Hindsight for Tomorrow Series
It's Still the Journey
by Steven S. Ivy, Ph.D
Twenty years ago I was intensely interested in the processes by which persons made sense of their life experiences. Thus, my studies in counseling, supervision, psychology of religion, and Christian philosophy had an organizing curiosity (I know this today; I doubt I articulated it then). That organizing curiosity remains with me. But that curiosity was actually a servant to my organizing identity. I began graduate school with a clear sense of call that has found fruition in a variety of settings. My call was to be a "teaching minister." My perennial curiosity has been, "How do persons make sense out of life?" while my organizing identity has been "I am a teaching minister." My natural rhythm has been "to learn is to teach and to teach is to learn."
I want to use the invitation from Dr. Thornton to compose some thoughts about my "hindsight" to reflect on my continuing learning and to articulate how I have made sense out of a rather tumultuous year. What sense have I made out of my own life experiences and my vocational identity during a major transitional period?
Background
The title of my dissertation was both overly concrete and totally descriptive of my subject: "The Structural-Developmental Theories of James Fowler and Robert Kegan as Resources for Pastoral Assessment." Kegan and Fowler had been junior colleagues at Harvard where they were deeply steeped in constructive-developmental perspectives of Jean Piaget (cognitive development) and Lawrence Kohlberg (moral development) and the psycho-social developmental perspective of Erik Erikson. The core conviction of both these theories is that persons (and groups) develop stances (called "stages") which are coherent and developmental. Both Fowler and Kegan had therapeutic aims, although Fowler's interest ran to the therapy of the church and Kegan to the therapy of the counseling relationship. Both were intensely interested in understanding how persons constructed meaning and purpose in life. Fowler named this construction process "faith" while Kegan called it "spirit." Fowler was deeply informed by his life and convictions as a Methodist. Kegan was deeply informed by his life and convictions as a Jew.
Out of my practices as a supervisor, therapist, and baptist I sought a very pragmatic engagement with these theories. My engagement culminated in the "pastoral assessment" portion of the dissertation. My interest was describing a model of assessment that attended to the "forms of consciousness" of the parishioner. Both my dissertation and early published writings were somewhat too direct in stating my conclusions (undoubtedly related to my own "form of consciousness"!) but apparently I reached a small but appreciative audience. What is clear to me now that was not clear fifteen years ago is that spirituality would develop into a national passion (check out best seller lists!) and that spiritual assessment would become a hot professional topic among clergy, counselors, physicians, and nurses. Of course, one of the ongoing issues within the spirituality movement is how to relate faith, spirit, and Spirit to each other.
I have been very fortunate in that my work has engaged my dissertation in several ways. My central interests have been hospital chaplaincy and Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) supervision. But increasing administrative responsibilities brought issues of meaning-making to personnel supervision and departmental and organizational leadership. For several years I also offered pastoral counseling which provided another twist on how consciousness was expressed by individuals and couples. I have also provided graduate classes in four theological schools which either indirectly or directly provided opportunities to present and develop ways that consciousness was impeded or flowered under a variety of conditions. But a career move, which began in late 1999, has offered a totally new perspective. Most of my perspective is cloudy and personal at this time. But perhaps that will make it more interesting.
A New Career
In late 1999 I faced a personal Y2K crisis. Part of the crisis was work-related — after 15 years of chaplaincy administration and CPE supervision I was finding little challenge in what my job called for. Part was family-related — our elder was graduating from college and younger from high school — we were facing the apparent empty nest adjustment. Part of the crisis was personal — I was restless; my cognitive, affective, and experiential modes were all in some kind of turmoil. Into that mix came a totally unexpected phone call, "Might you be interested in a challenging and unique responsibility?" asked the executive recruiter. In March 2000 I found myself with a new, wonderful title — Vice President for Values, Ethics, Social Responsibility, and Pastoral Services — in a complex, academic, faith-based healthcare system. When asked what that title actually meant, I frequently joked that it meant that I was the chief priest, head prophet, and supreme guru for the system. That joke has turned out to be more accurate than I had any reason to anticipate. Once again my work is to both teach and learn the ways of faith and spirit.
An almost immediate result of my geographic change was to realize that I had accepted more vocational change than I had anticipated. Moving from middle to senior management makes a huge difference in perspective, attention, and activity. I have been pleased to find that my centering curiosity and centering identity have not changed. But I have been surprised at some of the evolution that has occurred in both. Shifting from supervising and managing a middle-size CPE program to sponsoring programs in spirit, spirituality, values integration, and ethics for 10,000 employees changed my world dramatically. Much of this work is developing on-going programs that help create a culture that is values-based and ethically aware. I hope to aid in birthing attentiveness to the holy, and perhaps the Holy. In this way I function as "chief priest."
