Think for a moment about your prefrontal cortex.  It lies just behind your forehead between your eyebrows and your hairline.  The presence, size, and integration (with the rest of the brain) of the prefrontal cortex is what distinguishes us from all other animals like the pig.  But before you think of yourself as special, pigs have a prefrontal cortex, we both have fat under our skin, a protruding nose, and, don’t forget, pig skin and heart values can be used in humans.  Although, it should be noted that pigs are not capable of preforming transplants. 
 
The prefrontal cortex can differentiate between conflicting thoughts and stimuli, predict the future, sort out potential consequences, define goals and control social behaviors.  The prefrontal cortex is involved in thinking.  Other areas of the brain are reserved for automatic and reactive functions and behaviors.
 
All living things are awash with automatic behaviors that keep an organism alive and functioning.  It’s not clear to what extent (if at all) other animals or plants are “aware” of the world around them or aware of their functioning.  Humans have awareness but it is limited.  For example, we are often unaware of the influences and interplay of internal and external systems, like biological and relationship systems.  At the level of biology, we are unaware of cellular activity involving blood, oxygen, glucose, and the powerhouse mitochondria.  We can “think” about these systems, especially when a physician tells us there is a problem with our body.  This effort to step back, observe and think can also apply to relationships. 
 
In the Book of Genesis, it says that human beings are created to be “responsible” (1:28).  That’s the word Eugene Peterson uses in his translation of the Bible.  In this context, humans are responsible for their interactions with the natural world, including other humans.   If the human is unique because of the prefrontal cortex then the human has the unique capacity to be responsible when they use their “thinking” system.  So, what does it mean to be responsible?
 
Responsibility describes an action.  It is an action between people which can be understood contractually as accountability.  We can talk about the committee that is responsible for overseeing missions.  Or the pastor is responsible for preaching.  Responsibility is not defined by a list of moral, ethical or doctrinal standards that control one’s behavior.  Instead, it is the answer to the question, “what am I responsible for in relationship to family, friends, neighbor, work and the natural world?”  One’s responsibility is defined within the context of a relationship system. 
 

• What is my responsibility as a parent to my children? 
• What is my responsibility as a child to my parents?
• What is my responsibility to my employees/employer?
• What is my responsibility to my neighbors/community?
• What is my responsibility to the natural world?

 
As we attempt to answer these questions, the first thing we can become aware of is the question, “Am I doing enough or am I doing too much?”  We are often aware of this paradox when a relationship system starts to muster resources to meet a challenge.  The congregation is facing a financial crisis.  There is not enough money at the end of the year to cover all the expenses.  Who is responsible for solving this problem?  Is this a leadership problem or a congregational problem?  What role do individual members have and what is the role of the pastor and other leaders?  Who is responsible for deciding what to do?  Or consider this example.  The youngest child of a family with three children has stopped performing well in school.  They are receiving an “F” in every subject because they failed to turn in any homework for the last four weeks.  What is the responsibility of a parent?  What is the responsibility of the child?  Do the other two siblings have a responsibility in this situation?  What role do others in the extended family play?  What is the responsibility of the teacher and the administration? 
 
The genius of Dr. Murray Bowen was his ability to see challenges within the context of a relationship system where the behavior of each person influences the system and the systems influences each person’s behavior.  Shifting one’s level of responsibility in and to the system often creates a shift in the level of responsibility of others.  As one person takes on more responsibility, others take on less and vice versa.  However, when one attempts to shift out of their automatic ways of being responsible (doing too much or too little), Dr. Bowen observed that the relationship system responds with a “change back” process.  At first, others will counter one’s effort to shift their level of responsibility by trying to get the one to go back to their previous level.  However, if one is able to stay relatively on track and not react, a shift in the level of responsibility taking in the system will occur. 
 
So, humans will always have an advantage over the pig thanks to the prefrontal cortex.  We can think about and choose our role and responsibility towards others.  You can actually decide to do less without being a pig.

In a recent article, “Cognitive Mechanisms for Human Flocking Dynamics,” Seth Frey, assistant professor of communication at UC Davis, observers that, despite our ability to reason through a problem, humans make decisions based on their perception of how others are thinking about a problem.  Because humans are conscious, we assume that our decisions are driven by an internal moral code and rational thinking.  It turns out that we think and act in response to how others are thinking and acting.  Which begs the question, “How different are we from other animals?” 
 
