Sailors used the Beaufort Scale to measure the force of the wind by observing its impact on water and land.  As the wind increased, a sailor could see changes in the behavior of the water and the trees.  The scale was from 0 (calm) to 12 (hurricane).
 
Joseph Liechty and Cecelia Clegg, recently wrote a book, Moving Beyond Sectarianism: Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland (2011).  Similar to the Beaufort Scale, Liechty and Clegg created a scale to predict the level of sectarian violence.  To assess the level of violence they created a scale based on the way separate sects talked about each other.  When sects of people are calm, and at peace, their words about other groups are different than when they are at war.   Here is their scale:
 
Scale of Sectarian Danger
Escalation by words and actions

1. We are different, we behave differently
2. We are right.
3. We are right and you are wrong
4. You are a less adequate version of what we are
5. You are not what you say you are
6. We are in fact what you say you are
7. What you are doing is evil
8. You are so wrong that you forfeit ordinary rights
9. You are less than human
10. You are evil
11. You are demonic

 

Whether the conflict is in a family around divorce, a congregation struggling with financial issues, or a community engaged in civil unrest the scale illuminates the process of escalation that occurs in relationship systems. 
 
It reminded me of Dr. Murray Bowen’s scale of differentiation . . . A scale of human behavior.  Dr. Bowen observed that human functioning could be placed on a theoretical scale between 0 and 100.  On this continuum of human functioning, there is wide variation in behavior based on some key variables. 
 
The first variable is chronic anxiety which is a sustained response to fear even when a real threat is not present.  Recently, researchers have discovered that during one’s lifetime, genes are turned on and off in response to environmental factors.  This process of regulating genes allows humans to be flexible and adaptable in response to their environment.  These changes in genetic markers are then passed on from one generation to the next.  This process is known as epigenetics. 
 
Changes to DNA that were necessary and advantages in one generation may no longer serve a purpose in the next, but the reactivity stirred in the first generation continues to the next.  The result is a heightened level of anxiety (chronic anxiety) in the next generation even though the danger is no longer present.  Over time, a higher level of chronic anxiety can lead to physical, emotional, and behavioral problems in subsequent generations.
 
I don’t know exactly how one would think about the passing of chronic anxiety from generation to generation in a congregation.  But I’ve been in enough congregations to know that the narrative the church tells is passed from one generation to the next.  Why doesn’t the congregation change the worship times?  Because 20 years ago, Mr. Thinksalotofhimself threatened to take half of the congregation with him if the 8:30 am traditional service was moved or canceled.  He’s been dead now for 10 years, but the memory and behavior of the congregation from that time (the fear of the threat) continues today in the narrative the congregation tells about itself. 
 
It turns out that relationship systems (whether they are families, congregations, or communities) who have higher levels of chronic anxiety end up lower on the scale of differentiation.  Chronic anxiety disrupts the brain's ability to think.  It keeps the body in a constant state of over sensitivity to a possible threat.  Over time, this raised level of sensitivity takes its toll on the system.
 
The second variable is stress.  It is the level of acute anxiety at a given moment.  A stressor could be external to the community or internal.  The lower a relationship system is on the scale of differentiation, the more reactive it will be to episodic stressors.  Relationship systems lower on the scale (with higher levels of chronic anxiety) only require a small amount of increased stress to create symptoms.  Systems that are higher on the scale (with lower levels of chronic anxiety) require a larger amount of stress to create symptoms.
 
This is why some congregations are able to weather change better than others.  In congregations where leaders are lower on the scale of differentiation, they tend to blame people in the congregation or institutional leaders who are outside the congregation.  Congregations with leaders that are higher on the scale take responsibility for their situation and work to find solutions to the challenges they face.
 
The third variable is the availability and use of resources.  As congregations are confronted with challenges, the availability and use of resources can make a difference in outcomes.  A lower functioning community that has a large number of resources available at its disposal can do better than a higher functioning community that has zero resources.  Systems that are cutoff from resources do not fair as well as those with access and use of them. 
 
For most congregations, resources come in three categories: money, volunteers, and leadership.  If congregations are good stewards of their money, engage volunteers to use their gifts, and have individuals who are responsible leaders they are well on their way to overcoming the challenges they face.  When congregations lack these resources or are not good stewards of them, then they are unlikely to move forward.
 
