I recently had a conversation with someone about self-regulation.  Self-regulation is the ability to control or adjust one’s functioning without depending on others.  One way to think about it is the capacity to regulate thoughts, feelings, and actions independent of others.  At infancy, bodily regulation is dependent on others, particularly the mother.  Fathers have some influence.  As we develop into adulthood, we decrease the dependency on others and increase the capacity to self-regulate.  No one ever makes it all the way!  We enter adulthood with a mix of both.  Dr. Murray Bowen developed this idea in his concept of differentiation of self.  You can read about it by clicking here.
 
The extent to which any one of us can self-regulate is connected to a couple of factors.  These factors include the capacity of the parents to self-regulate, the amount of tension in the family during a child’s development, the level of anxiety in the family, and the way previous generations managed tension and anxiety.  Adult children leave the family with more or less the same capacity to self-regulate as parents.  Some do a little bit better, some do a little bit worse.  But it’s roughly the same.
 
When adult children leave the family to start a new one, they hook up with someone who has a similar capacity to self-regulate.  Whatever dependency is leftover from the family of origin will be managed in this new relationship through a process of reciprocity.  For example, one spouse may be vulnerable to health problems while the other spouse is consistently healthy.  I had someone tell me, after the death of their spouse, that they were surprised to discover how their overall health had improved.  In the marriage, they were always sick, and the other was always healthy.  Now that the spouse was gone, their general health was improving. 
 
Individual models dominate most approaches to improving functioning.  People work at doing better as if it’s completely about them.  New Year’s is coming up.  Resolutions are usually about doing a better job of self-regulating.  “I’m going to lose weight.”  “I’m going to learn to play the cello.”  “I’m going to read more novels.”  These resolutions represent efforts to self-regulate behavior.  But without an understanding of the family emotional process, people generally fail in their individually focused efforts.  The challenges we face to regulate ourselves are remnants (the stuff leftover) from our childhood.  It represents our dependency on others to function.  The challenge is to finish the unfinished work of growing up. 
 
There is a natural developmental process of staying focused on what is important to self.  This process of staying focused is disrupted to a greater and lesser degree by the amount of tension and anxiety in the family.  As the level of anxiety in the family increases, the force of togetherness pulls individuals away from self-regulation towards the family which operates as one emotional unit.  It’s not unusually for people to miss this.  It’s automatic.  The phrase that best describes this process is learning to “catch yourself.”  It’s difficult to do, to be sure!  Most people can identify it happens after the fact.  So, how can we learn to catch ourselves earlier in the process?
 
Learning to catch oneself requires what I call the three C’s: clear, calm, and connected.  The first “C” is about being clear about how the family emotional process influences individual functioning.  Sometimes it’s simply an awareness that there is a process and then “seeing” it at work.  The second “C” is about staying calmer than everyone else in the family to observe the family emotional process and how it impacts each person in the family.  The third “C” is about getting connected with everyone in the family.  You can only observe this process if you are connected to everyone else.  
 
Beyond these three steps, there are no specific techniques.  It is a learn-as-you-go process.  A coach who is a good thinker can make a big difference.  Being curious, inquisitive, observational, interested, motivated, and organized can all contribute to this process of catching oneself, and lead one to doing a better job of self-regulating.  The effort to pay attention to one’s functioning while at the same time observing the functioning of others can lead to better self-regulation.  In my experience, as one works on observing the family emotional process, one can catch oneself sooner with practice.

I have a membership at a fitness center.  Every January there is a huge influx of new people.  They all have the best intentions to achieve their New Year’s resolution to be fit.  By the end of February, however, only a small percentage of these people continue to work out regularly.

There’s a difference between setting a goal and achieving a goal.  I've struggled over the years with achieving personal goals.  At one point I became so disillusioned by my consistent failure to achieve annual goals that I gave up.  But then I discovered a better way.
 
Now I focus on two sets of goals.  The first set is professional goals.  I ask myself, “What am I trying to accomplish as the leader of this organization?”  I’m not talking about organizational goals.  While my professional goals may connect to the larger organizational goals, I focus on my functioning as a leader.  There is one caveat.  I must be able to achieve my goals without participation or input from others.  I’ll come back to this idea.
 
The second set is personal goals.  I ask myself, “What am I interested in accomplishing this year?”  I’m not talking about family goals or relationship goals.  I focus on hobbies, projects, or research I want to complete over the next twelve months.  Like the professional goals, they are achieved without participation or input from others.  Why is this?
 
