samemind.net

Implementing Healthy Change

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:48:00 +0000

Implementing Healthy Change in Your Church or Ministry: A Manual on Leading a Christian Organization Through Intentional and Positive Change

by Randal L. Gilmore

Please Note: A PDF of this manual is available upon request.

Introduction

One of my heroes of the faith is Hudson Taylor, that great giant of a missionary to China from the late 1800’s. Hudson Taylor functioned in the Body of Christ as a powerful agent of positive change. Until Taylor came along, the overwhelming majority of missionary enterprise in China focused on coastal areas. Taylor changed that focus, lifting the eyes of the then Christian world onto the masses of unsaved souls in China’s interior. He cast a vision by example and with words that continue to inspire today:

All we are now proposing to do is to lay hold on His faithfulness Who has called us into this service, and in obedience to His call and reliance on His power to enlarge the sphere of our operations, for the glory of His name Who alone doeth wondrous things.[1]

Taylor’s words capture the spirit of God-honoring intentional change. It is change brought on by vision either to begin doing or to expand upon doing the will of God for His Church. As a fellow pastor and Christian leader with more than 32 years of ministry experience, I have become a friend of the kind of intentional change that is based on doing the will of God and that stimulates a ministry’s healthy growth and improves overall ministry effectiveness. This manual is designed to pass along lessons I have learned about the process of implementing change in healthy ways. It outlines certain steps to follow as individuals or groups of people begin their pursuit of what God has in store for them. The manual includes footnoted references throughout and a select bibliography at the end. It also includes graphics, which may be freely copied and pasted into PowerPoint presentations. Finally, reflection questions are also inserted here and there to assist in the assimilation of the material.

As you make use of this manual, my prayer is for you to see all that God has for you and your organization to do for His glory. I pray also for you to lay hold on His faithfulness, and to pursue the fulfillment of His will for you and your organization with all of your heart.

Life Cycle of a Church

Church consultant and author, Aubrey Malphurs, represents the life-cycle of a church with a bell curve plotted on a 2-dimensional graph of church attendance and church age (see Figure 1).[2] Don’t get hung up on “church attendance” being the primary measure of “church life.” Try to focus in on the phases of the cycle itself: birth, growth, plateau, decline, and death. Ask yourself: “Where in this cycle would an objective analysis place my church?

Malphurs goes on to explain how the key to sustained growth in a church is to proactively and strategically introduce new S-curves that begin with birth and then cycle through growth; then, building onto that with an even newer S-curve of birth and growth prior to previous curve’s plateau and descent into decline and death (see Figure 2). [3]

My Personal Experience

Malphurs’ analysis is consistent with my personal experience at the church where I pastor. Several years ago, I noticed we were having to make some kind of major change in church facilities, staffing, or programming about every 1.5 years. The kind of changes I am referring to involve things such as adding or changing pastoral staff (including interns), adding or remodeling facilities, adding or shutting down ministries, adding or shutting down services (e.g. for example, over the years, we have developed a significant Wednesday night set of ministries, and we have stopped having a Sunday evening preaching service; years ago, we started a small group ministry, which we eventually shut down when we finally had the facilities to dive headlong into a thriving Sunday School ministry, not just for kids, but also for adults).

Most of the major changes we’ve made at our have resulted in new S-curves of birth and growth. However, in some cases, the major change we introduced involved assisting an existing ministry with decline and death. Sometimes it can be wise strategically to let something die that needs to die, so that something better can be birthed in its place at a later time.

What Kind of Change Will Work For You?

About now, you may be wondering if this manual is going to advocate a particular type of change; or, for that matter, the specific changes we have made at our church over the years. The answer is “Definitely Not!” No single strategy for ministry works everywhere; however, I do believe certain biblical components must be present in every ministry strategy, regardless of how the superstructure of that strategy is built. In our church, every ministry strategy must somehow involve the biblical teaching on Jesus’ exaltation as the Lord of lords. In other words, each of our ministry strategies functions as a means to exalting the Lord.

Reflection question: Which biblical components do you believe should be included in the ministry strategy of your church or Christian organization?

Types of Change

Before moving on to outline process, it might be helpful to distinguish between two different types of intentional change. Researchers and authors, Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky, contrast what they call technical change with what they call adaptive change.[4] Technical changes are those changes that apply current know-how within the framework of current values or hierarchy of values). Adaptive changes are those that require a change of values or hierarchy of values, a change of attitudes, and a change of behaviors. Heifetz and Linsky explain that “adaptive challenges…require experiments, new discoveries, and adjustments from numerous places in the organization. Without learning new ways—changing attitudes, values, and behaviors—people cannot make the adaptive leap necessary to thrive in the new environment.”[5]

Heifetz and Linsky’s book, Leadership on the Line, is not a book about ministry. However, their conceptualization of change as either technical or adaptive powerfully frames the kinds of changes we encounter and consider in ministry. Let me give you some examples:

technical	vs.	adaptive
order of service	-	adding or eliminating a service
introducing a new song for worship	-	introducing a new music style
temporary shift in pastoral duties	-	adding, eliminating, or permanently shifting pastoral duties or staff
normal lay leader transitions	-	shifts in the church’s “political” system
routine decisions	-	decisions to buy property, build, do major remodeling, make major expenditures (or routine decisions closely tied to group identity, history, and core values

If for some reason, after seeing these examples, you don’t like the terms technical and adaptive, I once attended an hour-long seminar taught by church consultant, Kevin Ford, who refers to technical change as those that require operational decisions and approaches and adaptive changes as those requiring transformational decisions and approaches.[6] The word transformational tracks with the earlier quote from Heifetz and Linsky regarding adaptive change requiring “new discoveries and adaptations…and new values, attitudes, and behaviors.”

Yet another way to distinguish between technical change and adaptive change is to consider the relative calm or danger presented by one or the other. A good analogy to explain the difference is the waterline on a boat. If you punch a hole in a boat above the waterline, the peril to the boat won’t be that great. However, if you punch a hole in a boat below the waterline, the boat just might sink!

Making technical changes is like punching holes in boats above the waterline. Making adaptive changes is like punching holes in boats below the waterline. The analogy does not involve comparing your church to the boat, and if you punch a hole below the waterline, your church will sink. The analogy involves you understanding that the boat is your ministry. And when you begin punching holes below the waterline in your ministry-boat, you and your ministry are at risk.

Heifetz and Linsky contend that making adaptive changes, or even suggesting them, often poses significant threat to those who are adaptive-change agents. They identify four types of threat in particular:

1. Marginalization – diminishing the change agent’s ability to influence

2. Diversion – deflecting the change agent’s focus

3. Attack – directing the “conversation” away from the change to the character or style, et AL., of the change agent

4. Seduction – the change agent dialoguing solely with supporters, embracing their affirmations and support while demonizing the “opposition” (shutting out dissent or compromise possibilities).[7]

To bring all this home, try substituting “pastor” for “change agent”.

We could stay busy for hours, unpacking all the biblical examples of leaders who experienced one or more of these perils: Noah, Moses, Nehemiah, and on the list could go. Of course the greatest example of all is Jesus himself. Jesus confronted the Pharisees with adaptive change after adaptive change. There’s no better example of this than the Sermon on the Mount. Over and over Jesus said, “You have heard it was said long ago…but I say to you!” As a result, Jesus experienced all four of the threats leaders face when they make or even suggest adaptive change.

Reflection question: Which types of threats have you faced in the past due to some change or changes you attempted to make? How did you handle the threat? What lessons did you learn from your experience?

In the end, no leader (no pastor) can escape every bit of danger posed by the adaptive or transformational changes he is leading his church to make. Nevertheless, it is possible to minimize the danger by learning and utilizing wisely crafted steps toward implementing healthy change. The sixteen steps[8] outlined below are critical elements of the process for implementing healthy change. The key words here are “process” and “healthy”. Anyone can attempt and even succeed in making changes in their organization. Making “healthy” changes, changes that preserve relationships, that preserve the leader and the organization itself, is something entirely different. To succeed with implementing “healthy” changes, pastors and leaders must develop and follow a wisely crafted process. The word “process” indicates among other things that implementing healthy change will take a significant investment of both time and energy. Here are the sixteen steps, each of which is briefly explained.

1. Begin to bathe your ministry and the entire process of implementing change in prayer. Nehemiah is a stellar example of a biblical change agent who utilized prayer extensively as he led the people through the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem and through the associated changes the rebuilding had on their lives (see Nehemiah 1:4; 1:5-11; 2:4; 4:4-5; 6:9, and 14).

2. Read several books or journal articles on organizational change and resistance for ideas and perspective on implementing healthy organizational change. You might consider beginning with the books and articles listed in the bibliography.

3. Make a thorough attempt to understand current reality. Numerous audit tools are available and can be quite useful to pastors or Christian leaders who seek to understand the current reality of their ministry. Malphurs lists and describes several of them.[9] One of the more commonly used is the SWOT analysis (SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats). In addition to analyzing the current reality of your organization from the perspective of tools such as SWOT and other types of audits, it will be important to thoroughly understand the culture of your organization. Author Paul Mundey writes:

One of the best ways to discover the narrative of your congregation is to ask members to create a historical time line. On several sheets of newsprint taped to the wall, draw a long horizontal line. At the far right end, write the date of the current year. On the far left side, write the date of the founding of the congregation. In between, write key historical events in the life of the church. As persons share, encourage them to tell stories. Ask them to name specific personalities, locations, even weather conditions. Invite them to enter fully into the color and texture of their history. Help participants feel the richness of their heritage and the intrinsic value of their experience. The unfolding of a congregation’s story is a powerful event, identifying many connecting points and precedents for launching future ministry.[10]

4. Understand your congregation as a complex network of systems. Mundey suggests four types of systems that exist in churches and Christian organizations: (1) the political system (who are the influencers?); (2) the transportation system (how do things get done and communicated?); (3) the resourcing system (how are people equipped and motivated?); and (4)the weather system (what factors influence the overall climate of the church?).[11]

5. Dig into the Scriptures for guidance and begin asking God to reveal His will to you and your organization. All ministries are smaller units of God’s larger spiritual presence on earth. They also play roles in a larger spiritual battle being waged right before our eyes. Accordingly, we need to employ prayer; for we cannot expect to fight spiritual battles and win without constant, fervent, and all-encompassing prayer (see Ephesians 6:18-20).

