Just Finished Reading: Leadership and the New Science by Margaret J. Wheatley (chapters 1-5)

I am reading this for a continuing education course, and was only assigned the first 5 chapters, but here’s what I got from them (and a little bit of chapter 6):

First, we have interpreted the world for the past couple hundred years using a Newtonian physics framework. Which looks like this – there are objects floating in space and they influence each other with varying amounts of force, like billiard balls on a table. The cue ball hits number 9 and it goes in the pocket. And, like billiard balls on a table, getting something moving takes an understanding of the different parts of the encounter and how they move, and the things that are acted upon are pretty passive in event that is described.

 Similarly, we’ve tried to understand systems by examining the parts of the system. Like dissecting a jazz band (or a bluegrass jam) to find out what each instrument sounds like, how each person plays and then the various forces the parts exert on each other.

But here’s the thing: when you start examining the world of quantum physics, things don’t work that way at all! For example, there’s the quantum leap, made famous by Scott Bakula. An electron will be spinning its way around some neutrons and protons and whatnot, and then suddenly it will be in another place, with no intermediary movements, much like Dr. Sam Beckett, leaping from life to life.

Or, here’s another cool one. Scientists will set two electrons next to each other and set them spinning together. One goes right, the other goes left, or one goes up and the other goes down. (Whatever the scientist is measuring for. More on that in a minute.) The two electrons respond to each other instantly. And then, if you separate them by, say, a couple feet or a couple thousand miles, when one starts spinning, the other one spins the other way instantly. As if there were no space between them. No speed-of-light lags, none of that. That part made my head explode.

So, if we’ve been trying to organize people as though they were billiard balls, when in fact we are more like the mysteriously connected electrons, part of a larger whole, then we’re putting a lot of effort into aiming and smacking balls that don’t go into the pocket, when we could be enjoying an elegant dance instead. We’re missing the whole, the thing that makes live music better than even the most carefully layered recording.

Here’s another cool idea: space is not empty, it’s full of fields. You’ve heard of gravity, right? Gravity works kind of like this – there’s this fabric of space and time, and very large objects bend it, which causes smaller objects to fall toward it. So gravity is one kind of field. But there are lots of other ones. And all the little protons and neutrons and God particles appear where fields meet. The interactions of the fields lead to the creation of matter. And yet, fields are themselves invisible, immaterial.

 So what if consider fields in organizations as a way of organizing them? Instead of trying to hit the cue ball so it hits number 9 just right, what if we pay attention to agreeing together on what song, what key, what tempo, and then letting the musicians do their thing? Military example: now, instead of having commanders hold all the information, some branches of the US military are having the commanders share an intent, a goal, and principles for achieving it, and then getting as much information as possible about what’s going on to all the soldiers on the battlefield. With enough information, the soldiers actually do a better job of organizing themselves. (Sorry, skipping ahead a little to Chapter 6)

There is an inherent order to the universe, and organizations can organize themselves too. People self-organize in response to the energy they’re given. And connections create power. The power of an organization is the power of its relationships. Negative energy, bad relationships, create negative power and resistance, but love may be the most powerful force in the world, motivating people to do what’s needed, together in a mysterious alignment.

Schroedinger’s cat. A famous thought experiment. If there’s a cat in a box, and you’ve set up a machine to either give it poison or food at some set moment, randomly chosen, then until you open the box and look, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Or at least, that’s how it works in quantum physics. Remember how I said that the electrons in the spinning experience go whatever direction the scientists are looking? Well, here’s the thing – in quantum science, one of the variables, one of the things that affects what happens, is the observer – the act of observing. WTF. Experiments turn out differently if the camera is on, for example, than if it’s off. If the experimenter looks for where a thing is, they won’t be able to find out where it’s going. But if they find out where it’s going, they won’t be able to find out where it is. You get one or the other, but not both. Again, my head is exploding.