It turns out that activities that promote autonomy make people healthier.  To work more autonomously requires self-regulation.   Working on self-regulation improves emotional, physical, and social well-being.  Thus, goal setting is good for you if the focus is on being more autonomous.
 
But let’s be real.  You know how it goes.  Pretend your goal is to write more poetry.  You plan to set aside time every morning to write, think, and go for long walks.  You communicate your plan to your family.  They all agree not to interrupt you.  But then what happens?  The family starts to interrupt your poetry time.  The interruptions may “seem” reasonable.  Over time, you give up your goal of writing poetry because it doesn’t seem realistic.  You convince yourself that your focus should be on your family.  You put your dream of writing poetry on the shelf for now.  But what if the interruptions are a reaction to your effort to be more autonomous?  What if other people in the family are having a difficult time regulating themselves without you?  What if (are you sitting down) your regulation is also caught up with theirs?
 
Your brain allocates energy in the direction of others and self.  You allocate energy to help regulate the relationship system and to regulate yourself.  There are trade-offs either way.  Our natural inclination is to regulate others and to be regulated by others.  And while we can never escape this paradox, 50/50 is an optimum allocation of energy to others and to self. 
 
To put this in simple terms, achieving a personal goal is not about motivation or organization.  Achieving a goal requires a strategic road map for navigating the relationship system.  And by relationship system I’m talking about family, work, and organizational systems.  I'm working on a program to help people do better at achieving their goals.
 
I’m so excited to announce a goal setting retreat for clergy.  On January 16, 2018, you will be treated to a goal setting day at New Morning Retreat Center in Hampshire, Illinois. The center, with its homey farmhouse and beautiful grounds, provides the perfect setting to work on setting goals for yourself and for your ministry.
 
I’ll be facilitated the morning session. The focus will be on strategies for reaching goals and exploring common obstacles for staying on track. The discussion will be based on Bowen Family Systems Theory, which provides an understanding of human behavior that can guide individuals in using beliefs and guiding principles to achieve life goals.
 
There will be plenty of time and space to work on goals, reflect, and relax during the day. I’ll also set aside time for individual consultation with me in the afternoon. 
 
To learn more about the retreat and to register, click on this link.  Space is limited, so be sure to secure your spot!

There are several organizations I admire and respect.  One of them posted a prayer on Facebook written by a social justice advocate.  The prayer was published mid-June.  To be honest so much has happened nationally in the last eight months, I can’t remember the social context that prompted the post.  I find the prayer to be a good example of how institutions and social movements try to persuade people to be socially aware of the needs of others and less selfish.
 
Here is a sample of the prayer:
 
O God,
teach us what it means to live in grace — not just for ourselves,
but for the collective whole.
We have been individuals for far too long,
and in that individualism, we’ve forgotten how to hold each other.
 
I’ve said prayers like this in worship.  These words have a theological ring to them that many believers resonate with, regardless of their faith.  The individual is sinful.  The community is virtuous.  Selfish behavior is a challenge for covenant communities.  It’s one thing conservatives and progressives agree on.  For conservatives, selfish behavior leads to alcoholism, drug addiction, and a whole host of poor choices which harm the family.  Think seven deadly sins.  For progressives, selfish behavior leads to the pursuit of wealth and power which is always at the expense of the community which provides the labor force to make individuals wealthy and powerful.  Think capitalism.  These are generalizations, of course, but my point is that religious institutions promote the idea that selfish behavior is bad.
 
The challenge of selfish behavior is nothing new.  Think Eve and Adam.  The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament remind believers that they need God to be transformed into social beings.  But this too is problematic.  The notion that humans are inherently selfish and automatically individualistic is simply false.  There is a treasure trove of scientific research to suggest otherwise.  We are not independent creatures struggling to be social.  We are social creatures struggling to be social. 
 
What happens if our starting point is our need to be social, not an individual?  In this context, being critical of other humans for “being individuals for far too long” makes sense.  Why else would someone be sensitive to a perceived lack of caring, compassion, and being “held.”  It’s because we are already aware of what it is like to be held, especially if we are used to being held too closely.  Think the first day of preschool.  The challenge in the infant/parent relationship is not the inability to bound properly.  The challenge is in managing the intensity of the closeness.  People struggle to be in community not because they are selfish but because they don’t know how to manage being together. 
 
