I used to think the most elusive quest in life was understanding the cosmos.  That distinction, it turns out, belongs to the task of evaluating employees.  It is a challenge to understand the rich and complicated nuances of a good evaluation.  Over the years, I’ve oscillated back and forth between doing structured (weekly and monthly) evaluative meetings with staff, to simply using each conversation as an opportunity to supervise; an idea I learned from reading, “The One Minute Manager.” I can’t say that I prefer one method over the other.  And, when it comes to having my behavior evaluated, well, all I can say is, I’m not a big fan.
 
 
Clergy Evaluation
 
I’m United Methodist.  If there is anything United Methodist do well, it is filling out forms.  Over my 20 plus years of service, I’ve watched congregational leaders learn to fill out a new form about every four years.  Since United Methodist clergy are evaluated by a committee, typically there can be between 4 and 9 people taking a shot at evaluating how one “pastors.”  Despite having to learn a new evaluative process every few years, I’m usually able to find some small nugget of feedback that’s useful for my own personal development.  I often spend a good portion of the evaluation meeting reflecting with the committee on pastoral identity and how it connects with the congregation’s mission.  By the way, some of the people who will be evaluating me in the next couple of months will be reading this blog post!
 
Let me give you an example.  Several years ago, I was told during my annual evaluation, by a committee of nine people, that I need to get out of the office and spend more time with people in the community; what we typically call evangelism.  I’m all for it and welcome the feedback.  So, in response, I pose these question: What if I don’t attend finance meetings, or trustees meetings, or what if I stop visiting the home bound, or don’t show up at youth group events?  Would that be a problem?  Well, it turns out the answer is “yes”; it would be a problem.  What followed was a rich conversation on the nature of pastoral leadership in the context of that congregation.  It’s often the case that when a pastor receives feedback about what they should be doing or shouldn’t be doing, it has more to do with the way the congregation operates as a system then it does about the pastor.  It’s true that sometimes pastors need to be more responsible and step up.  However, I would venture to say, this is the exception to the rule.  All of us are doing the best we can with what we have . . . and all of us can do better, including me.
 
From a systems perspective, the annual evaluation with the pastor is an opportunity to talk about congregational priorities and mission.  When there is a pastoral evaluation, it’s important to begin with the following questions:

• What are the priorities of the congregation?
• What are the guiding and core principles of the congregation?
• What is the congregation’s vision?
• How are congregational leaders evaluating the overall direction of the congregation?  What systems are in place to measure the progress?
• In what way is the pastor responsible for leading the congregation in these areas?  What is the pastor not responsible for?
• What are congregational leaders responsible for?  What are they not responsible for?

 
Of course, there are certain areas of evaluation that are unique to clergy across multiple contexts.  For example, "Is the pastor relational?"  Are they able to relate to everyone in the congregation?  But this leads to others questions like: What does it mean to be relational?  The word relational is an elusive term in which the definition could look different in different contexts.  Who gets to decide the criteria and how is the criteria different in different situations?  Or, is the idea of being relational somehow universal?
 
For several years, the denomination I belong to invested money into a research program called KSAP which is an acronym for knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal characteristics.  The result was a multi-level assessment of clergy effectiveness.  The purpose of the research was to list the specific things a clergy person needed to know or do to be effective.  There is a total of 53 items on the KSAP for clergy.  It seems a bit inhumane to assess anyone at 53 levels of effectiveness.  Indeed, the researchers observed that, out of all the vocations they researched, clergy had the highest number of total KASPs.
 
 
An issue of motivation.
 
When supervisors engage in evaluating their employees, most often the goal is to help the employee grow and develop.  Ask any supervisor, and they will tell you that the best context for an evaluation is where the employee is motivated to grow. 
 
When clergy get into trouble, it often comes down to an issue of motivation.  Clergy, who under-perform or create a frenzy in the congregation, lack the motivation to be more responsible.  (We can now add motivation to the list of things that are elusive.)  As Dr. Dan Papero often says, “You can’t make a bean grow faster by pulling on it.”  Motivation is not something that comes from the outside.  You can try to will it for others, but typically nothing will happen until the person finds their internal motivation.
 
