More Difficult Than I Thought

One of the drivers of the quest for improved examining and interviewing was equal employment opportunity. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Personnel Management ( the Federal government's central human resources office, then called the Civil Service Commission) issued The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures in 1978 to address the need for "a uniform set of principles on the question of the use of tests and other selection procedures." The two major issues in examining are validity (does the exam measure what it's supposed to measure) and reliability (is it consistent in its results).

Though I can't find the citation now, I remember a discussion about examining for the professions that was the material issued by the agencies to assist in implementation of the Guidelines. It made mention of peer examining because of the difficulty of quantifying competence in the professions.

At the time, I wondered whether this latitude given to the professions might have been due to pressure (or expected pressure) from the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, etc. Now my experience as a Ministerial Fellowshipping Committee (MFC) liaison to candidates has given me a new appreciation of the difficulties of examining in the professions while affirming my conviction of the importance of doing so.

I will be making suggestions for changes in MFC processes in the days to come. In the meantime, I'd love to hear what you'd suggest.

See a Minister?

One of the critical questions, if not the critical question, Ministerial Fellowshipping Committee (MFC) members ask themselves in the examining process is whether they "see a minister" in a candidate for ministry. Serving as a liaison to candidates has changed my understanding of this inquiry. I'll blog about in the future.

In the meantime, I'm curious what this phrase means to you.

Do the Right Thing

For the December meeting of the Ministerial Fellowshipping Committee (MFC), I was one of the two liaisons to candidates. After all this time thinking and writing about the MFC and ministerial examining, it's been fascinating to observe the process from the inside. I'm going to do some posting based on what I've learned and inferred.

This first post is on observations and recommendations made by a Centers for Ministry (CFMs), Regional Subcommittees on Candidacy (RSCCs), Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) supervisors, and intern supervisors and committees. I have been critical of some of these recommendations and of actions based upon them for the following reasons:

• "Requirements" are sometimes masked as "recommendations," especially by CFMs;
• Some recommendations are vaguely written and difficult to interpret; and
  
• The risks that aspirants and candidates will be penalized because of differing interpretations of these recommendations.

While I will say more about this issue in the future, I want to remind aspirants and candidates:

• Do not ignore recommendations--no matter how tentative or vague--that appear in the material that you'll be submitting to the RSCC and/or MFC;
  
• Either follow the recommendation, implement a solid substitute, or provide strong evidence that it's groundless; and
• Unless the recommendation is clear and it's clear how to address it, seek guidance from several trusted mentors on interpretation and implementation.

I'm reminded of a colleague who received a 3 (come back and see us again) from the MFC and was unsure how to interpret and implement the recommendations. She sought help from a senior minister and developed and implemented a plan. When she returned to the MFC for her 2nd interview, she received a 1.

Resistance is Futile! Join/Create Study Groups & Support Systems

Knowing that some of you may wish to read only the guidance for ministerial examining preparation in this post and skip the philosophy underlying it, the guidance comes first and the thinking behind it is afterward.

The recommendation is to join or create a study group for your RSCC and MFC interviews. I participated in one at Starr King School for the Ministry. We jointly read material from the reading list, prepared short reflection papers, read the papers in the group, and discussed the readings and our papers. It was a very useful way of obtaining and digesting multiple perspectives on the readings and to be supportive of one another.

Join/create a study group and take what we did a step further: share and discuss critical feedback from your Center for Ministry, CPE, internship, and other evaluations. Talk about the accuracy of the evaluations and what steps you've taken to address the concerns raised in them.

Study groups should augment having advisers, mentors, and friends reviewing your RSCC and MFC packages, especially the essays, and having a mock interview.

OK, now for a little philosophy:

Those of you who are Star Trek fans know that "Resistance is futile." is the motto of the Borg, who according to their Wikipedia article, are:

The Borg manifest as cybernetically enhanced humanoid drones of multiple species, organized as an interconnected collective, the decisions of which are made by a hive mind, linked to subspace domain. The Borg . . . operate solely toward the fulfilling of one purpose: to "add the biological and technological distinctiveness of other species to their own" in pursuit of perfection. This is achieved through forced assimilation, a process which transforms individuals and technology into Borg, enhancing, and simultaneously controlling, individuals by implanting or appending synthetic components.

The Borg represent nightmares of totalitarianism, automation, and assimilation. They carry on in the traditions of Orwell's 1984 (totalitarianism) and the computer HAL 9000 in Clarke's and Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Contrast these visions of the threats of automation and collective thinking with the words of Eamonn Healy, a chemistry professor, from the film Waking Life. (The 3.5 minute clip from the film and transcript are available here.) Healy offers up the vision of a new evolution based upon two types of information: digital (technology) and analog (biology) life. He states that under the old evolutionary paradigm, digital intelligence would replace biological intelligence. Under his new paradigm, the two intelligences augment one another, accelerating evolution.

It's quite possible that the digital will be the savior of the biological. Just as the scary computers of the 1950s and 60s turned into the useful tools of today, the internet has many "hive mind" aspects. Healy imagines that the blending of the biological and the artificial will lead to greater individuality. It already has lead to great interconnection. The two visions are compatible.

Questions about sharing and privacy are important. Yet, we grow and become more resilient when we share ourselves with those who are trustworthy. I am incredibly grateful to the mentors and friends who guided me through the fellowshipping process. Don't wait to build your own support systems.

