[00:00:00.000]
Welcome to Episode 306 of The Non-Anxious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama. Before we get into today's episode, I have a special announcement. I've come up with a new resource. It's called a Non-Anxious Presence Workbook, Five Steps to Go Be Yourself. This is a digital workbook that comes in PDF format. You can either use the fillable spaces to type in or you can print it and handwrite your responses. But it takes you through a five-step repeatable process that will help you be yourself with the people and situations that make you most anxious just in time for the holidays. When you purchase the workbook, you not only get the PDF, but you get a free digital copy of If You Met My Family, You'd Understand, a Family Systems Primer, and Everyone Loves a Non-Anxious Presence, Calm Down, Grow Up, and Live Your Best Life.

[00:01:28.380]
Finally, you get lifetime access to the Non-Anxious Workbook community. This is a place where you can share experiences, ask questions of me and other growing non-anxious leaders. The workbook and extras are normally $15, but to celebrate this launch, I'm offering it for $9 for a limited time. So you can get it for $9 until midnight Eastern Standard Time on Friday, November 29th. I will put a link to this special offer in the show notes. If for reason you're listening to this episode and it's after the deadline, you'll still be able to get everything for $15. I think that's a bargain. And if you're not certain, I offer a lifetime money back guarantee. If for any reason you don't find this resource valuable, you can keep it all and I'll still refund all your money, no questions asked. If you have questions about the workbook, feel free to email me at jack@christian-leaders.com. And now, without further ado, here is episode 306, How to Prepare Yourself for a Hard Holiday Discussion. In the last two episodes, I focused on the divisions in our world. Today, I want to narrow that focus down to how we interact with others, especially those with whom we disagree.

[00:02:54.250]
The first thing to remember is the concept of a conflict of wills. A conflict of wills occurs in a system in which people try to convert others to their own way of thinking. If I'm able to say what I believe, then I am self-defining. If I require you to believe the same thing, I am defining you. I'm trying to convince you that I'm right and you are wrong if you disagree with me. This creates surrounding togetherness pressure, which increases anxiety. The hardest thing to do is to say what you believe while giving others the freedom to disagree. If you can do this, it can reduce the likelihood of a conflict of wills. It gives people permission to be themselves, even if that is not who you want them to be. The interesting thing about this is that the more you try to make somebody else in your own image or in an image you want, the more likely they will push back and go in the opposite direction. Edwin Friedmann has said, The hardest thing to do is to push somebody you care about in the direction you fear most. A conflict of wills can occur in a system where everybody must agree.

[00:04:03.870]
This is the epitome of surrounding togetherness pressure. It can also occur in a system where people have become polarized because certain personalities create division and people have to choose whose side they are on. Either way, when people spend their time trying to convince others to agree with them, it will not only increase anxiety, but it will keep the system stuck. People will continue to define others and to try to get them to see their way of thinking, and people will push back against that. It's a doom loop. My go-to approach to avoiding a conflict of wills is don't argue, don't agree. The key here is to stay emotionally connected without trying to define others. In many cases, you don't even have to define yourself. Here are two phrases that I think can help foster healthy discussion. I agree this is something worth discussing. Discussing. I can see this is important to me. Tell me more. These statements foster a connection without trying to define the other, which leads to what I think is the simplest way to avoid a conflict of wills, and that is just to listen. When you do this, you are showing the other that you care about them without having to define yourself.

[00:05:22.280]
If you can do nothing else, simply ask open-ended questions that continue the conversation without engaging in a conflict of wills. If you're not familiar, open-ended questions are ones that begin with who, what, where, when, and how. You'll notice that why is omitted. That's because we often have a hard time expressing why we believe or do things. When you ask why, it increases the chances that someone will either shut down or get defensive. Instead of asking, why do you do that? Or why do you believe that? You can ask something like, When does this happen? Or, When do you feel like that? Another example of an open-ended question is, What experiences are behind that? This is especially good when you are having a conversation about someone else's values and beliefs. Instead of telling them they are wrong, you are showing interest in their thinking. I want to emphasize that self-differentiation is not being stuck in your own ways. It's knowing what you believe and also being open to the possibility that you might be wrong. This creates healthy emotional space for others to express themselves without feeling the need to define them. When you do that, you can actually hear them.

[00:06:43.530]
Another good open-ended question is, how does that make you feel? Feelings are at the heart of reactivity. When you give someone a chance to express their feelings, it helps them feel heard and is likely to reduce their anxiety. Finally, One of my favorite phrases is help me understand. This expresses curiosity, empathy, and humility. You can add this to any question to deepen emotional connection and increase healthy emotional space at the same time. Using the previous example, you can say, help me understand what experiences are behind that. It's not a question per se, but it has the same effect while emphasizing your care and concern for the other. If you want to go to the next level, then use reflective listening, which works to reflect back what the other is feeling. The best approach to this is nonviolent communication, which was developed by Marshall Rosenberg. I'm not going to go too deep into this. I did a two-part episode on nonviolent communication, so I'll post a link to those in the show notes. But a quick summary is that behind every reaction is a need, and when you can identify that need, you can find common ground.

