Tell someone you are going to a congregational meeting, and they might say, “Good Luck.”  “Hope it goes well.”  “I’m sorry to hear that.”  No one ever says, “That’s fantastic.”  “What a blessing.”  “You are so luck you get to go to meetings.”  “When will I be nominated to be on your committee?” 
 
Meetings are challenging.  People handle the challenge in different ways.  Some simply don’t show up.  Others complain.  Some try to take control.  Some sit and distract themselves with their smart phones.  We like to convince ourselves that one or two people are to blame for unproductive meetings.  In reality, each person on the committee plays a role in how well the group functions. 
 
 
We have spent decades trying to diagnosis meetings.
 
Efforts to create effective and efficient committees have focused largely on getting the right people in the right positions.  If this strategy really worked, religious institutions would be reaping massive rewards right about now.  The problem is not every congregation has access to high quality and well trained leaders. In order to make the most of the people resources they have, some congregations have turned to diagnostic tools to do a better job of matching people with positions. 
 
Some diagnostic tools are focused on pinpointing key characteristics and qualities of good leadership.  While many people seem to enjoy this approach to leadership, it does not address the problem of variability.  Let’s say you have an individual who has the skills and experience to lead an effective team.  They get high marks on a diagnostic test for leadership qualities.  But then something happens to them.  The begin to have relationship problems at home with a spouse or a child.  Suddenly, their effectiveness declines.  The key markers of leadership that were tested earlier have somehow vanished.  It happens to all of us.  If you push the right buttons at the right time with the right amount of force, we all will fall short of being at our best.  So, if our functioning as leaders can be influenced by stress from relationship issues, then shouldn’t we really be testing for something else?
 
In order to address the relationship problems, some have turned to diagnostic tools like the Myers-Briggs. Based on personality types of an individual, it attempts to show how each personality grouping interacts with other groupings.  While the descriptions may be accurate, the problem is in the way individuals deal with the differences.  Personality traits become the reason people aren’t getting along.  “I can’t work with so and so because they are too feeling oriented and extroverted.” 
 
During the 1990’s and early 2000’s there were efforts to move into a more evaluative approach to meetings.  Committees were encouraged to end their meetings with an evaluation of the meeting.  Questions were asked like: How did you feel about the meeting?  What didn’t you like?  What worked?  How can we do better?  While these types of questions seem to be headed in the right direction, the problem remained that individuals found it difficult to give an honest critic without worrying that others would take it personally. 
 
 
We cannot be responsible for the functioning of others leaders.  We can only be responsible for our own functioning as a leader.
 
Ultimately, the focus of any leader needs to be on self.  When individuals are able to think about and reflect on their own functioning, in relationship to the people around them, they become better leaders. It’s really this simple and yet, complex.  It’s simple in the sense that one does not need to be educated in all of the diagnostic tools and methodologies that exist in the genre of congregational leadership.  It’s complex because it’s about emotional process which, to understanding, requires an investment of time and thinking.
 
Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept of the nuclear family emotional process is useful in understanding the nature of leadership.  In his initial research with families where an adult child was diagnosed with schizophrenia, Bowen observed four basic patterns or mechanisms families have at their disposal to manage increased levels of anxiety in the family.  In and of themselves, theses patterns are normal and harmless.  However, under enough stress, with limited flexibility in the family, and limited access to extended family member’s, problems emerge as symptoms.  The four patterns are conflict, dysfunction in a spouse, impairment of a child, and emotional distancing.  You can read more about the NFEP by clicking here.
 
In my experience, it is possible to see these same patterns influencing congregational meetings.  When individuals bring to the meeting a higher level of anxiety from their families, it can spill over into the meeting.  Let’s say a member of the children’s ministry team has arrived for a meeting on the heels of a major conflict at home with their spouse.  What was to be a simple vote on scheduling a summer kid’s programs has turned into a heated debate about how Styrofoam cups are not being recycled.
 
