Interpersonal Communication and Conflict Management ML502 LESSON 24 of 24 Kenneth O. Gangel, Ph.D. Experience: Former Professor of Christian Education at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, TX. This final lecture in this series looks at conflict as destructive management or as constructive management. In the preceding studies, you will notice that the emphasis has been conflict is not necessarily right or wrong. It is what we do and how we manage the conflict that is important. One other important consideration is that conflict will never be totally eliminated. We may see individual episodes of conflict somewhat resolved, but there is a very real sense in which conflict is ongoing, cyclical by nature. If this is true then it is important for us to determine: Will we manage the conflict in a destructive fashion or will we manage it constructively? Broadly speaking those are the two areas that we will discuss in this study. First, I want to examine destructive management of conflict. And as we examine destructive management of conflict, I want to set before you seven characteristics or elements that are tip-offs as to when conflict is being managed destructively. The first conflict becomes destructive when internal strife hinders the effective functioning of the family or the organization. The internal as well as external relationships are being weakened instead of strengthened. As you think about how you relate to other people, you would have to say there is so much strife that is going on we are not relating well in what we are to be doing. There are three elements here that help us to understand when this internal strife is getting out of control. The first has to do with the time element. Without question we have a clear mandate from God as to what we are to do in ministry. Matthew 28:19 20, the Great Commission, spells it out in no uncertain terms. We are to reach and we are to baptize and we are to teach. These are the marching orders that Jesus Christ left for us. If the internal struggle of any organization or church requires most or sometimes nearly all of our time, then we are restricted so that the mandate cannot be effectively followed. Conflict can 1 of 8
be a tremendous time-grabber. The church that fights heatedly among itself seldom has much of an evangelistic or discipling outreach in the community. This does not suggest that conflict will be totally gone, but it does suggest that if it is not properly managed, it can and usually does turn destructive and robs us of the time that ought to be invested for our Lord Jesus Christ. A second element that tips us off about internal strife hindering our effective functioning is the energy element. When the body s strength is used to fight a war within the church, it moves in a nonproductive direction. When conflict is repeatedly mismanaged, a pattern emerges which saps the congregation of vitality and weakens the cause of Christ in any mission it seeks to undertake. The light may be shining, but it s more flickering than a bright beacon there in the community. New people who could be resources to help the church achieve its objectives tend to avoid the battle because, after all, it is someone else s battle and we have learned not to engage in somebody else s battle. Besides time and energy, a third element will help us to understand internal strife, and that has to do with the element of vision. The future becomes sacrificed on the altar of the present. A church can become so consumed with internal power plays and bickering, it forgets about what ought to happen in the immediate as well as far-reaching future. Plans, goals, objectives, strategies, these things do not enter the corporate church life because all the evidence indicates a struggle for survival. As I travel around the United States, I am amazed at how frequently when I ask a pastor or a church leader, What is your plan for the next year? Three years? Five years? Ten years? Fifteen years? the further I push the years, the less likely people are to have definite measurable plans, goals, and objectives in what they would like to see accomplished. Not all the time, but much of the time they have no plans because they have no vision. Conflict has robbed them of that. The internal strife has caused them to look within themselves at what currently is going on and to look back to what caused that. But they have no time to think about what God would want them to do there in that community. The positive force a body of believers ought to be has changed into that which is negative and quite frequently ugly. Where vision is missing, discouragement is next to develop. The leadership tires of constant fighting as the people slip into a drab, maintenance-only mode of existence. A second tip-off as to destructive management of conflict could be said this way, Conflict becomes destructive when nonshared 2 of 8
or conflicting goals or values are clearly evident. This may take the form of a different philosophy of ministry. If some leaders see worship as the dominant activity which should occur in a church, while other leaders view evangelism as the primary function of a church, potential destructive conflict is built into their leadership values. More than one conflictual episode will likely occur when values dramatically differ, such issues as what really ought to happen in a Sunday morning service. One side will say it needs to be evangelistic: We never hear the preacher preach a message where the gospel is the primary focus. That s what we ought to be doing. That s why we re here, to reach this community for Jesus Christ. The other side says, That s not at all what we ought to be doing on a Sunday morning. We need to be helping our people appreciate and value their God. That s the type of service that we ought to have on a Sunday morning. Is the issue really the Sunday morning service? Not at all. The issue is we have conflicting goals and values as to what the overall primary focus ought to be for a church when it meets together. The Sunday morning simply becomes the place where this conflict of values takes place. If the differences exist only at an activity level, the conflict will probably not be as severe. The more intense conflict comes when the goals, such as just described, are conflicting. This may be subtle at first, since everyone agrees we need to have both evangelism and worship. But when scarce resources, people, money, or time, are introduced, then the true values begin to surface. When one important area is pitted against