Why either/or thinking fails leaders

The best leaders resist false choices and build the capacity to operate within tension while maintaining clarity, discipline, and forward momentum.

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” The observation from F. Scott Fitzgerald isn’t about being clever. It’s about capacity: the capacity to function when things don’t resolve neatly. That’s leadership.

Some tensions are not problems to solve. They are realities to manage. And if you lead an architecture or engineering firm, you already know this – even if your behavior doesn’t always reflect it. Engineers are trained to reduce ambiguity. Most leaders are rewarded for their decisiveness. Organizations praise clarity, confidence, and speed.

So, when opposing ideas arise, the instinct is to choose. Pick a side. Declare a priority. Move on. That feels like leadership. But often, it’s avoidance. The uncomfortable truth is this: the “right” path rarely lives at either extreme. It lives in the tension between them. And holding that tension – rather than reducing it to an easier solution – is the actual work.

This is where Jim Collins offers useful clarity. Collins observed that great leaders reject “either/or” thinking in favor of “both/and.” They don’t choose between competing truths. They embrace both simultaneously. One of his clearest examples is the Stockdale Paradox: Face the brutal facts of reality, while maintaining unwavering faith in eventual success. Not optimism alone; not realism alone. Both. At the same time. That’s not hesitation. It’s discipline. And it’s a discipline many leaders quietly lack – especially when pressure mounts and the urge to simplify grows stronger.

These aren’t abstract leadership concepts. They show up in your calendar, your inbox, and your decisions every week. For example:

• Short-term performance and long-term vision. You need results now – utilization, margins, delivery. You also need a credible story of where the firm is going and why it will matter five years from now. Lean too hard into execution, and you slowly lose relevance. Lean too hard into vision, and you start confusing activity with progress.
  Better response: Relentless execution in service of a clear future. If you’re honest, does your time allocation say “builder” or “firefighter”?
• High growth and stability. Growth brings energy, opportunity, and momentum. Stability brings predictability, trust, and quality. Too much growth overwhelms systems and people. Too much stability turns into rigidity and complacency.
  Better response: Agile growth anchored by consistent values. Most leaders say they want both, but growth has a way of revealing which values are real and which were just convenient.
• Innovation and control. This is a fundamental tension in any office. Innovation requires experimentation and risk. Control protects quality, reputation, and clients. Too much control suffocates initiative. Too much freedom creates chaos.
  Better response: I promote a term called “structured flexibility.” When expectations are clear and constraints are intentional, they are the guardrails that make experimentation safe.
• Client-first and employee-first. Clients pay the bills. Employees deliver the work. A purely client-first posture burns people out and quietly erodes capability. An entirely employee-first posture risks missed commitments and lost credibility.
  Better response: Sustainable client service through healthy teams. Clients are not served instead of employees – they are served through them. Leaders who force a choice here eventually lose both, just on different timelines.

The real challenge isn’t recognizing these tensions; it’s learning to operate inside them with steadiness and intention. It’s staying with them long enough to make better choices. That’s where most of us get uncomfortable. But real growth happens when you resist that pull and stay present in the middle.

Each example above illustrates a place where leadership refuses easy answers, inviting you instead to expand your capacity to hold competing truths without retreating to the comfort of certainty. This is the inflection point where technique gives way to maturity. It’s the difference between leaders who scale organizations and leaders who burn them down slowly while still hitting short-term numbers. It is worth asking how often you allow yourself to stay in that productive discomfort. Because what happens next – the part most leaders avoid – depends entirely on your willingness to lead from within that unresolved space.

Fitzgerald wasn’t describing brilliance; he was describing capacity. Collins wasn’t describing genius; he was describing discipline. Both were pointing to the same leadership requirement: the ability to function without forcing false choices. Some tensions are not problems to solve. They are realities to manage. Leadership maturity shows up in whether you can stay present in that tension without rushing to resolve it. That work is rarely visible, rarely praised, and always necessary. It’s also where real leadership quietly takes shape.

Greg Sepeda is a former engineering manager and is currently rewired as a management consultant. Connect with him on LinkedIn.