I was recently discussing with a Ju Jitsu Instructor the 100 second rule.  What is that you might ask? As it relates to physical confrontations, apparently it only takes 100 seconds of subduing or restraining someone unskilled in self defence, before they will inevitably give in and essentially check out. What also happens, once we acquire the moves and know-how to show someone that we can either escape or outlast their 100 seconds, is that the mental pendulum of self belief, swings back in our favour. As we start to get the download that we CAN actually do this and, with this and repetition, we start to write new internal pathways of mental, physical and spiritual resilience. I have also recently been watching teenage girls and one of my mid 20's female instructors at my gym, with frequent smiles of confidence and playfulness on their faces. Any fear has been replaced with concentration, as, at this point in their training, they’re basically now legitimate competition and or CAN out-manoeuvre or take down a lot of guys in the room, DESPITE being smaller, shorter and lighter. 


As we contemplate the 100 second rule further and mentally compare it to other stressful situations or activities in life, especially ones that relate to goals, activities, opportunities that are really important to us, you might too, as I did, start to realise it has relevance to a whole heap of other scenarios in life.


Once we have the moves, or have taken some form of action that shows us we CAN outlast that first, awkward 100 seconds, whatever scary activity it is that we're doing 100 seconds of, whether Ju Jitsu, getting assertive with a friend, answering the phone to creditors, public speaking, or having awkward conversations at work, or in life, there's a tremendous sense of "I CAN DO THIS!" that kicks into our mindset through action and experience, when we just do it and stay IN. Along with a tremendous sense of resilience that carries over into so many other aspects of life.


As it comes to our fear of speaking or fear of saying how we feel or what we really mean, there is also is a sense of “I CAN DO THIS!” that results from us having got up and given it a go, as we realise that the 100 + seconds of doing so, didn’t actually kill us after all. Which is why so many Speaker Trainers you will encounter are so keen to have us just get up and give it a go, regardless of how it goes, to get us over that hurdle, and effectively shrink the size of the Monster in our heads, back down to it’s actual size. (If it ever even really existed at all.)

And then there’s the techniques we train ourselves to do to performance manage ourselves through and beyond the 100 seconds. We talk about those state management practices a lot in professional speaking training courses.  Over the last decade, I’ve talked to A LOT of people, who have concerns with mental health, anxiety or PTSD, who have concerns that those techniques aren’t enough though to help them with THEIR level of anxiety and triggers. I can completely empathise with that, having been through a comparable journey.  In my experience, for the overly anxious and prone to hyper-arousal, these techniques ARE actually STILL, at the base level, what we need to master to get our nervous systems back under control.


BUT, after over a decade of both trauma informed Counselling and Coaching Practice, plus having trained and worked with multiple world class Organisations that provide various aspects of Professional Speaking Training, plus having had to find A way to function as a Speaker myself having had triggers associated with PTSD to work through ( at a past time in history where, I'm sorry, but not even most Psychologists seemed to have had a clue yet what PTSD was, and if they did, how to recognise how it actually looked in a client, let alone how to help people overcome it so they can speak in public) I would say that there is another step to add.

​A complimentary puzzle piece, so to speak, for managing hyper-arousal, that fits in neatly around the state management techniques that most leading speaking trainers and training organisations teach to help you get on top of nerves, and fits in nicely around the breathing, CBT and visualisation exercises that many Psychologists might give us to do, that needs to also be integrated. 

As it takes a while to explain, properly, and likely you’ll possibly have a lot of questions, I’ve created a 45 min webinar, in which i'll give you an outline of what that step is.


Find out more about and register for "How to Manage Speaking Nerves for the Overly Anxious"

Beyond learning this, the next step is practice practice practice it. At first with the guidance of a suitably knowledgeable and experienced professional. And beyond that, in a dedicated, committed, consistent fashion, on our own time, for long enough to take a new experience, and some new behaviours and turn them into a habit. And a permanent new set of mental, physical and spiritual pathways.
​
Love to see you on there. Do let me know if you have any questions.

