Triangulation: A Case Study
In the fall, I focused on Edwin H. Friedman’s arguments regarding empathy and the ways in which empathy disempowers personal responsibility, thus contributing to toxic, reactive, chronic anxiety. As I summarized then, in A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, Friedman develops his argument for why it is a leader’s differentiated being and presence that will most effectively bring about transformational change and health in all the emotional (instinctual) processes of the relationship systems in which that leader is a part—family, work, and society. His book includes a thorough introduction, eight densely written chapters, and a not fully developed epilogue. Failure of Nerve is a Leadership book under the Social Science classification umbrella.
In re-reading Friedman, this time I was drawn to reflect on the nature of emotional triangles and the dynamic of triangulation in leadership. Friedman writes, “An emotional triangle is any three members of any relationship system or any two members plus an issue or symptom.”[1] He continues:
“For leaders, the capacity to understand and think in terms of emotional triangles can be the key to their stress, their health, their effectiveness, and their relational binds. Almost every issue of leadership and the difficulties that accompany it can be framed in terms of emotional triangles, including motivation, clarity, decision-making, resistance to change, imaginative gridlock, and a failure of nerve.”[2]
What an incredibly all-encompassing statement! Can thinking in terms of emotional triangles truly be the key to my leadership success? Friedman further argues that understanding and implementing the art of triangulation can also break a leader’s anxious dependence on seeking yet more data to navigate the challenges of leadership.[3] The art of triangulation can break the gridlock that stymies personal and professional relationships, as well as organizations and nations of all sizes.[4]
I found myself drawing triangles in the margins of my book as I pondered Friedman’s assertions—triangles of different emotional processes I have been and am a part of. Friedman encourages this practice:
“…when a leader can begin to think in terms of emotional triangles and map out in his or her mind (or even better, on paper) diagrams of the family or organization, such analysis can help explain alliances and the difficulties being encountered in motivation or learning. This in turn can help the leader get unstuck by changing emotional processes and becoming more objective about what is happening.”[5]
Here I would like to unpack one of those triangles using Friedman’s regulating laws as a framework. His list of emotional triangle types does not specifically capture the dynamic I am working with, so I am adapting his “Healing and Mentoring Triangles.”[6] My dynamic would best be described as: A—Facilitator (Me)/B—Iraqi Partner (and son based in the USA)/C—USA Church Worker Couple (now working with a different organization from mine) based in Iraq.
Law 1: How emotional triangles form. I know both parties well from working with them over the past nine years, and they know each other well. The USA Church Worker Couple were colleagues in my organization until fall 2020 when they took an early separation package. They are now working with another organization for their final years of service prior to retirement. The Iraqi Partner is the longest serving Iraqi protestant pastor in the oldest protestant denomination in Iraq (dating to 1841). I first met him in 2011. He and the Church Worker Couple are close in age. I also know the Iraqi Partner’s son quite well. He is bi-cultural, having lived in the USA since 2005 at the age of 18.
Each pairing, independently from the other, contacted me to ask if I could facilitate a mediation between them. This is a modified version of what Friedman describes of why emotional triangles form. He writes, “Emotional triangles form because of the inherent instability of two-person relationships. This instability increases because of…the degree of chronic anxiety in the surrounding emotional atmosphere.”[7] I wouldn’t describe this as a dynamic of chronic anxiety. Rather, it was acute anxiety fueled by each party navigating through some very complicated life situations and leadership succession planning. But, none-the-less, it was anxiety that propelled each party to reach out to me.
Friedman continues: “Triangling a third person (A) into a relationship with B and C by agreeing to dislike (or even help) A…provides stability to B and C, who then organize themselves around the framework of the triangle.”[8] Again, this is not how I would describe how this triangle developed. I (A) was brought into the dynamic between the Iraqi Partner and the Church Worker Couple, but not for the purpose of disliking or helping me (and so gaining pseudo-intimacy between them). Rather, it seemed to me, both parties were aware of their respective anxiety, but also maintaining their own differentiation. When I received their invitations, I was aware of my own initial anxiety about stepping into this complex dynamic as a facilitator-mediator. I discussed the situation with my supervisor. With his support, I developed a conversation plan which I then proposed to both parties and which they both had the opportunity to revise before agreeing to a final plan.