6. Begin to develop a vision for what God is leading your organization to change or to become or to do for His glory. Malphurs explains that a vision is “a clear and compelling picture of what can and must be.”[12] Vision is also popularly referred to as a desired future state. In other words, vision begins to paint the picture of what God has in mind for your church or ministry. Make sure your vision is God-sized (not so small you don’t need Him, and yet not out of this world. God-sized vision attracts the hearts and resources of God’s people. Someone once said, “If you want to know whether or not your vision is what it ought to be and whether you are communicating it effectively, walk up to any Christian businessman on the street. Communicate your vision and strategy to him, and if he doesn’t immediately write a check to you for at least $100, you need to rework it.”

Keep in mind, that one of your major aims is to enroll others in sharing God’s vision for your church or ministry. Peter Senge cautions against the dangers of other types of responses to vision, types of responses that function as something less than commitment and enrollment: (1) genuine compliance; (2) formal compliance; (3) grudging compliance; (4) non-compliance; and (5) apathy.[13] Even though compliance may seem like the desirable response, commitment and enrollment call out higher levels of cooperation, creativity, and motivation to turn the vision into reality.[14]

7. Write out a brief vision narrative to describe the desired future of your church or ministry. A vision narrative is a one-page summary of what your organization or ministry looks like and how it will function once your vision is fulfilled. Longer than a simple “vision statement”, a vision narrative briefly tells the story of the desired future you have in mind. Of course, it will be necessary soon to begin enrolling others in the vision for your church or ministry. This means as you write the narrative you must remain flexible, understanding that God may have a role for others to play in helping you to shape the vision He has in mind for your church or ministry.

8. Identify and rank the current values of your church or organization in the order of their importance. Identify which values to be added, which need to be changed, and which need to be moved around in the hierarchy in order for your vision to be fulfilled. One way to discover the values of your organization and ministry and their hierarchy of importance is to analyze what you are currently doing from the perspective of what values or what hierarchy of values that communicates. Another is to assemble a collection of the top five or ten stories that belong to your organization’s culture, analyzing them in a similar fashion.

9. Develop a plan for teaching or giving new weight to the values that are critical for your vision. Mundy explains: “Values are like stepping stones across a vigorous and swift stream. If we expect people to cross new currents, we first need to provide a foundation. Otherwise, the journey is too intimidating and the possibilities of being knocked off balance too likely.”[15]

10. Prayerfully ask God to help you to select a vision team with key players from your church or ministry to help you with moving forward. This team does not necessarily have to be composed of people who have historically been in agreement with you. However, they should be people who are spiritual and who are able to interact with you and others as a team with the mission of developing a vision for implementing healthy change in your organization.

Reflection question: What is the profile of a person you believe would be an ideal member of your team? Why are the elements of the profile important to you? What is the profile of a person you would not want on your team? Describe how someone might help your team, even if you personally do not “click” with him or her?

11. Repeat Steps 1-9 and then skip to step 12. As you proceed, keep on reminding the team to cultivate the same flexibility and openness to the creative input of others that you are modeling to them in reference to your ideas and preconceptions.

12. Solicit the ideas of others in your congregation or organization at large. Provide information for people to guide their creativity; using, for example, attendance demographics and statistics, community demographics, community needs, congregational needs. Craft a report to your constituency that reveals your and your team’s findings from Step 3. Ask people for “their” solutions to certain ministry challenges or for new expressions of God-given organization values.

13. Identify potential sources of resistance and the potential losses that may occur if the change you are proposing is enacted. Nehemiah anticipated the resistance of Tobiah and Sanballat, since he knew they had something to lose if he went forward with the plan to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. He knew the rebuilding of the walls would dramatically shrink their political playgrounds. Therefore, he monitored them to stay aware of the shape their resistance was taking. Mundey advises on the loss that even healthy change can represent to some people: “When you change from one locale to another, you unpack boxes; when you transition from one locale to another, you unpack memories, emotions, dreams, self-perceptions, relationships, and even faith. Transition touches all aspects of our personhood; it challenges us to stretch from a familiar reality to a fresh, but frightening context.”[16] An awareness of the potential losses will equip you not only to anticipate resistance, but also to reduce it with strategies of biblical same-mindedness.[17]

14. Carefully invite participation and enrollment in the plan for change as it currently stands. When it is time for the larger group to make a formal decision about going forward. Mundey advises the following: (1) Never introduce a new idea and vote on it in the same meeting; (2) Identify clearly the avenues for additional information and input; (3) If people are opposed, meet with them individually…[to] listen carefully to objections, reviewing the benefits of the proposed change as needed; (4) Don’t position yourself for a negative vote. If you sense that the tide is against you, do a reassessment; (5) When you sense that people are “with you,” bring them together and move toward a positive vote.[18]

15. Launch the changes well.[19] It is advisable to over-communicate what is happening and when. Use multiple channels to connect with people: announcements, mailings, emails, web pages, blogs, skits, sermons, small group meetings, large group meetings. Involve your planning team in the communication. Measure your communication success when people are clear with what the vision and changes are based on their communication with your team, not just on their communication with you.

Reflection question: What methods do you normally use to communicate with your organization? Randomly choose three people from your organization and ask them to assess your organization’s communication effectiveness. Do you agree or disagree with their assessment?

16. Monitor progress with intention and celebrate. Establish mileposts for evaluating your progress and make any adjustments that are necessary to ensure success. The adjustments might involve communication practices or even changes in the implementation strategy itself. When you observe progress and success, even if it seems small in comparison to the overall plan, celebrate what God is doing in order to promote momentum. Do so with integrity, so as to not undermine future successes when they actually do occur.

Final Words

It will be important to read through the sixteen steps more than once to familiarize yourself with them. You may discover it will be necessary to return to one or two of them as you move along in the process of implementing healthy change in your organization or ministry. Finally, in your reading and subsequent time of leading your organization or ministry through change, you may also believe additional steps are needed to ensure the “healthiness” of what you are doing. As stated near the beginning, the critical thing is to lay hold on God’s faithfulness, and to pursue the fulfillment of His will for you and your organization with all of your heart.

Bibliography

Ford, Kevin. “When Simple Church Isn’t Simple.” A lecture given at a pastor’s lunch sponsored by Aspen Group, October 16, 2008, Fishers, IN.

Gilmore, Randal. Where Do We Go From Here: The Path to Biblically Resolving Conflict. Fishers, IN: EXALT Publications, 2007.

Heifetz, Ronald A., and Martin Linsky. Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.

Hobgood, William Chris. Welcoming Resistance. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2001.

Malphurs, Aubrey. Advanced Strategic Planning: A New Model for Church and Ministry Leaders. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.

Malphurs, Aubrey. Developing a Vision for Ministry in the 21^st Century. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999.

Mundey, Paul. Unlocking Church Doors: Ten Keys to Positive Change. Leadership insight series. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997.

Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday, 2006.

[1] Hudson Taylor Biography

[2] Aubrey Malphurs, Advanced Strategic Planning: A New Model for Church and Ministry Leaders (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005), 9.

[3] Ibid., 12-15.

[4] Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002).

[5] Ibid., 13.

[6] Kevin Ford

[7] Heifetz, 31-48.

[9] Malphurs, 311-356

[10] Paul Mundey, Unlocking Church Doors: Ten Keys to Positive Change (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1997), 48.

[11] Ibid., 56-64.

[12] Aubrey Malphurs, Developing a Vision for Ministry in the 21st Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 41.

[13] Peter M Senge, "The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization," (Doubleday) 2006, 204.

[14] Ibid., 191-215.

[15]Mundey, 47.

[16] Mundey, 96.

[17] Randal Gilmore, Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict (Fishers, IN: Exalt Publications, 2007), 1-62.

[18]Mundey, 94.

[19]Ibid, 107

Copyright 2010 Randal L Gilmore All Rights Reserved

Dispute Domains - Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:08:00 +0000

Part 1 of this entry was posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009; Part 2 on June 7, 2009.

As you study the twelve dispute domains, you will perceive it more desirable to be located as near to the bottom left corner as possible, especially when certain priorities are taken into account.* The more positive features of the locations down and to the left are not available disputes move up or to the right, due in part to the properties of each domain in relation to certain "quotients" of conflict interaction.

The properties of each of the twelve dispute domains vary according to at least six conflict interaction quotients: (1) forbearance (2) personalization; (3) empathy; (4) mutuality; (5) outcomes; and (6) future relationship.

The forbearance quotient describes the degree to which conflict parties are willing to forbear one another their differences. The differences that exist might be deemed not significant enough to do something about them; although, to be plotted on this model, the differences have to be significant enough for one of the parties to be motivated to bring up the matter to his brother spontaneously (the lowest and most left of the domains). Moving up or to the right anywhere on the chart of dispute domains diminishes the forbearance quotient. For example, I am suggesting there is greater forbearance associated with brother/planned communication than with neighbor/planned communication. Stated more generally in terms of an hypothesis for proposed research, each dispute domain will score higher on a forbearance scale than other domains above it or to its right.

On a practical level, this means there is value in recognizing that forbearance plays a role in locating a particular dispute in a particular dispute domain. Re-locating to another domain lower and/or to the left might be possible simply by one of the parties choosing to forbear his counterpart on the issue at hand. Or re-location might also be possible by choosing to forbear on some of the issues at hand, simplifying resolution for remaining issues.

In Ephesians 4:2 and Colossians 3:13, the Apostle Paul exhorts us to forbear one another. The idea is to patiently bear with one another. Forbearing is something we do quite naturally with people we love. The remarkable feature of Ephesians 4:2 and Colossians 3:13 is that Paul exhorts it, meaning forbearance is something we can choose when it does not occur naturally. Such a choice, in turn, stands to improve where we locate any particular conflict we might be party to.

For more on deciding when to forbear, see pp. 23-24 of Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict.

Application Question:
Think of a conflict you were involved in recently. How might things have turned out differently had you or the other party practiced biblical forbearance?

© 2009 Randal L Gilmore All Rights Reserved

*See When the Play's in the Wrong Theater by Gail Miller and Robert Dingwall in The Negotiator's Fieldbook, edited by Andrea Kupfer Schnieder and Christopher Honeyman.

