Immunity to Change in Progressive Faith Communities
By Rev. Tom Thresher, Ph.D.
In their 2009 masterpiece, Immunity to Change: How to Overcome
it and Unlock the Potential in Yourself and Your Organization, Robert
Kegan and Lisa Lahey bring a decade of experience to a powerful
process laid out in How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We
Work. We are adapting this process to church settings entitling it
Transformational Inquiry. In this paper I will suggest some
essential differences between how Kegan and Lahey have used the
Immunity to Change process in business, educational, and
government settings and the requirements for adaptation to
progressive faith communities.
Brief Overview of Immunity to Change
Immunity to Change takes four powerful steps (using a four column
worksheet) into an individual or a group’s invisible immunity to
change. It does this by revealing the protective commitments and
assumptions that are generally hidden from our awareness. The
process begins with a visible commitment, one that is generally
quite noble and includes behavioral aspirations. The second step is
to identify what the individual (or group) is doing or not doing to
prevent that commitment from being realized in the world. In other
words, what are the behaviors that prevent the noble aspirations
from happening? If, for example, my goal is to delegate better (1st
column: noble commitment), I may discover that I thwart this goal
by micromanaging (2nd column: doing/not doing). This is fairly
standard fare for self-improvement work.
The genius of the process begins with the next step. Rather than
resolving to change the behaviors that undermine our noble
aspirations, Kegan and Lahey invite us to consider the nature of
competing commitments that may drive our counterproductive
behavior. This 3rd step asks us first to consider the imagined
consequences of doing things differently; i.e., what if I didn’t
micromanage? What kind of fear or anxiety arises for me? I may
notice that I'm anxious about shoddy work being done under my
authority. So, my competing commitment may be that I'm
committed to not looking bad to my superiors. (I may also be
committed to delivering quality work— a noble commitment — here,
however, we are interested in the fear or anxiety that underlies the
behaviors that thwart our first column commitment).
The fourth step (4th column) flips things once more by making an
“if…then” statement: “I assume that if …….then…..” In this
example, “I assume that if I look bad to my superiors, then they will
think less of me.” We did deeper by asking, “If you look bad to your
superiors, what do you believe will happen? In our example, the
answer might be, “I assume that, if I don’t always look good to my
superiors, they will fire me.” And what will happen then? “If they
fire me my life will crumble, my family will deteriorate, and I’ll be
alone and destitute.” By its nature the Big Assumption describes a
catastrophe.
The rational mind looks at this sequence of deepening assumptions
and says “that’s ridiculous, get over it.” But we have unearthed
something very important here: a series of assumptions that may
be grounded in childhood experiences and are unexamined. As
Kegan and Lahey articulate so beautifully, these are not
assumptions we have, they are invisible, powerful assumptions that
have us.
Now we have something to work with. We have a glimpse into the
invisible meaning-making structure of our lives. Most people want
to immediately ignore their Big Assumptions and move on. But that
is just the mind doing its job of protecting us by reburying painful
revelations. The goal is to make small, incremental adjustments to
our foundational assumptions that impact the entire superstructure
of our identity. In Kegan and Lahey’s process, the incremental work
of shifting Big Assumptions happens through iterative tests that are
safe, manageable, and practical in the short term. These “safe
tests” challenge the veracity of the Big Assumptions. The tests may
neutralize the Assumptions or, more often, shape them into a more
nuanced and mature form.
This barebones description of a transformative process will, I hope,
suffice for distinguishing our work in churches from that of the
typical venues encountered by Kegan and Lahey. Our reasons for
adapting their process are important. First, my church has nearly a
ten year record of success using the Immunity to Change process.
We have watched a variety of individuals make important,
substantive changes in their lives. It has also helped strengthen our
culture of trust, mutual support and personal adventure. We want
to share this. Second, we consider Transformational Inquiry (the
Immunity to Change process) to be a spiritual practice, a modern
day equivalent of the ancient art of Inquiry. We say more about this
in the final section.
