Chapter 8
MANAGING MINISTRY
CONFLICT
CONFLICT: FRIEND OR FOE?
When imperfect people interact in imperfect ways, conflict results. Conflict is inevitable in all organizations, including those with a Christian mission. However, destructive conflict is not inevitable. Despite what many people think, conflict isnot necessarily bad and shouldn't always be avoided.
Conflict can play a constructive role when it prompts members of the ministry team to clarify their goals and communicate forthrightly. Conflict can move team members to greater accomplishment through challenging them with higher standards. Conflict can heighten mutual understanding between team members and serve as a catharsis in "clearing the air." Constructive conflict can also be used to identify ministry deficiencies, overcome lethargy, and generate new solutions to old problems.
The dark side of conflict is all too familiar. Conflict is destructive and should be avoided when it siphons off valuable energy that could otherwise be spent on productive activity. Conflict is destructive when "might conquers right," and when it focuses on personalities more than issues. The telltale signs of destructive conflict range from team member frustration and aggression to noncooperation and withdrawal.
The goal of every ministry manager handling conflict should be to neutralize its destructive potential while exploiting its constructive possibilities. Since conflict won't go away, ministry leaders should endeavor to manage it effectively and make it work for them.
The first step in constructively managing conflict is to understand its root causes. These are both personal and interpersonal in nature. One primary source of interpersonal, or team, conflict is lack of goal assimilation. The seeds of conflict are sown whenever team members fail to internalize ministry goals and "own" them. In the absence of shared goals, team members have little basis for consensus and compromise, so essential for conflict avoidance.
The second major source of team conflict stems from lack of "suboptimization"--the team's unwillingness to make sacrifices on behalf of the larger organization. When team members are willing to put the organization's needs ahead of team needs, most conflicts can be defused.
The seeds of conflict, however, are more likely to be rooted in the individual than the group. Five human imperfections are particularly at fault: disobedience, self-sufficiency, inflexibility, and pride.
Conflict can stem from the flawed tendency some of us have to second-guess decisions, doubt motives, or question the judgment of others in the group. Conflict may also surface over our desire to stand alone and avoid dependency relationships, even when others seek to help us. Self-sufficient people are slow to nurture other team members who are less self-reliant.
Inflexible people may unintentionally generate conflict by caring more about how something is done than the mission itself, creating low potential for constructive compromise or acquiescence. Similarly, prideful team members are sometimes the cause of conflict because of their desire for recognition. This struggle to be in charge inevitably breeds jealousy and resentment.
SITUATION REVIEW 8.1
Conflict Diagnosis
1. Team members should indicate how much they agree with the statements below (2 = strongly agree, 1 = agree, 0 = disagree).
1. Conflict is not necessarily a sin.
2. Working through conflicts in the past has strengthened the team and helped us work together better.
3. We have a tendency to avoid conflict and hope that it will go away.
4. It is not unusual for members of my team to be frustrated about one thing or another.
5. Even when members of my team disagree about something, they tend to remain supportive and cooperative.
6. I tend to psychologically withdraw from the team when conflict surfaces.
7. My team has wasted a great deal of time and energy in the past dealing with various conflicts.
8. The team leader often has to take strong action to overcome conflicts.
9. The members of my team are generally more concerned with what we’re striving to accomplish than with how we will accomplish it.
10. We have learned through experience how to effectively resolve conflicts on the team.
Team members should score the inventory by subtracting the total for statements 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 (unhealthy circumstances for conflict) from the total for statements 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 (healthy circumstances). On a 10-point scale, the closer the subtracted score is to 10, the greater your team potential for dealing with conflict in a healthy, constructive way. If many team members end up with high scores, the more this healthy diagnosis about teamwork appears to be warranted. Action Plan 8.1 provides practical guidelines for enhancing the constructive potential of conflict.
2. Individual team members should indicate the extent each of the following has fueled team conflicts in the past (2 = a frequent source of conflict, 1 = an occasional source of conflict, and 0 = seldom or never a source of conflict).
Personality clashes.
Disagreement about goals or mission.
Wanting to implement actions in different ways.
Infrequent communication and interaction.
Failure of team members to internalize goals.
Unwillingness to sacrifice on behalf of the larger organization.
Selfishness.
Second-guessing team member actions.
Independent, maverick spirit.
Inflexible, close-mindedness.
Recognition-seeking.
“Empire-building” (viewing the team as more important than the overall organization).
Action Plan 8.1 provides a framework to help your team assess its conflict patterns.
ACTION PLAN 8.1
Constructive Conflict
1. The next time your team encounters a conflict, process through the following questions before attempting to resolve it.
Description of the conflict.