A good leader pays attention to these basic patterns and how they play out during a meeting.  A good leader also knows that diagnosing someone else’s behavior makes the situation worse.  “You know what your problem is?  You’re emotionally distant and not engaged!”  This type of pursuit never goes well, whether it’s in a family or a finance meeting. 
 
A good leader focuses on their own functioning.  They spend time observing their own reactivity to others.  Becoming aware of how they make use of these patterns when anxiety is on the rise is helpful in doing better as a leader.  Bowen observed that this work is best done in one’s family of origin.  However, it’s possible to observe it in congregational meetings and then work to do better with it in one’s family. 
 
As I lead, I pay attention to my behavior and work to identify when I am more likely to be in conflict; when I’m more likely to over function or under function; when I’m more likely to focus my anxiety on someone else; and when I am more likely to emotionally distance.  The effort is to understand how it happens in the presence of heightened anxiety, develop strategies for doing better, and then take actions steps. 
 
In order to understanding how it happens, I have found these questions to be useful:
 

• Am I engaged in my conversation with others?  Am I participating at my typical level or am I participating less than usual or more than usual?
  
• Am I focused on the facts or am I fantasizing about what should, would or could happen?
• Am I expressing clear ideas and thoughts that are “I” positions?
• Am I trying to convince everyone I’m right?
• Am I defending myself?
• Am I being responsible?  Am I doing less or am I trying to fix the problem and doing too much?
• Am I focused more on the behavior of others or on my own behavior?

 
So, the first step is to pay attention to my own reactivity to others.
 
The next step is to think about how my own behavior is influencing the relationship system.  How am I being influenced by others and how am I influencing others through my behavior? 
 
The third step is creating a plan on how to be present in a different, more responsible way.
 
And finally, it’s about taking an action step, then evaluating how it went, and then beginning the process again.
 
 
The importance of being present and accounted for.
 
How am I being present and accounted for at important events in the life of the congregation and in my own family.  When is it easy to be present, when is it difficult?  How am I present?  What is my purpose when I’m present with others? 
 
When leaders are more intentional about being present and accounted for, they are more thoughtful and less reactive in their functioning.  This process has the potential for increasing one’s overall level of functioning in the relationship system. The relationship system also does better.
 
When talking about the family, Bowen observed that families do better with a leader who has “the courage to define a self, who is as invested in the welfare of the family as in self, who is neither angry nor dogmatic, whose energy goes to changing self rather than telling others what they should do, who can know and respect the multiple opinions of others, who can modify self in response to the strengths of the group, and who is not influenced by the irresponsible opinions of others.”  (Family Evaluation, page 342-3).
 
It's true for the family and it’s true for the congregation.

We all have aspects of our lives we like and don’t like.  Congregations work at their optimal level when individuals are serving in areas they like and are motivated to lead.  But the reality is, for most congregational leaders, there are aspects of our work we don’t like.  The challenge is finding the motivation to keep in play those aspects of our work we don’t enjoy doing.  Most congregational leaders don’t like attending meetings.  I’ve yet to meet someone who says meetings are their favorite part of ministry.  If you are that person, please let me know in the comment section.
 
 
What’s the purpose of meeting?
 
Early on in my career, I used to stress over hospital visits.  I didn’t mind going to the hospital.  Growing up, I saw hospitals as helpful and caring places.  My stress about making hospital visits had more to do with my role as clergy.  I worried about encountering the unexpected and having to think on my feet; having to know what to say or do or what not to say or do.
 
To me, what is challenging about hospital visits is having to respond to the possibility of a highly anxious person and the challenge of regulating my own internal reactivity to an anxious situation.  It is hard to think on my feet when I’m anxious.
 
