[00:00:34.170]
Welcome to Episode 95 of The Non-Anxious Leader podcast. Today's topic was sparked by an episode of the Hidden Brain podcast that I listened to recently in which Linda Skitka, a psychology professor who's done research on moral convictions, was interviewed. I'll post a link to that episode.

[00:00:54.810]
In the show notes, I found an article by her that laid out in very brief terms how moral convictions actually function. I'll go through them and then give a family systems take on this, as well as how it can help us be non-anxious leader. The first thing she does is she makes a distinction between moral convictions or what she might call a moral mandate and other strong, non-moral attitudes. The latter would be other opinions we might have on issues or important matters of the day, but are not necessarily what we would call a moral conviction.

[00:01:32.970]
The first difference is that moral convictions are more likely to be considered universally applicable rather than culturally variable. This doesn't necessarily make the moral conviction true, but it does so in the mind of the person holding that moral conviction.

[00:01:50.930]
The second aspect of moral convictions is they are independent of the law. In other words, a moral conviction is not influenced by the current law. Two examples of this are abortion and the death penalty. The pro-life position believes that abortion is morally wrong, whether or not the law permits it. Death penalty opponents believe the same for the death penalty.

[00:02:15.420]
A third aspect of moral convictions is that they come with strong prohibitions and strong prescriptions. The prohibitions would be thou shalt not and the prescriptions would be thou shalt. There are typically no grey areas when it comes to moral convictions, only black and white. And this tends to result in an avoidance of that so-called slippery slope. If one gives in even a little, there's the feeling that they are on a slippery slope toward moral decay. This is why moral convictions make us so unwilling to compromise.

[00:02:54.870]
Finally, moral convictions have deep ties to emotions. The emotional process take on this is that moral convictions are much more likely to result in reactivity. Just go on Facebook and scroll for someone who is trolling one of your deeply held beliefs, one of your moral convictions. It's likely to get your blood boiling.

[00:03:16.020]
The idea here is that moral convictions are more emotional than they are rational. As I noted in Episode 85, some of our most deeply held beliefs don't have any evidence. That's what faith is. Similarly, moral convictions are not easily swayed by facts or statistics. Moral convictions come from a place of deeply held beliefs and values. They are not easily changed and they significantly impact our behavior.

[00:03:51.690]
What Skitka's research found was that moral convictions are a double-edged sword. There's certainly an upside to them, but there can be some significant downsides.

[00:04:03.060]
For example, moral convictions result in greater political engagement. That's a good thing. People with moral convictions are more likely to work politically to achieve policies and laws consistent with their beliefs. Further, one issue, voters are almost certainly doing so based on a moral conviction. Their belief is so strong it becomes the only thing that matters in the political sphere.

[00:04:27.230]
One downside is that people with strong moral convictions have more social and physical distance from those who believe differently. Being around people who don't agree with us can make us feel uncomfortable in general. When that disagreement is around a moral conviction, it can cause us to disconnect emotionally. This not only risks living in a bubble where we only hear what we want to hear, but from a family systems perspective, it risks the kind of emotional distance that increases anxiety in the system.

[00:05:00.030]
In a similar vein, moral convictions lower levels of goodwill and cooperation in groups with more diverse beliefs. Our moral convictions can get in the way of our ability to play well with others.

[00:05:13.080]
Skitka's research also found that people with strong moral convictions have more difficulty in generating processes to resolve disagreements. This isn't actually resolving the disagreement itself. It's agreeing on a process to resolve that disagreement. This makes me think about tense negotiations like those between Arabs and Israelis. They often can't even agree on the ground rules.

[00:05:40.390]
And according to Skitka, this is not only true when we are with people with whom we disagree, but it's also true when we're with people who also strongly hold the moral convictions that we hold. This points to the idea that we are so afraid of compromise that we have a hard time even coming up with processes that might resolve a conflict.

[00:06:04.460]
Skitka also found that moral convictions can result in rejection of decisions and policies that conflict with our beliefs, regardless of whether they were arrived at fairly or through legitimate procedures and authorities. This is the behavioral component of believing our moral convictions are independent of the law. If something conflicts with our moral convictions, even if it is the law, we are likely to make the statement, "I do not recognize its legitimacy because it is morally wrong."

[00:06:37.300]
And finally, and this is a huge downside, moral convictions can result in greater acceptance of violence and vigilante tactics to achieve the desired ends. Unfortunately, moral convictions make us more likely to use immoral means to justify moral ends. Think of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. In contemporary terms, whether this is bombing abortion clinics, destroying property during protests, or terroristic acts of mass murder, our so-called righteous anger can get the best of us. What Skitka shows us is that moral convictions have some real negative impacts if they are not managed properly.