Consider a flock of geese.  When a flock of geese is resting on the ground, one goose is on sentry duty looking for danger.  When the sentry spots danger, it begins to honk and flap.  Like wildfire, the fear response of the one goose automatically spreads to the gaggle.  Within seconds, the entire gaggle is honking and flapping.  Fear is contagious because it protects the group from a real threat.  This “system” activity keeps the flock safe. 
 
Humans behave similarly but without the honking and flapping.  It is observable in congregational committee meetings.  Every church committee has a sentry on duty, looking for danger.  Someone inevitably picks up the roll when it is vacant.  Because of the complexity of the human brain, it is difficult to evaluate when a threat is real or imagined.  When an individual perceives a threat, they give voice to their concern.  Like the example of the geese, others in the meeting will start to feel, think and act the same, even though they did not perceive the threat.  The result is a committee in agreement about a threat to the congregation that is not real. 
 
Over the years, I’ve developed strategies for addressing the problem of perceived threats and the contagious nature of anxiety: 
 

1. I begin by engaging my best thinking about the fear or problem as it is presented.  What does it take to move my thinking out of a reactive response based in fear to a thoughtful observation about the threat as it is presented?
2. What are good questions that might engage my thinking and the thinking of others about the problem.
3. I may invite the committee to go around the table so that each person can articulate their best thinking about the threat and problem as it is presented.  I may also indicate who in the committee thinks the same and who thinks differently about the problem.

 
Differentiation of self is one away to address the challenge of thinking for self without being emotionally influenced by the anxiety in the relationship system.  Dr. Murray Bowen observed that to communicate one’s thinking with important others in the family, one must develop the capacity to think for self.  This process of differentiation results in a lowering of chronic anxiety in the family and contributes to a higher functional level of the family.  This effort in the family does carry over into congregational leadership.
 
Clergy and congregational leaders can do a better job of communicating their best thinking about the current challenges facing the congregation.  One must be prepared for the automatic reactivity that is generated as one communicates to others their best thinking.  Differentiation of self is about developing the capacity to communicate ones best thinking without reacting to the reactivity of others.  The best place to practice and learn this process is in the family and it does carry over into other systems like a congregation.

Is your congregation's nomination process up and running?  It's that time of year again.  While administrative structures vary from church to church, the challenge of nominating people to specific positions remains the same.  Finding the right person is always a dilemma.  Do you find the person who has general qualities of leadership or do you find a specialist?  New research suggests that when it comes to having a high functioning community, our ancient ancestors used a combination of generalists and specialists.
 
A recent paper, by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and the University of Michigan, suggests that modern humans were able to migrant into new territories around the globe and survive because of their ability to mix generalist with specialists across kin groups.  How this worked and to what extent is not completely understood, but the idea is supported by archaeological discoveries.  However, researches don’t need to look back to understand this process.  Congregations provide a laboratory for understanding how individuals are selected to serve.  Here are some examples of how congregations decide.
 
 
The Nomination Committee
 
I used this process for many years.  The committee begins to meet several months in advance of the annual meeting.  One of the challenges to having a nominations committee is finding people who can put in the time.  Because the process is fluid, sometimes the committee needs to meet more often than other committees.  The purpose of a nominating committee is to identify potential leadership openings, to identify the qualities needed for the open positions and to brainstorm a list of potential candidates through a process of consensus building.  Candidates are more likely to say "yes" if they know a group from the congregation supports them as a leader and if the pastor contacts them directly to make the offer.  The upside of this method for clergy is that, depending on term limits, after a couple of years, the structure is filled with people who were chosen by their peers and personally invited to serve by the pastor.  This has a positive impact on the level of collaboration and cooperation within the organization. 
 
 
A Clergy Prepared Slate
 
In some congregations, and sometimes in the interest of time, clergy prepare the slate to be presented for approval.  A nominations committee may or may not be part of this process.  The upside for clergy is that they get to handpick individuals they know they can work with.  The downside is that individuals with leadership potential are overlooked.  There is a risk of creating an insular structure, but this risk is also real in the nomination committee model if the committee simply rubber stamps whoever the pastor recommends.  Even when clergy are preparing the slate, it is important to involve the congregation by asking for suggestions and input.
 
 
The Interview Process
 
This is my favorite way to nominate because it addresses two of the biggest problems in leadership: a lack of motivation and the mismatch of people and positions.  The first step is to create a job description for every position in the church.  The second step is to invite members to apply for each position.  An interview team (which can be a nominations committee) made up of a small group of current leaders and at-large members, will interview the applicants.  The strength of this approach comes from the process.  Those who apply are already motivated.  The interview process gives the applicant and the interview team time to discern if it is a good match.  The interview is also a time to talk about the applicant’s discipleship journey and the leadership opportunity.  If done well, this process creates a culture of discipleship.
 
