reduction was straightforward: dispersing critical assets, relocating backup data centers, strengthening crisis response plans, and deploying advanced detection tools. We executed decisively.

But we also looked for opportunity. When mail processing was moved out of the House building, we realized members would value having constituent mail opened and delivered electronically. It reduced risk for staff and dramatically improved responsiveness to constituents—especially since roughly 10% of mail was misdirected due to redistricting.

By asking opportunity-oriented questions even in tragedy, we reinforced a culture of agency rather than fear.

3. From “Mail” to “Mailstream”

As first-class mail volumes began to decline, fear spread among employees and investors. Earlier attempts to reposition the company as a “messaging” firm lacked credibility.

The reframing that worked was defining ourselves as a mailstream solutions provider. The pivotal question became: What will continue to grow even if letter mail declines?

Three answers stood out:

• Address management and location intelligence
• Package shipping solutions, especially for small retailers
• Mail aggregation and presort services

We invested in all three. But more important than the investments was the shift in mindset. Teams began asking:

• What profitable opportunities are adjacent to our current businesses?
• What upstream or downstream markets could we enter?
• Where could our U.S. leadership translate into international growth?

We did not succeed in every initiative, but we replaced anxiety with informed optimism, and that mattered.

4. Postal Regulatory and Legislative Reform

For years, postal reform had stalled. Labor unions were seen as immovable obstacles. Rather than surrender to that fear, we asked a different question: What can the industry and Postal Service do that does not require legislation?

The Mailing Industry Task Force identified practical steps, including intelligent mail barcodes, industry advocacy, a census to size the sector, and Sunday package delivery.

The census result was stunning: a $900 billion industry employing nine million Americans—nearly 9% of GDP. That insight changed the power dynamic.

As Chair of the Mailing Industry CEO Council, I asked one additional question: Where is there common ground with labor? The answer was rates. Higher postal rates suppressed mail volumes and union membership depended on volume. Three of four unions eventually supported, or at least did not oppose, reform.

The legislation passed in 2006. But the deeper success was replacing fatalism with agency.

Reverting Back to Fear

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was well intentioned. But in practice, fear, particularly among auditors, CFOs, and boards, began to dominate decision-making. Mechanical compliance replaced judgment. Avoiding regulatory risk took precedence over serving investors, customers, and employees.

The moment I knew it was time to step down as CEO came when a director insisted we remove information from an earnings release, not because it was inaccurate, but because it might provoke an SEC comment. What our investors wanted no longer mattered.

Years later, a study of nursing home regulation captured the same pathology: organizations prioritize the guidance of the agency that can do the most harm, not the guidance that best supports health and wellbeing.

That is the cautionary lesson. Cultures driven by fear and compliance erode health, performance, and trust. Cultures that convert fear into agency. through curiosity, judgment, and action, do the opposite.

Fear is inevitable. Agency is a choice.