[00:00:34.170]
Welcome to episode 194 of The No-Anxious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama. Today we're going to get right into our episode. It comes from an article that I read from Dr. Kathleen Smith, who was on the faculty of the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family at Georgetown University. I subscribe to her writings through substant. That's about the only way you can get her current writings right now. I'll put a link to that in the show notes. You may not think of clumping us as a family systems theory term, but Smith uses the term clumpiness because Murray Bone once said that people tend to grip themselves into emotional clumps and that the communication between them actually goes from clump to clump more often than from individual to individual. When Smith uses the term clumpiness, she is referring to a certain kind of togetherness. It is using the group to help avoid the kind of self-definition that makes one feel vulnerable. It's often characterized by using the term we instead of I because there is safety in numbers. In fact, Bowen noted that clumpiness doesn't require emotional courage. As you likely know, one of the components of selfdifferentiation is self-definition.

[00:01:58.950]
This is knowing who you are, what you believe, and where you believe God is leading you. It's important to take the time to reflect on these things so you are clear about them. But that's only half of self defining. The other half is being able to express your goals and values and beliefs in healthy ways with other people. What clumpiness does is it enables us to avoid speaking for ourselves. Dr. Smith gives a number of examples that I find helpful, the first of which is sending a letter or an email, which you sign from the whole group. Whether that be your family, a committee or work team, or even a congregation or organization. You sign it from the whole group instead of signing it for yourself. It's obvious that in this case, you are speaking for the entire group. But the reverse of this, the clumpy part of this, is that you're letting them speak for you instead of self defining. You're hiding behind the group. I know sometimes I have a tendency to do this even when the group is not involved. For example, I'll send an email to my kids and sign it mom and dad.

[00:03:06.040]
Now, if mom and I have discussed what we're going to say, that's fine. But if we haven't, then it's better for me to just sign it dad. That way they know I'm speaking for myself and myself only. That takes emotional courage. Another sign of clumpiness is when you have a group of people and you lose contact with them because there are two people in the group who no longer get along. This is a form of emotional distancing that can lead to cut off because you are uncomfortable with the relationship of two other people. This is not necessarily clumping, but it is an indication that we lack emotional courage. It's a sign that we are not self-differentiated enough to let two people have their own relationship, even if it is rocky. Another form of clumpiness is the reluctance to spend time with your parents without having your spouse or kids there. This is a sign that you are unable to self-differentiate with your parents and need family members to distract some of the attention and focus. Being alone with your parents forces you to speak for yourself, or at least it makes it more likely and can feel uncomfortable if you're not used to self-defining with them.

[00:04:19.650]
A similar form of clumpiness is when you are unable to be with extended family by yourself but need to bring another family member or more along. The dynamic is the same here. Another example is when a friend group only gets together when all or most can be there. My daughter and her husband have a friend group that includes three other couples. But they don't just get together when all eight can be there. Sometimes it's just two couples or three. Sometimes it's one or two or more of the women, or sometimes a few of the men. The point here is that when we can't get together with other people unless everybody is there, it's a classic form surrounding togetherness. Pressure. Pressure. It's a sign that there are people in the group, possibly us, that might feel left out if we can't be there. It's not a healthy sign if you can't allow other people to gather without you. It begs the question why am I not comfortable enough with myself that I can't let other people be themselves as well? Dr. Smith notes another form of clumpiness, which is when both parents have to be on the phone when you call.

[00:05:29.850]
She doesn't say whether it is because you want your parents there or because they both need to be there, but either way, it is a sign of clumpiness. It's an indication that it's too uncomfortable to deal one on one, which is what Bowen says requires emotional courage. And remember, Bowen said that the triangle is the most stable form of relationship because people are not self differentiated enough to deal with each other one on one without being dependent, reactive, adaptive or some other form of dysfunctional. Another example is evident when we are afraid to connect with others outside of group meetings. Whether these are work colleagues, family members or congregants, we find safety in being together in the group because it's easier to avoid being vulnerable. Remember that self-differentiation requires both self-definition and emotional connection. The latter has less to do with doing this in a group, which is very easy and more to do with connecting with people one on one. Clumpiness is also evident when you only provide life updates on social media. Again, instead of being vulnerable with people in real life, you can rely on the one way communication that comes where you can control the message without having to engage in vulnerable emotional connection.

[00:06:54.030]
A form of clumping that is antithetical to family systems theory is when people need the whole family to participate in therapy instead of just going individually. This is classic we instead of eye behavior and it's a way to avoid taking responsibility for self. Finally, Smith notes that when we only talk about the group, whether that's our family of origin, a work system, a congregation or a friend group, when meeting with someone else, then we are clumping ourselves to the group. Again, this is avoiding self-definition, which feels safer because we focus on the group instead of defining ourselves as an individual. That's a pretty extensive list of examples of clumpiness. The question is what happens when we are unable to cultivate important person to person relationships? Smith notes that when we don't develop emotional courage through one on one relationships in which we are able to be vulnerable, we are more likely to give in to the demands of the group. This is how surrounding together and this pressure works. When we don't invest the time and energy into self definition with true emotional connection, we will lack the emotional courage to stand up to surrounding togetherness pressure.

[00:08:17.990]
In a similar vein, when we rely on clumpiness instead of cultivating one on one relationships, we become more susceptible to adopting the values, beliefs and behaviors of the group to keep everyone happy. This is adapting to those around us into the pressure to conform because we don't have the emotional courage. Smith also notes that when we lack emotional courage, that is, when we lack the ability to self differentiate, we are going to be more reactive to and or jealous of others in the group when they are close. This is a form of dependency because we can't feel good about ourselves when other people feel close. In reality, if we are self differentiated, then their relationship has nothing to do with our own relationship with each of the individuals. Finally, when we lack emotional courage, we are more likely to distance or cut off from the group. When the tension increases again, when other people are in conflict, that is their challenge, their responsibility. If we find ourselves uncomfortable with that, we need to look at ourselves as a reminder that we can't change their relationship. In fact, the best thing we can do for the group is to remain connected as a nonanxious presence.

[00:09:37.690]
Distancing or cutting off may help us feel better, but it's not going to help the group that takes emotional courage. Smith offers three questions that you can ask yourself to help you focus more on developing emotional courage. I'm going to read these verbatim where is the room for some emotional courage and how I relate to others? Where can I declump my interactions into individual efforts? How can I define myself to others and let them do the same to me? These questions are helpful because they focus on holding the tension between self-definition and emotional connection. It focuses on being able to self define while staying connected not just to the group, but to individuals, and how to define yourself while also letting others define themselves. The important thing to remember here is that if this is not an either or, just like self, definition and emotional connection needs to be held in balance. So do one on one relationships and groups. When we are intentional about cultivating healthy one on one relationships, it will increase our emotional courage. And when we are able to express ourselves with one other person, we will be better able to do it in a healthy way in groups as well.

[00:11:00.970]
Doing this will make you less susceptible to the togetherness pressure that comes from groups enable you to be more yourself in those groups and as Smith calls it, have more breathing space and flexibility within the group. More importantly, it will help you to be yourself both in one on one situations and in group situations that will help you to be a nonanxious leader. That's it for episode 194. You can connect with me at thenonanxiousleader.com. If you found this helpful, would you share this episode with one other person? And if you'd like to contact me, email me at jack@christian-leaders.com. Until next time, thanks and goodbye.