Introduction

I wish to express my gratitude to Your Eminence, Cardinal Lozano Barragan, and to Your Excellency, Bishop Redrado, for your kind invitation to address this important conference.  It is indeed an honor to be with you. 

My reflections this afternoon are based upon my experience as a clinician with over 30 years experience and, in particular, upon the work of the past ten years as President of the Southdown Institute in Ontario, Canada.  The Southdown Institute is a multidisciplinary residential psychiatric facility that treats severely ill priests and religious from across the world. (Thus, my presentation reflects the past 10 years—not my past few weeks at my new assignment at Georgetown University!) 

Imagine, for a moment, the following situation:  It is late on a Friday afternoon.  I am in my office at the Southdown Institute. Earlier during the day, a very experienced clinician came in to see me about his growing sense of hopelessness around the widening scandals in the church. A dedicated, wonderful layman, he said, “I wonder if the walls here are big enough to contain all the tears...”  A priest patient had tried to asphyxiate himself earlier that day, (fortunately, unsuccessfully). A female borderline patient had once again found a way to mutilate herself.   A steady procession of very stressed and deeply saddened religious superiors and bishops had been in and out of my office all day.  Just as I was looking forward to a day off, the phone rang and it was a reporter from the National Post (a Canadian newspaper) wanting an interview. A typical day in the life of a health care administrator.  Is it any surprise that I began to experience difficulty getting to sleep at night?!

My situation is not all that dissimilar from many persons in leadership who are faced with overwhelming demands on their time and emotions.  And, as if the usual demands of leadership today were not enough, add to the picture the reality of living in a postmodern global environment in which we feel far less secure than we did ten years ago, We are all too aware of our fragility and vulnerability as human beings.  Terrorism, war, and a range of environmental catastrophes have taken their silent toll on us.  Then, for us in North America, include being shaken by a church in a serious crisis of credibility.  We are all, to one extent or another, contending with sufficient stress to make it difficult, even for the hardiest among us, to maintain a sense of equilibrium.  

This is simply to say that it should not seem unrealistic or aberrant for us to feel defensive, anxious, perhaps irritated, when an “outsider” like a representative of the media, suddenly steps into our chaotic worlds and seeks to “do a story”.   At times such as this, we can feel quite vulnerable, exploited, caught off-guard.  In such a state, it becomes difficult to consider media professionals as colleagues and potential assets in trying to present a truthful and responsible picture to the public.  We have likely all, at one time or another, experienced journalistic distortion and the sensationalizing of events; we may have found ourselves at times victimized by unscrupulous reporters.  Clearly, there are persons in any profession who do their colleagues a disservice because of their poor adherence to the ethical principles inherent in their disciplines. This is sadly true in our own ministries as priests and religious, it is true for those in healthcare services, and it is true in professions such as journalism and reporting.  It is beyond our ability to control any professional person who deliberately chooses to sensationalize, exploit or distort the truth.  The media portrayal of a culture narcissistically focused and engaged in self-serving exploitation of others clearly has heightened our sense of social angst.  That being said, we cannot blame media for our global reality anymore than we can place blame on any one group for the pervasive conflicts inherent in our trying to live our lives meaningfully in this postmodern context.  It would be dangerous for us to categorize an entire profession based upon the unscrupulous behaviours of a minority. (For example, to say that all media personnel are determined to exploit or promote hedonism is analogous to saying that all clergy are sexually acting out.)  Both statements are perilous; both are founded on bias and ignorance.)

My focus this afternoon will be on what we can do by means of internal preparation to contend with the noxious effects of stress, especially as this related to engaging the media in highly sensitive situations—whatever they may be—that deeply affect our lives as Catholic leaders.  I will address some considerations pertaining to the management of stress, in general.  Then, I will focus on two components that I believe can assist us in lowering our own stress levels when we are engaging with the media:  that is, 1), substantive “inner work” that is grounded in community and prayer; and 2), the development of an effective media strategy that restores some sense of being in control in the midst of very stressful situations.  I realize this is quite an ambitious undertaking in a short amount of time, and beg your indulgence for not being able to develop the topic as fully as the material warrants.

Stress, ‘Burnout’ and Effective Performance in the Workplace

Stress is a physiological response to persistent pain, feelings of heightened danger, or fears of being harmed.  Clearly, reading the newspapers, listening to television and radio, by which we are barraged by a steady stream of global catastrophes, increases stress. The euphemistic non-clinical term, “burnout” is frequently used colloquially to describe the experience of someone who has had prolonged exposure to a highly stressful situation and who experiences a combination of emotional and physical responses.  Among a myriad of descriptors used to delineate this transient situation are included: anxiety, depression, irritability, anger, diminished self-esteem, self-reproach, difficulties in concentration, problems in decision-making, and mild impairment in otherwise good judgment. 

Some researchers have questioned whether a heightened orientation to others’ needs placed caregivers at greater risk for “burnout” or depression.  In other words, might we ourselves be more susceptible to stress because of our roles in ministry and in the helping professions? Interestingly, and albeit, fortunately for us, this hypothesis was not supported. (Bersoff and Glass, 1982; Thomas and Keznioff, 1984). [1]   Concern for others is not a necessary factor contributing to depression. 

