Paul: [00:00:06] Welcome to Employing Differences, a conversation about exploring the collaborative space between individuals.

Karen: [00:00:13] I'm Karen Gimnig.

Paul: [00:00:15] And I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: [00:00:17] Each episode, we start with a question and see where it takes us. This week's question is, "Can't you just relax?"

Paul: [00:00:25] The answer is always 'no'. And this is not a question that we actually recommend asking, but it's a question that we sometimes either think really strongly and sometimes comes out of our mouths, which probably isn't the best moment.

Paul: [00:00:41] But what we're talking about here is something that actually lives in the space between. But that we sometimes think lives in the other person. And that's the situation where you're, either working with one other person, or you're in a small group, and someone in the group or in the partnership is stressed, is concerned, is worried about something. That their anxiety is coming up about something in particular, and that that reaction is not shared by you.

Paul: [00:01:09] And so if you're, you know, if it's you and one other person, they're worried about something, you may not even know what it is that they're worried about, but they're clearly stressed. There's something going on and you're not responding in the same way to it.

Paul: [00:01:21] And oftentimes the response when we don't see that thing or we don't have that same reaction can be, "Well, can't you just relax? Can you just stop?" "If I'm not stressed out about it, can't you just not be stressed out about it?" And what we want to explore today are more skillful ways of working with that situation than just asking, "Well, can't you just relax?"

Karen: [00:01:43] Yeah, I'll give you another example of one that's not a more skillful way, but is my favorite. I do way more often than I should. And this is, you know, "I know why they're worried. I just think they're wrong."

Karen: [00:01:56] You know, they're worried about things that I think are unrealistic or very unlikely to happen. Or a misunderstanding of the facts of what's going to happen. Something's missing in their cognitive understanding. And so I just want to explain it to them. I'm sure it will just solve their problem if I explain to them why they're wrong. And it doesn't ever work. 

Karen: [00:02:18] Because, in fact, the thing driving it isn't that they aren't smart enough. It isn't that they are not knowledgeable enough. It's that the emotional piece has taken over. Or that I have missed something. Like, one of those, right?

Karen: [00:02:35] But if I'm right, it's because they are in an emotional part of their brain, where logic is not getting through. And me, tossing logic in there over and over again and expecting it to change things for them, is not going to be useful. And me, assuming that I know what's right and real and that they're the one being irrational, is not going to make them feel better.

Karen: [00:03:00] And so what's really smarter is for me to approach it from 'their emotion is important and real', even if they're wrong! What's between us is not reality. What's between us is the experience that they're having. And the experience that I'm having. And if we can hold both of those and get them present in the place between, in a way that is kind and respectful, then we've got a shot at it.

Karen: [00:03:26] So an example of this, my husband and I are in a home buying decision making space. Very anxiety producing. And more so, as it turns out, for him than for me. And so we were in one of these moments where the next thing that we might have done, he was really concerned about and big decisions. And I thought he was basing that concern on some risk assessments that were not well founded in our shared understanding of reality, I thought.

Karen: [00:03:59] But I don't get to know that for sure. My husband's a really smart guy and he's a really good problem solver. And on a normal day, like we can work problems together really well and really collaboratively. So if that's not happening. I was very clever this time. I've done it wrong enough times now to learn how to turn it around.

Karen: [00:04:15] And I started with, "I'm hearing that you're really concerned and anxious and worried about this, and you think it might keep you up nights. And if that continues to be the situation, like that, is important enough that it could be a reason for us not to do this thing. Irrespective of whether it's correct or based in fact." "Your feeling is important enough to me that it could be the deciding factor. Because even if logically the right thing to do is to move ahead, stressing you out and keeping you from sleeping for days on end is not good for us. So we won't do that!" So start with that - absolute valuing, absolute honoring, absolute respecting.