The Church Context
The church provides a substantially different context than the
business, government and educational settings where Immunity to
Change has been so successfully applied by Kegan and Lahey. Their
research emphasizes how essential a really strong first column
commitment is to the success of the change process. In business,
government and education settings there is typically have a group
of individuals working together 40+ hours per week on a common
goal. Individuals have significant personal investment in the
success of the institution and in doing their job well, if for no more
noble reason than retaining employment. This personal
engagement is ideal for motivating change.
The church is quite different. It is (primarily) a volunteer
organization with diffuse (often abstract) goals and intermittent
involvement — the opposite of the grounded motivation in other
institutions. This makes it difficult to find the kind of powerful,
noble commitment so essential in Kegan and Lahey’s work. This
difficulty rebounds on the safe testing of Big Assumptions. We find
that in the church setting, folks are generally deeply motivated to
unearth their Big Assumptions, their motivation evaporates when it
comes to iterative safe tests.
This dramatically different context leads us to some very different
strategies, with a good deal of success (and on-going
experimentation).
First, we return to a technique presented in How the Way We Talk
Can Change the Way We Work. We begin with complaints. Almost
everyone likes to complain. (We invite those who find it difficult to
complain to check what internal processes block them from seeing
their personal judgments and corresponding complaints).
Complaints create an instant aura of playfulness and vulnerability
that supports the entire process. From a spiritual orientation, it also
encourages an important shift in self perception and humility.
We have used different approaches to Transformational Inquiry
(Inquiry for short). We may go through the four columns in one
evening and focus our attention on safe tests and other means of
challenging the Big Assumption. Other times we take advantage of
the time frame offered by the church setting and spread the four
column process out over four weeks, spending a week elucidating
each column. (This also shifts the process in the direction of
spiritual practice). For example, we may form pairs of participants
for part of our first session to elicit complaints and elaborate on
them in the group as a whole. We then point out that we wouldn’t
complain if we didn’t stand for something important. Underlying
every complaint is a noble commitment. So the first week’s
homework is simply to notice judgments and complaints whenever
possible and briefly investigate the noble commitment that
motivates it.
We often use a simple guided meditation at the end of the session
to reinforce our work together. By simply inviting folks to close
their eyes, breathe and feel what it’s like to experience the noble
commitments beneath their complaints helps folks connect during
the week.
The second meeting explores what we are doing or not doing that
thwarts our noble commitment. The homework is to observe the
actions we take or don’t take that undermine our noble
commitment. The tricky part is to not fix it, in any way. Rather,
the practice is to observe and acknowledge the various actions and
inactions that counter our desired behavior. If folks actually
practice during the week (its hard work), they return both annoyed
and attentive.
We dive into competing commitments the third week. Greater
bonding in the group is grounded in the laughter of mutual
recognition. Insights may be deepened using imagery and inviting
folks to take on the physical poses of the noble and competing
assumptions. During the week they are invited to have internal
conversations between the noble commitment and the competing
commitments. Again, this is not about denying or fixing the
competing commitments, but about observing our individual
immunities to change in action. By this point folks are beginning to
understand what it means to stay in the tension of unresolved
issues long enough to be changed by them.
Our fourth week moves into Big Assumptions. We often invite a few
individuals to follow their Big Assumptions to a depth that becomes
inarticulate, just a feeling. It is a powerful recognition of how
foundational these assumptions are. This recognition is sometimes
reinforced with bodily movement (taking the physical pose of the
Big Assumption) and imagery (getting a feel or image of the Big
Assumption). During the week folks are asked to notice their Big
Assumption in action, and also to record counter examples; that is,
when their Big Assumption was not correct. We also ask folks to
begin writing a history of the Big Assumption in terms of events that
helped establish — or “proved” — the Big Assumption to be true.
These will be used later.