Law 2: How emotional triangles operate. Emotional triangles are self-organizing. Friedman writes: “In most emotional triangles, one side tends to be more conflictual than the other two sides.”[9] Indeed, that was true of this emotional triangle. It had been an explosive disagreement that generated the anxiety in both the Iraqi Partner and the Church Worker Couple. But both parties wanted to move through disagreement and the pain that had come with this break in relationship to understanding, forgiveness, reconciliation, and future ministry together. But they were not sure how to navigate this on their own.
Friedman also warns about the danger of distance. By this he means that, “…secrets and gossip that keep a person in the dark will have an avalanche effect on any community, polarizing those in and out of the secret and inhibiting communication between them.”[10] I was very aware of how important kind transparency was going to be. Part of the communication plan was inviting each party to share with me their experience of the disagreement and what points they wanted to discuss with the other party during our shared zoom call. From this, we developed together an agenda for our call which was shared with both parties. I made it clear that I had not shared with the other party the details of how each had experienced the conflict. That content was for each of them to share directly with each other during our conversation. As a facilitator, it helped me to know the broad content ahead of time so I could prepare a clear structure and container for the facilitated time.
Friedman additionally warns about the dynamic of perversity in triangle functioning. This dynamic explains the “…uselessness of willing others to change; how conflicts will arise and destroy relationships; and why a leader’s presence is more powerful than efforts at coercion or therapy.”[11] I knew I had to remain differentiated and non-anxious in this conversation if I was going to be of any service to these two parties as they sought to resolve their conflict for the sake of Kingdom work. I also knew I could not change either party. But I was and am curious about how the Holy Spirit is at work in this conflict and emerging conversation for the sake of God’s kingdom work. Will something new emerge that neither party had previously considered?
The initiating cause of the conflict ended up being easily resolved. The more challenging part of the conversation ended up being key differences in missiology and its application to a shared ministry area. We are still taking up this part of the conversation step-by-step. First, with some written communication so that each party had the chance to reflect on the virtual face-to-face conversation: what did they hear, what did they take away as key points of new insight or awareness, what do they see as next steps. Second, I am having some individual follow-up with each party based on them having received the written reflections from each other: what did the written reflections confirm, what clarifications remain, what shifts in understanding or practice might now be possible, what remains the same, what might this mean for future ministry collaborations?
I don’t know yet how this will all turn out for either party or for the kingdom work. But I’m grateful I had Friedman running in the backdrop of my thinking as I was invited into this conversation. As you read this case study, what are your observations and questions? What additional considerations would be helpful for me to keep in mind as this conversation continues?
[1] Friedman, Edwin H., Margaret M. Treadwell, and Edward W. Beal. 2017. A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. 10th anniversary revised edition. New York: Church Publishing, 220.
[2] Ibid., 219.
[3] Ibid., 220.
[4] Ibid., 107, 220.
[5] Ibid., 219-220.
[6] Ibid., 221.
[7] Ibid., 222.
[8] Ibid., 222.
[9] Ibid., 226.
[10] Ibid., 227.
[11] Ibid., 228.
About the Author
Elmarie Parker
17 responses to “Triangulation: A Case Study”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Elmarie, I love your real time processing of your ministry context alongside Friedman. Thank you for your vulnerability and allow us to read as you unpack the complexities of this dynamic. I’ve been pondering how Jung’s concept of the Shadow (those things we hide, repress, and deny) gets projected out, producing triangulation. I can’t quite wrap my head around it. I’m curious if you see any correlations between shadow and Friedman’s elaborate model of triangles/triangulation?