But on the other hand, don’t we observations affecting reality all the time? I was just reading last night about unconscious bias. How one guy I feel a connection with can have a good interview or seem like a star, thanks partly to my seeing him as someone who will have a good interview or someone with the potential to be a star. Or someone who my unconscious bias tells me is a criminal will start behaving in what look like suspicious, threatening ways, leading to our confrontation and their violent response to my (pre-emptively) defensive attack. See: Black Lives Matter movement.

The universe is actually very well organized. Finding ways to organize ourselves in the same way, in open systems instead of closed ones, in information-sharing networks instead of information-controlling bureaucracies, with leaders who encourage disequilibrium instead of aiming for motionlessness, will be the path forward into a totally different mode of organization. One that seems chaotic on the surface sometimes, one that will NEED to be chaotic sometimes, but that will have its own order, its own identity and ongoing process, in the same way that a stream, while constantly changing, maintains an identity, a shape and an order that has lasted for millions upon millions of years.

just finished reading: the life-changing magic of tidying up by marie kondo.

Just adorable

What an adorable book. The shape and feel of the book itself is cute, and the person telling her story about being a lifelong (and I mean LIFE LONG) tidying enthusiast, and all her little hints for how to approach your things, they’re just adorable. Or maybe the word I’m looking for is refreshing – her voice and the ways Japanese culture show through in what she writes were totally charming to me. Anyway, here is my plan for putting my house in order, as prescribed by tidying expert Marie Kondo:

Discard things that don’t spark joy. Pick up each thing, hold it in your hand and ask “Does this spark joy?” and if not, get rid of it. Discard first before storing.

Order of discarding

Go by category of thing, in this order, and do all the things in each category at once:

               Clothes – Books – Papers – Komono (odds & ends) – Sentimental items – Photos.

I’m relieved that there’s an order to go in for this, from least emotionally draining to most. Komono has its own order:

               CDs, DVDs – skin care products – makeup – accessories – Valuables (passports, credit cards, etc. – electrical equipment – household equipment (sewing kit, stationery, etc.) – household supplies (medicine, detergent, other expendables) – Kitchen goods and food supplies – Other (spare change, figurines, etc.)

               Items related to a hobby are their own subcategory

Papers

Keep only the things that spark joy! Because of this rule, Kondo recommends throwing away just about all papers, and then having only a few files that are very broad in scope. I don’t know – can I go there?

Timeline

Kondo says the best approach is putting your house in order in one go, which is to say, over the course of about 6 months, tops. It sounds like she often goes into peoples’ houses to help them with tidying and helps them throw away 30-40 bags of trash in a single day.

Relating to things, storing things

When Kondo goes into a house to help someone put their house in order, she first kneels down on the floor for a couple of minutes to thank the house for the way it supports and shelters the people and to ask for its help in deciding where to store things. She recommends keeping all objects of the same type in the same place and not spread out in any way, and each person gets one space for their storage. Types of things should be pretty broad, like, “electric” or “paper-like” and not sorted by when they would be used. When she’s not sure about where something should go, she will ask the house where it believes the thing should go, and then she puts it there.

Storing clothes

Kondo believes strongly in vertical storage, not flat stacks, and recommends a particular method of folding that causes the things that are folded to stand up vertically in a drawer. That way, when you open the drawer, you can see all your options. (She also sorts these folded clothes by color - dark in back to light up front.) She recommends hanging things in a closet in such a way that the largest, heaviest items are on the left and the lightest items are on the right.

Discarding

As she discards things, Kondo touches and holds each thing one at a time to see if it sparks joy for her. Then, if not, she treats the moment as an opportunity to thank the things for what they’ve done for her and meant to her. If she is discarding a gift, she thanks it for conveying the sentiments of the giver. If it’s an outfit she thought she’d like but didn’t, she thanks it for helping her learn more about herself. The act of discarding is like a celebration or a graduation, so Kondo dresses up for the occasion, usually wearing a dress and a suit jacket.