 
Other Considerations
 
Whatever model you use, make sure the process is open.  Let the congregation know the dates of meetings and deadlines for the nomination process.  Publish the slate of nominations a couple of weeks (the earlier the better) before the annual meeting and make it easily accessible for people to review.  If you are clergy or a congregational leader, make yourself available to answer questions about the slate and be open to hearing people’s responses, ideas and suggestions.  Depending on your polity, consider a process where the slate can be reviewed and recommended at each level of the structure.  For example, if you are nominating for trustees, present the slate to the trustee's committee and ask for feedback.  Ask the congregation's council or board to recommend the slate for the annual meeting.  Have small group leaders remind people in their groups to review the slate. 
 
The best process is one that is clearly defined and open.  Attempts to nominate behind closed doors in secret and resist congregational participation only creates problems. 

What process works best for you and for the congregation? 

When it comes to behavior, do we have a choice or is it automatic?  It turns out that our behavior is more automatic than we’d like to admit.  Way more.  But we are not always at the mercy of automatic behavior.  We can do something about it.
 
New research out of Johns Hopkins University suggests we have about a half a second to stop our automatic behavior.  It takes approximately a half a second for signals from a sensory organ (like the eyes) to be sent and processed by the brain and for a subsequent signal to be sent to a muscle.  So, yes, there is potential for choice when it comes to behavior, but the window is small.  It is a half a second small.  With the challenge set before us, there are steps one can take to disrupt automatic responses.
 
If we think of the brain as made up of multiple systems, there are at least two important systems that influence behavior.  There is an emotional system which includes all of our automatic behaviors.  For example, the regulation of the body and the natural ability to be social.  When someone smiles at you, it’s likely you will automatically smile back.  Try it today.  Smile at people and see if they smile back.   That's the emotional system at work.
 
Another system is the thinking system.  This includes the prefrontal cortex and other structures that influence the expression of a self.  For example, having one’s own thoughts, feelings and actions is an expression of self. 

Anxiety affects how these two systems operate.  When anxiety is high, it can undermine the thinking system in favor of the automatic, emotional system.  That’s not always a bad thing, especially if one is in imminent danger.  It also works the other way.  The thinking system can override reactive, automatic behavior which results in a decrease in anxiety.
 
Why does this matter?  Well, let’s say you are the leader of a committee.  You dread having to lead this particular committee.  A couple of people are creating problems for the group.  You have an automatic way of addressing the behavior.  While your automatic response may have initially made a difference, it no longer works.  In fact, the problem is getting worse.  The meetings are tense, and you can feel the tension in your body before the meeting starts.

One can disrupt one's automatic response by engaging the thinking system.  While we may only have a half a second to change course, in the heat of the moment, you really can’t do much of anything.  So, to make good use of that half a second, one needs to step back and strategies how one wants to behave. 

So, let's take the previous example and start from the beginning.  Someone says something in a particular tone and in a particular manner, and you are off to the races.  How can one prepare to not react automatically and behave differently?  The preparation includes the following:

1. Identify the trigger.  Is it the words, the tone of voice, the level of intensity or a particular body movement?
2. What happens to me internally?  What do I feel, think, and want to do?
3. What do I do automatically in response to the trigger?  Do I say something, do something, walk away or shut down?
4. What does a mature response look like?  How many alternative options can I come up with?  (Hint, there is always more than one option.)
5. What will it take to disrupt my automatic response and respond with thinking?
6. How do I predict others will respond to my thinking?
7. What will my response be to the automatic reactivity of others?

 
We can also use this approach with the family.  Again, we don’t like to admit it but our behavior towards the family is mostly automatic and at times reactive.  It is not a bad thing to react automatically to one’s family.  When a baby is hurt and starts to cry, mom and dad move towards the baby and pick it up.  It’s what we do.  The problem comes when an automatic response creates additional problems.  For example, when the baby learns to cry to be picked up. 
 
Where do our automatic responses come from?  They have their origins in past generations.  A specific behavior may have started in your great-grandparent's generation or in a previous generation.   The dance of automatic patterns between spouses, parent and child, and siblings have been passed down from generation to generation, a process Dr. Murray Bowen called the multigenerational transmission process.  Recent discoveries in epigenetics have confirmed that how one responds to a particular life challenge is passed on to the next generation.  These responses become automatic behaviors in subsequent generations.  The good news is that it is possible to redirect one's behavior away from these automatic, generational patterns of reacting and shift one's behavior towards differentiation of self. 
 
