Perspectives on Congregational Leadership

Online course at BTSR for fall 2011

2011-06-03T06:26:00.001-07:00

Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond (www.btsr.edu) will offer four online course during fall of 2011:

M3811 Music and Worship (Loftis)
M3730 Educating in Faith (Galindo)
M3321 Christian Ministry I (supervised ministry practicum) (Hartman)
M3211 Introduction to Spirituality (Ford).

Visit the seminary website (www.btsr.edu) for more information and for course schedules. Contact the Registrar for enrollment information.

On BFST Orthodoxy

2011-03-16T19:43:00.001-07:00

A colleague invited some of us on a discussion on the phenomenon of BFST orthodoxy. This is the tendency we've seen among some "Bowenians" to guard the orthodoxy of the theory. At times it manifests itself in:

* A focus on the correct use of terms, concepts, and vocabulary
* The creation of a list of verbotem words, phrases, or references
* A dismissal of certain concepts that are considered "outside" the original theory's schema
* The identification of "camps" (e.g., Bowen vs. Friedman) and the self-identification with the original conceptualizer with an accompanying dismissal of those not deemed disciples of direct succession.
* The manifestation of the affects of hubris and exclusivity.

I think it is acurate to identify these as reactivity. What I most appreciate, and endorse to others, about BFST theory is that it is THEORY. In certain introductory presentations I enumerate the components of what constitutes a "valid theory." I use the list in presentations, and in my introductory systems course to get past latent "resistance" on the part of skeptical and cynical students.

The list includes the following:

Theories describe phenomenon as they are perceived (the are descriptive, not prescriptive)
Theories are grounded in a discipline (in the case of BFST, in clinical psychology)
Theories are universally applicable to the focus of their concern (in the case of BFST all "relationship systems" regardless of their context)
Theories are open to being disproved.

The point being that BFST is a "theory" and not "doctrine" or "ideology."

When I read or hear "Bowenian Purists" go on about parsing terms or being the self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy by listing what is "verboten" then in my view they have ceased to be theorists and have become ideologists--with the accompanying characteristics of willfulness, exclusivity, and cutoffs. Understand that I think using terms accurately is important, and, it is important to "stay grounded" in the theory and its field (I created a presenation titled "Systems Misunderstandings" to address the issue of the missuse and misunderstanding of basic terms of the theory).

However, the search for a "pure" Bowenian theory is, I think misguided, and dismisses the richness of Bowen's genius in positing a theory. Theories are not set in stone, and are not meant to be. Theories by their nature develop, grow in their nuance, are open to scrutiny, incorporate new information and adapt to new truths as they are revealed or discovered. Because theories eventually lead to application they are shaped by the contexts in which they are applied, and, by the contributions of the innovators who who carry the theory forward over time.

Of greater danger is the potential of making a religion out of the theory. This happens when the dynamic of inclusion and exclusion comes into the picture. Religion is about "membership," about determining who is "in" and who is "out"; who belongs and who does not. That tendency creates the necessity of self-appointed or ordained priests to guard belief (orthodoxy) and to make the declarations about who belongs and who does not.

The pattern is all too, shall we say, "systemic"? The biblical example that comes to mind is those who disciples of Jesus who claimed the priviledge of direct succession--calling themselved Apostles. These gave the Johnnie-come-lately Paul fits. Paul, in his own differentiation of self move had little trouble calling himself an Apostle much to others' consternation. Later on we have the situation of those who, lacking substantive capacity of Self, would identify with "camps": those who claimed to be of Paul and those who claimed to be of Apollos. Move ahead a few years and, predictably, we have the Church Councils gathering to define Orthodoxy, determine who is "in" and who is "out" and to exclude those deemed unworthy of belinging.

But, this is par for the course in professions and guilds also--one can trace such a dynamic with Freud and his psychoanalysts, for example. Friedman has that great story and getting called on the carpet by the psychoanalytic guild for dariong to put the term "diagnosis" in his brochure. The claim there was that only those who were "in" psychoanalytic guild were previledged, certified, and capable of doing "diagnosis." Friedman's characteristicaly droll response was that the guild should go after Sears' auto service due to their service of diagnosing engine problems.

Copyright (c) 2011, Israel Galindo

On children's sermons

2010-12-29T14:12:00.001-08:00

I received an emal from a pastor asking about children's sermons. He just accepted a call to a church at which he'll need to deliver a children's sermon as part of the worship service pastoral duties. I think that's a great thing. And I appreciate his seeking counsel on how to do it well.

Below is the usual advice on children's sermons I give when this question comes up:

I’m not quite sure about what makes children’s sermons such a universally bad practice in congregations. I suspect a lot of it has to do with two things: (1) a lack of understanding of the developmental characteristics of children, and (2) a lack of a clearly articulated theology of children in the church. A little effort in those two areas can go a long way in helping church leaders and members be more effective in the way they minister to, and with, the children in their congregation.

Here are the suggestions I share with pastors about how to deliver a children’s sermon. There are other concepts and points that can be made, but these address the more egregious sins committed in this regard:

1. Do not use objects in your children’s sermons.

Using objects as props in an attempt to use the “object lesson” approach is misguided and inappropriate. Children are concrete thinkers and are unable to conceptualize that “one thing is like another.” In their minds an object is what it is, it is not “like” something else. A tree is a tree, an egg is an egg, a key is a key, and a bell is a bell---they are not both an object and a metaphor for something else. Because children are concrete-operational thinkers, they cannot process symbols deeply, so a cross is a sign and not a symbol. Baptism is an act (behavior), and not a symbol (read Jung if this concept doesn’t make sense to you).

2. Never, ever, begin your children’s sermon with a question.

Beginning your sermon by asking a question,
• Leaves the child confused (like the time a pastor, wearing a robe for the first Sunday in Lent, started the children’s sermon by asking, “Who can tell my why I wore this robe today? Child’s answer: “How the heck should I know?”, or “Because you feel cold?”)
• Insults the child’s intelligence (like the time a person held up a picture of a tree and asked, “Who can tell me what this is?” Child’s answer: “O.k., I’ll play along and pretend I’m too dumb to know and help you out by answering the obvious: “It’s a tree!”)
• Puts the child on the spot. There’s little worse for a child than to be put “on the spot” to come up with the “right” answer. They’ve been dreading that in school all week, and now they have to fear that in church too?! And, of course, they have learned by now that the “right answer” to anything is always, “Jesus” or “God,” a tragic habit which has taught them that faith is uncritical---you don’t really have to think about it, the answer is always, “Jesus.”

3. Don’t focus on concepts; rather, focus on feelings.

A child’s faith world is a world of feelings: happy, hurt, sad, angry, scared, confused, uncertain, excited, feeling safe, loved, cared for. This is what a child “knows.” Children do not know nor are concerned with abstract concepts: redemption, salvation, justice, loyalty, courage, predestination, supralapsarianism, etc. When telling your children’s sermon, focus on feelings, identify them, acknowledge them, illustrate them, talk about them. Other feelings that help children grasp the experience of faith are wonder, awe, delight, anticipation, and thankfulness.

4. When giving a children’s sermon, just tell the STORY!

Children need narrative, “the Story,” in order to make meaning of their experience and feelings. Your children’s sermon should primarily be a story. When telling the story, TELL THE STORY, do NOT interpret the story for the children! Do not end your children’s sermon by saying, “Now, this means that. . . . “ Children don’t need you to TELL them what something means---they just need the story. Stories let you focus on feelings and wonder (“I wonder how s/he felt when…!”). Do not be concerned about telling a Bible story over and over again. The more familiar the story, the better (this is why children beg parents to read that bedtime book for the 1000th time. They never get tired of it because they NEED the narrative to make meaning).

5. The pastor needs to deliver the children’s sermon.

As with all sermons, the children’s sermon serves a function. One important function of the children’s sermon is to give the children in the church exclusive access to the primary god-figure in their faith communities. For most children in your church, those few minutes with the pastor will be the only time they have an exclusive time with and access to the pastor, their church’s spiritual leader. We tell children that they can pray and go to God any time they need, and yet we teach them that the pastor, the primary god-figure in the church, is not accessible to them. Which do you think they really come to believe? Comments like, “I’m not good at it; my staff member is better at it,” or, “I’m not comfortable around children,” or, “I need to focus on the main sermon” are what I call “excuses.” The bottom line is that the pastor needs to do this because it is a pastoral FUNCTION.

This is not to say that no one else can ever be allowed to give the children’s sermon. On occasion there may be a good reason for a staff person or even a guest to deliver the children’s sermon. But there should be a good reason (purpose) for it and it should be the exception and not the rule.

6. The children’s sermon is for the children, not for the benefit of the adult audience.

Do not “use” children for the entertainment of the adult congregation. You will only confuse the children, and they will sense that you are not really talking to them. In effect, they will know that you are ignoring them and using them rather than talking to them. Theologically and liturgically, using the children’s sermon as a way to communicate with the adults or as a way to entertain them turns them from being a “congregation” to an “audience.”

7. Sit with the children. Do not stand towering over them.

8. Use a conversational tone of voice, but don’t “talk down” to them. Take your cue from Mr. Rogers.

9. End your children’s sermon with prayer.

Teach children the proper posture of reverence for prayer (“Let’s close our eyes, bow our heads, and fold our hands.”). Children learn religious practices through modeling and practice—you can offer both during a children’s sermon. Your prayer should be no more than three or four sentences long.

10. Don’t be droll or use sarcasm when talking to children.

Young children cannot handle sarcasm. They don’t understand it and are confused by it. When an adult uses sarcasm or tries to be “clever” or “droll” with children it’s an indication that the adult is anxious and more focused on him or herself than on what the children need.

Copyright (c) 2010, Israel Galindo

Leaving well

2010-12-18T13:52:00.001-08:00

I’ve consulted with several clergy during their transitiong into and out of a congregational call. As I’ve observed clergy working through the issues of leaving their congregations I’ve noticed some common issues. Whether the clergy are leaving under duress or because they feel stirrings of restlessness, certain issues seem common to the nature of leaving regardless of the circumstances. Leaving a congregation involves the murky process of discernment, and clarity rarely comes instantly or easily. In many cases I’ve witnessed clergy who have left their congregations emotionally before they began thinking consciously about leaving.

In most cases the discernment process involves getting clear about what counts as something to factor into the decision and what can be dismissed as inconsequential. In the early stages of discernment that is not easy to do. At those stages everything seems as important as everything else and so the feeling is one of “being stuck.”

There’s no shortcut to the discernment process. Primarily because it’s as much an emotional process as it is an intellectual one. In fact, in my experience, rationality rarely is of real significance in decisions about staying or leaving, as much as we’d like to believe otherwise. If it were as simple as “doing the math” we wouldn’t have as much trouble reaching a point of decision, nor experience as much angst as we do.

