Tod Bolsinger

Taking the Hill With Grandma: A New Article for PFR

I tend to think of myself as a “Take the Hill” kind of guy.  I like a challenge.  I tend to think of myself as leading “a band of brothers (and sisters)” on an offensive to spread the Kingdom of God.  I get all inspired by “Henry V”-type speeches about charging “once more into the breach.”  I resonate with the idea of a pastor as a “leader of a mission.”

One of my colleagues is really different than I am. Maybe it’s because he’s had enough of “challenging the troops.”  Maybe he’s seen enough pain in lives and congregations to be skeptical of the kinds of ‘charges’ that pastors like me seem to relish. My colleague has been called to minister to a church that is in the middle of a retirement home.  He tells me with a sigh of great satisfaction that he spends his days, “hugging and kissing, teaching and ministering to some of the greatest saints you’ll ever meet.”  Sometimes I am jealous of him and I get the sense that sometimes he thinks he’s supposed to be more like me.

I take the hill, he cares for grandma.  And mostly I think that most of us assume that these are two different types of pastoral ministries.  It is common to hear talk about the differences between “missional” ministry and “chaplaincy”; about “leading” vs. “care-taking”; about “church renewal” vs. “church hospice”.  And in some ways, the distinction is really apt.  But in other ways, I think those distinctions reveal both our own projections about ourselves and a convenient way to avoid what is true about all churches.

To read the rest of the article please visit the PFR website where it is posted for their most recent e-newsletter.

Good Disappointing Leadership: The Whole Series

"Disappoint people too much and they give up on you, stop following you and may even turn on you.  Don’t disappoint them enough and you’ll never lead them anywhere." 

The whole blog series begins here and is in its entirety here.

I'll start a new series next week on "Courageous Conversations"

A Picture of Courage: A Final Lesson in Good Disappointing Leadership

My favorite old movie is Casablanca.  It’s a classic film with Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Paul Henreid, where Bogie owns Rik’s "Café Americain" bar in Casablanca, Morroco.  It takes place during World War 2, and Casablanca was then a French territory under German occupation. 

In one of my favorite scenes a group of Nazi soldiers who are drinking in Rik’s bar gather at the piano and start singing the German national anthem so loudly and without consideration of the number of French citizens sitting glumly around them.  

It is a rude gesture.  Here they are in occupied territory, a conquering army and they are spitting in the face of the French citizens.  The down cast French people sit glumly.  Then Victor Laszlo, a brave Czech resistance fighter (played by Paul Henreid), calmly and deliberately walks over to the band and says, “Play La Marseillaise” (the French National anthem). 

The band members are tentative, they fear the German officers.  But Bogie nods his approval and Laszlo begins to sing at the top of his lungs.  The band comes to their feet, playing their instruments with gusto.  The music soars, and the crowd comes to life.  They do not protest the Nazis.  They do not shout them down in anger.  They just sing so loudly this song of their hearts, that they overwhelm the German soldiers.  With that one strong positive voice, they drown out the destructive voices for that brief moment.

In many ways, what Victor Laszlo did in the midst of the destructive voices in that nightclub in Casablanca is what I believe we are attempting to do in leadership.  We want the positive passions and aspirations to overwhelm the negative, fearful voices that keep our families, companies, organizations or churches oppressed.

In this series about “good disappointing leadership” we have been considering what it takes to “disappoint your own people at a rate they can absorb.”  The strategy that we have been seeking to implement is as follows: “Start with conviction, stay calm, stay connected, and stay the course.”   In the last post we acknowledge that sabotage, by our own people is normal.   Every Victor Laszlo knows that there are ‘countrymen’ who will collude with the opposition, and every leader must recognize that sabotage is not so much a personal attack as the normal, natural reaction of a system that is seeking safety, security and maintaining the status quo (even if that means being “occupied” by the enemy.)  This “failure of nerve” is what leaders must resist in themselves and overcome in their followers.  Victor Laszlo gives us a good picture of how courage can be contagious.

First, leaders must act. Laszlo doesn’t cower at the sound of the German officers singing their songs with such bravado, he stands and heads toward the conflict.  He takes decisive action and determines not to let this moment pass by.  When the heat is on, leaders head TO the kitchen. 