So, as you prepare to take advantage of that half a second you have between doing what comes automatically and deciding to do something different, consider the following questions:

• What am I trying to accomplish with my life?  What are my life goals?  What is my purpose and mission in life?
• What is a core belief I can use to guide my thinking?
• What can I do to calm down when I’m anxious? What can I do when I feel all revved up inside? What can I do when everyone else around me is revved up?
• What does a more responsible version of myself look like?

 
What questions or opportunities for thinking can you add to this list?

​How well do you pay attention?  Remember the grade school report cards?  When I was in elementary school, we were graded on whether or not we made good use of our time, or how well we pay attention in class?  It's not just kids who have problems paying attention.  Adults struggle, too.
 
Our amazing brains process sensory inputs automatically.  Most of these inputs are processed without conscious awareness.  The human depends on the nervous system to react automatically to the environment, especially a threat.  If the human consciously processed all sensory inputs before it acted, our species would be extinct.  This is the human condition.  It’s more than just having awareness. 
 
Some clergy can get themselves into serious trouble.  When clergy behave inappropriately it’s a problem for supervisors, and it can have a lasting impact on a congregation.  I used to believe that clergy (who got into trouble) lacked awareness.  Awareness is what boards of ordained ministry look for in candidates.  Some people are oblivious to the impact they are having on others, and the impact others are having on them.  But, it is not simply an issue of having awareness.
 
It is possible to “watch” (aka: have an awareness of) what is happening around oneself and still do what is automatic.  In a congregational meeting, one can be clear about what one wants to say but struggle to bring themselves to say it.  It can also be the case that one struggles not to say something that will be counterproductive to the meeting.  They say it anyway.  It's as if they cant help themselves.  Paying attention and acting in a way that is consistent with one’s awareness is a challenge.
 
Paying attention includes activities like observing, researching and thinking.  There is a process of observing.  It includes intentionality, motivation and curiosity.  It’s not in our nature to walk around every moment of every day observing the universe around us.  But when one is intentional, motivated and curious it can lead to agency and action.  
 
The greatest obstacle to the process of paying attention is the fear response.  I’m sitting in a coffee shop trying to pay attention as I write this blog.  Around me are sounds of children laughing, music playing, people talking on their cell phones, and bursts of sounds from the espresso machine.  On some days, I can tune all of it out and focus on writing.  On other days, it’s almost impossible to . . . to . . . to . . . focus.  Then there are days when my attention is somewhere in the middle.  What makes the difference?  The activation and chronic level of the fear response, the levels of cortisol and other stress hormones released in the body and the bodies ability to down-regulate this process. 
 
What triggers the fear response, how sensitive the response is, how quickly the response is engaged, how intense the response is, how quickly the response returns to baseline (if at all) and how chronic the response remains are all variables that are influenced by one’s family of origin.  What we pay attention to and don’t pay attention to is a family systems process.  Not from the past but in the present!  It is happening now, in real time.
 
Attention is on a continuum of human functioning.  At one end of the continuum are those who pay little to no attention to the universe around them.  They are wrapped up in their own little world. At the other end are people who can get overly fixated on just about anything.  I lead a drum circle with children and youth in my congregation.  The key to playing in a drum circle is the ability to focus on playing a unique rhythm while at the same time playing in sync with the other drummers who are playing a different rhythm.  If one listens too much to everyone else, they lose track of their rhythm.  If one listens only to oneself, they will be out of sync with the group.  It’s a balance. 
 
Chronic anxiety can shift attention either away from others or towards others.  As anxiety goes up in the relationship system, some people automatically move their attention away from others.  Their level of discomfort moves them to disconnect and to shift their focus away to other things.  For some, an increase in anxiety moves their attention towards others to control the behavior of others.  In the former, we say “I’m out of here.  Get away from me.”  In the latter, we say, “Stop doing that.  Do this.”
 
Differentiation of self makes a difference for those who struggle with paying attention.  Differentiation of self is not about disengaging nor is it about becoming consumed with the behavior (irritating as it may seem) of others.  It is about being aware of the impulse to do either and then to catch oneself.  It’s a disruption of the automatic response in self.  At one level, it is watching one’s behavior knowing that it is the result of synaptic signaling in the brain.  At another level, it is watching the anxious "charge" that is passed between people in a relationship system and observing how it influences behavior.  It is separating feelings from thinking and knowing where one stops and others begin.
 
