In the previous two blogs, I addressed issues related to a change in clergy leadership.  Part one [click here] was about the tendency of both clergy and congregations to move too quickly into assessing the new situation.  Clergy do better in the transition when they take the necessary time to observe and understand the congregation.  Congregational leaders do better when they are not caught up in the early assessments voiced by other congregants.  It is important for congregations to spend time getting to know their clergy person.
 
Part two [click here] addressed what leaders can do during their first two years to establish good, working relationships.  If done well, this ground work can be a solid foundation from which congregational leaders (clergy and laity) can build an important partnership in ministry.  Being genuinely interested in the relationship system is key to being an effective leader in any organization. 
 
Part three is dedicated to developing core principles and goals for self. 
 
 
What is self?
 
The words “self” is part of a process that Dr. Murray Bowen called differentiation of self.  It has to do with being more of a self in one’s family but what is learned is transferable to leadership skills in the congregation. 
 
"The process includes experiences that promote new learning: becoming a better observer of reactivity in self and in the family system; containing and managing one’s own reactivity; defining operating principles for self in every area of life; acting on principles in the face of automatic reactions; and working to become more objective and thoughtful in relation to others and more responsible in one’s own life.  Steps towards differentiation include making and maintaining contact with every living family member, increasing factual knowledge about one’s family and family history, being present at intense and anxious times in the family, and actively interacting with family to develop relationships in which thinking is engaged.  The live learning in this process allows people to develop the ability to learn what they don’t already know and almost always involves an element of surprise, if not awe.”  Harrison, Bringing Systems Thinking to Life, page 77
 
 
Common ways leaders get stuck.
 
Leaders can get stuck in the flight, fight or freeze response in response to heightened levels of anxiety in the relationship system.  Leaders become stuck when they don’t want to rock the boat.  Their energy goes into keeping the congregation happy and making sure everything runs smoothly. Their focus is on avoiding problems instead of engaging them.  Other leaders become stuck when they rock the boat.  Their energy goes into attacking the perceived problem with little to no regard of the impact on the relationship system.  Then there are leaders who can’t decide whether to rock the boat or not rock the boat.  They don’t want to sacrifice calm or change and wish they could have both at the same time.  Their energy goes into coming up with plenty of good ideas but they can’t seem to put them into action.  These individuals freeze in the face of challenge.  This is as true for congregations as it is for leaders.
 
 
Anxiety is at work in all relationship systems.
 
I’m defining anxiety the way Dr. Bowen did when he developed his Bowen Family Systems Theory.  Bowen defined anxiety as an organism’s response to real or perceived threat which takes place at an emotional level. 
 
Dr. Bowen observed that as anxiety increased so too did what he described as the force for togetherness.  Anxiety is part of nature.  It is in all of us to some degree.  Whenever there is a rise in the anxiety in a relationship system, the emotional reaction for some people is to automatically come together.  There is no shortage today of communities living in fear.  As they face their fears, there is often a strong pull to come together; sometimes in productive ways, sometimes in destructive ways.  This pulling together of people in anxious times is a way to address the fear.  While this automatic process can be helpful, when it becomes too intense, it creates more problems than it solves.
 
 
When congregations become increasingly anxious, there is an effort to get everyone on the same page. 
 
Anxious congregations, like families, move towards thinking, feeling, and acting the same.  However, this pressure to think, feel and act the same creates more problems.  It can have a bifurcating effect.  In place of any thoughtful reflection on the problem, some will simply go along with others.  Likewise, in place of any thoughtful reflection, some will simply react to it and push back.  Lines of division become clearer as people actively take sides for or against.  This reality is so predictable, leaders often can accurately guess who will take what side.
 
At this point, leaders become stuck responding in more automatic ways as I described in part 1 and part 2.  They too can easily take sides on an issue, blame others in the congregation, avoid the conflict, or struggle to find their footing.  Some leaders may try to move forward by distancing from the conflict all together.  This is as much a reactive move as any other.
 

Good leaders pay attention to two competing life forces. 
 
