[00:00:33.280]
Welcome to Episode 144 of the Non-Anxious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama. Today's episode is based on an article by Eric Barker. New Neuroscience Reveal Seven Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent. You may wonder how I got to the topic of a conflict of Wills from this, but his article is based on a book by Ian Leslie titled Conflicted how Productive Agreements Lead to Better Outcomes. Leslie's book is based on research he did, interviewing communication experts, including military, interrogators therapists, hostage, negotiators, divorce mediators, just to name a few.

[00:01:19.780]
I'll put a link to both the article and the book in the show notes. If you've been following this podcast for any amount of time, you know that I like to take the work of others and break it down in terms of family systems. And what Barker has done is Barker has broken down the work of Ian Lesley in terms of emotional intelligence, and I'm going to translate that to family systems theory. A conflict of Wills is when we try to convince another that we are right and they are wrong.

[00:01:53.920]
We know that when we do that, we get into this tug of war in which neither one wins and we typically get stuck. It is a trap. This is especially true when the content of the conflict isn't even the real issue. For example, when an anxious other is Triangling us with pain that comes from somewhere else. Barkers article summarizes Leslie's book with seven research-proven approaches to a conflict of Wills, and we are going to get into those right now. The first is to remember the relationship.

[00:02:30.560]
Barker describes this as separating the person from the position. Remembering the relationship helps us to remember that emotional connection is really important. As Leslie writes in Conflicted "There is a golden thread running through all the conversations I had with people in the course of researching and writing this book, and it's this you can't handle disagreement and conflict successfully. If you don't make a Truthful human connection. If you have one, then all the rules are move. If you don't have one, then the techniques and tactics you use are likely to do more harm than good.

[00:03:08.380]
The thing we tend to forget when we get into a conflict of Wills is this healthy emotional connection. In general, you are more likely to get in these conversations with people you care about. In fact, it's the ones you care about most who can be the most challenging, whether it's somebody who is in your family of origin, a member of a congregation or a staff person. It's precisely because you care about what they think that you feel most passionate about being right. Conversely, the closer you are to somebody, the more likely it is that you will eventually have a healthy conversation.

[00:03:47.030]
However, it doesn't happen until we are able to get past the anxiety that might be fueling the conflict. Remember, don't argue, don't agree. And remember the relationship." Barker second recommendation is deescalate, I need to make a side note here, too. Barker is a hilarious writer. If you read his articles, they will make you chuckle. What he says about deescalating is "Never in the history of calm down has telling anyone to calm down made someone calm down." The point he makes here is that if you try to present your case before you're able to de-escalate the emotions, then it's like a time bomb waiting to go off.

[00:04:36.130]
If it has not, in fact, already gone off. The escalation starts with selfregulation. Don't worry about the other person, but focus on what you need to do to regulate your own anxiety. I've done many episodes on this so you can go back and listen to those, but it's mostly about pausing, breathing and avoiding your automatic reaction. Once you can do that, you can actually think clearly, and that gives you a chance. To the extent we can do that, that gives the other the opportunity to calm down.

[00:05:09.170]
Barker third recommendation is to stop trying to control what the other thinks or feels. And he reminds us that when people's autonomy is threatened, they're going to either shut down or they're going to attack. This is the next step. After Deescalating, it's really a continuation. As Leslie Rights, "often the other person feels as if you are trying to dominate them or prove that your superiority in some way. And let's face it, often you are to allay that suspicion, show vulnerability, admit anxiety, confess, uncertainty, even or especially if you're in a position of authority.

[00:05:47.980]
Unilaterally disarming is your best chance of getting others to lower their defenses." The big question to ask yourself here is, who am I trying to define? If you're trying to define yourself, that's fine, but if you're trying to define the other, you will get stuck. And remember, you don't need to define yourself right off the bat. In fact, it's probably better to wait. Discretion is the better part of Valor. In fact, if you use a little bit of vulnerability, for example, saying something light, I'm trying to understand what's going on here, or I'm feeling a little uncertain about what I'm hearing, and then you follow the next few steps.

[00:06:29.820]
You may never need to define yourself. You may find that the other person just needed to vent. Even if there is a time to define yourself, it's going to happen further down the line. When things have really de escalated, you've had a chance to really hear the other, and they are willing because of that to have a real conversation. Baker's fourth recommendation is to help them make their argument stronger. This is paradox. Remember, the hardest thing to do is to push somebody you care about in the direction you most fear.

[00:07:03.280]
But if you're able to push them in that direction, if you are able to try to actually make their argument stronger, you will help them to calm down. Naturally, you do this first of all, by just restating what you're hearing, saying something like if I am hearing you right, or this is what I'm hearing you say, which proves that you're listening, that there's emotional connection and that you're not trying to convince them that you are right and they are wrong. You might even try to come up with some points that further bolster their argument.

[00:07:36.410]
This might really throw them for a loop, but it also shows that you really understand what they are thinking, that you get them. You don't have to agree with it. You're just stating what you think their argument might be, and by being able to restate their case and come up with points that they hadn't even thought of to strengthen their case, it's like refusing to tug on the rope and a tug of war, the tension is erased. Barker fifth recommendation is to disrupt the script, and this is playfulness.

[00:08:10.680]
We talk about paradox and playfulness and family systems theory. Paradox is pushing them in the other direction. Going with what they're saying and disrupting the script or playfulness is being able to bring down the anxiety in the room by lightning the mood. Now, my guideline is if you can pull it off with a little bit of humor, that's great. However, if it comes across as sarcasm, don't do it because that will only make things worse. One response you might want to keep in your pocket. Is it's a good thing that we're friends because I couldn't have this conversation with an enemy?

[00:08:48.240]
Of course, you can substitute words depending on the conversation. So you might say it's a good thing we're family because I couldn't have this conversation with just anyone, or it's a good thing we're co workers because I couldn't have this conversation with just anyone. The idea here is you are trying to lighten the mood and help people to understand that this is not a life or death conversation. Barker six recommendation is Get curious. This is the classic listening response. Genuine listening Foster's emotional connection and helps the other remain non anxious.

[00:09:25.770]
It also helps you to remain non anxious. Ask those reporter questions. Who, what, when, where and how and remember to avoid why? Because we don't easily articulate why we actually think or believe things as they used to say in dragnet. Stick to the facts, and that leads to the final recommendation, which is help them question their own thinking. This is really just an extension of getting curious. It's deep listening. It's trying to understand the person, and it's not trying to manipulate them into changing their mind.

[00:10:08.060]
Marker reminds us that therapists don't try to change people's minds. They continue to ask questions until people come to their own conclusions and perhaps decide that they might want to consider other alternatives. Again, this is not about trying to change the minds of others, but if they are going to change their minds, they're only going to do it on their own, not because we pressure them to do so. I'll say this like I always do. Effective leaders say what they believe while giving others the freedom to disagree.

[00:10:43.850]
In this case, we are giving others the freedom to disagree first, even before we say what we believe only because we are trying to manage the conflict of Wills in a way that creates healthy emotional space. If it gets to the point where you can have a conversation and you need to define yourself where you need to say what you believe, then that's great. You can do so in a non anxious way. But up until that point, it's all about creating that healthy emotional space. This is what non anxious leaders do, and that's it for Episode 144, you can connect with me at thenonanxiousleader.com

[00:11:25.560]
and you can find the show notes at thenonanxiousleader.com/144 until next time. Thanks and goodbye.