Learning to pay attention is about slowing down one’s internal reactivity to others and being more thoughtful in the interactions with others.  To this end, it may be useful to create a timeline of a specific interaction with someone important in the family.  The timeline consists of mapping out who says what, when, where and to whom while at the same time tracking behavior.  This exercise can be useful in understanding shifts in attention.  When one says “X,” the spouse does “Y.”  When the spouse does “Y,” one of the kids does “Z.”  And so on.  By slowing down the interactions and mapping them out, it is possible to observe how attention shifts away from and towards others.  It is a system, so X, Y and Z are influencing each other at the same time.  
 
For anyone willing to pay attention to how the family works, there is a treasure trove of understanding and opportunities available to even the most novice of voyagers.  The adventure awaits!

What frustrates you the most about your congregation or organization?  Is the answer, meetings?  Yes!  Can I get an, “Amen!”  And yet, meetings are an essential part of a successful organization.  High functioning leaders contribute to organizational resiliency but so do committees and teams that are flexible and adaptable. 
 
When pressed, clergy will boil down the problem with a committee to one or two problematic people.  Clergy falsely assume they can either change the problematic behavior or force individuals off the committee.  I do not recommend either approach.  The reason is simple.  The problem is not in a person but in the relationship system.
 
Human behavior is predictable.  Over time, you can learn to predict how individuals will behave during a meeting.  Think for a moment about a committee.  Perhaps one that troubles your soul.  Imagine sitting at a table with the committee.  How does each person behave during the meeting?  What do they typically do or say?  How do they respond to problems?  How do they relate to each other?  Who are the people that get along or don’t get along?  Now include yourself in the mix.  How do you typically respond to each person on the committee?  There is a level of predictability regarding behavior. 
 
The emotional process, described above, can hijack the purpose of a committee.  Committees are challenging when they fail to do the very thing they are mandated to do: problem solve and take action.  While it may seem easier for a leader to make a decision without going through a committee process, current research indicates that the best solutions come not from one person but from groups of people.  So, if committees are essential to the life of a congregation, what do you with meetings that are tense and unproductive?
 
The tension generated in a relationship system (committee, team, task force) is equal to the inflexibility or inability of the system to adapt to a new challenge.  If the committee were functioning at a high level and solving problems with ease, the relative tension and anxiety would be low.  As tension and anxiety go up in the committee so do the predictable, reactive and automatic responses.  Automatic responses are like our “go to” response during a stressful situation.  We inherit these responses from the previous generations in our family.  They are like multigenerational behavioral patterns.  These automatic behavioral patterns become less reliable or useful when tension and anxiety are high.  To halt the automatic response, one must engage their thinking brain.  Thinking is required if a committee is to become more flexible and adaptable to new challenges. 
 
When a committee seems stuck, it doesn’t mean things are hopeless.  Leaders can engage in and promote a way of thinking that fosters flexibility and adaptation.  Higher functioning leaders can make a difference.  Notice I said, “higher.”  One does not need to have a high functional level to be an effective leader.  One only needs to function at a level higher than the group.  And by “leader,” I mean anyone, not just the chairperson of a committee.  Anyone can be a thinking leader when they work on differentiation of self. 
 
Leaders who function at a higher level are good thinkers!

• Leaders pay attention to their level of anxiety.
• Leaders pay attention to the tension in the committee.
• Leaders pay attention to the relationship triangles.
• Leaders work to develop a one to one relationship with each member of the committee.
• Leaders work to separate their feelings from their thinking.
• Leaders work to separate their thinking and feeling from the thinking and feeling of others.
• Leaders disrupt their automatic responses in favor of a more thoughtful response.
• Leaders challenge other people's automatic responses to a problem to either avoid or to panic. 
• Leaders make use of the resources available to a committee. 
• Leaders focus on facts.
• Leaders articulate to the committee their observations, curiosity and questions.

 
What questions and observations do you have about the way a committee functions and the part you play in it? 

Let’s talk about the people who get under your skin. You know who I’m talking about. These are the people who can get you all revved up. Maybe it’s your child’s significant other, your boss, your neighbor, a member of the congregation, or a court-appointed therapist. You can barely tolerate being in the same room with them. It’s clear to you that THEY are the problem. End of discussion.

