Ghost hunters and exorcists: The Leader and Secrets

Leaders new to a system often have to contend with the "ghosts" in the system, things that go bump in the night and block progress, defy explanations and create corporate habits and practices that make no sense. Ghosts and their secrets can foster behaviors and attitudes that inhibit openness in communication. There's something going on, but no one's telling. Some systems are more haunted than others, and, there are both benign and malevolent systemic forces at play in any system. But when a leader finds him or herself inhibited by a haunting that impedes progress and health in the system, it may be time to become a ghosthunter and exorcist.

THE LEADER AS GHOST HUNTER

New leaders need to determine how to deal with the ghosts in the system---every system has them. Some leaders set out to be ghost hunters, others try to be exorcists. Those ghost may be a beloved former pastor who has been elevated to sainthood, or the demons of generations past who still haunt the system through legacies.

Dealing with secrets in a system is a challenge, not only because the issue is complex, but also because organizational leaders, especially clergy leaders, are expected to be the official designated secret-keeper in the system. How often does a conversation start with, "I'm telling you this in complete confidence, Pastor . . . ," or "Just between you and me...." Referring to "secrets" in this case we do not mean betraying a confidence, or the indiscriminate release of sensitive, private, or potentially harmful information. In other words, when ghost hunting, it's important to differentiate between secrecy and privacy. Secrets, as a transactive dynamic is a system, tend to be willful, unhealthy, anxiety-driven, and potentially toxic. What is "private" is not necessarily harmful, and indeed, may be healthy. For pastors in a system that uses its leader as confidant to secrets that bind anxiety, it can be helpful to refuse to carry the secret or it's burden, or for the pastor to find a confidant who can help navigate how to handle secrets without being left powerless. In other words, pastors, or any leader, can use the power of the confessional to bind the anxiety of the secret.

The ghosts that leaders content with in a system are secrets that are an intentional concealment of information by one or more persons in the system who are impacted by it. Secrets are used as a form of information control, in which some information is under the control of a person in the system who purposefully hides this information from someone else. In this type of secret the information that is withheld is critical to the one whom the information is concealed from because it has an impact on his or her life or ability to function. It is not uncommon for systems to withhold information from new leaders about sensitive issues, thereby setting up an immediate pattern of secrecy, and, leaving the leader powerless to address the issue.

Often, leaders as ghost hunters must seek out the intergenerational ghost in the system passed on though multigenerational transmission. This can be the lingering influence of a founding pastor, unresolved issues from a crisis with a former staff member, or a secret in the system based on shame or guilt. In a theological school, it may be a "faculty of origin issue." A painful church split can leave a number of lingering ghosts in the system. At a former congregational ministry context it was four years until I discovered, quite by happenstance, that the church had previously dismissed a staff member in my position. No one had ever mentioned that incident, not during the hiring interviews, and, not even in the intervening four years of personnel reviews, staff meetings, committee meetings, or myriad of conversations.

Symptoms and manifestations of ghosts in the system

It takes a lot of energy to feed a ghost and keep a secret, and, it can take a toll on a system and on individuals. Look for a symptom bearer who exhibits the manifestations of secret-keeping: stress, anxiety, depression, and shame. Sometimes one symptom is misplaced distrust and anger toward the leader. Check to see if the blowback on certain questions and issues is disproportionate to questions and feels like a personal attack.  Organizationally, ghosts and secrets in the system create a difficulty in maintaining intimacy in relationships, maintain chronic long standing cut offs, even result psychosomatic symptoms. Characteristically, secrets in the system leave people feeling powerless.

Evan Imber-Black identified four main ways that family secrets may shape and scar us: (1) they can divide family members, permanently estranging them; (2) they can discourage individuals from sharing information with anyone outside the family inhibiting formation of intimate relationships; (3) they can freeze development at crucial points in life, preventing the growth of self and identity; (4) they can lead to painful miscommunication within a family, causing unnecessary guilt and doubt. Since secrets can serve the same function in any relationship system, any leader may find her- or himself dealing with these in an organization as well.

