{"id":30564,"date":"2023-01-27T22:10:17","date_gmt":"2023-01-28T06:10:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/?p=30564"},"modified":"2023-01-27T22:10:17","modified_gmt":"2023-01-28T06:10:17","slug":"courageous-leaders-striving-to-see-what-we-do-not-know-we-do-not-see","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/courageous-leaders-striving-to-see-what-we-do-not-know-we-do-not-see\/","title":{"rendered":"Courageous Leaders: Striving to See What We Do Not Know We Do Not See"},"content":{"rendered":"

Edwin Friedman, in his book, A Failure of Nerve, Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, <\/em>offers groundbreaking and challenging insights into successful leadership. In my first reading of Friedman\u2019s book, I was struck by his emphasis on the importance of leaders to show up with a strong sense of self, an ability to make clear decisions, and a calm, steady presence.[1]<\/a> The key for Friedman lies in shifting our focus from leadership techniques to an emphasis on \u201ca leader\u2019s own presence and being.\u201d[2]<\/a> He adds, \u201cClearly defined, non-anxious leadership promotes healthy differentiation.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

Insights Upon a Second Reading<\/strong><\/p>\n

Upon reading Friedman\u2019s book a second time, I was struck by this quote, which Freidman refers to as the thesis of his work: \u201cLeadership in America is stuck in the rut of trying harder and harder without obtaining significantly new results.\u201d[4]<\/a> This rut runs deep, he goes on to say, and affects all institutions in our society, even affecting the very institutions that try to tackle the problem.[5]<\/a> This idea is based on four decades of observation in which he \u201cwatched families and institutions recycle their problems for several generations, despite enormous efforts to be innovative.\u201d[6]<\/a> In his opinion, our \u201cleadership rut\u201d has both conceptual and emotional dimensions that go undetected by most Americans. He describes the conceptual dimension as the inadequacy of \u201cthe social science construction of reality.\u201d[7]<\/strong><\/a><\/em> The emotional dimension he defines as the \u201cchronic anxiety that currently ricochets from sea to shining sea,” our deep-seated human instincts, and our desire to be both separate from and connected to each other.[8]<\/a> These root sources are intertwined and difficult to see. They continue to feed repetitive destructive cycles in which we are trapped, unaware of the forces at work in each of us, vying for togetherness and individuation.<\/p>\n

I struggled to fully comprehend what Friedman meant by the \u201cconceptual and emotional dimensions\u201d which keep us entrenched in this unsuccessful leadership rut. After a night of sleep and mulling this idea over during a brisk walk, I think this is what Friedman is saying: We continue to operate with an incomplete understanding of ourselves and an unawareness of the influence culture has on our worldview; and until we can see more clearly, we will be stuck, operating less efficiently than our potential might allow. Our potential comes in defining ourselves as individuals. As we define the boundaries that separate ourselves from others, people around us are encouraged to do the same, and the result is a healthy, functioning, connected organization or family system. Therefore, the way out of the leadership rut that Friedman describes, is for leaders to focus on defining themselves and settle into their own presence and being, as opposed to continually trying to motivate and mold the people around them.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Attempting to Simplify a Complex Concept<\/strong><\/p>\n

To understand this idea further, I will apply it to one small quadrant of my nonprofit work: the pursuit of government grants for program funding. This morning, I gave a presentation to a Washington County panel as part of a competitive grants process. My nonprofit organization is hoping to receive a three-year grant through the county to fund our work toward reducing youth homelessness. Seven organizations were competing for three funding spots. Seven directors showed up to give three-minute presentations and expand upon previously submitted written applications. I know the other directors and we have entered into this routine over the past five years, seeking funding for our organizations.<\/p>\n

I find this relationship between our local government granting bodies and our local nonprofit programs to be an example of a leadership activity, repeated year after year, that makes little progress toward our goal of reducing youth homelessness and offers little opportunity for evaluation that could lead toward stronger outcomes. The current system creates competition between community partners, demands arduous reporting, focuses on statistics over individuals, and frames our funding resources through a lens of scarcity, causing anxiety and despair. This in turn motivates us to adapt to funding formulas that we perceive will preserve ourselves and our organizations. As nonprofit leaders, why do we continue to enter into this relationship? We enter into this relationship, because we need the funding to pay our staff. Private sources alone have not yet reached a sustainable level for us. How, as community leaders, might we disengage ourselves from this cycle?\u00a0 Self-differentiation? What would that look like?<\/p>\n

