Locus of Control

The Fixer

Joe was known in his church as “the fixer.” Whenever a problem arose with a member of the congregation, Joe would be the one everyone turned to. He could fix anything. As a pastor in training, he had heard that there are two kinds of pastors. There is the pastor who gave a really good sermon, and then there is the pastor who went out among his flock and healed the people. He thought he was a healer, but he was actually a fixer.

Joe was determined to earn his money. If he knew of any problem, he would immediately go to that person and offer advice, solutions, and resources. The people knew they could depend on Joe. If they were sick in the hospital, they knew Joe would show up. If they were suffering from an illness, they knew Joe would call. If they had a marriage problem, Joe would sense it and call them into their office. They got the impression that Joe had a red phone in his office that connected straight to God. Joe seemed to know about problems and show up at the right place and the right time. The people loved this about Joe.

By and by, the people learned that the onus of responsibility was on Joe, not them. Joe’s red-phone hotline didn’t always ring on time. Sometimes a parishioner would be hospitalized, and instead of calling Joe and asking him to visit, he would wait for Joe to show up. If Joe did not show, the parishioner would feel that Joe, and by extension God, did not love them. Joe did not always sense that a marriage was in trouble, and if a divorce occurred without Joe noticing, the couple would feel unimportant. If a parishioner was feeling sad and Joe did not shake their hand or reach out to them, the parishioner felt neglected.

Joe was often confused. He didn’t understand the mixed messages he was getting from his congregation. On the one hand, he was receiving praise for the visits and interventions; on the other hand, he was hearing whispers of people telling other people that they had been forgotten. Joe did not understand why he was hearing mixed comments. It was almost as if he was doing well if the onus of responsibility was on him, and he was doing badly if the onus was on the parishioner.

Joe knew that he could not be responsible for everyone, but he did know that everyone could be responsible for themselves. He decided to help his congregation understand that the onus of responsibility fell on them. The locus of control was found within their own selves. He wanted them to act and not be acted upon.

To teach this, Joe needed to change the culture of his congregation. Joe could no longer see himself as a fixer of men. Joe needed to see himself as a builder of men. Joe started teaching people to be in charge of themselves. If a person complained to Joe that he did not visit them in the hospital, Joe invited them to call him and ask for a visit. If a person complained to Joe that they were friendless in the church, Joe invited them to find other people who needed a friend and reach out to them. If a person complained that their marriage was failing, Joe invited them to examine their half of the marriage and ascertain if there is anything within their realm of control that needs changing. If a person complained that the congregation was not youth-focused, Joe asked them to come up with a plan to focus on the youth. If a person complained that the congregation was not mission-focused, Joe asked them to propose a mission plan.

Over time, the congregational members became self-sufficient. They were self-sustaining individuals working together to synergistically build the congregation. While everyone helped one another, no one waited for another. Their individual focus was not to be served but to serve.

Locus of Control In the Home

Susana sat with her son, Pete, at the dinner table. Pete had another semester of failing grades. Pete explained that the failing grades were not his fault. His math teacher was bad at teaching math. His teacher was from China, and he had an accent that was difficult to understand. His poor English grade was his mother’s fault. She hadn’t reminded him to study for the semester exam. His poor science grade was his father’s fault. The science project was due the Monday after his father’s visitation weekend, and his father hadn’t helped him with his project. He had asked for help in starting and finishing the project, but his father had not helped him. Pete felt slighted and neglected by his father. His physical education grade was failing, and that wasn’t his fault either. The students in his class were mean, and Pete didn’t want to be around bullies, so he skipped the class a lot.

Susana was exhausted. She had spent the first and second semesters of school trying to listen to and solve Pete’s problems for him. She had contacted teachers, written the principal, and had meetings with the counselor. Nothing she tried helped Pete raise his grades. She was exhausted. It seemed that the harder she focused on removing obstacles for Pete, the more she signaled to him that he was right. He really could not overcome his own obstacles. She or others had to be the one to remove them for him. He was not in charge of his own success.

Susana really wanted Pete to learn that he was in charge of his own future. Regardless of what problems life sent his way, he was in charge of what he did with his life. Susana decided to change her tactic. She informed Pete that she had an expectation that she wanted him to meet. That expectation was that Pete would not have any grades below a C. If, at any point in time, she logged onto the school website and saw that Pete’s grades dropped below C, he would be grounded from electronics. She didn’t care about the excuse or the reasoning behind it; he would just be grounded. If his grades were a C or above, he could have his electronics back.

At the first sign of a D, Pete lost his electronics. He tried very hard to explain why it wasn’t his fault, but Susana didn’t want to listen. She didn’t even care what the excuse was. She explained that it was Pete’s job to meet the expectation, and it was her job to hold it. Pete was very upset. He didn’t believe in himself. He felt like he didn’t have the power to change his life.

Pete was very motivated by the pain of not having electronics. His motivation pushed him to see his world differently. He found ways to take control of his life. He found solutions to his problem. He became a strong self-advocate. He developed an internal locus of control.

Locus of Control Logistics

The concept of “locus of control” is used to describe where a person believes their control lies.  If a person has an external locus of control, they believe that they do not have control over their problems. They believe that if something bad happens to them, it is not their fault. If they got fired from their job, it’s their boss’s fault. If they failed a class, it’s their teacher’s fault. If they lost a relationship, it’s their partner’s fault.

If a person has an internal locus of control, they believe that they can have power over their situation. If they lose their job, they believe that they can work harder the next time. If they lose their relationship, they believe that they can work hard to fix it. If they failed a class, they believe that they can study harder.

Oftentimes, a person with an external locus of control will be attracted to a person with an internal locus of control. The external type wants the internal type to fix problems for them. If they do not fix problems, they are often upset and blame the internal type. The internal types are often very introspective. The people with an internal locus of control will often examine themselves to see what they can do to change the situation. The person with the external locus of control will tell the internal types that they are the problem, and because the internal types are already introspective, they will often believe them. The internal types will often validate the external types’ claims that they are the problem.

It is important that we do not do for others what they can do for themselves. People need to learn that they can be their own advocate. When we tell people that we believe in their ability to solve their own problems, we are telling them that we have faith in them. When we solve the problem for people, we are telling them that we do not believe they can do it on their own. We are telling them that they are correct and that they are not capable of fixing their own problem.