Edwin Friedman Meets my Mom: A Failure of Nerve
I remember my mom often saying to my siblings and me, especially when we were teenagers, “the only thing you can control is your attitude.” By this, she meant that sometimes circumstances or events occur that we have no control over; we only have the power to shape how we respond to them—our attitude. As a teenager, I recall being very annoyed when she’d mention this. The delightful irony is that now I hear myself saying this to my own teenagers. I’m sure they really appreciate hearing it from me, now, too. Yes, “the past is present in the present.”[1]
As I delved into Edwin Friedman’s posthumous text, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, I was struck repeatedly with images of my mom standing next to him, reiterating his words. Rather than being held captive by chaos, circumstances, or sabotage, we as leaders are responsible solely for our selves, as Friedman introduces: we must be able to shift “our orientation to the way we think about relationships, from one that focuses on techniques that motivate others to one that focuses on the leader’s own presence and being.”[2] For us as individuals, it must be about us. How do I focus on “[my] own integrity and on the nature of [my] own presence rather than through techniques for manipulating or motivating others”?[3]
But like that teen-age self who never just did an attitude 180, but rather tended to stew in my own grumpiness even longer once I knew my mother was right—like that teenage me, knowing that I have the capability—nay, the responsibility—to grow into a self-differentiated leader, seems spot on… and convicting. It became easy, as I read Friedman’s text, to look at current and past organizations and relationships I’ve been a part of, and think, “hmmm… does this organization/family/relationship fit what Friedman would consider being held hostage to terrorism or reactionary?” Is there a sense no one is in charge? Are the leaders constricted by a weakness? Is there an unreasonable faith in “being reasonable”? [4] I began spiraling into discouragement as I mentally checked those boxes.
What reeled me back in was the challenge placed on me. According to how I understand Friedman, I can’t cajole or coerce a particular organization or relationship to change, but I can look at my self as an individual and how I can grow and change. I can work on defining my self better, being responsible for my own emotional self and how I communicate emotionally with others.
There are many aspects of Friedman’s text that I continue to wrestle with and look forward to discussing more. For instance:
- In a Christian mindset of kenosis, how do we understand self as an individual that is not self-centered or egocentric?
- In a consensus modeled community, how do we “reorient one’s understanding of togetherness and self so that they are made continuous rather than polarized”?[5]
- How is it that Friedman believes togetherness is more of a natural tendency than individualization, especially in our individualistic, self-centered (“treat your self!”) context? I don’t deny he’s probably right; I’m just not sure how to make that distinction.
- I appreciate that he wrote specifically for the American context; I’m curious how his thesis would translate into other contexts (Turkana, say; and the concept of Ubuntu in South Africa: “I am because we are”).
Again, I share those as concepts I am still mulling over. What I appreciate about Friedman’s thesis is that he recognizes we all have space to grow in self-differentiation; we’re always in process. Therefore, I will continue to challenge my self to take responsibility for own my emotional well-being; to take risks, be willing to go first, and be decisive; and to allow my self to be playfully emotional and not always cerebral. If I can focus on the things I can change, then leadership and the shaping of my relationships will happen on their own.
[1] Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Church Publishing, 2007), 167. Side note—I loved his image of the collapsing telescope, the “cylinder of time.” This reminds me of Madeline L’Engle saying, ““If we limit ourselves to the possible and provable…, we render ourselves incapable of change and growth, and that is something that should never end. If we limit ourselves to the age that we are, and forget all the ages that we have been, we diminish our truth.” Madeline L’Engle, The Rock that is Higher (Colorado Springs: Waterbook Press, 2002), 99.
[2] Ibid., 4.
[3] Ibid., 13.
[4] Ibid. 9-10.
[5] Ibid., 25.
