Red Rover, Red Rover

Sometimes you're sent to run. Sometimes you hold the line. Often you're doing both—and wondering why you're exhausted.

Jan 22, 2026

Two lines of kids, arms locked tight. One team calls out: “Red Rover, Red Rover, send [name] right over.” That person has to run full speed and try to break through the other team’s linked arms.

But there were two experiences in this game.

Sometimes you were the one being called—running full speed toward linked arms that wouldn’t soften.

Sometimes you were standing in the line, watching someone run straight at you, knowing that if they broke through at YOUR link, you were the weak spot.

Either way, you took the hit.

What the Game Actually Looks Like

Workplaces play Red Rover in two simultaneous ways:

You’re the runner: Leadership sends you to break through a resistant team, client, or department. “Go get buy-in.” “Make it happen.” “Bridge the gap.” You’re running full speed at a wall that has no interest in letting you through.

You’re the line: Leadership sends someone through you. A new policy. A rushed project. A difficult stakeholder. You’re supposed to absorb the impact without breaking—and if you do break, you’ve failed.

Most exhausting? You’re often playing both roles at once. Running toward one wall while another person runs toward you.

How This Hits Empaths

Empaths feel both sides of every collision.

When you’re the runner, you feel the resistance in the line. You know they don’t want to let you through. You can sense their frustration, their pressure, their boundaries. This makes you hesitate, soften your approach, try to make it easier for them—which means you fail to break through.

When you’re the line, you feel the force of what’s being pushed through you. You understand why the runner is coming. You can see they didn’t choose this. You want to help—but helping means breaking your own position. So you absorb the hit and blame yourself for not being stronger.

The game requires you to be hard in both directions. Empaths default to soft. That mismatch is exhausting.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Your manager tells you to “get stakeholder X on board” with a decision that’s already been made. You’re the runner. Stakeholder X is the line. They don’t want this decision. They weren’t consulted. They have good reasons to resist. You’re supposed to break through anyway.

Or: Leadership pushes a new process through your team without warning. You’re the line. Your team is confused, resistant, overwhelmed. You’re supposed to hold the position, implement it smoothly, and absorb the impact without complaint.

The expectation? Execute both perfectly. Don’t break. Don’t bend. Don’t fail.

Tiny Tools for Tiny Spaces

Here are a few things to try out when you find yourself in these situations:

Somatic Reset
Calm your body, and your mind will follow

When you feel caught between two forces, place both hands on your chest. Close your eyes. Feel your heartbeat. Inhale slowly through your nose, and sigh out your exhale through your mouth.

Remind yourself: I am not responsible for making incompatible forces compatible.

Sample Boundary Statement
An action statement that supports your values & capacity, “If X happens, then Y will result.”

"If you need me to both break through resistance with Team A and hold the line against Team B, then I will need to choose which relationship I'm prioritizing. I cannot maintain trust on both sides while executing opposing mandates."

Clarity Question
Minimizes misunderstanding, encourages alignment

“Who else is aware that I’m being asked to break through in one area while defending in another?”

This reveals whether leadership even sees the contradiction.

Prevention Tool
Being proactive protects, whereas reactivity drains

Track which role you’re in each week. When you notice you’re playing both simultaneously, document it. Pattern recognition helps you say “I’m noticing I’ve been assigned contradictory roles three times this month” with data.

Advanced Tiny Tool for Big Empaths:

When you’re being assigned both roles, consider saying:

“I do not have the capacity to execute both A and B. If you need both done, I will need [additional resources/extended timeline/help from others]. If that’s not possible, then I can commit to one or the other—you choose which.”

Why this is advanced:

You’re naming the impossible position clearly. You’re putting the choice back on leadership instead of absorbing it as your problem. You’re protecting your capacity with a clear consequence: they get one role or they provide support, not both roles with current resources.

The boundary is this:

You can run toward resistance. You can hold a line against force. What you cannot do is absorb the full impact of both roles while maintaining your integrity, your energy, and your relationships.

The Truth Underneath

Red Rover only works as a game because it’s temporary. The hits hurt, but then the game ends.

Workplaces expect you to play it continuously. Run full speed at resistance all day. Hold the line against force all day. Absorb hit after hit after hit. Then come back tomorrow and do it again.

The problem isn’t that you’re not tough enough. The problem is that the game was designed for short bursts, not sustained impact.

You’re not weak for feeling the collisions. You’re human. The system that sends people running at each other and calls it “alignment” or “driving change” or “implementing strategy”—that system is broken.

Next time you feel caught between two forces, remember: the insistence on constant collision is the design flaw, not you.

Sometimes the smartest move is stepping out of the line entirely.

Now it’s your turn.

Which part of this resonated most? Leave a comment—I read them all.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?