Edwin Friedman, in Generation to Generation, writes about family therapy. Family therapy is a way of thinking about personal difficulties that can be compared with other forms of psychotherapy. Family therapy is distinct in that it

de-emphasizes the notion that our conflicts and anxieties are due primarily to the makeup of our personalities, and suggests, instead, that our individual problems have more to do with our relational networks, the makeup of others' personalities, where we stand within the relational systems, and how we function within that position. (13)

Friedman discusses family therapy as it applies to members of the clergy and their particular family situations. He defines the families within which clergypeople operate as their own families, their congregational family, and the families within their congregation. Family systems thinking can be extended from clergypeople and their families to business people and their families: their own family, their work family, and the families of the people they work with. In this paper, I will explain family systems theory as it applies to business situations. I will then apply family systems thinking to leadership in the workplace.

What is family systems thinking and how does is apply to business?

Following are two of the key elements to understanding family systems thinking, emotional triangles and a systems perspective. Of course, these represent only a small portion of the ideas involved in family systems therapy. These are two of the ideas, however, which I view as most crucial to understanding how family systems relate to management and managerial leadership.

One of the key elements to understanding family systems is emotional triangles. Any three persons or issues may form an emotional triangle. The basic premise of an emotional triangle is that "when any two parts of a system become uncomfortable with one another, they will 'triangle in' or focus upon a third person, or issue, as a way of stabilizing their own relationship with one another" (35). A typical business triangle might involve a superior and two of his subordinates. Another example of a business triangle might be a superior, one of his subordinates, and a corporate goal. In trying to force the employee to accept a goal, the superior is effectively creating a triangle.

Several laws explain the workings of emotional triangles. First, the third person in a triangle typically provides stability for the relationship between the other two. In the above example, the superior is stabilizing the relationship between his employee and the goal. Second, the third person in a triangle cannot directly change the relationship between the other two people. One can only change a relationship he is a part of. (This is crucial for effective leaders to understand.) In the above example, the superior will not be able to directly harmonize the relationship between his employee and his goal. The only relationships he has the power to change are between himself and his goal, and between himself and the employee. Third, attempts by a third party to change the relationship between the other two are not only ineffective, but, due to the inertial forces against change, such attempts often produce the opposite of the effect intended. In the example, direct attempts by the superior to harmonize the employee - goal relationship will be met by resistance, and may actually result in further distance between the two. Fourth, as the third party tries to change the relationship of the other two, the third party will likely take on the stress of the other two. As the superior tries to help the employee embrace the goal and meets with resistance, he will personally take on the stress between the employee and the goal. Fifth, various triangles in a family system interlock. As such, the inertial forces of not only the triangle at hand, but also the other triangles of the system work against change. Other relationships in the office will hinder change in the superior - employee - goal triangle. The person involved in the most triangles in a given family is the most vulnerable, and potentially the most stressed. However, understanding the laws of emotional triangles can give the person in that key position the most power.

Traditionally, behavior has been thought of in a cause and effect sense, where a particular event (or events) precipitates a given response from a person. The second key element to understanding family systems thinking lies in viewing individuals as a part of a dynamic group of people. The structure of the group, rather than the individuals themselves, is the unit of study. For example, the relationship between two coworkers is not seen as independent from their relationships with other employees, or even from their home relationships. A problem with a given employee is seen as only a symptom of a broader problem within the relational structure of the office.

Inducing change within a family system is undoubtedly difficult. According to family systems thinking, problems should not be addressed by identifying the problematic person and firing him (scapegoating). Rather, the problem should be resolved through an adjustment of the family system. Such an adjustment is accomplished by an adjustment in oneself. A manager, for example, is hard-pressed to change a system by trying to change the others in the system. He can, however, change his own interactions within the system, thereby meddling with the inertia of the system and addressing the problem. This manner of administering change within a system, which Friedman calls "leadership through self-differentiation," is the basis for leadership according to family systems theory.

How does all this relate to managerial leadership?

Family systems thinking promotes leadership based on maintaining a "nonanxious presence" within a family system. Systems thinking provides three basic steps which a manager must take to be an effective leader. The first is to take responsibility for her position as the head of the system. The second is self-differentiation, the definition her own goals and self. Power comes not from trying to triangle someone else, but from being able to resist someone else's attempt to triangle you. For example, the undifferentiated leader tries to triangle her employees with herself and her goals. As a result, the employee is in the position of power, because she can resist the triangling. The self-differentiated leader does not try to triangle employees. In response to the leader's self-differentiation, the employees try to triangle their leader with them and their own status quo. The leader then can resist triangling. The third step to effective leadership is for the leader is to stay connected with the rest of the system. If the leader accomplishes the third step, staying in touch, she will not alienate the system members.

The difficulty arises in accomplishing the last two steps simultaneously. Self-differentiation must not exclude connectedness. If the head of the system clearly defines the direction she is going and maintains closeness with the members of the system, those members will follow her direction.

Leadership based on family systems thinking is contrasted with other, more traditional, models of leadership. For example, leaders are often thought of on a charisma - consensus scale. On the one end of the scale, the leader is charismatic, naturally drawing people to herself and her ideas. The leader stands apart from the group. On the other end of the scale, the leader's concern is with building consensus. Although decisions are not reached efficiently in terms of time, the group as a whole believes in the decisions reached. The consensus leader can become almost indistinguishable from the group members. Most leaders fall somewhere between the two extremes.

An office led by a charismatic leader is often too dependent on the leader. The leader herself is the motivating force behind the goals, and if the leader leaves, the guidance for the whole office is lost. The charismatic leader can be over stressed by the high demand put on her, since the motivation of her subordinates depends on her alone. Charismatic leadership works well in a crisis, but tends to produce division during normal operations. In contrast, an office led by consensus tends to produce a fused group with less imagination and more propensity for panic. The consensus approach depends on group cohesion, which can easily become group fusion. A fused group loses the identity of the individual members, and therefore their creativity and individual ideas.

An office led by a leader who defines herself not on the charismatic - consensus continuum but on a systematic approach to the office family can avoid the pitfalls of both charismatic and consensus leadership. The family systems leader defines herself not as totally separate from the group, as in charismatic leadership, nor as primarily a group member, as in consensus leadership. The family systems leader defines herself as an integral part of the system, but recognizes her position of leadership (based on position, not on personality). Because the leader is self-differentiated, she does not become over stressed, nor does the group become fused. The group maintains connectedness, which is obviously important for meeting goals together. At the same time, the group members maintain individuality to foster creativeness and minimize triangling. Friedman sums up the basic idea of leadership through self-differentiation as follows:

If a leader will take primary responsibility for his or her own position as "head" and work to define his or her own goals and self, while staying in touch with the rest of the organism, there is a more than reasonable chance that the body will follow. There may be initial resistance but, if the leader can stay in touch with the resisters, the body will usually go along. (229)

Concluding note

The ideas of leadership presented here only touch on the ideas included in family systems theory. In this space, I could not hope to do justice to the leadership implications of family systems theory. I hope only to present a new idea and promote further consideration of it. The ideas presented by Friedman in his book intrigue me, and I believe that his approach to leadership is at once effective and healthy. I also believe that it can be applied to a wide variety of family systems: those in the workplace, the home, the church or synagogue, and community organizations. It is limited, however, to situations where the people themselves are important to the organization.