The first life force that competes for our time and energy is what Bowen described as a force for “togetherness”.    It is a force for emotional closeness with others.  It can come from others but it can also be a demand we place on others.  This is what I explained earlier as the pressure to go along with the group.  Again, there are three basic responses.  We can advocate for going along, sometimes in ways we are unaware.  We can push back, resist and try to change others.  This can be overt or it can also be subtle in ways we are not aware.  We can also retreat, walk away, and declare that we are not going to participate in what the group is doing.
 
The second force is what Bowen described as individuality.  It is an inner drive or thinking that guides us in the face of a strong togetherness force.  It is what I described earlier as the self.  It is different than being selfish or independent.  Bowen’s genius is his idea that it is a connected, thinking self.  It is the ability to thoughtfully stay connected to important others while at the same time being more of a self.  Instead of going along with others, being a self means taking time to think and reflect.  Becoming more of a self requires interaction with others, particularly one’s own family.  This is a concept that requires more discussion and understanding.  You can read about it by going to this link.
 
 
It’s important to have a self-motivated project.
 
One of the things I found most helpful when working with a congregation, is to find a personal project to focus on.  The key is finding a project that does not require participation from others. It is something one is interested in, motivated by, and has a desire to work on. For my own effort, I scheduled specific time during the week to work on my project.  As I focus on the project, I made sure others things and other people did not interrupt my progress.
 
This is what Bowen had in mind; the ability of an individual to self regulate their own attention and effort, requiring less and less dependence on the functioning of others.  As one does this effort of defining a self, it’s important to pay attention to how others react.  Can you observe the shifts in the relationship system (both in the congregation and in one’s family) that happen as you work on this project?  Do other people, particularly in your family, get sick or does their functioning decline.  Does it go up?  More importantly, what happens to you?  What are the challenges you face in working on this project?  How does the reaction of others disrupt your ability to focus?  Bowen observed that as one worked on being more of a self, the system would respond in ways that moved towards more togetherness.  At first it was a change back response that he observed which would get more intense.  But if one is able to stay the course while staying connected to others, the relationship system will shift for the better.  Over time someone else will pick up the effort to change self.
 
 
Here are some steps in developing a project:

1. Identify a project that is important to you.  It does not have to be work related.
2. Find a project that would not necessitate having to go through an approval process with your congregational leaders or receive approval from family members.  It also means don’t remodel the church parlor all by yourself.  Find a hobby or activity that you can do by yourself.
3. Do not invite or accept help from others.
4. Monitor the challenges you face in this effort and any changes you observe in the relationship system.

 
We each play a part in the way a relationship system functions, whether it’s a congregational system or a family system.  Learning to regulate our own reactivity and responses in the system is an important step to taking more responsibility for one’s own functioning.  Having a project to focus on that does not lean on others is a step in the right direction to learning how to be a better leader. 
 
This effort is not about creating a separated self.  It’s about creating a connected self.  It is possible to work on your project and still stay in good, emotional contact with your congregation and family.  In fact, in my experience, focusing on something that is important to me improves my ability to relate to my congregation and to my family.
 
 
One final note about this series.
 
Some clergy and congregational leaders have found it helpful to have a coach during their transition.  An ideal coach would be someone who asks good questions and invites conversation about getting accurate about what is happening in the relationship system.  I like to think of a good coach as a thought partner; someone who is a good thinker and resource.  You can find out more information about the kind of coaching I offer in the “About” section of this website.

In my own experience, after four transitions, I place the timeline for establishing effective leadership at roughly 24 months. 
As part of my seminary training, I was blessed to serve two congregations in rural North Carolina.  People were not shy in reminding me that I was a “Yankee”.  The “Yankees” who did transplant into the communities I served shared with me their experience of taking ten years on average to shake the idea that they were an outsider. 
 
I think the same operational principles are involved with pastors moving from outsider to insider.  It doesn’t matter how big or small the congregation is.  And while it may not take 10 years to be accepted into a faith community, it does take time.  I put the timeline at 24 months.  I’ll outline what I think happens during these two years, but first let me define what I mean by establishing effective leadership. 
 