While there is no shortcut to discernment about leaving a congregation, and insight comes in its own time, here are some points of consideration related to the issues I see common when trying to leave well. These aren’t easy, for they are often contrary to how most clergy seem to approach the issue:

Don’t plan for the congregation’s future. When it’s time for you to leave a congregation shorten your vision. Concentrate on leaving well and give the congregation’s future to the congregation, it's no longer your responsibility. To be blunt, once you decide to leave your congregation’s future is none of your business.

If you’re going to go, go. You don’t need to burn your bridges, but you need to get clear about what leaving means. Most clergy seem to do well once they get clear. For example, they will communicate with their congregation that when they leave they are no longer the “pastor.” So they’ll not make pastoral calls, conduct weddings and funerals, or get involved in church business. Clergy who are not able to “go” tend to become the bane of the “new pastor” and often do a great disservice to the congregation. It’s amazing how many clergy have trouble “leaving” their congregations. Sometimes they try to come back as “members.” But I’ve yet to see a former pastor of a congregation able to successfully return to their former congregation as “just a member.” It seems hard for them to appreciate that they weren’t “just a member” before, and never will be.

As you are leaving the function of your preaching needs to change. That change in function is primarily one of prophetic theological hope. This isn’t the time to try to plant insight into your congregation, if they didn’t get what you’ve been trying to say all those years they’re certainly not going to “get it” now. They’re listening to you differently. What they want to hear, and need to hear, is the affirmation of hope that they’ll be just fine without you!
The second function of preaching at this time is to remind them of their story. Clergy often are the resident storytellers of the narrative history of the congregation. Too often a congregation experiences an episode of corporate amnesia when a pastor leaves. Now is the time to tell, and retell, the story of the congregation as a local people of God. Remind them of how they came to be, who they were, and who they are.

Stay connected. One common emotional response of clergy who are leaving is to emotionally defect in place and begin to “disconnect” from their congregation. That’s understandable and may be a function of anticipatory grieving. But clergy need to work at staying emotionally connected to significant persons in the congregation, its leaders as well as others worth investing time with.

Work on your grieving. Leaving a congregation, under whatever circumstance, involves loss, and loss requires grieving. Own it. Find ways to mourn appropriately (mourning is the outward expression of grieving), but don’t confuse your grieving with that of the congregations’.

Focus on your own vision and work on your own self. I've mentioned that in the early stages of discernment it is difficult to sift the important from the insignificant. In the midst of the fog of discernment I’ve seen clergy get stuck by weighing in, with equal weight, issues like, the children (even when they are grown!), the house, their age, the spouse (his or her job, friends, hobbies, etc.), giving up a short commute, the club, the salary, a perk, their nice office, the computer the church provided, etc. To be sure these are all important, but they are not as important as pursuing your own vision, calling, and goals. Change involves risk and it involves loss. As someone said, you can have anything you want, but you cannot have everything you want. The question becomes, “What are you willing to give up in order to pursue your calling, vision, dreams, or desires?”

Copyright (c) 2010, Israel Galindo

On the future of the church and seminaries

2010-12-15T19:25:00.001-08:00

In a recent conversation with a group of folks in theological education who were pondering the relationship between the academy and the Church I was asked what I thought the future of congregations would look like. My response was that I have no crystal ball and would be suspect of anyone who offered a definitive answer to that question. But apparently there is a robust cottage industry in prophetic proclamations, futurists, tarot card readers, fortune tellers and latter day channelers of Nostrodamus. So, I ventured that if I had a guess about the future of the church I could risk a prediction.

At the risk of misreading my tea leaves, here’s my guess: there will be a continued increase in the variety of expressions of the church experience. We will likely continue to see bleeding edge growth in house churches, cell groups, multi-sites, mega churches, emergent, in addition to the existing varieties in styles among traditional congregational models. This will continue to challenge traditional congregational churches who choose to retain the 19th century American mainline and evangelical model, though they will manage to retain, if not attract, members—even in a culture that continues to become more and more secular.

To offer an oversimplification: one third of those who seek church will settle on one form of church for their needs and will remain relatively well connected there. One third of churchgoers will be seekers and wanderers going from one type to another. One third will commit to formal and institutionalize church for a smaller portion of their lifespan but will eventually cease to attend or support it as their spiritual needs cease to be met by any expression of organized religion or they shift to a stage in life where the church cannot sufficiently address their life structure needs.

This is purely an unscientific sociological hunch and does not take into account the possibility of a Fourth or Fifth Great Awakening and the movement of the Spirit. But if there are other great awakenings my hunch is that they will tend to be localized, and, likely situated among ethnic Christian populations in the United States. In fact, some perceive a resurgence of vitality in the congregations in American among ethnic and immigrant populations as mainline and established traditional congregations, which were products of previous generations, decline.

Certainly the challenge to theological schools to provide education and training for clergy and congregational leaders can feel overwhelming in this context of change and flux. How do seminaries prepare leaders for something that is yet uncovered or defined? If theological schools cannot realistically attempt to prepare leaders for churches that no longer exist, what churches will they prepare them for? Added to the changes in the congregational landscape, the changes in the educational enterprise alone are enough to challenge the ways and means of theological schools: a shift in the epistemology of what constitutes learning; models, ways and means of pedagogy that challenge longstanding assumptions about teaching and learning; changing perceptions of the value of extended formal education validated by degrees; the emergence of a generation of learners formed by media and technology who bring a world view and self-understanding that is contrarian to traditional schooling. One change that is a source of high anxiety is the almost fundamental shift in the understanding, role, and task of teaching. Any teacher today who does not understand web 2.0, knows how to produce media, or is adept at keeping up with the ever changing educational technologies feels the threat of becoming obsolete almost daily. It does not help ease one’s anxiety to hear ditties like, “In the near future there will be two kinds of teachers: those who teach online and those who used to teach.” Yikes.

Copyright (c) 2010, Israel Galindo

Thoughts on change

2010-12-12T10:02:00.001-08:00

At a recent conference on congregational leadership I was again struck by how the level of energy (anxiety?) in the room increased when the topic focused on change. This is natural, of course, since one of the critical functions of the leader in any system is bring about positive change on several levels. In fact, it is likely that the new leader in any system will enter with a mandate to make changes in the system--notwithstanding that any attempts of consequence to do so on the part of the leader will likely meet with resistence if not outright sabotage.

This too is natural in that the nature of emotional process in any system includes the force of homeostasis, and homeostatis resists change at the most fundamental levels: those that upset the balance of dynamics that have established patterns of relationships, structures of power, and those systemic structures and processes that inform identity (like culture and practices).

At the conference I attempted to offer some nuance in our approach to understanding change by depicting types and levels of change. An important question for the leader becomes, "what kind of change am I trying to bring about here?" The graph below depicts different kinds of change according to their level from easy to bring about to harder to achieve. From top to bottom these levels of change take a short time to bring about (e.g., programmatic) to a long time to realize (e.g., evolutionary).

The lower on the pyramid (which may depict a metaphorical iceberg) the type of change the more it is a type of "fundamental change," the kind that affects emotional process.

Change at any level invites anxiety if not reactivity. Depending on the resilience of the system, change at any level may bring a minimal or a great deal of anxiety and reactivity. Systems with a low tolerance for change can experience major crises with attempts at even benign programmatic changes.

Few of us remain in work and ministry systems long enough to bring about change at the more essential levels, those that impact developmental or evolutionary change, which shifts the emotional process in the system, including homeostasis. The typical tenure of most pastors is four to five years. For program staff, in most congregations, even less. The system in which we remain the longest is our biological families, with our family of origin providing perpetual influence through the power of multigenerational transmission of emotional process.

I suppose one implication is that if we desire to make meaningful changes of significant influence, the place to put our energies is in our families.

Copyright (c) 2010, Israel Galindo

What do you want to fix?

2010-09-19T19:29:00.001-07:00

Once, a colleague at work stopped by my office to review a communication glitch he was having with a staff person I supervised. The nature of the staff person’s work interfaced with my colleague’s office, but they’d had a history of finding it difficult to work together.

I listened to my colleague for about five minutes as he talked about the staff person, Susan, and the problem (Susan is not her real name). I noted that the focus of the content of his talk was Susan, and only peripherally did he identify what the problem was. I discerned that, once again, these two persons were stuck and I was being invited into an anxiety triangle.

Fortunately, my colleague is an emotionally mature person and we have a good working relationship. A student of systems theory, my colleague is a relatively level-headed, non-anxious person. But like many of us, some persons seem to push a reactivity button within him. When Susan pushed my colleague’s reactivity button, the resulting anxiety caused him to triangle someone into the matter, and I was in the position to be the natural candidate. Given our open working relationship I was confident in challenging him on how to approach the situation.

When he finally finished sharing a list of complaints about the staff person in question I asked him, “Can I ask you a systems question?”

“Yes,” he said, now on alert.

“Are you trying to fix Susan or are you trying to fix the problem?” I asked.

My colleague immediately recognized the emotional process at play. He realized that his reactivity was causing him to overfocus on Susan, and that he was triangling me into the situation by hinting that, as her supervisor, I needed to “fix” Susan. With that insight, we were able immediately to shift the conversation from Susan, to identifying what the problem was that needed to be fixed, in this case, clarifying a procedural matter between two offices.

Reactivity often manifests itself in anxious behaviors: an overfocus on personalities, a misdirection of an issue, triangling someone into the unresolved issues between two persons, scapegoating, etc. Because I was able to regulate my own anxiety in the midst of the meeting, I was able to ask myself “What’s really going on here? What’s the issue?” I was able to help my colleague re-focus the issue and re-frame the problem. He was also able to get in touch with his own reactivity and realized how it was manifesting itself in triangling me into the matter in asking me to take responsibility for another person’s behavior by having me “fix” that person.

If I had been unfocused that day, things may have gone differently. I may have gotten caught up in the anxiety and reactivity, accepted the invitation to enter the triangle, made Susan the IP (Identified Patient), and my colleague and I could have launched into a futile project of trying to “fix Susan.” Furthermore, the real problem needing attention would have gone unresolved, which would serve only to increase the frustration and anxiety.

When faced with reactivity it is helpful to monitor one’s anxiety and cerebrate rather than ventilate by asking oneself questions of discernment:

What is going on here, really?
Can I identify the triangle?
Do I need to accept the invitation into a triangle?
Am I responsible for alleviating another person’s frustration, discomfort, or anxiety?
Am I being asked to take responsibility for someone else’s behavior?
Do we want to try to fix a person or fix a problem?

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 12: Tactic 9. Defect in Place

2010-08-09T00:05:00.000-07:00

This week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic is called Defect in Place. This is a potentially tricky tactic that must be practiced at the right time for the right reason. Essentially, defecting in place is when a leader chooses to fail to “act as the leader” by not taking responsibility, or engaging in rescuing, for something people are demanding of them.