Second, when sabotage or opposition appears, leaders continue to calmly stand on conviction in the face of it.  Laslo doesn’t rant.  He doesn’t rave.  He doesn’t start a fight or call the manager to complain.  He goes to the band (very likely French countrymen, all) and calls them to act with him.  From the back story of the movie, we know that Laszlo has already suffered for his convictions.  He has already spent time in a prison camp, he is being denied exit visas that would take him and his wife to safety.  The authorities have him on a watch list and he is certainly in danger.  But nevertheless, he continues to act on his convictions.  Even, especially in the face of danger, he lives out his calling: Calmly enlisting others to join the cause for freedom.  And once the band begin to play, the crowd comes to its feet and joins the song.  Which reminds us that…

Third, leaders inspire. The root word of "courage" is the Latin word for “heart.”  The actions of a leader should “give heart” to a people who sometimes amidst their fears and frailties “lose heart.”  (For two of several biblical examples, see Deuteronomy 20:3 or Hebrews 12:3)  When a leader can maintain calm and demonstrate courage in the midst of opposition or sabotage, others find the strength to act on their own convictions.  When one voice is willing to sing aloud, other are far more willing to join in.  But let’s be clear.  That act of inspiration only turns up the heat on Laszlo, by further angering the German authorities.  By standing against the opposition, the opposition will now resist him even more, so it is crucial not to miss the whole point of the film (and of this series):

Lastly, leaders don’t act alone.  Yes, Laslo is first to his feet and willing to stand alone. As I wrote in the first installment to this series, leadership begins in a conviction that leads to a stand whether anyone follows or not.  But for a leader to become a leader, someone must follow.  And when Laslo makes his  move to stand against the boorish and demoralizing tactics of the German officers, he doesn’t just stand on a table and try to sing over the voices of the German soldiers, he enlists others in his cause.  The whole film is about how Laszlo slowly wins over the crowd, then Rik himself and finally even Louis, the local French constable who up until then had colluded with the Germans. As a leader, Laszlo's presence and example are a catalyst for others to join the good fight. 

Casablanca is about both love AND war and how relationships and the good fight are always intertwined.  So many scenes are conversations between potential friends, or possible enemies, building trust, working out relationships, discerning character and who can be trusted.  What makes the movie so intriguing are the relational dynamics being worked out amidst the backdrop of conflict--which is, of course, just like "real life." 

(I won’t spoil the ending for those who haven’t seen it—as long as you promise to rent it soon!—but this is especially poignant when you consider the romance between Bogart’s Rik and Ingrid Bergman’s Ilsa.) 

The paradox of “Good Disappointing Leadership” is that the very conviction that causes the leader to be willing to “disappoint your own followers at a rate they can absorb” is what ultimately--when handled well--wins “your own followers” to join you in your cause.  If we as leaders start with conviction, stay connected, calm and on-course in the face of opposition, then others around us have both the time and conditions to take on these very convictions as their own and allow, in the words of a truly great disappointing leader "the better angels of our nature” to soar.

(And here's the clip of the whole scene above.  It's a great one...)

Friendly Fire: The Prize for "Good Disappointing" Leadership

“If you are a leader, expect sabotage.”  Edwin Friedman

For that last few posts, we have been parsing a quote from Ronald Heifetz and Martin Linsky that is worth committing to memory:  “Leadership is disappointing your own people at a rate they can absorb.”  The perceptive and caring leader will invariably wince at the three words in the center of the quote: “your own people.” 

Yikes.  That’s the rub, isn’t it?  It’s one thing to disappoint and anger the “other side”, but another to endure "friendly fire."  We in leadership comfort ourselves in believing that our leadership style will continually “energize our base”; that we will Braveheart-style be able to “rally the troops” to charge.  We just assume that our followers will “have our backs”.