Dispute Domians - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:42:00 +0000

Part 1 of this entry was posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Dispute domains are the relational frameworks of conflict interaction.* From a biblical perspective, it is possible to identify 12 dispute domains, using a dual concern model of relationship orientation and conflict interaction structure (click on visuals to enlarge them).

Relationship orientation can be broken into three broad categories, using biblical terminology: brother, neighbor, and enemy. The term brother identifies a close, fraternal relationship and should not be confused with the blood relative. Neighbor refers to others toward whom one acts congenially and even lovingly, strangers though they may be. Enemy stands for those so designated, either intentionally or not, by our not-so-loving attitudes and behavior.

Conflict interaction structure refers to the specific setting we adopt for addressing a specific conflict issue (or set of issues). These settings range from informal to formal. For example, more informal possibilities are spontaneous and planned communication. Communication is planned if it begins with a stated intention to address a conflict issue. Mediation and arbitration appear on the more formal end of the scale. Arbitration refers to those settings wherein conflict is adjudicated by a third-party, be it a church board, a congregation, or a court of law. Mediation describes settings wherein a third-party assists conflict principals with resolution. For example, counseling or the involvement of mentors are categorized as mediation.

Plotting the three relationship orientations against the four conflict interaction structures will yield a dual-concern model with a total of twelve dispute domains. For example, the first dispute domain, in the lower left, is brother/spontaneous, followed by brother/planned, followed by brother/mediation, et Al.

In my next post, I will explain the properties associated with the twelve domains, along with how to re-locate conflict from one to another.

© 2009 Randal L Gilmore All Rights Reserved

*For more on Gale Miller and James Holstein's work see Dispute Domains and Welfare Claims: Conflict and Law in Public Bureaucracies (1996).

Dispute Domains - Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:41:00 +0000

Have you ever noticed how easy it is to move through conflict with some people, and how difficult it is with others? The difference could be due to something researchers Gale Miller and James Holstein call dispute domains. The good news is, not only do they exist, but you can do something about them.

No two disputes are exactly the same, even when they involve the same people. Disputes take on a life of their own based on which resolution process we adopt and the kind of relationship we perceive ourselves to have with our counterparts. Choices related to these tend to locate conflict into a particular dispute domains. A dispute domain is a kind of framework for conflict interaction, hidden, and yet obviously constraining potential tactics, outcomes, and other conflict-defining elements.

The reason why conflict with some people seems so difficult is because our interaction with them is located in a dispute domain that constrains the possibility of a more desirable and satisfying experience. Moving into a different dispute domain changes the dynamics, potentially altering the outcome as well.

In my next post, using biblical constructs, I will identify 12 dispute domains with their associated properties and a framework for accurately locating any current disputes of your own.

© 2009 Randal L Gilmore All Rights Reserved

For more on Gale Miller and James Holstein's work see Dispute Domains and Welfare Claims: Conflict and Law in Public Bureaucracies (1996).

Acts 6:1-10: An Example of Conflict and Organizational Change in the Early Church

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:37:00 +0000

Acts 6:1-10 is known for introducing the role of "deacon" into the Church. But it also serves as a positive model for implementing organizational change during times of conflict and need. Faced with a crisis that jeopardized continued ministry effectiveness, the apostles innovated, but not in isolation to certain core values. In so doing, the apostles modeled for future transformational leaders of the Church the imperative of grounding innovation in biblical values that are clearly articulated and reflected in specific ministry strategies and plans.

To access the entire article in PDF, click on the link:

Acts 6:1-10: An Example of Conflict and Organizational Change in the Early Church

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:53:00 +0000

This is post 4 of 4 on the topic of Effective Team Ministry. If you wish to start with the first post on this study, go to the post that's dated July 19, 2008. To view a corresponding PowerPoint presentation as you read, go to: Effective Team PPT in a new window, enabling you to read and watch in side-by-side windows. Please note: this material was originally presented as a seminar for missionaries serving with Baptist Mid-Missions, which is based in Cleveland, OH. The material is copyrighted, but may be used with written permission obtained by writing: permission.

Slides 8-18 - Ingredients of Teams

So what makes a team a team? And how do these ingredients factor into a team's effectiveness?

Keep in mind that Christian "bodies" are everything that teams are, and more. But let's begin by identifying the ingredients that all teams share, regardless of whether they are Christian or not.

The first ingredient is shared vision. Noted author and church consultant, Aubrey Malphurs defines a vision as "a clear and compelling view of the future." Others refer to vision as "a preferred future" or "desired destination". Effective teams will invest in the time and energy it takes to develop and communicate a shared vision.

Two other ingredients are shared goals and shared resources. Goals refer to the objectives or endpoints to which teams direct their efforts. Goal research has demonstrated that having goals is better than having none. Then, to be effective, goals should be clear, realistic, and measurable. Shared resources refer to both the tangible and intangible means of the team's members, either as individuals or as a group.

Yet another ingredient of effective teams is shared interaction. One of the most important kinds of interaction for teams to share is something we refer to as "meta-communication." This involves communicating about communication patterns and processes. At the top of this list are patterns and processes focused on problem-solving techniques and conflict management. My experience as a consultant has taught me how important it also is for ministry teams to engage in shared interaction informally; in other words, in times and places, and for reasons that are not work-related. The focus of this kind of shared interaction is relationship-building.

Two additional ingredients of teams are specialization and interdependence. In all teams, we find a variety of both formal and informal roles. Formal roles refer to those that are officially adopted. Informal roles are those that team members come to play by virtue of their personality, interpersonal relationships, capacities, or skill-sets. For example, almost every team has someone who plays the informal role of team comedian. Interdependence refers to the potential teams have to make a synergistic impact by virtue of their making effective use of their diversity and specialization.

Finally, Christian bodies or teams are blessed with two additional ingredients: life and the presence of the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Holy Spirit refers to the influence that God Himself brings directly to team dynamics, decisions, and effectiveness. Life refers to the ability that Christians are given to respond to God's influence and presence. Without Christ, people are dead in their trespasses and sins; but, through faith in Christ, people and the "bodies" they form are made alive (see Ephesians 2, 1 Corinthians 12).

Discussion and Application:
1. Study what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12 about the Church as a body. Which statements underscore the ingredients of shared vision, shared goals and resources, shared interaction, specialization and interdependence? Which underscore the ingredients of life and the presence of the Holy Spirit?
2. What difficulties might someone experience working on a team if he or she is accustomed to working solo or more independently.
3. Are the attitudes and behaviors of servant-leadership related more to formal or informal roles? Explain.
4. Using a team you are on as a point of reference, analyze its effectiveness in terms of shared vision, shared goals and resources, shared interaction, specialization and interdependence, life, and the presence of the Holy Spirit. What strategies for strengthening your team in these areas can you think of?

Next post: Characteristics of an effective follower.

Seminar on Intentional Organizational Change

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:06:00 +0000

“Leading Your Church Through Intentional Change”
A Seminar on Intentional Organizational Change
Randal Gilmore
October 27-28, 2008

Introduction

My topic for this session is “Leading Your Church Through Intentional Change.”

Over the last 30 years, I have become a friend of intentional change, when that change stimulates healthy growth and improves overall ministry effectiveness.

Life Cycle of a Church

Church consultant and author, Aubrey Malphurs, represents the life-cycle of a church with a bell curve plotted on a 2-dimensional graph of church attendance and church age (Malphurs, 2005, 9). Don’t get hung up on “church attendance” being the primary measure of “church life.” Try to focus in on the phases of the cycle itself: birth, growth, plateau, decline, and death. Ask yourself: “Where in this cycle would an objective analysis place my church?

Malphurs goes on to explain how the key to sustained growth in a church is to proactively and strategically introduce new S-curves that begin with birth and then cycle through growth; then, building onto that with an even newer S-curve of birth and growth prior to previous curve’s plateau and descent into decline and death.

My Personal Experience

Malphurs’ analysis is consistent with my personal experience at Hamilton Hills. Several years ago, I noticed that we were having to make some kind of major change in church facilities, staffing, or programming about every 2 years. I’m talking about things like adding or changing pastoral staff (including interns), adding or remodeling facilities, adding or shutting down ministries, adding or shutting down services (e.g. for example, over the years, we have developed a significant Wednesday night set of ministries, and we have stopped having a Sunday evening preaching service; years ago, we started a small group ministry, which we eventually shut down when we finally had the facilities to dive headlong into a thriving Sunday School ministry, not just for kids, but also for adults).

I could go on; my point is, most of the major changes we’ve made at Hamilton Hills have resulted in new S-curves of birth and growth. In the case of some changes, the birth and growth hit a plateau, and then we assisted that ministry with decline and death. By the way, sometimes it is wise strategically to let something die that needs to die, so that something better can be birthed in its place.

These are some of the reasons why I say I have become a friend of intentional change when that change stimulates healthy growth and effective, biblically-based ministry.

What Kind of Change in Facilities, Staff, Programs/Ministries Will Work For You?

Someone may be wondering if I am going to advocate a particular type of change; or, for that matter, the particular changes we’ve made at Hamilton Hills? The answer to both questions is “Definitely Not!” There’s no single strategy for ministry that works everywhere. The only caveat to this is that I do believe certain biblical components must be present in every ministry strategy, regardless of how the superstructure of that strategy is built.

My purpose instead is simply to equip you with a number of helpful insights into the process of introducing intentional change into your church’s ministry.

Types of Change

To begin, I believe it would be helpful to distinguish between two different types of intentional change. Researchers and authors, Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky, contrast what they call technical change with what they call adaptive change (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002,). Technical changes are those changes that apply current know-how within the framework of current values or hierarchy of values. Adaptive changes are those that require a change of values or hierarchy of values, a change of attitudes, and a change of behaviors. Heifetz and Linsky (2002, 13) explain that “adaptive challenges…require experiments, new discoveries, and adjustments from numerous places in the organization. Without learning new ways—changing attitudes, values, and behaviors—people cannot make the adaptive leap necessary to thrive in the new environment.”