Karen: [00:04:58] "This is where you are. And I am willing to bend from what I would want in support of that." But then it was time for me to also put myself in the space between. And so I said, "So far I'm not seeing risks that align with the level of fear that you're describing. I'm not being able to make a connection."

Karen: [00:05:24] And fortunately, he and I have a good enough relationship that he was able to say, "Okay. Then maybe I have to rethink." Like, "Okay, you know, my wife's pretty smart and pretty good, too. And if she's not seeing it, maybe it's not there. So, can I think about that?" Which he could, because I'd given him the safety to say, "I'm willing to honor you where you are. I'm not telling you you're wrong or that you have to change your mind. But I am asking you, can we get into a space in between where it's all there?"

Karen: [00:05:54] And in our case, what needed to happen was I needed to stop talking. And he had to spend some time with pencil and paper and writing things out. And then we could kind of break it down and talk through them and get to a shared sense of reality. A shared understanding of the risk, and so on. But if I had started, as I actually did with "But this logic, and that logic!", all that happened was he got more and more upset. And more and more nervous, and more and more worried, and less inclined to go along with anything.

Paul: [00:06:25] I love that story because it plays out that you could file the details off. It plays out in so many different ways, in so many different situations with so many different people.

Paul: [00:06:35] And there's three things in particular that I want to underline in what you said. One is, the problem is not that the other person is having an emotional response. Because you are also having an emotional response. The problem that lives in the space between, is that your different emotional responses to the situation, are creating a wedge between you.

Paul: [00:06:59] That is the thing, that is in the space between, that's the issue that you need to address in this situation, is we each are having different emotional responses. And the difference in them is driving the wedge between us. And so when you talk about applying logic and trying to convince the person that they're wrong, that just deepens the wedge. That makes the other person have a much stronger negative emotional reaction.

Paul: [00:07:24] Quite frankly, it's putting you into that space, too, because you're not getting anywhere. So now you're just hammering that wedge in deeper when you do that.

Paul: [00:07:31] And that's the challenge that you need to address. Not the actual situation, not whatever the inciting incident is. But the difference and the emotional gap between you. And you don't necessarily close that gap.

Paul: [00:07:44] The gap isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is the reaction to the gap. The problem is the feeling isolated from the other person on the other side of the gap.

Paul: [00:07:52] And so what you did in those two in response to that, to start to close that, to try to get that wedge out of there, was two things we talked about a lot. 

Paul: [00:08:00] Which is, one, validation. This is what I'm hearing from you. Like you're having this reaction, like you acknowledge that that's there and that's real. And you didn't say "And it's invalid for you to feel this way!" 

Paul: [00:08:13] A friend of mine likes to tell a story about a former boss who said she went to his boss with a problem and she was very upset about a thing. And her boss says, "Well, I've thought about this and there's no reason for you to feel that way." And she did not work there much longer after that, right! 

Paul: [00:08:30] But it's like, just acknowledging the other person's having this response. You are not having the same reaction to it, and that's okay. And validating that, and just saying, "Okay, I acknowledge that you have this. And I actually care that you're having this reaction to it." As opposed to "Well, I acknowledge that you're having this response and it's really inconvenient for me." Right, right.

Paul: [00:08:53] As opposed to saying like, "I care that you had this response to it! And I would love it if you didn't, right. But also, that might not be an option. This may just be how it is." So being able to be with it, to validate it, to acknowledge it.

Paul: [00:09:08] And then the other thing you did was you, as we often say in the show, you engaged your curiosity, right? You said, "I'm not seeing some of these things. And I want to understand a little bit better about like what is bringing this up for you. And it may be that I'm not going to have the same response, even if I see exactly the same data." But it's like, "Let me get curious about the difference in our reactions to it." 

Paul: [00:09:29] Because if we can understand those a little bit better, then sometimes we can go, "Oh, okay, it makes sense we would have different responses to this. And that's okay."

