[00:00:34.490]
Welcome to episode 385 of The Non-Anxious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama. If you are new to this podcast, you can connect with me at jack@christian-leaders.com with your questions, comments, and suggestions for future episodes. And you can get more resources at thenonanxiousleader.com where you can find out about the books that I've written, my coaching practice, speaking engagements, and the courses that I offer. You can also subscribe to my Two for Tuesday email newsletter and get your free AI family systems coach at the website or at the links in the show notes. Finally, if you would like to support my work for as little as $5 a month, you can get more information and sign up at the link in the show notes. Thanks in advance for your consideration. And now, without further ado, here is Episode 385: Understanding Symmetry Can Help You Lead as a Non-Anxious Presence, Part 2 of 2. If you haven't listened to Part 1 of this episode, I encourage you to do that first. This episode will be hard to understand without that. Edwin Friedman described the concept of symmetry as a basic characteristic of any relationship system. In emotional process, symmetry can be thought of in two ways.

[00:01:57.960]
First, the same quote unquote cause can lead to opposite extremes. I put that in quotes because in systems theory, we tend not to look for causal or linear explanations. We want to look at systemic explanations, but it is helpful to think in terms of this quote unquote cause. So the same cause can lead to opposite extremes. An example that I unpacked last week was that parental investment can promote overachievement or underachievement. And while that may seem like cause and effect, the real systems work is what is behind this parental investment, whether it be overachievement or underachievement. The other way symmetry shows up is that the same effect can come from opposite causes. For example, Lack of change can be a byproduct of polarization or of too much togetherness. At the one extreme is polarization, where people take sides. You're either with us or against us. The conflict of wills keeps the system stuck. At the other extreme is togetherness, where everyone has to agree. Here's the important point: in this second extreme, where surrounding togetherness pressure rules, the same dynamic occurs: you're either with us or against us. The key to applying the principle of symmetry is looking for extremes.

[00:03:23.860]
In Generation to Generation, Friedman notes 5 important points about symmetry in a single paragraph. He writes, "To the extent both of the opposite extremes of any emotional category are present in a family simultaneously, the following is predictable." 1. It is an uptight area in that family. 2. The extremes in some way add up to zero, that is, they are complementary and in some way maintain one another. 3. Both extremes probably come from a similar source. 4. To the extent that any movement for change goes from one extreme to the other, it is transformation rather than change. In change, some thing, remains the same. 5. If only one of the extremes is obviously present, in that any family member tends to function at either extreme of an emotional category, other family members probably have difficulty functioning in the same category. Otherwise, the extreme behavior of the symptomatic member could not have become or remained chronic". This is why I say that Friedman's writing is dense. He packs so much into a few words that it takes years to understand. My calling is to make it understandable and accessible. So the rest of this episode is about unpacking this single paragraph for you.

[00:04:55.630]
First, Friedman says that when both of the opposite extremes in an emotional category are simultaneously present, you can predict that this is an uptight, area of the family. Rigidity and chaos, distance and pursuit, overfunctioning and underfunctioning are all signs of chronic tension in that part of the system. The extremes are symptoms of the same underlying anxiety. This makes the system tight around that issue. People have less flexibility, less access to their best thinking, and more automatic reactivity. Second, he says that somehow the extremes are complementary in the way that they maintain each other. Opposites in a system are not actually opposites. They are interlocking positions that stabilize the emotional field. One person's overfunctioning requires someone else's underfunctioning. One person's cutoff requires someone else's pursuit. The behaviors cancel each other out in the sense that they keep the system in its familiar balance. Nothing changes because the pattern is self-reinforcing. The system is stuck. Third, it's likely that both extremes come from a similar source. That is, they arise from the same emotional process, usually chronic anxiety, low differentiation, and/or multi-generational patterns. The system produces both sides of the polarity. The content looks different, but the emotional process is the same.

[00:06:30.730]
Fourth, if only one extreme is present, the other is likely around somewhere. When an extreme shows up clearly in one person, the system is carrying its opposite somewhere else. Extremes come in pairs. They stabilize each other. A chronic extreme can only persist because the system is organized around it with someone else holding the counterposition that keeps the pattern going. For example, if a teenager is wildly chaotic—missing assignments, losing things, emotionally volatile—there is someone else in the system who is rigid, over-responsible, and/or hyper-organized. The chaos and the rigidity are two sides of the same emotional process, and the chaos cannot persist unless the rigidity is also present. Finally, Friedman says that when things change from one extreme to the other, it is not change, Friedman calls this instead transformation, and I got confused by this at first because I think of transformation as true change, but in this context, it's the opposite. It's changing the form and not the function, so it's not true change. According to Friedman, when there is true change, some things stays the same. In real change, the difference is how a person manages their reactivity. Going back to our example, if there is a rigid parent, they might say to their chaotic teenager, "I'm done.

[00:07:57.930]
You're on your own. I'm not getting involved anymore." On the surface, this looks like change, but the parent is still reacting to the teenager's reactivity. They're swinging to the other extreme. The anxiety is unchanged and the emotional process remains the same. The parent just moved from control to allowing chaos. In emotional process terms, they went from being too emotionally connected to not connected enough. If there were real change, the parent might say, "I'm going to stay involved, but I'm going to be more thoughtful about what I take responsibility for and what I expect you to handle. I'm also going to set some boundaries around what I allow and what you can decide on your own." They still have a desire to control, That's what stays the same, but they are learning to express it in a healthy way while also giving the teenager a chance to be a self. They are managing their own reactivity so they can self-define and stay emotionally connected. So what does this mean for leadership? In congregations or organizations, you will also see the same pattern: people or teams operating at opposite extremes. Doing too much and doing too little, managing everything and managing nothing, holding too tightly and letting everything go.

[00:09:18.700]
These extremes are not independent behaviors. They are interlocking positions created by the same underlying anxiety in the system. When both poles show up at once, it tells you the organization is tight around that issue. People have less flexibility. Less access to their best thinking, and more reactivity. If only one extreme is visible—say, one person is chronically overfunctioning—the opposite pole is still present somewhere in the system. Someone else is underfunctioning, avoiding responsibility, or staying passive. The visible extreme can only persist because the system is organized around it. In either case, the extremes cancel each other out and keep the system in familiar balance. Things might be comfortable or uncomfortable, but either way, change will be difficult because the system is stuck. This is why it's important not to mistake polarity flips for real change. When a leader swings from micromanaging to hands-off, or a team swings from avoidance to overcommunication, the emotional process is unchanged. The form has shifted, but the function is the same. Real change in leadership requires something in the emotional process to stay steady. That is, it requires someone to be a non-anxious presence. You, as a leader, can remain connected, responsible for self, and thoughtful about your own functioning even as you change how you function.

[00:10:51.630]
Instead of moving to the opposite extreme, you take a more defined position in the middle of the emotional field. In practice, this means staying connected rather than distancing, clarifying your own responsibilities rather than telling others how to manage theirs, lowering your reactivity rather than shifting to an opposite extreme, and making decisions based on your goals and values rather than surrounding togetherness pressure. When you can maintain a non-anxious presence, when you can hold a steady position in an anxious system, it creates the conditions for others to move out of their extremes. The system is less polarized because someone is functioning with more self-differentiation. This is how understanding symmetry can help you lead as a non-anxious presence. That's it for episode 385. Remember, you can connect with me at jack@christian-leaders.com, and you can find more resources at thenonanxiousleader.com. And if you found this episode helpful, please share it with someone who would benefit, and please leave a review on your podcast platform of choice. Thanks in advance for your help. Until next time, go be yourself.

[00:12:10.760]