another important area, the priority system becomes apparent. At this level, nonshared or conflicting goals can create strong destructive conflict. The destructive power may cause the relationship to be broken if mutual goals and values cannot or will not be accepted. The third tip-off to destructive management of conflict: Conflict becomes destructive when incompatible, irreconcilable role definitions exist. If a pastor views his ministry as overseeing the flock as a leader but the people visualize him as only a preacher, destructive conflict is apt to develop. For he will want to introduce new ideas as to how the church can reach the lost or educate in the Sunday school or develop a men s program, but some of the lay leaders will probably inform him that they really appreciate his preaching, and since he is good at this, he ought to lead from his strengths and leave administration to them. The concept of pastor is not shared. The definition of what a pastor is is a conflicting definition. It is not that the lay leaders do not like their pastor. They love their pastor, but they expect him to function only in the 3 of 8
pulpit. This is not a personality problem. It would not matter who was pastor. The role of pastor to these people does not include administration. This type of situation must have a redefinition of the role which can be mutually accepted or a change in the relationship will probably occur. A fourth tip on when conflict becomes destructive: It becomes destructive when threat of a broken relationship dominates the decision-making process. Please notice the word dominates the decision-making process. When a number of alternatives exist, conflict can be properly managed. It is when the reduction of alternatives occurs. That s when conflict accelerates, breaking the relationship. If the lay leadership of a church is unhappy with the work of a pastor, they might approach him with several different possibilities. You are fired. Usually when this surprisingly happens, poor communication as well as inadequate interpersonal skills have dominated the relationship. If the lay leaders take a different tact and say to the pastor, We see some problems and would like to work with you on them, they may offer to send him to some specific conference which they believe will strengthen him in a needy area. Might be in the area of pastoral visitation, administration, counseling any of these areas. Even more indirectly they might come with this tact: What do you think about pastoral visitation? if this is the area of felt need. This approach seeks to work with the pastor instead of against him. Inherent in their question is, Is this pastor interested in improving his ministry in this area which we see as important? Or they might come this way: The lay leaders in question may resign and refuse to confront the pastor about the issue. This response usually carries baggage with it. These individuals become warped in their view of service and often refuse to engage in any lay leadership again. They stay in the church as pew warmers. A final way they might come is the lay leaders in question may resign and leave the assembly to join another church across town where the pastor really pastors. This too is a convoluted solution to the problem. They re simply walking away, usually to find over time the same problem surfacing again: the threat of the broken relationship. The fifth tip that we have on when conflict is becoming destructive is when desire, and by that I mean motivation to continue the relationship, no longer exists. An interdependent relationship can only survive as long as both parties will it to survive. If one of the parties is no longer committed to the overall relationship, it runs a high risk of death. I have noted in marital problems that couples face, it doesn t matter if the problems come during the first or 4 of 8
the 21st year of the relationship. One of the first questions I like to ask a couple is, Do you see any hope for this relationship? Admittedly, that s very frontal. But I need to know: Is there a desire? If there is at least a desire, then there is hope. But when desire is gone, hope goes with it. Conflict becomes destructive when the desire to continue the relationship is no longer present. A sixth tip-off as to when conflict is becoming destructive appears when lines of communication voluntarily or involuntarily close. It is possible to have more severe conflict when parties communicate. As a matter of fact, some people believe conflict is best managed if we will just communicate. My friend, that is not true at all. Some people communicate to find that they are in greater conflict because they have communicated values and desires they weren t really sure the other person had. They communicated them and found out they didn t have them at all. So severe conflict may come when we communicate. But it is improbable that less communication will produce less conflict. This confirmation can strike a deadly blow at a deep relationship level. So when the lines voluntarily or involuntarily close those communication lines, destructive conflict accelerates. A seventh tip-off of destructive conflict can often be marked by a lack of accuracy in communication. Exactness between what is sent and what is received becomes hopelessly distorted. The tragedy is that no one seeks to clarify the communication messages. These seven characteristics will influence conflict down a destructive road. It is important that we be attuned to those, to watch out for those, because in the final analysis we do not want to see conflict turn ugly and become destructive. What are the principles that will help us with constructive management of conflict? The last part of our study together, we want to look at some eight considerations as to what will help us become constructive in the management of conflict. The first has to do with learning how to respond to a conflict at its earliest stages. Throughout the series, we have suggested that conflict does run in cycles. It runs in stages. There is a normal development of conflict that we need to be aware of. The first way that we usually see conflict is to see tension as it starts to develop. It can t qualify for conflict yet, but the relationship is 5 of 8
