But in the way Tamara used it, it is a great designation. Bowenians—I run into them quite often. They are people who, often trained by Bowenians, continue to preach, teach and write about their inaccurate view of what they consider to be Bowen family systems theory. I have even heard them use other peoples’ names with terms, or buzzwords connected with Bowen theory.

• Focus 

          Bowenians, for the most part are overly focused on the organization. They want other people—and the organization, specifically—to change. Many of them actually think that Bowen theory is about producing change in organizations.

          Bowen theory, by contrast, is about producing change in oneself— becoming a more emotionally mature, better version of self.  Thus, the focus for change, is work on oneself.  As has often been said, Bowen family systems theory is a bootstraps operation, with great respect for the fact that it is impossible to change someone else (including an organization). At the same time, a Bowen theory-based thinker will be looking for relationship patterns and watching how relationships work in the system. They are always doing research, but the questions they are asking are based on Bowen theory.

• Methods
  

• Coaches

          Bowenians often pay scant attention to the qualifications of coaches, often putting people into training programs as faculty members, or consulting to orgainzations without an adequate background. Many people seem to think that because Bowen theory is a new way of thinking, all the usual qualifications for such work can be thrown overboard. They seem to believe that anyone with good personal results or intentions can go into a position where they coach others or consult to organizations, difficult as that is.

          Bowen himself was most careful about whom he picked as coaches in his programs. Even to be accepted as a participant, one needed a postgraduate education. Coaches needed to have a postgraduate degree in one of the helping professions. They also needed to have studied the new theory for several years. They needed to have demonstrated their own work on themselves in their families of origin. 

• Goals and expectations

          Bowenians, from my observations seem too often to have the goal of changing the organization, making it increase its functioning, or get out of its rut, just as most people, upon entering Bowen theory in the beginning think that they can change their families.

          But Bowen systems theory is clear on that point. The only one I can expect to change is myself. If I work hard on that goal, I sometimes see people around me step up in their functioning as well. Differentiating people often see family members with whom they are closely associated To go into the work with that idea, however, is misguided. In Bowen theory, the main goal is that of differentiation of self.  Bowenians, by contrast talk little of that all-important goal.

• Time required for results

          Bowenians often offer weekend or less training sessions for their members. There is very little serious time or money commitment. They come away from these thinking they have received formal training in Bowen theory.

          Bowen systems thinkers, however offer year-long training programs. They are relatively expensive because of the staff-intensiveness required by both small group and individual coaching. They talk of multiple years of training and working in their families before they begin to see results in themselves or their leadership. Bowen said that time on the calendar was required. But this presumed fairly constant exposure to the ideas in the meantime.

• End results

          From Bowenian trainings, the organization may learn some of the wording of Bowen theory. Many people in organizations, exposed to less than several years of intensive training opportunities, because they have learned some new words and ideas, have an erroneous idea that they know Bowen theory. However, organizations consulting with them see no change. Often, the crisis that called in the consultant results in the leader leaving.

          In working with families, therapists who begin using Bowen theory often notice that their client families stay together more often than they did when they were thinking along the lines of traditional theory/therapy. If these families stay with theory, they are observed to continue to do better and better over time. In the same way, when leaders of organizations are coached according to Bowen theoretical concepts, they most often are able to stay with the organization. In fact, the organizations that may have turned against them often end up begging them to stay. Also, leaders report running much calmer, less stressed that they ever have in their lives.

          There are several important differences between families and organizations, however. One important one is that while families routinely increase their level of differentiation when one member, closely connected, works of his/her own level of maturity in the generations, I don’t believe it works out the same way in organizations. They usually make impressive gains in functioning, under the leadership of someone who is working on differentiation of self. This, in my experience, though, is a change that is dependent on the high level leader’s presence. It does not necessarily hold up after this leaders leaves.

• Language

          Bowenians often give themselves away by the words they use.  For some reason they seem to think that they can improve on the carefully selected lexicon selected by Dr. Bowen to describe the phenomena he was discovering.  His words avoided, as far as possible, traditional theory, or writings of his colleagues who were also studying the family, to avoid confusion. Bowen’s vocabulary was clinical and emotionally neutral. In this way he did not escalate the problem a family was describing.  Where some might use a word such as “fight,” he selected “conflict” for example.

          In organizations, too, Bowenians often unwittingly add to the problem by not adhering to Bowen’s original language. One of the most common violations I hear is when leaders refer to anxious, triangling people as “sabotaging.” They can end up with ugly, unpronounceable words such as “self-differentiation.” Nothing like this can be found in Bowen’s writing.

          To summarize the differences between Bowen family systems thinkers working with leaders of organizations and the Bowenians, the latter demonstrate a lack of knowledge of Bowen family systems theory. They have little interest in the all-important goal of differentiation of self. There is no understanding of how long it takes or what is involved in getting up a point or two on the scale, a lack of appreciation of what is needed to attain real and permanent change in self, and a lack of adequate training in theory. They head toward the wrong goals, by the wrong methods and show no respect for Bowen’s careful attention to language.