We all struggle with motivation.  Some struggle more than others.  When I struggle with motivation, or when I feel stuck, these are some of the questions I consider:

• What is important to me?  What am I trying to accomplish? 
• What efforts have I made to accomplish these things?
• What have I tried?  What has worked?  What hasn’t worked?
• What are my stumbling blocks?  What are the problems I face?
• What am I afraid of?  Is my perception of my fears accurate?
• What is happening in the relationship system that might be creating anxiety in the system? 
• How does the relationship system pull me away from what’s important to me?
• How can I engage my own thinking when the relationship system is anxious?
• What strengths are available through the relationship system?

 
 
The relationship system is a source of strength.
 
A good evaluator focuses first and foremost on being the best self and leader they can be.  This includes being clear about their role as a supervisor and having clarity about the purpose of evaluating others.  It's about being a good thinker.  Supervisors who work on, what Murray Bowen called, differentiation of self create healthier work environments.
 
A good supervisor avoids blaming or labeling employees as problematic.  When a supervisor encounters problematic behavior they sit down with the employee and ask good questions:

• How does the employee think about the problem?  How do they define it and think about it? 
• What is the employee doing to address the problem?  Is it working for them?
• What is factual (objective) about their understanding of the problem?  What is more subjective thinking about the problem?
• How does the supervisor see the problem?  What insights can they bring to the conversation?
• Are there anxious circumstances going on inside or outside of the organization that might be contributing to the problem?  How can one think about the problem from a systems perspective?

 
When there are problems with the behavior of an individual, a good supervisor sees the problem from a systems perspective.  This means taking into account the behavior of everyone, not just the one employee.  It may include things that are happening outside of the organization.  A good supervisor thinks about how they (the supervisor) are contributing to the problem.  The supervisor reflects on ways they can act differently to be more responsible for their part of the problem.  No one wants to work in an environment where individuals are blamed and shamed for their behavior.  Taking responsibility for managing one’s self is the first step towards effective supervision and a better evaluation process.

Spiritual maturity is the result of a life-long process of growth. It takes intentionality, time, effort, and motivation. It doesn’t just happen, and it is not a natural gift that some have, and others do not. It is evident not in the habits and practices of a person, but in the ways a spiritually mature person relates to others. Someone who prays regularly and continues to blame others for their problems is not a spiritually mature person.

Spiritual maturity is not the result of following rules, advice, or practicing specific techniques. It is the result of an ongoing effort to determine what kind of person one wants to be. Rules, advice, and techniques may be useful, but they are not the answer.

We live at a time when advice givers, rule enforcers, and technique professionals are everywhere. In our quest to be our best selves, we have turned to short-term solutions at the cost of long-term gains. We have traded in personal responsibility at the expense of spiritual maturity.


The first arborist was an advice-giving snake.

When the snake appears in the book of Genesis, we are introduced to the art of advice-giving. Adam and Eve needed advice because they were confronted with the challenge of following the rules. In chapter 2, God gives Adam a rule for eating fruit. The first and only rule is to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; eat from there, and you die. So the snake says to Eve, “It’s a lie. You won’t die.” For Eve’s part, she doesn’t repeat the rule just right. When she repeats the rule to the snake, she changes it to the tree in the middle of the garden. Adam probably did a terrible job explaining it to her. What is the punishment for following the advice of the snake? More rules (you can’t go back into the garden), and more rules, (honor father and mother), and more rules (if your son is stubborn, rebellious, and refuses to listen then kill him).

Perhaps the snake was the first congregational coach, “Do this. Don’t do this. That’s a lie. You won’t die. Try it, you’ll like it. I know best.” Churches pay top dollar for consultants to come in and tell them whose right and whose wrong, and what to do about it.

Of course, not all coaches slither. Some are good people. My effort here is to make a distinction between the good coaches and the, well, not so good coaches; the ones who engage the thinking of a leader, and the expert who doesn’t really care what you think. I think the distinction will get clearer as I continue.

The history of congregational development is splattered with experts telling congregational leaders how to act and what to avoid. There are probably more rules that have been written by experts than there are laws in the Hebrew Bible. For example, make sure you have enough parking spaces, make sure you have enough butts in the choir, and above all else, make sure you have a cool church name that references nature.

I’m not saying that having rules or giving advice is all bad. I’ve kept a few rules I’ve learned over the years: don’t pee on the electric fence twice and never call them jerks. However, being a spiritually mature person is about so much more.