In my research on homelessness, I interviewed dozens of people.  I heard one story several times.  It began with mom or dad not doing well.  In most cases, one parent developed significant health problems after the death of their spouse.  One of their adult children (the one closest to the parent) volunteers to move in with the parent to provide full-time care.  Before moving in with the parent, this adult child (who was fully employed and paying for their housing) gives up their job and housing to move in with the parent.  For a time, the new arrangement goes well.  At some point, typically after the death of the parent being cared for, the siblings get into an intense conflict.  They battle over what to do with the house.  With no money and no place to go, the adult child, who was providing care (who also has not handled the conflict well), ends up homeless. 
 
At first glance, what looks like the sin of individualism (individuals behaving badly) is really the byproduct of too much togetherness.  When the relationship system gets too hot, some people take off (or are pushed out) to find relief from the intensity of the togetherness.  It’s not that people are selfish, they simply need an emotional break.  Distancing is a common way to find relief from feeling too close.  If the togetherness is too intense, the result will be a more permanent cutoff.  When people decry individualism, what they are observing is cutoff from an intense togetherness. 
 
What drives this force of togetherness is anxiety.  Families come together when they are afraid.  Think Irma! How many adult children who stuck it out this weekend in Florida have constantly been updating their worried parents?  How many parents have been reassuring their worried adult children?  When we are anxious, even worried, we try to tell each other what to do.  “You need to leave.  You need to find shelter.  You need to listen to what the authorities are telling you.  You need to do what I tell you!”  When we are afraid, anxious, and worried about the future, we automatically tell family members what to think, feel, and do.  It’s what we do. 
 
So, perhaps a better place for us to start is with fear.  Our perception of fear is what drives the process of an anxious togetherness.  Our brains treat the perception of fear as if it is real.  When we are afraid, the brain raises our anxiety, and activate the stress response system.  This automatic response to fear is developed in the context of your family of origin.  You are born into a way of responding to fear (an emotional process) that was developed over several generations.  You can step back and observe the patterns that the family has developed over hundred, if not millions, of years.  These patterns for responding to fear have a threshold which is determined by 1) the level of chronic anxiety in the family of origin, 2) the amount of stress the family is experiencing, and 3) how emotionally connected the family is to each other and the extended family. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen theorizes that individuality is not a bad thing.  It’s difficult to explain in one paragraph so go to this link to read more about the concept of “differentiation of self”: [click here and then click on Differentiation of Self] Part of what goes into working on differentiation of self is: a) being responsible for one’s reactivity to anxiety in the relationship system (family, congregations, community, government, etc.).  b) seeing how one’s reactivity and functioning contributes to problems in the relationship system (family, congregation, community, government, etc.).  c) articulating and taking action steps towards life goals based on core principles and values, d) staying connected to important others through viable emotional contact. 
 
So, what does all of this have to do with the prayer above?  Perhaps a different way to think about a prayer would be useful.  Something like: 
 
O God,
 Teach me the ways of being a self that is connected.
I have been automatically reacting to anxiety for far too long.
Teach me to become objective about reality and fear not.
Challenge me to see the world as it is.
Help me find the motivation, the courage, and the resiliency to discover new ways of relating to the family, and by extension, everyone else.
Help me to remember that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have, and we can all do better, starting with me.
Teach me the ways of self-regulation so that I might be a better collaborate with my neighbor.
 
It’s not pretty or elegant.  Maybe you can come up with a better prayer.  I’d love to read it in the comment section. 
 
It has been reported that Dr. Bowen, at the end of his life, saw differentiation of self in the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi.  So, I’ll leave you with the prayer:
 
Lord make me an instrument of your peace
Where there is hatred,
Let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, Joy.
 
O Divine Master grant that I may not so much seek
 to be consoled as to console;
To be understood, as to understand;
To be loved, as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

 
Your cell phone rings.  You answer.  The conversation begins.  It could be about almost anything.  You listen.  You talk.  Communication 101.  You say goodbye, and I turn to you and say, “How present were you with that person during the conversation?”  You insist that you were completely present and full engaged.
 
We'd like to believe we are fully present in all of our conversations.  In reality, how we communicate is largely automatic.  Instead of listening, we react.  Our brain has been calibrated to tune into specific words, intonation, and body language.  Then we filter.  Every experience we have had up until now has taught us what to pay attention to and what to ignore.  Biases make our brains functioning more efficient. 
 
