Tod Bolsinger

Is That a Lion or Not: Another Lesson for Good Disappointing Leadership

Continuing a re-post of the series from 2010.  Many of us in leadership know about the need to attend to our anxiety, we just don't always know why...

In the harsh mid-summer African heat, a herd of impala find an increasingly rare water hole.  They rush to drink, crowding in, fearful of not getting enough water to sustain them.  Suddenly, one impala raises his head in high alert.  Immediately every other Impala stops drinking, and stands at attention.  No impala moves, none utter a sound. But the tension is palpable, there seems to be a crackle of electricity in the air.  Every impala at that moment has a life or death decision to make:  “Is that a lion or not?”

If there is a lion lurking near that whole and they don’t run,  they become lion lunch. If there is NOT a lion lurking near the whole and they DO run, they lose their place at the watering hole and could die of thirst. If there is a lion and they do run, or if there is NOT a lion and they do not run, they live another day.  But all that matters is: “Is that a lion or not?”

And everything in their impala-beings is focused on making that crucial life and death decision.  Just like they do every day. Numerous times a day.

Part of what helps the impala make that decision is the “herd energy”, the “animal anxiety” that permeates the group and that causes them to share listening, hearing, deciding together.  And depending upon how the “system” responds to anxiety is one of the key factors for the health and ability to weather threats and face changes in climate or challenges in terrain for a herd, a family, a church or organization.

In this series, we have been looking at what it takes to be a “good disappointing leader”, that is what it takes to “disappoint your own people at a rate they can absorb” so that they will take on the challenges, make the changes and continue to move toward the goals (or watering holes) that will insure their vitality, longevity and “mission” of the family, church, organization or company.  Over the last few posts we have been examining the leadership mantra:  "Start with a conviction, stay connected, stay calm and stay the course."  In my last post, I discussed the leader as “Crockpot thermostat” regulating the heat of a system so that it will continue toward transformation without scorching and ruining the system.

A significant part of “staying calm” and “regulating heat” specifically, is in understanding that the “heat” that most hinders organizational systems from moving toward their aspirations and goals is anxiety.  Anxiety isn’t a bad thing; it’s a ‘creaturely’ thing. It just is. We feel anxious when we are reacting to a threat that is either real or imagined.  Sometimes the anxiety is a gift that tells us that there is something bad that is threatening the clan (A fire alarm going off, the sixth sense that someone is lying to you, the motivation to lose weight when the doctor tells you that your cholesterol is so high you wont live to see grandchildren.) This is called “acute anxiety.”  It motivates us to do something to get ourselves or our loved ones out of danger (for example, when there is a lion at the watering hole.)

“In and of itself, anxiety is neither functional or dysfunctional.  It is a state of readiness to do something or other that may or may not be appropriate in response to a threat that may or may not be accurately perceived.”  (Jeffrey Miller, The Anxious Organization: Why smart companies do dumb things, p. 14)

But the key difference between animals and humans is that with humans real or “acute anxiety” often becomes “chronic anxiety”, lingering in a family or social system even after the threat is gone.  Acute anxiety is a pervasive stance of being that continues even after the threat is gone.  (Soldiers with post-traumatic stress who wake up on high alert even while safe at home in their beds, depression-era senior citizens who stock up on eggs or toilet paper years later, an adult who grew up in an abusive home who winces every time someone raises their voice even the smallest bit.)  Chronic anxiety is present when the threats of the past continue to hold power even though the system is no longer really in danger. 

There have been lots of studies about the affects of stress and anxiety in life today.  We are taught good stress reducing tricks like exercise or deep breathing or taking “mini-vacations” while at our desks, lowering our anxiousness by thinking of a ‘happy place.’  These things are all good for our personal well-being.  But in the midst of leading change, they miss the point.

For leaders, the point of “calming down” is not to feel better; it’s to make better decisions.  And when people are too “hot”, they don’t. The only issue is: Is there a lion or not? Is there really a threat or are we making this up?  Do we really need to run, or should we stay here and get water and then calmly continue our journey? Do we really need to be this angry, fearful, defensive or is there a better decision that we can make that will take us where we want to go? 

For leaders, this is the point to remember about anxiety: People who are overly or chronically anxious don’t make good decisions.  When anxiety spikes we revert to more “primitive” ways of being.  We fight, we flee, we freeze.  We turn on each other instead of working together.  We run from danger and leave others to face the lions alone.  Or we capitulate and allow the herd to be overrun.

Peter Steinke: “To lead means to have some command of our own anxiety and some capacity not to let other people’s anxiety contaminate us; that is, not to allow their anxiety to affect our thinking, actions, and decisions.”

Perhaps the most important task of leadership is to cultivate the ability to make good decisions.  Good, wise, discerning, decisions for the sake of both the health and mission of the herd.  And that will take both “regulating the heat” and thinking well while doing so. 

Both of which are necessary to face the absolutely unexpected threat that is coming to knock you "off course" as you lead your people.  Which is where we will pick this up next...

