When “Self” Has to Come First
Edwin Friedman’s theories about family systems changed my life. In my MDiv program we read Generation to Generation in one class, followed by Failure of Nerve a year later. These two books opened my eyes and gave me the courage to make some very important changes in my life, including where I lived, how I interacted with my family of origin, and what role the church would play in my life. So to say that I looked forward to reading Failure of Nerve again for my DMin program is a bit of an understatement. It really was like returning to the home of an old friend.
The first thing I noticed this time around was how neatly some of Friedman’s ideas dovetail with those from Jim Collins’ book, Good to Great. I’m not sure why I didn’t notice it before, but Failure of Nerve immediately reminded me of the opening line from Good to Great: “Good is the enemy of great.”[1] Throughout Friedman’s book, he is telling leaders that there is a not-so-hidden key to pushing oneself into greatness. That key is self-differentiation. Rather than focusing on the weaknesses and toxins in an organization (or family), a great leader focuses on herself, molding and shaping herself into a non-anxious presence that does not react to environmental or internal crises, but “takes responsibility for his or her own emotional being and destiny.”[2] So how do Friedman’s ideas about self-differentiation work with Collins’ insistence that “Level 5” leaders’ “ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves?”[3] Is self-differentiation a form of selfishness that puts self above the organization? I think the answer is both yes and no. According to Friedman, a self-differentiated leader manages to remain non-anxious and somewhat separate from the organization while also remaining connected. At first, this feels to me like Friedman is promoting self over organization. But reading further, it becomes clear that Friedman’s insistence on self-differentiation as key actually means that a leader develops her or himself first so that she/he can provide the vision and leadership an organization needs. As Friedman notes, “What is essential are stamina, resolve, remaining connected, the capacity for self-regulation of reactivity, and having horizons beyond what one can actually see.”[4] It’s Friedman’s contention that a leader’s self-differentiation influences the organization far beyond what any method or management tool can do. This makes sense to me. A leader who is tossed about by the storms and crises of an organization cannot be fully dedicated to the vision of the organization.
For some reason, this reading of Failure of Nerve brought up more questions and frustrations when Friedman talks about empathy as an emotional barrier to leadership. When I was a very young manager, my boss always seemed to be after me to “develop more empathy” in my managerial practices. She told me that I needed to take others’ feelings into consideration when making my decisions. I suspect now that what she was asking me to do was be a bit more diplomatic, but her word was empathy. My next several bosses, however, told me that there was no room for such empathy. I was there to make changes and do things that would always make people unhappy, so I needed to develop a tougher skin. So who was right? According to Friedman, I think they were both right, but I was in no way mature enough to figure that out much less embody it. Most of my job did involve making people unhappy because of changes and decisions that I had to make. When Friedman talks about the inevitability of sabotage, I easily identify. But Friedman is not suggesting that self-differentiated leaders run roughshod over people’s feelings in order to accomplish certain goals. He is stating that responsibility takes precedence over empathy in a healthy organization. A self-differentiated leader has compassion but, ultimately, places the responsibility of the mission and every person’s part in that mission at the top of the decision-making process. I think my favorite quote of the book is this: “For ‘tough decision’ are decisions the consequence of which will be painful to others (although not harmful to others – an important distinction).”[5] It is inevitable that some decisions will cause pain, but it is a leader’s responsibility to always mitigate or eliminate harm.
This re-reading of Friedman comes at a time when it is particularly helpful for me to remember how important it is for me as a leader, a parent, and even as a student, to continue to develop my own self-differentiation and non-anxious presence. There are times when I forget to look to the horizon and remember there is something greater ahead of me than the current crises or impending struggles. Centering myself on who I am in Christ, being “anxious for nothing,” and not allowing myself to become reactive to those who may wish to sabotage or, at the very least, promote a bit of mischief in my well-being, is crucial not only to me, but to the “generations” I influence.
[1]. Jim Collins, Good to Great, (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 1.
[2]. Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, (New York: Church Publishing, 1999, 2007, 2017), 215.
[5]. Friedman, 146.
About the Author
Kristin Hamilton
12 responses to “When “Self” Has to Come First”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The synthesizing of Friedman with Collins is really perceptive, Kristin.
Like you though I had the most “reflective” time given to the concept of empathy. It’s a tough one. I am a “2” on the enneagram so you can probably guess. I’ll never forget the first time someone suggested to me that my “care” was really “co-dependency” and “enablement”. Well, I don’t know much about psychology and I was really hurt but it made me start to think.
Friedman’s book took me back there and I hope I am better at finding the balance now.
I love your stories!
Thanks Mary. One of the things I learned when looking at my own family of origin is that many of the things I thought were empathy or mercy, were simply enabling and facilitating toxic behaviors. It sure hurts to realize that.
Thanks Kristen for the connection to the book Good to Great.
When we reread a text we may see something there that we did not see before. Reading familiar scripture, if you study it word by word, you are bound to see a new revelation. It depends on the season you are in.
“A self-differentiated leader has compassion but, ultimately, places the responsibility of the mission and every person’s part in that mission at the top of the decision-making process.” Kristin I agree. Having to make a tough decision or any decision for that matter is not absent of compassion. The focus on the goal can also lead to rallying the team together and interrupting the anxiety that can exist within an organization structure.
Also, I do agree that not one leadership “method” is better than the other. It truly depends on the maturity of your organization and you as a leader.
Kristen, you make a good point here: “Friedman is not suggesting that self-differentiated leaders run roughshod over people’s feelings to accomplish certain goals.” Like many, I’ve had my fill of brutal leaders. On the other hand, I don’t care for leaders who change depending on the direction of the wind is blowing. Both are running roughshod over people but in different ways. It’s that balance of compassion and the ability to make difficult decisions that make a good leader. Great post!
Thanks Jim. I neither want to be a brutal leader, nor do I want to be one who spends time cleaning up messes because I have over-empathized and under-differentiated. I surely is a tough balance.
In my Social Work studies, we were taught that “empathy” was a essential skill in counseling. Although we were to avoid transferring our own feelings on our clients, we were taught to to use empathy to connect with clients in order to help them make positive changes.
When Friedman attacked “empathy,” he was confronting a sacred cow of the counseling world.
So true, Stu. I think the important thing is that Friedman emphasizes personal responsibility over empathy instead of vice versa. He isn’t telling us to toss out empathy or compassion but to remember that empathy doesn’t bring about change, it’s just a too to start the conversation.
Kristen,
a great post (why didn’t I just wait and read this instead of the whole book? :))
You said: ‘Friedman’s contention that a leader’s self-differentiation influences the organization far beyond what any method or management tool can do.’
I think this is right on, but I also think we can sometime focus too much on the ‘self differentiation’ part and miss that it won’t matter at all if the self differentiated leader doesn’t stay connected to the organization. These two things have to go together for the leader to be effective.
Thanks again!
Ha thanks Chip. You are so right, the balance is absolutely key.
Kristin, I liked your part on empathy and the irony and the mixed messages you experienced at work. It reminded me of a theory I have. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have often thought people with a strong gift of mercy do not always make the best leaders. They are difficult to follow because they seem to be distracted if not consumed with the pains of others, and become easily off-course to the vision and empowering the followers. Does this fit with your experiences?
This totally fits with my experience, Jen, especially in church leadership! There is almost nothing harder than working with a leader who has gotten themselves so twisted around how certain people might feel or who might get angry that they can’t make a decision and stand firm with it.