[00:00:34.110]
Welcome to episode 169 of the nonanxious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama. I'm going to get right into today's episode and I'm going to cover two concepts, the leverage of the dependent and a conflict of Wills. Each of these I cover. Also, in episode 98, I'll post a link in the show notes where I talk about using paradox and playfulness to deal with these situations. So you might want to go back to that after this episode. But in this episode I want to dig deeper into what these two concepts are and what they mean for leadership. According to the American Psychological Association, emotional dependence is the reliance on others for emotional support, comfort, and nurturance. This is normal for human beings. However, there's a point when that dependence becomes so strong that it causes problems. In family systems theory, when we talk about dependent people, we're talking about those who can't take responsibility for self. They are not independent, nor even interdependent in generation to generation family process. In Church and synagogue, Edwin Friedman writes, quote, A husband who was once asked, Why do the dependent on any system seem to be in charge? Answered, Because they have more investment in relationships.

[00:01:59.270]
They are thus always ahead of the leader. In this respect, the dependent need other people to help them meet their emotional needs and so they invest strongly in relationships. This is often through creating surrounding togetherness pressure so that others will bend to their will to meet their needs. This highlights the tension that I often point out between individuality and togetherness between self definition and emotional connection. Dependent people are all about connection and togetherness. In fact, they often find it difficult to self define blaming others for their own condition and playing the victim. This puts people, especially leaders, who are in relationship with dependent people in a difficult position. If they are adaptive and give in to the needs of the dependent, then they will be stuck. They will give in to surrounding togetherness pressure, pressure favor the side of connection and will often give up their own goals and needs to be able to take care of the dependent. On the other hand, trying to convince the dependent that they are wrong or that they need to change or that they need to agree with the leader puts the leader in the position of being in a conflict of Wills.

[00:03:19.410]
A conflict of Wills is characterized by one person trying to convince another to convert to their way of seeing things and the other person resisting. It ends up being a position of stuckness as well. In these situations, the dependent will likely never give in. They will come up with excuses. They will be passive aggressive or blaming and refuse to take responsibility for self. So whether the leader is adapting and pleasing the dependent or the leader is trying to convince them and is stuck in a conflict of Wills, the leader is stuck and the dependent have the leverage. That's what Friedman means when he talks about the leverage of the dependent. It's helpful to look at the triangle involved when in relationship with dependent people, there is the leader, the dependent one, and the dependent one's own issues. It is almost always the case that these are unresolved issues somewhere else, typically in the family of origin and the dependent one is focused on. The leader is triangling the leader to avoid the discomfort, to avoid taking responsibility for the unresolved issues. This results in the dependent making demands of the leader and the leader being stuck either through adaptivity, by pleasing the dependent, or through reactivity engaging in a conflict of Wills.

[00:04:57.370]
Self differentiation shifts the nature of the triangling. By self defining and remaining emotionally connected, the leader remains focused on where they're headed and not trying to meet the needs of the dependent or trying to convince them to follow. This shifts the focus from the dependent to the leader. The energy shifts from the leader trying to meet the needs of the dependent or trying to convert them over to their position. The effects of the dependency are reversed. The leader now becomes the resistant one because they are focused on where they are headed and the dependent are now trying to change them. The leader is no longer worried about having to please others or change others, but only needs to know how to resist the efforts of the dependent to change them back. This will typically result in a downward spiral where the dependent will get more reactive and will unwittingly try to sabotage the leader. But if the leader can remain a nonanxious presence, that is, to self regulate their own anxiety, to not give in to the dependent, to remain self defined, and to remain emotionally connected, then the dependent are faced with a choice. The one choice is to stay connected to the leader and most people want a leader, especially the dependent, to follow and take responsibility for self or the other choice is to disconnect altogether, that is, to cut off emotionally.

[00:06:34.930]
From a leadership standpoint, either one is okay. This is about giving the dependent the choice to either follow or to go. If they follow, they have to find a way to take care of their own needs because the leader will no longer do it for them. In cases where they are only mildly dependent and they're being challenged to take responsibility for self, they're given the opportunity to grow as differentiated persons. If the dependent one cuts off because they can't take responsibility for self, they will do so and blame the leader. This is where it's important for the leader not to pursue the dependent one. Stay connected, show you care, but don't try to convince the leader that they need to follow or that they even need to re engage with the system. That will only create a conflict of Wills. Give them the choice to stay disconnected, but let them know you care. As Friedman puts it in Generation to Generation, "To the extent a leader can contain his or her own reactiveness to the reactivity of others, principally by focusing on self functioning rather than by trying to change the functioning of others, intensity tends to wane and polarization.

[00:07:53.180]
Or a cut off that, like a Tango, always takes two is less likely to beat the result." When you focus on your own functioning as a leader, you are not being selfish. What you're doing is you are focusing on remaining a nonanxious presence. And this is not only healthy for you, but it's healthy for those that you lead. It's healthy for the entire system. An important point to note here is that the leader does not surrender their will to the dependent ones in the system, nor does the leader try to exert their will on the dependent in the system. But instead the leader focuses on self-definition and emotional connection. The leader remains focused on where they are headed, where they believe God is leading them to take the system and gives people the choice gives people the choice to follow. Unless you are giving people the choice to follow, you are not truly leading through self differentiation. But what we know about leadership through self-differentiation is that a person who is being a self while allowing others to be themselves actually is attractive. They actually have this kind of magnetism to them because people do want to follow.

[00:09:14.550]
That because people are given the choice, they are given the freedom to disagree. They are given the freedom to decide for themselves. The kind of choice is important because followers are challenged to define themselves. They're challenged to decide, Will I stay or will I go? Will I follow or will I do something else? But when they are free of emotional coercion by the leader, they are actually more likely to grow and take more responsibility for self. So instead of having people who follow as clones, you as a leader can have people who follow as self differentiated, people as people who can make decisions for themselves. This creates a stronger system and a stronger Ministry. When I have worked with coaching clients, I have seen this happen in two ways. One, the dependent actually grow in self differentiation. They start to take responsibility for self because they're given the choice to either follow or leave and then choosing to follow. They learn to self define while remaining emotionally connected. And the emotional connection part comes naturally. It's the selfdefinition part that's hard. That's where the growth occurs. The second way I've seen systems strengthened is when those people who are mildly selfdifferentiated but who are sitting on the sidelines see that the dependent are no longer exerting as much influence.

[00:10:40.290]
They start to self define. They start to selfdifferentiated for themselves, they start to take positions and stands in the system. This often means that they will follow but it also means that they will willingly stand up and say this is what I believe and sometimes it may not agree with what the leader thinks but they'll do it in a healthy way and that makes the system stronger because the leader will hear things that they may need to hear as a leader. You don't want a system of clones. You want a system of people who are able to think for themselves and express it in healthy ways. If you have that and stay focused on your mission you will lead positive change. That's it for episode 169. You can connect with me at nonanxious leader.com and you can find the show notes at nonanxious leader.com. One, six, nine. Until next time, thanks and goodbye.

[00:12:06.240]