A. Using Part 2 of Situation Review 8.1, what is the apparent root cause of this conflict?
B. To what extent has this conflict been caused by styles of team interaction rather than differences in goals or vision?
C. Is the conflict based on a matter of principle that cannot be compromised or merely a matter of personal preference?
D. How many team members are directly involved in this conflict? Is this truly a team conflict, or one between just a few personalities?
E. What would probably happen if this conflict were simply ignored by the team?
F. Are any members of the team reluctant or afraid to deal with the conflict? If so, why?
G. Does this appear to be the best time to deal with the conflict? If not immediately addressed, might the conflict resolve itself with little intervention?
H. Examine the history involved. To what extent has the conflict stemmed from the team’s failure to adequately resolve past differences?
I. Should the team leader take any sort of unilateral action in helping to resolve the conflict? If so, what?
J. In what specific ways are team members open to compromise in resolving this conflict?
K. How will the overall organization benefit if the conflict is satisfactorily resolved?
L. How have other ministry teams in the organization resolved similar conflicts in the past?
2. As a team, discuss the potential of each of the following for resolving the team conflict you are addressing.
A. Clarification of ministry mission and goals.
B. Greater frequency of communication and interaction.
C. Putting ends (where we’re heading) before means (how we’re going to get there).
D. More frequent discussion of team mission and goals to achieve greater consensus and commitment.
E. Identifying and clarifying the needs and “agendas” of individual team members.
STRATEGIES FOR RESOLVING
CONFLICT
Even though conflict has constructive potential, it must nonetheless be resolved. Unresolved conflict on the ministry team can become a ravaging cancer if ignored or treated with a mere "Band-Aid." A number of conflict-reduction strategies are available which can help the ministry team work "smarter" rather than harder in preventing and resolving conflict.
Underlying these conflict strategies are three cardinal rules for preventing and containing conflict damage. The first of these is that conflict must never be permitted to engulf people and personalities rather than issues. Person-centered conflict is always destructive, not only because of its emotion-charged nature, but also because it offers few opportunities for compromise.
The second cardinal rule for containing conflict is to separate the feelings of people from their thoughts. Little can be done in the short-run to change the way people feel about conflict issues. Emotions are hard to predict and contain, but thoughts are open to examination, discussion, and concession. Much can be accomplished by team members who are willing to confront issues in an open-minded way.
The third cardinal rule is to deal with conflict in nonconfrontational way. Avoid a bitter "showdown" that demands instantaneous resolution of the problem "one way or the other." Confrontations push people into saying things they later regret and into making headstrong decisions. This actually fuels the fire and perpetuates the conflict in the future.
Several excellent strategies are available for coping with conflict. The most basic of these involves the effort to "superordinate" goals that transcend everyone on the ministry team--they are bigger than any individual's goals or agenda. Superordinate goals form the very nucleus of the ministry vision and become a common cause and commitment for all teams within the organization. For Christian organizations, the superordinate goal of serving Christ is the one overarching aim of all ministry teams.
A second conflict strategy involves breaking the conflict down into smaller issues that the team can "get a handle" on. Called fractionizing, this strategy helps team members isolate the root cause of a conflict and separate symptoms from problems. Even seemingly gargantuan conflicts can be broken down into problem points or "hot spots" that are specific enough for the team to capably handle.
A third master strategy for handling conflict seeks to stimulate greater "cross pollination" between ministries in the organization, helping team members to better identify and "bond" with one another through common pursuits. The more people from diverse ministries interact supportively, the greater their sense of shared vision and interdependence. The potential for conflict melts as team members more fully identify and empathize with one another.
Compromise is the fourth strategy for handling conflict. This old standby does indeed hold marvelous potential for resolving conflict, but only when used under the right circumstances. Compromise is definitely not a cure-all for conflict. Compromise works when the conflict centers around means (how we'll do something) rather than ends (what our purpose is). To ask committed team members to compromise their ideals is asking for frustration and strife.
Circumstances for constructive compromise are ripe when team members are so "sold out" to ministry goals that they're willing to make implementation concessions to achieve these goals. Goal-driven team members are usually open to changes or concessions that facilitate progress. Compromise that does not jeopardize the ultimate ministry mission will actually be welcomed under these circumstances.
SITUATION REVIEW 8.2
Assessing the Conflict Environment
1. Identify a real or potential conflict within your ministry and analyze it using the following questions.
A. To what extent does this conflict seem to center on people and personalities rather than issues? What interpersonal frictions and tensions currently exist on the ministry team?
B. Does this conflict seem to be rooted more in people’s emotions or their ideas? How do you know?
C. To what extent is this the result of a confrontational approach among team members? Was this confrontation really necessary and unavoidable?