I don’t mean a leader is ineffective for the first 24 months nor do I mean that they can’t accomplish anything during this time.  What I do mean is a leader is at a disadvantage during the first two years in a congregation.
 
This disadvantage comes in two forms.  The first is a lack of appreciation and understanding of how a particular congregation functions.  There is enormous variation in how congregations function.  While I do think they are predictable in terms of their behavior, it takes time to understand these predictable patterns.
                                        
Second, it takes time to be considered a leader for the congregation.  The process of becoming part of the relationship system takes time.  Just like moving into a community or marrying into a family, it takes time for the community to connect at an emotional level.  It can have a positive effect or connection.  I’ve heard clergy refer to this as their second ordination experience.  There is the first ordination one receives by a bishop or denominational representative, but in each congregation there is a sort of second ordination; a confirmation by the congregation at an emotional level, that they have the authority to lead this group of people.  The second ordination is significant and most clergy can point to a moment in their tenure when they experienced it.
 
There is also the negative effect of this experience which is usually the time when a clergy person first hears criticism.  Depending on how the negative criticism is addressed, a supervisor, district superintendent, or regional officer may be contacted by members of the congregation.  They have reached a point at which they don’t like what they are experiencing in the relationship.  The connection has become negative.
                        
Just as congregations vary from place to place, there is wide variation among clergy.  Some navigate this process of transition more quickly than others.  Because of current realities, some congregations may present more challenges than others.  The level of anxiety within the congregation and in the clergy person will influence the amount of time it takes for clergy to become a leader in the relationship system of a congregation.
 
I’ve had good success in the first 24 months of ministry in about half of the congregations I’ve served.  However, even in those places where I was intentional about trying to push the timeline shorter by 12 months, we accomplished big changes in the first year, but it still took two years for me to appreciate and understand how the congregation functioned in predictable ways.
 
 
The most important thing any clergy person can do in their first 24 months is to become a good observer of the emotional process.
Clergy, in general, make the mistake of thinking they are there to “save” the congregation by providing answers to their problems.  If only the congregation would listen to them and do what they say, things would go much better.  The case I’m making is clergy can’t offer real solutions because they don’t understand their context.  This takes time.  What leads to problem solving is being a good observer.
 
The easiest way to develop a more observational approach to leadership during the first year is to ask good questions.  Asking good questions is a natural way to develop a one to one relationship.  It communicates a desire to be engaged in the life of others and a genuine interest in the well-being of the community.  At the same time, good questions encourage a more thoughtful and less reactive approach to leadership; something most people want, but struggle to maintain.
 
There are general questions clergy can ask when entering a congregation in an effort to gather facts of functioning about the congregation.  Think about how scientists observe groups of animals out in the wild.  What things do they observe? 
 
Who does what?
Who interacts with whom?
Who avoids whom?
What’s the history of the group?
Who is related?
Who makes decisions?
How are decisions made?
What scares the group?
Who takes the lead in identifying what’s scary?
How do they typically react?
What does play look like?
What are the shared values and rituals? 
                             
When people share comments with clergy about their likes and dislikes, there are questions to be asked.  Is this person expressing their own comments about likes or dislikes, or are they sharing the comments of others?  How many people are actually making these comments?  Is it “lots of people” or is it really only one or two?  Who are they?  Does the person reporting this information agree or disagree with the comments they are sharing with you?   What gets stirred up in you when you hear these comments?  Is this issue reflective of a historical problem in the congregation or is this something new?   
 
Remember that as a new person, at least for a year or so, you can claim your newness.  “I’m new here.  Help me understand how things work.”  Being new is a wonderful opportunity to ask all kinds of observational questions.  When individuals come forward to criticize or compliment your leadership, asking them to help you understand how this congregation functions can be a wonderful opportunity to learn about the congregation. 
 
If nothing else, it’s always appropriate to let people know you need to think about what they have said and you will get back to them about it.  This gives the leader time to reflect and think about the comment, observe how others are responding, and observe one’s internal responses to the comment before offering up a quick response.  Not responding at all will create more problems, but taking time to respond is always an option.
 