To address my own level of anxiety, a few years ago, I started asking myself a couple of questions before I enter the hospital.  “What is my purpose for this visit?  What is my role?  What is important to me about this visit?”  These questions moved my brain towards thinking about the work that I am doing.  This focus on what I believe about my vocational identity helped me be less reactive to the anxiety others were expressing during my visit.  It allowed me to stay focused on being a thoughtful presence.  What I discovered initially is that I lacked clear beliefs about my purpose in doing hospital visits. 
 
 
What am I willing to do and not willing to do at a meeting?
 
Dr. Murray Bowen said, “The term emotional refers to the force that motivates the system and “relationship” to the ways it is expressed.” (Bowen, 158).  Bowen’s genius was recognizing that we all to some degree react automatically to the behavior of others.  It is within these interrelated reactions that a system of predictable responses is created.  As a clergy person, who is potentially entering a highly anxious hospital room, I can easily slip into a reactive mode: having my functional level shift into a mode of underfuctioning or overfunctioning.
 
In the underfunctioning mode, there is the potential to not be responsible for self as a clergy person.  Religious leaders can be a wonderful resource to those going through a life crisis.  They can provide a perspective which brings opportunities for healing in different ways.  There is research to suggest prayer, beliefs, and the presence of family member can make a significant impact on recovery.  To underfunction is to miss out on these opportunities.
 
In the overfunctioning mode, there is the potential for taking too much responsibility for others.  If not careful, leaders can take over and begin telling people what they need to do.  Like underfunctioning, this is an anxious response to the situation that has more to do with how internally uncomfortable the congregational leader is to the presence of an anxious other.
 
These two responses to anxiety are not just driven by an individual’s internal reactivity; they are also elicited by others.  Underfunctioning and overfunctioning are automatic responses to the perceived functioning of others.  If one’s tendency is to overfunction, when they encounter a patient in a hospital room who is underfucntioning, they may automatically step in to help make decisions.  This response is always seen as helping but it may take away an opportunity for the individual to step up and do better in the face of challenge.  The basis for this type of response can be found by studying one’s position in their family of origin.
 
Being clear about what I am willing to do and not willing to do is really about being a more responsible leader.  As a clergy person or congregational leader, what am I responsible for?  It’s a good question no matter what meeting one is attending.  Whether it’s a meeting of trustees or a meeting with a staff person, what is my responsibility in this meeting?   Before I go into any meeting, whether it’s a hospital room or a finance meeting, I ask myself the question: what is my purpose for being here?  What is important to me about this meeting?
 
Congregational leaders can feel the weight of responsibility for the institutions they lead.  Instead of reacting to the needs of the institution in the moment, congregations do better when leaders are clear about their own capacity for leading and have taken the time to think about what responsible leadership looks like for self and for the needs of the organization.
 
 
Good meetings are the result of leaders who are focused on their own functioning.
 
Leaders are at their best when they are actively engaged in the life of the organization, when they are asking creative questions to address issues and problems that arise, when they are maintaining good emotional connect with members of the congregation, when they are not derailed by the irresponsible behavior of others, and when they are containing their own internal anxiety.
 
While a good leader monitors their own functioning, under enough stress this focus can be directed towards others.  When leaders are at their worst, they often blaming others for the problem.  Last year I wrote an article for the Family Systems Forum entitled “Stay Calm and Blame.”  I described our tendency to blame others which has more to do with calming us down internally than it does with solving problems.  Brené Brown has a cute clip on this subject.  You can watch this short video by clicking here.
 
When leaders are at their best they see how their own responses, their own functioning, and their own reactivity is actually part of the problem and a product of the emotional process that is going on all around them.  We behave the way we do because of our position in our family of origin.  As we begin to explore the patterns of not only the families we grew up in but also the families of our parents and their parents, these patterns begin to light up. 
 
When I’m coaching clergy and they share with me the struggles they are having in their congregations, I will inevitably ask them, “Where do you see this lighting up in your own family?”  I’m amazed at how quickly they are able to respond to the question.  And not just with their parents and their siblings, but they see it light up in the generations of their grandparents, aunts, uncles, and even great grandparents and so on.  We are the product of a multigenerational transmission process.  You can read more about this by clicking here.
 
