A family systems approach to parking lot meetings

I  recently Googled the term “parking lot meeting” and discovered something surprising. A number of business and communication instructors currently employ this term positively rather than pejoratively. They use the term to describe a listening technique by which the meeting’s leader addresses important sidebar issues that surface in the meeting – but are not on the official agenda – by placing such issues in a “parking space.” The leader assures those who raised these concerns that they will either be addressed later in that meeting or at a later date. 

For years, family systems theorists have employed the term “parking lot meetings” in a more pernicious way. I now offer my definition of parking lot meetings from a family systems perspective: 

“Parking lot meetings” refer to private conversations that take place either before or after an organization’s official meeting or event where select persons of similar opinions discuss concerns about that organization and/or its leaders privately rather than openly in the meeting or event. Members talk secretly with other persons from within their organization rather than more objective outsiders. That is, issues are discussed covertly with members of like mind “in the parking lot” rather than overtly in the meeting or event. 

Capacities of maturity

Murray Bowen coined the phrase “differentiation of self” to describe the process by which human beings mature and grow up. For Bowen, someone who is highly differentiated is highly mature; the two are synonymous. His definition of high differentiation of self always includes the capacity to: 

1. Define oneself clearly; 
2. Take a stand; 
3. Base decisions on well-defined principles; 
4. Remain non-reactive; 
5. Monitor and manage one’s anxiety; 
6. Commit to direct communication with others; 
7. Not engage in “blaming” behaviors; 
8. Not participate in gossip or secrets; 
9. Demonstrate balance so as not to over-function or under-function; 
10. Maintain “person-to-person relationships”; 
11. Maintain healthy boundaries; 
12. “De-triangle”— i.e., not get seduced or “hooked” by others’ reactivity; and 
13. Remain connected to all persons in the system.

From a family systems perspective, those who engage in parking lot meetings do not rank very high on Bowen’s Scale of Differentiation of Self — in other words, they are not very mature. This is certainly not the only lens, however, to understand such folks. 

Bowen coined the term “person-to-person relationship.” He notes: “A person-to-person relationship is conceived as an ideal in which two people can communicate freely about the full range of issues between them. Most people cannot tolerate more than a few minutes of this on a personal level.” 

Bowen’s 13 capacities can be employed as a template to assess one’s own maturity. Notice I said one’s own maturity because that was Bowen’s objective: to help people focus on assessing themselves, not others. Once people begin using systems theory to blame or diagnose others, they are no longer “thinking systemically.” Actually, it’s quite biblical. Haven’t we all heard something about removing a plank from our own eye before noticing a speck in someone else’s? 

A case study

Here’s how it works. Let’s say that a church board is discussing whether to buy the new denominational hymnal (oh boy!) and the pastor knows that there are several officers who hold strong, divergent opinions. The pastor does her best to name the elephant in the room by saying: “Tonight we will discuss whether or not to purchase our new denominational hymnal. You have all had time to review the new hymnal prior to tonight’s meeting and you have all read our music director’s letter, which strongly recommends purchasing it. I know there is considerable diversity of opinion on this matter, so I hope that we all feel safe to express our true feelings and thoughts in a spirit of mutual forbearance. Please define your position clearly using ‘I statements.’ It is very important that everyone participate fully and forthrightly in our discussions so that the Spirit may guide our deliberations and final decision.”  

As the discussion begins, the pastor does her best to foster a safe and “open system” that she hopes will facilitate heartfelt and honest discussion. She manages the conversation by alternating between persons of differing views. The 12-member board has several extroverts on either side of the aisle that are the first and most forceful to speak. Predictable arguments both pro and con are offered: 

• What’s wrong with our current hymnal? It has served us well for the last 50 years.
• The new hymnal has some great new songs and incorporates more inclusive language.
• We can’t afford it. We all know how tight our budget is right now.
• Our music director is recommending we do this and we should support him. 
• I don’t like the new hymnal. They took out so many of my favorite old hymns.
• The new hymnal has music that our young people can relate to better.

As the discussion subsides, the observant pastor notices something. Some of the more introverted persons have not said much — yet she knows they harbor strong opinions. She tries to massage them into talking more. “I’d like to hear from those of you who have not said much tonight. Would you share your opinions and insights?” Silence hovers over the room like a bedraggled pall. The pastor patiently waits for a response. The silence gets so awkward that one of the extroverts pipes in again. The pastor says: “Hold on a minute. I’d really like to hear from those who have not yet spoken.”  Nothing doing — they do not budge. 

The board votes 7-to-5 to purchase the new hymnals and then moves on to other business. Yet the sagacious pastor has an uneasy feeling. In spite of all her excellent efforts to create a safe and open venue for all to voice their questions, concerns and opinions, she has a sneaking suspicion that there is more going on beneath the surface.  As she walks to her car she notices the five board members who voted against buying the new hymnal huddled in the parking lot. They do not see her at first, and not only can she hear the roiling edge in their voices, but she actually catches snippets of their secret conversation. When they notice her, the conversation abruptly ends.  