Paul: [00:09:37] So those are the three things that I sort of heard in there that I really want to emphasize, is that it's the gap created by the difference in response. That's the real challenge. That validation and acceptance is super important, and curiosity is often the way forward.

Karen: [00:09:52] And I'll point explicitly to one thing that we've said a number of times before. But is also in that validation piece, which is, we're not going to assume that logical correctness is going to win this argument.

Karen: [00:10:08] That, in fact, we might decide that the emotional response is the primary factor. And we will do the thing that is the emotional response. We don't jump to that, but it's such an uncommon thing in our culture to say, "Yeah, we know the logic doesn't say that, but the emotions do and we're going there".

Karen: [00:10:26] But in fact, it is sometimes the right thing. And so if we put that as a possibility, that we honor that that could be the right thing, an awful lot of safety can get created. Because I'm going to assume that people who do this very often- and we all do sometimes. 

Karen: [00:10:44] But people who do this very often have more often than not, had the experience of their emotions being dismissed. And being dismissed is it's like being shunned. It is such a shut down to connection relationship. And it's a horrible feeling.

Karen: [00:11:01] And so if they're already stressed and then they're seeing this wedge, as you said, in the space between. And somebody comes and starts pounding that wedge deeper. They're just going to go into panic. Because it feeds that underlying need for connection, is being withheld, is being disconnected. Disconnection as the experience.

Karen: [00:11:23] And so if we can reverse that. And say this relationship, your ability to work and if it is a working environment or a partnership, that's not a romantic relationship, it's "You're important. Your work is important. Your ability to function is important. And you don't have to erase a part of yourself to be acceptable to me. I am willing to do what I can to work with what's true." And part of what's true is this healing.

Karen: [00:11:49] So just being aware of the tendency to reach for and push toward logic. And that in these situations, not only do you not lead with that, you don't assume it's going to win.

Paul: [00:12:03] Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. And as much as you know, as we've sort of talked about this, in terms of a personal relationship and an environment where feelings are totally on the table to be discussed, like I've also had a lot of luck working with this. In a work context where we don't necessarily talk about the need to connect quite as much, but recognizing that it's going on.

Paul: [00:12:28] So I recently had coffee with a former boss of mine and he reminded me of a situation where it was something that I had given to him that I had forgotten. And he says, "Yeah, I still use this, you know, four years later." And I was glad he reminded me of it.

Paul: [00:12:41] But it was a situation where we had gotten into a spot in a- we were running an event, and something came up. And he had a stress response to something, or it was just like, "This thing needs to get taken care of!" And I did not have that same response to it at all. And I was just like, "I don't see what the problem is." You know, I absolutely wanted to say to him, "Can't you just relax?" And all I did in the moment was like, pound that wedge in deeper. It was not good. I didn't do any of those things that we just talked about, in terms of validating or getting curious.

Paul: [00:13:13] And in fact, in the moment was not the right time to do that. Because we were on stage, basically. I think it was going on, it just needed to get dealt with. But both of us left the situation feeling crappy about it.

Paul: [00:13:26] We circle back around about a week or so later and when we were kind of debriefing from the whole thing. And it was just this bit of like "That did not go well!" Like, "What was going on there? Because we're going to get into this situation again. How do we want to handle it when it comes up again?"

Paul: [00:13:40] And we kind of talked through it where we recognized that like what he was doing, what he needed in that moment was for me to just do a thing. Because it just needed to get handled. And I was feeling like, one, I thought he was asking for my input about how we should do something. And two, I felt by not asking for my input, he was really dismissing my expertise, all of my stuff, sort of, around it.

Paul: [00:14:04] And what we were able to do is we worked through it. So I was able to basically say like, "Okay, like this is where I did acknowledge", right. After the fact I acknowledged what was going on with him. I acknowledged what was going on with me.

