[00:00:00.000]
Welcome to Episode 241 of the Non-Anxious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama, author, teacher, speaker, and coach. I focus on your spiritual, emotional, and physical wellbeing to help you be the best leader possible. Each episode explores research and practical tips so you can be a non-anxious presence personally and professionally. And now, here's the show. Welcome to Episode 241 of the Non-Anxious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama. Today's episode comes from a substack article by Kathleen Smith, The Space Between Changing Each Other. Smith writes, quote, "most of the time, if we are not paying attention, we are changing other people or letting them change us. And I would call this the give and take of self differentiation." Smith notes that this is not dysfunctional. This is who we are as human beings. It involves surrounding togetherness pressure or relationship pressure, as Smith calls it. And that type of pressure is primal. It became essential to helping us survive as a species when human civilizations began forming around 6,000 years ago. It is that surrounding togetherness pressure that kept communities stable.

[00:01:31.390]
And in fact, if one were outcast from the community, that was essentially a death sentence. So you might say that emotional connection is built into our DNA, that we need that connection. We need to feel valued and a part of something. But at the same time, we also need to be an individual. We need to be able to self-define. The challenge that Smith notes is that sometimes we are pressuring others to change and other time people are pressuring us to change. Most times one person is adjusting to keep things calm. In healthy relationships, the adjusting can vary depending on stress levels and the importance of what is going on to one or the other. That is the give and take. On the other hand, in stuck relationships, the adjusting typically is always one way. It is always one person who is calling the shots, who is defining themselves and the other and the other who is adapting and giving in. It's important to note that it's okay to adjust. It's okay to give in if you are taking responsibility for self and owning it, if you are choosing to do it and not getting resentful.

[00:02:47.230]
My wife and I have learned to ask somebody if they will do something, not if they want to do something. For example, she likes to garden, and most of the time she does things herself, but sometimes she'll need help with it. And instead of asking me if I want to do it, if I want to help her, because the answer is really, hell, not really. I don't really want to help her, she will say, Will you help me in the garden? I will do it because I know it's important to her, not because I want to, but because I want to help her out. In the same way when we are driving, I will often say, Will you listen to a podcast? I know that she doesn't like podcasts. I know that she doesn't want to, but she will listen to them through the speakers rather than me just putting headphones in and shutting her out. That's the give and take of self-differentiation. Smith notes several unhealthy ways that we respond to this give and take. One is when we are trying to change another. If surrounding togetherness pressure doesn't work, then we sometimes over function.

[00:03:55.440]
In other words, if we have not been able to get somebody to do something through the own pressure that we create, whether that's guilty or acting a certain way, if we get fed up, then we may just jump in and do it ourselves. Of course, the result of that is usually that the other person becomes resentful and less capable of changing in the way that we want. Another unhealthy response that Smith notes is, when two people are both trying to change the other, then a conflict of wills occurs. As you've likely heard me on this podcast, a conflict of wills is a recipe for getting stuck. The more you try to change somebody else's mind, the more you try to get them to agree with you or to do what you want, the more likely they will resist and push back and entrench their own position. Another healthy way that Smith notes that we respond to this natural give and take in relationship systems is that when we're feeling surrounding togetherness pressure and we are unwilling to conform, then we distance ourselves emotionally. If self differentiation is the ability to self-define while staying emotionally connected, then this, of course, is not differentiation.

[00:05:09.840]
It may be self defining, but it is not staying emotionally connected. One thing we can predict from this is that when there is too much emotional space in a relationship, the anxiety levels will increase and that is not helpful. Smith notes several situations where we may feel this give and take, where we are not able to either self-define or stay emotionally connected in a healthy way. One is when you don't want to tell your partner how to do everything, but you also don't want to take on all the responsibility for whatever it is, whether it's the relationship or managing the house or raising children. Another is when you don't want to do your kid's homework, but you wonder what will happen if you give up. A third is you don't want to teach your partner to be more romantic, but you are not happy with the way things are. A fourth is you don't want to be the one to do everything in a messy organization, but you also can't stand the chaos. You don't want to go along with the chaos. A final example that Smith gives is that you don't want your boss emailing you after 8:00 PM, but you don't want to not answer.

[00:06:25.070]
You wonder what will happen if you don't answer. These are all part of the natural give and take and self-differentiation. You know that you can't change the other, but you're also having difficulty taking responsibility for self. You're having difficulty figuring out how to change the way you function. If you're like most of us, you are struggling to manage this give and take. You're struggling to manage how to find the sweet spot between self-definition and emotional connection. So the question is, what can you do? Smith writes, quote, Making decisions that come from one's best thinking, not relationship pressure, is no easy thing. But this is how we build relationships where neither person greatly eclipses the other. When one or both are thinking, not simply reacting to relationship pressure, there is usually more flexibility in the relationship. There is more freedom to be oneself and to be responsible to one's relationships. As I've said many times, this is where self-regulation becomes so important. Being able to regulate your automatic responses and get out of your primitive brain so that you can get to your thinking brain, so you can think about what your own goals and values are, which is self defining as well as how you can express it in a healthy way, that is how you can stay emotionally connected.

