[00:00:01.570]
Welcome to Episode 230 of the Non Anxious Leader podcast. I'm Jack Shitama. We're going to get right into today's episode. I'm going to start with a quote from Warren Buffett, who is probably considered one of the most successful investors of all time and one of the wealthiest persons in the world and he's actually made a pack to give away most of his wealth before he dies. Buffett has famously said, "The difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything." Steve jobs, the founder of Apple, put it this way. "People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on, but that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I'm actually as proud of the things we haven't done as the things I have done.

[00:01:30.700]
Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things." The point for me with these quotes is that people who make an impact are able to focus on their most important priorities. They're able to do the things that are important but not urgent, and that requires being able to say no to many things. The question is, as a non anxious leader, how do you say no? The idea for this episode came from an email I received from Mary Ann Van Dyke. She has the website Cup of Empathy, and I can't give you a link directly to this particular musing, but I can give you a link to her website. Van Dyke is a proponent of nonviolent communication, which was developed by Marshall Rosenberg, also known as compassionate communication. The idea behind nonviolent communication or NVC is that people are often driven by their unmet needs, especially the deeper unmet needs. Nvc enables you to learn how to listen for those needs and to ask helpful questions as a non anxious presence to help discover what those needs might be. Doing this enables you to be more compassionate for the other and at the same time helps you to show them that you are staying connected, that you are trying to understand what is making them tick.

[00:02:59.680]
And on the other side of that, NBC teaches us how to actually make requests so that we are able to express what our needs are and Rosenberg has famously said that you don't really know if you've truly made a request until you hear a no. If you get reactive when somebody says no to your request, then actually it is a demand, not a request. This is the essence of self differentiation right? It's being able to self define and at the same time not asking others, not demanding others to meet your own needs. It's about taking responsibility for self. So, taking responsibility for self is asking, making a request, but if somebody else is not able to do it, you don't get upset at them. The subject of Van Dyke's email was, saying no while keeping the connection. Simple formula. This immediately caught my eye because it recognizes the tension in self differentiation, which has two components, self definition and emotional connection. Saying no is the self definition part. It's being able to know what's important to you, being able to know your own goals and values, and being able to say no if something is not consistent with that.

[00:04:18.730]
The hard part is being able to do it in a non anxious way in which we show that we still care about the other, in which we show that we want to maintain our emotional connection. It's easy to say no and then cut off emotionally, but that's not going to be helpful. It's going to increase our own anxiety and the anxiety of others. So, there is this tension in self differentiation, balancing self definition and emotional connection, being able to say what's important to us, being able to make requests, but at the same time, showing that we care for the other and showing that we are connected emotionally to the other. When we say yes to the request of another, when we really don't want to, when we are adapting, when we are giving in, that is surrounding togetherness pressure. That is our desire for emotional connection, which is so strong that we aren't able to self define. So the question is, how can we say no and maintain a non anxious presence? Van Dyck truly does have a simple formula, and here's what it is. It is, I would prefer to do X because I have a need for Z.

[00:05:36.080]
And notice immediately that what she is doing is instead of saying no, she's actually flipping it around and saying, this is what I would like to do. Instead of rejecting the other, you are claiming your own goals and values. You are self defining. You reinforce this sense of self definition when you put it in terms of a need, when you actually say this is a need that I have and this is why I prefer to do something else. One example of Van Dyke gives is if a friend says, Can I stay over at your place? She would respond, I prefer to sleep by myself because I have a need for deep rest and I don't manage to do that with someone else in the room. I'm going to guess that for most of us, an answer like that doesn't just roll off the tongue. We're not going to be able to say that without thinking through exactly what our needs are and what do we actually want in this situation. That's why self regulation and the ability to pause and to think clearly is so important when in many situations like this, we just don't think and we feel under pressure and so we just say, Okay, sure.

[00:06:50.690]
This is where I believe reflection is so important because let's say this does happen and you give in. You just say, Okay, sure, because you don't want to say no, and then you say to yourself, I wish I would have said no. Being able to reflect on that and say, Why don't I want my friend to sleep over? Well, I want to get a good night's sleep. I want to have some peace and quiet, and so I'm going to think about how I'm going to phrase it the next time. Another example Van Dyke gives is when somebody says, Here, have some cookies. Her response would be, I prefer to eat sugar free things at the moment because I want to care for my health. She notes that instead of saying, I need to care for my health, she says, I want to care for my health, which sounds a bit more natural. In strict nonviolent communication terms, that's not expressing a need, but in family systems terms, it is still self defining. I've seen another technique that people will use, which is to say, I don't, as opposed to I can't. And there's research that documents that when people say, I can't, they are giving up their sense of agency.

[00:07:57.630]
They're feeling helpless and they're less likely to remain disciplined. But when they say, I don't, they set a bright line, a rule that I don't do these things. You could also have a response like that, which is, I don't eat things with sugar. I think either can work, but my personal preference goes towards Van Dyke's response, which is more positive. This is what I want to do. This is my preference as opposed to I don't do this. Finally, Van Dyke says that sometimes it's difficult to know what your needs are on the spot and I get this completely. I think when we are under pressure, it's hard to think clearly. She says that especially if you're close to somebody, just give it a try. Just try to take a stab at your needs and then say, Now, let me check. Let me think about that. The example she gives as a response is, I think it's about a need for dignity. Let me check. Yeah, I think that might be it. I do believe this type of response takes some practice because it takes being in touch with your needs and then being able to express them.

[00:09:06.620]
If you are good at doing that, then it's going to be easier to respond in this way. If not, perhaps another way to respond is to just say, I need some time to think about it, or as Van Dyck says, just say no in whatever way it comes out and then tweak your response to focus on connection and your needs. This reminds me of a saying that Bill Selby, the founder of the Center for Pastoral Effectiveness in the Rockies has coined which is, A sentence never ends with a period, it always ends with a comma. It's a reminder that we can always go back and revisit the conversation. Even when we say things that we regret, even when we say things that don't clearly articulate what we need, what we want, what our goals and values are, we can go back and we can explain further and go deeper so the other understands who we really are and what we're about so as to reinforce emotional connection. Saying no in a non anxious way is like everything else in family systems theory. It's easy to understand. It's hard to put into practice. The only way we put it into practice is by trying, which means sometimes making mistakes and then figuring out how we want to do it better the next time through self awareness, reflection, and intentionality.

[00:10:28.190]
And there's also the idea that we can prepare for situations. There are going to be situations where we know that we want to say no going in, and so then we can prepare ourselves. We can actually think about how we want to say it in a positive way. I prefer X because I need Z, or I prefer X because I want Z. In those situations where you know you are going to want to say no, being prepared is going to give you a much better chance to do it in a non anxious way. You won't always be able to do it, but you'll do it more often than if you just go in without any preparation. Remember, the whole point of this is so that you can focus on the things that are most important to you that you are not going to succumb to surrounding togetherness pressure and just say yes to every request, every demand that is made of you, but instead that you are able to create healthy boundaries in a way that enables you to be a non anxious leader. That's it for Episode 230. You can email me at jack@christian-leaders.com. You can find more resources at thenonanxiousleader.com. And if you found this episode helpful, please share it with somebody that you think might benefit as well. I would really appreciate it. Until next time, thanks and goodbye.