Superintendent
Long Prairie-Grey Eagle Public Schools
There is a hurdle everyone in a position of authority faces to one degree or another. The short version is this: it is not always fair, but it is real. And because it is real, leaders have to learn how to navigate it with discernment and intention.
That reality is asymmetrical risk.
Teachers experience it when an angry parent calls to berate them, only to turn the teacher’s understandable frustration into the next criticism. Superintendents face it when a critic makes a wild, unfounded claim in a public forum, then loudly describes the district as “defensive” the moment a factual correction is offered.
Asymmetrical risk occurs when the stakes in a confrontation are unequal. If you carry a hard-earned reputation, organizational responsibility, or professional standards that can be damaged in the exchange, while the other person carries little or none of that same liability, you are not engaging on even ground.
The other person may be able to behave poorly, ignore facts, distort motives, or speak recklessly while still holding you to an impossible standard of calm, precision, and restraint.
Some people stumble into this advantage by accident. Others deliberately capitalize on it. The person making the outlandish accusation may do so because being proven wrong carries very little cost for them. They are not operating in the same currency of credibility, so they can spend it carelessly.
That is the tactical truth: when you are in a confrontation defined by asymmetrical risk, strategy matters more than proving a point.
It is easy to get caught up in the unfairness of it all. The hypocrisy can be maddening. The impulse to defend yourself, correct the record, or point out the double standard is completely understandable. But understandable does not always mean useful.
There are times when a response is required. Leaders have responsibilities. Facts may need to be clarified. People may need reassurance. But the purpose of the response cannot be to win the argument on another person’s terms.
When you argue with someone who risks nothing, you may have far more to lose than they do. In some cases, drawing you into the argument is the entire point. Your reaction becomes the evidence they were hoping to collect.
Once you recognize the asymmetry, you can stop reacting emotionally and start responding strategically.
If the goal is to frame you as combative, do not offer them combat. If the goal is to make you seem volatile, become the clearest example of calm in the room. If the goal is to pull you into chaos, respond in a way that brings people back to clarity.
When the risk is asymmetrical, your greatest leverage is not silence or argument. It is discernment. It is knowing what needs to be said, who needs to hear it, when it should be said, and what purpose the response is meant to serve.
Refusing to play someone else’s game is not surrender. It is agency. It is recognizing that your reputation, energy, and peace are too valuable to be spent trying to win a rigged exchange.
So take a moment to consider: What argument are you preparing to step into today where the real temptation is not leadership, but the desire to prove a point?
Sometimes, the only way to lead well in an asymmetrical game is to stop playing by someone else’s rules. The goal is not to win the exchange; it is to keep your intentions and execution aligned.
