In 1955 Peter Seger wrote and sang:<\/p>\n
Where have all the flowers gone?<\/p>\n
Long time passing\u2026<\/p>\n
Oh, When will you ever learn?<\/p>\n
Oh, When will you ever learn?[1]<\/a><\/p>\n In the totality of his song, Seger lamented the enduring reality of war and suffering across our globe, in every age of humankind.\u00a0 \u201cWhen will you ever learn?\u201d is a question of yearning, the long-held hope for peace that yet remains unfulfilled. In reading Friedman\u2019s, A Failure of Nerve<\/em>, I could hear echoes of Seger\u2019s lyrics running through my head with a slight revision:<\/p>\n Where have all the leaders gone?<\/p>\n Long time passing\u2026<\/p>\n Oh, When will you ever learn?<\/p>\n Oh, When will you ever learn?<\/p>\n Friedman also lived and died with a long-held hope for something that yet remains unfilled\u2014enough well-differentiated leaders to inoculate contemporary American culture against the toxic, reactive, and chronic anxiety that overwhelms society, institutions of all types, and families across the nation. In a thorough introduction, eight densely written chapters, and a not fully developed epilogue, Friedman develops his argument for why it is a leader\u2019s differentiated being and presence that will most effectively bring about transformational change and health in all of the emotional (instinctual) processes of the relationship systems in which that leader is a part\u2014family, work, and society. Along the way he also writes an incisive analysis of what has gone wrong in American society and elucidates the challenging work of becoming a well-differentiated leader. It is not a journey for the faint of heart.<\/p>\n (As an aside, I do wonder how his analysis and historical references might be received by non-European heritage societies…especially those societies and peoples who have literally borne the burden and paid the price of my European forebears’ spirit of adventure to move past the edge of their known world. I get the point he is making about the spirit of adventure–and its current lack in American leadership, but there is also a cost to adventure that seems wise for effective leaders to keep in mind, costs that have multi-generational and negative systemic impact, even as it has the potential of bringing good.)<\/p>\n I found myself arguing most with Friedman over his initial analysis of empathy. He writes, \u201cA leader must separate his or her own emotional being from that of his or her followers while still remaining connected.\u201d[2]<\/a> I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. I have lived through the pain of enmeshment and I have witnessed the carnage it brings to both the leader\u2019s family and the institution being led by that leader. I\u2019ve been working on self-differentiation for most of my adult life, a journey that will continue for the rest of my life.<\/p>\n But then in Chapter Four, he begins to unpack the ways in which empathy disempowers personal responsibility, thus contributing to toxic, reactive, chronic anxiety. Herein lies my confusion and thus the heart of my argument with Friedman. I experience empathy to be central to remaining connected in situations where I\u2019m faced with enduring the storm of an individual\u2019s or group\u2019s chronic anxiety. It is empathy that allows me to see their pain and humanity and yet remain non-anxious (or at least less anxious) in the storm. The journey of differentiation thus far has taught me that I don\u2019t need to take on their anxiety (become enmeshed). It has taught me that I can\u2019t solve their anxiety\u2014that work belongs to either the individual or the group, i.e., it is their responsibility and choice.\u00a0 But empathy gives me the capacity to stay connected without becoming exhausted. It may be the limitations of an inspectional reading that leaves this argument unresolved. Perhaps a deeper dive into the book will help me to better understand Friedman\u2019s definition of empathy.\u00a0 Perhaps what he is getting at is the danger of enmeshment or something similar. If that is the case, then I am able to agree with him over how enmeshment or a parallel definition of empathy can disempower personal responsibility.<\/p>\n Friedman\u2019s initial analysis of empathy also raises questions for me about the role of compassion and proximity in leadership.\u00a0 Both of these leadership practices featured prominently in the Advance presentations and discussions. Both compassion and proximity also hold tremendous theological freight. In Scripture I see the compassion of Jesus Christ through a multitude of his actions. I see proximity in his assurance that he will be with us through the Holy Spirit until the end of this age. Jesus\u2019 posture of differentiated compassion and commitment to being proximate speak to staying connected. This is the very tension articulated by Friedman\u2014a leader is most effective when differentiated but remaining connected. But what animates connection? This is where I believe compassion and empathy, very closely related capacities, can play an important and healthy role. I\u2019m motivated to more deeply read Friedman\u2019s work. My curiosity about this apparent tension won\u2019t let me rest until I do.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Pete Seeger \u2013 Where Have All the Flowers Gone?<\/em> n.d. Accessed October 7, 2021. https:\/\/genius.com\/Pete-seeger-where-have-all-the-flowers-gone-lyrics<\/a>.<\/p>\n