Why does this matter?  When communities (and here I'm not only talking about congregations but also town and cities, as well as families) face challenges, their level on the scale of differentiation and an analysis of these variables will determine how well a community will do overall and whether or not they will engage in words and actions that will escalate toward violence.  If a community typically functions at a higher level, has access to and uses resources, and is facing a very difficult challenge, there is a greater likelihood they will overcome the challenge without resorting to violence (verbal or physical) towards others. 
 
If, on the other hand, you have a community that has a lower level of functioning (a high level of chronic anxiety), has limited access to resources and does not make good use of them, even though the challenge they face may be small, there is a greater likelihood that they will engage in words and actions that have the potential to escalate towards violence.
 
Without an understanding of behavior on a continuum and an appreciation of the wide variation that exists in communal responses, we will always struggle to understand violence.  Once we begin to observe all communities from these various factors, we can better predict which communities are more likely to engage in violent behavior and which communities are more likely to resolve their challenges without resorting to violence.

It’s too simplistic to say that my blog posts are about learning how to engage thinking and reduce automatic reactivity.  But that’s one reason I write a weekly blog.  So, here are five ways of thinking about being a better leader by engaging thinking and reducing reactivity.  Feel free to leave your ideas about good leadership in the comment section below. 
 
 
1.     Focus on what is important
 
A good leader is clear about what’s important like life goals, core beliefs, and core principles.  While other people, or the organizations we work for may share some of these, what matters is that they are important to you.  The challenge is to stay focused on what is important to you while staying connected to important others.  

It's not uncommon to experience pressure from others to give up something important for the sake of the relationship.  In order to stay focused, it requires an intentional effort to stay calm as you manager your reactivity.  Through a process of trial and error you learn how to stay focused on what is important while relating to important others.  
 
Focusing on a project that is important to you (that does not require the input or cooperation of others) can have tremendous benefits to your level of functioning.  Staying focused on what’s important to you helps develop motivation, skills in organization and focus, and the opportunity to work on defining yourself in relation to others (without reacting back) as others react to your effort.  How can you stay connected to others without letting others impede your progress in accomplishing what’s important to you?
 
 
2.     Be a good thinker in meetings
 
Ask good questions by separating out feelings from thinking.  We do this both internally and externally and we separate out our thinking from feelings and as we separate out our thinking and feelings for the thinking and feelings of others.  Good questions lead to this awareness, and this awareness leads to good questions.    
 
Without blaming others or self, be prepared to present your observations about how the meetings are progressing.  What is working and what needs improvement?  The nuts and bolts of meetings are important, but where in the agenda is their time for thinking, reflection, observation, goal setting, and coming up with ways to do better?
 
Leaders who ask good questions challenge those in a meeting to function at higher levels.  They move from avoiding challenges to engaging them directly.  Some people will drop out of the committee.  Others will join the effort. 
 
 
3.     Disrupt emotional intensity
 
The research is clear:  When anxiety goes up, thinking goes down, and behavior becomes more automatic.  Anxiety is contagious as it makes its way around a relationship system via speech, body language, eye contact, etc.  Some people pick up the anxiety and do something with it.  They may try to calm others down, walk away, or freeze up. 
 
A common reaction to anxiety is herding.  As anxiety goes up, people take sides and form groups.  Conflict in congregations, polarization in politics, and rival fans at a sporting event resemble characteristics of this phenomena.  A good leader works on emotional neutrality: not allowing the increase in anxiety to disrupt their ability to think and relate to others.  This is not to say that the leader doesn’t have an opinion.  But they base their opinion on facts, not feelings.  Effective leaders are able to articulate a position without participating in or perpetuating herding, conflict, or polarization.
 
 
4.     Engage other leaders 
 
Who are the good thinkers in the congregation?  Leaders encourage and engage individuals who have some capacity to distinguish thinking from feelings.  When a congregation is anxious, and the anxiety is spreading through interlocking triangles leaders, who articulate a thoughtful position and who are less reactive, can contribute to a congregation's ability to engage a difficult challenge.
 
Leadership Develop programs should:

• Promote an individual's effort to develop life goals. 
• Encourage leaders to articulate their best thinking.
• Model and promote characteristics of leadership: courage, curiosity, exploration, engagement, process thinking, respect, awareness, resiliency, and motivation.

 
 
5.     Work at managing your reactivity to others through your family of origin
 
The success and failure of any congregation correlate directly with the functional level of the relationship system.  Variables like the size of the challenge and the level of anxiety in the system are contributing factors.  Efforts to change the behavior of others or hoping certain people will leave the congregation are indicators of reactivity.  Leaders focus on managing their reactivity to others.  While it is possible to learn this in the context of a congregation, best results come from working the multigenerational transmission process in one's family.
 
