Spending our courage for another, and sharing our courage with another, are very different phenomena
We understand suffering.
But maybe not in the way we should.
We understand suffering from. As in the experience of pain or difficulty — not resultant from something we’ve done or not done — thrust upon us from an external source. A person whose home is destroyed by a tornado is suffering from a natural disaster.
We understand suffering for. As is the experience of pain or difficulty — resultant from something we’ve done or not done — either thrust upon us from an external source or self-inflicted. A person expelled from school is suffering for his disorderly behavior.
And we, as leaders, understand an additional type of suffering for. As in the experience of pain or difficulty, so that others do not have to experience that same, or related, pain or difficulty. A senior who volunteers to run sprints at practice as punishment for a miscue that a freshman made — so that the younger player does not have to run — is suffering for her teammate.
But do we understand suffering with?
Suffering with is simply this: Willingly yoking yourself to another’s difficulty; voluntarily entering into another’s pain.
Note the contrast between suffering with and suffering for. Whereas suffering for, in a leadership context, is a choice a leader makes so that others don’t have to suffer, suffering with is a choice a leader makes so that others don’t have to suffer alone.
Suffering with, then, does not concern the removing others’ pain or helping them avoid pain. And suffering with may not even result in lessening of others’ pain. Therefore, suffering with is normally not deemed heroic and may not even be considered helpful by some.
But then, the power of suffering with has nothing to do with changing the situation. That is what we generally don’t understand.
Rather, the power of suffering with has everything to do with changing the individual — both the person experiencing suffering and the leader who enters into that suffering.
Suffering with helps the person suffering feel visible, valuable, and, importantly, not alone. Consequently, he/she may realize deeper levels of resilience, strength, and hope. And the leader who begins suffering with another acquires perspective, deepens his/her humility, and grows in empathy. Consequently, the leader may become more aware, gentle, and compassionate.
Together, the person initially suffering and the leader suffering with — because they jointly shoulder the pain/difficulty — both become more courageous, as they gain courage from one another. This shared, augmented courage demonstrates the power of proximity and the power of mutuality.
Still, despite the mutual benefits of suffering with, many leaders don’t understand it — in practice. Humans, after all, are conditioned to avoid difficulty. We run from our own pain, so why would we run to someone else’s?
Because doing so is…leading.
And leading is a calling. Especially this type of leading, this type of calling, which doesn’t get headlines.
Instead, it gets heavy, and messy, and taxing, and consuming, and bogged down. That is suffering.
And that is why, suffering with, entering into another’s pain, is inherently dangerous.
Because we do not get to choose when we will exit.
Suffering was originally published in Horizon Performance on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