THE LEADER AS EXORCIST

Sometimes it becomes necessary for a leader to play exorcist when ghosts impede progress or health in the system. One way is to uncover the narrative of the secret. Often, it's not the secret that holds a power in the system, it's the narrative built around its origin and subsequent interpretations. Like the parlor game of "telephone," over time, the secret gets corrupt and convoluted to the point that what really happened hardly matters--it's the fact that the secret is maintained and serves a transactive function in the system that matters. In this case the leader-exorcists can simply ask persons to "tell me the story about what happened." Listen for both content and emotional process, though it's the transactive process that will be most telling (do people maintain the secret, protect the ghost, share the "secret" readily, keep the leader in the dark?). One way to get the ghost out of hiding is to compare narratives. Sometimes, playfully challenging the narrative in a non-threatening way can challenge recall, misinterpretation, or dig deeper. The conversation may go like this:

Leader: "That's interesting. Someone told me that the reason was ________."
Staff person: "Well, that's what I heard."
Leader: "Does that ring true to you?"
Staff person: "Well, no, come to think of it. It does sound a bit strange."
Leader: "What do YOU think might have really happened?"

Another way to exorcise ghosts is to reinterpret the narrative around the secret. Leaders enjoy the privilege of having the platform to not only envision the future narrative of an organization, but also to reinterpret its past--including, re-weaving and re-interpreting the narratives around ghosts in the system. It can be as simple as sharing, "You know what I think really happened?" Interviewing the "ghosts," like a former pastor or boss, will yield a different perspective that can be shared as a corrective to a toxic narrative: "Let me share with you how ___ remembers it." Certainly you'll want to ask permission to share in order to not violate a trust.

One powerful, and redemptive, way of exorcising ghosts is to absolve the IP or the scapegoat at the center of old secrets that keep the system stuck. The function of blame fosters irresponsibility, and ghosts and secrets often enable that. Long dead family members can be blamed for the lack of success of individuals in the family, or, of a whole generation! As long as they are kept "alive" as ghosts in the system, people can choose to not take responsibility for their own fate. I know of one pastor who, after some ghost hunting, chose to exorcise a shame-related secret that kept the congregation stuck on issues related to anyone occupying the position of "pastor" in the congregation. This pastor invited a former pastor, who functioned as "ghost" in the narrative of the congregation, to the annual church homecoming one year. Merely naming the pastor's presence and his place in the history of the church served to shift the story and "out" the negative demonizing narrative maintained by some members.

Engage in selective disclosure

I like Peter Rober's concept of selective disclosure as an approach to dealing with secrets is a system. It can help invite others to participate in exorcising the ghosts. "The concept highlights that what we are dealing with is a multifaceted continuing process in time: a process filled with tensions, small decisions, and good intentions. It refers to a process of selection as to whom to tell what, how much to tell, when to tell, and so on," wrote Rober. It takes into account the reality that what is needed is not just more more information, rather, it is attention to emotional process that creates a dialogical space in which questions can be asked and some things can be said, without requiring, or demanding, that everything is revealed.

The concept of selective disclosure takes seriously the potential destructiveness of "outing" secrets while making space and opportunities for a  safe way in which people can deal with sensitive "family" issues. This approach removes the toxic element of willfulness and coercion on the part of the leader and helps create a more open, safe, and honest environment in which to talk about the ghosts in the system. In this way leaders can provide "a dialogical space in which people listen to what is said, accept that not everything can be said, respect that there are good reasons why things cannot be shared, and are open to whatever is said that has not been said before. Such a view based on the concept of selective disclosure invites compassion and empathy and recognizes secretholders as well as those who do not know in their struggle to find stories they can live with" (Pelias, 2008, cited in Rober, et al. (2012)).