Facing Failure

"Failure" is not a pretty word. We like to use euphemisms such as "crash and burn" and "learning experience." However, not getting selected for a job, promotion, or assignment can feel like failure. Divorce feels like failure. Being told by the Ministerial Fellowshipping Committee (MFC) that they do see in you a minister (a #4 rating) feels like failure.

And failures have consequences. Sometimes we never try again. Other times we dust ourselves off and get back into the fray.

Rev. Robert Fulghum, UU minister and Starr King School for the Ministry graduate, wrote that he walked into a kindergarten class and asked the children who could draw, sing, and dance. All the kids raised their hands. Then he walked into an 5th grade class and asked the same questions. This time only a few of the students responded to each question. They'd already learned to define themselves by their failures.

I was very lucky that one of my greatest failures--not getting selected for a promotion--seemed so unjust to me that I was more mystified than angry. Of course, anger, denial, bargaining, fear, depression, and sorrow all appeared before acceptance arrived.

My father taught me that experts and libraries were the sources of solutions to problems and questions. Luckily, I'd also learned that speaking to nearly everyone you know is sometimes a better solution, or at least a good supplement.

I spoke to my boss, my boss's boss, my boss's boss's boss, my boss's boss's boss's boss, other leaders, peers, friends, family; in short, pretty much the waterfront. I learned more about what people thought of me. I asked the leaders whether they thought I had potential for advancement and whether there was anything I should be doing differently.

After much reassurance, I came to acceptance. Within two years I was promoted to an equivalent position that was better suited to my talents.

Hiding in shame--though very, very tempting--no longer seems to be good strategy. We see wounded animals do so because they are afraid that predators will take advantage of their injuries to kill them. Do you believe that those around you are that predatory? If not, seek their help.

On the road to ministry, you'll have to make your own assessments. Many decide that ministry is not for them. However, if you fall and then decide to dust yourself off and get back on the road, do consider consulting with as many people as possible. It's a grand strategy for facing failure, building relationships, and achieving success.

Tyson, the Film and the Interviews

Last night I watched Tyson, a movie about Mike Tyson, the former heavyweight boxing champion, by James Toback. I haven't followed boxing since Muhammad Ali retired (and not very much before then), but between allegations of spousal abuse, a conviction for sexual assault, and biting a boxing opponent on both ears, it was hard not to know of Mr. Tyson.

Based on what I "knew," I assumed that he was no more than a brute without impulse control. I came away from the film with a much more complex and nuanced portrait of the man.

Based on the little bit of research I've done on the film (including watching the DVD extras), it appears that in addition to Tyson's complexity and Toback's skills as an interviewer and filmmaker, their long-time relationship helped Mr. Tyson open up in this revealing portrait. This relationship and other aspects of the film and Mr. Toback's history and oeuvre lead one to question his objectivity. However, there is less reason to question his results, in which we can find important lessons about obtaining a deeper understanding of another through interviewing.

A. O. Scott, The New York Times reviewer of the movie (see the link above), points out what a scary figure Mr. Tyson remains even as we come to see his humanity. In this blog, I have usually been focusing on how frightening interviews such as those by the Ministerial Fellowshipping Committee (MFC) and Regional Subcommittees on Candidacy (RSCCs) can be for the interviewees. This movie has led me to speculate more deeply on the emotions of the interviewers.

Total Recall; Practice, Practice, Practice; and the Power of Misinterpretation

Reading "Total Recall" by Gary Marcus, a cognitive psychologist, in Wired magazine reminded me of the power of practice and how easily examining can go astray. The subject of the article is Jill Price, a woman with a supposedly "perfect" memory. If you'll click on the link to the Wired article, you'll also see Diane Sawyer's interview of Ms. Price.

After interviewing (please note all fans of the blog: interviewing!) Ms. Price over 5 years, James McGaugh, a neuroscientist, and his team at UC Irvine concluded that she had a near perfect memory in this article first published in the journal Neurocase. An editor at the Free Press went even further, entitling her story The Woman Who Can't Forget: The Extraordinary Story of Living With the Most Remarkable Memory Known to Science.

Ms. Price does indeed have an amazing memory, but Dr. Marcus, upon examining her further, discovered that her memory isn't all-inclusive. Rather her forte is autobiographical memory. Dr. Marcus writes that the source of this autobiographic memory is rumination that appears obsessive. She didn't seek out this memory and she didn't know its source; it was an unsought consequence of her journaling and other daily habits.

OK, OK, so what does this have to do with ministerial examining?

• Examinees can mislead examiners even when they are not trying to do so.
• Interviewing is a limited tool at best even when in the hands of scientists who should know better. (Being a professional doesn't assure that you are a skilled interviewer, and even skilled interviewers can be misled or can deceive themselves.)
• Examining and assessment should be based on a multiplicity of instruments, and there should be appeal/review mechanisms because of the possibility of error.
• Interviewers are likely to be tempted, and may even consciously or unconsciously fall to the temptation, to seek information that affirms the conclusions they've already reached.
• "Ordinary" people can achieve extraordinary results with practice, practice, practice. (The thesis of Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, which is discussed elsewhere in this blog.)

So let's acknowledge the inherent worth and dignity of each individual involved in developing and implementing the current UU ministerial examining process. I am confident that they are doing their best with the best of intentions. I'm grateful for their professional and their volunteer efforts. Yet, I will continue to advocate for evolution in UU ministerial examining.