Working with Big Assumptions
As mentioned, church folks don’t work with each other every day
and don’t have the deeply grounded motivations provided by
business, government and educational institutions. We find we
need a menu of tools to engage folks in the on-going process of
questioning their Big Assumptions. Tweaking the Big Assumption
requires some way of challenging the Big Assumption, raising
doubts about its validity, then absorbing that doubt. It may also
involve creating a more nuanced articulation of the Big Assumption.
Here is our menu (so far):
Safe Tests
The strategy of Safe Tests follows Kegan and Lahey’s
recommendations with some modifications. A safe test is just what
it suggests, an action that challenges the veracity of a Big
Assumption, and is modest, doable and can cause minimal or no
damage. As indicated, in the church we often get strong push back
or lack of action when we ask individuals to create rigorous safe
tests of their Big Assumptions. A less demanding, though still very
effective, approach is to observe the ongoing tests that life presents
on a daily basis. If, for example, my Big Assumption is “I’m not
good enough,” I am likely confronted with evidence throughout the
day that either confirms or counters that Big Assumption. Since I
am already looking through this Big Assumption, I quite naturally
take in the evidence that confirms the Big Assumption and filter out
evidence that disaffirms it. It takes conscious attention to notice
evidence that counters our Big Assumption, and it tends to slip from
our memory very quickly. Writing down counter-evidence is
essential.
Bringing this information to the group is vital. The affirmation of
the group reinforces the plausibility of the counter-evidence; others
in the group will often cite additional evidence that counters the Big
Assumption. In this example, my community will readily recognize
instances when I have truly been good enough and can remind me
of these events. Additionally, group pressure can keep me from
denying or discounting this contrary evidence.
The Work of Byron Katie
Given the lack of daily interaction among a church community,
personal practices to turn to throughout the day is essential for
change. The Work of Byron Katie provides a deceptively simple
practice with the power to challenge Big Assumptions.
Using the history of the Big Assumption constructed in terms of
evidence for a Big Assumption we ask four questions:
1. Is it true?
2. Can you be absolutely certain it is true?
3. How do you react? How do you feel when you believe that
assumption?
4. Who would you be without that Big Assumption?
Then turn it around.
To return to our example of the Big Assumption “I am not good
enough.” One piece of evidence from childhood might be that,
when I went to play football, I chickened out when I saw the other
kids playing. My father was very disappointed. As a child, I
concluded that “I'm not good enough.” String a few of these
together and it is quite easy for a youngster to form the assumption
that “My father doesn’t love me because I'm not good enough.”
(Rationality and consistency are unimportant in Big Assumptions).
Then run through the four questions:
1. It is true that “My father doesn’t love me because I'm not good
enough?” Look inside yourself and answer honestly. The answer
may be a resounding “Yes!”
2. Can I be absolutely certain that “My father doesn’t love me
because I'm not good enough?” Well, perhaps he withdrew his
love for a moment, but quickly loved me again. Perhaps I
misperceived his look: He didn’t actually say anything. Perhaps.
Perhaps. Often, after a bit of reflection, our certainty wavers and
we may answer “no.” If the answer “yes,” persists, proceed.
3. How do you react when you believe “My father doesn’t love me
because I'm not good enough?” Allow yourself to settle inward
and experience how that feels.
4. Who would you be without the thought “My father doesn’t love
me because I'm not good enough?” Again, turn inward and do
your best to imagine not having that thought. Allow yourself to
experience that.
Now turn it around. A turn-around means to look at some opposite
versions of the thought then, give some examples to support the
turn around. One turn around: “My father does love me even
though I didn’t play football.” Evidence: We continued to do cool
stuff together; he never said he didn’t love me; shortly afterward he
didn’t seem upset. A second turn around: “My father thinks I'm
good enough to play football.” Evidence: he took me to try out in
the first place; he commends my ability; he continues to practice
with me.