If I’ve been your coach before, you’ve probably heard me say, “Where does this light up in your family of origin?”  Let's say you identify someone in the congregation who drives you crazy.  You struggle to be in the same room with them.  Every conversation with them raises your anxiety.  You then ask yourself, “what is it about this person that drives me crazy?”  Once you arrive at an answer, you ask yourself another question, “Where in my family do I see this same behavior that drives me crazy?”  It doesn’t take long to see the answer. 
 
Being an effective leader in a congregation is about being an effective leader of the family.  If you’d like to learn more about this, go to the contact page and send me a note.  I can talk to you about options for coaching.  Click here to go to the contact page.

In times of heightened anxiety and increased societal tension, it can be difficult to make objective and emotionally neutral claims about human behavior. Under such conditions, those who attempt to step back and take in a broader view of human behavior can be labeled as lacking empathy or cold. When societal problems escalate, people put pressure on one another to take sides. In the public discourse there is limited space for those who take a more complex, nuanced approach to the problems we face in society. In spite of the pressure, it’s important for system thinkers to persist.

A systems perspective moves away from the simple cause-effect model of understanding human behavior. The classic model of cause-effect thinking is A causes B, B causes C, and C causes D. In contrast, a systems model takes into account as many variables as possible at the same time. In this way, A, B, C, & D interact with each other in real time. In order to understand the behavior of A, one needs to study all the variable interactions. A is not only influenced by B, C, & D but also B, C & D are interacting and influencing the whole system.

So, when we are examining human behavior, it is not enough to look at one or two components. It is necessary to look at all possible variables. I once had a parishioner tell me he was divorcing his wife because she was bi-polar. He could no longer deal with her shifts in mood. He did not see how his interactions with her (or the interactions of other family members) played a part in her symptoms. He saw the problem inside her head. To him, her bi-polar behavior was the result of a neurological disorder. He is not alone in this way of thinking.

The diagnosis typically goes something like this: there is some abnormality that occurs to the brain in utero of someone who has a neurological disorder like bi-polar. It leads to an imbalance in brain chemicals. Because these chemical processes affect the way the brain fires, the faulty firing leads to swings in mood. Swings in mood lead to problematic behavior. That problematic behavior impacts other people in negative ways. In other words, A leads to B, B leads to C, and C leads to D. If a person is able to take medication to correct the original cause “A,” the end result will be positive behavior. This is a classic cause-effect model. This understanding of mental Illness is woefully inaccurate because it is not consistent with current research and because it limits the problem to being only in the other person’s brain.

Scientists are discovering that brain functioning is the result of multiple variables. Take DNA, for example. All of us have virtually the same DNA. Identical twins are two people who develop in utero from the same fertilized egg. At birth, their DNA is identical. Fast forward 60 years. Scientists have discovered that the DNA of identical twins no longer looks identical. How is this possible?

It turns out that our DNA has an outer layer called an epigenome. Epigenetics looks at the mechanisms surrounding the genome that functions to regulate gene expression. Whether a gene is up-regulated (turned on), or down-regulated (turned off) is determined by a methylation process on top of each gene. The epigenome is highly sensitive to our experiences of the world. These sensitivities allow us to be responsive to challenges in the environment. If the challenge is great, gene expression will more than likely change to meet the challenge. These changes make the human more adaptable over time and from one generation to the next.

Changes in gene expression occur at different stages of life. In the case of identical twins, life experiences alter their gene expressions. For others, it explains the onset of chronic symptoms as one gets older. It turns out that some of these changes are transmitted from one generation to the next. What was adaptive in one generation is passed on to offspring in the next.

In more recent years, it has been shown how relationships impact gene expression. The ways we perceive our relationship with other people, particularly in the family, impacts the expression of our genes. We know this happens in early years of development, but it can also happen as we age. In essence, over time, our genes are being regulated by our relationships, particularly our families.

Inflammation, a process regulated by gene expression, is involved with things like depression and chronic anxiety. States like depression and anxiety can impair the judgment of someone, making it more difficult to have an accurate perception of the world. Chronic inflammation is the result of the body perceiving a persistent threat which in reality is not there. The structure of the brain, an evolutionary development, favors a strong, automatic reaction to a threat making it more difficult for a thoughtful, factual observation of the world around us. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. In the case of a threat, a quicker automatic response saves lives. But what happens if chronic anxiety is high and the threat is perceived incorrectly?


Darren Wilson and the family emotional process.

The shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black man from Ferguson, MO on August 9, 2014 by police officer Darren Wilson, sparked a national protest. It is one of many instances of a white police officer killing an unarmed black man. Wilson was not charged and was eventually exonerated by the Justice Department who determined that Wilson had followed protocols and had not willfully violated Brown’s civil rights. A wrongful death case is still pending.

The shooting of Brown has become a polarizing issue for many communities. For some, the actions of Wilson point to policies that encourage the excessive use of force which becomes tragic when coupled with racial profiling. For others, it highlights a lack of respect for policing which is the result of decades of lax policing policies in communities. These arguments are simplistic, cause-effect views of the problem. In reality, the situation is much more complex.

In August of 2015, The New Yorker Magazine ran an article on Darren Wilson. You can click here to read the full article. The article is useful because it explores Wilson’s relationships.

“Wilson, who is from Texas, is the son of a woman who repeatedly broke the law. His mother, Tonya Dean, stole money, largely by writing hot checks. After completing high school, she married Wilson’s father, John, who had been her English teacher. They soon had two children to support—Darren and his younger sister, Kara—but Dean spent wildly. She left John Wilson for another man, Tyler Harris, who ran a Y.M.C.A. They had a child, Jared, and Darren and Kara lived with them. ‘Tonya had me in debt—almost twenty thousand dollars—that first year,’ Harris told me. Dean, it seems, often repaid debts to one person by stealing money from someone else.”

Wilson notes that his mother never meant to hurt anyone. But she would continue to con people out of money even presenting herself as someone who was about to inherit millions of dollars. She never served jail time. She died shortly after being told by a judge that next time she would be jailed. Interestingly, Darren Wilson does not know how his own mother died. He believes it was suicide but does not know for sure, or isn’t saying.

Wilson, who was married and divorced shortly after arriving in Ferguson, eventually remarried his mentor from the Ferguson police department, Barb Spradling who is eight years his senior. In 2013, Barb’s ex-boyfriend assaulted her. Barb brought a son into the marriage with Wilson, and the couple also gave birth to a girl.

Each of us is responsible for our own behavior. Yet, rarely do we consider the challenges each person is up against in being more responsible for their actions. Self-regulation, something we assume is somehow easy for all of us to do, is often elusive for us and difficult to engage particularly when our level of stress is high. According to Dr. Dan Papero, we are a different person when we are stressed than when we are not stressed. While we like to believe it is possible for us to use our best judgment at all times, it is not realistic for the human to do so. Most of the time we are reactive, with some ability to alter our reactivity.

In the case of Darren Wilson, there is some evidence to suggest that his childhood was filled with higher levels of chronic anxiety. This would be evident in the mother’s inability to self regulate around her finances and in her apparent suicide. If there were facts available about his mother and father's childhood and their parents’ childhood it might offer clues to the patterns of reactivity and the development of chronic anxiety in this family. Individuals who are raised in highly anxious and stressful relationship systems are challenged in their ability to accurately process and filter sensory perceptions, something that is true for all of us to varying degrees. What accounts for the variation is our level of chronic anxiety, the amount of tension in the relationship system at any given time, and the level of environmental stress at the time.

In addition to one’s chronic level of anxiety, which comes out of one’s development in a nuclear family, there is the persistence of higher levels of tension in the family system which is influenced by the level of chronic anxiety. The challenges of relating to a difficult mother, going through a divorce, a spouse’s troubled relationship with an ex-boyfriend, and the intense realities of daily policing can all play a part in disturbing one’s ability accurately to assess a situation. It can make the difference between a split-second decision to de-escalate a situation or pull the trigger.

To be clear, again, we are all responsible for our actions. I’m not suggesting that Darren Wilson be excused for his actions. He is responsible for what he has done. What I am suggesting is that we have a long way to go in understanding how behavior is driven by a systems model of relationships.

There is wide variation in the way officers respond to a call. Some officers are better at assessing a situation and making appropriate responses that match the situation. What makes the difference? I think two things. The level of chronic anxiety that an officer carries with them from childhood into adulthood which is then sustained by the family system they create with a spouse. In the marriage, family patterns are replicated from one generation to the next. Efforts to lower one’s level of chronic anxiety requires what Dr. Murray Bowen called an effort towards differentiation of self.