All leaders will need to deal with "ghosts" in the system at one time or another. Those that impede the leader's effectiveness and maintain pathological patterns of dysfunction in the form of "secrets" are often the most toxic to a system. Leaders do well to respect the power of secrets in a system, and the potential consequences of unlinking them from the functions they serve in a system. But leaders are also called to foster health and responsibility in the systems they serve. On occasion, leaders may find themselves functioning as ghost hunters and exorcists in order to bring about release and redemption in the system.

Sources

"The emotional burden of secrets. Consequences for somatic health and implications for health care," by Wismeijer AA, Vingerhoets AJ. Journal Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2007;49(6):383-9.

"Family Secrets," Allan N. Schwartz, LCSW, Ph.D. Updated: Apr 25th 2007.

"The Power of Secrets," Evan Imber-Black. Psychology Today 31.4 (Jul/Aug 1998): 50-53+.

"In Search of a Tale They Can Live With: About Loss, Family Secrets, and Selective Disclosure," Peter Rober, et al. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy38.3 (Jul 2012): 529-41.

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Ministry (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans.

Do you want to be great?

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.” 

The Five People You Need as a Leader

Leadership is lonely, the say. That is true to a real extent. Few understand the weight of responsibility that comes with leadership, or the shifts in relationship that can bring isolation and distance. But to say leadership is a lonely position does not mean one can do it alone. Even the most differentiated leaders need to be meaningfully connected to others in the work system, and, to a personal support system. Ask most leaders for the secret of their success and they'll likely tell you two things: "I surround myself with the best people," and "I have invested in a long-term peer support system."

When one is in a position of leadership one's network of relationships both expands and narrows. You'll be connected to a wider number and variety of people in the organization to some extent and in several capacities. At the same time you'll narrow the scope of your direct charges, your "inner circle" of second-chair leaders and associate staff. In other words, you need to be present to all but accessible to only a few. In the mix of those networks there are five people every leader needs to help her or him be more effective. 

You may discover these five people within your organization as work colleagues. Others may exist outside of the job environment. Regardless, they each will contribute something important to your success as a leader. 

1. The Encourager. Whether friend, second chair, spouse, deacon, or Mom, this is the person in your life, sometimes the ONE person, who says "You can do this." And because he or she genuinely believes it, you'll believe it too.  This may also be the person that helps you give yourself permission for taking a day off, or allowing yourself a "mental health day." Sometimes, this is merely the person who, regardless of circumstance, just likes you, no matter what. 

2. The Antagonist. While irksome, every leader needs an antagonist. Iron sharpens iron, and leaders may grow dull without the challenge antagonists provide. Antagonistic people may be reactive, but they are not necessarily unintelligent. If you can listen to their arguments and perspectives past the grating annoyance, they can provide correctives to your blind spots. Believe it or not, antagonists can be a resource to a leader, as long as they don't tip over into sabotage. 

3. The Skeptic. Most leaders are, by necessity and character, optimists. They likely would not have taken the job if they didn't believe in possibilities, potential, and ultimate positive outcomes. This is what helps leadership "sell" the vision that gathers others around a shared value and the tasks that make things happen. But an overly-optimistic leader with Pollyanna rose-tinted glasses does not serve an organization well. Skeptics can help you curb your enthusiasm in those times when operating out of realism is a necessity. You don't have to buy into a skeptic's perspective, but he or she can provide a balance to our tendencies for wishful thinking, self-referencing, and denial. 

4. The Lieutenant. God bless this type! Most leaders would be lost without them, and most organizations would fail to make progress without their energy, skills, and single-minded drive. The Lieutenant in the organization is the one who delivers on the dreams. She's the one who makes it happen. He or she is your "Number One." Give them a vision and they'll find the ways to make it a reality. Most of the time, the best thing a leader can do is get out of their way and let them do what needs to be done in the way THEY think best. 