Our use of Katie’s four questions does not challenge the Big
Assumption directly. Rather, it challenges the validity of the
evidence supporting it. By bringing the four questions to the
various pieces of evidence outlined in the history of the Big
Assumption the Big Assumption is weakened. Our focus in a faith
setting is to loosen the grip of the Big Assumption, hold it in the
light of awareness and notice as it begins to change of its own
accord.
The Work can be practiced very effectively in pairs in the group
setting. It requires no expertise to invite your partner to answer
each of the questions and try some turnarounds. With very little
practice folks are able help one another experience profound
insights and release.
Role Playing
Role playing is another tool we use in the ongoing effort to keep
folks engaged in challenging their Big Assumptions. This takes a
variety of forms. We have conversations between the noble and
competing commitments or between the noble commitment and a
Big Assumption. Or we can role-play our evidence for the Big
Assumption. In our example, this might take the form of someone
playing my father and telling me that he was disappointed about my
not playing football, but that not once did he stop loving me.
Transformational Inquiry and Spirituality
In the conclusion to Immunity to Change, Kegan and Lahey make a
remarkable statement:
[O]ur deepest human hunger [is] to experience the
continuing unfolding of our capacities to see more deeply
(inwardly and outwardly) and to act more effectively and with
greater range.
From the Christian perspective, this is a profound statement of
incarnational spirituality. Christianity is often oriented to the next
world, what will happen after we die. A more incarnationally
grounded Christianity focuses on living life abundantly. (“I have
come that they may have life, and that they may have it more
abundantly”, John 10:10). Abundance does not mean more stuff, it
means an “expanding capacity to see more deeply and act more
effectively.” Collectively, in Christian terms, it means to bring forth
the Kingdom of God.
From an Eastern perspective, the classic statement of Inquiry comes
from the great Indian sage Ramana Maharshi. He said “ask yourself
‘Who am I’ until you know.” In other words, investigate the “I” that
claims to see, feel and think. “Who is having this thought?” “What
knows that I am thinking this thought?” Ramana claimed that
consistent Inquiry was the direct path to enlightenment.
We Westerners are not particularly good at sitting still for hours in
meditation or focusing our attention on such a question. We prefer
action. I contend that Ramana’s process and Immunity to Change
share a common purpose that goes to the heart of spiritual practice:
Making that which is subject into object. That is, to take the
perspective through which we see —our Big Assumption — and
make it an object upon which we can reflect. Just as the question
“Who am I?” makes the assumption of my separate existence into a
question to be explored, Immunity to Change brings the
unexamined architecture of my meaning-making and personal
identity out for examination. And, just as the investigation of “Who
am I?” leads to the realization of no-self, The Work of Byron Katie
deconstructs the pillars of my identity (my Big Assumptions) and
opens me to Mystery.
An additional motivation for using Transformational Inquiry derives
from the lack of spiritual practice among progressive Christian
churches. Our natural constituents, the “spiritual but not religious”
have deserted churches, in part, because we have no serious
practice. We hope that, by introducing a contemporary spiritual
practice in churches, they will become more relevant and
simultaneously ground their social justice work in inner wisdom.
Conclusion
Churches bring three unique gifts to our contemporary society.
First, the great mythic stories that contextualize our personal
meaning-making stories emanate from Christianity. Because
churches “own” these cultural stories they have the legitimacy and
the obligation to adapt them to contemporary needs. Second,
churches are allowed into peoples’ hearts and minds and invited to
change them. Third, churches have a different time frame: enough
time to allow individuals the time it takes to make personal
changes. Because of these gifts, churches can (must?) lead the
evolution of human consciousness essential in these increasingly
complex times. The Immunity to Change process developed by
Kegan and Lahey is an important tool, particularly for progressive
churches. Progressive churches are poised to lead and sustain an
unfolding of awareness and caring essential to the challenges we
confront as a species. Transformational Inquiry gives churches a
tool to deepen their spiritual practice while enriching their efforts
for social justice.