Heifetz and Linsky’s book, Leadership on the Line, is not a book about ministry. However, their conceptualization of change as either technical or adaptive powerfully frames the kinds of changes we encounter and consider in ministry. Let me give you some examples:

technical vs. adaptive

order of service vs. adding or eliminating a service

introducing a new song for worship vs. introducing a new music style

temporary shift in pastoral duties vs. adding, eliminating, or permanently shifting pastoral duties or staff

normal lay leader transitions vs. shifts in the church’s “political” system

routine decisions vs, decisions to buy property, build, do major remodeling, make major expenditures (or routine decisions closely tied to group identity, history, and core values

If for some reason, after seeing these examples, you don’t like the terms technical and adaptive, two weeks ago, I sat through an hour-long seminar taught by church consultant, Kevin Ford, who refers to technical change as those that require operational decisions and approaches and adaptive changes as those requiring transformational decisions and approaches. The word transformational tracks with the earlier quote from Heifetz and Linsky regarding adaptive change requiring “new discoveries and adaptations…and new values, attitudes, and behaviors.”

Watch Out!

Yet another way to distinguish between technical change and adaptive change is to consider the relative calm or danger presented by one or the other. A good analogy to explain the difference is the waterline on a boat. If you punch a hole in a boat above the waterline, the peril to the boat won’t be that great. However, if you punch a hole in a boat below the waterline, the boat just might sink!

Making technical changes is like punching holes in boats above the waterline. Making adaptive changes is like punching holes in boats below the waterline. The analogy does not involve comparing your church to the boat, and if you punch a hole below the waterline, your church will sink. The analogy involves you understanding that the boat is your ministry. And when you begin punching holes below the waterline in your ministry-boat, you and your ministry are at risk.

Types of Threat

Heifetz and Linsky (2002) contend that making adaptive changes, or even suggesting them, often poses significant threat to those who are adaptive-change agents. They identify four types of threat in particular:

1. Marginalization – diminishing the change agent’s ability to influence

2. Diversion – deflecting the change agent’s focus

3. Attack – directing the “conversation” away from the change to the character or style, et AL., of the change agent

4. Seduction – the change agent dialoguing solely with supporters, embracing their affirmations and support while demonizing the “opposition” (shutting out dissent or compromise possibilities)

To bring this home, try substituting “pastor” for “change agent”.

By the way, we could stay busy for hours, unpacking all the biblical examples of leaders who experienced one or more of these perils: Noah, Moses, Nehemiah, and on the list could go. Of course the greatest example of all is Jesus himself. Jesus confronted the Pharisees with adaptive change after adaptive change. There’s no better example of this than the Sermon on the Mount. Over and over Jesus said, “You have heard it was said long ago…but I say to you!” As a result, Jesus experienced all four of the threats leaders face when they make or even suggest adaptive change.

Bad News/Good News

Now I have some bad news and some good news. The bad news is, no leader (no pastor) can escape every bit of danger posed by the adaptive or transformational changes he is leading his church to make.

However, the good news is, it’s possible to minimize the danger by learning and utilizing a few (what we might call) “change-agent best practices.”

Before sharing a list of “change-agent” best practices, let me also share the perspective of church consultant and author, Bob Whitesel, who has broken down into 5 stages how people in churches respond to change. The 5 stages are: relative harmony, idea development, change, resistance, and justifying event. In between each of the five, Whitesel notes what he calls a “triggering event”—that is, something happens that propels everything on to the next stage. The most interesting feature of Whitesel’s work to me is how changing the character of only two of the triggering events from negative to positive alters the overall outcome of the entire process. Whitesel’s model might discourage some, since it appears that negative outcomes to adaptive change are the result of doing only a couple of things wrong. But look at it another way. Positive outcomes to adaptive change are possible when an adaptive-change agent makes only a couple of intentional adjustments at strategic points in the adaptive-change process.

10 Keys to Positive Change

Another church consultant and author, Paul Mundey (1997), lists “10 Keys to Positive Change” in his book, Unlocking Church Doors. Here are the ten:

1. Model life change, leading from your own experience.

2. Cast a vision for what can be.

Aubrey Malphurs defines a ministry vision as “a clear and compelling picture of what the future can and must be.”

Make sure your vision is God-sized (not so small you don’t need Him, and yet not out of this world. (Illustration of Marshall’s comment to me).

God-sized vision attracts the hearts and resources of God’s people. I heard someone say once, if you want to know whether or not your vision is what it ought to be and whether you are communicating it effectively, walk up to any Christian businessman on the street. Communicate your vision and strategy to him, and if he doesn’t immediately write out a check to you for at least $100, you need to rework it.

3. Connect with the culture of your people.

“One of the best ways to discover the narrative of your congregation is to ask members to create a historical time line. On several sheets of newsprint taped to the wall, draw a long horizontal line. At the far right end, write the date of the current year. On the far left side, write the date of the founding of the congregation. In between, write key historical events in the life of the church.

As persons share, encourage them to tell stories. Ask them to name specific personalities, locations, even weather conditions. Invite them to enter fully into the color and texture of their history. Help participants feel the richness of their heritage and the intrinsic value of their experience. The unfolding of a congregation’s story is a powerful event, identifying many connecting points and precedents for launching future ministry.” p48

4. Understand your congregation as a complex system of systems.

• Political system (who are the influencers?)
• Transportation system (how do things get done and communicated?)
• Resourcing system (how are people equipped and motivated?)
• Weather system (what factors influence the overall climate of the church?)

5. Create opportunities for your people to learn, grow, and change.

6. Name needs, inviting others to help define solutions.

• Distribute accurate and revealing statistics
• Involve others with mini-surveys, cottage meetings, listening sessions
• Do not own a solution too early in the planning process
• Suggest a trial period

Timing of Group Decisions – p94

• “Never introduce a new idea and vote on it in the same meeting.”
• “identify clearly the avenues for additional information and input.”
• “If people are opposed, meet with them individually…[to] listen carefully to objections, reviewing the benefits of the proposed change as needed.”
• “Don’t position yourself for a negative vote.”
• “If you sense that the tide is against you, do a reassessment.”
• “When you sense that people are “with you,” bring them together and move toward a positive vote.”

7. Be alert to the reality of transitions.

For example, “When you change from one locale to another, you unpack boxes; when you transition from one locale to another, you unpack memories, emotions, dreams, self-perceptions, relationships, and even faith. Transition touches all aspects of our personhood; it challenges us to stretch from a familiar reality to a fresh, but frightening context.” p96

• Identify losses brought about by change
• “…the most common mistake change agents make is to introduce a new program or ministry without introducing a new or accompanying value. “ p98
• Don’t change everything. Leave some things the same.
• Understand Everett M. Rogers taxonomy of “change adopters”
o Pacesetters – 2.5%
o Early adopters – 13.5%
o Middle adopters – 34%
o Late adopters – 34%
o Footdraggers – 16%

8. Launch changes well.

• Start small, do a few things well, and celebrate the quick wins.
• Communicate with redundancy
• Tell stories

9. Reduce, rather that resist resistance.

Think in terms of biblical same-mindedness (Mundey’s word: “win/win”):

10. Take steps to solidify your new beginning.

• Multiply ownership
• Make mid-course corrections
• Celebrate

A Little More

In addition to Mundey’s 10 Keys or “best practices”, I would encourage you to study up on the process of strategic planning. The best way I can summarize that process is with the words learn, audit, analyze, imagine (Mundey – “Imagination is how God transmits change-producing visions.” p. 35), plan, and communicate, while bathing all that you are doing in fervent prayer.

Closing

Finally, I’d like to mention two things in closing. The first is the indispensability of an adaptive change-agent’s use of servant-leadership. Keep in mind, the most powerful skill of servant-leadership is the kind of love that honors others as persons and seeks their best. Even Heifetz and Linsky close their book with a chapter underscoring the value of loving leadership.

Secondly, I want to end with a quote from my hero in the faith, one of the greatest visionaries and adaptive-change agents the world has ever seen—Hudson Taylor. Here’s what Hudson Taylor wrote about the adaptive change he sought to implement in regard to the way people in China were being reached with the Gospel (perhaps I should say, with the way people in China were NOT being reached with the Gospel:

“All we are now proposing to do is to lay hold on His faithfulness Who has called us into this service, and in obedience to His call and reliance on His power to enlarge the sphere of our operations, for the glory of His name Who alone doeth wondrous things.”

Dynamics of Change Seminar Bibliography

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:56:00 +0000

Selected Bibliography
(in alphabetical order)

Gilmore, Randal. Where Do We Go From Here: The Path to Biblically Resolving Conflict. Fishers, IN: Exalt Publications, 2007.

Heifetz, Ronald A., and Martin Linsky. Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.

Hipps, Shane A. The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.

Malphurs, Aubrey. Advanced Strategic Planning: A New Model for Church and Ministry Leaders. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005.

Malphurs, Aubrey. Developing a Vision for Ministry in the 21st Century. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,

Mundey, Paul. Unlocking Church Doors: Ten Keys to Positive Change. Leadership insight series. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997.

Whitesel, Bob. Staying Power: Why People Leave the Church Over Change (and What You Can Do About It!). Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003.

Effective Team Ministry - Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:30:00 +0000

This is post 3 of 3 on the topic of Effective Team Ministry. If you wish to start with the first post on this study, go to the post that's dated July 19, 2008. To view a corresponding PowerPoint presentation as you read, go to: Effective Team PPT in a new window, enabling you to read and watch in side-by-side windows. Please note: this material was originally presented as a seminar for missionaries serving with Baptist Mid-Missions, which is based in Cleveland, OH. The material is copyrighted, but may be used with written permission obtained by writing: permission.

Slides 5-7 - God's Plan For Organizing People

The idea to organize people into teams began with God. On the sixth day of creation week, God made Adam and Eve and formed them into a team. We refer to the nature of their relationship as a team with the word marriage; nevertheless, Adam and Eve were a team. Moses, the human author of the Pentateuch, commented on the unity that exists between husband and wife, unity being one of several critical elements of effective team dynamics (see Genesis 2:24).

The Church serves as a second example of God organizing people into teams. The Apostle Paul told believers at Corinth: "For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). The word body tips us off that we talking once again about the same dynamics as those that exist in the husband/wife relationship. A "body", especially a Christian "body", is everything a team is and more. Interestingly enough, the Apostle Paul uses the metaphor of a body in Ephesians 5:22-33 to teach husbands and wives their principle duties toward one another.