She knows exactly what’s going on. She ponders if she should try pastorally to engage them and inquire if everything is OK, but she is just too exhausted and frustrated. She goes home knowing that although she did her best to craft a fair and open process, this issue is not mollified. She wonders what tomorrow will bring. She doesn’t sleep well that night. 

The next day, a supporter of hers forwards a thread of emails that some of the officers who did not want to purchase the new hymnal immediately sent out reporting the board’s decision to their friends who share their views. She is stunned by the personal and immature pettiness of some of the emails, which are peppered with inaccurate information, innuendo, labeling, hurtful gossip, false accusations, personal slights and sardonic blaming. 

Every church leader I know has experienced some variation of this scenario. 

What’s at stake?

So, what’s a pastor and church board to do? First, I want to circle back to something I alluded to earlier: Not all parking lot meetings can or should be attributed to the immaturity of those who participate in them and not all parking lot meetings are sinister. 

Second, there are situations, due to the context’s differential of power, that indicate that taking a stand, clearly defining oneself or speaking up really is dangerous. Maybe nothing illustrates this point more than the heinous experiences described by the courageous women who inaugurated the #MeToo movement. It really can be perilous to speak truth to power and we must be ever mindful not to judge those who are reticent to speak up in delicate or dangerous situations. 

Third, being a whistleblower is dangerous business and decisions to take a stand must sometimes be thoughtfully and carefully processed privately with trusted persons before acting. However, that’s not the situation in this case study. The pastor masterfully crafted an open venue where persons should feel safe to voice their opinions. The pastor hoped that the officers would all rise to Bowen’s 13 capacities of maturity. What’s at stake here? What happened? 

What’s at stake is this: Most people want to get their own way, despise conflict and prefer not to compromise. Most people understandably do not want to be at odds with persons they worship with each week. Some persons authentically struggle with defining themselves clearly and taking a stand (especially publicly). Some persons are naturally shy or introverted. Some avoid conflict at all costs. Some lack a clear sense of self — especially in the face of opposition. Few things in ecclesial life have the potential to stir up a congregational system with a radioactive spoon like secret, divisive parking lot meetings. They splinter congregations. They create factions that fracture the Body of Christ. Gossip divides and polarizes. Secrets bind anxiety — and anxiety is contagious. But here’s the good news: Calm, steady, reasoned, open, mature leadership is contagious too.      

Our Presbyterian ecclesiology calls us to elect ordained leaders based on their personal and spiritual maturity. Bowen understands and defines human maturity through his 13 capacities noted above. I’ll let you ponder how this should inform our selection of church leaders, however, for now, that’s grist for another article. 

Practical tips to reduce parking lot meetings 

First, do what this pastor did. Do everything possible to create a safe and open system that encourages full transparency so all voices are heard, valued, acknowledged and respected. The more closed a system is, the more it breeds parking lot meetings. Closed systems are a petri dish for parking lot meetings (See my article on open and closed systems in the July 10, 2017, issue of the Presbyterian Outlook). 

Second, for many years I have included in my church officer training a substantive segment on Bowen’s family systems and I have crafted the above capacities not just into a template for assessing individual maturity, but into a “Covenant of Spiritual Maturity” that I actually ask those who take the training to sign. 

Covenant of Spiritual Maturity

Having been ordained by this congregation, I understand that I have been selected to govern because my fellow members affirm my capacity for mature behavior, wisdom and leadership. I understand that I am expected to vote my conscience in all matters. At times that means that I must stand with the prophets and take unpopular positions. Because I take seriously the ordained office that I hold, in both my personal life and ecclesial office, I am open to being held accountable for how well I model the following spiritual capacities. I covenant to do my best to: 

1. Define myself clearly; 
2. Take appropriate stands based on my conscience; 
3. Base my decisions on well-defined, spiritual principles; 
4. Remain calm and non-reactive when others disagree with me; 
5. Effectively monitor and manage my anxiety; 
6. Commit myself to direct communication with others by using “I statements”;
7. Not engage in “blaming” behaviors; 
8. Not participate in gossip and secrets; 
9. Demonstrate appropriate spiritual balance so as not to over-function or under-function; 
10. Facilitate “person-to-person relationships”; 
11. Maintain healthy boundaries; 
12. Learn to “de-triangle” — i.e., not get seduced or “hooked” by others’ reactivity; 
13. Manage my need to be right;
14. Demonstrate “mutual forbearance” with all who disagree with me; 
15. Remain connected to all persons in the system.

Signed ________________________________________________ Date _____________

If all of our ecclesial leaders would covenant to live these capacities, we would have healthier churches. If the officers in the above church had signed such a covenant, the pastor and board could use the covenant to debrief the last board meeting and the subsequent parking lot meeting to process the degree to which the officers held true to their covenant. Obviously, such accountability is not for the faint of heart — but as best as I can tell, neither is ordination. 

I have learned that embracing and practicing this covenant never fully solves the perennial problem of parking lot meetings, but it sure helps. I challenge you to try it in your neck of the woods and see what happens — just be sure to hold onto the proverbial wheel!

DAVID LEE JONES is director of the doctor of ministry program at Nashotah House Theological Seminary in Nashotah, Wisconsin.