Non-Anxious Leaders in Anxious Systems
If Dr. Murray Bowen’s theory of family systems highlights the need for the self-differentiation of the most mature, non-anxious member of a family system,[1] Dr. Edwin Friedman’s Failure of Nerve applies this theory to organizations while illustrating how it works in cellular biology. The essence of Friedman’s exhortation for leaders – in his words, “from parents to presidents” – was to resist the temptation to be sucked into the anxiety of the system, avoid triangulation, and thus seek quick fixes. On the other side of this exhortation is an invitation: to self-regulate one’s anxiety and differentiate oneself from the system. In other words, to have a core to one’s being that is not moved by the anxiety around oneself due to the lack of core from those around.
This is easier said than done. When a self-differentiated leader holds a non-anxious, well-defined stance in an enmeshed, anxious system, there will always be resistance and sabotage, whether intentional or not.[2] Friedman highlights that malignant cells are like people who have no core purpose or identity.[3]The immature team member acts out of selfishness and reactivity. There is no guiding, self-directed and self-defined purpose for such an individual. This is why the immaturity of an individual team member is cancer to a team’s health. As a youth and young adult pastor, I have learned from Fuller Youth Institute the great need to help young people find in Jesus the answer to their three main questions in life, which are, “Who am I? Where do I belong? What is my purpose?”[4] In reading Friedman, I have obtained added urgency in the importance of discipling young people. For we are not just making disciples of Jesus, we are unmaking malignant cells that cause dysfunction in systems due to their lack of a nucleus (identity and purpose). For leaders baffled at the reactivity of immature team members, remembering malignant cells will bring clarity to the frustration.
Because of this, it is vital for the individual who has taken the most responsibility for his or her own emotions and future – what Friedman defines as maturity – to take care of his or her well-being. Leadership, whether that be parenting or leading a complex organization, will have to deal with the reactivity of others. For leaders this means:
It is only when leaders value self that they can prevent it from being eroded by the chronic anxiety of a society in regression. It is only when leaders value self that they can muster the self-regulation necessary for countering the sabotage that will greet them, ironically, in direct relation to the extent that they value and express their self.[5]
Friedman’s work is deeply informative and has caused my own leadership growth to focus managing my emotional reactivity and anxiety. My vision is to be a more self-differentiated leader a year from now than I am today. That being said, I have pushback in the form of two questions. First, does this elevate Western culture that is more individualistic, and disadvantage non-Western cultures that are more collectivistic? I wonder what Pastor Zonde would say about Failure of Nerve being that he is a lifelong student of leadership as well as someone who has lived in a collectivistic culture with “ubuntu” as the norm. Second, does focusing on strength devalue the Judeo-Christian ethos of caring for the poor and vulnerable? As I was reading Friedman, I wondered if taking this to the furthest logical conclusion resulted in a Darwinian ethos with the strong getting stronger.
Regardless of this critique, Friedman’s work is immensely informative. It puts to words past and present frustrations, infuses courage to be non-anxious in an anxious environment, and provides vision for the kind of leader I want to be.
[1] Bowenian Therapy, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em1hFfIk9hs.
[2] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (10th Anniversary, Revised Edition) (Church Publishing, Inc., 2017). 261-262.
[3] Ibid. 151.
[4] Kara Powell and Brad M. Griffin, 3 Big Questions That Change Every Teenager: Making the Most of Your Conversations and Connections (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2021).
[5] Ibid. 185.
About the Author
David Beavis
David is Australian by birth, was raised in Southern California, and is the Youth and Young Adults Pastor at B4 Church in Beaverton, Oregon. David and his wife, Laura, live in Hillsboro with their dog, Coava (named after their favorite coffee shop). M.A. Theology - Talbot School of Theology B.A. Psychology - Vanguard University of Southern California4 responses to “Non-Anxious Leaders in Anxious Systems”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
David, so appreciate your thoughts on both the strengths and weaknesses of Friedman’s work. I too thought about your first question and was reminded of Soong-Chan Rah’s The Next Evangelicalism. He makes the distinction between the benefits of individuation and the downfall of American hyper-individualism. I feel that tension deeply as someone who has experienced the pain that stems from lack of individuation growing up in the Chinese heritage church as well as the hurt that comes from American hyper-individualism. I’m hopeful even in you voicing this question that together we can navigate the tensions of being a differentiated and a caring/servant leader.
Hey Caleb,
Rah’s Next Evangelicalism is a critical work to keep Friedman’s stance on individualism in tension. I am so curious what a health self-differentiation looks like that doesn’t elevate white, Western culture over other non-Western. Or even what this kind of leadership looks like within a more collectivistic, non-Western context. I am grateful for our time in South Africa where we learned from brilliant non-Western leaders, like Pastor Zonde. How awesome would it be if you and I sat down with him to learn what he would have to say? But alas, I’m not yet ready to fly all the way to South Africa yet!
David,
I thought your post was very well written and aptly integrated into your work of discipling young people. The statement of “making disciples for Jesus and also unmaking malignant cells” was poignant.
I too pondered the relationship of Friedman’s theory to “ubuntu” and thought it deviated significantly.
My question is are we giving space to the Holy Spirit in terms of ridding us of the “malignant cells”?
Thank you Audrey. That’s a great question. I wonder what it would look like to hold the tension of having compassion on those who act as malignant cells within a system, and yet not allow them to exacerbate the anxiety in the system. I guess this requires a reliance on the Holy Spirit for wisdom in how to love them well.