Introduction

The congregation was preparing to vote on what I considered a “no-brainer” at their annual meeting. I have since coined the phrase, “A Fool’s Agenda.” A Fool’s Agenda is when there is nothing controversial or major to be addressed at a meeting, but someone at the meeting will make a fool of themselves by creating an issue where there isn’t one.

 

The congregation meeting I just mentioned had a Fool’s Agenda. And, true to form, a member of the congregation was foolish.

 

The item to be voted on was the purchase and installation of a computer network in the church offices. The previous network was over 10 years old and affecting efficiency. The new network would increase staff efficiency, and the company who prepared the proposal was offering a substantial discount on the network and installation.

Yet, at the meeting, a member stood up to speak against the purchase of the new network. No matter how his concerns were addressed by the leaders, he would continue to speak against the motion to purchase the network. Once I got beyond my initial irritation at his behavior, the logical part of my brain kicked in. I asked myself, “Why is he so vehemently against this project?” Then it dawned on me. He was the person who helped design, purchase, and install the network we were replacing. His unstated, and maybe even unconscious issue was that he believed the decision to get a new network was a public criticism of his work 10 years prior.

 

At that point, I asked the Congregation President for a moment to speak. I shared with the congregation that we should take a moment to acknowledge how well the previous network had served us, and for longer than anticipated. I also personally thanked the vocal adversary for his fine work in getting a network that served us so well. Suddenly, a huge smile came over his face. He sat down, said no more, and voted for the new network.

 

Part of Leadership in a Polarized Time is to be able to make sense of the moment—to identify what is going on and driving the anger.

 

Before we spend more time on this topic, let’s review the causes of outrage as outlined by Karthik Ramanna in his book, “The Age of Outrage: How to Lead in a Polarized World.”

 

Overview
There are 3 root causes of outrage, and in a time of outrage, all 3 are at work simultaneously. 

 

We live in an age of outrage. This is a statement from professor and author Karthik Ramanna. In the cover summary of his book, The Age of Outrage: How to Lead in a Polarized World, it reads, “People are angry with the world—in some cases, rightfully so—and now view companies as they do governments, as targets of their wrath and potential forces for social change. Managing outrage has moved from being an occasional leadership challenge…to a necessary and critical leadership capability, like strategic thinking or finance acumen.”¹

 

While Ramanna’s book is written for those in business leadership, the situation in which we as the church find ourselves is the same. Being able to address outrage is no longer an occasional leadership need. It is now a capacity that is required of all in leadership.

 

So, what causes this outrage? For Ramanna, “Outrage can stem from multiple causes”—all of which are rooted in human fears.

1. Fear of the Future: A decision affects a particular stakeholder’s economic and social prospects—perhaps depriving them of a future they had taken for granted.
2. Fear that World Leaders Can’t Be Trusted: An historical grievance that makes the stakeholder suspicious of the decision-maker’s motives.
3. Fear of the Other. A perception that the decision-maker is in some sense removed or alien to the stakeholder in terms of values and interests, siding with some other inimical stakeholder group.²

 

While there has been reason for outrage in the past, usually based on one of the above causes, we are at a moment when all three causes of outrage are at play simultaneously.

 

In addition, the concerns “are being collectively amplified through modern communication technologies, which enable people with shared ideas and goals to form information bubbles and reinforce each other’s fears, grievances, and identities.”³

 

In my last blog, I wrote about “Turning Down the Temperature.” To do so is knowing how outrage is triggered and knowing the time, place, and practices that address the triggers.

 

This blog will focus on how a leader can make sense of the moment–how a leader identifies what is driving the outrage.

 

The 3 Fears and the Resulting Authority Figure
Just as a drowning person grabs for a life-preserver, a fear filled person will grab whatever they think will address the fear.

 

A quick review from the previous section. “Outrage can stem from multiple causes”—all of which are rooted in human fears. Those fears are:

• Fear of the Future and being deprived of something a person wants in the future;
• Fear of Past Injustices that leads a person to be suspicious of the motives of others;
• Fear of the Other and that other people are a threat to what a person needs and wants.⁴

 

First, it is important to be able to identify which of the fears is driving the outrage that is being experienced. Most likely all three fears will be at play, but one of the fears might have more intensity than the others.

 

Second, it is important to identify how people quell those fears. In a moment of panic and in long held fears, people grab and hold onto what they think will save them. (Much like the drowning person mentioned earlier.) What we think will save us and make things right are what I call sources of authority. 

 

An authority is that which defines what is right and wrong, ugly or beautiful, strong or weak and gives the person hope that it will save them in their dilemma by setting the situation right.

 

Our nation, over the last century, has seen a shift of authority. This shift has moved from Religion to Government to Science and Social Science and the capacity to diagnose to the marketplace to what I call Groups of People with Commonly Held Assumptions.

 

In each shift of authority, the perceived value and integrity of others changes—either increasing their value or diminishing their value. Those who align with the authority are given much more credibility than those who don’t. Those who do not align with the authority must either be controlled and brought back into line, ousted from the group to lessen their impact, or destroyed if still perceived as a threat.

 

I want you to take note of the shifts in authority. Each one was a broad umbrella under which every person can fit and function. Most people can align themselves with the values of that authority. That changes with the shift to Groups of People with Commonly Held Assumptions. Suddenly, there becomes an insider and outsider component and a battle to force one’s values onto others.