D. Does your team have one or more superordinate goals that are more important to its members than personal goals? If so, what specific evidence indicates the presence of these superordinate goals?
E. To what extent is this conflict really made up of smaller conflicts that have accumulated over a period of time? If the smaller conflicts were to be resolved, would the larger conflict then eventually “evaporate”?
F. Do you feel this conflict may be the result of lack of communication and interaction between your ministry team and others in the organization?
G. Does this conflict center more on the goals and mission of your team or the way in which goals are to be pursued and implemented?
H. To what extent are members of your team open to concession and compromise that would enhance goal attainment? How can you verify this?
2. Based on Situation Review 8.2, circle the appropriate words below.
A. This conflict seems to center more on:
Personalities or Issues
Emotions or Ideas
Confrontation or Avoidance
Implementation (means) or Goals (ends)
The past or The future
Commissions (what the team did) or Omissions (what the team failed to do)
Interactions of team members with themselves or With other teams
ACTION PLAN 8.2
Resolving Conflict Strategically
If most of the items checked by your team in part 2 of Situation Review 8.2 were in the left column, the nature of the conflict under review is probably “hot.” A majority of checked items in the right column indicates a “cooler” type of conflict. “Hot” conflict is generally people-intensive, emotional, and based on divisive actions of the past. By contrast, “cool” conflict tends to be intellectual (issue-oriented), concerned with perceived intentions more than actual behaviors, and idealistic (“clouds” and “shoulds”).
1. If the nature of your conflict seems to be of the “hot” variety, discuss the potential of the following strategies for your team.
A. Getting conflicting team members to “bury the hatchet” (overlook their personality differences) and put the mission of the team in the forefront.
B. Minimizing the use of “I” and “me” and maximizing “we” and “us”.
C. Speaking in the future tense rather than past tense.
D. Replacing “I feel” with “I think”.
E. Focusing more on intentions than actual behaviors.
F. Stressing what we can accomplish in the future more than what we failed to accomplish in the past.
2. If the nature of your team conflict is more of the “cool” variety, consider the potential of the following strategies.
A. Discussion of what actions individual team members want to take regardless of how they feel about the team mission.
B. Emphasis on the team’s rich legacy of past accomplishments and fruits of cooperation.
C. Focus on “bridges” team members have built to one another.
D. Focus on the unique and distinctive contributions of individual team members.
E. Sharing of how members have enjoyed team interactions even when goals were not ideally achieved.
MINISTRY CHANGE
Most people have a love-hate relationship with change. They love the opportunities it frequently affords but hate its disruptions and inescapable adjustments. This explains why change is so commonly resisted to one extent or another by us all.
The status quo is a security blanket which we are reluctant to leave behind. Change requires effort and energy and is not entirely predictable. Sometimes the benefits of change are not obvious to everyone involved, especially if they've not had a hand in initiating it. Other times a person's resistance to change is no more complicated than a simple, "What's in it for me?"
Other reasons for resisting change are not so superficial. Many fear change will expose personal inadequacies or resurrect dormant conflicts on the team. Others worry that change may disrupt team momentum or jeopardize "turf protection."
Since change is inevitable--a permanent fixture in our complex society--ministry managers must strive to use it as a tool for team progress and advancement. This calls for pragmatic strategy. Four fundamental questions underlie the ministry change strategy:
1.How will the
change benefit the ministry in general and team members in particular?
2.What price must
be paid to solidify the change?
3.When should the
change occur?
4.What role should
each team member play in the change process?
SITUATION REVIEW 8.3
How High Is the Wall of Resistance?
Team members should indicate how strongly they agree (2 = strongly agree, 1 = agree, 0 = disagree) with the following questions about change.
1. Things are currently going very well for our team.
2. Team members are strongly committed to what is best for the overall team
3. The members of the team seem to enjoy discussions of how individuals are performing and the contributions they each make.
4. Past ministry changes have not always helped the team’s performance.
5. Several times in the past, team members were surprised by the difficulty and challenge of bringing about a change.
6. The team has generally been able to implement changes smoothly and efficiently.
7. We stay so busy with on-going ministry activities, it is often hard to find the time to implement changes.
8. We rarely lose sight of our goals and mission.
9. Several times in the past, the team hesitated to adopt a change because we were unsure if the benefits outweighed the costs.
10. We haven’t always introduced needed changes at the optimum time.
Each team member’s inventory should be scored by subtracting the total for statements 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 (unfavorable change climate factors) from the total for 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 (favorable change climate factors). The higher the score on a 10 point scale, the more favorable the team’s change climate would appear to be. Low scores, near 0, very possibly point toward a significant resistance to change on the team.