But that is all a comforting fantasy if you are truly trying to bring change to an organizational system.  Whether it is a family, a church, a business, a not-for-profit, or a government, all the best literature makes it clear: To lead, you must be able to disappoint your own people.  But, even doing so well (“at a rate they can absorb”), does NOT preclude them turning on you.  In fact, when you disappoint your own people, they WILL turn on you.  If the change process is “Start with conviction, stay connected, stay calm and stay the course.”  Then when you are focused on “staying the course,” expect that it is “your own people” who are going to try to knock you off-course. 

Sabotage is natural. It’s normal.  “It’s part and parcel of the systemic process of leadership.” Many who sabotage you will even claim that they are doing you a favor by doing so. (Friedman calls these people “peace-mongers” or “highly anxious risk-avoiders” who are “more concerned with good feelings than progress” and consistently prefer the “peaceful” status-quo over the turbulence of change—even if change is necessary.)  Indeed, one of the prevailing theories of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus was that he was simply trying to “force Jesus’ hand” to fulfill the expectations of a first-century messiah.  When Jesus challenged the status quo with his notions of what the Kingdom would be and what a Messiah should do, one of “his own people” (Judas) turned on him. 

“Sabotage is not merely something to be avoided or wished away; instead, it comes with the territory of leading, whether that ‘territory’ is a family or an organization. And a leader’s capacity to recognize sabotage for what it is—that is, a systemic phenomenon connected to the shifting balances in the emotional processes of a relationship system and not to the institution’s specific issues, makeup, or goals—is the key to the kingdom.”  Friedman, p. 11

So, what do we do with sabotage and how do we respond to it so that we can “stay the course” or our convictions for change? 

First, as we said, expect it.  Anticipation is a great defense.  To be aware that sabotage is coming will at least keep us from being surprised when it comes.  Even if everybody is excited in the beginning stages of a new organizational shift, change, initiative, or restructuring, be aware that a time will come when they will certainly not be.  Expecting sabotage enables us to “stay the calm” when it comes.

Second, embrace it as a normal part of an organizational life.  Even the saboteurs aren’t really to blame.  Systems like stability.  You, by bringing change, have upset the emotional equilibrium of the system.  The Israelites wanted to go back to slavery in Egypt once things got rough in the desert.  Systems always look for and find comfort in the familiar. (Do you hear the root word of “family” in familiar?  Every organization has its own “family system” at work.)

Third, don’t take it personally.  The people following you may be shooting you in the back, but it’s really not YOU that they are sabotaging, it’s your role as leader.  They would do this to ANY leader.  By not taking it personally, we then can keep monitoring ourselves (AH! we are back there again, aren’t we?) and keep from reacting in a way that will make the situation worse.  By depersonalizing the attack, you are much more likely to stay both calm and connected even to the saboteurs, enabling you to make much better decisions as you stay the course of change.

Fourth, focus your attention on the emotionally strong, not the saboteurs.  We are so focused on quieting our critics, appeasing our accusers and shielding ourselves from the friendly fire that it often knocks us off-course.  While we need to “stay connected” to the “saboteurs” (“Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer”), what actually keeps the change process going is investing even more time in those who are committed to growing, adapting and changing for good.  Keep building healthy alliances with those who are emotionally mature, share your convictions, and they will join you in the needed change.  Find other calm, courageous people and strengthen and support them.  As you see them begin to grow and change, it will inspire you to stay on course, also. 

Lastly, keep “staying calm and connected” so you can, stay on course. (again!)  Endure.  Stick with it.  Leading change is a PROCESS that is not accomplished quickly and the moments of sabotage are actually the most crucial times in the change process.  At this moment everyone in the system sees the leader’s true colors.  Sabotage is not only a test of the leader’s resolve, but also a test of the systems’ resilience.  If you as a leader can help them work through their own sabotaging instincts, then the system will change and the saboteurs will become change-leaders themselves. 

A final word on sabotage:  This is a good place to talk about courage.  All the best leadership literature emphasizes the need for courage.  Stuck systems, bad government, corrupt organizations, dysfunctional families and hypocritical churches, all have at least one thing in common:  There is, as Ed Friedman, describes it, a colossal “failure of nerve” in leadership.  It takes courage to stay true to convictions.  It takes courage to stay calm and connected in the face of friendly fire. And it takes enduring, repeated acts of courage to stay the course and keep others on course when they are disappointed in you as a leader. 