The second is to consider the current stress of an officer. All of us make mistakes from time to time. Most of them are minor and easily corrected. What influences us to make mistakes may be the level of stress one is dealing with as it relates to one’s level of chronic anxiety. The higher the level of chronic anxiety, the less stress is needed to create a problem. The lower the level of chronic anxiety, the more stress is needed. So if you have an officer who has a relatively low level of chronic anxiety, and you stress them with massive problems at home (be it marital, parenting, or financial), under enough stress, their perceptions and behavior will be impaired. I have no doubt that when police officers are feeling stressed, they tell their boss and colleagues about their family problems. It’s what we all do.

While the scientific tools needed to evaluate one’s level of chronic anxiety or basic level of differentiation are not available, are there current ways to begin to assess it? Is there enough clinic evidence of the influence of chronic anxiety on the brain's ability to accurately perceive and assess reality to warrant a more in-depth study of policing? How might congregational leaders and those interested in Bowen Theory share these concepts and clinical evidence with law enforcement as an effort to improve the quality of community policing? Does Bowen Theory have something to offer those who work in stressful work environments? I think it does.

It's difficult to say if an evaluative tool based on Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self would significantly reduce the incident of white police officers shooting unarmed black men. But I do think the potential is there. Theoretically, those at higher levels of differentiation would do a better job of assessing a real threat from a perceived threat. And that’s the real difference.

Dr. Murray Bowen observed that someone pays the price when families have high levels of chronic anxiety. It is possible that young black men are paying a price for higher levels of chronic anxiety in society. The shooting of young, black men by white police officers is a symptom of a larger family emotional process that has spilled over into the general public. If we want to reduce the incident of gun violence, then we need to look more closely at the stress levels of families and understand better the role anxiety plays in affecting behavior.

The ideas presented in this blog are taking from a new training module that is available to congregations and community stakeholders who are interested in addressing polarization in their communities.  If you’d like more information about the training, contact John Bell at john@thinkingcongregations.com.
 
 
Polarization takes a toll on communities and creates additional problems for institutions.  Compromise, collaboration, and cooperation are replaced with confrontation, obstinacy, and resistance.  Each side escalates their rhetoric and behavior towards the opposition.  Police departments, governments, not-for-profits, and religious institutions may become the target of controversy as they provide routine services to their constituents.  Community leaders may feel hopeless and stuck when working with a fearful public.
 
What opportunities are available to community leaders at such a time as this?  How can organizations and institutions develop policies and procedures that better address polarization?  What are ways to address the challenge without perpetuating the problem?
 
 
What is polarization?
 
“Polarization is the alignment of individuals moving in opposition to each other” (Dr. Dan Papero).  It can only be understood correctly as a relationship phenomenon.  It includes behaviors on each side to control the thinking, feeling, and actions of people on the other side.  At the same time, each side avoids opportunities to engage the challenges they face with the other side.  Those who attempt to have a nuanced and complex view of the issue are pressured to pick a side.  Polarization is an automatic, reactive way to address an increase in tension.   
 
 
The importance of understanding the triangle
 
Dr. Murray Bowen observed the natural occurrence of triangles in relationship systems, particularly the family.  A two-person relationship is not steady.  As anxiety rises in the relationship, it is natural for a third person to be drawn in to stabilize the relationship. 
 
Through the triangle, we can observe our natural tendencies to move towards others, what Bowen called the force for togetherness, or avoid others, which can result from too much togetherness.  Two people form a close connection, and a third person is in the uncomfortable outside position.  In a state of calm, the outside person will make an effort to push out one of the two insiders.  However, when tension increases, one of the two insiders will either form a new twosome with the other outside person or move to the outside position leaving the other two together.
 
When someone is forced into the outside position during times of heightened anxiety, that person will seek out someone else to form a new twosome.  This is the foundation of polarization, two pairs now in opposition to each other.  If the intensity between the original twosome is great, these interlocking triangles will spread quickly into larger groups.  Before long, people will herd into polarized groups.
 
 
The importance of Differentiation of Self
 
When two people or two parties have become polarized, it is possible for a third, emotionally neutral person to enter the relationship system and reduce the polarization.  If one person is able to relate to both individuals or groups in a mature, responsible way, there is a good chance the conflict will end.  This is part of what Dr. Bowen called Differentiation of Self.  Here is an example of what can go into this effort:

1. Pay attention and observe your own level of anxiety as you relate to important people in your life.
2. Work at intentionally reducing your anxiety through things like breathing, walking, etc.
3. Pay attention to how important people in your life raise your level of anxiety and how you raise their level of anxiety.
4. Learn the difference between your feelings and your thinking.
5. Develop ways to think about and then communicate important issues without a long-term disruption of the relationship system.
6. Repeat the process.