Historically, significant bodies of research on stress have identified certain factors that seemed to help persons contend with, contain, or overcome stress in the workplace.  It was generally thought that if people had a sufficient degree of autonomy, felt in control of certain aspects in their environment, had developed effective negotiating strategies, and had opportunities for professional development and good communication, stress would be significantly lowered and productivity heightened. The meta-analysis of research during this period in the 1980’s further identified several other major factors that enhanced a person’s capacity to resist the deleterious effects of stress and maintain physical and emotional balance as they faced disturbing events.  These additional factors included: physical health, adequate self-esteem, social support, and a sense of control over one’s life. [2]

Of particular interest is a fascinating recent longitudinal study conducted by Cary Cherniss and published in a book entitled Beyond Burnout, [3]   in which she studied professional caregivers over the course of a ten year period.  Cherniss’ research revealed curious findings that suggested that these earlier factors were note enough to prevent stress and burnout.  In tracking research subjects over the course of a decade, it was discovered that there were some notable exceptions to the earlier hypotheses suggesting that as long as people had a sufficient degree of autonomy, felt relatively in control in their environment, had adequate negotiating strategies, opportunities for professional development and good collegial communication, stress would be significantly lowered and productivity heightened. Cherniss’ research revealed that even after these factors were attended to, many of the research subjects were still experiencing heightened stress.  Some had dealt with their stress by settling into safe niches—no longer engaged in creative projects, but rather choosing to lapse into familiar routines in an effort to assuage stress and bind the subjective anxiety they felt.  This occurrence most certainly did not serve to enhance the mission of their various service organizations.  Employees manifested little enthusiasm or passion for the work they were doing.  Many had become quite complacent and had, despite all predictions, drifted into feeling pervasively stressed, if not bored.  What accounted for these findings?  If all the requisites were apparently in place to offset this happening, why did these service providers feel so stressed?  Cherniss discovered that the key factor missing in these individuals’ experience was a strong sense of moral purpose in the work they were undertaking. 

Furthermore, in the study, a statistically significant sub-group within the total population of research subjects was identified that did not become victims of stress.  The individuals in this sub-group worked in settings in which all the conditions typically associated with the development of extremely high levels of acute stress and “burnout” were present. They often worked seven days a week, year in and year out, had little autonomy, and were routinely expected to carry out very menial tasks.  (The sub-group actually comprised a group of women religious.)

What factors differentiated this group from the others? Stress was mitigated in the face of a compelling sense of “moral purpose.” We might call this a strong sense of mission.  If persons felt that they were simply part of a service delivery system, they were at far greater risk of becoming victims of burnout and debilitating stress—regardless of all the efforts made to ensure a healthy workplace environment. Making application to our ministry, therefore, it would seem that a significant antidote to the noxious effects of stress is our overt awareness of our participation in the healing mission of Jesus.

In order to remain viable agents in the living out of the Gospel, all of us who serve in our institutions must continually assess whether our way of addressing the mission is adequate to responding to critical needs of our times.  People who have become settled and satisfied, passive and comfortable, or paralyzed by anxiety are incapable of making the radical adaptations required in a continually changing global environment. They endanger the future life of their institutions, the well-being of those whom they serve, and ultimately inflict damage on themselves.

For health care administrators and direct-line service providers, there is clearly an increased risk for the injection of debilitating stress, leading to diminished performance and disillusionment.  This risk becomes intensified when there is little experience of belonging to a community of colleagues who share in the mission, who have a strong sense of moral purpose.  The sense of corporate mission, a connection between one’s spirituality and the daily work undertaken, and a passionate commitment to the healing ministry of Jesus help to mitigate the noxious effects of stress.  Let me share with you an example of how a group of us narrowly escaped slipping into the negative space of shared depression, burnout and excessive stress and anxiety.

One day during the height of the sex abuse crisis, a group of colleagues and I were talking about what we needed to do in order not to become angry, resentful, rude or defensive when we were confronted by a myriad of reporters and journalists who were under deadlines to get stories written.  Even more seriously, we began to discuss what we needed to do so that we would not internalize the anguish and the anxiety that was surrounding us.  One psychologist mused that perhaps what we needed was for the 110 of us on staff to take a day apart from the patients and pray together.  After checking with the other members of the staff, that is precisely what we did—obtained clinical coverage, and spent a day in prayer for our patients, for the church, for one another.  We recognized the toll that was being taken on all of us; we were able to name our feelings; we knew what we needed to in order to feel re-inspirited.  We were corporately refusing to slip into becoming merely a good health care delivery system.  We were becoming a community of caregivers ever more deeply immersed in a healing mission together.  No one of us was alone. 