[00:07:54.870]
Stephen Covey calls this integrity in the moment of choice. Integrity is living, acting out your own values, and being able to do that in the moment of choice is what it means to self differentiate. And Covey said that the best way to do this is to increase the gap between stimulus and response. That is self-regulation. Smith gives six examples of what it would look like to find that sweet spot, to find the space between trying to change others and letting others change you. The first is working to change your part in the system rather than trying to change the whole system. So, for example, when she talks about being in a messy organization and not wanting to do everything, but not being able to tolerate the chaos, a healthy response might be to increase your own pain tolerance for the chaos so that you are better able to function and take responsibility for self, even when you're not able to take responsibility for everyone else. Another way that Smith suggests finding the sweet spot between trying to change others and letting others change you is to pay attention to the patterns that you use when you are faced with surrounding togetherness pressure.

[00:09:16.390]
For example, is your go-to response to triangle somebody else? Or is it to distance emotionally from the situation? Or is it to just give in to adapt? Just knowing what your go-to, what your automatic response is will help you to regulate it better. Another suggestion from Smith is to let others know what they can expect from you. This is what self-differentiation is. It's about self defining in a healthy way. For example, in the situation where you don't want your boss to email you after 8:00 PM, then you can set an expectation. Smith's suggestion is to say, I'm not going to answer emails after 6:00 PM, which reminded me of somebody I know who has an email footer that reads, This is verbatim. Please be advised that my staff and I read and respond to all emails during the hours between 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. Of course, this person is the principal in the firm. This person is the boss, and is being a non-anxious leader is setting healthy expectations. But going back to Smith's example about what if your boss is emailing you after 8:00 PM? How do you respond to that? How do you set a healthy expectation?

[00:10:35.330]
One suggestion I would have is to say, I'm not going to answer emails after 06:00 PM. So if it is important, please call or text me. That latter part is showing emotional connection. It shows that you care about the relationship system, about your work system, but at the same time, you're trying to set a healthy boundary. Another of Smith's suggestions is to let others know how you're going to respond when they behave badly. This is about setting boundaries. If you're not going to do your kids' homework for them, you can tell them your homework must be done before you can watch TV or play video games. If they throw a tantrum, then you can let them know that if they do that, they're going to have to go to their room. Of course, if they have a TV in their room and they can play video games there, then you don't want to do that. So you might say, well, if you're going to throw a tantrum, I'm going to take your phone away. Then when the moment of truth comes, it's important to be able to stick with those boundaries as a non-anxious presence, to be able to say, I love you, I care about you, and that's why I'm doing this.

[00:11:43.340]
The important thing to remember about this is that you're likely to screw it up multiple times, that you're going to yell and scream, or you're not going to reinforce the boundary, but try to stick with it over time. If you can keep those boundaries while remaining a non-anxious presence, then it is possible that the child will start to experience the consequence of their own actions and perhaps will change how they function. They may not, but all you can do is change how you function. The fifth suggestion that Smith makes is to define your thinking while making space for others to have their own. As you've heard me say before, say what you believe while giving others the freedom to disagree. Going back to Smith's example where you want your partner to be more romantic, you can say, I'm feeling the need for more emotional intimacy. I know that's not who you are, but I want you to know that that's what I'm feeling. This is expressing your own need without telling the other how they should respond. And the final suggestion that Smith makes is to be curious about what other people are thinking in terms of the challenges in the relationship system, whether that be a family, an organization, or a congregation.

[00:13:02.080]
If you don't want to tell your partner how to do things and you don't want to take responsibility for everything, you can get curious. You can say, I'm feeling overwhelmed with all our responsibilities around the house. What about you? What are your challenges? This opens up the possibility of having a conversation about what each of you wants out of the situation. That gives you a better chance of finding that space between you trying to change the other and you giving in to the other. Smith closes her article by writing, quote, When we take a little bit of the pressure off of our relationships, everyone benefits. Our feelings and functioning become less dependent on people responding to us in a certain way. And we can enjoy our relationships more because there is a little more freedom to be ourselves. End quote. To me, this is what it means to create healthy emotional space. This means taking responsibility for self without trying to define others. And when she talks about not being dependent on how people respond, it reminds me of Marshall Rosenberg's definition of a request in nonviolent communication. We know something is a request by how we respond when we get a no.

[00:14:23.270]
If we can respond in healthy ways, then it is a request. But if not, then it is likely a demand. I'm really grateful for the work that Kathleen Smith is doing to help us to understand family systems theory and how we can apply it to our lives. And I'm hoping that you find me unpacking her work helpful to you so that you can be a non-anxious presence in your family, in your congregation, in your organization. That's it for episode 241. I hope you have found it helpful. And if you have, would you please share it with somebody else who might benefit. Also, I love hearing from you. There were people who responded to last week's episode. You can email me at jack@christian-leaders.com. And if you are not on my email list where you get my two-for-Tuesday email, there's a link in the show notes to subscribe, or you can also subscribe at thenonanxiousleader.com. Until next time, thanks and goodbye.