About the Author
Katy Drage Lines
In God’s good Kingdom, some minister like trees, long-standing, rooted in a community. They embody words of Wendell Berry, “stay years if you would know the genius of the place.” Others, however, are called to go. Katy is one of those pilgrims. A global nomad, Katy grew up as a fifth generation Colorado native, attended college & seminary and was ordained in Tennessee, married a guy from Pennsylvania, ministered for ten years in Kenya, worked as a children’s pastor in a small church in Kentucky, and served college students in a university library in Orange County, California. She recently moved to the heart of America, Indianapolis, and has joined the Englewood Christian Church community, serving with them as Pastor of Spiritual Formation. She & her husband Kip, have two delightful boys, a college junior and high school junior.10 responses to “Edwin Friedman Meets my Mom: A Failure of Nerve”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“I’m curious how his thesis would translate into other contexts”
I had that some thought. I have been studying honor-shame cultures that have a collectivist orientation. I wondered if A FAILURE OF NERVE would be alien in most Asian contexts.
It might seem that leadership is difficult in contexts which place a high value on “fitting in.” Ironically, I had a conversation with a South Korean seminary student last week. The churches in South Korea are very hierarchal. While most church members do not want to stand out, the pastor is placed on a high pedestal. The pastor’s instructions are generally followed without question.
“In a consensus modeled community, how do we “reorient one’s understanding of togetherness and self so that they are made continuous rather than polarized”?”
This relates to the individualization/collective argument. Why do we have to have a consensus model at all?
I guess my Irish rebel self doesn’t like hearing that I should be “made continuous” or made anything. Your list offers great points to reflect on.
Katy yes I think I heard my mother also in those words! 🙂 “If I can focus on the things I can change, then leadership and the shaping of my relationships will happen on their own.” This is so true and yet so challenging as a leader. On one hand to shift towards ourselves feels awkward at times but it is necessary for true leadership development to occur. Also, I think that for many leaders we have been taught to focus on making other better. So the pressure to improve and inspire the lives of others causes us to dive in to deeply into their lives. In doing so, we do not differentiate enough to be the decision maker and leader that they need.
Katy I was drawn to the phrase “I can’t cajole or coerce a particular organization or relationship to change, but I can look at my self as an individual and how I can grow and change.” One of the greatest comment I heard through Joyce Meyers was- She was praying to God to change her husband’s attitude and some of his ways. But she learned that she had to pray to God to change how she responded to his attitude. There was a change in her first!
Katy, I too appreciate Friedman’s “nerve” 🙂 to say that as leaders we must start with ourselves, not with learning new skills but by being emotional adults. How many leaders do we all know that are in positions of leadership and yet they remain children emotionally. They have developed and honed their professional leadership skills to a high level but not their emotional side. As I read Friedman, I sense that it is more than just emotional intelligence, it is a decided 360 look at ourselves, allowing the Holy Spirit and others to speak into our lives. Great post Katy!
You raise so many good points, Katy, especially about how to maintain Christian kenosis while working toward self-differentiation. Even though Friedman doesn’t bring him into the picture, the prof I had when I first read this book reminded us to look to Jesus as an example of a self-differentiated leader. I started reading the gospels with that in mind and was blown away by the truth of it. It seems almost too tidy, doesn’t it?
Yes, I imagine Jesus would probably be a good place to begin, though we shouldn’t forget that by pouring himself out, Jesus ended up giving up his very life for the toxic people around him. Perhaps what allowed him to maintain self-differentiation was that he was never held hostage by others, but willingly chose when and how to give up himself.
First, I love the story about your mom – love it!
Second, you asked: ‘In a Christian mindset of kenosis, how do we understand self as an individual that is not self-centered or egocentric?
I think this was the part I wrestled with the most in Friedman. Self differentiated quickly and easily morphs into self-centered. And while it is the proper response in the event of an airplane emergency to put the oxygen mask on you first and then help others – The Christ-like pattern calls for us to put others first.
It at least feels like a point of tension. I think, though if we consider that all we do is a response to God’s first action towards us – could the focus on self differentiation be about beginning with with a position of openness towards God and God’s Holy Spirit?
Thanks for that wise perspective, Chip. Self-differentiation being a posture of openness to God’s Holy Spirit. That’s something I can resonate with, and can literally be reminded of with her icon on my arm. Thanks. 🙂
Wise words Katy-“If I can focus on the things I can change, then leadership and the shaping of my relationships will happen on their own.” Easier said than done. It is so much easier to complain and focus on others than to be vulnerable and focused of the areas I need growth in. It is an empowering feeling when one can step into this instead of falling victim to the actions of others. How do you suggest others do this?