 

I developed the concept of Groups of People with Commonly Held Assumptions around 2010. Now, I would nuance the concept further. I would say the current authority for people are Virtual Groups of People with Commonly Held Assumptions. 

 

For me, to make sense of a moment of outrage is to identify which fear is driving the outrage and also to identify virtual group from which that outrage is being addressed.

 

The Impact of Virtual Groups of People with Commonly Held Assumptions
When people are physically present with one another, they are required to find common ground—not so much with virtual groups.

 

Karthik Ramanna describes the impact of a shift from being physically present with one another to being virtually present. He writes, “The bottom line is that the technology of social media enables the rapid formation of social groups. Many of these groups are benign and even helpful, but they can just as easily be the opposite. When social grouping required a physical presence, it was harder for toxic groups to form as people could not keep their identities concealed and travel to and from meetings. In order to socialize, they needed to make connections with others they might not agree with and find common ground. In online forums, they can remain incognito and check in from anywhere which means that they can find and mix with people who closely mirror and reinforce their existing opinions, no matter how offensive. And people leave (or are shut out of) social media groups rather than negotiate across and live with disagreement.

 

The result of this dynamic is that people with toxic views can join, grow, and lead groups to take ever more extreme social and political positions for little or no reputational risk, while the algorithms of the social media companies bias the information flows ever further. This is a recipe for outraged conflict.”⁵

 

How Do I Make Sense of the Moment
Making sense of the moment involves laying a groundwork and developing a language to describe what is happening.

 

• Lay the Groundwork: Typically, when one thinks about addressing outrage, one thinks of reactions and responses. I want to propose there is also a proactive component to addressing outrage. The Proactive Component is: It is easier to address conflict and outrage if one already has a functional relationship with a person or groups prior to the moment of outrage. This functional relationship means having shared experiences, joys, and stories already in place. This established rapport gives a foundation for difficult and heated conversations and arguments where people honor each other.
• Strive to Diminish Your Own Reactivity: The best way to address outrage and conflict is to work on oneself. Remember, in every difficult situation, you can make the situation better or you can make it worse. So, how do you develop in yourself the capacity to make the situation better? Develop a prayer life as a spiritual discipline. Nurturing your soul in that way grounds your thoughts in a beautiful relationship with God. Along with prayer, be intentional about alone time. Alone time includes time away from all social media. Your mind will be clearer if it is not flooded with messages 24/7. Having lifted up the importance of prayer, I want to mention an African proverb. It is “When you pray, move your feet.” This means that prayer without anticipation of acting in some way can be a means of procrastination and/or avoidance of the outrage.⁶
• Learn from the Other Person: The capacity to listen and learn from another is greater when the groundwork of a relationship has been established. Ask people to share their experiences.
• Learn to Recognize the Fears and Authorities: It is important to learn to recognize the fears behind what a person is ssying. Be willing to acknowledge that perceptions is reality for people. You may agree or even see the outrage in something, but it may be quite real for that person.
• Have the Courage to Ask Questions:  To ask questions is to find out what angers them, frustrates them, or scares them. Show compassion for those emotions, because they are real feelings for that person. Showing compassion is not conceding agreement. Telling a person that they shouldn’t feel a certain way is like telling the heart to stop beating. Have the courage to ask the person what they need and want. This may include asking, “How can I be helpful?”
• Be topic/event specific: It is easier to address a particular issue that brings fear and anger than address generalized fear and anxiety. Connected with this is Kidlin’s Law. Kidlin’s Law states, if you write a problem down clearly and specifically, you have solved half of it. Too many times, we try to solve problems when we don’t even know what the problem is. It is sort of like trying to figure out why your refrigerator light won’t work and not considering that there is a power failure in your neighborhood.
• Recognize when Engagement Isn’t Possible: One of the traps into which I fall is this, “If I only say something one more time in a clearer way, the person will understand what I mean.” I hope you can see the hubris in this. Sadly, but realistically, there are moments when continued engagement with a person with have deleterious effects on you and others. At that time, it may be necessary to cease any further engagement.

 

Conclusion
Knowing what is causing the problem does not mean the problem is solved.

 

There once was a man who had a bed wetting problem. He decided to see a counselor about the problem. Shortly after an appointment with his counselor, the man shared with his best friend, “Good news! I know why I keep wetting the bed.”

 

“That’s wonderful,” said his friend. “So, you don’t wet the bed anymore?”

 

The man said, “Oh, I still wet the bed, but at least I know why I do.”

 

So far, we have addressed how to lower the pressure in moments of outrage and how to make sense of the moment and identify the roots of the outrage. But that doesn’t actually address the outrage. Next month, we will look at addressing the outrage. Next months blog is titled, “Leadership in a Polarized Time: Scoping a Response and Moving from Decreasing the Pressure and Understanding the Motivation of the Outrage to Formulating a Response.”

---

Endnotes:

¹ Ramanna, Karthik, The Age of Outrage: How to Lead in a Polarized World, Cover.
² Ibid., 5.
³ Ibid., 6.
⁴ Ibid., 5.
⁵ Ibid., 26.
⁶ The importance of prayer, the African proverb, the need for alone time, and the concern for procrastination are discussed in a podcast by Eric Hoke. The podcast is entitled Your Best with Eric Hoke, Episode 2, March 20, 2025, “Prayer as Procrastination.”