Let’s talk about what you do to people who get under your skin. You blame them! You blame them for getting everyone worked up. You blame them for how they make you feel. It’s clear to you that this person is “not normal” and therefore MUST change. It is the only solution. If you’re human, you’ve probably said this to yourself and, on occasion, out loud.

An alternate reality may enter our conscious mind to suggest that the situation is more complicated. If you listen carefully, you can hear people vacillate between two realities. On the one hand, we get worked up about someone’s behavior. On the other hand, we recognize that we all behave in ways that challenge others. Even though we try not to blame others, we just can’t help ourselves.

Directly or indirectly, my expend energy to try and change the other person. The direct approach is, well simply: “You need to change your behavior!” The indirect method is much subtler. But the desire is still the same. We keep hoping the other person will get the message and change.

Have you ever wondered how someone’s behavior gets under your skin? Have you ever noticed that your level of irritation with them fluctuates? When I coach clergy, I hear stories of how parishioners can get them revved up. The clergy diagnose and blame others for the problems in the church. Some clergy sound very convincing. What’s remarkable is what happens when I ask a simple question.

Where does this bad behavior occur in your family? I first heard this question over a decade ago while participating in a clergy group. It’s a question I’ve started to ask myself and others. What’s remarkable is that I’ve never had someone answer with, “nowhere.” The longest I’ve had to wait for an answer is about five seconds. Almost immediately, clergy can identify someone in their family.

It turns out that it’s not people that get us revved up. It’s the relationship process that takes place in between people. It’s the back and forth process which is automatic, reactive, and reciprocal. It’s back and forth because the other person is reacting to you and other people just as much as you are reacting to them and to other people. It’s automatic because the emotional system hijacks the prefrontal cortex. It’s reactive because the other person’s behavior makes you uncomfortable. It’s reciprocal because individuals in a relationship system are always adjusting to find a sustained level of comfort.

Pretend that Andrew is a member of your congregation. Andrew loves to tell people what to and how to do it. He is more than happy to complete a task for someone who isn’t as organized as he is. If you need something done, Andrew is your guy. The downside is that no one will work with Andrew.

Everyone is unhappy on the committee Andrew chairs. No one talks during the meetings and Andrew continues to take on more and more responsibility. The meetings typically end with everyone being frustrated, including Andrew. You decide to take Andrew out for coffee.

“Tell me what it was like growing up in your family,” you ask. Andrew begins to tell you about being the oldest of six siblings. Andrew grew up on a farm. His father died when he was sixteen, leaving him responsible for the farm and the family. After his father’s death, his mother became depressed and less available to Andrew and his six siblings. This left Andrew with the additional responsibility of parenting his siblings. Under these circumstances, Andrew learned how to keep the family afloat. His siblings graduate high school except for one sister who dropped out. She still lives with their mother and is unable to keep a job. Andrew, who still lives close by, makes daily trips to the house to keep his mother organized and the sister out of trouble. You leave the conversation with a new appreciation of what Andrew is up against.

On the way home, in the car, you think about your family and wonder who exhibits this same challenging behavior. It’s your mother. When she is stressed, she tries to organize your life. When this happens, you find it difficult to maintain your level of functioning. You decide it’s time to take more responsibility for your functioning, so you create a plan to not depend on your mother’s over functioning. A good coach, trained in Bowen Theory, can be a helpful resource in figuring out how to address this reciprocal, relationship challenge.

The key to dealing with difficult behavior is to get on the other side of it:

• What challenge is the other person facing?
• How does their behavior function in a way that makes sense?
• What part does my reactivity play in perpetuating the problem?
• How can I function differently in a way that is more responsible?
• How is a more neutral, mature response different than the way I’m responding now?

Getting on the other side of someone’s behavior can make a difference in developing strategize for working on differentiation of self. One can discover that the other person is doing the best they can with what they have. And while we can all do better, I can do better while working on my part of the problem. Getting factual about what someone is up against in their life is one way to develop a mature response to a problem. What will it take for you to get on the other side of a problem so you can be the best self you can be?

 
Committees function at different levels.  Higher functioning committees focus on goals, are open to ongoing evaluation, and continually strive to do better.  They are energized by the work they do and regularly celebrate their accomplishments. 
 
Lower functioning committees blame others when they face a challenge.  They waste multiple meetings talking about the same issues without making progress.  They have inadequate motivation and complain about the work they do.
 
For clergy, working with a lower functioning committee is challenging.  One way to change the functional level of a committee is to nominate individuals who function at a higher level.  Ideally, leaders are selected because of their skills, abilities, and experience in a particular area of ministry.  They are also selected for their motivation and a willingness to do the work.  However, in some congregations, the election of leaders is driven by the emotional process of the relationship system and not by the collective mission and vision of the congregation.
 