As I felt the support of my colleagues and had taken the time for personal prayer and prayer with them, I found my stress level significantly decreased when reporters appeared at the doorstep.  I felt I was part of a community of men and women who were passionate in their commitment to help others experience the healing power of God.  My anxiety abated; my thinking became clearer; my sense of reclaiming appropriate control increased.  I no longer felt the burden of events rested solely on me, not did I hold such fear of making a mistake.  We were in this together and it was sacred work.  When we do not feel supported or have lost sight of the meaning of what we are doing, we are in increased danger of slipping into patterns of withdrawal and psychic safety.  When this occurs, we do not participate in the mission to the extent to which we once aspired. Like the research subjects, we are likely to find ourselves becoming overly irritable, stressed, defensive and anxious.  In this state, the media become just one more irritant in an already overly demanding day. 

I share this incident with you not because I was responsible for taking the initiative to minister to the group of caregivers—it was a colleague, whose intuitive sense of the precariousness of our corporate persona, protected us.  I share it with you because I believe in some providential way, my colleague guided us toward taking action that freed us and, thankfully, freed me to respond in greater freedom and courage in the midst of an extraordinarily difficult set of circumstances.  Unaware at the time of Cherniss’ research, we actually had substantiated her findings.  Community, personal and communal prayer, deliberate reflection on the meaningfulness and sacredness of the work in which we are engaged—this is the preparatory inner work needed to inoculate ourselves against the deleterious effects of stress.  As Viktor Frankl so eloquently wrote, “Suffering ceases to be suffering in some way at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of sacrifice.” [4]    

Working with the Media

Another component that can assist us in lessening the likelihood of responding defensively or feeling victimized is to obtain proper training in managing the media.  This is part of reclaiming a sense of control. It allows us to address some of the factors identified by researchers as beneficial in lowering anxiety.  Along with the collegial reflective inner work necessary, I believe we can help ourselves to reframe the crises which precipitate media involvement. 

It is understandable that we feel intimidated when faced with reporters.  We may feel fearful of making an irretrievable error that will become immediately public; we may experience ourselves being defensive or incompetent; we can feel out of control; leading us to greater passivity in our responses than would normally be our style.  In short, the situation serves to highlight our vulnerabilities resulting in stress levels that are personally quite destructive if we have not done our personal inner work and if we have not anticipated the potentially stressful situation. Furthermore, the heightened public visibility of a negative situation or distorted portrayal of a contentious situation by the medial can lead toward a social contagion of stress, a culture of tinder-box tension, and an exacerbation of distrust.  In light of this, a serious question we must ask ourselves is: How might we assist our communities to grow stronger in confidence in the compassionate care of God?  Or, in other words, how will we counter postmodern deconstruction with Gospel-focused reconstruction?

Thus, in addition to the immersion in prayer and communal grounding in the compassion of God, we must also take into consideration some very practical concerns. A colleague from the media [5] strongly urged us to engage ourselves in a disciplined preparation for dealing with reporters and journalists.  He suggests that we pre-emptively develop a plan for the media management of crises in anticipation of the likelihood of something happening that will draw media attention.  Such a plan should be clear in delineating who will handle the situation publicly.  It should include developing a media relations and crisis communications policy and procedures.  Certainly, many groups have such a policy, but anxiety still abounds.  Planning without training is not sufficient.  Training and practice are strong antidotes to anxiety and must be included in any media management plan.  Taking part in workshops designed to assist leaders in managing the media, identifying and practicing delivery techniques, and learning about common traps one can fall into help leaders feel more in control of the situation and less apt to get caught in a quagmire of debilitating anxiety. 

When we can engage reporters in asking us the questions we want to be asked; when we have become at ease avoiding common pitfalls of personal opinion, over-spontaneity, or foretelling the future; when we have avoided addressing a topic we are not expert in, to name a few, we are well on our way to regaining a sense of personal control and authority in relation to the media.  We are well on the way to mitigating anxiety and the concomitant experience of stress.

In summary, Frank Emmerson, a consultant who trains leaders in working with reporters and journalists, suggests a seven-point crisis communication strategy that should be developed by every leader who is faced with the likelihood of engaging with the media.  Using such a strategy is a means of binding anxiety and the debilitating effects of undo stress inherent in these situations.

• Plan: develop media relations and crisis communications policies and procedures
• Collaborate with experts in the media field to solicit guidance and support
• Train: ensure all staff are aware of these policies and their roles
• Prepare: identify potential issues and prepare crisis communications briefs
• Anticipate: monitor emerging “hot” issues
• Respond: deal with immediate issues
• Evaluate: review the adequacy and effectiveness of policies and procedures and revise as needed.

When such a strategy is in place, we are less likely to feel incompetent, out of control, and terror-stricken when faced with a potential media event.  I would hasten to reiterate, however, that strategy alone is not sufficient.  We must attend to the reflective, collegial inner work that keeps us clear-eyed and steady in our commitment to the healing mission of the Jesus.  As my colleague so poignantly said, “The walls of this place are not big enough to contain the tears.”  But when we have the support and prayer of one another through whatever crisis befalls us, the communion of human hearts in the compassion of God can sustain more than we can ever imagine.