The bottom line

The bottom line is this: if you want to have a tidy house and be surrounded by things you love, get rid of all the stuff that you don’t love, that’s just sitting there being only partially useful and taking up valuable space and mental energy. Give thanks for and celebrate each thing, then let go of all but the ones that you love. And then you’ll be surrounded only by things you love. Kondo believes there will be a moment when something clicks and you know you have the right amount of things. 

Developing a skill

Another way of describing her approach is that by touching each of our things, holding it in our hands and making a decision about whether we really love it, we develop the skill of knowing ourselves and what we love better and better. The discarding gets progressively harder, but then so does our skill at discarding.

I am excited about this

I am super excited to put this into practice. Thanks to an unfortunate circumstance in our basement, I already have a head start on discarding books – there is a trunk full of books in my car that are on their way to the Book Thing very, very soon. 

Book Thing - hilarious pictures

(Check out the Book Thing’s website – they have a hilarious set of pictures of real books they’ve gotten. http://www.bookthing.org/ Things like Don Knotts explaining how to lay bricks, or how to be a gun runner for fun and profit.)

Dreams

I’m hoping this will be a start to a new way of life in the near future. An intermediate goal is to have fewer of those dreams where I suddenly realize there is a vast storage space in my house that I hadn’t realized was there before.

Just Finished Reading: Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha and Mohammed Cross the Road? Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World

McClaren's basic point is that a lot of religion, and Christianity in particular, has fallen into either a strong and hostile identity, where it's us versus them in the game of life, or into a weak and benevolent identity, where we hold some beliefs that are important to us, but the most important thing about them, really, is not imposing them on others.

An interesting point McClaren makes about weak-benevolent identity is that it makes room for empire and its violent, death/revenge ideology just as surely as the co-opted hostility of the strong-hostile identity. It doesn't offer a truly viable alternative, just  an unobtrusive side dressing. I'm thinking of a review of a biography of the Inklings I read recently, where in the Screwtape Letters CS Lewis talks about the hazards of war - how being a soldier can cause someone to sin - and his main concern was that a young man would swear more than usual or spend extra time with the ladies, missing the whole part of the endeavor that involves killing other people.

So the solution to the problems our world faces, and the answering of God's call for a new way of life in a multi-faith world can't be lowest-common-denominator Christianity, but fire & brimstone from a tightly drawn circle is out too. Strong-benevolent is McClaren's alternative goal, what I would call (in family systems language) self-differentiation on the scale of the entire religion.

Let's get clear, he says, about our beliefs and practices - commitment to radical hospitality, for example, and God's generous goodness, Jesus' vision for a new world built within and through this one, and the suffering of the cross as a result of our sin more so than a remedy for it. Let's move into liturgy and sacraments that reflect Jesus' teaching and ministry, and let's move into a way of doing "missionary work" that makes the world a better place without trying to convert and colonize "the other" to be like "us" but instead is a hospitable and respectful exchange of gifts that enables each side to deepen and grow in their own religious identity. Sometimes people won't be able to stay in the tradition where they are, and will move somewhere new, and there needs to be freedom for this. But that's probably going to be the exception, rather than the rule. And our goal is to get those dusty religions to shape up and come alive, come back to the deep roots that can feed them.

McClaren closes with Ghandi's suggestions for Christians and Christian missionaries in India interested in bringing a non-colonizing and naturalized version of Christianity to the country.

1. Live more like Jesus Christ (this could be the only advice....)
2. Practice your religion without toning it down - don't weaken it to make it palatable.
3. Emphasize love, which is the soul and center of Christianity. (Love as a working force, not just a nice feeling)
4. Study non-Christian religions sympathetically so you can approach the people who practice them sympathetically.

Onward and upward! What I most appreciated about this book is the way McClaren makes me feel like I can let go of some things - having to convince people that my way is the right way, for example. At the same time, it is a challenge to live the kind of Christian life he envisions. In my neighborhood, we've been having new people move in who are demographically different from the current residents, and there is a lot of tension around that. I keep thinking, "Someone should start reaching out to those new people and meeting them, and bridging the difference between the old and the new." Well, guess what - maybe that someone needs to be me, and beyond me the Christian neighbors. Because, you know, that's what Jesus would do.