 
In a meeting, good leaders work towards saying “I” while others are demanding “We”.
 
As a final note to this blog, I think it’s important to highlight that when anxiety goes up in a group, there is a shift in the emotional process towards “we.”  This is what Dr. Murray Bowen described as the force towards togetherness.  When the problems are perceived to be great and the challenges look impossible, congregational leaders may begin to demand that everyone be on the same page.  There is an emotional drive to think, feel and act the same way.
 
This is often the case in stressful meetings.  It’s easy for committees and teams to slip into a focus on “we.”  It can be easy for some people to simply go along with others instead of disagreeing or going against an idea.  There are perceived relational consequences to such actions and, for some, the automatic thing to do is to simply get in line with the thinking of others.
 
Good leaders, however, are able to separate out the thinking and reactivity of others from their own thinking and reactivity.  They are able to disagree and hold a position even when others are demanding compliance.  They are able to think differently about an issues without giving into the forces for togetherness.  And they are able to do it without a permanent disruption of the relationship system.  They can disagree without cutting off from others.  They can present a different way of thinking without trying to convince others they are right.  Cutting off or forcing beliefs on others represents an effort for togetherness and a move towards “we.”
 
The opportunities to work on differentiation of self are endless.  Just because one's efforts to work on it in one situation doesn’t go well doesn’t mean the opportunity is over.  It’s a process and, because it’s a process, the opportunities continue.  As one works on differentiation, there is time to evaluate how the effort is going, reflect on the observations one is having, and continue to consider next steps.  Having a coach as a thought partner to reflect on this process and to support the continued and important work of differentiation of self can be very useful. 
 
In the next blog post I’ll focus on the positive impact a good leader can have on staying engaged in this process especially when it comes to meetings.  Don’t forget, share your thinking below in the comment section.
 

If I’m honest, I could make a list of all the monthly meetings I attend and put them into two categories: enjoy and don’t enjoy.  It’s true.  Some are energizing and some are draining.  The success or failure of a meeting has more to do with the behavior of the people in attendance than the content being discussed.  It turns out it may be more important to pay attention to the level of anxiety in the room than what is on the agenda. 
           
 
Our behavior, in response to anxiety, is predictable.
 
I first became aware of this several years ago while attending an annual meeting of our conference.  I found the presentations lacking, the substance of the conference uninteresting, and the general demeanor of those attending depressing. To put it simply, it was not enjoyable.  But attendance was mandatory.
 
I always saw other participants as the problem.  If those in charge could organize a better conference or provide better leadership the meeting would be much more enjoyable.  It took time for me to realize enjoying the conference was not the purpose.  The gathering had a specific purpose and I could have either a positive or negative impact on it.  I eventually discovered that my reactivity to the conference was just as problematic as what I perceived to be the problem with other people.
 
Initially, in order to cope with my negative experience, I began to replicate the behavior of others who I looked up to at the time.  They would hangout outside of the main room and talk to anyone who walked by.  They would complain about how things were being run or about other people’s bad behavior.  It never occurred to them, or to me at the time, their lack of participation in the meeting was contributing to the problem.  What was occurring in the hallways had just as much of an impact on the conference as anything substantive happening on the main floor. 
 
To be fair, these annual meetings were highly anxious.  Whether the subject matter was about race, gender identity, sexual orientation, money, or any number of anxiety producing topics, it didn’t take much for the intensity to go up in the room.
 
The funny thing about it, I got real good and predicting who would be present, who would be in the hallways, who would check in and then leave, and who was going to speak, when, and about what.  All of these responses are based on the way we react to tension.
 
 
The parking lot meeting is an indicator of the level of anxiety.
 
Sometimes called the meeting after the meeting, congregational leaders know all too well the reality of parking lot meetings.  You’ve already met for several hours with a committee, dealing with a difficult issue, only to watch a small group of people huddle outside in the parking lot after the meeting adjourns.
 