Lately, I’ve been trying to pay attention to the pace of conversations on the phone.  I started observing this after a very memorable conversation.  The person on the other end of the phone talked so fast that by the end of the conversation I noticed that my pace had significantly increased.  I was syncing up with them over the phone.  Over time, as I continued to pay attention, I began to notice a pattern.  If the other person was talking quickly, I tended to speed up.  If the other person was talking slowly, I tended to slow down.  It then occurred to me that perhaps the other person was doing the same thing I was doing.  (I recognize that if you are reading this blog, it may be awkward the next time we talk on the phone.)
 
It is a challenge to not go along with the automatic and to work at self-regulating one's interactions with another.  I can get caught up in the emotional triggers of a conversation and be unaware of how automatic the conversation has become.  And while there is nothing inherently wrong with doing the automatic thing, when anxiety increase, doing what’s automatic begins to create problems in the relationship.
 
I often come back to words in my tradition from Paul, “Don’t be conformed to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you can figure out what God’s will is—what is good and pleasing and mature.” (Romans 12:2 CEB). 
 
A mature leader is aware of their automatic tendencies and makes an effort to engage their best thinking.  They learn the basic patterns of the family emotional process and their part in the process.  They come up with a plan to do their part differently.  They anticipate how others will respond and how they will respond to them, all the while working to tone down any anxiety that may be bubbling up inside.  They avoid retreating from others or telling others what to do.  They focus on communicating what is important to them.  This is one way to think about differentiation of self.
 
So, the next time you are having a conversation with someone, pay attention to how the other is responding to you.  Pay attention to how you are responding to the other.  In what way are you syncing up and in what ways are you just reacting?  The best place to practice is on your family because, well, they’re your family after all.  Learning to regulate one’s automatic, emotional responses and thinking about how to communicate your best possible self is at the heart of good communication.

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.

The challenge of being a congregational leader comes down to balancing two things: being part of a relationship system, and being a self.  You can see the balance played out in a number of ways.  All congregations have specific tenants of the faith, but leaders may not agree with all of them.  Or a leader may take a particular angle on a sacred text and the congregation on the whole may not concur with their perspective.  Or a congregation may have unique celebrations where clergy are expected to attend, but the clergy person may have other priorities that are important to themselves and therefore choose not to attend.  The possibilities for conflict between the relationship system and the self are endless.
 
At some point, a leader will find their beliefs to be at odds with the belief system of a congregation and decide to take a stand based on their beliefs.  Such stances are challenging because they run counter to the emotional needs of the community to think, act, and feel the same.  An extreme version is happening today in our election cycle.  Most people in the Trump camp think, act, and feel very different from those in the Clinton camp.  Neither side would be welcomed or accepted in the other’s camp.  If Trump’s VP were to hold a press conference announcing that, after months of reflection, he now thinks Bernie’s idea of free college for everyone is actually a good idea, even the stones at the Trump house would cry out!  There is little space to have one’s own thoughts, feelings, and actions.
 
All congregations struggle with these two opposing forces.  At one end is the need for congregations to come together and form a community.  At the other end is the need each person has to be their own person with their own thoughts, actions, and feelings about a whole host of faith issues.  Congregations vary in their capacity to encourage individual thoughts, feelings, and actions.  Some do a better job than others. 
 
The decline in congregational membership, particularly in the mainline protestant church, the increasing polarization of society, and the institutional demands to fix problems have put pressure on clergy to focus less on being an individual and more on developing a sense of community.  Most congregational leaders focus their energy on building a community.
 
We are hardwired for community and relationships.  Community happens naturally.  I was at a community prayer service recently with a room full of people I did not know.  It didn’t take long for that experience to feel like “church” to me.  Humans have a natural inclination to be social and a deep desire to connect to an experience of community.  Congregations struggle not because of a lack of community but from too much. 
 
 
Forgiveness and the balance of togetherness and individuality.
 
As a Christian, I was taught to forgive others.  It was a consistent message I heard as a child.  It continued into my adult life and into my training as a pastor.  I would ask questions like: How far does forgiveness extend?  Are there certain acts that are so horrific that not even God would forgive them? For me, the answer became no.  There was nothing beyond the reach of God’s forgiveness.  My practice of ministry began to reflect this belief as I encouraged others through my preaching, teaching, and counseling to forgive.
 