5. The Sage. The best leaders tend to be smart, but none are omniscient. In fact, those who seek to be ("know-it-alls") very quickly cease to be effective as leaders. In leadership, a little bit of humility goes a long way. Yes, your staff and your constituents want, perhaps need, to believe you are smart and know what you are doing. But, the reality is that the challenges of leadership are more about knowing how to function than knowing answers. Effective leaders know there's a difference between expertise and wisdom. This is the value of the mentor, consultant, or advisor in the life of a leader. The Sage helps the leader with three critical practices: perspective, discernment, and self-understanding. 

Do you have these five people in your life? Where are they in your support networks--at the job or outside of work? Which do you need to cultivate to complete this company of the five people you need as a leader?

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Ministry (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans.

Why are all systems so alike?

During the past three months I've run the gamut in types of organizations during consultations--congregations, non-profits, theological schools, a small business. My experience reminded me of those conversations about how universal the Dilbert cartoons are in hitting the mark regardless of where people work—-from a large corporate firm to a small business, from a for-profit conglomerate to a non-profit. It begs the question, “Why are all systems so similar?”

We hear hints about this apparent truth here and there. “Business is business, whether you’re manufacturing cogs, selling widgets, or selling a service.” I’ve been in certain leadership training seminars where the room held representatives from all manner of contexts, with corporate CEOs to clergy attending to the same latest ideas about how to lead better and manage more effectively in their organizations.

I have some hunches as to why all systems are so similar:

Relationships systems follow universal rules. I first stumbled across this insight when I picked up a book titled How to Run Any Organization. I still have in on my bookshelf, and I must admit it has served me well in all the contexts I’ve worked in: school administration, corporate, congregation, non-profits, etc. The second place where that idea finds support is in Bowen Systems Theory, which identified universal rules applicable to all relationship systems, from family to business; from government to church. Because relationship systems self-organize according to universal principles, we can expect to see certain characteristics that are shared universally. These include: the function of leadership, the presence of anxiety and the manifestation of reactivity, the emergence of homeostatic dynamics, the presence of reciprocal dynamics (overfunctioning-underfunctioning, seperateness-togetherness, etc.), the emergence of systemic patterns that serve a variety of purposes.

Systems of a kind will tend to share the same organizational metrics as indicators of effectiveness, vitality, and viability. The metrics for "educational effectiveness" published by educational institutions--whether universities or theological schools--are similar, if not identical. The metrics used by non-profit organizations (e.g., those related to social value, market potential, and sustainability) apply to organizations of that kind regardless of size, mission, or location. While that makes common sense, what is surprising is how many leaders and board members of those organizations would not be able to identify those metrics if asked.

Complexity emerges from simple rules. While systems and organizations may appear different on the surface they seem all to arise and operation on fundamentally simple rules. The most complex corporation started small and is effective to the extent it can “follow the rules” of its nature. Large congregations look different from small congregations, but ask any pastor and he or she will likely confirm that no matter the size of the congregation, leaders tend to deal with the same problems. A large theological school looks different from a small seminary, but a room full of deans from schools across the spectrum of denominations, geographical areas, and school size will all share about the same challenges. And, they'll immediately chuckle at the comment, "We all have the same Faculty."

Human nature is the same everywhere. Culture, race, ethnicity, and epochs mediate the universal principles that direct relationship systems, but it doesn’t take much to scratch below the surface and discover that human nature is the same everywhere, and it has been for a long while. Perhaps the best place to see this is in narrative-—those stories that are so good about depicting the human spirit and its interior world. Reading the works of the Greek poets and playwrights to Shakespeare, to Checkoff and Dostoevsky to Mark Twain will serve to confirm that we humans laugh, cry, yearn, fear, and hope for the same things—-and always have. Idealists who want to create utopias and social organizations that are “totally new” often forget that those new creations will always be populated by the same old people.

