Archive - May, 2010

Leaders Are Only As “Successful” As Their Level of Differentiation

May 26, 2010 in Marriage-Family, Ministry-Theology, Therapy-Psychology with 4 Comments

One of the topics that has been of great interest to me as of late is the idea of self-differentiation (differentiation of self). It has great interest to me in interpersonal relationships, and it has been really intriguing to me in terms of church leadership. There are lots of ways to talk about differentiation, but ultimately it is one’s ability to “stand on one’s own two feet”, rather than be emotionally fused, or enmeshed with others (i.e. relationships, families, congregations, church staffs, etc.).

We are all susceptible to being fused with others, but pastoral leadership can have the inherent danger where pastors often get their sense-of-self from others (i.e. congregants, staff, etc.). rather than being differentiated. Pastors receive much validation from activities such as sermons, late night visits, crisis intervention, counseling, etc., and if one isn’t careful, they can soon find themselves dependent upon these activities, and the affirmation they receive from them. How many pastors have preached a sermon, and at the end of the sermon they receive lots of praise, but they spend all day thinking about that one person who was critical of it?

I’m a pastor’s kid, and I have worked in the church for the last 15 years as well, so this is a topic that I am beginning to look more seriously at. Unfortunately, it wasn’t until I began my work as a therapist that I have begun to see more clearly the toxic situation that is set up in many church leadership structures.

A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix by Edwin Friedman is a book that I think all pastors and ministry leaders should read. He talks extensively about differentiation in leaders and I found this one excerpt particularly insightful:

I wrote above that one outstanding characteristic with families that endure and perhaps even grow from crisis is the presence of a well-differentiated leader. Now I want to add that the factor which is almost always present in relationship systems that are deeply disturbed, if not disintegrating, is a conflict of will.

For example, one will find in almost every family experiencing the severest emotional symptoms (such as suicide, schizophrenia, psychosis, anorexia, abuse) and sometimes the most debilitating physical symptoms (such as multiple sclerosis, coronary conditions, persistent gastrointestinal problems, even cancer) a deep, abiding conflict of will within the family–sometimes blatantly contentious and sometimes subtly masked by charm or passive obstinacy. Similarly, such conflict is always present in the failure of teachers, counselors, clergy, and consultants to make headway against the riptide of resistance that run counter to their intent. It goes without saying that when continued efforts by CEO’s, managers, and administrators are producing little or no progress, they are probably swimming against a tide.

How, then, does one go with the flow and still take the lead? Answer: by positioning oneself in such a way that the natural forces of emotional life carry one in the right direction. They key to that positioning is the leader’s own self-differentiation, by which I mean his or her capacity to be a non-anxious presence, a challenging presence, a well-defined presence, and a paradoxical presence. Differentiation is not about being coercive, manipulative, reactive, pursuing or invasive, but being rooted in the leader’s own sense of self rather than focused on that of his or her followers. It is in no way autocratic, narcissistic, or selfish, even though it may be perceived that way by those who are not taking responsibility for their own being. Self-differentiation is not ‘selfish.’  Furthermore, the power inherent in a leader’s presence does not reside in physical or economic strength but in the nature of his or her own being, so that even when leaders are entitled to great power by dint of their office, it is ultimately the nature of their presence that is the source of their real strength. Leaders function as the immune systems of the institutions they lead–not because they ward off enemies, but because they supply the ingredients for the system’s integrity.

Much of what I have said about leadership can be summarized in the following chart:

POORLY DIFFERENTIATED LEADERSHIP

  • focuses on pathology
  • is obsessed with technique
  • works with symptomatic people
  • betters the condition
  • seeks symptomatic relief
  • is concerned to give insight
  • is stuck on treadmill of trying harder
  • diagnoses others
  • is quick to quit difficult situations
  • is made anxious by reactivity
  • has a reductionist perspective
  • sees problems as the cause of anxiety
  • adapts toward the weak
  • focuses empathically on helpless victims
  • is more likely to create dependent relationships