Anxiety is what drives individuals to gather together in a parking lot to debrief a meeting.  It is the driving force behind how we respond to others.  When we experience anxiety we sometimes find comfort in being together with others.  We can also find comfort in keeping our distance.  There are a number of variables involved with how we react to anxiety.  Most notably is the level of anxiety in the relationship system, the level of maturity of those around us (how they respond to the anxiety), and our own level of maturity (our responsiveness to the anxiety) which comes from a multigenerational process which includes the maturity level of our parents and grandparents.
 
One’s level of maturity has to do with the ability to separate out feelings from thinking.  Dr. Murray Bowen called it "differentiation of self".  Click here to read more about his ideas of differentiation.  Parking lot meetings result from the challenge individuals face (when anxiety goes up) of separating out feelings from thinking at an internal level.  At an external level, it is the challenge of separating out where the self ends and another person begins.  When feelings (in response to anxiety) are driving responses, it is a guarantee that meetings will be less productive and more frustrating.  With some effort, over time, it’s fairly easy to watch the emotional process.  If someone is trying to control the direction of a meeting, often with a great deal of intensity behind their speaking, you can observe the emotional process at work. They may also be those who refuse to participate, remain silent, and avoid the meeting.  Their response is also about emotional process.  Even if someone is articulating an idea, if it is accompanied by an attempt to control the thinking, feelings and actions of others it has more to do with emotional process than the substance of the conversation.  So, the parking lot meeting is really an emotional process in which individuals are trying to manage their own level of anxiety.  For some reason it just feels good to huddle and blame others for one’s own feelings of discomfort.
 
A theme and variation of the parking lot meeting is when a congregational member wants to speak privately with you after the meeting.  They may be uncomfortable about the decision that was made, suspicious of the intention of others, or critical of how others are behaving.  Like a pressure cooker, anxiety builds up in meetings and those who pick it up and take responsibility for it look for ways to release it.  In a way, parking lot meetings, meetings after the meetings, or private conversations with the pastor are really efforts to pass along anxiety.  How does one do a better job of leading without participating in efforts to control or distance from anxious others?
 
 
The only person you can change is you.
 
What is remarkable about Bowen Theory is the influence it can have on others in the relationship system when one is working on their reactivity to anxiety.  While one’s effort is always on being more responsible for one’s own behavior, there are benefits to the congregation.  But it only happens when a leader is focused on leading self.
 
It is really about directing on one’s own feelings, thinking and behavior and less on directing the feeling, thinking and behavior of others.  In previous blogposts I’ve outlined the process for doing this work through what Bowen called differentiation of self.  And while one can work on defining a self in a congregation while in attendance at meetings, Bowen believed the family was the most effective means by which one could develop more of a self.  He encouraged people to work on understanding the multigenerational process which can be enhanced through the utilization of a Bowen trained coach.    
                         
Here are a few ways of thinking about this effort in the congregation: 
 

• A leader refuses to blame others for their own uncomfortableness and takes responsibility for the ways they are reacting to others.
  
• A leader pays attention to the emotional process of a meeting and not just the content.
  
• A leader pays attention to and learns to identify their own automatic responses to anxiety.
• A leader makes an effort to regulate their automatic responses to others.
• A leader makes an effort to see their automatic responses in the context of their relationships with parents and siblings, their parent’s parents and siblings, and their parent’s parent’s parents and siblings.  Again, a good coach can be helpful here.
• A leader cultivates a mindset of curiosity and discovery.  Good leaders are inquisitive into the who, what, where and when of any situation.  They avoid asking the “why” questions because those questions come from more anxious thinking.
• A leader learns to predict the responses of others.
• A leader sees the part they play in the problem.  Often referred to as self-awareness, it is about seeing how one’s behavior impacts others.  What are other people in the meeting up against when dealing with you?
• A leader is flexible and adapts to what they are learning from this process.  They take steps to respond to others in a less reactive and more thoughtful way by being more of a self.
• A leader spends time developing their beliefs and core principles which reflect one’s own best thinking about what is important.
• A leader takes action based on beliefs and core principles, anticipates anxious responses and is prepared for them.
• A leader continues to repeat this process. 