During my first month as a pastoral associate in charge of education at one church I sat in on the education committee’s monthly meeting. During that meeting they were planning the fall Christian education kickoff activities. At one point one member pushed the idea of again holding a plenary assembly on the first fall Sunday to kick off. It was apparent that no one else on the committee wanted to do this, but no member seemed able to say so and offer an alternative. As the new person in the group I took a stab at asking “dumb questions” about this activity. The responses were all negative, citing problems, dislikes and inconveniences the church had always experienced with this event. The more I heard the less enthusiastic I became with the idea. Despite this, the group (reluctantly) went along with the plan and mapped out the schedule and activities for the assembly. The lack of energy or enthusiasm for this kick off event was depressing and puzzling. Here was a group marching ahead planning for an activity no one wanted to do but helpless to do otherwise!

On the day of the event I sat near the front of the church sanctuary. Everything that could go wrong did. People were late getting to the assembly, the pianist never showed up, a couple of teachers did not arrive in time to greet their classes, the ushers did not prepare the room, etc. The person on the committee who was enthusiastic about the event led the assembly in the most confusing bumbling matter. No other committee member took a leadership role in the program. All this uncharacteristic of a congregation that was professional in all it did. It was painful to watch.

As I sat there near the front I could see people looking my way. I was the new staff person with responsibility for the Christian education program. How could I let this event fail? Why didn’t I go up and help the program leader who was lost and disorganized? One committee member reported afterward that a church member whispered to her, “He was just sitting there! Why didn’t he do anything?” Not a very auspicious start for a new staff member!

What no one realized is that I had determined that my function in this case was to defect in place. I had witnessed a group of people I would be working with stuck in their inability to make a decision. The group members were unable to speak honestly and take action for what they all clearly felt (they did not want to do the assembly). They were unable to be imaginative, think creatively, come up with alternatives, or be clear about what they DID want to do. That facilitated the group’s being led by one member’s predilection regardless of how misguided it was. Given that situation, the worst thing I could have done would have been to rescue the assembly event. Additionally, it would have been a poor action for me to overfunction in my new role by thinking for them and taking responsibility for the program or its planning.

Defecting in place freed me from taking responsibility for something that was not my doing and allowing the group to own their (deserved) pain of embarrassment. At the following month’s committee meeting I made sure the agenda included an assessment of the assembly. While the group at first was reluctant to revisit the embarrassment, it became an opportunity for me to address the group process I observed, and, to define my working relationship with the group---because the responsibility of the education ministry was theirs, I would not be an overfunctioning staff member. It was a good first step at helping reformat the group dynamics at work in the committee.

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 11: Tactic 8. Kickstart the Resources

2010-08-02T00:05:00.000-07:00

This week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic is called Kickstart the Resources. Edwin Friedman identified this as a basic tactic leaders need to practice to help bring about healthy change in the system. The second part of this tactic is to contain the toxins in the system—namely persons who are willful, engage in sabotage, and lack respect for boundaries.

I’ve checked with persons who do pastoral interims or who do intentional interim work about a pattern I’ve observed during interim periods in a congregation—that time the congregation is between a called pastoral leader. What I’ve noticed, and these interim pastors confirmed, is a pattern in congregations that enter an interim period (typically lasting at least eighteen months) in which mature and ordinarily highly responsible church members will withdraw soon into the interim period while the most willful and reactive church members “come out of the woodwork.”

Given how critical and potentially exciting an interim period can be for a congregation this is a curious phenomenon. Why would a congregation’s best leaders and richest resource withdraw when a congregation most needs them? One hunch I have is that the responsible leaders are probably burned out if the former pastor’s leaving involved a congregational crisis. These invested members were likely very active during a prolonged period of crisis and conflict. With the resolution of conflict (with the pastor’s leaving), for good or ill, they are tired and want to take a breather. When they recede to the background during the interim opportunistic elements step into the leadership vacuum. It is likely that those opportunistic elements in the congregation were kept at bay by the former pastor. Without a called pastoral leader in the system whose authority is universally acknowledged (if not totally accepted), those forces take advantage of the leadership vacuum. One would think these elements (persons) would be as weary as the members who receded, but the fact is that willfulness has a tenacious streak to it.

A necessary tactic for the pastoral leader is to kickstart the resources inherent in the system while holding at bay those elements that are willful, toxic, and lack an ability to respect boundaries. Doing so provides a healthy homeostasis in the congregation that empowers the healthier persons in the system.

Next week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic: “Defect in Place”

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 10: Tactic 7. Feed the Neurosis

2010-07-26T00:05:00.000-07:00

This week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic is called Feed the Neurosis. Neurosis is a manifestation of anxiety characterized by symptoms that include insecurity, irrational fears, hysterical reactions, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and phobias. The systems leader does not have to engage in psychoanalysis here. What is necessary is to identify a pattern of functioning that is counterproductive, anxious, and “irrational.” Some of these behaviors seem to be “learned” while others may appear to be personality-based. The issue here is, how does one address these behaviors in order to be effective in working relationships?

I was once a second-chair leader to a boss who was an insecure micromanager. In addition, his need to know everything that was going on bordered on paranoia—to the point of having “informants” among the staff and engaging in spying behavior (he would use the security systems to spy on employees). Early into our working relationship he insisted on being “kept informed,” by which he meant, I could not make a move without his approval and he apparently needed to know what I was thinking (my intentions).

Obviously this would make for an insufferable working relationship that would render anyone ineffective on the job. A direct confrontation would be ineffective as it would only exacerbate the neurosis. Honest conversation would be received as disloyalty or treachery. What was needed was some Systems Ju-jitsu. In this case I used the tactic “Feed the Neurosis.” I flooded his desk with memos—each of which provided a rational for all actions or asked for action or response on minor insignificant matters. For two to three days every other week or so I’d constantly call him letting him know what I was doing and asking what he thought, if he thought it was a good idea, if he had other suggestions for how to handle the matter. After three months he called me into his office and said he didn’t need all the memos and said he thought I was doing a good job and that the regular once a week staff meeting was sufficient for keeping him informed. At that point I was able to stop feeing the neurosis.

Certainly I wasted a lot of time feeding the neurosis during those first three months, but sometimes one has to engage in purposeful “selective overfunctioning” for a larger goal. Two relatively unproductive months was a good investment in changing a pattern that would have haunted me for the five years I was there—in fact, I probably would not have been able to stay that long if I hadn’t worked at establishing a new pattern for working together with a neurotic boss.

Next week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic: “Kickstart the Resources”

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 9: Tactic 6. Sabotage the Saboteur

2010-07-19T00:05:00.000-07:00

This week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic is called Sabotage the Saboteur. Whenever the leader moves purposefully toward realizing a vision or moving the system toward responsible actions of integrity, he or she can count on sabotage. Sabotage takes many forms, often surprising ones. Additionally, it is difficult to anticipate who, in their reactivity, will play the role of saboteur. It can be friend or foe.

Willful saboteurs, however, deserve particular attention. These are the persons in the system whose narrow repertoire and dedicated role is to block any progress in the system. It’s not worth trying to figure out their motives since this is an unthinking reactive posture from persons with low capacity for differentiation. What is helpful to the leader is to recognize the predictable patterned function these individuals play in the system.

Because saboteurs operate in stealth mode (they are like Ninjas, you never see them coming!) it is almost impossible to take them on directly. But one helpful Systems Ju-jitsu tactic is to make preparations to sabotage the saboteurs.

During a strategic planning period, Bob, a longtime church member got on the message “We are plateaued!” and “the Sunday School is not growing!” His constant chicken-little panic message would derail progress in leadership meetings. Given that he was a member of the Christian Education committee, and an otherwise positive individual, one would think it surprising that he would harp on such a negative perspective. But anxiety chooses a place to settle, and you never know who will take on the role of saboteur.

Bob had picked up on the “plateaued church” message from the denominational consultant for the long range planning process. It became his lens and his issue of focus. My tactic was to avoid confronting him directly. Instead, I did some data gathering and prepared some factual information to present at the right moment (note, “Death by Data” is another effective Systems Ju-jitsu tactic). I didn’t have to wait long. The next time he started on his one-note message I made the move by distributing the data to the members in the group and said, “Bob, thank you for that. I’ve been listening to your good warning and it got me to wondering about where we are with this issue. So I did some homework and I want to share some data I discovered. I’d like to hear what you see in this.” (Tactic: Avoid direct confrontation. Thank Bob for his genuine concern and for bringing the matter to the attention of the group. Solicit his opinion. Share the data--the facts). What the data showed was that there was steady 5% growth per-year in the Sunday School. Additionally, if one factored in the educational programs created over the past few years there was 10% to 15% growth per year in participation in educational programs overall.

Bob was taken aback with the data and at one point muttered, “Well, I guess we’re not plateaued after all.” At which point the group got unhooked from Bob’s panic message and was able to move ahead with more constructive work. Sometimes the best way to handle sabotage is to sabotage the saboteurs.

Next week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic: “Feed the Neurosis”

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 8: Tactic 5. Taking a Dumb Pill

2010-07-12T00:05:00.000-07:00

This week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic is called Taking a Dumb Pill. The Systems Ju-jitsu tactic of “taking a dumb pill” can serve several purposes. For one, it can keep the leader from overfunctioning through thinking for other persons. When a parishioner or a staff person asks for advice in the form of, “What should I do about this?” they are in effect choosing to underfunction (by not thinking for themselves and avoiding taking responsibility) and inviting the leader to overfunction (do my thinking for me and solve my problem). Getting into the pattern of consistently thinking for others, by giving “advice,” only keeps people dependent and powerless. What leader wants to cultivate a group of persons who lack the ability to think for themselves and take responsibility for their jobs? While being the fount of wisdom for others may feel good to the insecure leader, in the long wrong it is burdensome. Yet many insecure leaders perpetuate these patterns of dependence that eventually burn them out.

I once worked for a boss who seemed to have an obsession with the building thermostats. When I took the job I inherited oversight of the campus maintenance, so this issue was a natural part of my job. But the boss’ constant focus on the settings of the thermostats and micromanaging in that area hinted to me there was something deeper going on here than people’s comfort. We had a maintenance crew and ushers who were well trained and knew how to set the thermostats. Additionally, those gadgets were programmable, so once they were set one hardly needed to bother with them. Also, in the event the room was not comfortable for those who occupied the rooms there was a by-pass button they could use to lower or raise the temperature for a set short time.

Despite being a high “J” on the Myers-Briggs and one who prides himself on competency, I decided that on this issue it would be better to take a dumb pill and become incompetent about working the building thermostats. Over the years, whenever the boss got anxious about the thermostat he would give me a tutorial on how to work the units. We’d stand in front of a unit and he’d go through the directions, the steps, the procedures, etc. I’d listen attentively, scratch my head on occasion, mumble, “Oh, I see, hmmm.” Then I’d send a memo to the maintenance crew to check the thermostats (90% of the time they were working just fine). I’m sure it was a mystery to my boss why a man competent in other areas and who possessed two master’s degrees and a doctorate could not figure out how to work a dumb thermostat.