Until next time, have fun, take care.

One of the themes that has come up in my work A LOT over the years, is how do we make it ‘safe’ to show up as our authentic selves and to stand in ownership of our own unique concept of what brings us both a sense of meaning and purpose in life.  There is a deep sense of peace, wholeness and happiness that we find in connecting with and living into whatever our version of that is. And in learning to be at ease in that, despite the existence of differing ways of viewing, or being that might show up in the world around us. The more that we own our authentic selves and our truth, the more likely it is also, after all, that we will polarise others, who are sitting in a different energy and or perspective.


Our ability to influence others to consider our viewpoints in important business or leadership contexts (let alone with friends or family in life) depends heavily on what we do next when that polarisation arrives. With ourselves, and with them.


​One of the first challenges to our ability to connect with others here, can be the self protection thing our ego’s do to try and protect and defend that world view, when we feel like another’s attachment and adamance about a differing viewpoint, or seeming lack of openness to ours, is interpreted as an ‘existential threat’ to our own. It kind of makes sense that, on some level, when we finally find a good, thing, we want to hold ONTO that good thing. We likely want to share that good thing with others. And we certainly, like a garden we just poured all our efforts into, don’t want other people to come in and stomp all over our pretty flowers and all that hard internal work.


For us to get over this hurdle, we first have to realise that, like the spoon in The Matrix, “there IS NO existential threat!” Actually we’re often giving our power away to others when we behave as though they have some magical ability to reach into our heads and physical selves and mess with the truth of the garden in our minds. In truth, that’s our domain, of which we are the gatekeepers. Even if another does present some viewpoint, that it turns out is like an upgrade on our worldview 46.30, to worldview 46.31, it’s important to remember that any discomfort we feel with that, as the daggers of transformation cut off our heads and old world views, is temporary and too shall pass. (Yeah i know, easier said than done, when it comes to triggers.) But ultimately, as the thinker of our own thoughts, we do get to both contextualise it in a way that helps us, and then decide what we do next based upon it. The more we expose ourselves to differing viewpoints, the more practiced we will become at processing this, and both staying in our centre and managing OUR state, while in the presence of the external difference. Without having to either remove ourselves completely from differing viewpoints to cope. Or ask others to withdraw or withhold their truth, for our comfort and or long term thrive-ability. Or sense of self worth for that matter.


The second way that we can block others from being willing or able to consider our unique viewpoint, is by not recognising that, so often, the other party might be going through a very similar ‘existential threat’ reaction, when it comes to their own sense of expertise, identity, meaning, purpose and worldviews, in response to our expression of ours. Even if they don’t show signs of their vulnerability around this in obvious ways. To remember, that, if they seem to become defensive, or aggressive, or to go silent or withdraw, these too can be signs that, on a deeper level, they might be feeling the fear and the threat of their own existential crisis, in regards to hearing a view different to their own. We tend to have more compassion when we realise that someone is scared, over purposefully being an "a-hole."


In this regard, creating a safe conversational environment, in which any party can share a viewpoint can involve holding the intention to be gentle and appropriately respectful of them, their feelings, their world view and mindful of the impact as our words land upon their senses. That doesn’t mean we’re becoming or encouraging “fragility”, over resilience or robustness. It can simply be a way of acknowledging that we’re all worthy of being treated with respect and deserving of an environment of emotional safety and trust. And to presumed innocent before guilty. And the challenge for us is to hold to that level of respect still, especially in moments of differing opinions, or heated emotions.


