[00:00:01.580]
Welcome to episode 295 of the Non-Axious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama. And before we get into today's episode, I want to remind you that you can connect with me by emailing me at jack@christian-leaders.com. You can get resources at thenonanxiousleader.com, and you can subscribe to my Two for Tuesday email newsletter there at the website or the link in the show notes. And now, without further ado, here is episode 295, a rebroadcast of Self Differentiated Leaders Set Healthy Boundaries. Today's episode comes from an email I received from Maryanne Van Dyke. She has a website called cupofempathy.com. I will put a link in the show notes. And Van Dyke is a practitioner of Nonviolent Communication, or what you've heard me say as compassionate communication, which was developed by Marshall Rosenberg. I am on Van Dyke's email list, and I received an email recently entitled Five Different between Boundaries and Threats.

[00:01:49.020]
As you've heard me say before, there is a close connection between family systems theory and nonviolent communication. They are very compatible in terms of how they approach being a self without trying to define others, being curious about others without trying to influence them, but making requests instead of demands. I think that this email that I received where there's five differences between boundaries and threats is really helpful in understanding family systems theory and what it means to set a healthy boundary. The first difference between a threat and a boundary is that a threat says what you're going to do to another person, whereas a boundary announces what you will do, but it's not to the other person. It is what you are going to do. So the boundary is about defining self, whereas the threat is about being reactive and perhaps defining the other. For example, if you don't do the dishes, I'm going to be furious with you. That is a threat. That is saying that you are going to be mad at the other person. On the other hand, a boundary is saying, That's fine if you don't do the dishes, but I will not cook dinner anymore unless we are able to keep the agreement that we had, which is, I cook and you clean up after, or, If you cook, I clean up after.

[00:03:15.290]
But in this case, if you're not going to do the dishes anymore, then I'm not going to be able to cook anymore. A healthy boundary distinguishes between the behavior of another person and what you are willing to do about it. In other words, not that you're going to do something to the other person, but how are you going to respond? It truly is about self-definition and then expressing it in a healthy way. The second difference between a threat and a boundary is that a threat tries to influence another by making them feel scared or guilty, whereas a boundary is just telling them what matters to you. It's about self-defining and expressing that without assuming right or wrong about you or the other person. It's defining yourself without trying to define the other. When you're using a threat to try to influence another person through guilt or fear, that is a form of dependency. That is a form of not being able to express yourself and trying to get somebody to do what you want through manipulation. Healthy boundaries are about self-definition and not dependency, and they allow the other to be a self. A healthy boundary actually gives another person the freedom to choose whether or not they're going to comply with your request to keep the boundary.

[00:04:40.220]
The third difference between a threat and a boundary is that a threat is trying to keep somebody in a relationship no matter what. It is a form of dependency. It's trying to keep them in relationship. Whereas a boundary actually gives somebody the freedom to choose to not be in relationship. It's exploring whether or not the relationship can work. And that, as Van Dyke says, is why it's scary to set a boundary, is there is a possibility that the response of the other will be to choose to not be in relationship. When we are trying to keep somebody in a relationship through a threat, we are acting dependently. It is a form of dependency which focuses on emotional connection to the extreme. We must stay together no matter what, even if it means I must make a threat, even if it means I must manipulate another. When, as a non-anxious, self-differentiated leader, you set a boundary, you are balancing both emotional connection and self-definition. You are helping people to see that you care enough to set healthy boundaries. When you say, We will not have people criticizing other people in this meeting. We can constructively criticize ideas, but we will not criticize other people.

[00:05:59.830]
You are setting a boundary that shows that you care about others, but at the same time, you are only willing to put up with so much. That's what a healthy boundary is. When you give people the freedom to make the choice, well, if they're not going to do that, they're not going to be allowed in the meeting, then that actually has more power than telling them that there's something wrong with them. You might ask how disqualifying somebody from meetings because they are criticizing people is different than a threat. And the difference is that you are not making a threat to somebody. You are just telling them this is how it's going to be, and you're doing it in a calm and non-anxious way. If you are doing it in a reactive way, if you are angry, if you are agitated, then it can come across as a threat. But if you are able to remain calm, remain a non-anxious presence, and just say this is the boundary, it is your choice whether to keep the boundary, then you are not making a threat, you're setting a healthy boundary. This is supported by the fourth difference between a threat and a boundary, and that is the consequences of a threat are punishment, and don't usually benefit the person that made the threat.

[00:07:15.480]
Van Dyke notes that oftentimes the person who makes a threat doesn't actually feel like carrying through with it, that it's only a threat and they actually aren't willing to execute the punishment. That's how you know that it's intended as manipulation and not really as a boundary. On the other hand, according to Van Dyke, the consequences of a boundary support both the person that sets them and the relationship. Going back to the example I shared about that team meeting where we are going to criticize ideas constructively but not criticize people, that is supporting the relationship of the team. That's helping the team function together in a healthy way. And it not only benefits the team, it benefits the leader whose job it is to lead an effective team. When you set a boundary that supports yourself, that is about self-care, that is about knowing your own goals and values and reaching for them as well as supports the relationship, then you are holding the tension between emotional connection and self-definition. You are able to self-define. You're able to say, This is what matters to me. This is the boundary that I want to keep. But at the same time, you're saying, I care about you, and I'm going to give you the freedom to choose, but I believe that in keeping this boundary, we are going to have a healthier relationship.

[00:08:44.370]
It's enabling emotional connection without enabling dependency. Finally, according to Van Dyke, the fifth difference between a threat and a boundary is that a threat will result in the loss of trust in a relationship and usually does not meet the needs of either party. On the other hand, a boundary presents a clear choice for each party, and it is designed to actually benefit the relationship. It provides the opportunity to help protect all involved, emotionally and sometimes even physically. When you set a healthy boundary, you are able to define yourself while allowing the other to be a self. You know clearly where you end and the other begins. Threats often come in the form of ultimatums, which erode trust and breed resentment, whereas boundaries come with freedom of choice and actually build trust over time in healthy relationships. One thing that Van Dyke does not mention is that a dependent person may experience a healthy boundary as a threat. They may feel like they are being threatened because their dependency needs are not being met, because you are setting a boundary. And there is nothing you can do about that except to try to show that you care while at the same time maintaining your self-defined stance.

[00:10:17.560]
That's what self-differentiation is, right? It's the ability to self-define while remaining emotionally connected. My guess is that the fact that you're trying to be a non-anxious leader tell It tells me that you usually are not making threats. However, it may be that you have a harder time setting healthy boundaries. And what that tends to mean is that you tend to adapt, you tend to give in more often than you'd like. I'm hoping that understanding what a healthy boundary looks like as opposed to a threat gives you that option, gives you that opportunity to think through how you might better set healthy boundaries as a leader, as a person in your family of origin, and in any other relationship systems to which you belong. This is what non-anxious leaders do because it actually benefits the system overall. When there are healthy boundaries, it enables everybody to function better with less anxiety. That's it for episode 295. Don't forget, you can connect with me at thenonanxiousleader.com and at jack@christian-leaders.com. And if you have found this episode helpful, please share it with someone else who might benefit, and please leave a review on your podcast platform of choice. I would very much appreciate it. Until next time. Thanks and goodbye.