The idea for this episode comes from a Kathleen Smith substack post, Togetherness, individuality, and the downside of being a pommel horse guy. I'll post a link in the show notes.
The pommel horse guy she's referring to is Stephen Nedoroscik, a member of this year's US Men's Gymnastic Team. Nedoroscik is a specialist, and his place on the team was not without controversy, because the pommel horse is only one of six events in men's gymnastics.
Typically, high-level gymnasts are expected to compete in multiple events, making his selection a risky move for the team. Fans and experts questioned the decision, fearing that relying on a specialist could backfire if he made a mistake or if other team members got injured. However, the selection committee used a data-backed algorithm that consistently showed that the US would score higher in team competition with Nedoroscik on the team than if not. This proved to be correct, as his performance on helped them secure a bronze medal, their first team medal since 2008.
Smith's reference has to do with her tendency to distance in her family. As she writes, "Few things fascinate me more than togetherness. I will consume any content about cults, internet fandom, MLMs, Greek life, political movements, or religious revivals.
The irony is that I absolutely love to go it alone. I’m more comfortable being a specialist like pommel horse guy, helicoptered in to help a family or organization, than being a member of a team. I still have nightmares about group projects in high school."
Smith is highlighting the constant tension between togetherness and individuality in any relationship system. Another way to describe this is the tension between self-definition and emotional connection.
A non-anxious presence is able to hold this tension by knowing when and how to express their own beliefs, goals, values and needs in healthy ways, while staying emotionally connected with others in the system.
A non-anxious, non-presence, is able to self-define, but is not emotionally present. As Smith often points out, this is one way to manage anxiety and appears to be her go-to when she says she likes to be the pommel horse guy.
This is also my go-to. It's easier to be non-anxious when you stay out of the fray of the relationship system. Over time, I've realized that the price I pay for this is the lack of meaningful relationship because I'm not really connected to others. A major result of doing my own work is trying to be conscious when I'm disconnecting and then making myself move closer to others, even when, especially when it feels uncomfortable.
On the other hand, an anxious presence is someone who is so emotionally connected that they are unable to self-define appropriately. They either allow surrounding togetherness pressure to define them, that is, they are adaptive; or they self-define in unhealthy ways such as getting defensive and/or aggressive, that is they get reactive.
The major task here is to be able to self-regulate the automatic reaction, whether it's to give in or fight back, and then think clearly about what it means to express one's self in a healthy and helpful way.
I love the way Smith expresses describes this. She talks about the Immature I and the Immature We. She writes:
The “immature I” might look like:
“This organization, family, etc. is a mess. I want nothing to do with this.”
The “immature we” might look like:
“We need you to get on board with this or else.”
The immature I is disconnecting, but as I also mentioned, could also be getting reactive or adaptive. The immature we is creating surrounding togetherness pressure so others will go along. This is a way of managing anxiety by not allowing for self-definition because one is uncomfortable with disagreement.
Which gets to the crux of this episode. Smith asks, "Is there such a thing as a “mature we,” or is it simply a collection of people working to define and develop their “mature I,” while allowing others to do the same?"

There is no "I" in team. At least that's the adage. But I would contend that the best teams are actually a collection of healthy "I's." This is true whether your "team" is a family, congregation or organization. Here are four characteristics of a great team member from a family systems perspective. These aren't exhaustive, but I think they help you understand how you can be your best as a non-anxious leader.

First, a great team member puts the mission first. It's not that they give up who they are as an individual, but they realize that their role is to bring their best self to something that is bigger than they are.
This is why it's so important for the leader to define the mission. This is easiest in sports, where there is a defined goal. This is more difficult in organizations and congregations. We might think it's obvious to others, whether that's making an impact,making a profit or making disciples, but those things are not always clear.
This is most difficult in families. We rarely talk about our purpose. Is it to survive? To stay together? To help everyone fulfill their purpose in life and or to thrive? Every family is different and very few families actually think about why they exist, let alone are able to express this clearly.
Your most important role is to help define the mission of your team. If you are the leader of the system, then that is the overall mission and direction. If you are the leader of a team that's a part of larger system, then you need to be able to articulate how the mission of your team fits with the larger mission. When you do this, you are helping to model what it means to be a self who puts the mission first.
Second, a great team member is able to say what they believe while giving others the freedom to disagree. This is holding the tension between individuality and togetherness in a healthy way. It fosters healthy disagreement and also shows an openness to changing one's mind. When family or team members can disagree without getting disagreeable AND without taking it personally, the system is more resilient and more capable of growth.
Third, great team members self-regulate appropriately. They are able to manage their own anxiety without disconnecting emotionally or getting reactive or adaptive. This comes with the practice of being able to stop one's own automatic reactions and get quickly from the primitive brain to the thinking brain. I've found that mindfulness exercises and, in my own case, positive intelligence exercises are the most helpful. I covered the latter in Episodes 284 and 285, and I'll put a link in the show notes.
Finally, great team members take responsibility for self and no one else. This is why I believe the best teams are a collection of healthy I's. When you put the mission first, it sometimes means keeping your mouth shut or deciding not to disagree because you realize that it might actually hurt the team.
This is not giving in, it's making a conscious decision to put the team above yourself. The difference is, you take responsibility for this decision without resentment and without triangling others. You also do this without trying to pressure others to do the same. You allow others to make their own choices about what is best. You might express your opinion, but you do so in a way that maintains healthy emotional space for others to decide on their own.
In the end, there is a "We" in team. But it's because the "I's" decide that the we matters, even as they remain an "I." While this is idealistic and highly difficult, your job as a non-anxious leader is to work toward it by modeling it yourself. That's work worth doing.