A third way we can block our capacity to influence, is by becoming overly dogmatic in our expression of our worldview or passionately regarded subjects to others. Which sort of involves adopting a “my way is THE WAY and the RIGHT better way for ALL” type mentality about our worldviews. Possibly combined with a sense of superiority gained through ‘us knowing better than them.’ Without acknowledging that others can be just as knowing and just as expert, in compliment TO us. Just maybe in different words and different ways. In a world where many are now trying to be experts, most people are struggling with a sense of feeling good enough, of belonging and may have a deep desire to create a positive impact in the world, it kind of makes sense that we want to find and stay attached to the things that boost our confidence. Plus want to fast track to the place in life where we feel like we're walking social proof of the value of what we know and what we have to offer. BUT, deriving our sense of self worth primarily from finding evidence of our being better, performing better or knowing better than others from the outside, is fraught with risk. Not only because our sense of self based on anything from the outside world, can and will change and can and will at times be withdrawn. Thus it can be a better bet for our OWN sense of inner safety, as mentioned above, to define our worth as an inside job.


But, it’s also problematic for the longevity of relationships of all kinds, when we need someone else to be less than us, or stay broken so that we can feel superior, enough or still of value. How good does it feel to be around someone in the long term, who is completely invested in perceptions of our inferiority, incompetence, failures, our lack of self worth and judging us as bad or wrong? Does it uplift us? Does it motivate us? Does it makes us want to open up, move closer and invest more? Or pull away?


There will always need to be advisory, caring, teaching or mentoring type relationships in life, where there is need for skill and knowledge exchange, from someone viewed to be more experienced, to someone who doesn’t know about or know how to do that thing. But the problem is when we start to feel a party basically getting off on being better than us and condescendingly talking down to us (and or, perhaps too) actively resisting and trying to sabotage it when we DO grow and level up to them, so that their ego can maintain THEIR sense of safety in their hierarchal identity.)


I’m all for celebrating wins and growth, often. But I’m not sure about you, but it makes me personally want to withdraw and I find it a bit obnoxious, when someone around me is only ever about THEIR viewpoint and how great THEY are, and doesn’t take the time to either truly see or appreciate who YOU are and what YOU bring to the equation. And/or, if they’re always all too ready to ‘coach’ and nitpick all your holes. And I’m inclined to want to tell them so and why.  Now again with this, part of the challenge when we’re experiencing this is to learn how to maintain our centre around them, and define our own worth, without being pulled out of it and regardless of whether they are or aren’t honouring us or our boundaries.


Granted that this is not always easy, hence why personal development memes about just removing toxic people get such great “quick fix” uptake, dare I say it, without really resolving much of anything in terms of influence or long term engagement? With the exception of the truly Psychopathic and Machiavellian, the odds are that most humans are human and will slip up and make a relatively innocent mistake or offend us at some point, the longer we know them? So do we just toss all humans at the first sign of difference or dogma? That too, doesn't exactly inspire trust or safety to invest.


There are a couple of intentions/viewpoints we can adopt ourselves that can help inoculate ourselves against ever becoming overly dogmatic ourselves. The first of these is to remember and remind ourselves often that our view is NOT the only way, it is potentially one of many roads to the same destination. And often times, other parties may be talking about a similar concept, through a slightly different lens. If we were to compare notes with others in an objective, scientific, yet heart centred way, and compare other belief systems or systems for resolving a certain problem or creating a certain outcome, we would quickly come to see evidence of that. But also to see that we likely both had things in common, as well as different, creative/innovative strategies to have achieved a common outcome, or come to that viewpoint.


And yes, we might also, as is one of the TRUE goals of science as I was taught it, uncover or be given evidence of a potentially more efficient way, or a way that actually more accurately explains and accounts for what we have been observing, than the hypothesis we might have previously come up with to explain it. In this regard, one of the mentalities I adopted while studying science, that apply just as much to every other area in which I’ve tried to gain knowledge, as much as spiritual enlightenment over the years, is to constantly be prepared for the incoming reality that views might change and there might be another way…so hold your views, but be willing to stay open to new perspectives, and humble enough to be accountable and open about it when you view upgrades. And to stay curious when someone offers another perspective or a different way. It’s important to remember too that their new views or developments also don’t invalidate the contributions or effort we put in, in times past. Our efforts also helped get things to where they are now. But now we are being called to evolve with the times. It’s not failure, it’s growth. Holding an inner narrative like this, helps us hold and create greater internal safety for ourselves through these upgrade of knowledge moments. Which in turn, helps other feel safer to BE around us, as we grow, evolve, and exchange differing viewpoints, together.