[00:07:21.310]
If we are not self-aware and able to understand how our convictions can drive our behavior, then we may be susceptible to some of these negative impacts, especially not being able to remain connected to those who disagree with us. Even worse, it can devolve into behavior which is outright violent or destructive and immoral because we are so passionate about our moral convictions. So I'm not saying that moral convictions are bad, it's just that we need to be able to manage them properly.

[00:07:55.270]
If we don't, at best, there will be increased anxiety in the system, and at worst we can end up with anger, hate and even violence. So what do we do?

[00:08:09.460]
It won't surprise you to hear that my first recommendation in dealing with moral convictions, both your own and those of others, is to focus on self-differentiation. Remember, the definition of self-differentiation is the ability to define your own goals and values in the midst of surrounding togetherness pressure. Your own moral convictions are about your values, your beliefs, your goals. The moral convictions of those around you that conflict with yours create surrounding togetherness pressure, especially if they are a part of your family of origin, congregation or organization. Focusing on self-differentiation enables us to avoid the traps that were identified in Skitka's research.

[00:08:56.710]
A second recommendation is to move closer emotionally to those with whom you disagree. The most important thing you can do is maintain emotional connection with those whose moral convictions conflict with yours. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with them. This is more of a practical matter because we know that disconnecting with others will increase anxiety in the system.

[00:09:20.890]
You can do this without giving in on your own convictions. The best way to do this is listen. Ask reporter questions, open ended questions like who, what, when, where and how. Avoid why, because people don't often understand why they believe what they believe. Asking why will likely increase the other person's anxiety, not decrease it. And who knows, listening to the other person might give you a better understanding about what they believe. It could even change your mind. But that's not the point. The goal is emotional connection.

[00:09:58.990]
Third, if you do need to take a non-anxious, emotional stand, be careful to define yourself and not others, my own tendency is to avoid taking a stand unless it's absolutely necessary. My reason is I don't think it often changes other people's minds.

[00:10:17.260]
If I do define myself, I try to do it in terms of my own experience. I will share a story about what has happened in my life that has led me to believe what I believe. We know from family systems theory that defining others often comes across as judgmental, and raises anxiety and pushback in the system.

[00:10:38.020]
Fourth, use cognitive empathy, also known as perspective-taking. Putting yourself in another person's shoes not only gives you a healthy perspective, but it's also helpful in maintaining emotional connection. By understanding where they're coming from and what matters to them that may even help you accept the fact that you are not going to agree.

[00:11:00.990]
When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, my first impulse was to try to figure out all the ways that we progressives could hold her seat open until a potential Biden election, I was hopeful that some Republicans might stick to the pledge that they made in 2016 when they didn't confirm Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. I came to realize that there was nothing that could be done to stop Amy Coney Barrett from being confirmed as the ninth Supreme Court justice. I didn't like it, but perspective-taking helped.

[00:11:33.530]
I asked myself, "How would I feel if the roles were reversed?" I realized that I would not only be cheering Democrats as they were doing this, but I would probably be saying to the Republicans, "Stop whining." So instead I decided to focus on controlling the things that I can control. I've been giving money regularly to the Biden campaign. I made phone calls to prospective swing state voters this weekend. It may or may not make a difference, but it's better than focusing on things that are beyond my control.

[00:12:04.100]
And remember, this is about emotional process, not content. You may be on the opposite side of the political spectrum as I am. That's OK. I'm hoping that by understanding moral convictions, you will be better able to work for what you believe while at the same time giving other people emotional space and abundant grace.

[00:12:25.500]
Finally, say what you believe while giving others the freedom to disagree. We can do this with humility. We can say, "I might be wrong about this, but this is what I believe." We can say, "You don't have to agree with me." In the end, this allows for the possibility for emotional space, although it's possible that others may be so reactive that they are not able to even give you the space to define yourself in a healthy way.

[00:12:52.050]
That's a challenge, but that is their issue, not your own. The only thing that you can do is take responsibility for yourself and do everything possible to define yourself and not others. As I said, this is a very practical matter. This is not about giving up your own moral convictions. Nor is it about trying to change others. It's about using the best possible approach to be a non-anxious leader, to keep everybody's anxiety down. Because when the anxiety goes up, people cling even more strongly to their moral convictions, and that creates conflict and even violence.

[00:13:32.460]
The point here is to understand how moral convictions work so that you can hold to your own while giving other people the emotional space to hear what you have to say, and to work together in whatever way possible. You will not always agree. Sometimes you won't agree at all, but you can still maintain emotional connection and that will help everybody in the system.

[00:13:59.250]
This Tuesday in the United States, we have a big moment. We have an election day and tensions are high. Much of the passion that is creating conflict is driven by moral conviction. That's why we need non-anxious leaders who can be a means of grace in a very anxious time. I hope that can be you.

[00:14:21.110]
That's it for Episode 95. Thank you to those of you who give me feedback and who let me know what you think or what you'd like to know. If you want to connect with me, go to thenonanxiousleader.com. Until next time, thanks and goodbye.