Hi Michael. Thank you for this thought-provoking question. I’m not sure I can give you a technical response, but this is what I was aware of in myself: I’ve had to do a lot of my own work in regards to anxiety. I grew up with a highly anxious mom (she’s done a lot of her own work too over the years…I’m grateful for that). In earlier seasons of my life, I definitely operated out of that aspect of my shadow self…reacting to anxiety in others by wanting to push them away, acting impatient towards them, feeling overwhelmed, sometimes to the point of feeling like I was drowning. Others’ anxiety just tapped into too much for me. So, this definitely led to another layer of triangulation (invisible in a sense…me, my history with my mom, and the anxiety of the other person). I distinctly remember conversations with my supervisor while I was going through marriage and family therapy practicums as part of my degree work in MFT–my supervisor regularly had to push me to differentiate from my clients’ anxieties. These days, I’m much more aware of that part of myself, so I can slow down my thinking (rather than just intuitively reacting) and do the work of differentiating myself from someone else’s anxiety. Does this reflecting get at what you are asking about shadow and triangulation? Your question is a fascinating one.
Elmarie, that was a great application of the text. I am not sure if you saw the video I had sent about Friedman, but it was helpful to me in understanding these emotional triangles.
I would be curious to know, from this case study and your other work, what are the essential principals you keep in mind when in that role of facilitating or mediating a conversation/conflict?
Hi Eric. I did watch the video you sent around! Thank you for that! I loved the graphics and it did give a helpful lens into understanding triangulation.
You ask a thought provoking question about principles I keep in mind when facilitating or mediating a conversation/conflict. One of my foundational practices is to attend to my own anxiety level…am I anxious? If so, to what degree? And, what is it about the situation that is provoking anxiety in me? Is it triggering my own stuff? Am I internalizing the anxiety being projected onto me from those asking to meet? These sorts of questions then help me discern what next steps I need to take to either refer the people involved to someone else, or to prepare for the conversation and help the parties prepare for the conversation. My other foundational practice is asking the Spirit for guidance–is this a situation Christ’s Spirit is asking me to engage? In what way do I need to be present in the situation so that I can be attentive to the Spirit and invite the other participants to remain mindful of God’s activity in our midst (this second part, of course, depends on who I’m working with…sometimes it isn’t appropriate to make this second part overt, but I can always practice the first part). Along with the anxiety piece, I’m also always asking–what is my work in this interaction? What work belongs to the others in the interaction? How might I frame questions that reorient them to their work and steps they can next take? Those three elements are foundational for me when I’m asked to facilitate or mediate a situation.
What have you found to be helpful principals or practices in these types of situations?
Elmarie – thank you for sharing this very tangible example of these triangling relationships that can be so complicated. Looking at the questions you posed at the end, I would observe that the process by which you mediated was incredibly thoughtful, intentional, and had a great deal of empathizing with each party while still holding the line of personal responsibility. I appreciate you helping each party process the key points prior to the conversation which I’m sure aided in the quick resolution of the initial grievance. My question to you now would be, how would you envision the road to un-triangulation in this context? In other words, what would be the goalpost you’d be looking for or holding the other parties to in order for them to be able to communicate without you functioning as a mediator?
Hi Kayli. Thank you so very much for this thought-provoking question about where to now…what needs to happen to remove me from the conversation? This is actually what I’m pondering right now. I think I’ll have a better sense of that after the church worker couple share their written reply to the Iraqi partner’s post zoom reflection. That, I hope, will make more clear if their respective missiologies remain too far apart for collaborative work in the future.
If that is the case, then I think that will likely be the end of this conversation. I would confirm that, of course, with both parties. But my sense is there is no energy on the Iraqi partner’s side of things to pursue a conversation where the missiology is taking them in two different directions. That is a boundary I hope the church worker couple will respect. If they don’t, I have found that Arab communication culture, in general, is very effective at simply ignoring repeated requests for conversation. The implied answer is ‘I don’t want to talk any further about this topic!’
If, however, there is some movement toward a common missiological understanding, then my next step will be to ask both parties if they would like to meet again together to discuss a new strategy for the common work they both feel pulled to by the Spirit or if they feel they can move ahead with that on their own. I suspect one more meeting with me involved will be helpful to solidify a new direction, confirm all issues from the past painful interaction have been resolved, and then they will be able to take it from there.
Another issue that got conflated with this one, I’ve encouraged them to approach as a separate issue. And the Iraqi partner has already indicated that they are willing to collaborate on this separate issue. So I’m confident the two parties can move forward on that separate issue with no additional conflict arising.