A slightly outside of a leadership context example of this, I observed recently, while watching the Zombieland movies, while I was down for a few weeks with what certainly felt like some crazy Zombie viral bronchitis. When in Zombieland Double Tap, Columbus and Tallahassee meet their alter-ego’s in Flagstaff and Albuquerque.

As random people who’ve come together post Zombie Apocalypse, as allies in order to survive Zombieland, Flagstaff and Albuquerque are like alter egos of Columbus and Tallahassee.  Each pair is a very similar, but different, totally complimentary pair of “brains” and “braun” so to speak.  Without having had anything to do with each other prior, Columbus and Flagstaff have each, independently come up with an instructional manual of considerations necessary for surviving Zombieland. Columbus has titled this The Rules of Surviving Zombieland. And Flagstaff, concurrently, came up with the Commandments of Surviving Zombieland. Each is very proud of their intellectual property. As are their respective friends’ proud of their ‘nerdy sidekicks’ respective systems.

As Columbus and Flagstaff start to share about their systems, curiously ask questions to better understand the other's logic and compare examples of their rules/commandments, they find that there are numerous synchronicities within their respective systems. So, for example, one’s rule #2, might be equivalent to the other’s commandment number #24. At the same time, they discovered that their orders of things like priority, and what they named each one and why, might be slightly different, and then we see both genuinely considering why the conclusion the other came to, also makes a lot of sense. It’s got all the hallmarks of the potential to escalate into an egoic battle for IP supremacy of epic proportions. Yet, what happens is, any time they find a difference, they acknowledge and then give credit to the other’s way of thinking about it, or naming it. So within this particular interaction, the more they share, the more they find relatability to the other and build rapport, based on their common ground. Plus find a kind of respect of the other’s intelligence, as a mirror of their own. From this place, they can both be friendly AND further influence each other’s worldviews.


In order for balance to be restored in the Movieverse (as is the case with some sci fi’s when an actual alternate version of a version of a character from another reality accidentally enters the current reality) one of the two pairs ultimately has to prove flawed and be eliminated from that reality.  But I couldn’t help but think it’s such a great example in that moment of a collaborative strategy for how to deal with the egoic attachments  associated with our beliefs, world views and intellectual property, as it comes to engaging with and influencing others. With that level of curiosity, respect and the desire to find like souls and common ground at the heart of that interaction, it went in a much better direction than the average live debate show, or many of the threads you’ve likely witnessed on social in recent years about who’s version of “science,” or “conspiracy,” was the “right” one.


The dogmatic style of influence on the other hand (where leaders try and use guilt, shame, superiority or judgement to point out what “stupid, unenlightened sheep” the people of a different viewpoint they want to influence are for not doing 'a thing') rarely succeeds in getting anyone to lastingly take on or come on over to our viewpoint. Or wins their respect for that matter. So much as something else underneath it that they want to avoid, is the true motivating factor for their action. The risk is that it insights further polarisation and separation, for falling into the category of “abusive.” If the Leader or person using the ‘dogmatic’ style of influence, is in a position of power over those “stupid sheep”, they may well get fearful compliance for as long as it is needed. BUT followed by abandonment of ship, or the block button the moment it doesn’t and there’s another viable option. One with the perception of greater safety, kindness, acknowledgement, understanding and respect.


If I started this article talking about us finding the truth and the way that best resonates for us, then the invitation of this article might be to consider where this does or doesn’t apply in one’s own reality. And then let it inform our worldview of how we want to show up in the world, in matters of communication and influence going forward. It’s A viewpoint of some ways in which one might be able to create greater emotional safety with people, to achieve greater influence. But it’s not the only one.

Until next time.