What to Say to Your Doctor - Just Finished Reading: Being Mortal by Atul Gawande

"090814-N-7090S-216" by MilitaryHealth

This is an excellent, beautiful book that made me cry a lot because it's written with such sensitivity and attention to the human experience. The people who should read it are: anyone with a serious or terminal illness, caregivers of people dealing with serious illnesses, and anyone not planning to die young. There is great stuff about how our perspectives change when time is short, how doctors can help patients by taking on the role of interpreter and partnering to make decisions, and an in-depth explanation of why nursing homes can feel so bad to be in - because of the loss of autonomy that goes with institutional living.

Two things I want to remember:

1. Real assisted living is a wonderful thing. The underlying idea behind assisted living, in its original form, was that people would live independently and only get help for the things they needed help with. There was a lock on the door to the apartment. The first priority is on autonomy and quality of life, not on safety or the efficiency of the institution.

2. Several times, Gawande describes a valuable conversation that happened between patients coming to the end of their lives and either doctors or adult children. These four questions helped flesh out the patients' priorities in living well in the limited amount of time left to them.

     1. What is your understanding of your condition?
     2. What are your biggest fears and concerns?
     3. What goals are most important to you?
     4. What trade-offs are you willing to make, and what are you not?

In each of the instances he describes, these four questions help tremendously in clarifying the treatment choices that will maximize the patient's quality of life, something that is different for everyone. More than once, an adult child faced with a difficult decision that has to be made quickly about a surgery has clarity about good choices, thanks to having this conversation with their parent beforehand.

There's a lot more to the book. You should go read it.

Just Finished Reading: Blessed are the Crazy by Sarah Griffith Lund

This book tells Sarah’s life as lived in the shadow of mental illness and the light of faith. Sarah’s father suffered from undiagnosed bipolar disorder and was abusive of his family, especially his son Scott, who grew up to suffer from debilitating mental illness himself. And, on her father's side of the family, Sarah’s cousin Paul killed a woman during a psychotic episode. She witnessed his execution for the crime. 

Sarah’s experiences as a family member and an ordained minister speak to how difficult it is to love someone suffering from mental illness. Some pieces I want to remember from this: Sarah talks about the idea of “bearing your cross,” and how that sometimes comes across as just putting up with the suffering that God gives us. But for Sarah, bearing your cross has come to mean carrying the things that just happen in life – like mental illness – and carrying them in God’s presence so that they might be transformed, the way Jesus’ cross was transformed from instrument of torture and death into saving source of life.

Second, one of the hardest things about mental illness is not necessarily the experience of the disease itself, but the shame and secrecy that go with it. Sarah tells her whole story, gives her witness and speaks her truth as an example of the way that telling the truth can set us free. Bringing mental illness out of the shadows and finding ways to let go of stigma are ways that people and churches can help the healing and health of people suffering from mental illness and their families. Jesus did this kind of thing all the time - bringing people back into community with his healing touch. We can let go of our stigma around mental illness, too, and learn to walk together in the light.

Just Finished Reading: American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard

This was a fascinating read, and perfect for the weeks leading up to the 4^th of July. Woodard’s basic point is that the US isn’t divided into blue states, red states and purple states, but that there are 11 “nations” within the US that compete for cultural and political dominance. He gets into Canada and Mexico a little bit, too, since these nations, marked by ethnic, language and cultural differences, don’t follow state or national lines.

Here are the nations I was most interested in because of where I've lived:

Yankeedom, founded by Puritans/Congregationalists, has strong cultural values around equality, the common good, shared public resources, and limited tolerance for difference. Yankeedom is pretty big, and includes Minnesota – the Yankees basically just colonized in a big East to West band, and then the Scandinavians who felt at home in Minnesota also happened to have similar values to the Yankees. Religious orientation: Public Protestant – faith determines how we live together and build a society.