The brain is the same everywhere. There may be a biological cause as to why all systems seem so similar. The organic brain, its patterns and its epistemology, are universally the same for everyone everywhere in whatever culture. Hence the educational truism, “Everybody everywhere learns the same way.” For example, barring neurological anomalies or organic brain syndromes, every person’s brain learns language the same way. And, dismissing claims of clairvoyance and ESP, everybody’s brain processes phenomenon the same way, for the most part. Given that fact, we can expect that when a group of individuals gathers together to form Group A, they’re pretty much going to be more similar than different to the group of individuals that gather together for form Group B. That’s a great convenience to teachers who find they can effectively re-cycle a well-designed courses year after year with little change and still achieve desired learning outcomes with little variance from the norm. This insight can help ease the transition for leaders moving from one context to another is a system of a kind (from one congregation to another, from one theological school to another). Culture and context will mediate some things--like emotional process, practices, ethos, and values--but all systems of a kind tend to function in much the same ways.

What are some of your hunches as to why systems are so similar?

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Ministry (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans.

Five Essential Functions of Effective Leaders

Effective leaders, in any organization, are those who can provide the leadership functions their systems need of them. This concept puts on its head any personality-based notion of leadership (charisma, intelligence, gender, race, ethnicity, pedigree, beliefs, looks, confidence, etc.). In other words, leadership is a function of the system, not a product of personality. The counter-intuitive reality is that healthy organizations have strong leaders—conversely, it is not always the case that strong leaders have healthy, or effective, organizations. The question then, is, “What function will I need to provide to be an effective educational leader?”

Reviewing the literature on leadership yields five essential functions of leaders. These five essential functions have appeared in different forms over the years, but they consistently comprise the "top five" on lists about what effective leaders do. They are:

1. Having a vision and communicating it well

2. Articulating goals and identifying strategies

3. Creating an adaptive culture open to change

4. Monitoring progress

5. Providing necessary interventions.

All leaders need to provide those essential functions--whether in a congregation, school, non-profit organization, or business. However, there’s no one best way to provide them. WHAT a leader needs to provide is clear; HOW a particular leader chooses to go about it is a product of both context and personality.

The challenge of the complex nature of the job of leaders, with the multi-faceted dimensions and demands of an organization, calls for an astonishing wide-ranging skills set: from interpersonal relational skills to high-level analytical and intuitive-interpretive skills. Organizational leaders, in whatever role, need to cultivate and apply a wide repertoire of cognitive styles in order to carry out the job, sometimes, in the course of a single day! They need often to switch from abstract, symbolic perspectives to a concrete, realistic perspective from one moment to the next. They may start the day with internal vision-casting in a Zen-like state while driving to the office, only to be engulfed in managerial problem-solving within twenty minutes of sitting at the desk, then, end the day dealing with interpersonal conflicts in the midst of emotional reactivity.

Effective educational leaders do well to remember that in the midst of the urgency and the press of the daily triage, there are only five functions that will ultimately determine their effectiveness. Five things make the difference, for they are the essential functions that the system needs of its leader. It is not much of an overstatement to say that, at the end of the day, all else is distraction. In fact, what dysfunctional systems are very good at is distracting its leader from focusing on and providing the essential functions!

To what extent are you providing the five essential educational functions of a dean?

What things distract you from investing time, thought, and effort on the five essential functions?

Are you stronger in providing one function over others? Which functions do you need to work on increasing your competence?

Dysfunctional systems are adept at sabotaging a leader’s focus on the five functions. Are you able to identify ways your system and context inhibits your effectiveness in one or more of the five essential functions?

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Ministry (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans.

10 Leadership Quotes from Edwin Friedman

Few have helped re-frame the understanding of leadership in organizations within this generation as has Edwin Friedman. Expanding Bowen Family Systems Theory from its clinical therapeutic context to the contexts of religious institutions and organizations, Friedman's writings have offered a new frame of reference for what it means to be a leader. A brilliant mind, sharp wit, and occasional curmudgeon, Friedman is often as insightful as he is subversive. Below are ten quotes on leadership from his writings worth pondering. 