ACTION PLAN 8.3
Overcoming Resistance to Change
The team leader should identify a change the team will soon tackle. By discussing this change in light of the following questions, much can be done to overcome unnecessary resistance.
Change under consideration.
1. How have things been going “right” for the team recently? Where have you succeeded and excelled?
2. Cite recent examples of how team members have positively responded to what was in the team’s best interest.
3. Cite recent examples of outstanding contributions made by individual team members.
4. Identify past instances where change brought about improvements in team performance and success.
5. What has your team learned about the nature of the change process from the past that will make it easier for you to implement change in the future?
6. Is now the best time to introduce this change? Might it be beneficial to wait?
7. How will the overall team be better off as the result of introducing this change?
8. How will individual team members be better off personally?
WORKING SMARTER RATHER
THAN HARDER AT CHANGE
Much of the time, we're our own worst enemy when it comes to change. We either pick the wrong time to initiate the change, undertake it for the wrong reasons, or "shoot ourselves in the foot" while implementing it.
Perhaps the first step in "smart" change is recognizing when it is needed. A number of telltale signs suggest the need for ministry change. These include creeping lethargy in the ministry, inadequate team unity or togetherness, greater frequency of brushfires, and sagging vitality of leadership. Sometimes change is needed as a catalyst to "shake-up" the ministry team; other times it serves to solidify and stabilize team accomplishment.
Change should never be undertaken, however, as a virtue in itself--change for the sake of change. Nor should it be a "knee-jerk" reaction to emotional or political pressure. Change is an energy-monopolizing, high resource process that must not be pursued frivolously.
Smart change requires good timing and a "thawed" organization climate not dominated by routine. A particularly auspicious time for change is during a natural transition in the organization, such as a changing of the guard in leadership, the start of a new budget period, or undertaking a major new challenge (e.g., building program, refinancing).
Smart change also recognizes the crucial importance of opinion-leaders in the organization. These influential people can champion the change one-on-one, insuring that colleagues are adequately informed about its benefits and costs. The battle for change is waged most successfully here in the trenches where team members interact.
Several other principles help undergird the smart change process. Significant change should not be undertaken suddenly, autocratically, or in a vacuum (in isolation from those affected by it). Political tactics, such as "divide and conquer" and "end-runs," must be steadfastly resisted, along with visions of grandeur that would try to change the entire organization all at once, rather than one manageable piece at a time. Even more importantly, change undertaken without fervent prayer will almost certainly be stillborn. In the final analysis, change is God's prerogative. The human timetable for change must be carefully synchronized with the divine schedule!
SITUATION REVIEW 8.4
A Time For Change?
Team members should state how much they agree with the following questions (2 = strongly agree, 1 = agree, and 0 = disagree).
1. I often feel the work of this ministry is dull and routine.
2. Our source of team unity and togetherness is not as strong as it could be.
3. The team has experienced an unusual number of “brushfires” lately.
4. The team would really benefit from a “shake-up” of some sort.
5. People outside our team in the organization are not very familiar with the activities and pursuits of our team.
6. The most influential behind-the-scenes people in the organization enthusiastically support and promote the activities and pursuits of my ministry team.
7. Our ministry is currently in a state of transition which is disrupting the status quo.
8. The members of my team spend a lot of quality time with one another in prayer.
9. Our ministry team rarely engages in independent actions isolated from the rest of the organization.
10. Our team hesitates to undertake activities that won’t smoothly mesh with what other ministry teams are doing.
The responses to all ten statements (indicating a fertile change climate) should be totaled. High scores, on a 0-20 scale, indicate not only a high need for change on the team but also favorable circumstances for bringing it about. Lower scores reflect less perceived need for change and less fertile circumstances for bringing it about.
ACTION PLAN 8.4
A Fertile Climate For Change
The following questions will help the team and its leader create fertile conditions for the change process. An anticipated change should be evaluated in light of these action-focused questions.
Change Under Consideration:
1. Who on the team supports this change?
2. Who outside the team in the organization supports the change?
3. How secure are members with the current ministry status quo?
4. Why should the team want to make this change?
5. To what extent are team members merely tolerating the change?
6. Is there a strong champion for this change on the team?
7. What type of change is most needed on the team now: evolutionary or revolutionary?
8. Is this the right time for the change? How do you know?
9. To what extent does the team feel politically pressured into making the change?
10.
How high a price is the team willing to pay for the change?
SUCCESSFUL CHANGE
STRATEGY
Successful change is founded on basic principles that apply to a variety of situations. These principles, which are the foundation of change strategy, call for change to be discerned, communicated, legitimized, and planned.