Perhaps one reason why so many people today speak of working and ministering in teams rather than bodies is because of all the emphasis on sports in our culture. Regardless, what is important is recognizing that team and bodies have similar dynamics. As stated above, things that are true of teams are also true of bodies. And in the case of a Christian "body", it gets even better - more about that a little later.

One valuable implication of the similarities between teams and "bodies" is the availability of so much Scripture relating to "body" dynamics. For example, 1 Corinthians chapters 12-13 is a goldmine of both theory and practice on effective team ministry, since they deal extensively with what it means for individual Christians to exist and serve in a much larger body of believers. Even 1 Corinthians 13, "the love chapter", is intended not so much as a guide for individual relationships, but for relationships within the "body" or the team. Of course, it helps for people to behave lovingly in their individual relationships; but, in relation to overall effectiveness of a body of believers to accomplish its mission, love is indispensable. Jesus said: "By this all men will know you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35). In 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Paul echoes the same from a different angle:

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing."

Love is not the only "body" or team dynamic addressed in 1 Corinthians 12-13. In the next post, we'll begin looking at other key ingredients of teams.

Discussion and Application:
1. How else might God's role in forming people into teams or bodies factor into team dynamics? What Bible verses (including any from 1 Corinthians 12-13) speak to your answer?
2. How would you define loving behavior in relation to people serving together on the same team?
3. Can you think of any examples of how the dynamic of love played a role (either in its presence or absence) in the effectiveness of a team you have served on? What happened?

Next post: Ingredients of Teams

Effective Team Ministry - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:50:00 +0000

This is post 2 of 3 on the topic of Effective Team Ministry. If you wish to start with the first post on this study, go to the post that's dated July 19, 2008. To view a corresponding PowerPoint presentation as you read, go to: Effective Team PPT in a new window, enabling you to read and watch in side-by-side windows. Please note: this material was originally presented as a seminar for missionaries serving with Baptist Mid-Missions, which is based in Cleveland, OH. The material is copyrighted, but may be used with written permission obtained by writing: permission.

Slide 3 - Pitfalls of Teams/Bodies

Becoming part of a team does not signal the end of all work-related or ministry-related problems. By God's design, the advantages of working in teams do outweigh the potential pitfalls (more about this later in this post).Nevertheless, awareness of the pitfalls might help to prepare team members to not be overwhelmed by them when they become apparent. It also might assist team members in dealing with whatever pitfalls they encounter, or even in taking preemptive measures.

For example, the first pitfall found on slide 3 from Sally and O'Connor's (2006) list reads: Unrealistic expectations/inadequate understanding of team dynamics, roles, and expectations. It makes sense to counteract this pitfall preemptively by taking time to periodically review team dynamics and to clarify roles and expectations. Intentional orientation of new team members to improve understanding from the start also seems helpful. Similarly, effective teams will implement safeguards against "group think", which is the type of team dynamic that fails take advantage of critical data other than the facts and opinions held in common already by the team. Periodic team member and overall team evaluations might head off the entrenchment of any free riders. Finally, a conflict resolution policy based on guidelines consistent with biblical same-mindedness might assist the team with recalibrating when individual members stop cooperating and begin competing in ways detrimental to team effectiveness.

Slide 4 - Advantages of Teams/Bodies

The advantages of working in teams, though fewer in number on Sally and O'Connor's (2006) list, are nevertheless substantial. And they hardly require explanation, perhaps with the exception of the last of the four: less individual stress due to less individual accountability. The idea underlying this advantage relates to the impossibility of individuals accomplishing some tasks, goals, or strategies without the assistance of others. For example, imagine an individual Christian missionary being accountable all by himself to reach an entire nation with the Gospel. The stress would be unbearable. Thanks be to God, he places us in teams in order to immerse us in the resources, including human ones, necessary to do the work he call us to do.

Application and Discussion:

1. What other pitfalls of working in teams can you think of? Advantages?
2. Identify a positive and a not-so-positive experience of your own with working on a team. Discuss the impact these experiences had on you. What might teams that you work on in the future do to experience the advantages you've named? What might they do to avoid the pitfalls?
3. In chapter 8 of "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" a conflict resolution process is summarized. Which part of the process might be the most difficult for you to implement in a team setting? Which would be the easiest? Why so?
4. Read Deuteronomy 1:9-18. What else might be learned from the example of Moses about pitfalls and advantages of working in teams?

Next post: God's Plan For Organizing People

Effective Team Ministry

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:51:00 +0000

This is post 1 of 3 on the topic of Effective Team Ministry. To view a corresponding PowerPoint presentation as you read, go to: Effective Team PPT in a new window, enabling you to read and watch in side-by-side windows. Please note: this material was originally presented as a seminar for missionaries serving with Baptist Mid-Missions, which is based in Cleveland, OH. The material is copyrighted, but may be used with written permission obtained by writing: permission.

Slide 1 - Title Slide

Slide 2 - You're On A Team...

Many Christian organizations, including this one, are giving a lot of emphasis these days to ministering in teams. Some like the idea; and, of course, others do not. So right at the start, here are a couple important points to keep in mind as we frame the subject of effective team ministry.

First, every Christian is a member of at least one team. Those of us engaged in Christian service often belong to multiple and overlapping teams. For example, as a missionary, you are belong to a team called The Church, the Universal Body of Christ. You also belong to a similar team, which is the local church from which you were commissioned to serve. Then, when you joined this mission agency, you became a member of a world-wide team of missionaries who are serving in over 50 nations. You also became a member of a team that serves in a particular country or field. Many fields are divided into regions, so you may also belong to team on that level. Then, there also may be a team of people working with you in this mission to reach a specific city. Finally, a number of us work together as teammates with others in a particular ministry.

It's important to remember the reality of multiple and overlapping team memberships as we serve. Expectations, dynamics, and certain particulars related to team effectiveness tie directly to which level of team ministry is in view. Take, for example, the practice of team goal-setting. It would be cumbersome, to say the least, if people serving in Germany expected to have input into the ministry goals of others who are serving in a city in the mountains of Peru. These people might all be on the same team at the level of mission agency, but they're not on the same team level when it comes to the particulars of field, region, city, and individual ministry. So it's critical for members of multiple and overlapping teams to hone their expectations and practices appropriately to each level of team ministry.

Dynamics also differ depending on the level of team ministry in view. The basis of team compatibility at the macro levels will (and should) be far more general than the basis of team compatibility at the more micro levels. An individual team member might be somewhat incompatible with another at the field level, though sufficiently compatible at the mission level. Of course, at the ministry level, near total compatibility is required for effective team ministry.

Application and Discussion:

1. Identify the various ministry teams of which you are a part?
2. Have you ever experienced a problem with team effectiveness due to expectations or practices that were inappropriate for a particular level of team ministry? What happened? How might the situation have changed with expectations or practices more appropriate to the levels of team involved?
3. Read 1 Corinthians 12. Identify two or three expectations or practices among effective teams that would be appropriate at any level of team ministry.

Next post: Pitfalls and Advantages of Teams

Effective Team Ministry Seminar Powerpoint

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:43:00 +0000

On July 8, I was privileged to present a seminar on effective team ministry to a group of missionaries serving with Baptist Mid-Missions, based in Cleveland, OH. Here are the ppt slides I used for the seminar.

http://picasaweb.google.com/rgilmore5/BMMTeamSeminar

Interested in more details? Leave a comment below.

All About Apologies, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:18:00 +0000

So what makes for an effective apology? Experts suggest four elements: (1) an expression of remorse; (2) a statement accepting responsibility for the harm that was done; (3) assurance that the offense will not be repeated; and (4) an offer to make restitution.

Researchers have found that some kind of apology is better than no apology at all. In other words, an apology that includes at least one of the above elements is better than nothing. But researchers have also found that the effectiveness of apologies increases as each element is added in, with the greatest effectiveness of all associated with those apologies that include all four.

One reason why all four elements are so important is because of their connection to the concept of biblical repentance. Biblical repentance involves a change of mind (the original NT word literally means "to change one's mind"). When the word is used in a context of someone's attitude and behavior in relation to some harm he or she has caused or sin that's been committed, it's easy to see some correlation between effective apologies and effective repentance. Expressing remorse, taking responsibility, determination not to repeat the offense, and restitution all flow from a mind that has been changed in regard to nature of a particular behavior as sin (or as offending or harming) and the seriousness of one's involvement in that behavior.

All of this to say that a quick "Sorry!", or a simple "I apologize", or even a "please forgive me", usually will not be sufficient either for apologizing or for expressing repentance. The point here is not to slavishly insist on people making use of certain words or phrases when they apologize or repent. The idea is to make effective use of the tools of apology and repentance for the purpose God intended, which is to facilitate forgiveness, restoration of relationships, and the blessings of biblical same-mindedness as everyone goes forward.

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here.

All About Apologies, Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:49:00 +0000

The process of biblical same-mindedness often involves dealing with offenses which parties have committed against each other and which need to be made right. Apologizing and forgiving are the two relational tools God prescribes for just such an occasion.

Apologizing refers to a wide range of responses an offender might direct to a person or persons he has offended. Deborah Levi, an expert in mediation and negotiation, suggests four types of apologies:

1. tactical - recognizing a victim's plight in order to make him or her more agreeable to some desired resolution;
2. explanation - offering an excuse to make the offended party understand the nature and motivation of the offending behavior;
3. formalistic - simply doing what is required by the situation or by an authority;
4. happy ending - taking responsibility or signaling remorse.

Researchers Jennifer Brown and Jennifer Robbennolt offer an alternative way of categorizing apologies based on "whose regard is of central concern": the offender, the offended, or a third-party. If we were to combine the two approaches, we might place tactical and explanation apologies under the category of those for which the central concern is the offender. Formalistic apologies would fit under the category for which the central concern is a third party, and happy ending apologies under the category focused on the offended.

The four categories reveal why so many Christian counselors do not like to use the term apologize to describe an offender's biblical responsibility to acknowledge the nature and consequences of his offending behavior. There is only a one-in-four chance that an apology will actually fulfill what many see as its only legitimate purpose: that is, to take responsibility and signal remorse.

The behavior of taking responsibility for some harm one has committed and signaling remorse seems communicated best by the biblical word repent. However, the original NT word for repent is broader than simply taking responsibility and signaling remorse. Repent also communicates intentions and behaviors associated with all three of the other categories of apology. So if we want to understand the biblical process of same-mindedness, we'll have to look more carefully at all four categories. Along the way, it also would be a good idea to examine the question of when during the process of coming to same-mindedness should apologies be issued? At the beginning? Near the end? Or at some other time?

