True and False
Edwin Friedman writes in A Failure of Nerve : Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix , “The notion that an entity can modify surrounding relationships through its presence rather than its forcefulness, moreover, is not unknown to science. Catalysts function that way, for example.”[i]
Friedman emphasizes leading by presence, by virtue of who one is as a leader, in hopes of catalyzing change, growth and health within an organization. This idea is a variation on the theme of character development that seems to crop up in our discussions week after week. However, Friedman comes at this concept in a few unique ways that had me doing double-takes and reorienting my thinking (and occasionally arguing with him out loud as I was reading, if I’m perfectly honest.)
Friedman warns against three pitfalls in leadership, which to me were completely counter-intuitive at first glance. In drawing a parallel to 15th century explorers, he calls these pitfalls the “equators” of modern society that “keep our thinking processes stuck and preserve “old world” views, thus limiting our horizons and range.”[ii]
The first pitfall that Friedman warns against is being exclusively oriented toward “know-how” or data. He explains this point eloquently by saying, “As long as leaders— parents, healers, managers— base their confidence on how much data they have acquired, they are doomed to feeling inadequate, forever.”[iii] I see his point and I resonate, but I also have concerns. I think the root of my unease can be explained by the book’s originally being published in 1999. Since that era the proverbial pendulum has swung so far in the other direction. In recent years we’ve seen such a disregard for data, facts, and truth. Do leaders and organizations in the current climate really need to be told to de-emphasize the facts?
Friedman’s second fallacy also had me slamming on the breaks. He posits that empathy has been overemphasized. He argues, “Societal regression has too often perverted the use of empathy into a disguise for anxiety, a rationalization for the failure to define a position, and a power tool in the hands of the “sensitive.” It has generally been my experience that in any community or family discussion, those who are the first to introduce concern for empathy feel powerless, and are trying to use the togetherness force of a regressed society to get those whom they perceive to have power to adapt to them. I have consistently found the introduction of the subject of “empathy” into family, institutional, and community meetings to be reflective of, as well as an effort to induce, a failure of nerve among its leadership.”[iv] It seems like Friedman is throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Any system, any virtue, any blessing can be perverted. If we follow his train of thought, we shouldn’t care for the poor because a few might take advantage. Neither should we welcome the stranger because he might do us harm. If we follow this logic, we might even conclude that we should stop up our ears when the marginalized or the abused share their stories. After all, they might be doing it to manipulate us. These are dangerous postures for those of us who follow Christ. First of all, they are rooted in fear and completely opposed to the biblical mandate to love our neighbors, as Catherine McNeil has written about in book Fearing Bravely: Risking Love for our Neighbors, Strangers and Enemies.[v] Secondly, contrary to what Friedman assumes, making “the effort to understand another” and “the endeavor to make one’s own self clear”[vi] are far from mutually exclusive. This reminds me of the excellent (though far from new) work of Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend on boundaries. Cloud and Townsend guide parents to make boundaries clear and make communication safe while responding with empathy and firmness at the same time.[vii] The leader who can accomplish this has not suffered a failure of nerve.
The third fallacy that Friedman identifies is “a tension between individuality and togetherness.”[viii] He says, “For life to continue to evolve, all newly developed forms of togetherness ultimately must be in the service of a more enriched individuality, and not the other way around.”[ix] While I wouldn’t completely contradict this idea, it does bring to mind a question. On the last day of our South Africa advance, Dr. Zondi addressed our group and something he said has stuck with me. He shared a concept that is foundational to South African culture and leadership – Ubuntu. He explained it as the idea that I exist because of someone else; I exist for someone else. I’m wondering how he would respond to the concept of differentiation. Is there an “Ubuntu” way to view differentiation? What would differentiation look like in different cultures, particularly those that are more collective-oriented?
I agree with Friedman that we need to surmount some significant hurdles in our collective leadership. I’m simply wondering if the challenges he has identified could be explored with a more multi-cultural perspective and if his thinking could be re-conceived for our current moment in history.
_________________
[i] Friedman, Edwin H.. A Failure of Nerve : Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (10th Anniversary, Revised Edition), Church Publishing Incorporated, 2017.* ProQuest Ebook Central*, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/georgefox/detail.action?docID=6793400. 176.
