I received a cryptic e-mail from a friend recently. She’s less than a year into a new church staff position. In her e-mail she asked the question, “Can you stop sabotage?” She didn’t go into details, but obviously, something’s going on (for one thing, it looks like the honeymoon period’s over!). I think it’s just as well that she didn’t get into specifics. Overfocusing on particulars of personalities, culture, and context runs the risk of moving too quickly into “strategy” (or, a my son likes to put it, “strategery”) and overlooking emotional process dynamics.
Sabotage is a common reactive phenomenon we should always expect. The form it takes, however, is often surprising. Sabotage is reactivity over a threat to homeostasis. Anytime leaders work toward change, of whatever kind, they can expect reactivity.
Author Paul Boers says this about sabotage:
While sabotage may feel off-putting and distancing, the behavior actually is intended to bring us back into a togetherness mode: the separation of differentiation is too uncomfortable for the system. Leaders must not be surprised, hurt, or offended by this reaction. Leaders are called to responsibility and growth, and this role can be lonely. Leadership includes the willingness to be misunderstood. Our differentiation is not assured until we can respond to sabotage in a healthy way without retribution, rigidity or dogmatism, cut-off, or withdrawal. (Arthur Paul Boers, Never Call Them Jerks. Alban, 1999).
So, in answer to my friend’s question, no, you can’t “stop” sabotage–it’s a basic form of reactivity. But, I think there are several ways leaders can deal with sabotage:
- Confront it
- Expose it
- Challenge it
- Identify it and name it for what it is
- Sabotage the saboteurs
- Embrace it and use it to your advantage
- Go around it
- Move ahead in spite of it
- Wait it out
- If it’s weak and a nuisance you can probably ignore it.
I don’t this it’s much worth the effort to ascribe motive to saboteurs. As I say, “Never question people’s motives.” This is especially true when people are acting out of reactivity, which is non-thinking posture. Additionally, ascribing motive runs the risk that your response will be more about you than the other. Ascribing motive to others when we ourselves are reactive is a form of mindreading, and likely a form of projection. It’s more helpful to work on observing function and dealing with the emotional process.
For example, when we experience sabotage, and can name it for what it is, we are more capable of thinking, “Ah, this functioning is reactivity related to a challenge to the homeostasis. Someone is feeling threatened by change. I don’t have to take this personally. How can I respond to this person or group in a way that addresses their anxiety while holding them responsible for how they function?”
I suspect there are two kinds of saboteurs. First, the un-intentional, unthinking persons who are caught up in anxiety and reactivity. They may merely need someone to help regulate their anxiety through staying connected, giving them perspective, or merely giving them an opportunity to share their concerns. The second type, however, is the deliberate, willful saboteurs. It think those need to be handled differently, and it’s worth not confusing the one for the other.