Perhaps the best place to begin a more detailed discussion of apologizing is with a clear statement of its function in relation to biblical same-mindedness. The purpose of an apology (or of "saying I'm sorry", or of "asking for forgiveness") is to express guilt and responsibility or to explain one's behavior in relation to the violation of a biblical standard, and to affirm one's commitment to conform to the standard in the future, out of loving regard for both God and the offended person.

You might be able to improve on my statement. Nevertheless, it begins with the idea of "expressing guilt and responsibility or explaining one's behavior in relation to the violation of a biblical standard." Doing this is serious business. One writer suggests a series of questions to ask oneself introspectively prior to issuing any apology:

"What mistakes did I make?
Did I dismiss another person, their wishes, feelings, or ideas?
Did I take credit when it was not due?
Why did I do this?
Was it an impulsive, thoughtless act?
Was it calculated?
Was it a result of my fear, anger, or frustration?
What was my motivation?
How long have I let this go on? Is this the first or repeated time? Is this behavior becoming a pattern in my life?
What is the truth I am not dealing with?
Am I better than this?"*

To these questions we might add:

What does the Bible say about this type of behavior?
Is this the way I would treat Jesus himself?
What does this behavior say about my relationship to the Lord?
Is this something I want to be known for before men? Before God?

The purpose of questions like these is to prod us into taking the goals of apologizing seriously right from the start.

To be continued...

(next week's blog will focus on other specific aspects of the purpose of apologies especially in relation to repentance)

Application and Discussion Questions:
1. Has someone ever apologized to you in a hollow way? Describe what happened and how it made you feel.
2. Search the Scriptures for examples of the various kinds of apology: tactical, explanation, formalistic, happy-ending. What do learn from these biblical examples (both good and bad)?
3. Make an effort to talk with other members of your ministry team about the questions to use for introspection prior to issuing an apology.

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here.

*See also "Apology in Negotiation" by Jennifer Gerarda Brown and Jennifer K. Robbennolt in The Negotiator's Fieldbook, edited by Schneider and Honeyman. The questions quoted above are attributed in the article to Ken Blanchard and Margret McBride and can be found on p 428-29.

Let's Talk (about what's happening here)

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:30:00 +0000

Sometime ago, a man from my church lashed out against me in a rather venomous and unbiblical fashion. My inclination initially was to rely on our deacon group to respond to this fellow, rather than taking any steps myself to come to my own defense. However, our deacons did not react in the manner I thought they should. The deacons did formulate a plan to confront the man; still, there wasn't exactly an overwhelming sense of "hey, we all agree, this is what we need to do here!"

Ironically, a day or so later, I received a phone call from a fellow pastor who found himself facing a situation nearly identical to ours. He told me how disappointed he was in his deacons for not "supporting" him. But as we talked things through, it became apparent that both of our deacon groups were in fact very willing to show their support for us. We both were assured of this based on the high caliber of men we know our deacons to be. Nevertheless, what also became clear is that our deacons did not know how to do what we were expecting them to do. And we had to be careful not to misinterpret their lack of action as something more nefarious. We both realized instead how we needed to begin training our deacons (and others among our leadership) how to respond biblically in cases such as the ones before us.

When conflict erupts, it is tempting to think we need to begin talking with our counterparts about the issues and interests at stake immediately. However, the reality is, neither our counterparts nor the other stakeholders in the conflict may be ready to begin interacting biblically. We also may not be ready. The entire group of conflict participants and stakeholders may need to spend some time learning or reviewing biblical commands and principles regarding how to behave with respect to the particulars of the conflict at hand.

So sometimes when conflict confronts us, instead our being too quick to say simply to our counterparts, "Let's talk...", it would be better to say to everyone involved, "Before we go to work on this, let's talk about what's happening here and about what direction the Bible provides for addressing issues like this."

Application and Discussion Questions:
1. Have you ever been involved in a conflict in response to which good people did not seem to know what to do? Or in response to which good people did not seem to know what to do and therefore they did nothing? Describe what happened.
2. What exactly might a pastor or Christian leader do to train others in biblically resolving conflict?
3. Read Exodus 18:1-27. How does Jethro's advice to Moses relate to the issue of training people what to do or not do in response to conflict. Note especially verse 18-19.
4. What other Scriptures apply to this topic?

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here.

Biblical Social Structures

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:53:00 +0000

One way to analyze a particular conflict involves focusing on whether or not the behavior of conflict participants is connected somehow to "structural change issues", so says researcher, Jane Docherty. Structural change issues usually go beyond what is at stake in a specific situation, relating instead to the bigger picture of the "rules" that govern the behavior, strategies, and tactics of conflict participants. In other words, structural change issues take into account the "social structures" at work in a particular conflict. "Social structures" involve the various identities, roles, and relationships that exist among conflict participants, along with what is or isn't "institutionally appropriate" for each.

I realize this is a little technical, but I urge you to keep reading since there is a very important application of all this coming.

It is possible for a particular conflict to change social structures in unintended ways. For example, in churches and other Christian contexts, there is a definite biblical standard that is supposed to govern the various identities, roles, and relationships among believers, along with what is or isn't appropriate for each. We refer to this standard as biblical same-mindedness in the Lord. In reference to this standard, the term "brother" is used in the Scripture as a way to define the identity, role, or relationship one Christian shares with another as they work their way through conflict. Jesus said in Matthew 5:23: "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember your brother has something against you, leave your gift their in front of the altar. First, go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." One of the take-aways from this verse is the importance of letting what the Scriptures indicate is appropriate or not appropriate for interaction between two brothers in Christ govern our conduct in conflict.

Here's the dig. When Christians are allowed, or when they allow themselves, to behave like the world during conflict, they are in effect changing the "social structures" that Jesus says should govern our behavior, strategies, and tactics when differences arise. Sustained over a period of time, in some church settings, Christians stop altogether relating to each other as brothers. They might still be willing to call themselves brothers. But, on a practical level, they have altered the biblical social structure to include behavior, strategies, and tactics in conflict far removed from what Jesus taught.

Thankfully, it also is possible to alter social structures intentionally. In other words, for Christians, it is possible to recognize when existing social structures stand against what Jesus taught--when the "institutional" rules that govern behaviors, tactics, and strategies in conflict do not reflect biblical teaching. Once recognized, it is possible to recalibrate to reflect identities, roles, and relationships as Jesus taught they should be.

The application then is this: every conflict becomes an opportunity not only to biblically resolve some issue in particular, but also to reinforce what is appropriate for the identities, roles, and relationships we have with each other in Christ. Allowing exceptions to this will have a way of altering the social structures taught in the Scriptures over the long run, and sometimes also in the short run. Therefore, every conflict should be viewed as the opportunity it is.

Similarly, for those who are in churches or other settings where social structures already contrary to the identities, roles, and relationships taught in the Scriptures, every conflict becomes an opportunity to reestablish what is appropriate.

Discussion and Application Questions:
1. Think of the last conflict you experienced in your sphere of ministry. What impact would your behavior, strategies, and tactics have on an understanding of biblical identities, roles, and relationships?
2. Other than Matthew 5:23, what other verses can you think of that either explicitly state or hint at some corresponding expectation of a Christian's behavior, strategies, and tactics in conflict?
3. If you were in a church or other Christian setting with others who had stopped reflecting biblical social structures, what specific steps might you take to reestablish what the Scriptures teach?

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here.

See also "The Unstated Models In Our Minds" by Jane Seminare Docherty in The Negotiator's Fieldbook, edited by Schneider and Honeyman.

Surprise!

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:04:00 +0000

In "Retraining Ourselves for Conflict Transformation", Dr. Charles Hauss expressed surprise that he "discovered a whole world of Evangelicals whose conflict resolution work (with Scripture) is coherent with and often similar to the work we do in reconciliation at Search." Search USA is a secular NGO that specializes in conflict resolution, with Dr. Hauss serving as one of its leading members.

When I read this, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. On one hand, for Dr. Hauss to describe his exposure to the Scripture-based values of Evangelicals in regard to peacemaking as his "discovery" is somewhat amusing. For too long, Evangelical scholars have been marginalized by the world, simply because they take Proverbs 1:7 seriously ("The fear of the Lord is the beginng of knowledge"). Many secular scholars hold such a worldview in contempt, which accounts for their being slow to consider the insights and perspectives of their Christian counterparts.

On the other hand, when it comes to the topic of conflict resolution in particular, we Christians do not always have the best reputation before a watching world. One of the goals I had for writing "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" and for launching SameMind.net was to spotlight the emphasis our Lord puts on relational harmony. Jesus said: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 15:35). We must not underestimate the role that biblical same-mindedness plays in fulfilling Jesus' command.

I pray for the day to come when, rather than surprise, the world feels confident that they can turn to Christians as a first resort to gain help and insight with conflict resolution, because they see how the biblical principles work in our lives. And they well remember the passion of our commitment for the sake of our testimony and the reputation of our Lord.

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here.

Emailing It In - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:41:00 +0000

Given its popularity and ease of use, it can be tempting to make extensive use of email during conflict. Is that a good thing? Well, maybe not. You may wish to check out some of the arguments against using email to differentiate or carry on negotiations which I wrote about in last week's post.

For this week, I'd like to focus attention on some of the good that can come from the use of email, keeping the weaknesses and limitations mentioned last week firmly in mind.

First, if both parties are careful, the use of email makes it possible to engage in the process of resolving conflict with biblical same-mindedness when other more interactive means of communicating are not available. If the other means of communicating interactively are available, it is preferable to use them. If not, it is possible to be sufficiently effective with something like email, as long as conflict participants guard themselves against various manifestations of self-absorbed communication patterns. For example, it would be quite important for emailing parties to carefully check for the shared sense of understanding that is so vital to effective communication.

Second, email might be useful as a tool for organizing and "pre-expressing" one's thoughts to facilitate calm and an articulate, cohesive presentation when the opportunity to communicate interactively presents itself. In other words, the use of email can provide you with a kind of dry-run through what you want to say once you're given the chance. This makes it possible for you to self-edit against any emotionally charged or blaming language you might be tempted to use. It also creates a checklist of points and associated information to be remembered once you are able to meet with your counterpart face to face.