I never did figure out what was the issue with my boss and the thermostats (was it the small voice of his depression-era dad talking?). I just determined it was not my job to take care of his anxiety by perpetually checking the building thermostats, especially when (1) we had ushers and a maintenance crew for whom it was their job, and (2) if people were uncomfortable they could adjust the thermostat for themselves.

Next week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic: “Sabotage the Saboteur”

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 7: Tactic 4. De-triangle

2010-07-05T00:05:00.000-07:00

This week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic is called De-triangle. O.k., so one can’t really get out of triangles, especially if you’re the leader in the system. That’s because leaders occupy a position in the system that is the point of multiple systemic triangles, many of which are structured in the system and come with the job. But one can engage in Systems Ju-jitsu with triangles. When leaders get triangled they usually are being asked to take responsibility for something that doesn’t belong to them. Therefore, the goal of the de-triangling tactic is to foster responsibility on the part of another. De-triangling tactics set boundaries and help the leader refuse to take responsibility for other people’s relationships (the other side of the triangle).

Let’s examine a classic pastoral triangle and how to de-triangle. It is “classic” in the sense that it has all of the components of an “elegant” emotional process triangle: (1) it is generated by anxiety, (2) its source is family of origin relationships, (3) it is directed at the pastoral leader, (4) its content obfuscates emotional process, and, (5) it invites reactivity.

While the particulars of this classic pastoral triangle vary, here is the general pattern: the pastor receives a communication from a person who is a relative of a member of the pastor’s congregation. The communication may be initiated at the door after a worship service, or in the form of a phone call, e-mail, or letter (I’ve seen all of these). The person initiating the conversation typically is cut off to some degree from the family member who is the focus of conversation (and who will be made the other point of the triangle). While not always the case, the family member who is the focus of the conversation typically is a close relative, but of unequal status (father to a child, uncle to a nephew of niece, patriarch or matriarch to a misfit, IP, or someone who “married into” the family).

In essence, the person approaching the pastor expresses concern for the spiritual well-being of his or her relative. The content ranges from a concern that the person is not “saved” to something vague about “not being right with God.” The person triangles the pastor by asking that the pastor visit the relative to witness and get that person saved, or, merely to “pray for” the relative. Either way, the pastor is “hooked” at this point---after all, caring for the spiritual well-being of the flock is the pastor’s job. And how can one refuse the sincere request of someone who is genuinely concerned with the spiritual welfare of a relative?

Some pastors will march off immediately and initiate a visit with the parishioner who is the object of the family member’s concern. Others experience a feeling of being “stuck,” with a situation that sounds right, but feels a bit “off.” Most of these typically sense that they are in a triangle but often cannot identify it. They have taken on someone’s anxiety (their “burden”) while realizing that it’s not one appropriate for them to carry.

Let’s examine this triangle to see its dynamic:

1. A family member (Person A) who is cut off from a relationship, or is not able to be in a direct relationship with another family member (Person B) deals with the cut off through religiosity. We do not discount the sincerity of this person’s concern for the family member., but we need to appreciate the family of origin issues that may be at play.

2. The unresolved anxiety escalates to the point that Person A triangles in Pastor C. Person A triangles Pastor C using the content that “hooks” the pastor (religion), but is unaware that the heart of the request is for Pastor C to work on the side of the triangle that constitutes the relationship of Person A to Person B.

3. If Pastor C is not able to self-regulate and takes on the anxiety of Person A, he or she will triangle in issues of ministerial competence (rescuing), will triangle in issues with God, or will get hooked by any number of internal issues (his own relatives who are unsaved or in spiritual peril, issues with family members with whom he or she is cut off from and to whom he or she cannot minister to, etc.). Or, if Pastor C is prone to overfunctioning, he or she will glum into the boundary violation to which the pastor has just been invited.

The one who needs to work at self regulation here is Pastor C, who needs to (1) recognize the triangle, (2) not get hooked by the content so as to avoid reactivity, and (3) follow the basic rules of triangles, including, work on the relationships on your side of the triangle. So, one de-triangling tactic toward anxious Person A might be, “Thank you for sharing your concern. I am Person B’s pastor and I certainly care, but tell me, what’s going on with you?”

Next week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic: “The Dumb Pill”

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 6: Tactic 3. Kick up the reactivity

2010-06-28T00:05:00.000-07:00

This week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic is called Kick up the Reactivity. I witness many leaders expending a lot of energy trying to avoid conflict, working hard at “lowering the anxiety,” or trying to keep peace among all parties. My challenge to leaders when I see this is, “Good luck with that,” or, “Keep trying, I’m sure you’ll do it” (see Tactic 1). I also think those actions are often misguided in that they are informed by two wrong assumptions: (1) that conflict is bad and should be avoided at all cost, and (2) that the leader’s job is to lower the anxiety and keep the peace in the system. Edwin Friedman once suggested that clergy should try to bring out the reactivity in the system as soon as possible into their tenure, just to get it out in the open. Granted, Friedman was characteristically subversive and outrageous, and sometimes it was hard to know if he did so to merely make a point or was being prescriptive.

Recently, I decided to take Friedman’s advice literally. One year I attempted to get a group to deal with a simple budgeting procedure by changing an outdated policy. At the time I first brought up the matter the group was experiencing a time of high anxiety. The group members were not able to focus on the issue or make any headway in dealing with it on a rational level. Sensing we weren’t going to be able to solve the issue I called the discussion of the matter to a close and moved on to the next item on the agenda. The following year I found myself dealing with the pesky budgetary procedure again and determined that I wanted it solved, but I needed the group to take some ownership for the decision. Recalling how stuck the group got the previous year I pondered how to get the group unstuck.

I chose to follow Friedman’s lead and used a tactic that brought out reactivity in the system. Admittedly, it wasn’t pretty. One third of the group went on the attack (some of it personal), one third reacted by engaging in “rescuing” or personally tried to take care of my feelings (not that I needed it), and, predictably, one third was silent. The flurry of reactivity went through its cycles, but by the time the group gathered to consider the item on the agenda there was little discussion, no reactivity, and the policy change I desired (suggested by a member of the group) passed swiftly and unanimously. Basically, bringing out the reactivity got the system unstuck. When the issue came to the table the group was able to focus on that issue rather than the anxiety under the table.

Next week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic: “De-triangle”

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 5: Tactic 2. Join the resistance

2010-06-21T00:05:00.000-07:00

This week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic is called Join the Resistance. This tactic is in the true spirit of Ju-jitsu, rather than taking on opponents directly, redirect and join them! The tactic is as simple as agreeing with critics and siding with the enemy. Simply, this tactic removes the adversarial stance and avoids a battle of wills. As they say, “It takes two to tango,” so, just refuse to dance. In times of anxiety the reactivity will sometimes take the form of pursuit in the form of criticism. In other words, someone will “make it personal.”

Recently, when I was accused of mismanagement during a small crisis I publicly agreed with the accuser. That essentially avoided making the issue personal (which was the intent of the accuser) and redirected the conversation to addressing the problem (which in this case, wasn’t me). Once, when I was accused of appearing pretentious I replied, “But I am pretentious. It’s my defining characteristic.” In both instances we avoided a battle of wills and avoided an overfocus on “message content” and moved on to deal with the real matters at hand.

Next week’s System Ju-jitsu tactic: “Kick Up the Reactivity”

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 4: Tactic 1. The Paradox

2010-06-14T00:05:00.000-07:00

In this part of the series we focus on The Paradox. This move is a type of reversal where the leader or therapist prescribes the symptom or moves the patient or subject toward the behavior or feeling opposite of the desired goal. For example, a wife who wants to stop nagging is encourage to increase the amount of nagging. Parents who want to stop their teenager from swearing are encouraged to get the teenager to swear more. One common example is to recommend “Try harder,” to an overfuctioner who is feeling exhaustion at trying to change the system.

One benefit for the leader in using this tactic is to avoid advice-giving, which is a form of willful overfunctioning. The paradox within the paradox here is that person who are anxious often are stuck in “seriousness” and will likely not be able to see the humor in the paradox. But even in this case there seems to be a proven benefit to following up in the prescription of paradox. A dramatic case is the teenager who is brought into the therapist because of swearing. When the parents demand that the teenager stop swearing it only results in a battle of wills (“You can’t make me,” says the teenager). The therapist prescribes the paradox (in collusion with the confused but cooperative parents) and instructs the parents to “punish” the teenager’s instance of swearing by making the child swear for 10 minutes. It doesn’t take long for the swearing behavior to cease. Of course, part of the reason is that the problem wasn’t the behavior as much as the teenager needing to get the parents’ attention.

Next week’s Systems Ju-jitsu tactic: “Join the Resistance”

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 3: Characteristics of the Tactics

2010-06-07T00:05:00.000-07:00

We continue our series on “Systems Ju-jitsu.” Before exploring the specific tactics leaders can use it will be helpful to identify their characteristics. These characteristics will help highlight why the tactics are legitimate for systems leaders. These tactics have the following characteristics:

They are legitimate actions
They focus on bringing about change in the system, not changing others
They focus on realizing progress in the system (getting the system unstuck)
They are informed by systemic emotional process
They are responses that help regulate the leader’s own emotional state, thereby avoiding reactive responses like willfulness or overfunctioning.

With the next blog entry we examine specific tactics of Systems Ju-jitsu.

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 2: The Use of Tactics

2010-05-31T00:05:00.000-07:00

We often claim that systems theory is not about learning techniques, rather, it is working on self and about understanding and respecting emotional process. But leaders are also, but virtue of their function, called to bring about change in the systems they lead. The nature of this change, however, takes on a different stance than “management.”

The type of change the systems leader strives for is developmental and evolutionary. The key for both is to respect the nature of the system. (A church is not a club or business or family. A family is not a society or church. A seminary is not a community). In developmental change there is change toward maturity (this includes an increased functioning in responsibility and congruence of self).

In evolutionary change there is movement toward realizing the vision and mission of the system. A family procreates while a community is generative, for example.

In the process of bringing about authentic change in systems the leader will need, on occasion, to use tactics and strategies. He or she will need to solve problems, get the system unstuck, remove impasses, overcome obstacles, etc. These are address by the other side of being, which is, doing.

Techniques and tactics are necessary in any endeavor. But for them to be effective they must be grounded in an informing theoretical approach. In the field of teaching, for example, isolated techniques for classroom management tend to have limited effectiveness by themselves. The most effective approaches to classroom management are informed by a particular theory out of which arise the informed application of a selected set of techniques.