1. “The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change. Communication does not depend on syntax, or eloquence, or rhetoric, or articulation but on the emotional context in which the message is being heard. People can only hear you when they are moving toward you, and they are not likely to when your words are pursuing them. Even the choicest words lose their power when they are used to overpower. Attitudes are the real figures of speech.”

2. "Leadership can be thought of as a capacity to define oneself to others in a way that clarifies and expands a vision of the future."

3. "The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change."

4. "In any type of institution whatsoever, when a self-directed, imaginative, energetic, or creative member is being consistently frustrated and sabotaged rather than encouraged and supported, what will turn out to be true one hundred percent of the time, regardless of whether the disrupters are supervisors, subordinates, or peers, is that the person at the very top of that institution is a peace-monger."

5. Leaders need "... to focus first on their own integrity and on the nature of their own presence rather than through techniques for manipulating or motivating others."

6. "Sabotage . . . comes with the territory of leading.... And a leader's capacity to recognize sabotage for what it is---that is, a systemic phenomenon connected to the shifting balances in the emotional processes of a relationship system and not to the institution's specific issues, makeup, or goals---is the key to the kingdom."

7. "...leadership is essentially an emotional process rather than a cognitive phenomenon..."

8. "...'no good deed goes unpunished'; chronic criticism is, if anything, often a sign that the leader is functioning better! Vision is not enough."

9. "Living with crisis is a major part of leaders' lives. The crises come in two major varieties: (1) those that are not of their making but are imposed on them from outside or within the system; and (2) those that are actually triggered by the leaders through doing precisely what they should be doing."

10. "..the risk-averse are rarely emboldened by data."

Sources: A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (Seabury Books, 2007); Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue (The Guilford Press, 1985).
Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Ministry (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo also contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans.

Leading in an Anxious System: What is a leader to do?

Persons who step up to leadership tend to be motivated, smart, and sincere in their desire for success, for themselves and for the organization. Some leaders are go-getters who want to fix a system (and the people in it). They want to create a successful organization and will take on the challenge of "changing the system." When they've had success in a previous context they will tend to enter a challenging dysfunctional system with the confidence that they will be able to duplicate the successes made in one context in another. The liability here, of course, is the tendency to focus leadership on the personality of the leader and failing to take into account the reality that (1) not all systems are created equal, and (2) leadership is as much a function of the system as it is of the individual designated "leader" in the system. 

The corrective to the perils of a personality-focused leadership is the appreciation that leadership is always contextual, and, context matters a lot. Not all systems are alike, though systems tend to be "of a kind." A biological family system is not the same as a congregational relationship system, even if the church is made up of families. A for-profit business is not the same as a non-profit organization, even when both provide the same service. A theological school is not a church community, even though both share similar beliefs and practices. Effective leaders understand that the function of leadership is as much (if not more) a product of the system than of the personality of the leader in the system. Therefore, leaders must understand the context and type of system they are in. 

Two recent conversations with highly motivated but frustrated leaders underscored the importance of understanding one's system. Both are smart, experienced, and confident leaders. Both have had successes at former contexts in similar systems (one a non-profit organization and one in an congregational context). But both are very frustrated at the slow pace of change they are making helping their organizations succeed. Both express a feeling of being stuck and facing problems they are not able to "fix" for the first time. One said, "It feels like pushing against Jello around here." The other said, "At this point I'd settle for us just being a healthier place." 

These leaders were facing the particular challenge of trying to lead chronically anxious systems. These types of systems are structured with chronic anxiety as an integral part of their homeostasis and patterns of emotional process. They come about when their structure: (1) makes someone in the system responsible for someone else's functioning, (2) has triangles as a patterned way for emotional processes, and (3) is designed so as to inhibit the effectiveness of the leader. At best, these systems lack the internal resources to improves, and, at worst, they are highly resistant to change and tend to have a perverse devotion to their dysfunction. Any leader with Messianic leanings will become prone to burnout in such systems. 