 
As a result, a leader develops the capacity to be a better resource to others, is viewed as a good thinker and thought-partner in anxious times, has a greater degree of flexibility and adaptability to challenge, is less consumed by the immediacy of the moment, is able to see the big picture and long term implications, and is confident their ability to solve problems is bigger then the problems they face. 
 
Next week I’ll focus on the practical ways to run a meeting based on these ideas.

The Big Bang Theory's character Sheldon Cooper, played by Jim Parsons, is a rule follower. Sheldon, like most of us, dislikes keeping secrets and, before he is told a secret, wants the option to decide if he is willing to keep it. This interplay between Penny and Sheldon, from the episode The Bad Fish Paradigm, which aired September 22, 2008, highlights the problem:

Penny: This is between you and me. You can't tell Leonard any of this.
Sheldon: You're asking me to keep a secret?
Penny: Yeah.
Sheldon: Well, I am sorry, but you would have had to have expressed that desire before revealing the secret, so that I could choose whether I wanted to accept the covenant of secret-keeping. You can't impose a secret on an ex-post-facto basis.
Penny: What?
Sheldon: Secret-keeping is a complicated endeavor. One has to be concerned not only about what one says, but about facial expressions, autonomic reflexes. When I try to deceive, I myself have more nervous tics than a Lyme disease research facility.
[pause]
Sheldon: It's a joke. It relies on the homonymic relationship between "tick", the blood-sucking arachnid, and "tic", the involuntary muscular contraction. I made it up myself.

Indeed, confidentiality is a complicated endeavor. And while we may not display outward ticks like Sheldon, we all know the feeling of being stuck between two people over confidentiality. His comments are funny because they are true.


The problem of being stuck

There had been a significant amount of conflict in the congregation prior to my arrival as their new pastor. In the months leading up to start date, I started receiving emails and phone calls from one of the leaders. They would share with me all of the problems as they saw it and tell me who was responsible for the problems. Others began to follow suit and before long I realized I was being told how to view the problem and the people before I had set foot in the building. I had no interest in taking sides. So, I would need to find a way to ground myself. It turns out that having a theoretical understanding of relationship systems was useful.


The concept of the triangle

Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept of the triangle describes the moment to moment interactions that take place in a relationship system. It is based on the assumption that a two-person relationship is not stable enough to address rising levels of tension. So, for example, in a congregation when tension develops between two people, it is not uncommon for one of them to reach out to a third person, like a clergy person. As they reach out to the third person, they try to convince the clergy person to see things from their perspective. Instead of the tension being resolved between the original twosome, it has now spread to a third person. If the clergy person is unable to contain the tension they are faced with, they, in turn, may reach out to another person and share their own tension about what has been shared with them about the original twosome. This pattern continues as interlocking triangles are created. You can read more about triangles and Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept by clicking here.

Most clergy are unaware of the interlocking triangles that surround them on a day to day, moment to moment basis. When people come to a congregational leader to voice a concern, the conversation can quickly shift away from the concern to talking about other people. This is a triangle. If one focuses on the content of the conversation, they will miss the movement of the triangle, and miss out on opportunities to address the underlying emotional process. If one can look past the content of the conversation and pay attention to the movement of the triangle, then it is possible to gain greater knowledge on how the relationship system works.