Next entry, “Systems Ju-jitsu 3: Characteristics of the Tactics”

Systems Ju-jitsu Part 1

2010-05-24T00:05:00.000-07:00

The martial art Ju-jitsu is referred to as “the art of softness,” or, “the way of yielding,” Jujutsu evolved among the samurai of feudal Japan as a method for defeating an armed and armored opponent without weapons. Due to the ineffectiveness of fighting an armored opponent, the most efficient methods for neutralizing an enemy took the form of pins, joint locks, and throws. These techniques were developed around the principle of using an attacker's energy against him, or redirecting, rather than directly opposing it.

The Philosophy of Ju-Jitsu

Jujutsu expresses the philosophy of yielding to an opponent's force rather than trying to oppose force with force. Manipulating an opponent's attack using his force and direction allows jujutsuka to control the balance of their opponent and hence prevent the opponent from resisting the counter attack. Likewise, a systems perspective will allow leaders to appreciate the significant influence of forces like homeostasis, anxiety, and multigenerational transmission. In so doing leaders will expend less energy trying to directly “change the system” and instead focus on directing these forces to more appropriate direction or better ends.

Practitioners of Ju-jitsu have characterized states of mind that a warrior should be able to adopt in combat to facilitate victory. These include: an all-encompassing awareness, zanshin (literally "remaining spirit"), in which the practitioner is ready for anything, at any time; the spontaneity of mushin (literally "no mind") which allows immediate action without conscious thought; and a state of equanimity or imperturbability known as fudoshin (literally "immovable mind"). Engaging in playful corollary from an emotional process perspective we can connect: (1) “remaining spirit” as “staying connected,” (2) “no mind” as focusing on emotional process rather than content (response vs. reactivity), and (3) “immovable mind” as self-definition or the capacity for “persistence of vision” that is the by product of being clear about one’s informing principles and values. Practicing Systems Ju-jitsu, as we will see, can help keep the systems leader from becoming willful and from overfunctioning.

This series of blogs will focus on “Systems Ju-jitsu,” exploring non-willful tactics for systems leaders. Next: “Systems Ju-jitsu Part 2: The Use of Tactics.”

Do you want to be great?

2010-04-02T12:34:00.000-07:00

I have come to appreciate the cycle of blockbuster best-selling leadership-in-organization books. To be honest about it, they’re good for business. It isn’t too long after one of these best-sellers hits the bookstores that I get an uptick in consultation requests. I used to get calls asking for help in getting organizational staff leaders to develop “habits” for being effective leaders. Then, the calls were about helping organizations and schools become “learning organizations.”

Lately the calls are from leaders asking for coaching in helping their organizations go “from good to great,” thanks to Collin’s best-selling book, Good to Great: Why some companies make the leap and other don’t. It seems lately, a lot of leaders have decided they want their organizations to be great.

I’m not too optimistic about how many “merely good” organizations can become great given my experience so far. The short of it is that while leaders and others in the organization become enamored with the idea of “being great,” few seem able to get to the point of committing to actually doing the things that will help them achieve greatness. Achieving greatness has a cost to it, and when it becomes clear what the cost entails, few seem willing to commit.

Here is my challenge to organizations who say they want to become great, whether a congregation, a business, or a school:

Organizations that want to be great need to do the things great organizations do.

The biggest challenge to organizations that want to go from good to great is the necessity to change the culture. No organization can become great without doing those things that great organizations actually do. It is not enough to mimic or imitate what the great organizations do, one must create the culture that provides the inherent values that foster greatness. For example, to become great an organization needs to develop a culture of intentionality about both what it does and how it does it. However, about 80% of this entails what many consider boring and mundane: policies, practices, structures, and processes—those foundational matters that sustain every organization characterized by excellence. How you do things matters, the little things count, you have to sweat the details, spelling counts, and style matters.

Any culture that tolerates attitudes of “Yeah, whatever,” or “That’s good enough,” will never be great.

Organizations that want to be great need great people on board.

For organizations that want to move from good to great no issue seems to be more difficult to deal with than the matter of attracting, cultivating, and keeping, great people. Congregations especially seem to face difficulty with this issue. To move from good to great a congregation will often need to let go of long-tenured, much-loved staff persons who have served faithfully but who cannot provide the qualities of greatness required to help move the organization to the next level. While it is necessary to make this transition in personnel, rarely does it happen without crisis. It is part of the price to pay to become great. But a different price is paid in keeping people who are not top-drawer: their inability to help move the organization forward becomes a hindrance to those who desire to do so and can. Leaders who cannot make the tough call often find that they loose their top-drawer people because of it, leaving the organization with personnel who do not have the capacity to move the organization to greatness.

Top-drawer people seldom are motivated by how much money they make, but they are not naïve about what they are worth. One high-performing second chair leader, shortly after leaving an organization, was asked, “What would it have taken for them to keep you?” He answered, “$3000.”

That was the difference in salary between what he was paid and what another mediocre employee was being paid. The organization’s failure to balance the “seniority” of tenure of a poor-performer (who had little capacity to move the organization forward) with rewarding and acknowledging their high-performing top-drawer employee resulted in losing the person they most needed to keep. The top employee moved on to a more challenging and satisfying job (for less money) while the company got stuck with an unmotivated worker who made little contribution during the remaining five years he stayed at the company—needless to say, he had little motivation to improve his performance since the lesson here was that the company was willing to reward mediocrity.

Organizations that want to be great need to do great things.

Finally, great organizations do great things beyond what their mission calls for. They “stay hungry” and maintain a trendsetting and pioneering perspective. They are characterized by boldness, imagination, and a willingness to risks when the timing is right. This means that they do not fear failure and so are not characterized by timidity. When great organizations do “great things” their intent is not to make a splash, but to make a difference.

The tragedy here is that too many leaders and members of organizations prefer guarantees rather than risk. They desire safety rather than adventure. The greatest impasse for leaders who want to move their organizations to greatness is having too many in the organization who want to be taken care of rather than engaging in what it takes to do great things. One hard questions leaders need to ask, then, is, “Do I have the people in place to make our organization great?”

So, do you want to be great?

Five concepts on leadership

2010-03-22T00:05:00.000-07:00

I’m delivering another presentation on leadership this week. Sometimes an invitation to speak comes with the requirement to follow the theme of the conference or event. That’s a hit-or-miss prospect. I thought we were gratefully past the millennial-themed emphasis (leadership in the new millennium, etc.), but apparently not. The invitation was to speak on “leadership in the 21st century.” The dilemma for this speaker is that I don’t think the “new century” is a factor of significance in thinking about leadership. The point being that it misses the point.

The concept of leadership has seen its own evolution. What constitutes a leader and leadership in fields of study and in various contexts have changed over the decades. Over the years some concepts have proven better, more accurate, than others. But I think the fundamental reality of what constitutes effective leadership has always been the same. Having said that, we must confess that the caveat with that sentence is in how one defines effective leadership. If leadership is about getting the job done, then that’s one thing. If leadership is about promoting integrity and health, then it’s another.

I remain intrigued about how people think about leadership. And it’s interesting to see how they struggle when presented with a different way of thinking about it. Here are five fundamental concepts about leadership I often present that tend to challenge how people think about leadership. For many the shift in their paradigmatic thinking is so huge that the first step is to struggle at reconciling the disconnect with what they currently believe.

Personal maturity is the central factor in effective leadership, not management technique, organizational philosophy, or control tactics.

A leader who is too concerned about consensus and harmony will more likely enable the destructive forces and processes in the organization.
The leader is responsible for his or her position, not for the whole congregation.
An organization functions best to the extent its leaders are self-differentiated.
The way a leader helps an organization most is by affecting integrity, promoting personal responsibility, and discouraging dependence.

Adapted from Perspectives on Congregational Leadership, by Israel Galindo.

Homeostasis finds a way

2010-03-15T14:20:00.000-07:00

One phenomena of the power of homeostasis is that whenever a leader attempts to bring about change he or she will most certainly encounter sabotage. While we can find some comfort in the notion that reactivity is unimaginative, and therefore predictable, sabotage has a thousand faces. The fun thing about sabotage (if one can be non‐reactive about it), is that while we can expect it, we will always be surprised at the forms it takes.

Most of us will be surprised at the form the resistance takes.The preacher was annoyed because an elderly man kept falling asleep during his sermon every Sunday morning. So one day he said to the man’s grandson, “If you can keep your grandfather awake I’ll pay you a quarter every week.”

The ruse worked for two weeks. The old man was alert and listened to the sermon. But on the third Sunday the preacher found that the old man had fallen asleep again. After the service the preacher sent for the boy.

“I’m disappointed. Didn’t I promise you a quarter a week to keep your grandfather awake?” asked the preacher.

“Yes,” replied the grandson, “but Grandpa gives me a dollar a week not to disturb him.”

Homeostasis resists change in equilibrium. Every move toward change seems to be met with a countermove in the form of resistance,sabotage, entrenchment, confrontation, opposition, passive aggressive strategies, or sheer stubbornness. Experienced leaders never underestimate the power of homeostasis to reestablish systemic equilibrium.

The curious thing is that there appears to be no "logic" to the desire for maintaining equilibrium. Even if the change is acknowledged to be of potential benefit to the system, and to individuals in the system, change will still be resisted. The mystery here seems to be that "getting better" does not trump maintaining equilibrium.

Some systems are more resilent than others, and therefore, more open to change for the better (developmental or evolutionary). For those that are most resistant to change What seems to be required for change is reaching a tipping point where maintaining homeostasis becomes untenable. For example:

Reaching a point when it becomes clear that it's a matter of "Change or die." (But some organizations die before they arrive at the point where that insight is accepted).
A change agent with enough clout to push pass the impasse
A shift in the system in the percentage in numbers and/or influence in the ratio between those open to change and those resistant to change
A shift in a re-commitment to corporate values so as to bring about embracing vision, progress, relevance, and growth
Sufficient pressure from outside forces or agencies to force change by overwhelming the resistance.

Adapted from Perspectives on Congregational Leadership, by Israel Galindo

Factors for bringing about organizational change

2010-02-17T20:58:00.000-08:00

Bringing about organizational change isn’t rocket science, but it’s not easy either. Those who step into a leadership position that requires engaging in institutional and organizational development in effect and by default will need to bring about changes on several levels: administrative, cultural, organizational, relational, and in processes and structures. In other words, institutional development is systemic. It requires addressing change in everything all together at the same time.

One aspect of bringing about institutional change is problem solving, and that skill is a major part of the game. Every change brings about a potential new problem. And that problem needs to be solved. For problem solving I know of few things more helpful than the Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm. I’ve found that if I follow it rigorously and to the letter it works every time:

The Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm:
1) Write down the problem.
2) Think very hard.
3) Write down the solution.

A second more helpful list comes from John Champlin who identified seven critical factors for bringing about effective change in an institution:

The creation and support of clear, attainable goals that are publicized and constantly in use
The presence of a change agent who can effectively break the equilibrium (homeostasis) holding an organization in place
The use of a systematic, planned process that is open and subject to alteration
The involvement of the community as an active partner and participant in any major change
The presence of effective leadership with vision, a sense of mission, a goodly measure of courage, and a sense of the importance of the mission
A commitment to renewal that disallows compromising for lesser attainments and always aspires to higher levels of sophistication.