I am always pondering how we might create life-giving fundee-funder relationships. This morning, as I drove to my presentation, I had Friedman\u2019s ideas front and center in my mind. What might I add to my short presentation that could offer steps forward in creating a new way of thinking about this funding routine?\u00a0 Would I be willing to deviate a bit from the traditional presentation formula? I was reminded of Nicole Bianchi\u2019s words: \u201cYou can do the basics of leadership, but being the best leader requires bravery.[10]<\/a> Eve Poole\u2019s words regarding my leadersmithing skill for the week, Gravitas, came to mind: \u201cIn general, wise people seem to say less, so what they do say seems more valuable, and the result of deep thought.\u201d[11]<\/a>Asking for some ideas from God, here are several strategies I incorporated into my presentation this morning:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Break competitiveness between programs and spotlight my partners\u2019 good work.<\/li>\n
  2. Translate client numbers into individual human beings, each of whom deserves dignity and love.<\/li>\n
  3. Stress the need for the broad continuum of partner services in our county.<\/li>\n
  4. Highlight our shared goal among local nonprofits to promote the wellbeing of youth instead of promoting our programs.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    These additions to my outline were extremely small steps outside the traditional model for competitive grant proposals and a small effort to set boundaries around my own values. I am hoping that small steps forward still offer a bit of progress.<\/p>\n

    In Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

    At the moment, we as grantees and grantors are making the mistake of passing funding within the same parameters of disfunction, despite the new trends in social work and the innovative methods we propose. And, this is just one small reflection of the larger, complex societal challenge in which we attempt to \u201cfix\u201d our brokenness without getting to the root of the problem. We are stuck and still missing a key piece of the puzzle. What is that key?<\/p>\n

    I am reminded of Einstein\u2019s quote: \u201cWe cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.\u201d[12]<\/a> How do we develop new systems of thinking?\u00a0 It is so very hard to see what we do not know we do not see. Is it possible that in our attempt to fix the brokenness of our societies ourselves, we have actually created systems in which we become further stuck? We are caught in a snare of our own making and seemingly unable to free ourselves. Thanks be to God for providing a way out of the ruts that keep us stuck and unable to work up to our potential.[13]<\/a> I am hopeful that with God\u2019s guidance and the growth of courageous leaders willing to stand firm in their values and pursue new ways of operating together, we can improve our societal systems and imagine and design healthier communities for all.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    [1]<\/a> Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix <\/em>(New York, NY: Church Publishing, 2017), 14.<\/p>\n

    [2]<\/a> Friedman, 4.<\/p>\n

    [3]<\/a> Friedman, 215.<\/p>\n

    [4]<\/a> Friedman, 3.<\/p>\n

    [5]<\/a> Friedman, 3.<\/p>\n

    [6]<\/a> Friedman, 5.<\/p>\n

    [7]<\/a> Friedman, 3.<\/p>\n

    [8]<\/a> Friedman, 4.<\/p>\n

    [9]<\/a> Friedman, 4.<\/p>\n

    [10]<\/a> Nicole Bianchi, Small Brave Moves: Learn Why Little Acts of Bravery are the Key to Life-Changing Leadership (New Degree Press, 2022), 14.<\/em><\/p>\n

    [11]<\/a> Eve Poole, Leadersmithing, Revealing the Trade Secrets of Leadership<\/em>, (New York, NY: Bloomsbury Business, 2017), 115.<\/p>\n

    [12]<\/a> Albert Einstein, in \u201cWe Cannot Solve Our Problems With The Same Thinking We Used When We Created Them,\u201d by David Mielach, Business News Daily, April 19, 2012, <\/em>https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/we-cant-solve-problems-by-using-the-same-kind-of-thinking-we-used-when-we-created-them-2012-4.<\/p>\n

    [13]<\/a> \u201cFor he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler.\u201d Psalm 91:3a.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Edwin Friedman, in his book, A Failure of Nerve, Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, offers groundbreaking and challenging insights into successful leadership. In my first reading of Friedman\u2019s book, I was struck by his emphasis on the importance of leaders to show up with a strong sense of self, an ability to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":157,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[236],"class_list":["post-30564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-friedman","cohort-dlgp01"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/157"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30564"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30564\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30565,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30564\/revisions\/30565"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}