I recently attended a holocaust remembrance service, Yom Ha'Shoah.  The keynote speaker described her experience of forgiving her father.  Her father had been abusive towards her and her siblings.  As a child, the father had escaped Europe after watching the Nazi’s kill his parents, family members, and other members of his community.  After making his way to the United States, he married and had children.  The speaker described her struggles growing up with her father.  Later in her life she worked on forgiving her father.  It wasn’t easy, but as her father laid in a hospital bed, days before his death, she told him that she forgave him.  She attributed her capacity to forgive him to her own efforts to research and better understand the trauma of his childhood.  She described forgiving her father in terms of positive feelings.
 
 
It turns out that forgiveness has positive social outcomes and negative individual outcomes.
 
Oeindrila Dube, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at New York University, recently did a study to answer the question, "can there really be reconciliation after the atrocities of a civil war?" Following a decade of civil war in Sierra Leon, a truth and reconciliation program was established by an NGO to assist communities in restoring social cohesion.  The program brought communities together to allow victims to speak about the crimes committed against them and allow perpetrators the opportunity to admit their crimes.  The goal of the program was to find forgiveness between victims and perpetrators while they receive encouragement from the community.
 
In places where the program was offered, forgiveness went up significantly.  Trust of former combatants increased 22.2 percent.  Social networking increased by 11 percent as more friendships formed.  In these communities there was a substantial increase in the number of people who participated in parent teacher associations, government affairs and other community oriented organizations.  The overall benefit of forgiveness was to the community which experienced a sharp increase in community involvement post civil war.  This seems to confirm our natural, human propensity towards togetherness.
 
At the individual level, things were drastically different.  They were significant overall costs to the individual.  In the three measured areas of depression, anxiety and trauma, those who participated in the program either as a victim or perpetrator had negative outcomes.  In these individuals, the presence of severe trauma was 36 percent higher compared to control communities that did not run the program which was at 8 percent.  Even after two years, the results were the same; individuals were more depressed, more anxious and suffered from higher indicators of trauma after going through the program.  It is as if the community had benefited at a cost to the individuals.
              
The researchers concluded that more needed to be done to mitigate these negative effects.  In essence, the overall community benefits were considered high enough that it warranted the continuation of the program but only if individual health markers can be improved.
 
It would seem that there is a connection between the community and the self.  If the goal is social cohesion, then it’s possible that it comes at a cost to the individual.  If the goal is to support the health of the person, then it may require less social cohesion.  A different approach to forgiveness is required. 
 
 
Approaching forgiveness by thinking differently.
 
I’m not suggestion we not forgive others.  Forgiveness, learning to not retaliate, and developing a capacity to deescalate certain situations are all important skills for the health and welfare of humanity.  All religions to some extent teach the importance of forgiveness because at a basic level seeing one another as equals is an essential component of living together.
 
So how might we approach forgiveness differently?  Dr. Murray Bowen developed the concept of differentiation of self.  You can read more about this concept by clicking here.  Differentiation of self is about being more of an individual but not in the ways we typically define individuality.  Common notions of individuality move us to be independent of others.  For example, someone might say, “That group in the church is crazy, and I’m not going to participate in anything they do.” Or “I’ve differentiated myself from my family.”  That’s not differentiation in the way Bowen conceived of it.
 
Bowen’s idea of individuality was a self who operated out of well thought out core principles and beliefs, while staying connected with others in the relationships system.  It is the capacity to say “I” while others are demanding “we” without running away or insisting others agree. 
 
Bowen observed that when families focus on togetherness, negative symptoms emerge in individual family members.  They could be physical, psychological or behavioral in nature.  Not unlike the Sierra Leon study, when the focus was on togetherness, coming together and going along with the community, it had negative outcomes for some individuals. 
 
 
O Divine Master grant that I may not so much seek . . . to be understood, as to understand. - Prayer of Saint Frances of Assisi
 
Differentiation can be a useful way of thinking about forgiveness.  For the woman who forgave her father, it wasn’t until she was motivated to learn about his upbringing, the facts surrounding the invasion of his hometown, and the way the family managed anxiety that forgiveness followed.  It was the result of her efforts to be more responsible for understanding herself, her father, and her extended family.  It was an effort for self, not part of a community process that was driven by others.  My hunch is that those who arrive at forgiveness on their own, do better long-term.  I think that’s an idea worth researching for anyone who has the motivation to do it.  Faith communities that provide space for individuals to work at their own pace, and foster an environment of discovery, will always do better long-term.
 
You can learn more about the Sierra Leon study on forgiveness at these two sites:
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-post-conflict-reconciliation-societal-worsened-psychological.html
http://www.npr.org/player/embed/464330379/464330624

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.