Introduction
There is a difference between reacting and responding.

 

Sometimes, when I go to the doctor, he will take a small rubber hammer and tap my knee. The hope is that my foot will jump forward. He is testing my reflexes. 

 

The leadership concept of a knee jerk reaction comes from this body phenomena. A knee jerk reaction is an automatic reaction to a moment.

 

Knee jerk reactions can be lifesaving. Hitting the brakes of my car when the traffic stops suddenly in front of me is a knee jerk reaction that saves lives.

 

Knee jerk reactions in leadership moments may make the situation worse. For example, a parishioner yells and swears at me. A knee jerk reaction would be for me to raise my voice and swear. While that may be momentarily satisfying emotionally, long term it will make the situation worse.

 

In moments that demand leadership, I think it is important to approach difficult situations differently. The different approach I call responding. Leaders are called to respond instead of reacting. It requires emotional tempering, thinking, and processing of the situation. 

 

When leading in moments of outrage, I believe it is important to scope out a non-reactive and measured response. 

 

This blog article explores how to scope out a non-reactive and measured response in moments of outrage.

 

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

 

Ramanna states that 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

 

This blog will focus on how a leader scopes out a response after understanding the outrage and turning down the temperature of the situation.

 

The Four Buckets
Naming the need for response is important, but it is also important to understand the nature of the need.

Deacon Nick Bates, member of the Southern Ohio Synod Authentic Diversity, Inclusion, and Justice (ADIJ) Team offers a helpful way to nuance the nature of that need, once the outrage is identified. He speaks of 4 buckets and asks leaders to determine in which bucket the need can be placed. Here are the 4 buckets:

 

Propaganda
In times of outrage, emotions run high. One of the causes of those intense emotions is the use of hyperbole and extreme rhetoric by others. When assessing a situation in which people are outraged, it is important to determine if the root of the outrage is propaganda. In doing so, a response can be shaped. In this situation, identifying the root determines the response, which is most likely to be finding a way to bring calm and bring clarity. Studying the use of propaganda can help us be prepared to address this need.

 

Actions Needed
In times of outrage, the root of the outrage may be something that needs to be done. For example, a small community sees numerous accidents with serious injuries at a certain intersection. They become outraged and demand something happen. The response in that moment of outrage is to determine the cause of the problem and bring solutions to that problem. Simply showing empathy will only bring more anger.

 

Issues Named
In times of outrage, conclusions can be drawn that aren’t based on what is really happening. Both sides of an issue may draw conclusions and neither side may have drawn those conclusions logically. I remember when my custodians were fighting over cleaning bathrooms. Basically, they were both blaming the other for not doing the job well which led to complaints. One day, I asked them to meet me at the restroom, and I told them to bring their cleaning supplies to clean toilets with them. They showed up with paper towels and glass cleaner. At that moment, we determined the issue. It was simply that they did not have the proper tools to do the job. Naming the issue, when needed, brings clarity and solutions.

 

Discerning the Humanizing Component
In times of outrage, people can be dehumanized. To be dehumanized is to be the scapegoat for a problem. Once named the scapegoat, then actions can be justified that diminish the person and people like them and that violate their integrity. The extreme expression of this is to “get rid of people like them.” It is important to note, however, that advocates for those who are dehumanized can fall into the trap of dehumanizing them in a different way. Take for example those from other nations who work in our fields, vineyards, orchards, factories, and processing plants. To counter the desire to be “rid of people like them”, advocates will point out that they are important for the economy. In essence what happens is that the person is seen as capital and nothing else. As Christians believing in a God of grace and mercy, we see all human beings as having value and worth and should not have their integrity violated. They need not “produce” in any way. A moment of outrage may come from a people who have been dehumanized and violated.

 

Questions to Ask Oneself in a Moment of Outrage⁴
To discern a response, questions asked of oneself are just as important as questions asked of others.

 

In moments of outrage, it is important to determine the cause of the outrage. To do that, we may ask questions of others. To discern a response, it is recommended that we ask some questions of ourselves. Ramanna recommends asking ourselves these questions.

 

Am I responsible for the outrage?
This is one of the most difficult questions to ask ourselves, for we don’t want to consider the possibility that we have caused the problem. Although, I believe that for emotionally mature people, it’s the first question we must ask ourselves. I think that the emotionally mature response when something goes wrong is to ask ourselves what we did wrong. Then, we decide if we caused the problem. If not, we can move onto looking for other causes. There are two less emotionally mature responses: through overthinking, we blame ourselves for a problem we didn’t cause; we immediately blame someone else before even considering if we are at fault.  It is important to understand if we are responsible for the outrage, because that shapes the response and determines where the change needs to be made. And please note, it is an extremely difficult but the most faithful thing to do when we own our failings and strive to make amends.

 

Will my inaction make the situation worse?
Remember, bad situations cannot always be avoided, but good leaders make bad situations better instead of worse. That is why we ask ourselves; will my action or inaction make the situation worse? I think it is easier to ask ourselves whether our actions will improve the situation. Rarely do we ask, if I stand by and do nothing, will the situation get worse? This is why asking ourselves this question is important. And a rule of thumb, if you are the only person available to help, you are more likely to help than if there any many people available. For, when there are many people available, everyone assumes someone else will act in the moment.

 

Is acting to alleviate the outrage my responsibility?
I have been heard to say, “Chaos is taking responsibility for something for which I will not be held accountable.” One of the questions we ask ourselves in moments of outrage is whether it is our responsibility to act. One of the ways to answer the question of responsibility is to ask oneself, “Will I be held accountable for acting or not acting, or the way I engaged?” If we will be held accountable for acting or not acting, then it is our responsibility to act.

 

Do I want it to be my responsibility?
If you have discerned that you will not be held accountable for acting or not acting, there is a follow up question. The question is, “Do I want it to be my responsibility?” If you answer the question with “yes,” then you must determine to whom you should go to get authority to act? Remember, we are talking about a response not a reaction. Reaction occurs and is necessary in an emergency. But we are talking about a response to outrage. This means that we have time to determine to whom we should go for authority.  In the workplace, this may mean you go to your supervisor. I guarantee, if you insert yourself into a moment of outrage without having any authority to ask, your presence may be resented, and the situation may escalate. 

 

Determining authority to act is a structural concern. There is also a moral concern when answering the question, “Do I want it to be my responsibility?” The moral concern is this. There’s an imperative to act when you have the capacity to address anger even if not responsible for the anger. Ones capacity to help shapes the decision of whether one should act.

 

To Summarize: There are 3 Levels of Discernment

• Discern whether to act;
• Discern what capabilities we have to act; and,
• Discern how to best use our capabilities

 

Conclusion

If I were to witness a car accident where there was the potential for fire, I hope that I would immediately spring to action and attempt to save the lives of anyone at risk. In that moment, there is a call for immediate action due to the danger.

 

When we encounter a moment of outrage, since it is an emotionally charged moment, we can fall into the trap of reaction–. Driven to react, we most likely will not ask the important discerning questions outlined in this blog.

 

Asking the important questions of discernment is a necessary component of leading in a time of outrage. To do so helps discern a response to the situation. 

 

Next Blog

So far, we have addressed how to Lower the Pressure in Moments of Outrage; how to Make Sense of the Moment by Identifying the Roots of the Outrage; and in this blog, Scoping a Response to the Outrage. In the next month’s blog, I will look at Understanding the Power of a Leader.

---

Endnotes:

¹ Ramanna, Karthik, The Age of Outrage: How to Lead in a Polarized World, Cover.
² Ibid., 5.
³ Ibid., 6.
⁴ Ibid.