Midlander culture was founded by William Penn with Pennsylvania. The big values here are tolerance, diversity, and then everything else is middle of the road. Midlanders don’t want people/the gov’t interfering in their lives – a libertarian streak, and a commitment to freedom of speech and conscience. They didn’t get along so well with the warlike….

Borderlanders – Think greater Appalachia. As America is being colonized, these folks arrive by the thousands out of Scotland and Ireland, which up to this point had been enduring 800 years of warfare. Think Braveheart, and then think Hatfields and McCoys. Manliness is defined by your willingness to defend your honor, not your ability to provide for your family. Lots of clannishness. The Borderlanders hit the coast, and then immediately move west to get as far from meddling civilization as they can. The Borderlanders want freedom and a good life, and aren’t so worried about the Protestant Work ethic. Religiously, they’re Presbyterian, with a Private Protestant orientation – faith is between me & Jesus and the focus is on personal piety/morality/salvation. In the American revolution and the Civil War, the Borderlanders fought against….

The Deep South – Founded by English gentlemen who wanted to recreate the slave colony of Barbados, the basic cultural goals of the Deep South are just about exactly the opposite of Yankeedom:

“The goal of the Deep Southern oligarchy has been consistent for over four centuries: to control and maintain a one-party state with a colonial-style economy based on large-scale agriculture and the extraction of primary resources by a compliant, poorly-educated, low-wage workforce with as few labor, workplace safety, health care, and environmental regulations as possible.” (p. 302)

In spite the Borderlanders’ strong commitment to freedom and self-determination that’s in exact opposition to this goal, the Deep South has developed an uneasy Dixie alliance using the common Private Protestant religion and racism. Here Woodard quotes from What’s the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank (which I also want to read...):

“Vote to stop abortion, receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again, receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors, receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs, receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists, receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism, receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining.” (p. 304)

Other items of interest:

• The Inuit of northern Canada and Greenland are having a go at self-governance, and there are some really cool things about what they’re doing – communal land ownership, sustainably harvested forests, and a strong environmental ethic. 
• The northern Mexican culture of the Southwest is growing in strength and size and will probably be the next important swing nation. I can’t even get into the role of racism running through the book, but historic racism won’t be doing the Deep South any favors as this nation grows in prominence. On the other hand, Jeb Bush speaks Spanish, so…. 
• Finally, I think just to keep things interesting, Woodard describes the US as an empire in decline. He thinks the US could break apart, or Mexico could, and then there might be new borders and new nations within the current US. Interesting to think about, but I am hoping our union will stay strong in spite of the internal challenges. 

 It is fascinating to learn how differently different internal cultures see what it means to be American. But I hope we will continue to be a union for many years to come.

Just Finished Reading: Some of My Best Friends are Black by Tanner Colby

Colby tells the story of non-integration in the US by following (mostly) his own personal story, and exploring 4 areas where segregation remains rampant: schools, neighborhoods, work and church. His qualifications: be ignorant and white and willing to ask a lot of questions. Plus, publish two books on something completely different (John Belusi and Chris Farley). Here are some of the goods:

Schools
Busing was invented as a way of chasing the white people who fled to the suburbs to avoid integration. Many black schools lost out in this shift, since integration of white students into black schools usually meant erasing and destroying the black history and culture there and also usually didn't work, since the white students left as soon as possible.

Busing pretty quickly came to mean busing black students into white schools, thereby scattering those students from their home communities, but didn't actually lead to an integrated school. Just social segregation inside the schools. In Colby's hometown, it meant an isolated circle of black kids who weren't allowed to be part of afterschool activities, had very big class differences to overcome as well if they wanted to fit in with the white students, and who frequently got shuffled off to remedial classes or even their own internal segregated classes. Tracking, as it turns out, didn't really get invented until their were black kids who needed to be separated out from the rest of the kids.