Paul: [00:14:16] We got curious about it together and we were able to negotiate like, 'hey, when we get into the situation again, here is a way that he could communicate to me'. "It's not that I don't respect you as a person and don't find your ideas valuable. And I just need you to do this thing right now and not ask questions." And I could hear that. I could receive that signal and go, "Got it." That now we were actually both having a very similar emotional response to the situation, which is there's a thing we need to go do, Let's do it.

Paul: [00:14:44] And so what it did is it bridged that gap for us. It allowed us to go, "Oh, okay, all of these things about having this different reaction weren't there for us." So it allowed us to be more skillful about that in the future.

Paul: [00:14:56] And we were able to get to that point of having that agreement without having to talk about things. Like honestly, without having to talk a whole lot about feelings, or having to talk about a deep need for connection. We were just able to talk about what would make the situation work better for us next time. And negotiate through!

Karen: [00:15:14] And just to follow the thread that I've been pulling on here. What I hear in that story is that you were able, when you got in your better place about it, to say 'his emotional reaction is more important than the better idea I might have, or the way I could think about it, or the problem solving that I could do'. 

Karen: [00:15:34] Because in that moment, caring for his need, his emotional space, was the thing that was going to make it successful. Even though you probably had five logical, clear, very good ideas for how to do the thing better. But you were able to say 'what the logic tells me is the next thing to do here is less important than what his emotions are saying needs to happen in the space between'. So that's a perfect example of prioritizing the emotional, over the cognitive, for the better result that you're both aiming for.

Paul: [00:16:09] Absolutely. And for allowing us to have a continued working relationship that was quite frankly, much healthier. The next time that that happened, we actually used exactly the protocol we developed and we came out of it going, "Well, I feel a whole lot better about that!" 

Karen: [00:16:25] Yeah. Yeah. So in this one we're asking a question we actually recommend not asking, "Can't you just relax?" We can pretty much guarantee that the answer is "Nope, I can't!" 

Karen: [00:16:39] And so what we have in the space between there, is a person who is agitated or worried or anxious or whatever their emotion is. And a person who doesn't understand why they are isn't sharing that emotion; may be frustrated or irritated by it, sees lots of logical reasons to do something other than what that emotion is driving toward.

Karen: [00:17:01] And it's that difference in position that is the problem. So, how do we get out of being caught in the difference? And just pounding on each other and pushing each other further apart?

Karen: [00:17:14] And what we think is that step one is validation. To say to the person who, is probably in a better place to do logic and work through this. Although it could be the other, it could be the person who's emotional, just saying, "I'm having this emotion, I need that to be the most important thing right now" could be a way. 

Karen: [00:17:31] But to validate that emotional space, name it. "This is real. It's important we both care about it." And then to bring the other person, the person who's hanging out more in the land of logic and problem solving, probably.

Karen: [00:17:46] And bring them into the space between by saying your emotional reaction. "I'm not seeing it. Like, I'm not seeing where it's coming from. I'm not seeing what's feeding it." "I care about it. It matters to me, but I don't understand it."

Karen: [00:18:01] And bringing that curiosity piece in. With a willingness to say "This may not be the moment that I get to understand where it's coming from." 

Karen: [00:18:12] And whether or not we can figure out where the emotion is coming from, it may turn out to be the right course. To follow the emotion side rather than the logic side. Or maybe we work through the emotion side, and get the curiosity, and figure out what's going on. And then move toward logic. "Maybe it turns out that there is something you're seeing I'm not, and that's why you are scared" or whatever, but that there's a number of ways it goes.

Karen: [00:18:38] But all of them that we know of that are likely to work, include a strong validation of the emotion. And a curiosity about where it's coming from, and why we're having different responses.

Karen: [00:18:50] And if we can start from there, we're likely to get to a place where we can share the space between. And where we can together move forward in a way that is going to serve our joint needs.

Paul: [00:19:03] Well, that's going to do it for us today. Until next time, I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: [00:19:07] And I'm Karen Gimnig. And this has been Employing Differences.