In my next post, I will end this series with a reflection on one of my favorite pictures of courage.

How Stories Can Change Things for Good...
From this month's Harvard Business Review, an interview with Jane Goodall:

HBR: Your work requires persuading people to change when it may not be in their immediate best interest to do so. How do you do that?

Goodall: It's important to tell stories. Sometimes you're told you'll never change so-and-so's mind. But if you can be one-on-one with that person and tell a couple of stories...You usually can't change people's minds by intellect. You've got to find something that reaches into their hearts.

Dancing While Standing Still

A quote to ponder as we continue to consider what it means to be a "good disappointing leader" who can "stand the heat and stay in the kitchen" of anxiety and conflict by staying connected and calm:

You  may have to exercise uncommon restraint to "just stand  there" when a group falls into chaos and blames it on you;  or when somebody says something divisive and everybody  looks to you to fix it; or when people split over goals, question your authority, or stereotype each other to the point where work halts. You can, however, learn to deal skillfully with the unexpected if you are willing to persist in working on yourself.…The trick is to change the inner dialogue from anxiety to observing without having to fix everything.

(Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff, Don't Just Do Something, Stand There!: Ten Principles for Leading Meetings That Matter)

A Friend Gave Me an IPad and I started thinking Missional Thoughts...

Two posts in a three part series about "attractional vs. missional" language for Presbyterian Global Fellowship are now up at their blog site.  There have been some interesting opinions expressed, too. You can read part 1 here and part 2 here.  The last part is still to come. And to think that the posts were all inspired by opening a really amazing gift from an incredibly generous friend.  UPDATE: Part 3, the conclusion of the series, is here.

Leaders as Crockpot Thermostats

When we talk about “standing the heat and staying in the kitchen”, most of us in leadership know that there is a constant threat of being burned.  All one has to do is remember the “Town Hall Meetings” on the topic of heath care reform last summer and you’ll start to wither at the thought of a being a “stay connected” leader in the face of a screaming constituent.  But Senator Arlen Specter gives us a good picture of what it means to be a “good disappointing leader.” 

To recap, Ronald Heifetz and Martin Linsky wrote, “Leadership is disappointing your own people at a rate they can absorb.”  To do so well, I have suggested is to live out the following maxim:

Start by acting on conviction, stay connected, stay calm, stay the course.

After spending some time on the first two parts of that statement in previous posts, today we’ll look at what may be for many of us the hardest bit of all: Staying calm.  Especially, staying calm while staying connected when others about you are most definitely not. 

First of all, why?  Why even stay calm?  Aren’t there so many great illustrations of passionate and prophetic leaders who lose their cool?  Indeed, isn’t this what most of us think leadership is?  From the 1970's movie Network to so much political discourse today, we assume that if change is going to come, somebody is going to have stand up and yell, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” 

While that kind of passion is often very prophetic, it’s not necessarily effective in terms of leadership.  It may feel good to shout down the crowd, but it actually tends to only make things worse. 

While the Lone Rangers and John the Baptists have the luxury of leading a loyal Tonto or two, most of us called into leadership must do so with constituents and congregations who are often very resistant to being led.  A firm denouncement or a stirring call to action goes from being an act of a prophet to an act of a leader when those around us follow our lead.  Most of the time when things get heated, people stop following and start fighting or fleeing. While passion has its place for inspiring the committed and prodding the hesitant, (see Braveheart or Henry V, for example), far more often the call of the leader that is disappointing his or her “own people at a rate they can handle” requires a more calm, confident presence in the middle of a highly anxious, instinctively reactive situation that threatens to burn everyone.

To better understand this, think of bringing good, healthy change to an organization, family, church, or business like cooking a stew in a Crockpot.  Every person is a like a hard raw vegetable or a firm piece of uncooked meat.  Each has their own identities, opinions and beliefs.  And in order for the pieces of food to become a meal that will feed a hungry tribe, each bit must be transformed at least a bit.  Each vegetable must become softened, the meat must share its flavor and each morsel must contribute to a good healthy sauce for all to share.  Without enough heat, nothing changes.  Too much heat and it burns.  In either case, nobody is fed. 