The choice, then, for black kids in Colby's high school when he was there were 1. Stay isolated in the circle and get a very limited benefit from being at one of the best schools in the state. 2. become really good at making friends with white people. One of his black classmates (out of two) who were able to do this succeeded by: a. using lots of humor to diffuse white discomfort b. "having a really great attitude" c. having a mother (a teacher in the school) who made a conscious choice to have her there for the express purpose of learning the dominant white culture d. a background in her own black history, culture and identity from going to elementary and I think middle school at majority black schools in her home community. She came PREPARED.

These days, with a principal who is very open to talking about race and has a strong historical understanding of it, plus the arrival of a large crop of middle-class black kids, Colby's alma mater is integrated. As in, about half the white kids report being genuinely good friends with at least one black kid. Unlike the rest of White America, where that number is much lower.

Neighborhood

So, I knew about blockbusting before, but I had no idea how direct, pervasive and persistent the "realtors" where who forced it to happen, or how fast they did their work. They would rent out a house on a majority white block to a particular black family that they knew would be bad neighbors. Then, after a couple months, come knocking on white neighbor doors - buying low then selling high to black people coming in. And the knocking can be really persistent - harassment, even, as he describes it. One community fought it off by working really hard and stretching some of the rules. But integration in that neighborhood didn't really happen among the adults - only among the kids.

Unfortunately, I read this in January and didn't have time to finish the summary. It was a really good book, though, and you should totally read it. :)

Just finished Attending - Boundary Awareness: Transitions!

So, Boundary Awareness around transitions is about keeping in mind what is needed to make for good transitions as pastors move from congregation to congregation. One person told a story about doing a funeral that was maybe on the edge of appropriate, or at least led to an ethics complaint, and it was a good reminder to me that I am not the role of clergy.

I'm imagining a cicada's shell - it fits around the cicada and it's clear when the cicada is wearing it, but it also protects the cicada and gives it strength. So if someone comes to me and asks for pastoral care from me after I've left my position, they're asking for me, but also asking for that role. And the thing is, only one person inhabits that shell at a time. Here, clearly, the metaphor breaks down. But certainly in a transition, leaving that shell behind (maybe like a lobster, instead?) leaves a pastor feeling vulnerable and naked until a new shell hardens.

Ways that good boundaries during ministry helps with transitions:

    - paying attention to personal friendships with parishioners
    - not doing ongoing mental health counseling - referring after 3-6 sessions
    - in entering a new ministry, BE the pastor/practice self-differentiation

Also, if we think of ministry as teamwork, and caring for churches and church members as teamwork, then part of our work is helping people bond with their new pastor (as we leave) and continuing to appreciate and draw wisdom from the previous pastor (as we enter). Ex. "Pastor Emeritus reflects that...." This is different from "I have to defend MY authority."

Grateful for good conversation and lots to think about!

Just Finished Reading: Leadership on the Line by Ron Heifeitz and Marty Linsky

This is a book closely related to “Leadership without Easy Answers,” since it’s at least one of the same authors, and on the same subject. It’s a follow-up focused more intently on how to stay in the game as a leader – how to keep from being sabotaged, assassinated, sidelined, or otherwise decommissioned.

The reason why leaders need this book is to be able to lead through adaptive change. This is a key concept – there’s technical change that communities go through – basically things we know how to do, and just need to apply a technique for, and adaptive change which requires examination of our values, and letting go of values that are important for us in favor of other important values. It means making painful tradeoffs. Example: You go to the doctor for leg pains, and you get a prescription for a pill to take for two weeks. You take the pill for two weeks and the pain goes away. That’s technical change.

Adaptive change is: the doctor tells you to lose weight. That means not just putting down the sandwich and taking a lap, but changing eating and cooking habits, making time in your schedule for exercise, and possibly shifting relationships with the people who you either cook for or who cook for you, or who just like to eat delicious food together with you. Food has social and emotional meanings and values beyond the physical act of eating. No wonder diet pills are so popular!

So, imagine that you are a leader trying to convince a bunch of people not only that they need to lose weight, but you’re also in charge of being sure it actually happens. This book is about dealing with the inevitable resistance when groups need to do adaptive work.

