Archives For self-differentiation

One enemy of things creative, relevant, and breakthrough is they often come from those considered not to be “real” or “serious” at this or that.

Seth Godin writes:

“As in, ‘that’s not a real football team, they don’t play in Division 1′ or ‘That stock isn’t traded on a real exchange’ or ‘Your degree isn’t from a real school.’

Real contains all sorts of normative assumptions and implicit criticisms for those that don’t qualify. Real is just one way to reject the weird.

My problem with the search for the badge of real is that it trades your goals and your happiness for someone else’s.’”

This is true in the church world. “He’s not a ‘serious’ scholar.” “That’s not ‘real’ growth.” “She’s not a ‘serious’ minister.” “That’s not a ‘real’ worship song.” Real schmeal.

Continue Reading...

We believe in conventional wisdom, in tried and true ways, and in what the experts tell us.

Good.

That’s a great place to start. However, when someone comes up with a new idea–a church decides to try something else, someone suggests the conventional paths are full of potholes, or the “tried and true” ways are simply tried ways, they need not be labeled as “stubborn” or “arrogant.” One certainly can be so. But, one can be stubborn or arrogant whether one believes in conventional wisdom or not. Those who chart their own course should be encouraged to do so.

I’ve been re-reading A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, by Edwin Friedman. It’s probably the finest book on leadership I’ve ever read, but it’s lesser known–because it was unavailable through all conventional means until a few years ago.

Among other things, Friedman makes the case for the self-differentiated leader–someone who:

  • is someone who has clarity about his or her own life goals, and, therefore, someone who is less likely to become lost in the anxious emotional processes swirling about.
  • is someone who can separate while still remaining connected, and therefore can maintain a modifying, non-anxious, and sometimes challenging presence.
  • is someone who can manage his or her own reactivity to the automatic reactivity of others, and therefore be able to take stands at the risk of displeasing.

He says:

“…those who lack self-definition, whether they are children, marriage partners, employees, clients, therapists, or supervisors, will always perceive those who are well-defined to be ‘headstrong.’ As with Columbus, they will describe well-differentiated leaders as compulsive rather than persistent, as obsessive rather than committed, as foolhardy rather than brave, as dreamers rather than imaginative, as single-minded rather than dedicated, as inflexible rather than principled, as hostile rather than aggressive, as bull-headed rather than resolute, as desperate rather than inspired, as autocratic rather than tough-minded, as ambitious rather than courageous, as domineering rather than self-confident, as egotistical rather than self-assured, as selfish rather than self-possessed–and as insensitive, callous, and cold rather than determined. Such sabotage will be cloaked in supposed virtues likes safety and togetherness.”

All this is to say–good leaders don’t always perfect what’s already in the book. They help write the next chapter over the objections of those who helped write the early chapters and think the book is largely closed.

Listen to what’s already been written. Understand there’s good reason why conventional wisdom has become such. But, never fail to go where God leads because others might think you a fool. It’s far more foolish to ignore God’s leading and listen to humans.

Not every impulse or dream is of God. Sometimes it’s not divinely given, but it’s an idea that’s worth exploration anyway. Go for it, and remind those who are inappropriately attached to conventional wisdom that it was someone’s new, hair-brained idea at some point.

The earth used to be flat.

Everything used to orbit around earth.

Eggs are good for you.

Eggs are bad for you.

Eggs are so-so for you.

Ministry has it’s equivalents and always needs to leave room for well differentiated leaders to explore with encouragement from those who have been the thought leaders for years. Because the goal is the advancement of the Kingdom, not the preservation of our own legacies.

Thoughts? 

Lead Yourself

May 1, 2012 — 1 Comment

Lead YourselfWe Christians fancy ourselves as those striving to be “selfless.” After all, we follow one who came not to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many. We are to be serious about God’s mission. All of this should lead one away from thinking about oneself very often.

Indeed, self-absorption is wrong. Self-absorption or selfishness is different than understanding we cannot fix others or motivate the unmotivated. We can only really fix and lead ourselves.

Leadership isn’t about telling others what they must do and motivating them to do it. Leadership begins with a clear sense of one’s own calling and a focus on self-leadership.

When a leader spends his or her energy trying to motivate the unmotivated rather than managing themselves, they can fall into the trap of selfishness unknowingly and attempt leadership at a lower level than they need to. To illustrate just one way this happens: When I’m focused on others inappropriately I inevitably begin comparing myself to them. I tend to aggrandize my virtues and leadership in my own mind while diminishing their “followership.” I may think, “Why can’t they get this?” “Why don’t they care as much as I do?” “Why can’t they just obey what Jesus calls them to do?” These are the questions of one trying to be faithful through others, rather than with others.

Begin with self-leadership. The healthier, more differentiated we are, the better leaders we become. And, ironically, more selfless. We are more patient. We are more able to serve with others without using them. We are more effective, godly leaders.

The emotional and spiritual field created by a healthy, self-led and self-differentiated leader is what leadership really is. It isn’t persuading others to do what they aren’t doing or don’t want to do.

