[00:00:34.350]
Welcome to episode 166 of The Nonanxious Leader Podcast. I am on the road this week, so the sound quality is going to be a little bit different, but it should be good enough. And I believe that sometimes perfect is the enemy of done, and I would rather get a new episode out than rebroadcast one. In today's episode, I'm going to break down a case study from Edwin Friedman's generation to generation family process in Church and synagogue, and I find it helpful to go through these case studies and annotate. So I will do a part of the case study. Then I'll stop and try to break down what the principles that are going on, the concepts that are being applied, and presumably these case studies from generation to generation come from actual situations. I believe they've been compressed a bit for the purposes of putting in a book, but I do understand that these are real life situations. I'm guessing that Ed Friedman himself was the therapist or the counselor in these cases, but I'm not sure of that. In any case, the concepts and the principles that are demonstrated are powerful and they give you a real life application of how they work.

[00:01:49.570]
And in this case, I believe paradox and playfulness are front and center here in this particular case study. So without further Ado, here is episode 166 Paradox and Playfulness a Case Study.

[00:02:08.470]
This case study comes from pages 84 to 86 of generation to generation and is called divorced but Not Separated. Mr. Carpenter came in to see his Minister several years after his divorce because he was still caught up in some of the same issues that had plagued him during the marriage. Neither he nor his former wife had remarried, and most of the conflicts still revolved around the children. They were, in other words, divorced but not separated. His wife, despite a legal agreement, always found excuses to frustrate his visitation plans. She insisted that he picked the children up and dropped them off at specific times, would not let him see the children if he took them to places she disapproved of and claimed she had extra rights because she was the "custodial parent", a phrase that left him with no answer. He loved his children and did not want them to become pawns in a power struggle, so he hesitated to take her back to court.

[00:03:15.070]
His lawyer agreed and suggested that maybe the Minister who married them and still knew both of them could help conciliate things. The Minister, however, also knew how recalcitrant the wife could be and how timid the husband was. He had tried unsuccessfully when they were married to urge the husband to take firm stands with her, but he seemed to have been filleted of his backbone and went wishy washy whenever the moment of truth arrived. Remembering this, the Minister, instead of plunging in to help this poor guy deal with his bitchy former wife, all poor guys are married to bitches, of course, and vice versa. First challenged him by saying that while he had some ideas that might help, he wasn't sure Mr. Carpenter could hack it. After all, Mr. Carpenter had never been able to deal with his wife before, and therefore, rather than get involved in all that strain, maybe he should just take what he could and not rock the boat. Mr. Carpenter responded that the situation had made him lose all dignity. His son was now a teenager and he felt embarrassed that he could not be more of a man himself. Okay, I'm going to stop there now and unpack what we've heard thus far.

[00:04:27.010]
The statement that is telling here is that all poor guys are married to bitches, and of course, vice versa. What is going on here is this idea of symbiosis between a man who is adaptive, a man who is not able to selfdifferentiated, a man who is not able to take healthy stands for himself, and a woman who seems to dominate him. And what Freeman is saying here, what family systems theory would tell us is that the woman is not a bitch and therefore the man just gives in that there is a symbiosis going on here, that they play into each other and reinforce each other. The theory would predict that if Mr. Carpenter would selfdifferentiated, Mrs. Carpenter would actually get more reasonable, that when he starts to take stands with her, she will start to back off. Now the theory also would tell us that because the system homeostasis is comfortable with him being adapted, that as he starts to selfdifferentiated and take stands, she will get upset and engage in sabotage. Of course, unwittingly. But the idea here is that when a person is adaptive, that is not just because somebody else is dominating, they play into each other and the person who is being adaptive has to take responsibility for self and can't just blame the other for being dominating.

[00:05:54.310]
The other thing at work here is that the counselor, the Minister, is using paradox on Mr. Carpenter himself. Instead of just jumping in and trying to help him, he says, oh, well, I don't think you can hack it. I'm not sure you can really stand up to her. So maybe you should just cut your losses and back off here. By doing this, the Minister is forcing a choice. The Minister is forcing Mr. Carpenter to decide, how much do I really want this? Do I really want to go for this or should I just take the advice and back off and not complain? By giving Mr. Carpenter the emotional space to decide himself by pushing back paradoxically and saying, I don't think he can hack it. He actually gives Mr. Carpenter the opportunity to choose for himself, and when he does, this gives him the chance to actually change. Okay, back to the case study. The following program was outlined. First, Mr. Carpenter was not to make legal threats, but simply to define his own positions. Whether it was to disagree or to disobey, he should keep a record of any of his wife's responses that broke with the separation agreement.