Adapted from Perspectives on Congregational Leadership.

Triangles in the emotional field

2010-02-11T21:26:00.000-08:00

Students of Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST) learn early about the importance of triangles in relationship systems. The concept of the emotional triangle is one of the original eight basic concepts in BFST. So foundational to the theory of emotional process is the concept of emotional triangles that it is often said, “If you understand triangles, you understand the theory.”

The eight concepts of the theory, and their derivatives, are interrelated, together they comprise part of what is “systemic” in BFST. To truly “think systems” one cannot focus on one concept without considering all others. While not all concepts within the theory are equally applicable to the same extent for any particular case or issue, some are consistently linked in terms of emotional process in systems. For example:

Anxiety and reactivity
Overfunctioning and underfunctioning
Change and homeostasis
Differentiation and neutrality
Triangles and the emotional field.

One insight we often fail to apply to the concept of emotional triangles is that they exist and function within the dynamic of the emotional field to which they belong. One cannot truly understand the emotional process at play merely by identifying the triangle formed between three persons (or two persons and an issue) while ignoring the emotional field in which that triangle is being played out. In other words, context matters. Triangles are not just a result of anxiety, they are the product of the emotional field.

Friedman on the emotional field.

Edwin Friedman explained the concept of the emotional field:

“. . . Bowen has at times used the phrase “emotional field” rather than emotional system. So used, a field may be defined as an environment of influence that is not material in itself (a magnetic or gravitational field, for example) but comes into existence because of the proximity of matter to matter. However, once this field does come into being, it has more power to influence the discrete particle within it than any of those pieces of matter can continue to influence the field they have, by their presence, “caused” to exist.” (Friedman, Myth of the Shiksa, p. 167).

Further, he wrote,

“The term ‘emotional system’ refers to any group of people or other colonized forms of protoplasm (herds, flocks, troops, packs, schools, swarms, and aggregates) that have developed emotional interdependencies to the point where the resulting system through which the parts are connected (administratively, physically, or emotionally) has evolved its own principles of organization.” (Friedman, Myth of the Shiksa, p.163).

In light of that statement we can consider that triangles are part of the principles of organization of the emotional field.

Components of the emotional field

The Emotional process in the emotional field that affects everything in it, including the formation and maintenance of emotional triangles, can include the influence of the following components to one extent or another:

The positions of the individuals in the field and the functions they serve (leader, IP, etc.)

The field is moderated by the level of differentiation of self within and among the field

The field may be mediated by culture

The field is influenced by biology

The systemic structures of the field (type of system—biological family, corporation, congregation; developmental stage of the system)

The field is influenced by external and internal forces—positive and negative

The field is influenced by multigenerational transmission dynamics.

The next time you identify emotional triangles in a system, work at gaining a deeper understanding of the emotional process at play by remembering that triangles are situated in the context of an emotional field.

Five personal resources for leadership

2010-02-07T08:04:00.000-08:00

Purists of Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST) tend to eschew all notions or frameworks of individualistic perspectives to therapy or interpreting families or organizations (like “personality type” or “traits” schemas). They prefer a consistent “systemic” approach that focuses on the system over the particulars of individuals in the system. More weight is to be given to the position and functioning of an individual in a system than on his or her personality because both are more a product of the system than of the individual. By and large I lean

After all, one of the most significant contributions of BFST is the concept of self-differentiation (or, the “differentiation of self”). At the end of the day, that’s a product of the individual rather than the system. Especially for leaders, differentiation of self is what enables one’s capacity to influence the system—to lead from a principled position rather than as a cog in the system, to act with vision and purpose rather than reactivity, and to foster maturity and responsibility in others.

As such, I think there are five personal resources every leader needs to develop. I call these personal resources because in stuck systems they are not the product of the system, but of the individual leader. And let’s face it, most systems, most of the time, are stuck in their homeostasis. Here are the personal resources:

Perspective. This is different from “vision,” that other important function of the leadership position. Perspective is the result of the capacity of the leader to stand outside the system’s emotional milieu. While leaders will always be in the flux of the emotional process of the system they also need to develop the capacity to “step outside” their emotional context in order to gain enough perspective to understand what is (really) going on.

Courage. Leaders need to be willing to stand at the point and be exposed. They need to not only be vocal about the vision and goals for the system, and visible in being present, but also, willing to be challenged, targeted, misunderstood, and criticized.

Persistence. Leaders who challenge the system toward health (development), growth (change) and integrity (responsibility) will automatically invite resistance, sabotage, and rejection. It hardly matters the “reasons” or motives for those reactive stances, they are merely the functions of anxiety and reactivity related to a challenge to homeostasis. Effective leaders need to cultivate the personal resource of persistence to take on the reactivity and hold the course.

Stamina. Leaders often are surprise at the mindless (unthinking) tenacity of reactivity. Often leaders will successfully address an issue and mistakenly assume that it’s been resolved. But the fact is that the most willful persons or groups in the system just don’t let up. Leaders need to cultivate the resource of stamina to endure those issues that come back time and again. And sometimes, the only way to change a system is to outlast those who remain entrenched.

Ruthlessness. Whether you’re a fan of Machiavelli or not, the fact remains that one of the most important personal resources of any leader is ruthlessness. Being ruthless does not mean that one practices the torched earth strategy as a singular approach. Nor does it mean that one’s primary stance is adversarial. But when, on occasion, it is called for, leaders must be ruthless when facing the willful toxic forces whose mindless pursuit is to destroy the system, impeded progress, or attack the leader. When there is no reasoning with the unreasonable, leaders must be the ones to restrict, contain, or cast out the toxic elements.

If a leader's job is not about bringing about change, then what's a leader good for?

2010-01-24T11:29:00.000-08:00

A sharp student in my systems theory class was struggling with the idea of how trying to bring about change in a system is not willful. He had accepted the idea that a leader's job is not to “change the system.” But he was trying to reconcile that idea with the fact that leaders do bring about change in systems: organizational, developmental, change for the better, change toward maturity, change of perspectives, etc.

The question came to a point during the “Leadership Lessons from the Dog Whisperer” presentation. Watching Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer, enter a system and bring about dramatic change in the owners and their dogs gave my student pause about the assumption that the leader's job is not about bringing about change. Yet, here was Millan, entering a system, and doing exactly that, much to everyone's relief.

I think we can learn much about the relationship between change and leadership from Millan's approach. When entering a system in reactivity Millan's goal for change is to restore balance and purpose to a system according to its nature. Millan understands the nature of the dog (a pack animal) and the natural system in which the dog's emotional field operates (the pack). He is able to identify how the dog's functioning is off-center within the new emotional field of a human family. Typically, he enters a systems in which: (1) there is a lack of the presence of a pack leader (the human has failed to provide the leadership function), and (2) there is a sense of a loss of purpose in the dog.

When Millan is able to restore balance (reestablishing who is the leader and who is the follower) and purpose (a sense of place and clarity of mission) to the system, positive change comes about. That change, however, is a reestablishment of homeostasis according to the nature of the system. He does not try to change the dog into a human family member; he does not try to change the family into a canine pack; he restores balance according to the nature of the system. When that happens, people and dogs can change how they function in the system.

Insights on Change and Leadership

Here are some insights, then, for leaders about the matter of change:

Respect the nature of the system.

A congregation is not a family, nor is it an organization—in its nature it is a community of faith. A seminary is not a community, nor is it “church.” A social club is not a community. Therefore, the change a leader brings are those consistent with the nature of the system and its purpose. Leaders do not try to change the system into something it is not. Congregations will always get dysfunctional when they (1) forget their nature, and (2) neglect their purpose (mission). Leaders bring appropriate change when they understand and respect the nature of the system and help the system remember and live into its purpose and mission.

Change comes about as a product of Self, not technique.

Millan's amazing capacity for bringing about change in a system flows from his self, which enables him to be a non-anxious presence in a highly reactive system. While he trains dog owners in various techniques the real change happens in the relationship between owner and dog (an emotional repositioning within the emotional field). Millan's non-anxious presence helps moderate reactivity and mediates the anxious triangles in the system which, in turn, allows for a shift in the emotional process in the system.

Do not take responsibility for the outcome.

Millan models an appropriate coaching posture. He does not take responsibility for the outcome. He “rehabilitates dogs and trains owners” but he does not “will change” nor takes responsibility for the outcome once his work is done. This posture is very difficult for leaders, perhaps especially for pastoral leaders who invest much of self into their congregational ministry. One consistent point of stuckness for pastoral leaders happens when, upon deciding to leave the church system (whether anticipating retirement or moving on to another call), their focus, energy, anxiety, and projects focus on working at ensuring good outcomes for the church they are leaving after they are gone. The more helpful posture is focusing on leaving well and giving up trying to manage or ensure the future of the church. Simply put, once a pastor decides to leave, that church's future is not his or her responsibility.

Understand emotional process and work within its sphere of influence.

The most helpful insight in all this may be the necessity to understand the emotional process of a system and to work within its sphere of influence. Once a leader enters a system he or she becomes a part of the system (as Edwin Friedman put it, the leaders is “grafted” into the system). Any change a leader tries to bring about needs to happen within the influence of the system's homeostasis, the dynamics of the emotional process (including multigenerational transmission), and the leader's position and function in the system. This is why we challenge clergy to appreciate that it takes five years before they can “do that vision thing.” It takes that long being in the system to understand its culture and emotional process well enough to begin to understand what changes a leader can work at bringing about that are congruent with the nature of the system and authentic to its purpose.

Five ways to become a popular leader

2010-01-19T19:46:00.000-08:00

Every once in a while I need to challenge someone by asking, “Do you want to be liked or do you want to be effective?” In one sense it’s a false choice, but in another sense, leaders often will have to make a choice about their function. If the personal need to be liked, affirmed, or appreciated is the primary concern of the leader, effectiveness in how the leader functions in the system will be compromised. For those who choose being popular over being effective, there are five sure ways to accomplish success:

1. Focus on people’s individual needs over the need of the system. Unpopular effective leaders will always seek the welfare of the system as a whole first over meeting the needs of individuals in the system. But popular leaders will keep their radars out and be sensitive about people’s needs, feelings, and predilections, and will focus on meeting those above all. It’s the only way to keep everyone happy, right?

2. Structure your working relationships around triangles. When dealing with persons in the system maintain a triangulated pattern of relationship by always asking and talking about their family or an issue. This will serve to dissipate anxiety by focusing on things other than your direct relationship with persons. People will feel better knowing they will never be called upon to make “I” statements or have to deal with your position on issues.