The first step in successful change involves getting organization members to clearly recognize why it is needed and how it will prove beneficial. There must be a personalized relationship between those advocating the change and those affected by it, so that common bridges of support can be built. These relationship bridges should be sturdy enough to hold up under the "traffic" of team members working with each other as the change is implemented.
The pending change, "warts and all," must be sensitively and creatively communicated to all parts of the organization. Informal means of communication, such as meals shared and casual hallway conversations, should be stressed over formal means (memos, newsletters, etc.) because of the one-on-one selling opportunities afforded by personal contacts. The change should be explained to people in light of their unique personal needs and orientation, so they will enthusiastically accept the change rather than only passively tolerate it.
Legitimizing the change is the third phase. The proposed change should be visibly endorsed by ministry leaders throughout the organization, "officially" discussed at formal meetings, and given ceremonial recognition (such as inclusion in the budget or the focus of attention on bulletin boards and other avenues of organizational public relations.
In the planning phase of change strategy, people and resources must be linked together according to a clearly defined implementation schedule. Team members should be equipped with time, resources, and political support to make the change a concrete reality, not an abstract ideal. Information must be gathered and processed, meetings scheduled and held, and goals translated into action plans.
As the team leader navigates through the four change strategy phases, several additional realities about change should be kept in mind. First of all, it should be remembered that leaders are almost always the most change-oriented members in an organization, so they should not expect too much too son. Unless at least three quarters of team members support a proposed change, the leader should probably back off and not process matters in the short-run. The fervent opposition of even a small minority of organization members can stymie the change program.
Change should usually be implemented in a gradual, evolutionary manner that doesn't overwhelm team members. In addition, the course of least resistance should be followed by introducing the change in the very most supportive part of the organization. An immediate positive effect greatly enhances the long prospects of any change.
Sometimes the organization is not quite ready for change to be introduced. Under these circumstances, the leader would be smart to do a little seed planting: introduce the change idea and then patiently cultivate it over time. When the team is ready for it, someone else will invariably suggest the idea or a variation, and the leader can go to work--even if someone else gets credit for the idea. Humility has its advantages in a number of contexts!
Under no circumstances should a frustrated team leader resort to "end-run" tactics to "sneak" change by entrenched team members. The political fallout of manipulative change tactics can ruin a leader overnight. The status quo is always preferable to "open revolution in the streets."
SITUATION REVIEW 8.5
Change In Retrospect
The team leader should identify a major change recently implemented by the ministry team. Those affected by the change, both inside and outside the team, should critique the change implementation process by stating how much they agree with each of the following statements (2 = strongly agree, 1 = agree, 0 = disagree).
Change under review:
1. I clearly understood the reason for this change.
2. I supported this change.
3. I am satisfied with my participation in the process of bringing the change about.
4. I understood the costs as well as the benefits of this change.
5. I feel the change was adequately discussed and planned.
6. The change was initiated and implemented in a personal, rather than impersonal manner.
7. The change was officially endorsed by the organization before being implemented.
8. The change was smoothly implemented and well-coordinated.
9. I was aware of the goals of the change.
10. I did not feel pressured or pushed to accept the change.
11. There has been no visible opposition to this change.
12. The change was implemented sensitively and at a reasonable pace.
13. I’m glad we made this change.
14. The organization has benefited from the change.
15. I would like all future changes to be handled in this same sensible manner.
The responses to all 15 statements (positive strategies for change) should be totaled. High scores on the 30-point scale reflect a well-managed change strategy. Low scores would suggest the need to work “smarter” rather than harder in initiating and implementing change. Statements that received scores of 0, reflecting disagreement, are “red flags” that signal the need for improvement.
ACTION PLAN 8.5
Change Full Speed Ahead
The following questions can help the ministry leader design an effective strategy for introducing change. The questions should be addressed by the team as a whole.
Change being considered:
1. Who will be directly affected by this change?
2. Who will implement the change?
3. Who is likely to enthusiastically support the change?
4. Who is likely to merely tolerate the change? Why?
5. Is anyone likely to oppose the change? Why?
6. What positive actions can you take before the change process is begun to overcome problems of apathy or resistance?
7. What actions will you take to have the change officially endorsed and legitimized?
8. How will you “sell” the change within your organization? Who will do the selling?
9. According to the results of Situation Review 8.5, what should you do differently in introducing future changes?
10. How will you evaluate whether or not the proposed change was effectively implemented?
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.
(2 Corinthians 5:18)
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility. (Ephesians 2:14)
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts. (Colossians 3:12-15)
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness. (James 3:17-18)
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:34-35)