My confidentiality policy

My confidentiality policy is different than the one Dr. Copper proposed. Using the concept of triangles, and with the help of a coach, I developed my own policy on confidentiality. The confidentiality policy I adopted went something like this:


"If the information you are sharing is about someone else and their behavior, then I am free to share with that person anything you say to me about them. If, on the other hand, the information you are sharing is about your effort to try and do a better job relating to that someone else, then I'm willing to keep the conversation confidential. "


My effort in developing this policy was to be more of a self and not simply go along with the emotional process. It was my attempt to be more responsible for my part in the triangle and to keep the problem where it belonged – where it started with the original two people. It wasn’t so much a technique as a way to engage my thinking.

I implemented the policy in three steps. The first step was to share it with the entire congregation during the announcement time in worship each week for the first month. The second step was to write it up for the newsletter. Finally, and this was the most important step, whenever someone started a conversation with, "I need to talk to you about something or someone," I shared the policy with them: “I just want you to know that if you are going to talk about someone else, I’m free to choose whether to talk with them about whatever you tell me. If you want to talk about you and your efforts, then I’m willing to keep it confidential.”

I found the policy to be effective in calming down the overall anxiety of the congregation. More importantly it was useful in calming down my own anxiety by engaging a clearly articulated belief. In most cases, I watched individuals who might have been inclined to blame others shift towards a more thoughtful reflection about their own reactivity to people they found challenging. Overall, I saw a significant decline in blaming behavior.

One of the dilemmas clergy face is what to do with leaders who behave in ways that are counterproductive. As a result of sticking to the policy of shifting the conversation away from talking about other people, eventually some leaders decided not to renew their term at the end of the year. In fact, I never had a confrontational conversation where someone would just stop talking to me. Most people welcomed the opportunity to think about the problem from a broader perspective. Some individuals even made significant strides. They took responsibility for their part of the problem and, as a result, had better relationships with others in the church.

For my own part, I was not prepared for how anxious the policy would initially make me feel. Placing myself on the outside of every triangle in the congregation was very difficult. I was worried people would stopped “letting me in” on the problems going on in the church. I worried about being in the dark about problems in the congregation. My greatest fear, a mutiny in the congregation, could get the best of me from time to time. On my better days I would think about how my own anxious tendencies to over function could perpetuated the problem. I discovered that I too had a part to play in the problem.

An unexpected outcome was the freedom I experienced to relate well to everyone in the church. The effort to stay connected to the problems, while at the same time working to be less caught up in the reactivity of others who were anxious, gave me space to have a good relationship with everyone, including those I found the most challenging to work with. It was a form of grace. It gave me the freedom to lead.


Changes to the policy over time

Over time I did modify the policy. As I gained more confidence in my ability to articulate the policy, I no longer felt the need to reference it. It eventually become a part of my everyday conversations. If someone talked to me about someone else, I focused less on the other person and got curious about how the person talking to me was thinking about the problem. I had no interest in blaming others or talking about bad behavior.

I was also surprised to discover how well this policy worked in my own family. When family members attempt to get me on board with their way of seeing a problem (which could involve talking badly about someone else) I could talk about how I saw the problem differently. I stopped blaming others and tried to work on my own position in the triangles. It has been interesting to watch others embrace the effort and take it up for themselves. Working on this in my own family has given me the greatest level of confidence in working on it in the congregation.

Initially, the policy was extremely useful in helping me create enough distance in the relationship system to see the emotional process. What I discovered over time, which I attribute to the original policy, was something more usefully. When I was confronted with someone who was blaming or gossiping about someone else, I begin to think about the person I was talking to. Specifically, what about my relationship with them was important to me? I tried to move my thinking away from the person being blamed and back to the person who was talking to me. The conversation might turn to things we have in common. Or to others projects we are working on together. Or I might share something that was important to me that I’d been thinking about and ask for their thoughts. It has been a long term effort to move my own thinking out of an emotional and reactive response to one that is more thoughtful and principle based.

The more a leader and congregation can develop thoughtful policies about confidentiality, the better prepared they are to address relationship problems that are always operational. However, having a policy is not enough. Leaders need a better understanding of the emotional process that is the foundation of all relationships systems and then be willing to act take action steps based on this understanding and their beliefs.