3. Build cohesiveness in the system by focusing on the “others out there.” If you focus on “them” you can avoid making persons in your system feel like failures because you’ll never require that they take responsibility for themselves. If something goes wrong, blame “them.” If goals aren’t met, blame “them.” In fact, you can squash any ambitious idea and avoid potential failure by declaring that “they” will cause the plan to fail.

4. Take responsibility for people’s functioning and for their feelings. There is nothing that will make you a more popular leader than doing this. Take the blame or allow excuses for the underfunctioners and incompetent in the system. After all, “the buck” stops with you, right? Effective leaders will only take responsibility for their own functioning and their own position in the system, but they forget that everyone loves a leader who “feels your pain.”

5. Finally, popular leaders will work hard at creating a sense of “family” or oneness in the system by getting everyone to think alike, value the same things, share the same opinions and behave the same. Effective leaders always work at fostering personal responsibility and discouraging “group think” or “herding.” But that only leads to problems—it’s a whole lot easier to lead a herd of cattle than to deal with a system full of mature, self-directed, differentiated individuals who have the capacity to express their own ideas and opinions.

Sometimes leaders need to decide whether they want to be liked or whether they want to be effective. Being a likeable leader isn’t too difficult, and everyone likes a “nice guy.” Being an effective leader is never easy, but effective leaders are clear about what constitutes true leadership and they have accepted that there’s often a price to pay when one answers that calling.

From, Perspectives on Congregational Leadership, by Israel Galindo

How to Deal With a Wall

2010-01-16T12:55:00.000-08:00

One of the first dollars I made on a job was knocking through a wall in a New York City brownstone. I used a sledgehammer and it took me an entire day. I was twelve years old and I was paid a dollar in the form of a 1922 silver Peace Dollar. Not a bad deal for a 12-year-old, especially since I’ve still got that coin and its value has increased over the years.

Leaders who need to address change in organizations often find themselves hitting a wall of resistance. That resistance typically is not overt, antagonistic, and confrontational, rather, it comes in the form of entrenchment, lethargy, passive-aggressive behaviors, and sabotage.

A journalist assigned to the Jerusalem bureau takes an apartment overlooking the Wailing Wall. Every day when she looks out, she sees an old Jewish man praying vigorously. So the journalist goes down to the wall, and introduces herself to the old man. She asked: “You come every day to the wall. How long have you done that and what are you praying for?”

The old man replied, “I have come here to pray every day for 25 years. In the morning I pray for world peace and then for the brotherhood of man. I go home, have a cup of tea, and I come back and pray for the eradication of illness and disease from the earth.”

The journalist is amazed. “How does it make you feel to come here every day for 25 years and pray for these things?” she asked.

The old man replied, “Like I’m talking to a wall.”

Sometimes leaders may feel that all their challenges and messages of vision and goals are like talking to a wall. The temptation may be to attempt a direct assault to knock down the wall or punch a hole in it. But often, taking the path of least resistance is the way to go. If you want to make progress, sometimes you should stop hitting your head against the wall and just go around it. There's no sense giving yourself a headache over something you can't change.

From, Perspectives on Congregational Leadership: Applying systems theory for effective leadership.

Choose principles over feelings

2010-01-12T18:33:00.000-08:00

Self-differentiation is all about functioning. One manifestation of the extent to which one is functioning in a self-differentiated manner is how well one can separate feeling from thinking. I recently consulted with a normally steady and effective staff person who found herself stuck on a particular issue. In this case she knew the right thing to do, and was able to quote the company guidelines that needed to direct her action, yet, she was second guessing herself.

By the time she called me to think through the issue she’d triangled in two people in different offices in her organization (anxiety spawns triangles), reviewed the company guidelines several times, and called a person in a different company to double check legal regulations. Despite all that she still felt stuck. After working through the issue she gained enough insight to see how her emotions kept trumping her cognition . Additionally she became aware that someone else’s emotions and anxiety were feeding her own anxiety. Despite knowing what she needed to do, she was stuck in not being able to follow through.

These situations highlight how important it is to hold clearly articulated principles. A clearly articulated principle can be a stay against confusion in the moment when decisiveness and action is called for. In the midst of anxiety, when cogitation and cerebration becomes a challenge recalling the principles that guide action can keep one from getting stuck.

Here are examples that can be of help when one needs to decide on one’s feet (these are mine, you’ll need to come up with your own):

If you have to choose between feelings and principles, choose principles.
If you have to choose between convenience and doing the right thing, do the right thing.
If you have to choose between someone’s happiness and doing the ethical thing,, do the ethical thing.
If you have to choose between your values and a relationship, chose your values.
If you have to choose between what is expedient and what is right, do the right thing.
If you have to choose between what someone wants and what is best for the system, chose what is best for the system.

What principles guide your actions in times of challenge?

Excerpted from Perspectives on Congregational Leadership.

Best book critique ever

2010-01-09T14:18:00.000-08:00

I received a gracious email from Brian Gumm who is a student at Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA. He graciouslly shared his review of my book The Hidden Lives of Congregations. It is a fine example of a book review, including a responsible and clear critique (a component too often missing from student book reviews). I offer it here as (1) a positive example of a well written book review, and (2) another opportunity for shameless self-promotion.

You can read his review on his Restorative Theology blog.

When triangles are “bad”

2010-01-07T20:08:00.000-08:00

One misunderstanding about basic concepts of Bowen Family Systems theory has to do with assigning value statements. For example, the notion that overfunctioning is “bad.” Overfunctioning, like other behaviors are not “bad” or “good,” they are merely functions, symptoms, or manifestations of emotional process played out in the way people relate to one another. This is why it’s more helpful to observe function in the system than it is to assign motives to people’s behaviors.

That said, we must also accept that all functioning, while not “good” or “bad”, either contribute to the health of the system or work at keeping the system stuck. While we can say that triangles are neither good nor bad, merely one of the many ways systemic anxiety gets played out and structured, we can identify when triangles do not help the system toward growth and health. So, here are ways that triangles are “bad”:

When they promote the development of symptoms in relationships. For example, in a family an underfunctioning parent triangles a spouse and a child to “take care” of the symptomatic adult in the family.
When they perpetuate chronic symptoms or conflict. For example, when a system—a family or organization—reacts to problems by immediately identifying a scapegoat or identified patient rather than striving toward accountability without blaming.
When they work against the resolution of toxic issues. For example, because of its inability to deal with a willful but esteemed patriarch a congregation perpetually fails to deal with the individual’s willfulness by triangling the minister, the patriarch, and the congregation’s reticence at holding people accountable.
When they get so structured so as to block change over time. When triangles get formatted and entrenched, they deprive people of options. For example, when a triangle becomes part of the structure so that every decision needs to involve a particular person—whether or not that person has anything to do with the issue or decision. In a small congregation this may involve a “gatekeeper” and in a family, a patriarch. Conversely, in a system that adapts to weaknesses, the behavior may be checking with the person whose feelings are perpetually at risk of being bruised.

While it is not helpful to identify triangles as “bad” it is appropriate to identify when they are detrimental to the health and to the functioning of the system in mature, responsible, ways. For more on the BFST concept of emotional triangles see Peter Titelman's excellent and comprehensive treatment.

Thoughts on congregations as communities of faith

2010-01-05T19:46:00.000-08:00

Congregations are, primarily, authentic communities of faith—despite the fact that they are also organizations. That’s an insight worth keeping in mind for every congregational leader. The tendency for leaders too often is to address congregational issues from an administrative approach in an attempt to control outcomes. Symptomatic of this tendency is the popularity of management books among clergy. Administration and management can work at one level, at the organizational level, but they will not work at the “communal” level. (Read an excerpt on what makes a congregation a real faith community from the book The Hidden Lives of Congregations ).

One reason why management and administration cannot effect control or bring about essential change in congregations has to do with the nature of congregations as communities. Congregations are localized, encultured, emotional relationship systems and they are more organic than organizational. They embody well what constitutes a community, despite their organizational structures. If you want to understand a congregation, you’d do better to assess its culture than analyze its organizational chart.

One example often cited by harried administratively-oriented congregational leaders is that of trying to fix a dysfunctional committee. The logical, organizational approach is to remove (“fire”) everyone from an underfunctioning or dysfunctional committee and replace its members with more responsible, professional, and competent players. But most congregational leaders who have used this approach often find themselves frustrated by the fact that changing the players on the committee does not seem to bring about change in the functioning of the committee. I’ve heard one pastor moan, “How is it that professional and capable individuals can turn into such a bunch a clods when they become a committee?!”

Perhaps the most dramatic phenomenon related to congregations as authentic communities has to do with the tenacity of patterns of behavior through multigenerational transmission. Newcomers to a congregation can get into communal patterns, exhibit corporate behaviors, focus on issues, and fight the same fights whose origins lie generations in the past—even when they are not aware of the history and have no personal memory of the events! How does that happen? One explanation is that organizations can develop amnesia, but communities do not.

One concept that helps illustrate this phenomenon is “dynamical systems.” In part, this concept shows that memories are properties of the system—systems can remember the events of the past! Systems (cultures and communities) maintain and perpetuate (remember) patterns, properties, language, and event memory. Additionally, systems (cultures and communities) organize to their environment. This phenomenon exists at all levels, from ants to congregations. Ant colonies, for example, replace their individual members over time, yet maintain the properties and patterns of the colony (the homeostatic patterns). Additionally, no two ant colonies are exactly alike because each colony adapts to its environment—they organize differently as they organize to their unique environment. Even the collective colony “memory” seems to vary from colony to colony depending on its experience.

That sounds very familiar to congregations, does it not? The reason a committee will always be dysfunctional, regardless of the individuals who populate it, is that corporate memories are properties of the system, not the individuals only. Once an individual becomes part of the system, he or she "inherits" the corporate memory, and sometimes, the roles that go along with them! Congregational leaders do well to remember that congregations are primarily communities of faith—that is their nature. A congregation needs its leaders to understand its culture and to function in ways that can foster healthy and vibrant community life more than it may need efficient managers or expert organizational gurus.

Truisms worth remembering during times of acute anxiety

2010-01-04T18:56:00.000-08:00

All systems experience episodes of acute anxiety but systems manifest it differently. Relatively stable, resiliant and high-functioning systems seem able to respond to episodes of acute anxiety. In contrast chronically anxious systems which lack resilience will tend to be reactive in the face of acute anxiety. That is, they have little tolerance for challenges, lack capacity for self-regulation or imaginative responses to handle times of acute anxiety.

While it is more helpful to assess the emotional process at work at the systemic level it can be helpful to obserse how symptomology is being played out in the individuals in the system. When facing reactivity at the systemc level congregational leaders will need to respond to how it affects the individuals in the system. Needless to say, those individuals in the system who have a low capacity for self-differentiation and for managing their own anxiety will tend to be the ones most symptomatic (i.e., the ones who "act out").