Related articles

Friendly Fire: The Prize for "Good Disappointing Leadership"

Disappointing Leadership: The Core Competency

Becoming a Good Disappointing Leader

Continuing to repost the series from 2010 that seems to spur the most conversations with pastors I coach.  The key concept here comes from Peter Steinke and his work with Healthy Congregations. 

In my last post, I suggested that the core competency for leading any “community”--from a family to a church to a country--is the ability to “disappoint your own people at a rate they can absorb.” (Heifetz and Linsky) 

In this post I want to begin to lay out some necessary skills for becoming a good disappointing leader.  And the word “good” here means both a sense of competence as well as character.  In other words, if I am going to be a good leader, I need to be committed to “skillfully” disappointing people as well as doing so for genuinely good reasons.

Here is a summary of what I want to say and then over the next few posts, I’ll take it apart and we can look at each piece. (With thanks to Ed Friedman, Peter Steinke and Murray Bowen for the "organizational systems" research that is behind all of this.)  If you want to lead effective change, in the face of resistance and even while disappointing people around you:

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

So, let's begin with the first clause: To be a good disappointing leader, you have to start by acting on a conviction. 

Now the word “start” here is actually misleading. Before you can “start” by acting on a conviction, you actually have to HAVE a conviction.  And this takes time.  Think of the forming of a clear conviction as the "prerequisite for leadership".  Clear good leadership that can withstand the disappointment of people is a product of maturity and differentiation (a term we’ll spend a great deal of time on in future posts). It is the result of study, conversation, humility and discernment. 

Having a well-thought-out, values-based conviction—an “As for me and my house” conviction (Joshua 24:15)—is not easy.  Most of us simply inherit convictions from those around us.  We take up the concerns or passions of others, we even take on the mantle of leadership to please others, or as a default.  How many of us have said, “Well, if no one else is going to do this, I guess I will (but don’t blame me if it doesn’t work out the way you’d like).” 

I think many people become pastors or take on leadership positions for ego needs.  We see the glint of admiration in the eyes of others, we hear the way they introduce us (“You know that my son is studying to be a PASTOR.  Isn’t that great?”), we like the sense that we are somebody special and we take on a role that we may not even have that much conviction about.  We imagine ourselves with our new titles.  Spiritual writer Parker Palmer was invited to apply for a college presidency.  When a “clearness committee” helped him think through his motives for pursuing the job, he finally admitted, “I think I am interested because it would be nice to get my picture in the paper.”

And soon, we are like the dog that catches the car.  We are dragged along by the sheer force and energy of others’ opinions and affirmation afraid to let go. And because we are not acting out of conviction, we fold under the disappointment of others.

But a clear, thought out conviction that comes from within one's values and is consistent with one's beliefs, is like a healthy spine and strong “core muscles” for the body.  They enable us to stand without wavering, to keep our balance, to stay grounded without having to be overly defensive or attacking.  We are like a well rooted Sequoia tree that can withstand the fires and the storms.  Others may get blown away or consumed, but convictions help us stand in the midst of the disappointment of others. 

But having a conviction is not enough.  Leaders act on their convictions.  And perhaps the clearest indicator of the clarity of a leader is his or her willingness to do so whether others follow or not. 

One of my favorite Jesus stories is when Jesus hears that his friend Lazarus is dying and he tells his disciples that he is going to Judea (John 11). The disciples are not excited.  Bethany has been a dangerous place for them.  They try to talk Jesus out of going. (“Rabbi, the Jews were just now trying to stone you, and are you going there again?”) He just simply restates that he has something to do and is going.  You have a sense that the disciples had to figure out if they would go to.  I imagine in my minds eye, the disciples spending the night tossing and turning, wringing their hands, arguing with each other, while Jesus likely slept like a baby.  Finally, Thomas says the other disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

Now, I don’t imagine that the disciples were excited.  And this wouldn’t be the last time that they would be confused and even disappointed in Jesus, (for example ALL of the events of “Holy Week”) but his clear conviction led him to ACT as a leader.

As a leader, to act on conviction is actually quite simple (though often not easy): I will only worry about myself.  I will do what my convictions call me to do and will not worry about anyone else following.  I will  change only myself. I will not try to control anyone else. I will not try to convince anyone else of my conviction. I will just, with as much clarity and awareness as possible, start acting out of the conviction that I am committed to doing.  I will, in the words of Gandhi, “be the change I want to see in the world.” 

A most common, every day example: Very often one spouse in a marriage will come to me and say, “I want our marriage to be better and I want us to get marriage counseling, but my spouse won’t go.  What should I do?”  My answer every time: YOU go to counseling.  You start working on yourself.  Invite your spouse to join you, but whether they do or not, YOU take responsibility for yourself, only.  (And as we will learn, systems-theory teaches us that this action of personal conviction stimulates change to the system.)

My friend and co-worker, Charlie Campbell is both a pastor and marriage and family therapist.  Charlie has said, that “a leader is someone who would be doing what they are doing anyway.”  It doesn’t matter if anyone follows, I’ll do it anyway, they say. It doesn’t matter if anyone likes this, I am going to do this anyway.  It doesn’t matter if anyone else cares for the environment, works for better schools, is committed to their marriage, makes their church more welcoming to the stranger, tries to bring peace where there is conflict, speaks the truth to power, loves those who don’t love, or forgives those who are filled with enmity… It doesn’t matter if anyone notices, anyone affirms it, anyone even cares about it…this is my conviction and I’ll be doing it anyway.