[ii] Ibid. 83-84.
[iii] Ibid. 82.
[iv] Ibid. 107.
[v] McNeil, Catherine. Fearing Bravely: Risking Love for our Neighbors, Strangers and Enemies. NavPress, 2022. 7.
[vi] Friedman, Edwin H.. A Failure of Nerve : Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (10th Anniversary, Revised Edition), Church Publishing Incorporated, 2017.* ProQuest Ebook Central*, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/georgefox/detail.action?docID=6793400. 107.
[vii] Cloud, Henry, John Sims Townsend, and Lisa Guest. Boundaries with Kids: How Healthy Choices Grow Healthy Children. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. 194-197.
[viii] Friedman, Edwin H.. A Failure of Nerve : Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (10th Anniversary, Revised Edition), Church Publishing Incorporated, 2017.* ProQuest Ebook Central*, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/georgefox/detail.action?docID=6793400. 128.
[ix] Ibid. 132.
About the Author
Kim Sanford
13 responses to “True and False”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Any system, any virtue, any blessing can be perverted.” Amen.
I, like you, saw truths in what Friedman was saying but I felt there were too many universal statements to give it a wholehearted acceptance. However, I was not able to find a way to articulate it as well as you.
Do you think that if we restate his claims with a focus on Christ’s empowerment, we may get closer to a model that is more acceptable? For example, taking:
“Societal regression has too often perverted the use of empathy into a disguise for anxiety, a rationalization for the failure to define a position, and a power tool in the hands of the ‘sensitive.'”
and restating it to:
“society has replaced true compassion with a counterfeit version that is designed to shortcut and/or manipulate rather than accompany the suffering?”
I think it could be fun to take his views and apply a more Biblical lens to find what he is really getting at. Pick it apart!
Jen, yes, I like the way you restated Friedman’s claims about empathy. Of course, the word empathy doesn’t appear in the Bible (and only appears in the English language relatively recently) but compassion is certainly a Biblical concept. I suppose empathy and compassion might not be exactly the same thing, but they are so inextricably linked that to separate them seems like splitting hairs. At least in my mind, when I aspire to grow in empathy or to react to someone with empathy I am really imagining the same thing as compassion. That was a great example, and like you said, I feel like I need to weigh and reframe every one of Freidman’s claims through the lens of following Jesus.
Hi Kim,
In my post, I wrote that when reading Friedman, that there would be moments when, one would have to “agree to disagree” (with him). It was a bit of a stretch to see the how his writings might have agreed with or at least walked along side of some of our other authors. Especially, Poole.
I would love to be a fly on the wall to see those two have a discussion on leadership.
With that being said, I enjoyed a different approach to the discussion of leadership. My family likes using the word smorgasbord. We get to pick and choose what’s laid out on the table. So too do we have authors with different approaches. Fine, I shall cherry pick to my hearts content.
I imagine Friedman was selected specifically to get under our skin. An exercise in expanding our thinking.
I am now waiting for the book that helps us understand the leadership techniques employed by Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un and Erdoğan.
Shalom…Russ
Fantastic post, Kim. I agree that some pushback is probably needed for our current moment in history. I did like much of the book — I think there is a healthy way to be a well-differentiated leader — but I too wanted to question some of the statements he had around empathy. I do think that Friedman’s ideas (you referenced it being published in 1999) could and should be run through a more 2023-friendly grid. The “non-anxious presence” discussion was probably what I resonated most with in the book. Do you think that phrase would have fit well in Cloud and Townsend’s Boundaries book?
Travis, yes, the idea of being a non-anxious presence has many pseudonyms, doesn’t it? It’s exactly what Cloud and Townsend were describing when they were teaching parents how to set boundaries. Between my husband and I, as parents we talk about being “firm but kind” and it’s the same thing. When we talk to our kids we sometimes tell them to “take a chill pill” or “let’s not freak out” but it’s all getting at the same idea. We’re teaching our kids to be self-aware and regulate their emotions. Could this be along the lines of what the Bible calls “the peace that passes understanding” in Philippians 4:6?