Good thinking is required to have a successful committee.  And good thinking emerges from good questions.  Good questions flow out of one’s effort to step back, reflect, observe, and discover new things.  The thinking that is generated from good questions disrupts the automatic, reactive responses of the emotional system.   
 
Questions for consideration:
 

1. How invested are you in the work of the committee?
2. Is the work of the committee important to you?
3. What interests you in the work of the committee?
4. How would you describe your commitment to the committee?
5. How aware are you of the reasons each person is on the committee?
6. What strength does each person bring to the committee?
7. What strength do you bring?
8. What do you think are the best ways for the committee to organize itself?
9. What does each person on the committee think are the best ways to organize the committee?
10. What do you think are the most important issues to focus on?
11. What does each person on the committee think are the most important issues to focus on?

 
My favorite example of a high functioning committee is from a movie.
 
“Of Gods and Men is a 2010 French drama film directed by Xavier Beauvois, starring Lambert Wilson and Michael Lonsdale. Its original French language title is Des hommes et des dieux, which means "Of Men and of Gods" and refers to a verse from the Bible shown at the beginning of the film. It centers on the monastery of Tibhirine, where nine Trappist monks lived in harmony with the largely Muslim population of Algeria, until seven of them were kidnapped and assassinated in 1996 during the Algerian Civil War.” (Wikipedia Movie Page)
 
The monks must discern whether to stay in Tibhirine.  Do they continue to care for the people living there and risk being killed, or flee for their own safety?  Their process for discernment is compelling.  The monks meet once a week at a table.  Each monk is given time to articulate their thoughts about staying or leaving.  At first, there is disagreement.  The meeting ends and the monks return to their daily and weekly routines (which are mostly done in silence).  This is their individual time to think, reflect, observe, and discover.  The following week they gather again at the table and again articulate their thoughts about staying or leaving.  And again, they return to their daily and weekly routines.  This process continues for several weeks.  There is time to discuss and time to think.  Ultimately, after several weeks, the decision is made to stay.  
 
This pattern of engagement and solitude provided a structure to reduce the automatic reactivity from fear and anxiety.  Too often, when it comes to making important decisions, some committee members are more vocal while others remain silent.  Inviting each person to articulate their thinking about an issue is essential.  So is spending time apart to reflect, think, observe, and discover. 
 
The committees in your congregation are probably not working on life and death decisions, although, at times, it may feel like it.  Doing important work, what Dr. Murray Bowen called differentiation of self, is one way to overcome fear and do what’s in the best interest of the mission and vision of the congregation.

Who doesn’t like an internet video with kittens?  How about an internet video with kittens and bunnies playing together?  That’s the setup for this fun video from Unleashed.  Watch the behavior of the kittens in this video.

Our behavior is rooted in an emotional process.  The interactions between people drive behavior.  Our internal neurological and chemical processes function in service to the emotions.  Behavior is the result of what happens between people, not inside of them.  Behavior shifts based on the environment.  This is systems thinking.   

All of us have a front row seat to the emotional process.  Congregational leaders can see it at play in committee meetings.  Pretend you are at a meeting of the board of trustees where you are addressing a problem with the building.  One of the board members becomes overwhelmed and anxious.  If anxiety is like a wildfire, it flairs up and spreads around the committee.  Before the meeting is over, the whole committee is on fire!  So, what’s the prevention?  Leaders who think systems.  A good leader is a good thinker who does not automatically pass along the anxiety.  Instead, they engage the thinking of others in the group which can prevent the anxious fire from spreading.  
 
Dr. Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self is about engaging thinking and being less automatic and reactive.  One way to describe it is self-regulation.  The extent to which one is able to self-regulate is rooted in a multigenerational process.  Remember the kittens and bunnies?  The more anxious the family is, the more likely they’ll all do the automatic thing.  There are other factors at play: 1) the influence of outside stressors, 2) the amount of stress a family is under, and 3) access to resources and family contacts.
 
One can improve their level of differentiation.  It’s a slow and steady process of becoming aware of one’s automatic and reactive tendencies, seeing this behavior in the context of the family system (how everybody plays a part in it), thinking about non-reactive ways to interact with the family, and taking action steps based on one’s best thinking.​​​

Last week I attended a conference on giving.  Anyone who reads this blog who attended the conference might think I went home and wrote this as a response.  The truth is I write these posts a month or two ahead of time.  That’s all to say that I won’t be commenting on the conference.  I will be offering an alternative way to think about stewardship, generosity, and raising capital.    
 