WELL DIFFERENTIATED LEADERSHIP

  • focuses on strength
  • is concerned for one’s own growth
  • works with motivated people
  • matures the system
  • seeks enduring change
  • is concerned to define self (take stands)
  • is fed up with the treadmill
  • looks at one’s own stuckness
  • is challenged by difficult situations
  • recognizes that reactivity and sabotage are evidence of one’s effectiveness
  • has a universal perspective
  • sees problems as the focus of preexisting anxiety
  • adapts toward strength
  • has a challenging attitude that encourages responsibility
  • is more likely to create intimate relationships

….Leadership that is rooted in a sense of presence can also be misconstrued as a justification for passivity–for avoiding getting your feet wet, for just being, ‘nice so everyone will love or respect you.’  It can also lead to mistaken notions that data and method are unimportant, that the bottom line does not matter, or that outcome is irrelevant and the approach, therefore, impractical.  Leadership through self-differentiation is not easy; learning techniques and imbibing data are far easier.  Nor is striving or achieving success as a leader without pain: there is the pain in isolation, the pain of loneliness, the pain of personal attacks, the pain of losing friends.  That’s what leadership is all about. (pp. 230-233)

Are We Fooling Ourselves To Think Intimacy Can Be Created Online Through Social Media?

May 19, 2010 in Marriage-Family, Ministry-Theology, Technology-Social Media with 23 Comments


[image by Jesse Millan]


In the last year I have blogged on the topics of ambient intimacy/ambient awareness, as well as some of the discussion involving the use of technology in fostering intimacy. I was a big fan of this topic, and a believer in the use of technology in fostering intimacy. Especially how the sharing of minor details in our life online can create a sense of belonging and togetherness.

I have experienced in my own life how the sharing of myself online via Twitter, Facebook, my blog, etc. have brought me closer to those I am contact with online. Numerous are the times that I have been able to sit down at coffee with someone I met online, and it felt like we had been friends for a long time because we knew so much about each other through our online sharing.

But can technology and social media create intimacy? That I am no longer sure of.

What has me thinking about this recently is this excerpt from David Schnarch’s Passionate Marriage where he talks about the pitfalls of other-validated intimacy in marriages (versus self-validation which is central to one achieving a healthy level of differentiation). Here is what Schnarch says:

3. Other-validated intimacy is inherently limiting because it leads to self-presentation rather than self-disclosure. When you need a reflected sense of yourself and acceptance/validation from your partner, your most important priority becomes getting the response you want. To accomplish this less than virtuous goal, you start misrepresenting, omitting, and shading information about who you really are (self-presentation), rather than disclosing the full range of yourself (intimacy). Self-presentation is the opposite of intimacy; it is a charade rather than an unmasking.

Self-presentation is one way we adapt to our partner’s differences in order to reduce our anxiety. Unfortunately, it never provides the security and acceptance we crave, because we know our partner never really knows us. Attempts to cajole someone into making us feel secure only make us insecure, the same way trying to protect ourselves through other-validated intimacy offers no real protection at all. Self-presentation creates an inherent paradox that sets the typical marital squirrel cage spinning. And as you’ll see in a few minutes, self-presentation brings us one step closer to emotional gridlock.
–Passionate Marriage: Keeping Love & Intimacy Alive in Committed Relationships (David Schnarch)

Social media is a great tool for other-validation intimacy, or why else would people obsessively track their blog stats, Twitter follower numbers and number of Facebook fans? It’s a form of other-validating intimacy. It’s a way that one seeks affirmation and validation. And have you ever seen more low-level anxiety in people than when they begin to worry about their online persona and statistics? I’ve noticed it in myself.

But is it intimacy, or is it really self-presentation? How much do we omit things about us when we create our online persona for others to see?

I would argue that even the people that present themselves, and come across to others as humble, authentic and “real” are still using a form of self-presentation since it’s something they have created on their own. It’s what they want others to see of them. But it may really not be what others truly see. We are rarely completely honest with ourselves, because we are often unaware and blind to our own shortcomings and issues. That’s why true intimacy in a relationship involves the unmasking of ourselves, often by the other we are in relationship with. True intimacy involves conflict and pushing through anxiety. It involves being able to stand on our own two feet, rather than constantly needing the propping up of ourselves by our partner.