[00:07:10.170]
This would build a case if he ultimately needed to go to court, but under no circumstances should he mention court and case. The real purpose of the notetaking was to keep him cool in the face of her diatribes and to let her react. With all the hysteria she could mobilize. Without defensive or aggressive feedback to sustain her behavior, a systemic change should follow. I want to stop here and point out what is going on here is the idea of avoiding a conflict of Wills. And the idea of Mr. Carpenter taking notes is not to build a case, although that is a byproduct of this, but to help him to self regulate it's, to help him to avoid just giving in to her, which is his normal go to response, or to getting reactive to getting into an argument with her because he can't take a healthy stand. The other principle at work here is the idea of chronic conditions. A chronic condition is a pattern of behavior in a system that requires feedback to be sustained. So Mrs. Carpenter's aggressive behavior is sustained over time by Mr. Carpenter's adaptive behavior and by not adapting, by taking notes so he doesn't give in but also doesn't get reactive.

[00:08:30.190]
This gives the opportunity for the system to change. Back to the case study. Mr. Carpenter never needed the evidence, although at times he was glad he had it. The first thing Mr. Carpenter was coached to do was to tell his wife straight out that he intended to take the children places she disapproved of. In the past, when he had done so, he would ask the kids not to tell her mother a conspiracy that was probably far more harmful to the children than going to court. She responded predictably by telling him that he never cared for the kids and that she was the custodial parent. In the past, that phrase had always stopped him short. He would usually respond by calling her a name, and in the escalating argument, one would walk out on the other. This time, however, he had been coached in advance for his vulnerability. Armed with a response, his own anxiety was low, and he was able to say to her, I've been thinking of that. You always say, you are the custodial parent, and I guess I never realized what a burden you bear. So I want to offer you the opportunity to get out from under it.

[00:09:36.560]
I'm prepared to take them totally off your hands. And he was never able to complete his sentence. His wife went from astounded to speechless to amazed to a verbal barrage prepared for this reaction. He did not respond anxiously with the usual counter attack. Instead, he took out a piece of paper and started making notes. He improvised further. The pencil tip broke and he had the audacity to ask her for another. What are you doing? She asked. I'm taking notes, he responded. She retorted, oh, you're going to take me to court? Well, let me tell you something. I've got a note or two myself. He replied very quietly, no, it's just that when you start telling me my fault, you speak so rapidly. I don't remember everything. I thought if I took notes I could look them over later. Again, he never got to finish. Get out, she yelled. From now on, you get the kids on the front porch. He walked out wheezed as punch, calm yet excited. Wow, there is a lot going on here. The first thing that Mr. Carpenter was coached to do was to take a non anxious, emotional stand to tell Mrs.

[00:10:47.790]
Carpenter he was going to take the children places. She disapproved of. An important point is made here that in the past he would just take the kids there and then he would tell them to not tell their mother, which Friedman says is much more damaging because what it's doing is it's triangling the kids. Because he's uncomfortable with taking a stand with Mrs. Carpenter, Mr. Carpenter puts his kids in the middle and asks them to keep a secret. And this makes it difficult for them. It makes it anxious for them because they have to keep a secret from their mother. So rather than doing that, he takes a stand with Mrs. Carpenter and gets them out of a triangle that he created. When Mr. Carpenter responds with his nonanxious stand, Mrs. Carpenter responds reactively, first by defining him, telling him he never cared for the kids, and then second by using this idea of the custodial parent that she has somehow more rights than Mr. Carpenter. In the past, Mr. Carpenter had no response for this statement about being the custodial parent, but he has been coached to respond with both paradox and playfulness. The first paradoxical statement is to take Mrs.