The Response:

1.      Get on the balcony – in the heat of the moment, when someone is yelling at you, or working behind your back to undermine you, or people are pressuring you to slow down the pace of change, it’s important to be able to take a step back, and see things from a global perspective. In this metaphor, you have to be both a dancer, and someone analyzing the dance from above, sitting in the balcony.
2. Think politically – relationships are more important than ideas when it comes to motivating people and protecting yourself from sabotage. Reach out and develop allies – people who are with you on the issues. Pay close attention to authority figures. They will give you clues to how much stress is in the system. Stay connected and listening to people who have the most to lose in the changes you see as necessary. To win over the people in the middle, take these steps:

a.      Acknowledge your part in the problem everyone has to face together. If you’re the leader and you’ve been there a while, you will have some things to admit to.

b.      Acknowledge what people are losing in the change you are asking for

c.      Model the behavior you want to see.

d.      Accept casualties. There may be people for whom the change is too much, and they are just not willing to go in the new direction. If that’s the case, don’t try to keep them at the cost of making the needed changes. It’s very difficult, but shows you’re serious.

     3. Orchestrate the conflict – the goal here is to manage the pace of change and the amount of stress in the system. They use a temperature metaphor. It needs to be hot enough that there is attention and motivation for addressing the issue, but not so hot that people are just mad & in their reptile brain and can’t get any productive work done.

a.      Orchestrating the conflict includes creating a “holding environment” that contravenes the tendency of people or organizations in conflict to blow apart. Example: the strong traditions of the military. Example: an off-site retreat. Example: a marriage covenant.

b.      Ways to raise the heat: *Draw attention to the tough questions *Give more responsibility than people feel comfortable with *Surface conflicts *Protect people outside the norm who do similar things

c.      Ways to lower the heat (normally, systems are pretty good at lowering the heat on their own, although sometimes that will be by marginalizing the person pushing for change) *Do the technical parts first *Break the problem into pieces, make time frames, create a structure for decisions *Temporarily take back responsibility *Work avoidance mechanisms *Slow things down.

d.      Make sure people have a clear vision of what the future looks like once they’ve addressed this problem.

      4. Giving the work back – basically, don’t make decisions for the people with the problem or otherwise become the subject of the conflict that allows them to avoid facing the real issue at hand. The people with the problem need to be the ones who figure out which values to trade off – what the best choice is.

      5. Hold steady – sometimes you have to avoid commenting on what’s going on, or hold onto an ambiguous position, or otherwise maintain an unpopular stance to make time and keep pressure on the people who need to be addressing the issue.

Heart

All this takes a lot out of a person, personally, emotionally and physically, which leaves us vulnerable to taking ourselves out of the game. Example: Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky apparently started during the government shutdown, which was at a low point in his presidency, most of his staff was out of the office, and Hilary happened to be out of town. Not an excuse, but an example of how important it is to have people keeping you anchored at vulnerable times. Time anchors – a sanctuary or a daily reflection time.

Sex! This gets a good chunk of a chapter. Everyone has needs for intimacy, and power makes people feel sexier and the role makes them more attractive. Back to Bill/Monica – if he had just been a regular guy in a grocery store, she never would have given him the time of day. So…. Be sure to attend to those needs where they belong – drink from your own well, to quote the Bible….

Other notes – confidants. A confidant would be someone who can listen to your ideas and not have to hear things in a finished form and be a good sounding board, and have no other agenda beyond wanting to support you. A sister in California = a good confidant. Someone you’re supervising = not a good confidant, even if they may be an ally in the change you’re trying to bring at the workplace. Allies will have other people they need to be loyal to – confiding in them can make for distance between you because you’re asking them to choose between you and their other constituencies.

Finally – leadership takes heart. Staying present emotionally, feeling the costs and pain of it, and still caring and working all take heart. Jesus with his arms open on the cross, saying “Why have you forsaken me?” and “Father, forgive them,” at the same time.

Why do this? Love. Go with God. The world needs you.