Congregational leaders also will do well to develop similar ways of addressing congregational concerns.  Changes in congregational leadership, especially with clergy, are always good opportunities to learn more about how the congregation functions as a whole.  There are many lessons to learn during a time of heightened anxiety at a time of change.  Taking a more observational position during this time will also help congregational leaders understand better the dynamics of their faith community.
 
Having predetermined responses to comments is one way to prepare oneself and reduce some of the anxiety that is present during times of change.  For example, after firing an employee it may be helpful to say something like, “I’m not able to talk about it because of rules of confidentiality.  Has this congregation ever fired someone before and how did that go?  Have you or a family member ever experienced firing someone or being fired?  What was that experience like?”  The purpose of such comments and questions is to help a leader move into a more observational view of the community and understanding of the person they are talking to.  The goal of being more observational is to help a leader move beyond seeing specific comments as coming from a particular person to seeing these comments as a reflection of the congregational and family systems that are active and present.
 
Depending on the leader and their level of functioning, there may be tendency to categorize comments from others into “friends or foe.”  A systems view of a congregation moves beyond the comments of the individual to seeing the comments as a product of the way the system functions.  A more observational view helps to make this reality clearer.  Moving beyond seeing comments as generated by an individual and seeing them as generated by the system will help one determined a better way forward as a leader.  At the same time, it helps a leader avoid falling into the pit of blame and taking sides which historically is the root of most congregational conflicts.
 
Finally, it’s important to remember what one is working on is defining a self.  In part 3, which will come out next week, I’ll define what I mean by defining a self.  It is a term that was introduced by Dr. Murray Bowen in his theory of human behavior.  I’ll also address one way that leaders can work on being more of a self in their congregations.  This is an effort of being clear about what one thinks.  Through the process of observing, leaders begin to develop thoughts about how the congregational system functions as well as thoughts about one’s own functioning.  It includes an openness to receiving new information and ideas.  Leaders can get stuck in taking a position like, “It’s my way or the highway.”  But this isn’t well defined thinking.  It’s a reaction to anxiety.  Mature and defined leadership is always open to new ideas and new ways of looking at a problem.  It doesn’t mean that a leader is a waffler, going back and forth on issues.  It simply means that, while a leader is clear for themselves, they are open to knowing what others think as well. 
 
It is also the ability to stay focused on what is important to the leader.  This means having well thought out plans on what one is trying to accomplish as a leader and then sticking to the plan.  The ability to define a self is what makes for a successful transition, all of which I’ll discuss next week in part three.

Moving Away from Assessment to Observation
 
A change in clergy leadership is an anxious time for both clergy and congregations.  There are many factors that contribute to the level of anxiety.  As clergy and congregational leaders try to assess one another early on, they may miss out on unique opportunities to build a long-term partnership for ministry.  Observing the levels of anxiety in others and in self, developing good relationship connection with individuals, and supporting a way forward that is based on core principles are all keys to laying the ground work for an effective tenure as pastor and congregational leader. 
 
I’ve served four congregations over a 22 year period.  Each time I entered a congregation, I had the opportunity to observe my own reactivity to anxiety and my own tendencies to move quickly into assessing others.  Having a theoretical understanding of relationship systems makes a difference when navigating the complex behaviors of an active and anxious congregation.  Core principles and beliefs provide a solid footing while one stands in a sea of emotional reactivity.  
 
This blog is for clergy and laity who are in the midst of a change in clergy leadership.  It provides a way of thinking about transition through a systems perspective, specifically Bowen Family Systems Theory.  I had initially planned on dedicating one blog to this topic.  However, given the length of the article, I made the decision to turn it into a series of three posts.  This is the first of three.
 
 
Neuroscientists tell us that when we walk down a sidewalk, jog down a road, or even walk through a store, when we encounter another human being, we quickly calculate whether this person is a friend or foe. 
 
Despite our Sunday School teachers’ best efforts to teach us to “love one another” there is a part of all of us that labels others.  Anyone who has ever participated in a capital campaign project or sat in on a trustees meeting knows we are just hardwired to assess who is cooperating with us and who is competing against us.  How many times have you experienced conflict and wondered, “Can’t we all sit on the same side of the table?”
 