Recently, I had to interact with someone on a somewhat controversial issue. I knew going in that we had different perspectives and different interests. So I wrote the person an email of my thoughts (and arguments), but I never sent it. Later, when we spoke with each other about the issue over the phone, I used the email as a set of notes to remind me of things I knew we would need to discuss.

By the way, if you choose to email in this way, I advise you not to put the other person's contact info in the "To:" box. If you do and you absent-mindedly press the "send" button out of habit when you're finished writing, you'd better be really happy with what you wrote.

Finally, if all parties to a conflict were to use email to outline their thoughts about whatever issue was before them and if they were also to remove all emotionally charged and inflammatory language from what they wrote, the group might end up with a more "neutral" expression of the group's mind on the issue; which, in turn, might help the group to craft solutions that truly match up to interests rather than to emotions or other kinds of influences.

We know that email, or at least some form of not-so-interactive electronic communication, is here to stay for a long time. On balance, even though we can find some potential good in the use of email for differentiating and negotiating conflict, the pursuit of biblical same-mindedness is better served with face-to-face, interactive communication.

Application and Discussion Questions:
1. What other upsides or downsides of using email in conflict can you think of?
2. In Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus tells us to "go and be reconciled to your brother." Does something like email or text messaging count as obedience to this command? Why or why not?
3. Have you ever pre-planned something to say or do when interacting with a counterpart in conflict only to find yourself thinking and speaking differently once you were with them face to face? What about being face to face changed your attitude or your actual communication with them?
4. What other Scripture might apply to this topic?

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here.

See also "Risks of Email" by Anita D. Bhappu and Zoe I. Barsness in The Negotiator's Fieldbook, edited by Schneider and Honeyman.

Emailing It In

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:11:00 +0000

I have a dear friend who refers to email as "the drive-up window of communication." He doesn't mean it as a compliment. My friend works in a ministry that historically has made heavy use of written communication as a primary means of interaction among its members and constituents. "In the old days," he laments, "people would write letters and then be patient to wait for days, or possibly even weeks, for a reply. Not anymore. Not with email. Nowadays, if a reply isn't sent within a few hours, you'll hear from them again, asking you why you haven't gotten back with them yet on the message they sent earlier."

All laments aside, email has made its mark and no doubt will continue to do so for a while longer into the future. (In case you didn't know, email is "old hat" to the younger generation, who definitely prefer the even more instant means of communication: text messaging. But we'll save that for another post!)

With such pervasive use of email, it isn't surprising to see it playing a significant role in conflict differentiation and resolution. Is that a good thing? Maybe, but probably not.

The nature of email does allow for more rapid exchanges of communication over large geographical distances. That's where the "Maybe" comes into play. The "probably not" is due to various other considerations. For example, researchers Anita Bhappu and Zoe Barsness note that email affords people greater "social distance" than face-to-face communication. Social distance refers to the measure of one's ability to communicate with others in an interactive context. In more interactive contexts (for example, those involving face-to-face communication), people take into account both the obvious and more nuanced feedback of others as they communicate. Being much less interactive, email imposes greater social distance, which results in less attention paid to the actual real-time feedback of others as the email gets written. (Don't confuse the ability to reply to email with the ability to interact with people as they write emails.)

All of this to say that something like email allows people to communicate in a much more self-absorbed way. It allows them to be more confrontational, more competitive, and more focused on their own interests than they might otherwise be in face-to-face communication. Of course, these same laments could be leveled against the use of snail-mail in conflict. But that's part of the point, email has made it even easier to differentiate or address conflict issues that might otherwise be differentiated or resolved more biblically.

Sometime ago, I received an email from a man in my church containing a number of accusations and half-truths. What set this particular email apart was the following: (1) the man did not talk with me, either by phone or face-to-face, about any of his "concerns" prior to writing the email, even though I had sought such interaction with him; (2) once he sent the email, he refused to talk with me in person about any of its contents; and (3) he copied at least 20 others with the same email.

It's difficult to imagine the same kind of thing happening or being allowed to happen in face-to-face communication. Imagine someone calling a surprise face-to-face meeting of forty or so people. Imagine he lays out certain half-truths and accusations with no interruptions allowed. And then, when he finishes, he simply storms out of the room, absolutely refusing to interact further with anyone on anything he has said.

Bhappu and Barsness, mentioned earlier, contend that self-absorbed communication media like email diminish what they call the "grounding" of communication exchanges. "Grounding is the process by which two parties in an interaction develop a shared sense of understanding about a communication and a shared sense of participation in the conversation." Shared understanding and a shared sense of participation are both critical elements of the process of coming to biblical same-mindedness. We cannot identify or embrace the interests of others (Phil. 2:4, 21) without both.

In light of all this, it seems wise to severely limit the use of email to differentiate or address conflict. Practitioners of biblical same-mindedness should make almost exclusive use of more interactive communication to enjoy the blessings of biblical resolution, while avoiding the pitfalls of self-absorption.

Discussion and Application Questions:
1. In light of today's post, do you think the use of email fulfills Jesus' command in Matthew 5:23-24 to "first go and be reconciled to your brother" when you become aware of something hindering your relationship with him? Why or why not?
2. What might some of a person's motivations be for using email to differentiate or negotiate conflict, rather than going in person? How would you characterize these motivations?
3. What counsel would you give to someone who shared that he was about to address some conflict he is having with a third-party using email?
4. What counsel would you give to someone who receives an email such as the one used in the article as an illustration? How would counsel him to respond?
5. What other Scriptures apply?

Is there a more beneficial use of email in regard in conflict situations? More in next week's post...

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here .

See also "Risks of Email" by Anita D. Bhappu and Zoe I. Barsness in The Negotiator's Fieldbook, edited by Schneider and Honeyman. The definition of "grounding" quoted above can be found on pages 397-98.

Conflict, Dinosaurs, and Other Pre-Historic Creatures

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:19:00 +0000

What does conflict have in common with dinosaurs and other pre-historic creatures? Simply this. Paleontologists often construct their models of what certain dinosaurs and other pre-historic creatures looked like, along with how they lived, based on having found only a few bones. Similarly, conflict participants often construct their stories (accounts and perspectives) on the motives and character of their counterparts based on a relatively small, biased set of observations and interactions.

The strategies, tactics, and manner we use to interact with others in conflict is influenced by our perceptions of their strategies, tactics, and manner. Unfortunately, our perceptions do not always line up with an objective, unbiased account of the situation. Researchers Sheila Heen and Douglas Stone identify several reasons for this. First, we and our counterpart take notice of different information as we form our perspectives on our behavior and motives, their behavior and motives, and the situation as it actually is. Second, we tend to interpret and add to the information we do take in so that it makes sense according to our existing biases. Third, we tend to understand our encounters with others in conflict as stories, complete with good guys and villains. Since we usually get to be the good guy in our stories, the role of villain gets forced on our counterpart.

Biases like these can result in our having an entirely different "story" about a particular conflict or conflict episode than the "story" that would be told by our counterpart. Worse yet, it can result in a selfish pursuit of our own interests, rather than a pursuit of biblical same-mindedness.

We Christians believe in absolute reality. However, we must remind ourselves, especially during episodes of conflict, that God is the only one in possession of absolute reality. The rest of us must cope for now with only "knowing in part." Seeing the danger of partial knowledge should give us pause before we begin making dinosaurs out of a few small bones.

Stone and Heen, though writing from a secular perspective, underscore the importance of learning as much as possible about "the story" of our counterparts before forcing them into one of our own making. Perhaps they do not realize it, but Solomon beat them to the punch on this one. Proverbs 18:13 says: "He who answers before listening--that is his folly and his shame."

Application and Discussion Questions:
1. One of the things that influences what information we take in from the world around us is our emotional state. What might some other influences be? How do those influences, along with our emotional state, play into our perspectives in conflict specifically?
2. Have you ever been misunderstood or had your motives maligned by a counterpart in conflict? Describe what happened. What did you learn from this?
3. In addition to Proverbs 18:13, what other Scriptures apply to the importance of checking our "story" about conflict for biases?

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here .

See also "Perceptions and Stories" by Sheila Heen and Douglas Stone. The Negotiator's Fieldbook, edited by Schneider and Honeyman. Heen and Stone credit cognitive psychologist, Ulrich Neisser, with the dinosaur bone analogy.

Impact Bias

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 19:32:00 +0000

Most people are pretty good at forecasting how they will feel in response to this or that outcome of conflict. They are not so good, however, at forecasting how profound their feelings will be or exactly how long they will endure.

For example, I happen to be a fan of both the Indianapolis Colts and the Chicago Cubs. If you had asked a while back, I would have been able to describe in detail how happy it would make me to see the Colts win the Super Bowl or the Cubs win the World Series. Of course, last year the Colts did win the Super Bowl. I remember going to bed after the game with not nearly as much excitement as I thought I would have. As it turned out, their victory did not make a very big impact on my life. And the impact it did make did not last. In fact, I don't really feel much of anything anymore with respect to last year's Super Bowl. I am much more focused now on how much joy I will have should the Colts win again this year.

The psychological phenomenon I just described is something called impact bias. Impact bias is the tendency of people to wrongly estimate the profoundness of their feelings in response to some potential outcome or how long those feelings will last. In conflict situations, the impact bias can contribute significantly to a misjudgment of how we define and prioritize our interests. We mistakenly push harder for or against certain interests on the basis of a biased appraisal of how each might impact us on the level of our feelings.

For example, suppose you are in conflict with another member of your leadership team. You might realize that one of your interests in this particular situation is to be vindicated. You have other pressing interests, mind you, but one of them is to be vindicated for the way you have thought and conducted yourself in relation to everyone else and the issue at stake. You might even imagine how good it will feel for everyone else not only to realize you were right all along, but also to express such. So you press for vindication and keep it near the top on your list of priorities.
However, once the conflict has passed, you find the others keeping their distance. They were offended by your insistence on vindication, feeling that they too could have insisted on such things, but instead they "stuck to the issues." So now the vindication you thought would bring you joy has actually led to the pain of additional stress on your relationships.