[00:08:00.050]
The process involves first observing without judgment, then identifying the feeling behind this, and then identifying the need that is driving that feeling. For example, in a hypothetical conversation using nonviolent communication, you might say, I hear that you voted for that candidate because you are worried about your job. You need to feel financially secure, and you think that he is the best person to do that. The feeling is worry, and the need is financial security You are affirming the other person's right to have those without agreeing with the way they've decided to meet them. This avoids a conflict of wills and fosters understanding. Avoiding a conflict of wills is important, but you're probably asking, what do I do if the other is pushing me to defend my beliefs? I often say that self-differentiation is the ability to self-define while staying emotionally connected. The important thing here is that you are trying to minimize the potential for a conflict of wills by not trying to define the other. Of course, depending on how emotionally dependent the other is, they may not be able to tolerate the fact that you disagree. That said, I always find it helpful to begin by saying, I may be wrong about this.

[00:09:22.460]
For example, let's say, hypothetically, that your country just had an emotionally charged election of its leader. If your candidate won, you could say, I may be wrong about this, but I'm encouraged by the outcome because... Then talk about what you believe. Or if your candidate lost, you could say, I may be wrong about this, but I'm disappointed in the outcome because... I believe it's also important to add either before or after you say this, I know we don't agree on this. That's okay with me. Our relationship is important to me, and I want to find a way for us to move forward. Remember, Remember, it's process, not content. Whatever the issue, the most important thing to do is to create enough emotional space where disagreement is accepted. Finally, I want to go back to Nonviolent Communication. I subscribe to Maryanne Van Dyke's Cup of Empathy email newsletter. I'll post a link to her website in the show notes. In this week's email, she had a great example of how Marshall Rosenberg handled a difficult situation by avoiding a conflict of wills and self-differentiating. Unfortunately, this content does not show up on her website, so I'm going to read it verbatim.

[00:10:40.410]
It happened during a routine airport security check when Marshall Rosenberg, founder of Nonviolent Communication, was carrying his guitar in a protective case. As part of the inspection, the security officer asked him to remove the guitar from its case. Marshall felt a pang of concern. He worried that the guitar, which was precious to him, could get scratched or damaged if it were exposed. Rather than complying out of fear or reacting with frustration, Marshall paused to connect with himself and then expressed his concern with nonviolent communication. He said, I'm feeling worried about my guitar getting scratched or damaged. Would it be possible to inspect it in a way that keeps it safe? This simple yet powerful statement highlighted his feelings and without aggression while inviting the officer into a collaborative conversation. The security officer paused, likely surprised by Marshall's calm and empathetic tone. After a brief discussion, they found a solution. The officer allowed Marshall to hold the guitar carefully while they inspected the case. This satisfied both Marshall's need to protect his guitar and the officer's need to conduct a thorough security check. What can we learn from this? What it comes down to when standing up for yourself is to neither comply nor rebel, and instead to see what this is really about for the other person.

[00:12:10.180]
In the story's case, safety for passengers. And what this is really about for me, safety for my guitar, and to take a pause to realize this so that there is space for a creative solution. Now, one might say that Marshall had the advantage of being a white man in this situation, and that there are people who don't respond well to our first attempt of expressing with MVC. I agree. Van Dyke's point is that our first attempt at being a non-anxious presence is not always successful. But notice how she says that the best response is neither to comply nor rebel. Don't argue, don't agree. If her response is not successful, don't give up. It just means we need to keep trying. By By the way, this email was promoting her free webinar, MVC for People Pleasers. She's doing it twice, once on November 28th and once on November 29th, respectively to reach people around the world. I'll put a link to the registration in the show notes in case you are listening to this episode in time to actually see her webinar. I don't get a commission on this, but just wanted to share. I'm signed up myself.

[00:13:25.380]
Anyway, going back to the Rosenberg story, here's an example you might use in a hard holiday conversation. I'm feeling happy about the outcome. It makes me feel more secure about my future. I know you don't agree, but would you be willing to give me space for my hope? Or, I'm feeling disappointed with the outcome, and it's affecting my need to feel secure about my future. Would you be willing to give me space to work through that? Finally, if things really go south, you can say, I'm feeling frustrated about our conversation. I'm afraid this This disagreement is going to damage our relationship, and I have a need for us to maintain our closeness. Can we agree not to let it come between us? That might mean agreeing not to discuss it. That's not ideal, but it's better than getting stuck in a conflict of wills. I want to say, use these phrases in a way that feels most natural to you. If you're using the nonviolent communication approach, you don't have to use the words feeling and need If it feels unnatural. Going back to that last statement, you can say, I'm feeling frustrated about our conversation.

[00:14:10.970]
I'm afraid this disagreement is going to damage our relationship, and I have a need for us to maintain our closeness. Can we agree not to let it come between us? That might mean agreeing not to discuss it. That's not ideal, but it's better rather than getting stuck in a conflict of wills. I want to say, use these phrases in a way that feels most natural to you. If you're using the nonviolent communication approach, you don't have to use the words feeling and need if it feels unnatural. Going back to that last statement, you can say, I'm feeling frustrated about our conversation. I'm afraid this disagreement is going to damage our relationship, and I want us to maintain our closeness. Can we agree not to let it between us. The need to maintain closeness is implied, even if it's not said. And remember, it's process, not content. Whatever the source of tension and anxiety, the important thing is to foster foster honest conversation. Not everyone is going to be able to do this, but it's worth the effort. And as I said last week, we have to do better. That's it for episode 306. You can contact me at jack@christian-leaders.com. You can get more resources at thenonanxiousleader.com and sign up for my email newsletter, Two for Tuesday, either at the website or at the link in the show notes. Remember, you can get a non-anxious presence workbook, Five Steps to Go Be Yourself for only $9 until midnight Eastern Standard Time on Friday, November 29th. Finally, I'm going to change my sign off. Until next time, go be yourself.