Clergy and congregations begin their time together with a period of assessment.  Depending on how connected clergy are in a denomination, it is not uncommon for clergy to seek out information about the congregation they will be serving.  Clergy from the same region (such as a conference, synod, or diocese) often develop, over time, a narrative for each congregation.  This narrative describes the church’s health and vitality.  Denominational leaders also contribute to this narrative based on their own experiences.  The narrative, which is not free of bias, contributes to the overall assessment a clergy person develops prior to the first weekend in worship.  This assessment is also filtered through each clergy person’s sensitivity to anxiety and results in a perceptual framework of the congregation.  This perceptual framework is formed prior to any firsthand experience and personal observation.
 
It is also true that clergy develop a reputation over time which can center on effectiveness.  In a similar process, colleagues, denominational leadership and congregations all play a role in developing a narrative about clergy.  These narratives, which carry a level of assessment and bias, are also shared without firsthand knowledge which contributes to a perceptual view of a specific pastor that may or may not be accurate.  This narrative can make its way into the congregation prior to the arrival of the pastor.
 
Eventually, clergy and congregations have their first date – worship.  What follows is often described as a honeymoon period.  Any shortcomings, mistakes, or problems are not publicly acknowledged.  Instead, clergy and congregations enter into a period of quiet, ongoing assessment which either confirms or challenges the perceptual framework created by the narrative.  We’d like to think that our perceptions are always accurate, but, as I’ll explain in subsequent blogs, our perceptions are often filtered by our own sensitivities to anxiety.  During this process of assessment we create a list of likes and dislikes about others.  Because this is an emotional process, these likes and dislikes influence our ability to accurately assess.  Without knowing it, what we are actually assessing is how comfortable or uncomfortable we are with the behavior of others.  We are assessing our own level of anxiety based on our likes and dislikes of how others like or dislike us.  Before too long, we are reacting to the dislike we have of others who dislike us, who dislike us because of the way we dislike them, which began when we liked someone else that they disliked.
 
 
We all have natural reactions to anxiety. 
 
These reactions are automatic and often operate under the radar of our awareness.  The key to developing awareness is to become a better observer of human behavior.  Clergy, whether through their calling or training, tend to be excellent observers of human behavior. 
 
It’s helpful for clergy and congregational leaders to move from a mindset of assessment to a mindset of observation, curiosity, and discovery.  Congregational leaders, who have a long term relationship with people in the congregation, develop their own sensitivities to others.  Different people receive different reactions based on these sensitivities.  When a dislike about the pastor is voiced to a congregational leader, their reaction may vary depending on who is voicing the concern.  In addition, certain individuals can ease the minds of congregational leaders by giving a “thumbs up” for the new pastor.  These leaders may be unaware of how the expressed likes and dislikes of certain individuals in the congregation are influencing their level of anxiety and internal discomfort.  Moving out of a mindset of assessment and into a mindset of observation helps one become more aware of these tendencies.
 
Clergy can also get caught up in the emotional processes already at play in a congregation.  As an outsider to the relationship system of a congregation, there is a strong automatic pull to move towards an insider position.  Each person varies in the intensity of the pull to be more connected to the congregation.  Some clergy are more sensitive to the upsetness of a congregation or, more accurately, the upsetness of specific individuals, which then influences the way a clergy person will operate.  As one assesses the expressed likes and dislikes of the congregation, they can feel compelled to resolve whatever feelings of discomfort may surface in others and in self. 
 
 
This is the process known as triangles in a relationship system. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen developed the concept of the relationship triangle based on his research with families who had a schizophrenic member.  A basic triangle is between three people where two people are in the inside position and a third person is in the outside position.  He observed how tensions could shift between family members in the basic triangle between mother, child, and father.  For Bowen, triangles were the building blocks of the emotional system.  You can read more about his concept of the triangle by clicking here.
 