tense. There is a sense in which we know something is happening here that s probably not a good thing. Now that usually moves somewhere to the second stage of conflict development. If the first stage is tension developing, the second stage is where conflict sides are identified and chosen. We decide as we hear the issue and view the participants and see what s going on that we are on this side or that side. Tension develops. Now this is true whether we re looking at something as large as the American Revolution from England or whether we re looking at something as simply a disagreement between a 5-year-old and his mother. The tension develops. Sides are identified. Sides are chosen. The third stage in a normal development of conflict is evidence is collected. Once we know what our side is, we build our case. We want to make sure that we have all the evidence that we can get in order to be able to get our position as the accepted position. The fourth stage in conflict development has to do with actual conflict, experienced confrontation. Now remember that s the fourth stage. These three stages have come prior to it. The final stage in most conflict development, the fifth one, is a period of adjustment or evaluation. As you think back through these five stages in normal conflict, a cyclical kind of development, the earlier you learn to manage the conflict the better will be the management of the conflict, the more productive the conflict management. When you see early tensions developing, bring the confrontation at that point. If we allow the sides to be identified and chosen, if we permit our files to become fattened with all of the evidence of why we are right and the other person is wrong, we simply play into the hands of improper management of conflict. Learn. Master the art of going to the person early. That s not easy to do. All of us have a natural affinity away from that. We do not like that. But we need to learn when conflict is being considered, constructive management does it early and does not allow it to fester and develop over a long period of time. The second principle in management of conflict: We need to keep everyone centered on the conflict issue. There is something about conflict, its emotional attachment, it gets us off track. We start second-guessing the motives of our opponent or adversary. And that s a small step away then from making false assumptions about why they are doing this. We live at a highly inferential level when we are managing conflict. This means it is very important to 6 of 8
keep centered on the conflict issues. Push for the facts. Do not let emotions rule the day. Do not let false assumptions prevail. And be very careful about inferring without having actual, descriptive facts of what s happening. A third principle that will help us in managing conflict constructively is to follow what I call four basic conflict rules. Let me itemize these for you. The first rule, and these are universal rules. The first rule: Make sure all parties are allowed to disagree without feeling guilty. It is important that they have that privilege, to be able to disagree without feeling guilty, because if you don t, they ll simply go underground. The second in these four basic principles is each individual must be allowed to state his or her position with energy and exactness. This means that you have a long fuse. That you allow the person plenty of space and allow them to say with whatever energy they want what it is that needs to be said. The third principle is protection from being hurt and hurting others must be sustained. There is no place for personal, frontal attacks. That is a tactic that is off limits. And we need to be very strong and strong in our assessment against that not happening. The fourth law that we want to suggest for basic conflict rules is to remind conflicting parties when even small amounts of progress is achieved. It is crucial that people have a sense of hope when doing conflict. One of the things that tips the scales towards destructive management is when the individual says, There really is no hope. I ll have to leave this church. I must divorce this man. When a person comes to that point, conflict is all but over because the relationship will be broken. Four basic conflict rules: Make sure all parties are allowed to disagree without feeling guilty. Allow every individual to state their position with energy and exactness and without hurting themselves or hurting others. Then you as a facilitator allow small amounts of progress to be noted when achieved. The fourth major principle in helping conflict along the road of constructive activity and management is this: When we help the parties to see creative options available to them, point out any and all creative options. Again, conflict restricts our thinking. Conflict wants to push us in a direction of thinking either-or, either-or. When in reality there may be a multiple amount of 7 of 8
options that are there. Creative management of conflict notes all of these multiple options and works hard towards seeing more come into existence. The fifth principle about conflict becoming constructive: It is constructive when we put our energy into helping the conflicting parties to view every conflict as a problem to be solved. Do not allow them to see impossibilities because impossibilities play into the hands of hopelessness. But here we have a problem, and it is a problem. Do not minimize the problem. But every problem does have a potential solution. We need to move them in that direction. Conflict management also is constructive when we produce authentic and worthwhile information about the conflict issues. The data generated must be true and it must be genuine. We cannot give on those two counts. If it is not authentic and if it is not worthwhile, then it needs to be excised out of the communication process when doing conflict. The seventh principle that we have, so far as conflict management being constructive, means that we need to provide a context for independent and knowledgeable choices. Everyone involved needs to have freedom and needs to be informed. If we keep them ignorant or we bind them in some way, we move towards destructive management, not constructive management of conflict. The eighth and last principle: Conflict management becomes constructive when we encourage personal commitment to any plan of action which wins mutual agreement. I have found sometimes it s helpful to put it into writing, have them sign it, especially if it has taken a while to hammer out some sort of plan of action. We need to encourage that commitment, if not in writing, a strong verbal agreement to the management of conflict. These eight will help us in making conflict travel towards a positive management of it. Christ-Centered Learning Anytime, Anywhere 8 of 8