Does this mean these leaders should just give up on their systems? No, I still think the presence of a mature and effective leader remains one of the most significant factors in helping a system function better, if not realize success. But it can help to adjust one's assumptions, perspectives, and functioning as leader in an chronically anxious system stuck in its dysfunction. The challenge for leaders in this context is to adjust their leadership functioning without accommodating to the system. 

In what ways might high-performing leaders adjust their perspective, expectations and functioning in a chronically anxious system? Here are some ways: 

Work at containing the toxins in the system to empower the strengths in the system. Toxic elements include those who sabotage efforts, become entrenched, gossip, are willful, act irresponsibly or act as terrorists in the system. These persons impede progress and keep the system stuck by holding others emotionally hostage, being a distraction, or actively undermine the efforts of others in the system. In chronically anxious systems that lack capacity for dealing with these persons, it is the leader who must provide appropriate intervention. 

Invest in and release the high performers. As leaders contain the toxins in the system they will be able to release and empower the high performers in the system. Dealing with the toxic members of the system takes a lot of energy, but leaders should make it appear that they are investing more time and attention to the healthy and most motivated persons in the system. Give them the support and resources they need and soon they'll learn to take their cues from you, the leader, rather than from the naysayers and chicken-littles in the system. 

Inculcate accountability. Chronically anxious systems tend to have developed a pattern of not holding persons accountable. This enables underfunctioners and underperformers to "set the tone" for the work ethic in the system. Leaders in this kind of system must address these unprofessional and irresponsible behaviors. 

Be responsible for your office and your functioning. Balance with the above, leaders in dysfunctional systems do better in focusing on taking responsibility for their own functioning and responsibilities while not making themselves responsible for other people's functioning. It sounds paradoxical, but it appears universally true that to the extent a leader can do this, the system functions better. 

Give up expectations of outcomes. "A leader can only accomplish what the system allows," claimed Edwin Friedman. Chronically anxious systems with high levels of dysfunction tend to lack the internal capacity to attain goals, realize vision and live into the mission of the organization. A leader who inflicts lofty goals and specific outcomes on this system is setting up him or herself, and the system, for disappointment and frustration. It is likely these systems need to focus on being "better" before they are able to focus on doing and producing "more." However, while the leader will do well to lower his or her personal expectations, it is appropriate to demand more of the system--the best people in the system will step up.  

Gain clarity about your goals and your tenure in office. What do YOU want to accomplish in your tenure as a leader is a better orientation than what you want the system to accomplish. Remember that it is willfulness that brings out the toxicity in a system. Focus on your goals as a leader over any goals for the system. 

Gain clarity about the function you serve in the system (the one you desire and the ones the system assigns to you). Entrenched and systems with rigidity in their emotional process tend to assign roles and functions to individuals in the system. Double so for leaders in chronically anxious systems. The roles, with accompanying functions are varied: rescuer, fixer, scapegoat, etc. Whether you like it or not, a chronically anxious system will assign you the role it expects of its leader based on rigidly patterned relationship structures. Leaders in these systems do not have to accept those roles and expectations, but should not be surprised about how they will continue to haunt them as long as they remain in the position or leader. 

Build a narrative for success (vision, identity, values). Every system needs and craves direction from its leader; they want that "vision thing." Chronically anxious and dysfunctional systems tend to build a narrative of victimization and defeat over time. Leaders can "re-wire" the self perception and outlook of a system by creating a new narrative for the system. This can be done in many ways, from re-interpreting past crises, nodal events, and critical instances, to providing a narrative for the future of the system. Effective leaders tend to not underestimate the function of the leader as resident storyteller and interpreter of the systems' narrative because they know it is one way to shape its identity.

Leadership is a product of a system, more so than a function of one individual's personality, skills, or competence. As such, leaders do well to understand the nature of the system they lead and the context in which it resides. In this way, leaders can move toward being more effective by providing the leadership function the system actually needs through adaptation rather than accommodation. 

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Leadership (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans. 

Truisms worth remembering during times of acute anxiety

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").