Download Finding the Optimal Level of Conflict

Finding the Optimal Level of Conflict
by David R. Brubaker
Every congregation experiences conflict, even though each one does so in unique ways. The
sources of conflict may vary from the micro to the macro --from intrapersonal pathologies to
personality differences to globalization forces--but over time they are inescapable. Various
studies have shown that organizational leaders and managers spend up to 25 percent of their time
managing conflict. Experienced pastors know that during times of crisis, conflict management
duties can become all-consuming.
Although many members assume that all congregational conflicts emerge from personality
differences or communication problems, other significant sources are often at work within the
system itself. These include the structure, culture, and leadership of the organization. However,
conflict can result not just from changes in the structure, culture, and environment but also from
other systemic realities within those three areas.
Conflict can arise out of the congregational structure from one of several causes. First, conflict
results when power is overly centralized and those with less power attempt to shift the power
imbalance. Second, roles can be so poorly defined that overlapping and thus contested
responsibilities lead to tension and conflict. Third, the formal and the informal social structure
can be so divergent that conflict emerges from differing perceptions of who really has authority.
Leaders who notice patterns in the interpersonal conflicts in their congregation will want to
consider these possible structural causes.
An organization's culture can be another underlying source of conflict, particularly its most
visible expression--the worship service. The most common conflict arises when newer
congregational members encounter an entrenched organizational culture that they do not share.
The conflicts that result tend to be framed by both groups in terms of right and wrong behavior,
as culture supplies the values and norms that help us determine what behavior is appropriate or
inappropriate. If a pastor or other staff person hired from outside the congregation is perceived to
be acting in ways that are counter to the congregation's cultural values, conflict is particularly
likely and tends to be acute. And when an outside leader and an inside culture clash, culture
normally wins.
Finally, the multiple environments in which a congregation is nested also provide the potential
for multiple sources of conflict. This is the reason why "town/gown" conflicts (between
communities and the colleges or universities they host) are so common; academic cultures that
value debate and progressive thinking are likely to be in tension with environments that value
harmony and traditional values.
Although conflict is inevitable, many scholars and practitioners believe that any organization
may have an optimal level of conflict. Some disagreement and conflict provides energy and
generates ideas, but too much conflict becomes destructive. When an organization has too little
conflict, it may need to be encouraged, and when an organization has too much conflict, it may
need to be reduced. In the middle of this curve, however, lies an optimal level of conflict where
most organizations seem to thrive. Stirring the conflict pot may be needed in some situations, but
when the pot starts to boil over, a conflict reduction strategy may be needed.
Diagnosing the level of conflict and seeking outside assistance at higher levels constitutes the
intervention end of the conflict management spectrum. At the prevention end lie opportunities
for congregational leaders to create a conflict-healthy system where disagreement is welcomed
and destructive conflict doesn’t take root. A conflict-healthy system includes both individual
behaviors and congregational mechanisms to manage conflict. It begins with the recognition that
leaders set the tone regarding conflict management in their congregations, along with many other
behavioral norms.
An organization's culture matters more than its structure. Therefore, while congregational leaders
may be able to create a mediation program or an open-door policy, the greater challenge will
likely be changing the conflict culture sufficiently so that congregational members will naturally
seek out and use interest-based methods of conflict resolution rather than only choosing flight or
fight.
Culture changes when behaviors and assumptions change, and leaders' behaviors and
assumptions matter most of all. Therefore, leaders who learn to know the system, build a
supporting coalition, and model the desired changes are affecting the culture of their
congregations. The culture may at first resist, but leaders’ persistence in modeling the desired
assumptions and behaviors will over time change the conflict culture--the norms and behaviors
around conflict in your congregation. Managing conflict starts with managing oneself. Consider
the conflict culture that you would like to have in your congregation, then start behaving as if
that culture has already arrived. Culture change is never easy, and it is often painful. But it is
possible.
A compelling example of leaders' turning conflict into opportunity for structural and cultural
change is found in the first seven verses of Acts 6. The idyllic description of the first Christian
community, recorded in Acts 2:42–47 and Acts 4:32–37 is soon marred by incidents of deception
in Acts 5:1–11 and internal conflict in Acts 6:1–7. While the sudden deaths of Ananias and
Sapphira--who attempted to deceive the apostles about the extent of their generosity—are
shocking, the conflict recorded in Acts 6 sounds more familiar to our ears. One group murmured
(or complained) against another group, and leaders intervened to resolve the conflict.
The complaints came from the Hellenistic or Greek-speaking Jews and were directed against the
Aramaic-speaking Jews. Most scholars agree that the Aramaic-speaking Jews were in the
majority of the early Christian movement and included Jesus's disciples--now called apostles.
The identified issue for the minority group was that their “widows were being overlooked in the
daily distribution of food” (Acts 6:1)--a compelling allegation in a society where care for widows
and orphans was part of the Mosaic Law.
The twelve apostles could have ignored these allegations, ordered the minority group to stop
griping, or issued a decree that all widows would henceforth be fed equal portions. Instead, they
convened a meeting of all the disciples and self-defined by clarifying their primary role in the
community. "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to
wait on tables" (Acts 6:2). They then gave the problem back to the group that originally
complained, suggesting that they choose seven individuals "full of the Spirit and wisdom" to care
for the feeding of widows (v. 3). Fortunately, the proposal "pleased the whole group" (v. 5), and
they chose seven men, all of whom had Greek names--and thus were likely from the group that
originally brought the complaint.
It is instructive to note that this passage begins and ends with church growth. The first verse of
chapter 6 records that "in those days . . . the number of disciples was increasing," while the last
verse of this section concludes that "the word of God spread" and "a large number of [Jewish]
priests became obedient to the faith" (v. 7). This is thus a story about a conflict, nested in a story
about growth and change. This fascinating, if brief, account of the first recorded church conflict
offers at least three significant learnings.
First, leaders need to move toward conflict, not away from it. Leaders who learn to move toward
conflict discover that they have opportunities to resolve issues when those issues are small,
rather than attempting to fight fires when they are nearly out of control.
Second, the identified issue is almost never the real issue. The allegation from the Greekspeaking minority that their "widows were being overlooked" in the daily food distribution was
indeed a compelling one, but it likely was a proxy for a deeper feeling of powerlessness and
alienation among the Hellenist members of the early church. All the significant leadership
positions (apostles) were held by the Aramaic-speaking majority, and the minority did not know
how to exercise their voice other than through "murmuring."
Third, involve the "complainers" in solving their identified problems. Note that the apostles did
not agree to take care of the problem that had been identified. Rather, they recruited members of
the murmuring minority to address the problem. This outcome actually created a new role in the
church--that of deacon.
Conflict is often a crisis, but it is also an opportunity. Much depends on our attitude toward
conflict. If we expect it to be destructive and awful, it probably will be. But if we anticipate that
the conflict may instead be an opportunity for genuine change, we may experience
transformation. As Ron Kraybill, the founding director of Mennonite Conciliation Service, has
said, conflict may be "an arena of revelation," a time when we hear God’s voice as we never
have before.
Adapted from Promise and Peril: Understanding and Managing Change and Conflict in
Congregations by David R. Brubaker, copyright © 2009 by the Alban Institute. All rights
reserved.