In one respect, the clearest sign of a leader, is that leaders don’t begin on the basis of whether anyone is following or not.  In one sense, followership is irrelevant.  Leaders start being leaders by acting on conviction. 

But what makes a leader really a leader is what we do when the followers start having opinions about our convictions.  When we hear the grumblings, the criticisms, the second-guesses.  When we see the glance of rolled eyes or hear the clearing of throats.  When those around us start getting anxious about our convictions and we find ourselves naturally looking over our shoulders wondering whether we are heading off alone.  The difference between Leaders and Lone Rangers is what they do next. And that is where we will pick this up…

Related articles

Disappointing Leadership: The Core Competency

Underlying Issues and A Real Possibility for the Future: the Mid Council Commission Report #ga220 #pcusa

Doomed to Fail (...and that's the good news)

Friendly Fire: The Prize for "Good Disappointing Leadership"

Reposting another segment from my 2010 series on "Good Disappointing Leadership". This is perhaps the most brutal reality of all. But if you expect it, you can endure it--and in the end it may just be the key to any real lasting change.

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

For the 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. 

Related articles

Good Disappointing Leadership: Revisiting a necessary conversation

Three Leadership Truths: Essential, Functional, Developmental

Friedman's Theory of Differentiated Leadership Made Simple

Disappointing Leadership: The Core Competency

How Culture Changes...Really.

Disappointing Leadership: The Core Competency

I am reposting this series on the conversation that I have the most with the pastors I coach.  This is part 1. 

“Leadership is disappointing your own people at a rate they can absorb.”  Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky

Most of us who take on leadership roles do so from a place of technical competence.  The best player on the team often becomes the captain.  The best teacher in the department is asked to become head of the department.  The best sales associate is given a promotion to manager.  And as I wrote in my last post, the best “lay leader” in a church is encouraged to become a pastor.  This, of course, can be the root of the dreaded “Peter Principle”: "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence."  Not every one who is competent at sales is good at managing (see Scott, Michael)  not everyone who is a good teacher is a good administrator.  But there is one core competency for leadership that is almost never recognized until it is too late: Disappointing people well or, as Linsky and Heifetz say, “at a rate they can absorb.”  And this is the skill that requires such incredible competence: 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.

In my last two posts I have written about the complexities of pastoral leadership and the confusion of the role of leadership that plagues most of us right from the beginning.  I promised to take up some of the “adaptations” that are necessary for making the transition from “star player” to “coach” or leader.  And with this post I want to begin some specific reflections on the necessary competencies of a leader.

First, leadership isn’t so much taking people where they WANT to go (that is more what management is all about.)  Leadership is taking people where, in that great phrase of Lincoln’s, “the better angels of their nature” know that they need to go and yet resist going.  Deftly handling resistance and the disappointment that comes along with it so that a community of people can accomplish a goal for the greater good is the core competency of leadership.

What does it take to disappoint people well?  I’ll discuss those particular skills in my next post.  But there is one internal adaptation of expectation that is necessary in order to leading through disappointment.  By definition, the move to leader from a position of technical competence is difficult.  And not just technically difficult (e.g. learning how to run a good department meeting, managing direct reports, setting vision and protecting values).  The real challenge of leadership is that it is emotionally difficult for the leader.  The first great challenge for the person who wants to go from player to “coach”, from star to leader is to determine whether you have the stomach for disappointing people.

Technical competence pleases people.  When we hit our sales numbers, or teach a really good Bible Study, sing a great solo, run a really great program, or hit a home run and people cheer.  Most of us who have been asked to consider leadership have big cheering sections.  We are used to applause, affirmation and a feeling of success.  But the minute you accept the call to leadership, you have to expect that most of the cheering will stop. 

When you stand before people and tell them that in order to accomplish a mission, they have to change, adapt, give up something for the greater good, work with those whom they don’t like or compromise on something that they care about they get mad.  They get really mad.  And mostly, they get mad at you.

For those of us who are pastors, this is even harder.  Note that the quote above from Linsky and Heifetz  defined leadership as, “disappointing your own people.”  (This is a huge part of the complexity that I wrote about previously.)  Leaders want to bring change.  We want to accomplish big goals.  We gave up our cozy platforms of people-pleasing technical competence to take some big hill.  But the real challenge of leadership is not anywhere “out there,” it’s among our own people.  People whom we love.  People who love us.  People whom we consider “brothers and sisters.”  People who are the “family” of God for us.  People with whom we have found a place of belonging, camaraderie of beliefs, a sense of shared purpose and meaning in life.  The call of leadership is learning how to disappoint THESE particular people well and that is not what most of us ever considered when a most pleased people asked for us to lead them.  

Next Post: the skills for disappointing well.

Related articles

Doomed to Fail (...and that's the good news)

Three Leadership Truths: Essential, Functional, Developmental

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.

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)

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