[00:12:03.190]
Carpenter up on her challenge and that is to say, look, if you don't want to be the custodial parent, I'll take the kids, I'll take them off your hands. And of course, this sends her into orbit. Rather than saying I have rights too, and getting into a conflict of Wills, he's saying, oh yeah, I agree with you. This must be really tough. I'll be happy to take the kids off your hands if being the custodial parent is so hard. The second part of this is Mr. Carpenter taking notes, which is a way to help himself regulate the byproduct of which is having notes in case they do need to go to court. And when Mrs. Carpenter gets predictively reactive, Mr. Carpenter responds with both playfulness and paradox. It's quite a witty line, actually. It's just that when you start telling me my faults, you speak so rapidly. I don't remember everything. I thought if I took notes I could look them over later. Clearly, Mr. Carpenter did not think this up on the spot that he was coached to do this. He probably practiced this, and I think that's a hidden element here, which is when you're trying to change behavior and use paradox and playfulness.

[00:13:12.860]
There is preparation involved, there's practice. There is thinking about what you're going to say and learning how to say it naturally. I liken it to the practice of a stand up comedian who works through their lines so that when they perform, the words come out naturally. Finally, it's important to note that the whole point of paradox and playfulness is not some kind of Jedi mind trick. It's not reverse psychology. It's not to try to trick somebody else into doing what you want them to do. The effect is on yourself. It's to self regulate it's to avoid getting into a conflict of Wills. It helps you to not argue and not agree. Back to the case study. Mr. Carpenter for the first time told the children what had happened, not in a complaining, conspiratorial way that might force them to choose sides, but rather with straight reporting and even added an excuse for their mother that put him on her side of the triangle. I guess she's a little tired today. He later reported that he had the best time of his life with the kids that day, and that his daughter, far from being sullen as usual, became friendly almost to the point of being seductive.

[00:14:27.910]
Indeed, so did his wife, after several more visits in which he managed to become bolder yet still Parry all her verbal thrusts, and after two more direct reports to his children about how they wouldn't be able to get together as planned because Mother had changed her mind, often making excuses for her guess she's not feeling well today. On the fourth week, his former wife met him at the door looking sexy, smelling great with his favorite drink mixed for him on the table and an invitation to stay awhile because the kids were still at the neighbors. Things did not always go smoothly from then on, but they never regret to where they had been, and probably as a result, within a year, both Mr. And Mrs. Carpenter had separated enough from one another so that each was able to establish a lasting relationship with someone else. One can only speculate about what would have happened to their marriage had Mr. Carpenter been able to function within it as he had outside of it. But maybe he never could have done this while they were still hitched. A self is more attractive than a no self. This simple, rather obvious idea Is crucial to coaching a member of a family in a direction towards his or her own self differentiation, Rather than on a path of adaptation to the other two more things I want to point out about this case study.

[00:15:54.940]
First, the idea that Mr. Carpenter put himself on Mrs. Carpenter's side of the triangle with the kids. In other words, it was no longer about him putting the kids in the middle, but it was actually about him making excuses for his ex-wife, for their mother. By doing this, he actually freed them up to be more themselves and he freed himself up to be himself as well. And the final point here is that a self is more attractive than a no-self. An adaptive person is a no-self Because they can never take emotional stands, they can never stand up for themselves, they can never self define in healthy ways. And while we may do this to try to get along with others, in the end, what it means is that people will likely respect us less, Whereas when we are a nonanxious presence, when we take healthy stands, People are attracted to this. And I believe that's one of the key leadership lessons in this case study. By being a nonanxious presence, by being a self, by being self differentiated, Mr. Carpenter became more attractive to his wife. Ultimately, he was able to be a self in a way that he separated from her emotionally and was able to engage in presumably a healthier relationship.

[00:17:19.180]
But the most important point for us here as leaders Is when you're able to self differentiated, when you're able to lead through self differentiation, you will actually attract people who want to work with you Because they want to be around people who are healthy. In this way, it has less to do with us and it has more to do with the concept of providing healthy emotional space for people to be themselves Even as we are being ourselves. This is what nonanxious leaders do. That's it for episode 166. My apologies again for the sound quality. And if you heard some laughing, playing boys in the background, those were my grandsons. Sorry about that. I didn't move once to try to make it better. I didn't blame them. I took responsibility for myself. Anyway, you can connect with me at thenonanxiousleader.com. You can find the show notes at thenonanxiousleader.com/166. Until next time. Thanks and goodbye.

[00:18:45.180]