Torch, Summer 2003

Workers feel their livelihood is threatened when new equipment or operational procedures are introduced into the plant. Church members feel their ministries are threatened when changes in worship style, Sunday school classes, and ministry options are implemented. Terry Wise laments the pervasive nature of conflict in the introduction to his book Conflict Scenarios : The controversial gridlock so prevalent within the contemporary church negatively affects much of what the church wants to accomplish. We try to show the world what a difference Christ can make in our lives, but our witness is undermined by an incongruity between our conduct and our words. We try to engage ourselves in kingdom work, but it is hard to make an impact when infighting creates a massive hemorrhaging of church resources. 2 Lyle Schaller offers insightful comments for ministry leaders confronting opposition to change. He writes, “… the larger the number and variety of clients, the more difficult it is to win support for implementing any one specific proposal for change. Each client has a somewhat different agenda.” 3 Of course, what that means — although Schaller is too genteel to be quite so blunt — is that the real reason change implementation is so difficult is that people tend to pursue their own agenda regardless of the effect on everyone else’s agenda. To be even more blunt, most people are just too selfish to see the greater good possible by individual sacrifice of position, influence, or power. If it is true that the basic cause of family, organizational, and institutional conflict is selfishness, then the cure for this malady is to move the individuals from selfishness to selflessness. One way to do this is to help individuals see themselves as members of teams, creating a sense of group identity. Jeffrey Pfeffer suggests, “Because most people are inherently social creatures, deriving pleasure from social interaction, groups exert a powerful influence on individuals.” 4 Although Pfeffer’s comments are aimed specifically at managers in the workforce, the application of his insight is equally valid for the family head and the pastor of a local church. People achieve more and are willing to sacrifice some of their own goals when placed in team relationships whether at work, at home, or in the church. Of course, simply designating individuals as members of “the team” is superficial and will not necessarily result in a team spirit. So, how does one develop teamwork among individuals of differing skills, backgrounds, interests, and personal maturity? Pfeffer writes that “the key to the team concept is trust and respect.” 5 The true task of team- building, then, is to ensure each treats others with mutual trust and respect. This comes, primarily, through open and honest communication. Perhaps a negative example will illustrate this truth. Jerry Harvey and D. Richard Albertson conducted a classic study on the destructive behaviors of members of organizations undergoing substantial change. One of the questions they tried to answer was “Why do organization members engage in behavior which is both individually and organizationally destructive?” 6 Their answer was two-fold: a lack of awareness and fantasies about consequences of alternative actions. Positively stated, enhanced awareness of organizational objectives and goals, along with adequate information about the outcomes of those organizational imperatives, will go a long way toward positively affecting destructive behaviors. Leaders, then, should be alert to those situations that drive defensive and destructive behaviors. This would include the consideration of or implementation of organizational changes that may be threatening to individuals’ sense of self or place in the organization. Then, leaders should ensure steps are taken to communicate with those individuals continued on page 12 Summer 2003 / TORCH 7