The opening paragraphs of your post had me recall a common refrain that Craig Groeschel (Life Church) often says: “People would rather follow a leader that is always real, than a leader who is always right.”
That feels “non-anxious” to me. One who clammers to always be right tends to be “on edge” and as a result, followers are on edge as well.
I too observed, as I’m seeing in a number of posts and replies, that Friedman’s language feels dated and not very, can I say, P.C.? Does that make me “woke?” 🙂
Kim,
It looks like we did our homework together!
While I generally agreed with the general premise of the book (and I suspect you did as you thought about un-healthy ‘helicopter parents’ creating anxious and non-resilient children and young adults…yes? no?), I likewise took issue with Friedman choosing to define ’empathy’ by how society is using the term–that is, in an un-healthy way. Follow that logic, and it seems we should start saying ‘love’ is the problem because love is also frequently being used in the same ‘don’t put any boundaries or responsibility on me’ sort of way. It just doesn’t make sense to me, and it weakens a book that IS speaking a good word to a current culture problem.
I also mention ‘Boundaries’ in my post….and I ask in one response how we can mesh evolutionary concepts of adapting to strength with Christian values and a God who accommodates the weak in the incarnation (I’m not saying we can’t….it’s just seems very nuanced in my mind).
Lots of similar responses to Friedman…although I still generally appreciated his book. Did you?
Thanks, Scott, for reminding me that YES, there was a lot in Friedman’s book that I did actually appreciate (re-reading my post, it maybe came off more negative than I intended). I see the value of leaders (and parents!) growing in their ability to remain non-anxious in the face of, well, everything life throws at us but especially challenges to our leadership. Interesting, I can’t quite wrap my head around this as a “leadership” concept because it seems so wrapped up in the Fruits of the Spirit to me. When I think about a non-anxious presence, I think of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control in the face of life’s difficulties and, even more importantly, when dealing with difficult people in our lives. You talk about the difference between empathy as defined by society vs. empathy defined by a Christian worldview. I wonder if we could consider what a non-anxious presence looks like in secular leadership vs. as defined by a Christian worldview. It’s not that I think the definition would be different, but I think the motivation and the application would look very different.
Come on Kim! Excellent! You were firm and gracious as you expressed your thoughts in regard to empathy. God wired us to be empathetic, thus the reason He gave us oxytocin in our brains. Besides I have a friend from Nazareth that I follow who was and is still quite empathetic…and He desires us to be empathetic toward others too.
I was blessed when you mentioned Ubuntu because my ancestors are from Africa (Togo) and this phrase has been passed down to us for many centuries. It takes compassion and empathy to say to those we struggle to relate to, “We need to exist for one another. You can’t make it without me and I cannot make it without you!”
Thanks for your well written post!
Todd, I’m glad you brought us back around to Ubuntu because I’ve been thinking about it even more since writing this post. I love that it’s a philosophy that appears across numerous African people groups (I wonder what kind of variations exist?). I am increasingly convinced that there is something inherently Christ-like in Ubuntu. Philippians 2:3-4 comes to mind. “Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” I am convinced that an individualist/independence mindset is fundamentally opposed to Christ-likeness. This admittedly bold assertion is contrary to what Friedman, a counselor, said. As a counselor, Todd, how would you reconcile these concepts?
Kim, you write, “It seems like Friedman is throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Any system, any virtue, any blessing can be perverted. If we follow his train of thought, we shouldn’t care for the poor because a few might take advantage. Neither should we welcome the stranger because he might do us harm. If we follow this logic, we might even conclude that we should stop up our ears when the marginalized or the abused share their stories. After all, they might be doing it to manipulate us.” I’m just pushing back here: Is there any part of Friedman’s discussion on empathy that resonated with you as a woman now living/working in a different culture? What I am wondering is how your current life informed the lens in which you read the book.
By the way, I liked your post!
Hi Kim! Thankyou for your post.
Friedman wrote in the American context. What he found helps us to evaluate our leadership/ministry style. However, I agree with you regarding the multicultural perspective to be explored furthermore. In any other culture, such as in less modern society or in traditional society, where anxiety is still a rare phenomenon, they have their own context and have unique conditions. If this multicultural perspective is explored well, perhaps it will broaden and enrich our leadership perspective.