I experienced two inner results. One, I discovered the truth of the old saw, "It's lonely at the top." There is a kind of insulation and isolation for those in senior positions that I had imagined but never directly experienced. No matter how much I made myself available to my department directors and to pastoral services staff, I could not be one of them. As I got to know my management peers (both in this system as well as the few in similar positions elsewhere) my own experience was re-affirmed. Now I knew why my occasional forays into senior executive offices had been so welcomed. (Helpful hint to chaplains: be sure that you make yourself available to and are trustworthy for your senior executives. They will appreciate the attention greatly!)
The second inner experience was a freedom. Senior management has freedom to focus, plan, and re-direct resources. Of course I knew that. But it is a totally different experience to do it. Much of that experience was described by Stephen Covey as moving from spending my day on things which were urgent but not important (and occasionally urgent and important) to activities which are important, but not urgent. I have found it much easier to control my own priorities and set my own agenda. I recognize part of this results from the unique circumstances of my position and system — not all senior leaders find this to be true, even those with similar portfolios. I have also experienced great freedom in re-directing and developing resources. Foundational commitments were made during the formation of this system to ensuring both quantity and quality of pastoral services and ethics resources. The quantity was assured by specifying chaplaincy and pastoral counseling (email about this) FTE. Quality was "assured" by setting high goals and by establishing an endowment for "Religious and Spiritual Integration in Healthcare." The endowment is not intended for support of core programs but for creative and new directions. Although I do not control this fund, I do have significant voice both in its grants (it is really fun to give away money!) and in its fund raising (it is really fun to listen to life stories of people who have made significant amounts of money and want to invest in important work).
Influence?
The worldview of senior management includes an appreciation for power and influence. Yet, these are certainly not unqualified. One key area of influence is in the selection of middle-management leadership and priorities. The selection of leadership at this level is a very different process than selecting staff or students. The qualities, skills, and hopes of these leaders are crucial to the life of the organization. While selecting an ineffective chaplain may have consequences until that person can be helped to move on, an ineffective department director can have consequences for years. They may even create the destruction of the program.
Responsibility for creating priorities and holding persons accountable to these priorities also takes on a different tone. I am now much more concerned with alignment with institutional priorities as well as creating awareness of "best practices" (or the current buzzword, "pre-eminent practices"). The effective use of this influence results in functioning as "head prophet."
But the blocks to influence are also very real. Even though I sit at the same table with the 15 senior persons in the system, my resources are miniscule in measurable terms. Not all are convinced that values integration and ethics programs are really crucial to the life of the system. Demonstrating results that can be perceived by the CFO is seldom possible. But beyond these personal dynamics is the fact that we are all slaves to the system. A healthcare system of over 1,000 beds and $1.4 billion budget has a life of its own. That life is homeostatic and thus very difficult to shift. Because of this senior leadership must live with greater risk than I had previously understood. It is one thing to have the freedom to shift resources. It is another to be held accountable for results even though all know the profound difficulty of turning a ship at full speed.
Another systemic block I have discovered is the dynamic of institutional loyalty. Institutional loyalty is very curious these days. For some, there is absolutely no institutional loyalty. Their loyalty is to their own self-defined identity and what they perceive as best for their career. These people are often wonderfully creative and productive employees, but they have very limited interest in the well-being of the institution. At the other end of the spectrum are those who are intensely loyal to the institution, as they perceive it. Frequently these are long-term employees who have an image of the institution that might fit reality of 20 years ago, but bears little resemblance to today's world. In our situation this is made even more critical since we are blending two systems with quite different histories and cultures. I have found few who somewhat clearly perceive this particular healthcare system, its place in the larger cauldron of caring for the sick and supporting the well, and find their own place of mission and identity in it.
Change
A unifying factor during this year of transition has been my emerging confidence that the knowledge and tools I utilized as a teacher of small groups are continuing to be effective in a system. My teaching ministry identity is morphing into a systems formation ministry. But the Spirit of transformation is just as much present, maybe more so, when the work-life of a large number of people who do important, spiritually sensitive work is at stake. My personal sense of call has not changed, but the way it is expressed is tremendously different. This is my ministry as supreme guru.
Another unifying factor during my transition has been the reaffirmation that relationships are what matter most. I have become even more convinced that the relational quality which we bring to work (school, office, wherever) is the single most important element in satisfaction. Similarly, the quality of relationship nurtured by a work-system (with employees, customers, patients, whoever) is its single most important determinant of success. The communities in which we invest energy, time, hopes, and self are crucial to our on-going well-being and development. While I am located differently in this particularly work community than others in which I have lived, the constant is "how are we living together." What is different for me is that I have some responsibility and a bit of capacity to change the system so that relational qualities are enhanced.
Am I still curious about the patterns by which persons make sense of life? Absolutely. I continue to find both Fowler and Kegan helpful. Do I still experience myself as a teaching minister? Absolutely. But now I am doing more teaching by shaping the system than by engaging individuals. My call and vision have continued. But the place from which I live them is dramatically different. And such difference of place in the system makes a huge difference! Priest, prophet, guru? Yes, I am all and no, I am none. But I am much more comfortable now with the inadequacy of the map and the excitement of the unknown for this journey.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
