Leading vs. Enabling

If you were to try and describe the ideal relationship between you and your wife, you might shoot for something oxymoronic like a woman who listens to everything you say and follows orders to a T, but then again a woman who doesn't sit around like a puppy waiting for the next order. You might say you want a woman who can be without you at times, go off on her own, and live a life worth living, but then again a woman who wants to do the things you like doing with you, being a part of your life and your vision. And it might be logical to think that when making a MAP of the relationship between you and your wife, that the end goal is to have her operate in a precise and predictable way based on logically mutual understandings. But the fact of the matter is, women do not operate according to the same logical principles as men.

To expand on this idea for a second, I was listening to the audiobook "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" this morning on the way in. And at this particular moment in the book the author was talking about mission statements, and how writing down a mission statement using present tense, emotion, visualization, and other connective factors more tightly bonds the statement to yourself in a personal way, making it more effective. Not a bad idea. He went on to say that a good idea was to sit down with your family, and come up with a joint mission statement where everyone has their input, and you can then frame the mission statement and put it on the wall as a constant reminder for what you are all striving for (Maybe even in a gold frame). The problem here is, this is patently ridiculous when considering the way women operate.

Women do not care about end goals in the same way men do. The difference is that a man has a concrete goal in mind. And success is to get to that goal, to meet that goal, and to exceed that goal. That's it. I want this, I work toward this. A woman does not operate along the same lines. When a woman sets a goal, she does not care about reaching that specific goal, but instead cares about all the associated feelings and status effects that come along with getting to that goal. Women set a goal but focus on the joy comes from telling people about that goal, the social changes in their group of friends that comes from that goal, the Instagram pictures and facebook statuses she gets to write about that goal. The goal is not the goal, the goal is the all the emotional and social effects that come with the goal. And so a logic based idea of coming together as a family and writing down a goal and framing it for you and them to hold yourselves personally accountable sounds like beta garbage. In fact, if one were to do so, I would wager that the women in the family would actually act counter to that goal more often then not, because they can get an emotional rise out of it.

 

What does all that have to do with leadership and enabling? It describes the motivation behind actions, concerns, etc. It details the carrot. But there's more. As we read about early in the journey in NMMNG, the first thing we have to understand is that everyone is living their own lives and trying to get what they want. There is no changing that. And your goal as a leader is not to change or fix that. Indeed, we also learn that everyone has contracts, which is their way of keeping score. And I've written in the past many times about the effects of keeping score and how it's completely useless because your score is different that their score, and ultimately no-one follows what score you keep anyway. Your score is worthless, your points are worthless. So the ideal then is to find a way to get what you want, but also do so in a way that most effectively makes what they're doing conform to what you want as well.

As I've just said, a logic based approach does not do this. And you'll find many methods in the social frame in HTWFAIP and 48 Laws of Power that are tricks and tips to use to get what you want. But sometimes the interpersonal communication one has with their significant other reaches a different level. It's not a one-off meeting between you and a car dealer or you and a sales clerk. Many actions with the latter can be taken behind the veil of, "I'll never see this person again". But you have to live together with your wife on a daily basis. So when she comes to you with a problem, or acts a certain way, you have to take a brief second and repeat to yourself, as we learned in TWOTSM, that your wife does not want a logical viewpoint to what's going on, she wants to swim in the emotion of it. And a big part of leadership is understanding internally what the carrot is for the person you're trying to lead, so as to better lead them. If you do nothing else to either address the issue or not, to lead her or to not, simply know that the emotional connection is what your wife seeks.

But in addition to this, you have to rectify what your wife wants out of this interaction, with what you want out of this interaction. Each and every interaction you have is an opportunity to mold your wife to better become a compliment to you life, goals, and leadership. And the more often you successfully lead in a way to that's congruent to what you want, but also acknowledge what they want (again emotion), the more your wife will follow that lead. It's the difference between being a leader (what you want and what they want), a dictator (what you want regardless of what they want), an enabler (not what you want, but what they want), and an autist (what neither of you want). An autist will be presented with a problem, and simply do whatever the most easy thing to do is to make that problem go away for them. The most common examples of this are:

 

1. To state logically: As we've already said, logic does not bring the carrot in to the situation. It does not swim in the emotion. It's a very drying answer. Your wife subtly sees this, and even though you may be "fixing the problem", the problem never really was about the problem in the first place. The problem was about the emotions that the situation brought. And in a very basic Maslow-ish way, the mere identification that whatever emotions your wife is feeling at the time are true emotions, is a need that your wife has. I am going to emphasize this point because, admittedly in a very beta way, I have felt the same insanity that our wives sometimes feels when I have a problem that is linked at its base to emotion rather than logic. We all know from living a full life that our emotions impact us. Even if a man does not show it, he acknowledges that he's almost operating with a logic based mind that has the impediment of emotional based thought. So it comes as no surprise that when a situation is wrapped in emotion, often your wife/women/people do not trust that their emotion is coming from a reasonable place. And the mere act of you, a separate person, acknowledging that the emotion they are feeling is a valid emotion in and of itself, is a very very comforting, bonding, and leading carrot to be able to give.

