<\/p>\n
I approached Edwin Friedman\u2019s book, Failure of Nerve, <\/em>with a great deal of curiosity and a fair amount of apprehension. I am quite familiar with the practice of non-anxious presence discussed in his book and yet I notice myself faltering in certain anxiety prone situations. In my attempts to restore equilibrium and balance I realize I am unwittingly sabotaging not only myself, but possibly the health of the systems that anticipate my leadership. This highlights areas where my ability to differentiate is challenged and presents an invitation to hold onto my integrity and take responsibility for myself. Practice makes progress. Every relational encounter is an opportunity to practice differentiation and self-regulation.<\/p>\n I was encouraged by Friedman\u2019s explanation that resistance and even sabotage come with the territory and the leader\u2019s ability to recognize it as such is what he terms, \u201cthe key to the kingdom.\u201d[1]<\/a> Being my own saboteur is at the root of my failure of nerve. Managing my anxiety and other uncomfortable feelings is my responsibility. I have worked hard to gain the necessary skills to process uncomfortable feelings and maintain a non-anxious presence. However, I am never surprised by how easily I get hijacked by the anxiety prevalent in our society, or the organizations and family systems to which I belong. I am noticing my natural tendencies to respond with empathy can sometimes undermine my own leadership. This troubles me.<\/p>\n As I began my inspectional reading Chapter Four entitled, \u201cSurvival in a Hostile Environment: The Fallacy of Empathy\u201d immediately grabbed my attention. I have a long-standing belief that empathy is a valuable quality as I strive to understand and attend to the experiences of others. I am also seeing how empathy hasn\u2019t always served me well. For example, there have been times when the unreasonable behavior of a colleague, a misunderstanding with a friend, a session with a client, and even an awkward encounter at Home Depot, my use of empathy completely backfired. Instead of being a helpful tool to create connection and understanding the response I got set off a siren of confusion within me and sent me running for cover. These bewildering and uncomfortable encounters left me questioning my skills and doubting my calling. Empathy is not a one-size fits all tool especially when engaging with emotionally charged systems or individuals. The problem with empathy being my leadership tool of choice is that not everyone is responsive to empathy. Friedman clarified this for me, \u201cAll entities that are destructive to other entities share one major characteristic that is totally unresponsive to empathy, they are not capable of self-regulation.\u201d <\/em>Friedman explains that without self-regulation one cannot learn from their experiences.[2]<\/a> Some systems thrive on chaos. I do not! Apparently, empathy and chaos don\u2019t mix.<\/p>\n Self-Regulation is Emotion Regulation!<\/p>\n I am reminded of Dr. Daniel Siegel\u2019s hand model of the brain in which he explains how the different regions of the brain become disintegrated when under threat.[3]<\/a> We literally flip our lids. In this state the brain itself is an example of a system in chaos. The thinking part of the brain is of no use until we calm the body and attend to our feelings. It is no surprise that if I can\u2019t self-regulate, I won\u2019t be able to learn from the experience or move through it wisely. I may even start to believe that my environment and everyone in it is the problem. Empathy is a powerful tool. It can help me understand what is happening in chaotic situations, but it is not always the correct tool to use. I spent years tormenting myself over the above situations before realizing I was using the wrong tool. When empathy didn\u2019t work I reacted to anxiety with more anxiety. Which for me looks more like shutting down than reactivity, but it is a reaction! It will impede by leadership abilities. I am asking myself, what underused tool is hiding in my toolbox?<\/p>\n Differentiation: I am responsible for me; and you are responsible for you!<\/p>\n Friedman states, \u201cThe kind of \u201csensitivity\u201d that leaders most require is a sensitivity to the degree of chronic anxiety and the lack of self-differentiation in the system that surrounds them.\u201d[4]<\/a> Taking responsibility for self, extends to others the invitation to do the same. I can be empathetic and value others while at the same time maintaining my own non-anxious presence through self-regulation and differentiation. Monitoring my own emotional responses and staying present to myself keeps me on track. I don\u2019t have to take on the responsibility of another person\u2019s emotional responses; nor do I have to enter the chaos that may ensue. The goal of differentiation is not separation as I have often feared. It is, \u201cpreserving self in a close relationship.\u201d[5]<\/a> When emotionally dysregulated, I ask myself the following questions. What do I need to do to calm down? What am I feeling and Why? What are my emotions trying to tell me? \u00a0I remind myself that I have a choice. I make better decisions when I understand what is happening and take responsibility for myself.<\/p>\n Reading Failure of Nerve<\/em> has by no means convinced me to ditch empathy. I can hold onto my integrity while using empathy wisely and appropriately. But It has inspired me to take a closer look at the ways I self-sabotage and weak areas in my ability to differentiate successfully.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Friedman, Edwin. Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix.<\/em> (New York, NY: Church Publishing, 1999), 12.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Friedman, Edwin. Failure of Nerve<\/em>, 147.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Dr. Dan Siegel\u2019s Hand model of the Brain, https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=f-m2YcdMdFw<\/a><\/p>\n