While we can’t escape the need for things like rules, techniques, standard operating procedures, and advice the basic problem with all of them is what they deny. Rule enforcers, advice givers, technique instructors, and policy managers firmly believe they are helping others. But they often fail to recognize how the work they do is legitimized by highlighting the deficiency in others. Diagnosing a congregation as “problematic” reinforces the need to help others. As anxiety in the relationship system increases, the need to focus on the perceived problems of others also increases. Giving advice also has a way of elevating the tension, even though it’s offered with good intentions.

Dr. Murray Bowen was writing about the family, but this quote also applies to any relationship system, including congregations:

“. . . the family projection process is a triangular emotional process through which two powerful people in the triangle reduce their own anxiety and insecurity by picking a defect in the third person, diagnosing and confirming the defect as pitiful and in need of benevolent attention, and then ministering to the pitiful helpless one, which results in the week becoming weaker and the strong becoming stronger. It is present in all people to some degree, and by overcompassion in poorly integrated, overemotional people, powered by benevolent overhelpfulness that benefits the stronger one more than the recipient, and is justified in the name of goodness and self-sacrificing righteousness. The prevalence of the process in society would suggest that more hurtfulness to others is done in the service of pious helpfulness than in the name of malevolent intent.” Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, p 434.

What we are fundamentally dealing with here is an emotional process. It is an automatic response to an increase in anxiety in the relationship system. The relationship system can be both a congregation and a family. Those who are the most uncomfortable in a system will do their best to get things back to the way they were often by blaming someone for the problem. If their efforts are not successful, a consultant may be invited to provide an expert opinion and diagnosis of the problem. Consultants may promote a cure which includes having the congregation take a series of prescribed steps.

What is denied by advice-giving is the opportunity for leaders to think. Thinking solves more problems than accepting advice or learning techniques. It is the very thing that lowers anxiety. If heightened anxiety is the problem, then it’s time for congregations to abandon short-term solutions and focus on developing spiritually mature thinkers.


Spiritual maturity results from being a good thinker

In my faith tradition, we talk about the “mind of Christ.” It is rooted in the concepts of wisdom and holiness. To have the mind of Christ is to think higher thoughts. If we concede that our basic problem is a relationship problem, then the solution can be found in the way we relate to one another. Turning only to rules, techniques, and advice is an anxious response to the effort of relating to others. For example, how do I get the trustees to endorse my brilliant idea?

When we abandon technique as a guide for relating to others, we are left with thinking. What do I do with my anxious brain? How do a regulate myself when I’m upset? How do I relate to an overbearing member of the congregation? What do I think about our current financial crisis? How do I motivate someone to be a better leader? The answers to these questions do not contain solutions to the problem, but they do provide a path forward. It is about process, not content.

The act of thinking (not reactive thinking but reflective thinking) changes the dynamic of the relationship system. Thinking is the answer to a problem rooted in an emotional process. Thinking disrupts this process and allows for a greater capacity problem solve.

Having the mind of Christ, or having wisdom, is the result of an ongoing, sustained effort to inject maturity into everyday conversations. To inject maturity is to relate to others through the thinking system of the brain, which is consistent with holiness. It’s what gives us the capacity to manage the emotional process by functioning at a higher, more responsible level.

The prefrontal cortex is what distinguishes us from all other animals. It’s what gives us our unique awareness of ourselves. Reverend Peter Steinke refers to the prefrontal cortex as the heavenly lobes. It’s the difference between dogs who sit and eat out of a bowl and humans who sit, pray, and eat out of a bowl.

This does not mean that feelings are not important. Feelings provide the feedback needed for awareness of the emotional response. Feelings are like the gauges on a steam engine. As we observe our feelings, we can tell if things are moving along smoothly, when we need to increase the pressure, or when the whole thing is about to blow.


Thinkers stay in good, viable contact with important others.

The word mature has its origins in the word ripe. When the fruit is ready for picking, it is ripe. In the Christian faith, we talk about fruits of the spirit. Modern research on trees has revealed a vast underground ecosystem system that sustains tree life. There is constant contact between the trees and the ecosystem. Trees can even communicate with other trees through this system. This is an emotional process that keeps the trees alive. You can learn more about this by listening to a recent Radiolab podcast.

Families are like trees. They are in a constant state of reacting to the environment and to each other. The ability of the tree to reach maturity is related to how well it is connected to the earth, other trees, and the system’s ability to face challenges. Too much challenge and the tree breaks. Too little challenge and the tree never matures.