2. To dismiss the issue, to stonewall: And in a minute you will read about me actively encouraging the use of this tactic for certain situations, but in a different way. If you completely fail to acknowledge the emotional impact of the situation and move on with your life as if you will not or cannot deal with it, then your wife will receive this as you not being capable of dealing with the emotions that come along with a situation. This is a turn off in addition to being a clearly beta sign of the inability to lead. You wife will get her feelings played with, whether it's from this mundane situation, or later when she makes you swim in the negative shit storm that she concocts. It has been said before that women want to swim in emotion, they will get that emotion from you, or someone else, either good, or bad. And if they have to settle for bad, so be it. Because as it is also said, the opposite of love is not hate, it's apathy.

3. To steal the emotion: You you you. Don't make the whole world about you when interacting and bonding with others. Make it about them. Swimming in emotions is like a dance. You cannot do it by yourself. You cannot simply worry about yourself and how you're doing. It's a flow, like liquid, of interaction and the dance of problems is a dance where you lead, you guide, but the emphasis is on her emotions. You're ultimately leading to what you want, but the focus is on her.

Doing these things will indeed bring the issue to a close. As said in TWOTSM men feel content in the closure, the death of things. But women do not. And if you are not leading to a positive place, then you are ultimately not leading to what you want, or what your wife wants.

 

So what then. How do you lead? How do you not enable? How do you not be autistic? We've learned that if your wife interacts with you, the first thought that should come to mind is: "My wife wants to swim in these emotions, how can I do that?" A first good tactic that you can use in all conversations with people are to parrot back to them what they just said, rephrasing it so as to show that you actually understand what was said:

 

Example: "You won't believe it, today at work Anna whispered to me that Shelly has been going around to the other girls and making fun of my lunches for being low calorie and saying I'm stuck up by what I eat."

 

You parroting: "Wow she's really talking behind your back about your lunches?"

You logic-ing: "She shouldn't be talking to people behind your back. You should go to HR and report her."

You stonewalling: "Cool."

You stealing the emotion: "That would make me totally upset. You know what I would do? I would..."

 

By rephrasing and restating the problem, you haven't said or done anything about the problem, you're simply parroting it back, and this established the ground that you on a basic level understand what's going on. The next good tactic is to start stirring the pot of emotions. Her emotions, not yours.

 

Her continuing: "Yeah can you believe it? I mean how rude can you be?"

(Do you see the subtle provocation here? Do you see how is asking for emotional validation?)

You stirring the pot: "Well I bet you were pretty angry when you heard about that."

You stonewalling: "Yeah that's rude."

You stealing the emotion: "I've had someone be rude to me like that before. Like that one time..."

 

By stirring the pot, you still haven't said anything about the problem. You're simply exploring the emotional landscape of the problem. This opens the door to allow to fully explore emotions.

 

Wife: "I was! I felt this and that and I feel like she should and my friends should blah blah blah."

 

Now the emotions come pouring out. You have validated the way she feels and steadied the ground beneath her feet. She will be thankful for this because you were able to identify her need for emotional validation, and address it subtly. You "get it".

 

You: "Well, last I remember Shelly was putting on few pounds. I bet she's jealous that my wife is taking on the challenge of getting herself fit and healthy. I like that about you. So determined." (Wink, ass slap)

 

Look at that. Not only have you validated the emotions, relieved the stress by letting get them out, but also lead by offering up approval for taking her dieting seriously. You controlled this whole interaction start to finish, you lead where it would go. And it's going where YOU want it to go. You didn't even have to solve the problem because she never wanted it solved anyway. And you understood that.

 

But what about when the problem is with you? What if it's disrespectful to you? What if the issue is mundane and you want to have a wife that doesn't bring up this kind of mundane shit? What if the problem is a problem she should be able to solve? What if you need to get the message across that your first mate should be able to solve such a problem? I can't go through every situation. But if you read the books, they will bring up tactics that can help you out here. The very first thing you need to understand in this case is, how does this behavior line up with my vision.