The lesson here is for us not to put full confidence in what we initially think about the benefit or cost of a potential outcome of conflict. Outcomes we think initially would be very beneficial might turn out to be much less so, if they turn out to be beneficial at all. The same holds true for outcomes we think initially would be very harmful. They might turn out to be less harmful than first imagined or even benign; better yet, they might turn out for our good.

Admittedly, this is a difficult lesson to implement. In spite of my experience with the Colts winning the Super Bowl, I am still hoping for the Cubs to win the World Series! I just know that will bring me a lot of happiness for a long, long time!

Application Questions:
1. What experience do you have personally with the impact bias in conflict? Describe what happened.
2. What specific steps can someone take to reality check against the impact bias?
3. How does the biblical teaching on self-denial or suffering factor into minimizing the impact bias? Which specific verses apply? (Don't forget Romans 8:28)
4. What specific priorities for conflict outcomes might help to minimize the impact bias?

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here.

For more on the impact bias, see "Miswanting" by Chris Guthrie and David F. Sally in The Negotiator's Fieldbook, edited by Schneider and Honeyman.

Optimistic Overconfidence

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:56:00 +0000

Are you involved in some conflict currently? What stands in the way of it coming to biblical resolution?

Some researchers devote a huge amount of energy to studying barriers to conflict resolution. One group divides various types of barriers into three categories: (1) those that arise from the use of certain strategies and tactics; (2) those that arise from certain psychological processes; and (3) those that arise from organizational or structural factors.

One example of a psychological process that can hinder parties from coming to biblical same-mindedness is optimistic overconfidence. Optimistic overconfidence refers to someone persuading himself that everyone else will embrace his perspective, as long as they are objective and fair, once they become aware of the “facts.”

The problem with optimistic overconfidence is that it stems, often unwittingly, from a selfish embrace of one’s own interests to the exclusion of the interests of others. It’s like saying, “My interests are the only ones that make sense. Surely everyone will see this once I lay it all on the table.” This kind of thinking excuses us from our responsibility to discover and satisfy the interests of others (Philippians 2:4). It can also lead to serious miscalculation of how others will respond to what we share and propose.

A powerful illustration of optimistic overconfidence comes from the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 37. According to the text, Joseph dreamed on two occasions that he would reign over his parents and brothers someday. Confident of the interpretation of both dreams and confident that both had come from God, Joseph shared them with his family. He expected they would readily agree and that everything (and everyone) would just fall in line. We all know how things went—not exactly according to plan.

The lesson is the importance of practicing biblical same-mindedness during times of conflict, even if we are thoroughly convinced that our thinking is correct and we are completely in the right. Our confidence could just be the result of our overestimating the fairness, reasonableness, and appropriateness of perspectives and proposals based on nothing more than our own self-interest.

Discussion Questions:
1. Have you ever personally suffered from optimistic overconfidence during some conflict in which you were involved? What happened? Base on your experience, how would you describe the pitfalls and dangers associated with optimistic overconfidence?
2. In chapter 8 of “Where Do We Go From Here?”. the process of biblical same-mindedness is summarized. In your opinion, which of the steps is most critical to avoid optimistic overconfidence?
3. How does Philippians 2:3 apply to the subject of optimistic overconfidence? What other Scripture(s) also could be cited on this topic?
4. What might Joseph have done differently with the information he received from God in his dreams?

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here.

For more on barriers to conflict resolution, see "Barriers to Conflict Resolution", edited by Arrow, Mnookin, Ross, Tversky, and Wilson.

Illustrating Procedural Fairness

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:51:00 +0000

Procedural fairness refers to using unbiased, equitable, and inclusive processes when a choice has to be made from among competing interests. When people believe they have been treated fairly by the decision-making process, they are more likely to go along with decisions with which they do not agree, and they are more likely not to break ties with leadership. (See last week's post - 12/10/07.)

To illustrate, suppose a church unexpectedly receives a large gift of money at year's end from one of their members with no strings attached. A special committee of six people is appointed to decide how to allocate the gift. At their first meeting, the chairperson asks committee members for their initial thoughts on the subject. They respond with a list of no fewer than 10 projects, all of which are strongly advocated by at least one committee member. The cost of each project is less than the total amount the church received; however, the total cost of all 10 exceeds the value of the gift. So the committee must prioritize the 10 to determine which projects to complete and which to leave undone.

The chairperson might be tempted to pare the list by reasoning that 1 or 2 of the ideas only have one person who feels strongly about them (the persons who recommended them initially). Unfortunately, even though such reasoning might make sense to most of the group, it likely will not make sense to the two people who feel strongly about their ideas. Other similar methods of cutting down the list probably will not fare any better. Someone in the group will be convinced that the process for making the decision has been unfair to them or that their idea in particular didn't get a fair shake.

So what can the chairperson do to insure that each idea is given fair consideration and each committee member an equal opportunity to contribute to the group's decision? Each committee member can be asked to rank all 10 projects in the order of priority as they see it. Next, the individual rankings can be collected and tallied to reveal the "consensus" of the group as to which projects should make the cut and in what order they should be completed. In this way, each committee member is assured that their "voice" has been heard. The process used by chairperson has treated both them and their idea fairly.

Application Questions:
1. What other method of making a decision like this one can you think of to ensure its fairness?
2. Have you ever served on a committee when a decision like this had to be made? What happened? How would you now assess what happened on the issue of procedural fairness?
3. Have you ever served on a committee when a decision like this had to be made and you or your ideal were treated unfairly? Describe your reaction. How difficult was it to overcome the negative feelings toward leadership or toward the decision that was made eventually?
4. What Scriptural support can you give for procedural fairness?

More on Fairness

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:39:00 +0000

Even though you might be committed to using resolving conflict with biblical same-mindedness, there will be times when it will not be possible to satisfy everyone's interests. Some interests do compete against one another, and ultimately someone has to make the call as to which solution to implement. So what can be done to preserve relationships then and to enlist the cooperation of those in your group who had advocated a different outcome?

One answer focuses on what is called "procedural fairness". When conflict participants believe that they have been treated fairly during the conflict resolution process, they are more likely to go along with the chosen outcome. They also are more likely to maintain a more positive relationship with the person who "made the call" that went against them.

Researchers have identified four essential leadership practices that signal to others in conflict that they are being treated fairly:

(1) giving others a meaningful platform for expressing their views;
(2) giving others assurance that their views have been heard and seriously considered;
(3) indicating in some fashion that your are attempting to be even-handed; and
(4) cultivating a palpable group climate of dignity and respect for all.

There will always be some people who call "unfair" any process that does not produce the outcomes they want. Nevertheless, leaders who consistently implement the above practices will generally facilitate the perception that they have been fair in coming to a decision. And their fairness will in turn facilitate others trusting them and cooperating with them.

When used correctly, the process of resolving conflict with biblical same-mindedness meets the four criteria researchers have found to facilitate perceptions of fairness. In my next post, I'll share some specific examples of how this is so.

Application Questions:
1. Looking again at the four indications of procedural fairness, what Scriptures can you think of to support each?
2. Refer to the case study on pages 64-65 of "Where Do We Go From Here?" What specific steps might the pastor take to indicate fairness as he works with the others to solve the problem?
3.What specific steps can you think of that would indicate to someone that you are seriously considering their views?

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here.

To read more on the subject of fairness in conflict, see "Perceptions of Fairness" by Nancy J. Walsh.

The Importance of Relationships

noreply@blogger.com (Randy) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:30:00 +0000

Penn State University Professor, Dr. Nancy Welsh, has identified four principles that govern how people understand the "fairness" of the conflict solutions they advocate. The word gene can be used as an acrostic to remember the four: generosity, equality, need, and equity.

When conflict participants employ the principle of generosity as a guideline for what is a "fair" solution, they declare that no person should receive more in outcomes than anyone else, even if he or she deserves it. The principle of equality dictates that every person should share equally in the outcomes on the basis of the lowest common denominator. In other words, outcomes are distributed according to what is deserved by the person who deserves the least. Need dictates the distribution of outcomes according to what the parties actually need. Finally, the principle of equity makes the distribution of outcomes dependent on what the individual parties deserve.

As you can see, these four standards of "fairness" vary considerably. It's one reason why both parties to a conflict might claim that all they want is a "fair" solution and yet be miles apart when it comes to the details of what they consider "fair."

According to Professor Walsh, which particular standard of "fairness" someone chooses depends on what kind of relationship he or she has with the others in the conflict. In the absence of a relationship, people will choose the standard that has the greatest utility in meeting their own goals. If there is a relationship, but it's negative, people will hardly care about fairness, much less about how to establish what determines it. Only when there is a relationship that is positive or when there is hope for a relationship in the future will there be a concern about fairness and some deliberation over how it factors into outcomes.

A concern for fairness in resolving conflict plays a significant part in the process and goals of biblical same-mindedness. One way to understand biblical same-mindedness is to understand it as "an equitable use of resources to satisfy the relevant interests of the parties in conflict," which is essentially what Paul commands in Philippians 2:4. I describe the process involved in obeying Paul's command in "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict."

Interestingly enough, Walsh's findings about the importance of relationship in regard to fairness also ring true with Scripture. In Philippians 4:2, Paul commanded Euodia and Syntyche: "Be of the same mind in the Lord." In the verses immediately before and after verse 2, Paul references the value of relationship. Notice the terms of endearment in verse 1 and all the commonalities in verse 3. It is as if Paul tells Euodia and Syntyche, "Let the realities of a strong relationship between the two of you, which are due to what Christ has done for you, spur you on to the process and goal of biblical same-mindedness.

Application Questions:
1. What other Scripture can you think of that emphasizes the importance of relationships when people find themselves in conflict?
2. If Walsh's observations are correct, if there is no relationship or if the relationship is negative, there is a special danger of either not caring about fairness or of being blind to what a more objective person might consider to be fair. How has the absence of a relationship or the presence of a negative relationship affected conflicts in which you have been involved? As you think through your attitudes and behavior in the conflict, is it possible that your view of fairness became skewed? How so, or why not?
4. What can someone do to build his or her relationship with a counterpart in conflict as the conflict unfolds and develops?

Note: For more information on the process of biblical same-mindedness, check out "Where Do We Go From Here: The Path To Biblically Resolving Conflict" by Randal L. Gilmore. Available here.

To read more on the subject of fairness in conflict, see "Perceptions of Fairness" by Nancy J. Walsh.