While you may desire to live like a giant redwood, steady and strong, our ability to be steady and strong has to do with our connectedness to our families, the environment, and our ability to manage ourselves in the face of challenge. This is an effort that requires thinking which can bring about long-lasting results. When faced with a challenge, a spiritually mature person steps back, works at being aware of what’s really going on both internally and externally, thinks about possible responses, and then acts. The process then repeats. This approach, what Dr. Bowen termed differentiation of self, has a proven track record.

Being a good thinker is about discovery and curiosity. Good questions to ask oneself are:

• What are my core beliefs and guiding principles?
• Where did these ideas come from?
• Are they mine or have I simply adopted them from others?
• How do I figure out the difference?
• At the end of the day, what kind of person do I want to be?
• What are the challenges I face in my family as I work on being this person?

I will be updating my website soon. I’ve been using the word “coaching” to describe the service I offer clergy and congregational leaders. I’ll be changing it back to my original idea which is “thought partner.” That’s what I am: someone who is willing to think with you about the problems you are facing whether it might be dealing with a problem in the congregation, a personal problem, or a problem with the family. Using Bowen Theory as my lens, I offer people an opportunity to become curious, discover, and learn all that one can from the challenges they face. If you are interested in having a thought partner, the first session is free.

“To greet or not to greet – that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler to stand in the back of the sanctuary at the end of worship and suffer the slings and arrows of sermon critics or to avoid all manner of people and go directly to one’s office.”
 
It may be customary for clergy to stand at the back of the sanctuary to greet the congregation after the service, but for most clergy, it is not their favorite thing to do because you never know what people will say. One benefit of greeting each person from the congregation is the opportunity to learn about the emotional process.
 
Emotional process motivates behavior.  It often occurs below the level of awareness (although people can work to become more aware of it).  The emotional process helps explain how one reacts to anxiety in the relationship system.  The more sensitive one is to anxiety, the more intensely one reacts to stressful situations.  Remember, we are talking about a system.  It’s not just about the sensitivity and reactivity of one person; it’s about the sensitivity and reactivity of the relationship system.  Congregations are relationship systems, and one can learn a lot about oneself when greeting individuals from the congregation.
 
The next time you greet people at the end of a worship service, ask yourself the following:
 

• Who offers me praise?
  
• Who criticizes me?
• Who shares concerns with me about other people?
• Who likes to tell me what you to do?
• Who avoids me?

 
Then ask yourself these questions:
 

• How do I react to praise?
  
• How do I react to criticism?
• How do I react to concerns about others?
• How do I react to being told what to do? 
• How do I react to others avoiding me? 

 
As one becomes aware of these automatic responses, it’s helpful to understand them from a multigenerational perspective.  Dr. Murray Bowen observed that sensitivity to anxiety is transmitted from one generation to the next through an emotional process.  He called it the multigenerational transmission process.  You can learn more about it by clicking here.
 
When you shake hands with someone from your congregation, it’s as if you are shaking hands with three generations of family members, for each person in each generation plays a part in influencing the emotional process and the automatic behaviors of the person whose hand you’re shaking.
 
On the surface, what people say may be positive or negative.  Below the service the emotional process is influencing the comments.  At the emotional level, we respond to anxiety by actively moving closer to someone or further away.  Moving closer to someone has both a positive and negative expression.  One can move closer by praising the other person.  One can also move closer by criticizing the other; criticism can be a form of pursuit. 
 
Criticism can also be a way to avoid others.  When someone doesn’t come through the greeting line, they may be trying to avoid.  It’s more than likely they will activate a triangle by talking to a third person about you.  In either case, distancing is one way to manage the anxious tension present in the relationship system.  If people are avoiding you, it may be the tension in the relationships system is too high and needs to be toned down. 
 
This is why working on Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self is so important.  The focus is on one’s functioning.  When we are caught up in the emotional process, it’s easy to focus on the others by either blaming or judging.  Part of the effort of differentiation of self is stepping back to observe and understand the emotional process and to avoid responding in automatic ways to the reactivity of others.  It involves taking responsibility for one’s part in the emotional process.  Greeting people at the end of the service is one way to learn about the emotional process.   
 
What are your thoughts about the emotional process?  Be sure to share them in the comment section.

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

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.