According to Bowen, when things are calm, the optimal position in the relationship triangle is to be one of the two insiders.  The least desirable position is in the third, outside position.  When anxiety is higher and individuals are more reactive, the outside position is more desirable with the two insiders experiencing the intense anxiety.  In reaction to rising levels of anxiety, there is an active, fluid movement of moving towards or away from others in the triangle; it is an effort to determine who the two insiders are and who the outsider is.  When the anxiety of the triangle becomes more than what the three can manage, interlocking triangles form.  Interlocking triangles exist in all congregations and are active corollary to the level of anxiety in the system.
 
Clergy and congregational leaders are in a better position to lead when they move into the outside position of the congregational triangles.  To do this, one needs to get out of an assessment mindset and into a framework of observation.  Like any researcher, the most effective observers are those who are outside of the processes they are observing while also highly engaged and connected to what is going on around them.  Effective leadership requires the ability to observe accurately what is happening in the relationships system but not be determined by it. 
 
One of the key mistakes clergy and congregational leaders make in trying to solve a problem is to assess it without first understanding the underlying processes.  Automatic responses to anxiety lead to problem solving that perpetuates and sometimes exasperates the underlying relationship problems.  Thoughtful reflection on the problem based on observing how the relationship system functions is a much better guide to determining strategies for addressing congregational problems. 
 
The next step is to learn to be a good observer, which I will address next week in part 2.

Welcome to Thinking Congregations.  This is a blog for faith leaders, clergy, local pastors, judicatory leaders, bishops and anyone who has an interest in thinking about church.  And by “church” I mean congregations, synagogues, temples, mosques, home churches, or any house of faith and worship.  While we may differ in our beliefs about the nature of God, we have much more in common when it comes to the ways each faith community functions and carries out their beliefs. 


Why read this blog?

There are hundreds and hundreds of blogs focused on the struggles of organized religion.  Many of them seek to provide solutions.  It’s the same phenomenon that you find with books addressing the decline of the church. If you read a list of book titles written over the last three decades on growth and development in the protestant church, and line it up with the trends of the church, it’s easy to see not only have we not solved the problem, things have gotten worse, not better.  While the debate has mostly been about the nature of leadership, and rightly so, the main problem for years has been the characterization of the problem.
 
Here is what I hope to accomplish by offering this weekly blog.

                                                                                                                                     
It turns out what “works for them” doesn’t work for us.

When I started ministry 22 years ago, I was swept up in the “it worked for us” movement.  I shuttled congregational leaders to one training after another, hoping against hope that somehow what was working in one congregation would magically translate into the congregation I served.  The trainings typically resulted in enthusiastic, motivated leaders returning home only to discover how unprepared they were to address the challenges of implementation.

 
Church strategies are often prescriptive instead of descriptive

The blogs, articles and books that seem to gain the most notoriety have some version of “Ten steps to . . . “ or “Five things every leader should . . . “ or “Twelve ways to kill . . .” in their titles.  While any of these prescriptions can be useful in terms of techniques, they often fail to sufficiently understand the underlying processes.   So much of the training leaders receive is designed to combat a problem that has not been adequately explained.  It’s as if we’ve been taught how to fly an airplane without learning the  effects of wind.  In the absence of a storm, the flying is effortless.  However, kick up the wind speed several knots, and everyone starts decrying and arguing about a new paradigm shift that no one can quite figure out. 

 
When talking about a new paradigm, it’s important to focus more on process and less on content; to focus more on thinking and less on reacting.

This can be a difficult distinction to make and more than likely I’ll spend time on this blog page attempting to articulate the difference.  Much of what is being offered has more to do with content than with process.  And because of that, it tends to be more reactive than thoughtful.  My aspiration in writing this blog is to be a resource to leaders who are interested in being good thinkers about the problems they face.  The reality is we live in a highly anxious time.  It can be challenging to find clarity in one’s thinking while surrounded by well intentioned congregants who are anxious about current circumstances.
 
I hope this blog becomes known as a place for individuals from various faith communities to think differently about how we gather as congregations and what good leadership looks like in our various contexts.  If you find it useful, I hope you will share it with others.  I hope you will participate in the conversation.  Your feedback is important to me.  Finally, I hope this blog leads to broader conversations about what it takes to lead the people we so deeply care about and are called to lead.