[00:00:34.370]
Welcome to Episode 402 of The Non-Anxious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama, and you still have time to register for the Differentiated Leader of Family Systems Theory Community of Practice. This is a free 8-session program that begins on Monday, October 12th, from 7 to 8:30 PM Eastern time. On the 2nd Monday of each month, we will dig deep into Bowen Family Systems Theory, Edwin Friedman's work. We'll compare it to other types of systems like Internal Family Systems and attachment theory and positive intelligence. It's a way to apply family systems theory to your life personally and professionally. I'll put a link to get more information and to register in the show notes. And if you're new to this podcast, you can connect with me at jack@christian-leaders.com with your questions, comments, and suggestions for future episodes. And you can get more resources at thenonanxiousleader.com where you can find out about my coaching practice, speaking engagements, books that I've written, and courses that I offer. You can also subscribe to my Two for Tuesday email newsletter and get your free AI family systems coach at the website or at the links in the show notes. Finally, if you would like to support my work for as little as $5 a month, you can get more information and sign up at the link in the show notes.

[00:02:00.590]
Thanks in advance for your consideration. And now, without further ado, here is episode 402, Storytime: When Anxiety Organizes the System. In this episode, I'm going to read one of Friedman's fables. This one is called The Friendly Forest. If you don't have Friedman's Fables, I encourage you to get it. It is a great way to understand family systems theory in a humorous and entertaining way. So here's the fable, and then I will unpack it. Once upon a time in the Friendly Forest, there lived a lamb who loved to graze and frolic about. One day a tiger came to the forest and said to the animals, I would like to live among you. They were delighted, for unlike some of the other forests, they had no tiger in their woods. The lamb, however, had some apprehensions which, being a lamb, she sheepishly expressed to her friends. But they said, Do not worry, we will talk to the tiger and explain that one of the conditions for living in this forest is that you must also let the other animals live in the forest. So the lamb went about her life as usual, but it was not long before the tiger began to growl and make threatening gestures and menacing motions.

[00:03:22.720]
Each time, the frightened lamb went to her friends and said, it is very uncomfortable for me here in the forest. But her friends reassured her, do not worry, that's just the way tigers behave. Every day, as she went about her life, the lamb tried to remember this advice. Hoping that the tiger would find someone else to growl at. And it is probably correct to say that the tiger did not really spend all or even most of its time stalking the lamb. Still, the lamb found it increasingly difficult to remove the tiger from her thoughts. Sometimes she would just catch it out of the corner of her eye, but that seemed enough to disconcert her for the day, even if the cat were asleep. Soon the lamb found that she was actually looking for the tiger. Sometimes days or even weeks went by between its intrusive actions, yet somehow the tiger had succeeded in always being there. Eventually, the tiger's existence became a part of the lamb's existence. When she tried to explain this to her friends, however, they pointed out that no harm had really befallen her and that perhaps she was just being too sensitive.

[00:04:28.140]
So the lamb again tried to put the tiger out of her mind. Why, she said to herself, should I let my relationship with just one member of the forest ruin my relationships with all the others? But every now and then, usually when she was least prepared, the tiger would give her another start. Finally, the lamb could not take it anymore. She decided that, much as she loved the forest and her friends, more than she had ever loved any other forest or friends, the cost was too great. She went to the other animals in the woods and said goodbye. Her friends would not hear of it. This is silly, they said. Nothing has happened. You're still in one piece. You must remember that a tiger is a tiger, they repeated. Surely this is the nicest forest in the world. We really like you very much. We would be very sad if you left. Though it must be admitted that several of the animals were wondering what the lamb might be doing to contribute to the tiger's aggressiveness. Then, said 2 of the animals in the Friendly Forest, surely this whole thing can be worked out. We're all reasonable here.