A leader’s job is to regulate the heat.  It’s to be a thermostat on the Crockpot.  To keep enough heat in the system so that things begin to change, but not enough that individual parts get scorched.  When we are all so calm that we are comfortable, we don’t want to go anywhere.  When we are camped under a tree in the shade, even staying in the wilderness seems better than heading off for the Promised Land.  But when the heat turns up, we begin to move toward the land of milk and honey that we really long for. At the same time, if the sun is scorching, it saps all motivation for moving.  In the same way, the heat of the Crockpot, properly regulated over a long period of time lets the transformation occur naturally without ruining the whole thing.  (How many good ideas have been shelved because the system got so “burned” that we vowed “never to do THAT again”?)

Regulating the heat is a delicate art that is built around one crucial leadership skill: Regulating ourselves.  We don’t ACT like a thermostat, we ARE thermostats.  We regulate the heat by monitoring and regulating ourselves in the middle of the stew.  (Think about it: It really is impossible to monitor anyone else’s anxiety and anger, isn’t it?  It really doesn’t do any good to tell someone to “Calm down!” does it?  Don’t believe me?  Try it on your spouse next time you two are in a heated argument.)

Calm, like anxiety, is contagious. 

If the system is too “cool” and needs more heated urgency to change then the leader’s own ‘heat’ (when they are connected to followers) begins to get things "cooking" (which is what stirring speeches and prophetic denouncements CAN do).  But, when the system gets too “hot” and people are in danger of burning each other or bailing out of the change process, the very presence of a calm, connected leader cools the system down so that people can tolerate staying on course. 

Now trying to be perfectly calm can create it’s own stress and anxiety.  The very last thing I need to do is to put more pressure on myself to “calm down” when I am getting anxious enough already (Just try and stop sweating or stammering when you are starting to “feel the heat” in the middle of a conflict)  So, as a leader who often gets to walk into “hot kitchens” (what is a church patio but a big family kitchen table?) I try to focus on a more modest goal: Not being perfectly calm, but being just a bit less anxious than everyone else.  All I want is for my presence to turn the thermostat down one click on the dial.   

Peter Steinke again (link): “The leader’s ‘presence’ can have a calming influence on reactive behavior. Rather than reacting to the reactivity of others, leaders with self-composure and self-awareness both exhibit and elicit a more thoughtful response"  (emphasis mine).

And getting the family, organization, board, Session or company to make “thoughtful responses” to move toward goals and objectives is the main work of the leader trying to bring change.  In my next post, I’ll write about how “staying calm” is about detecting lions and deciding about waterholes, but between now and then, consider this:

If we are going to ‘stand the heat and dance in the kitchen” this stay-connected and stay-calm two-step, is more about staying put and staying self-aware than anything else.  What do I need to do within myself to be the least anxious presence in the room?

Why "Good Disappointing" Leadership is So Important

After writing a brief series of posts for the Presbyterian Global Fellowship "Sending Out Blog" (the first of which is up and creating some conversation), I am back to working on the next post in my "Being a Good Disappointing Leader" series.  In the meantime, I offer this tidbit from Peter Steinke as both a book suggestion and an encouragement to my leader friends to keep "standing the heat and dancing in the kitchen". 

Next post: Leaders as Thermostats.

Like healthy people, systems promote their health through “responsible and enlightened behavior.” The people who are most in position to enhance the health of a system are precisely those who have been empowered to be responsible, namely the leaders. They are the chief stewards, they are the people who are willing to be accountable for the welfare of the system. They set a tone, invite collaboration, make decisions, map a direction, establish boundaries, encourage self-expression, restrain what threatens the integrity of the whole, and keep the system’s direction aligned with purposes.

Peter L. Steinke, Congregational Leadership in Anxious Times: Being Calm and Courageous No Matter What

"Could Attractional Be Missional?" The first post in a three-part guest blog series at the PGF blog site called "Sending Out"... http://sendingout.com/2010/05/03/could-attractional-be-missional-part-1/