Seeing Reactivity in Our Leaders

Seeing reactivity in ourselves and others allows us to connect to compassion in the face of suffering. And then find our way to the underlying tender needs which gives us a starting place for offering healing and inspiring change. This is true of ourselves, those in our personal relationships, and of our community and global leaders.

For this article I invite focus on seeing our leaders more clearly, fully, and compassionately. The lack of capacity to recognize reactivity in our leaders has resulted in painful repercussions all around the world now and historically. When we see leaders, or anyone, only through the lens of what we think is right or wrong, we become mired in a tangle of views and miss seeing that the tangle is not life-serving.

Rather than getting swept away by the content of what a leader says or does, you can prioritize wise discernment by getting curious about who is speaking or taking action. Here are some questions that can help you connect with who before focusing on what: 

• “Who is speaking?” “Is this a reactive part of this person speaking?” 

• “Is this person speaking with a sense of groundedness, compassion, and curiosity?” 

• “Is this person able to entertain multiple viewpoints of a given situation?” 

• “Are they able to seek and take in new information and leave their favored paradigm even temporarily behind in favor of discovery and creativity?”

• “Are they able to identify the needs present in any given situation?” “Do they honor all needs equally regardless of whose needs are at stake?”

• “Are they asking for and responding to feedback? Are they changing course when they see a decision is not life-serving?”

• “Are they speaking mostly in terms of "I " or "We "?

The first bullet in the list above requires a capacity to recognize reactivity. In Mindful Compassionate Dialogue (MCD), reactivity is defined as the misperception of threat to one or more needs along with one or more of the following:

• Physical and energetic contraction or collapse

• Elevated or depressed heart rate

• Shallow breathing

• Narrow thinking or repeating the same story or view multiple times without being open to change

• An inability to consciously consider and evaluate multiple views of a given situation

• The use of labels or judgments

• Expression of any form of deserve; such as stating who deserves or doesn’t deserve resources

• Escalated voice volume

• Attempting to convince, dismiss, or discredit another’s view

• Using power to control or harm others

• A loss of awareness of the impact of a behavior on the needs of others (lack of empathy)

• A lack of capacity or willingness to seek or accept support or feedback from others

Some things on this list are so common in the political landscape that we may not even notice them as forms of reactivity. And, of course, there are many more symptoms of reactivity. For simplicity, we can also divide reactivity into four types: defend, attack, submit, and withdraw. Here are simple definitions of each:

Defend:  The basic argument is “I am not wrong.” 

Attack: The basic argument is “The other person is wrong.” 

Submit: The basic argument is “I am wrong.”

Withdraw or Shut down: The basic argument is “My experience is wrong.”

In the framework of MCD, we view behavior through the lens of what’s life-serving rather than using the labels of right or wrong. Labeling behavior as right or wrong does not help us see what is happening more clearly, nor move us in the direction of a solution or intervention for improvement. Rather, we ask the following types of questions relative to a given situation:

• What need is this behavior (decision, policy, strategy, rule, law, etc.) trying to care for?

• Is this behavior caring for the needs it is meant to? If not, what needs are being met, if any?

• Is this behavior doing harm, that is, not meeting needs? If yes, for whom?

• In a given situation, what needs are present and for whom? 

• What creative strategies will honor and care for the needs of all that are involved (this includes needs of an ecosystem)?

With these questions in mind, it is obvious that responding to reactivity isn’t about arguing the content of what is said or done or “fighting back.” Fighting is just another form of reactivity. Responding to reactivity, whether in a personal relationship or at community level means identifying what’s needed and taking action to meet those needs.

Practice

Relative to the definition of reactivity, when any leader is speaking or taking action while in reactivity, they are not able to attend to the needs of all with compassion, wisdom, or creativity. 

This week, I invite you to notice reactivity in our leaders. What types of reactivity can you spot?  What needs are they trying to meet?  Do you notice reactivity in yourself?  What are the feelings and needs behind your reactivity?  See this Connection Gem on Chronic reactivity to deepen your capacity to identify reactivity.

Join us as we deep dive into these practices in the upcoming series: Staying Grounded in Challenging Times