And that's an important thing to have. This is why I continually tell newbs on askMRP to work on themselves first. Forget her problem. You cannot lead effectively because you don't even know what you want yet. That deep inner want for how things should operate should come from a well-grounded place inside of you. So well-grounded that the mere thought of operating contrary to it evokes an emotional confusion equivilant to what you would feel if you released something from your hand and it fell upwards instead of down. Your vision is so solid that any thing contrary to it just doesn't make sense. And that's a narcissistic thought. But it's one you base your life and pride on.

I know my quotes are corny but I'll repeat a recent quote of a motivational speech I listen to that goes: "The first level to success in life, listen to me the very first level...is you seeing it. Like it's clear to you. Like you know exactly what you want. You know exactly when you want it...listen to me you know exactly what it tastes like. You know what it looks like. You know what it smells like. Before you really blow up blow up, and you get success, you literally have it in the palm of your hand without having it." And this is true. You need to fix yourself so that your vision is something you know, you have, you see it, it's there, it's clear, before setting off from the dock to go there. Now the vision you have, the you you've worked on and fixed may not be the end you ultimately end up with. Because your vision can change as you go. And it should. But you need to ground your actions in some kind of vision first, before you start getting others to follow you. A leader without a vision is not a leader.

 

So using your vision, knowing the steps and behaviors you see that are congruent to it, and reading WISNIFG and learning that you are the judge of your decisions, your vision is YOUR vision, and if her actions do not line up with that you have the right to lead.

 

Tactics the books detail include AA. When you employ AA, you are in effect leading by displaying an example that the issue at hand doesn't concern you, and so it shouldn't concern her. Or the issue is absurdly outside the realm of your vision. It's more stick than carrot here because you are working to repress an action or attitude, but you are still leading.

Or negative inquiry, which can be used to guide thoughts toward your stance on the issue, without the ego engaging process of setting up a formal argument and defending it. It subverts this process by simply exploring the thought process she has, while, through your questions, allow her to see yours. Ultimately, negative inquiry should lead to you shrugging your shoulders in an AM fashion, rather than eventually taking a stand.

Or, as is a successful tactic with children, stating a vision while empathizing. Where you demonstrate that you understand the struggle that is going through your wife's head with the above exploration of emotional space, but ultimately relay that achieveing your vision trumps those emotions, and that you have full faith that your first mate can do that. It's not wrong to have emotion, but it is wrong when they get in the way of our visions. Note this is very close to logic-ing. But in light of a situation involving negative emotion like fear and doubt, this can be a way to go.

Or in this case stonewalling...because if the problem is that she's hunting for negative emotion, you absolutely do not provide it. In effect, Her: "You know it really pisses me off when..." You: "Hmm...I can see how that'd make you angry."

Or even the nuke, which is used as a last resort to portray your ideal vision on how things should operate.

 

Realize that even though you will use these tactics to address the issue at hand, that they all have a message accompanying them that carries the message of your vision. So to the newb who wants a band-aid answer to how he should handle his wife's nagging complaints...the replies you get are not one-off solutions to THAT PARTICULAR PROBLEM. They are vehicles for you to relay your vision. And your actions as a leader should always reflect that.

 

The last two things i wanted to discuss are: What if it's a real issue? What if it's something like the neighbor's dog keeps pooping on your lawn? Then go solve it man! There exists practical issues in life that just need to be solved. It's not part of the emotional game, it's just one of life's real issues. Or what if the real issue is something you are doing that is not congruent with your own vision? There's absolutely nothing with going: "You know what wife, you're right. I do need to X and Y. My bad." A leader is not perfect. You should allow room for a good first mate too keep you on track if need be. Don't make too his harder than it has to be.

 

There's a fine line between leading and enabling. When you lead down the wrong path and create a positive behavioral association with actions you ultimately don't like, or create a negative behavioral association to actions you like, you are enabling bad behavior.

And so we see now that enabling is simply leading incorrectly. It's leading the wrong way. Enabling is like shooting yourself in the foot because you are leading, you are promoting a way of doing things or responding to events or creating an emotional map in another person, but you are doing it contrary to your wants/needs. Like the person who wants someone to stop smoking but continues to buy they cigarettes. Or wants them to lose weight but continues to buy crappy food and bring it into the house. Those people are leading. They are simply leading the wrong way and thus enabling the bad behavior.

TL;DR. Know what you want (your vision). Always act congruently. Know what they want (emotion). If possible, give them what they want in a way that aligns with your want. If not, your want trumps.