[00:05:32.550]
Stay calm. There is probably just some misunderstanding that can easily be resolved if we all sit down together and communicate. The lamb, however, had several misgivings about such a meeting. First of all, if her friends had explained away the tiger's behavior by saying it was simply a tiger's nature to behave that way, Why did they now think that as a result of communication, the tiger would be able to change that nature? Second, thought the lamb, such meetings, well-intentioned as they might be, usually try to resolve problems through compromise. Now, while the tiger might agree to growl less, and indeed might succeed in reducing some of its aggressive behavior, what would she, the lamb, be expected to give up in return? Be more accepting of the tiger's growling? There was something wrong, thought the lamb, with the notion that an agreement is equal if the invasive creature agrees to be less invasive and the invaded one agrees to tolerate some of the invasiveness. She tried to explain this to her friends, but, being reasonable animals, they assured her that the important thing was to keep communicating. Perhaps the tiger didn't understand the ways of a lamb.

[00:06:43.930]
Don't be so sheepish, they said. Speak up strongly when it does these things. Though one of the less subtle animals in the forest, more uncouth in expression and unconcerned about just who remained, was overheard to remark, I never heard of anything so ridiculous. If you want a lamb and a tiger to live in the same forest, you don't try to make them communicate. You cage the bloody tiger. And the moral of the story is, Reasonableness is the natural manure of terrorism. Edwin Friedman writes in A Failure of Nerve, in a chronically anxious system, we have an unreasonable faith in reasonableness. When we try to reason with the most anxious, resistant, and aggressive, we give them the power. This fable reveals a pattern we see in families, congregations, and organizations all the time. When one person's behavior generates anxiety, the system doesn't stand up to the behavior that's creating the anxiety. Instead, it asks everyone else to adapt. We excuse certain behaviors not because they're healthy, but because accommodating them is the quickest way to reduce anxiety. When a system becomes anxious, people look for relief, and one of the easiest ways to get relief is to organize around the person who.

[00:08:04.560]
is most reactive. You see this in families. The angry member everyone tiptoes around. The chronically offended member everyone tries not to upset. The person who threatens to withdraw or creates a crisis whenever they don't get their way. Before long, the whole family is managing that person's emotional reactivity. Congregations do the same thing. A member gets upset about a change, and suddenly the pastor is spending disproportionate time trying to soothe them. Organizations do it too. One employee is anxious and resistant, and instead of asking whether that resistance is reasonable, the organization adapts to their anxiety. The problem comes when people start confusing understanding with accommodation. It's good to understand someone's history, fears, or sensitivities. It might even help us have compassion. But understanding someone doesn't obligate us to organize our lives around their reactions. I can understand you without accommodating you. I can care about you without giving you control over me, and I can stay connected to you without letting your anxiety determine my behavior. Self-differentiation is the ability to be a self while remaining emotionally connected to others. This is hard because every relationship system has surrounding togetherness pressure. In this fable, the pressure is to fit in, keep the peace, and avoid upsetting others, especially the tiger.

[00:09:32.840]
When someone, like the lamb, self-defines despite the pressure, the system gets anxious and tries to pull them back. That's why boundaries are so difficult. A boundary isn't just a decision about what you're going to do; it's a willingness to tolerate the anxiety your decision may create in other people. This is the point of the fable. The animals in the forest aren't malicious; they're trying to be reasonable, preserve community, avoid conflict, keep everyone happy. Those are good intentions, but they're doing it in a way that allows anxiety to organize the system. Listen to what the animals say. They say, surely this whole thing can be worked out. We're all reasonable here. Stay calm. There's probably just some misunderstanding that can easily be resolved if we all sit down together and communicate. In the discussion guide for this fable, Friedman asks, in what way does a consensus orientation always give strength to the extremists? In theory, consensus is great. We'd like for everyone to be heard and be on board. But in an anxious system, consensus gives power to the most reactive person. If 9 people are ready to move forward and 1 person is extremely anxious, and the group says we can't act until everyone agrees, then the most anxious person effectively has veto power.