Here are some truisms worth remembering when dealing with reactive individuals in a system going through acute anxiety:

Some people just need to be mad. They want their pain.
It’s a waste of time to try to dialogue with an angry person.
Some people just need to be “right,” regardless of the cost.
The Enneagram is a very handy tool for insight into personality and functioning. Its accuracy is uncanny.
Some people will surprise you with their capacity to step up to leadership.
A chronically anxious system in the grips of acute anxiety has a tremendous capacity for self-sabotage. There will be no lack of volunteers willing to lead the way.
Anxiety spawns triangles—-even over distances.
Anxious people lose the capacity to practice grace and will believe the worst of others in an instant.
Persons who are "stuck" will believe what they want to believe. No amount of earnestness or data will convince them otherwise.
It only takes one willful anxious person to kick up the reactivity in an anxious system if the healthier ones in the system do not respond.
A leadership vacuum leaves a system with little resource for self-regulation or vision.
Anxiety spreads like a virus in a system that lacks immunity provided by leadership.
During times of acute anxiety emotionality trumps rationality, even in a system full of “smart” people.
Immature people will take any opportunity to work out their unresolved issues if given a forum.
Trust is a gossamer thread; once severed it’s almost impossible to regain.
Systems that are in reactivity tend to lack a capacity to hear the message or follow the leaders it needs.
People are hooked on the myth of information—the notion that if one has all the information it will make a difference to what needs to be done; or that more data will bring insight.
Information reduces anxiety (but for anxious people, so will misinformation).
Chronically anxious systems facilitate regression if unchecked.
No matter how hard you think you’ve tried to communicate process, most people will not hear most of it.
When people give in to paranoia, guilt by association carries more weight than observable facts.
When people lack data, they’ll fill in the blanks.
Perception is people’s reality. And most people will see things only from their frame of reference and from their position in the system.

For more on anxious systems see Jeffrey Millers work on The Anxious Organization. It may be that you will recognize your organization of church within its pages.

The Repertoire

2010-01-02T00:05:00.000-08:00

Functioning at a high level of self-differentiation is the golden fleece of most congregational leaders who are students of BFST. Especially in times of acute anxiety and systemic reactivity effective leaders will work on focusing on the repertoire that will help them navigate the storm. In no particular order, here’s “The Repertoire” experienced systems leaders tend to follow:

Monitoring their own internal emotional process (visiting the genogram is a good strategy)
Observing their functioning (at work and at home)
Regulating their anxiety (any psychosomatic symptomology?)
Avoiding reactivity (no matter how much you want to, don’t call that acting out deacon a jerk or tender your resignation letter)
Getting clarity about their guiding principles and values (“Remind me again, why did I take this job?”)
Seeking out resources (call your coach or therapist).

It may help to write down “The Repertoire” and keep it in your wallet or tape it to your desk at the church office as a reminder for when acute anxiety bubbles up in the system. Acute anxiety will tend to focus on the person in the position of leadership (that’s you), so it will feel personal. The common reaction is to feel under attack or betrayed. When that happens, our most important resource goes out the window: our capacity to think through the problem and realistically assess what is going on in the system.

Three Responses to Differentiation

Assuming we’ve followed “The Repertoire” successfully have managed to differentiate from our position of leadership in the system, we need to also take into consideration its aftermath. Experienced systems leaders know enough not to expect anyone to say “Thank you!” But there are three other predictable responses to a leader’s act of self-differentiation in the midst of an anxious system:

Those who have the capacity will be able to self-regulate and also begin to self-differentiate. That deacon you wanted to call a jerk may now be saying, “Wow, I don’t know what happened to me. I got caught up in something and went crazy for a moment there.” These people are now resources for you and the system.
A second group of persons will tend to fuse with you. A self-differentiated leader is “attractive,” even to those who lack a capacity for self-definition. Fusion can be seductive. It feels great to have a room full of people nod at your every word and eagerly agree with your every opinion. However, this group of people are not a resource to the system—the next loudest voice can just as easily draw their passions.
The third group of persons will be the ones who will withdraw or cut off from you. Clarity about one’s stance will feel like a line drawn on the sand to some folks. Self-definition demands a response and responsibility on the part of others. For those who lack resilience in thinking, or who are too insecure or too rigid in their beliefs, cutting off may be their only repertoire.

Checking your prejudices

2010-01-01T00:05:00.000-08:00

One important educational task is to help students uncover their prejudices. Prejudices cause students to “pre-judge” ideas, concepts, and truths and, when unchecked, can block learning since learning requires the accommodation of the new to the old: adding new knowledge to existing knowledge; dismantling old structures in order to build new ones, or giving up beliefs in order to embrace new truths.

The challenge of prejudices is that they tend to function outside of our awareness. They filter our perceptions and interpretation of experiences without our realizing it. We’ve all had moments of coming to realize how mistaken we were with a first impression, or, a mistaken interpretation of a conversation or experience. On occasion, we may find ourselves thinking, “How could I have been so wrong about that?”

Leaders, like learners, need to check their prejudices in order to be effective. Bringing our prejudices (sometimes called “blind spots”) to the surface is part of being self-aware, a key quality for leaders. Even the most intelligent and competent of leaders can be hindered by their blind spots.

Here are prejudices common among congregational leaders:

That the system cannot change without your help. The source of this prejudice may span from a need to be needed to unbridled hubris. Leaders who function out of this prejudice tend to be overfunctioners and may suffer from a messiah syndrome. One paradox here is that if church and pastoral leader buy into the prejudice the congregation looses its ability to take responsibility for itself, and its growth, as it becomes more dependent on the overfunctioning leader. Needless to say, this prejudice is a certain path to burnout.

That you do not need to deal with people’s emotions (anger, fear, anxiety). While it is not appropriate to take responsibility for other people’s feelings, effective leaders do not ignore the reality of other people’s experience of emotions. Leaders tend to be too quick to rely on rationality and logic to make a case, introduce a cause, defend an opinion, or respond to critics. Most of us would rather not have to deal with the emotional side when dealing with every issue that arises, but the fact is that the answer to “What is really going on here?” has more to do with emotional process than with matters of cognition.

That dealing with personalities is the key to addressing problems and conflict. An overfocus on “personalities” tends to personalize issues (create “identified patients”), make problems personal, and gives a myopic (and inaccurate) understanding of situations. Leaders who take a systems perspective look beyond the prejudice of personality and strive to understand what is going on in the system as a whole, They try to discern what is going on in the emotional field, gain insight from multigenerational transmission dynamics, assess their own functioning from their family of origin dynamics, and assess how the “personalities” are acting out of their positions in the system.

That your repertoire of strategies, approaches, techniques, models, interpretation, and problem-solving is the best way to go. As much as we all wish otherwise, we have the tendency to go with the quick fix. Many leaders tend to rely on the pragmatic techniques and strategies that have served them well for solving problems in the past. Thinking is hard work, and most people don’t put much effort into it. When faced with a new problem our prejudices will try to shoehorn a solution for a quick fix rather than spend energy understanding the issues and the nature of the problem. A leader who does not take the time to check his or her prejudices may get willful in insisting on a favored strategy, technique, or model when addressing a new problem. That’s a short path to getting stuck.

That the projects that are of most interest to you will be the most beneficial for the system. This is a big one for congregational leaders, and one that will guarantee both ineffectiveness and a crisis brought on by misunderstanding and sabotage in response to willfulness. Sometimes this is part of the “bag of tricks” syndrome. A pastor of staff member will impose personal predilections of style, programs, or projects on a congregation will little thought about its “fit,” appropriateness or the readiness of a congregation to embrace it. There are plenty of examples, but a common one is characterized by the “worship wars” that ensue when pastors or staff push the start of a “contemporary worship service” onto a congregation, fully and sincerely convinced that it will be good for the church. What often is most apparent to the congregation, however, is that the push is more about what a pastor or staff wants (or likes) than what is most beneficial for the congregation.

See Robert J. Marshak, Covert Processes at Work: Managing the Five Hidden Dimensions of Organizational Change (San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006) for a good treatment on how prejudices and blind spots (covert processes) can hinder change in organizations.

Best workshop summary interpretation ever

2009-12-31T00:05:00.000-08:00

Some time ago I did a series of presentations for the Alban Institute on the book The Hidden Lives of Congregations. Participant Chris Van Wyk has written up a summary of the workshops on his Claripics website. He has done a fine job of summarizing the main points of the workshop. His review focuses on the concepts of congregational identity, the ministerial lifecycle, the myth of competence, and authentic leadership.

One always wonders what people “hear” at workshop presentations. Like the preaching event, one suspects that what people hear is different than what the speaker actually says. It’s always gratifying to find a person like Chris Van Wyk who is a good listener and a responsible interpreter.

Leading from the Self

2009-12-30T14:48:00.000-08:00

Don Barnett, pastor of Paintsville First United Methodist Church, KY, shares comments on leading from the self on his church website. He sites, and accurately interprets, sections from The Hidden Lives of Congregations on the concept of leadership, including, “myths about leadership.” You can read pastor Barnett’s comments here.

I like that pastor Barnett shares his thoughts on leadership on his church website. Clergy often forget that educating their congregations on their understanding of basic beliefs, concepts, and theology in an important part of congregational development. Finding different venues to communicate those perspectives is good practice. Communicating them often is necessary.

Bennett Review of Perspectives on Congregational Leadership

2009-12-29T06:50:00.000-08:00

Dr. Judy Bennett wrote a review of Perspectives on Congregational Leadership . Dr. Bennett is Director of The Resource Center in Richmond, Va., and the review appears on their website. You can read the review here.

The Resource Center is located on the campus of the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. They offer educational resources to congregations and their members (books, curriculum, media, reference material, art, and workshops). If your church is not a member, consider joining--the benefits are tremendous.

The "Hidden Lives" course from the School of Christian Ministry

2009-12-28T19:22:00.000-08:00

The School of Christian Ministry (SCM) at BTSR will offer the course Hidden Lives of Congregations, based on my book. I am pleased that Dr. Steve Booth, Associate Pastor at First Baptist Church, Richmond, VA is the course facilitator. He is well qualified as an educator, and is very knowledgeable of systems theory.

The SCM courses are short-term (about four weeks), highly interactive online courses. This course will be offered in May of 2010. That's plenty of advanced notice to be able to recruit your church leaders or a group of peer learners to join in on a practical and effective continuing education experience.

Leadership In Ministry Winter 2010 Newsletter

2009-12-28T11:07:00.000-08:00

The Winter 2010 issue of the Leadership in Ministry Workshops newsletter. is now available.

You can download the current issue, and past issues, of the newsletter from the Leadership in Ministry website.

This issue includes reviews of Friedman’s new book, What Are You Going To Do With Your Life? by faculty coach Bob Dibble , and of Margaret Marcuson’s new book, Leaders Who Last, by Stephen Price-Gibson. Also are articles by Susannah Smith, Ellen Culpepper, a “systems sermon” by Vanessa Ellison, and an article by Galindo from his latest book, Perspectives on Congregational Leadership.