Social media allows us to create a reflected sense of ourselves through the mirroring of online affirmation we receive from others. True intimacy in a relationship doesn’t allow us to create a reflected sense of ourselves, but requires us to see and been seen for who we truly are. Blemishes and all.

I think even those that attempt to be real online can/are still masquerading behind a created sense of self that is fueled by online other validation. I sometimes wonder about those who are constantly talking about the need to be real, or authentic. That can be as much a distorted sense of self as those they castigate.

When this makes sense, you will slowly begin to see the powerful drive that allows technology to fuel so many online affairs and inappropriate relationships.

Perhaps I’m writing this post because I first noticed it in myself. Becoming aware is the first step. It is only when we are aware, that then can we take action to live more healthy lives online.

Holy Vocation: Encountering the Other in Front of You

May 12, 2010 in Ministry-Theology, Technology-Social Media, Therapy-Psychology with 3 Comments

I recently just finished a really great book by Ronald Rolheiser, The Restless Heart: Finding Our Spiritual Home in Times of Loneliness. In one section of the book Rolheiser writes about a conversation he had with a nun. In that conversation the nun said the following:

“my vocation is, at each moment, to make the person in front of me the most important person in my life!”

I’ve been thinking a lot about what the nun said to Rolheiser, and wondering if I do that myself with those I encounter. We have all experienced (at least I hope so) what it feels like when someone is really paying attention to us…free of distraction. We have that feeling as if everything else has fallen away (all the noises, background conversations, etc.), and we become, if only for a moment, the most important thing to that person.

It sounds easy, but this is not easy to do. We live in a culture that finds it very hard to focus on the people directly in front of us. We are always wondering about who is texting/calling us as our phone vibrates in our pocket. We are wondering what latest news has come across the wire. We stare past people in church, wondering if someone more exciting is available to talk to during greeting time.

There is no secret formula to making the person in front of us the most important person at that moment.  But I think it involves several things (that I know of), and probably lots of other things (that I’m unaware of).  Here are some things/reminders that I try to keep in mind:

  1. Cutting out distractions.  When I’m with people, I try to limit, or eliminate the distractions so that that person in front of me becomes the most important person to me.  For me that means turning off my phone/closing my laptop/turning off the TV or radio during conversations with others.  This was/is a difficult practice.


  2. Reminding myself that my encounters with others are a gift–it is a divine encounter, not experienced elsewhere.  I love Martin Buber’s I-Thou relationship, and how Aubrey Hodes summarizes some of it here: When a human being turns to another as another, as a particular and specific person to be addressed, and tries to communicate with him through language or silence, something takes place between them which is not found elsewhere in nature. Buber called this meeting between men the sphere of the between.


  3. We have a better sense of self, and who we “truly” are when it is reflected back through another person, rather than through a self-construct we have built ourselves.  We often spend countless hours constructing another self (via technology, superficial relationships, lies, degrees, awards, money, fame, etc.), but someone we truly devote our energy, focus and time to (as if they are the most important person) can truly liberate us in many ways.  I think we often avoid doing this practice for out of fear that we may be exposed.


  4. To be truly present to another person I think requires the practice of “simply noticing.” I’m currently in a course/coaching program that trains therapists, executives and other professionals to be better at their craft, and one of the things that has resonated with me is this concept.  “To simply notice is to be aware–to pay attention.  Simply noticing has nothing to do with asking yourself why you are the way you are, although these answers may become obvious to you as you learn to simply notice your being you. (Taming Your Gremlin by Rick Carson, pp. 26).  The more I “simply notice” and pay attention to what is going on around me, the more I able to focus myself on those that I encounter.  I think we spend a lot of time unaware of our behavior, and not noticing how we interact.  I’m trying to change that in my own life.

These are some things/reminders that I keep in mind as I try to practice the vocation of making the person in front of me the most important person.

Have you found anything helpful to you as you try to do this in your own life?