[00:10:56.050]
And generation to generation, Friedman called this the tyranny of the minority. The more anxious they become, the more influence they gain. Anxiety becomes a strategy, consciously or unconsciously, to get their way. In contrast, a self-differentiated leader says, I've heard your concerns. I understand you disagree. I still believe this is the right direction. That's not authoritarian. It's self-definition, and it preserves connection without surrendering clarity. Self-differentiation isn't about becoming less connected. It's about staying connected without becoming fused. I can tell you what I think, you can tell me what you think, and we can remain in relationship even when we disagree. When disagreement becomes a threat to the relationship, people stop thinking independently. They start asking, what do I have to do or say so everyone will be okay with me? That's not differentiation. That's adaptivity. The fable also raises a question of boundaries. When do you know it's time to set one? The answer isn't whenever someone does something you don't like. That's not a systems approach. The better question is, what am I willing to participate in? I can't control whether someone gets angry, but I can control whether I stay in the room while they're yelling.

[00:12:16.780]
I can't control whether someone is disappointed, but I can control whether I change my decision simply to relieve their disappointment. A boundary is about defining myself, not controlling you. In the fable, the lamb finally got fed up with the fact that the tiger was not caged, and so she decided she was going to leave. It's not exactly a boundary, but it is taking a stand. It is saying, I will no longer put up with this. Friedman said, fed up is a gift. This is where self-regulation becomes essential. It's one thing to know you should take a stand. It's another to tolerate the anxiety that A non-anxious presence isn't someone who never feels anxious. You will feel anxious inside. It's someone who can regulate their anxiety well enough to think clearly and act according to their goals and values. The fable illustrates how anxiety becomes internalized. The lamb becomes preoccupied with the tiger. The tiger doesn't have to do anything in the moment. The lamb is still organized around the possibility of the tiger's reaction. That's how anxiety works. Something happens, you react, then you anticipate it happening again, and eventually the person doesn't even have to do anything.

[00:13:32.950]
They're still in your head. The more useful question becomes, how am I functioning in this relationship? Am I over-functioning, adapting, avoiding, trying to control, getting triangled, making someone else's anxiety my responsibility? The focus is on your own functioning and and how to take responsibility for self. Another lesson from this fable is to not use empathy as a justification for the absence of boundaries. Understanding someone else's pain shouldn't automatically determine your response. Compassion and boundaries can coexist. In fact, healthy compassion may require boundaries. Enabling destructive behavior in the name of compassion doesn't help anyone. You can say, I care about you, And I'm not doing this. Or, I understand why you're angry, and I'm still making this decision. That's staying connected without giving in. In this fable, the real question isn't, what should we do about the tiger? It's, what kind of emotional system are we creating? When we reward anxiety, give the most reactive person the most influence, require emotional agreement before action, and ask the most responsible people to compensate for the least responsible, we're confusing peace with the absence of conflict, because sometimes what looks like peace is really accommodation, and sometimes what looks like conflict is actually the beginning of healthier functioning.

[00:15:02.370]
The goal isn't to eliminate anxiety. The goal is to function well in the presence of anxiety. Self-differentiation gives us that capacity. It enables you to hear others without automatically agreeing. to care about them without fixing their problems, to stay connected with them without becoming responsible for their emotions, and to make decisions without needing universal approval. That's the work of self-differentiation. The real question isn't, how do we get everyone to be reasonable? It's, how can you be someone who doesn't give in just because everyone else is anxious? If one person can do this, especially the leader, the system can change. Not because anyone has been forced to change, but because the system no longer organizes around the most anxious, resistant, or aggressive. That's it for episode 402. Remember, you can connect with me at jack@christian-leaders.com, and you can find more resources at thenonanxiousleader.com. And if you found this episode helpful, please share it with someone who would benefit, and please leave a review on your podcast platform of choice. Thanks in advance for your help. Until next time, go be yourself.