 

 

Listening Tour

January 22, 2010 — 1 Comment

Listening A headline in this morning's Wall Street Journal read, "Obama Embarks on Listening Tour: Ohio Trip to Focus on Jobs, not Health Care." The term "listening tour," was put forth by an Obama campaign spokesperson, and jumped off the page at me.

What an interesting phrase… listening tour. It's not that I have anything against listening. In fact, it's a good idea for church leaders to do some version of a listening tour from time to time. However, a listening tour cannot be mere patronage. If a leader is in fact going to do as he or she wants to do regardless of the "listening" they do, it is insulting to people and a waste of time to do so. It may score political points, but the only thing people hate more than being ignored is being ignored to their face…that is, patronized. My hope is that our President will in fact listen, and consider making some prudent adjustments to his current course.

One thing I was reminded of by Tuesday's election in Massachussetts is that when people really feel passionately about things, they often get louder and louder until they believe you've really heard them. No leader can be expected to effectively lead strictly by polls or public opinion. Such would be immensely slow, and jerk the country/organization/church to and fro with little progress. It would also surrender overall leadership to either the loudest group or the 50.1% majority every time, neglecting the 49.9%. Furthermore, I have to believe that some people are more qualified to make certain decisions than I am. So, I'm happy to let them make them without consulting me, as long as they take the responsibility seriously.

People choose leaders based on their faith in them, and should free them to do so inasmuch as they can in good conscience. However, all leaders need to keep listening, and should be listening constantly, not trying to start in the midst of crisis. I might also add that "listening tours" are difficult for leaders who are either highly arrogant, or highly fragile. Neither type of leader can truly listen. Arrogant leaders believe they always know best and are unlikely to change anything based on what anyone says. Fragile/Anxious leaders will react to criticism by overreacting and changing things to fit the preferences of the most anxious members. This will wreck a church.

Know thyself, and strive to be a well-differentiated leader. Self-differentiation is the ability to be in charge of self, even when others in the emotional field are actually trying to make a person be different from how the person really is. Such a leader remains connected to others without becoming enmeshed with or defined by them. Such healthy leaders can really listen because they don't feel threatened by others. They will not be bullied or scared into altering course because of others' anxiety. They seek input not out of personal insecurity, but because they are comfortable themselves and know what they believe. They do not react to the anxiety of those around them. Instead, they maintain a non-anxious presence. This is what healthy leadership is about. It's only kind of leader who can listen and make appropriate adjustments without surrendering leadership of government, church, etc., to the anxiety of others.

I choose to believe that President Obama's effort to listen to the people is sincere. I wish him well. On this tour, we will learn a great deal more about his leadership.

I've got a lot of growing to do as a listener, but here are some ways I've found to keep the listening tour ongoing.

  • John Maxwell once said, "Good leaders are rarely surprised." In context, he meant that leaders should be able to see things coming. Thus, if church leadership's batting average on predicting congregational responses to change is below about .800, there's a problem. You need a listening tour…or at least to get out among the people more. If you continue to get hit by trains you didn't see coming…time to do some listening.
  • Whenever I'm with members of the church in an appropriate context, I make it a habit to "talk church" with them for a while, and get their opinion on things.
  • Look for five or six people in the church whose opinion you value in a special way and stay in touch with them regularly.
  • Team-based ministry (as opposed to single leader with no team) will allow you to have voices from within the church at the table when strategy and vision are crafted. Just make sure that you have a quality leader leading the team.
  • Soliciting the input of the church on what they might find helpful or meaningful periodically is really important. It doesn't have to be a big ordeal. It can be quite simple, and it will bless your ministry. In the process of crafting the 6:33 shift at NCCC, we asked people to write down on cards what topics would be helpful to them in growing in the "Kingdom First" life. It was a good test for us to see if we were in touch with people–to what extent could we predict what would be on those cards? Our decision to adjust the time slot from 7pm to 6:33pm was based in part on substantial feedback we'd received from people who did and didn't attend our mid-week assemblies. So far, it's been a blessing.
  • If you ask people for feedback on a particular initiative…tell them up front what you're going to do with the information and do it. If you form a team to look at a particular area of ministry, let them know if it's strictly an input team, a voting team, decision-making team, etc. And then, really listen.
  • Town-hall meetings are not a good way to have civil dialogue about ministry initiatives…but they can be decent avenues for communicating information. Town-hall meetings are usually scheduled when something big has happened or is about to happen. Thus, anxiety is high. If you must go town-hall style, have people write down their questions, and have a moderator to keep a Jerry Springer incident from happening. I would also suggest spending a good piece of time before opening the floor asking and answering some of the questions you know people want to know the answer to. This keeps the lady from standing and yelling, as one lady did to me once," "WHY DO YOU WANT TO RUIN OUR RELATIONSHIPS?" It would have been better for us to simply ask and answer the question, "Some people will worry that as the church gets bigger it may become more difficult to build substantive relationships. How would you respond?" The question will get answered properly, the church will honor God in it's discourse, and the whole gathering isn't taken hostage by one anxious person. Some time, I'll have to blog about some of the greatest church town-hall meeting incidents I've seen over the years ;) Awesome stories. I bet you all have some good ones, too ;)

Question: What do you do to keep communication lines open between you and those you serve? What do you wish your leaders would do more often?