I’d value your prayers for this continuing journey. And your thoughts on the above…am I stepping into any tar pits or mine fields I should avoid?
It sounds like you have a really good plan in place – especially with tasking them to work on a common problem (not their own) together. I can’t see any clear traps you’d be walking into – continuing to pray with and for you in this.
Thank you, Kayli. I really appreciate your time in replying, your discerning comments, and your prayers!
Elmarie, wow, what a challenge to add such a diversity of cultures into an interpersonal dispute. I don’t feel qualified to offer any suggestions but I do have a question: are there any aspects of American culture that added to the issue? I’m curious about that because on the teams I’ve led or joined, aspects subtle or not-so-subtle superiority came up in various ways.
Hi Roy. Thank you for your insightful observation and question. Yes, that dynamic of American cultural superiority is part of the dynamic. It is another layer of triangulation between the church worker couple, the Iraqi partner, and culture. And it goes in both directions, so it makes this aspect of triangulation multi-dimensional. We’re unpacking this layer in our conversations as well…it has been a fascinating dialogue with some good ahas happening. I’m grateful for the posture both parties have. There’s lot’s more to this, so I’m happy to unpack this further if you’re interested :). I’d love to hear how you have worked with that dynamic on your teams.
Elmarie, as always an excellent piece with piercing understanding and an in-depth application of Friedman’s ideas. I greatly appreciate how you leverage Triangulation in your relationship with the Iraqi partner and USA couple and trust this model will continue to serve you in the future. I will definitely explore this in my context as well.
Thank you, Henry, for your encouraging comments. I look forward to hearing what you experience and learn as you explore triangulation in your context.
Elmarie: I too was impressed with Friedman’s development of triangulation. I had never come across this before and he expands upon it so much that it really is a lens that can help in nearly all situations where clarity is needed. It was one of my biggest take-aways from his book. do you see other ways that triangulation can serve as a tool in your leadership journey? Once we have that lens in place we can use it in our own professional experience in ways that Friedman had not yet expounded. Nice post.
Thank you, Troy, for your comments. I would also value hearing how your new awareness of triangulation is impacting your leadership in your context. How is it influencing the way in which you see relational interactions?
For me, yes, triangulation is a lens that I use very regularly in my ministry context. I was first introduced to it in the 1990s when I pursued a masters in marital and family therapy. In many ways it has become reflexive for me. What I valued about Friedman’s engagement with this tool is that it pushed me to think more consciously again about how this lens impacts my posture as a leader. By being more consciously aware of this lens again, I feel it has sharpened my analysis of the emotional systems of which I am a part.
Elmarie this is really profound synthesis. I appreciate your thinking through triangles and how what Friedman unpacks aligns with your situation as well as what is different.
It sounds like you have been mediating well with a thoughtful plan.
How might Friedmans pages 253-260 inform not only your presence but how you might invite the others into reflecting on their own self management? But remember, Friedman also says, “leadership through self-differentiation is not easy; learning techniques and imbibing date are far easier.”(page 247) How might you apply this to your own boundaries when mediating?
Hi Nicole…thank you so very much for your thought-provoking questions and for sharing page numbers with me! I’ve already packed my Friedman book for our drive tomorrow (Monday) to Scott’s brother and family in Indiana. So…once we get there and get settled in, I will get it out of the taped book box, and get back to you on this.
Elmaire, this was a very creative way to engage with the text. It challenges me to reexamine some of my own toxic relationships in a similar manner. The one question that is gnawing at me is what role does culture have in the conflict within these relationships? Particularly because you have more than two. You have the Iraqi culture that has been through tremendous change, to the extent that its inhabitants probably have some characteristics similar to immigrants. You have long time field workers who are a mix of American and the cultures they have lived in. And the adult son who is probably exhibiting characteristics of a third culture kid. I wonder how much of their conflicting expectations of ministry is somehow tied to their cultural beliefs. If yes, then in my experience those beliefs will be difficult to change because it is a part of their identity. Or maybe they are a part of what allows them to differentiate themselves?