Not all congregations are the same, and yet, somehow, they are all the same.  I know, that doesn’t make sense.  However, pastors know it’s true!  That’s the funny thing about ministry: all congregations are different and the same.  How do you explain it?
 
Take finances, for example.  Every congregation I’ve served struggled each year to raise enough money.  Like any organization or family, their perceived needs were always greater than their revenue.  At the end of every year, an ad hoc group of leaders would sit down to try and figure out which bills to pay before December 31st and which bills to pay after January 1st.   Oh, and don’t forget the big end of the year push to raise additional revenue to make it easier for the ad hoc group.  Of course, not every congregation is like this, but most are.  So, if the struggle to raise enough capital is a similarity among congregations, what are the differences? 
 
What distinguishes one congregation from another is the way they meet the challenge.  Think about how a congregation with 150 in average worship attendance might deal with a $30K deficit.  Some congregations will have no problem making up the difference.  Some congregations will overcome some of the deficit, but it will include significant conflict.  And then some congregations head down a path of self-destruction.
 
Dr. Daniel Papero is a big help when it comes to thinking about organizations and how they face a challenge.  He’s developed 4 key continuums that influence and predict how well an organization will do when faced with a challenge.  These indicators are about how the relationship system behaves when challenged, what people focus on in the face of a problem, how an organization makes use of resources, and how leaders manage their stress and anxiety. 
 
Let’s look at the first continuum: behavior.  When a finance committee is faced with a deficit, do they engage the problem or put it off?  Does the problem drag on for several months or do leaders actively seek out solutions?  How do you typically behave when you face a challenge?  Do you avoid it?  A key to overcoming a deficit is to engage the challenge not avoid it.  This one is tricky, though, because engagement is not the same as taking control.  I’ve been in plenty of meetings where one person takes responsibility for the totality of the problem, comes up with a solution, and then tries to get everyone on board with their plan.  While this might be a short term solution, long term it undermines the functional level of the committee.
 
Then there is the issue of focus.  Do leaders focus on content or process?  Most problems are solvable.  Not all, but most.  A key factor in whether a problem is solvable is the “way” leaders address the problem.  Being demanding, blaming others or self, framing the conversation as us verse them, or not having a vision or long-term goal are guaranteed ways to make a problem unsolvable.  It doesn’t matter how great the solution, if the process is flawed and intense, the problem will not be resolved.  When leaders steer the conversation towards process (by asking good questions), create a process that is engaging and seeks cooperation, then solutions will always follow. 
 
How about resources?  What resources are available and how do leaders assess the availability of resources?  For most congregations, the problem is not a lack of resources but making better use of the resources that are available.  These are the stories you hear in worship or in a newsletter; how a congregation made good use of their resources.  If on the other hand, resources are not available, then the congregation is facing a different challenge.  Knowing what resources are available and how to make good use of them is key to meeting financial challenges. 
 
Then there is anxiety and the fear response.  How well do leaders manage their stress and anxiety?  If a leader makes a big mistake, you know the kind that gets you fired, it’s going to be in this area.  Self-regulation is a major influence on the other three areas.  Lowering one’s level of chronic anxiety helps improve one’s ability to observe and think.  Knowing what resources are available and how to make good use of them requires less automatic behavior and higher level brain activity.  Focusing less on the content of the challenge and instead focusing more on the process involved to find a solution requires a lower level of anxiety.    As I mentioned earlier, an anxious leader may try to control others and manage a problem.  The opposite is when leaders avoid a problem.  Dr. Murray Bowen recognized that the best way to work on self-regulation was in one’s family of origin through differentiation of self.  Contact me if you would like to learn more about what goes into this effort.
 
My hunch is that any leader who is successful in raising capital to fund a ministry or program is already working well in these four areas.  But what you hear at a training are the techniques that were used to get to the outcomes without any awareness or acknowledgment of the underlying emotional process that takes place in all relationship systems.  Show me a capital campaign that raised more money than expected, and I’ll show you leaders who do a good job of staying on the effective side of these continuums.   Show me a church on the verge of closing, and I’ll show you leaders who avoid problems, focus on content, do a poor job of using resources, and who are intense and reactive towards others.  Did I mention blaming?  They also do a lot of blaming.
 
Leaders do make a difference. Not because of the techniques they use but because they do a good job of staying connected to others.