Understanding and Working Through the 7 Levels of Conflict

Conflict occurs when 2 or more people or ideas try to occupy the same place at the same time. Understanding the 7 Levels of Conflict helps you understand the root causes and how to respond appropriately.

Note: if a situation is mishandled, the level of conflict escalates. So it is always best to recognize the level and address it in a timely manner.

Level 1: Peace in the Valley

Level 1 is basically the phase where all is well. Ministry is happening. Nothing is wrong and people work well together. Unfortunately, this level is fleeting – it needs attention to thrive.

Possible responses include:

Hold a shared vision before the group
Monitor actions between people and groups
Encourage creativity
Establish a Behavioral Covenant (link)
Practice good communication – use “I” statements

Level 2: We Have a Problem to Solve Together

Level 2 is all about having a mutual problem to solve. It’s about information. Perhaps there is a new ministry that needs space in the church or there is now a need for a nursery. At this phase, there is a high level of respect and trust. You won’t find any personal attacks here. The focus is on the present and what is possible. You may notice some misinformation. People may not understand the need for a new ministry. Perhaps an older Sunday school class is the perfect spot for the nursery because of its proximity tot he Sanctuary.

Possible responses include:

Focus on the facts
Define the problem
Share information
Encourage collaboration to search for the best options to resolve the problem

At Level 2 it is important to train people on how to work through disagreements. Set clear boundaries. Be hard on the issue and soft on people. Work for a win-win solution.

Level 3: We disagree but I want to look good!

Conflict can be caused by funding challenges and where the money is spent. Offering a second worship service to reach new people. Even setting a vision for the future can cause tensions to flare. A disagreement about the strategies and methods used to accomplish a goal can upset people if not handled well. Even the process you use to reach an important decision is not received well.

At this level, people are self-protective and the problem becomes secondary. They form sides and want to be right or save face. The goal is to solve a disagreement yet you will notice that there is a record kept of wrongs against people. Triangulation occurs and trust suffers. People sometimes cast doubts on other people’s intent. Things begin to get messy.

Possible responses include:

Stay focused on common goals and ground
Stay in the moment
Help people seek to understand one another
Ask clarifying questions
Express feelings rather than opinions
Rebuild trust
When necessary: apologize!

Level 4: We’re in a competition and I want to win!

At this level of conflict, different goals in a group are usually the culprit. You will notice that people are out to win and get their way regardless of what it does to others. Mutual goals are not supported at this level. It seems like people are in a contest to win by any means possible.

When power is misused and manipulation occurs, people take sides. There is “us” vs “them” mentality. Assumptions flourish. Personal attacks happen. An example of this level is trying to block a second language congregation for using your facility. It may be that a neighboring church had a fire and needs a place to worship.

Possible responses include:

Agree on ground rules
Set mutually acceptable goals
Talk separately with the various parties involved to clarify assumptions and check reality. Discern the needs, objectives, and challenges of the groups involved.
Use liturgical means to bring about healing (prayers of confession, anointing, etc.)
Call in a crisis team or a trained facilitator to help people work through their situation in a just manner.

Level 5: We will protect ourselves – You must leave!

This level of conflict is often directed at a Pastor or new members who come with different ideas on how to accomplish things. It tends to focus on the norms or things that we believe.

In this situation, people want to protect their group. They feel that there way of doing things or their core beliefs are being threatened. Tensions escalate from the last level as people begin to plot to get rid of someone or a group.

You may notice that there are now organized factions that are causing people to fight or flee. “You” statements are voiced. People feel attacked and conflict becomes personal. Some members feel uncomfortable with what is happening and panic – others leave.

Appropriate responses include:

Separate people from the issues
Allow people to leave with dignity
Surface majority and minority views
Set boundaries
Use good organizational processes
Generate options for mutual gain
Focus on interests not positions
Hire a mediator

Level 6: We’re at war and I will destroy you!

When things get out of hand and you reach this point, it is painful to everyone involved. Groups want to destroy the other and are out for revenge. Core values seem under attack. Deep positions become intense. There is actual talk of eradicating the opposition.

At this level, you will notice several things: people forget that caused the conflict in the first place, issues become causes, people think the ends justify the means. They become fanatical. Positions deeper.

An example of this level that I see most often is getting rid of your pastor. It’s not enough to get them “fired” – some have contacted the next congregation considering their call. Congregations that reach this point often split.

Possible responses include:

Provide a cooling-off time
Stand down dysfunctional leaders for a set time (i.e. they can’t serve for a year, or until they receive training, etc.)
Hire a neutral arbitrator and agree to split or separate
Have a peace-keeping force (neutral third party)
Design a treaty the parties will agree to keep.
Troublemakers must be disempowered or asked to leave

Level 7: Mutual Destruction

The name of the level says it all. This is where a congregation is no longer viable. Earlier attempts to resolve the conflict were not successful. A judicatory officer may then be invited to come and help disperse assets and other resources so they can be used in ministry by others.

Sadly, I witnessed this level in a suburban church. The congregation was growing quickly and decided to build a new educational building. After much discussion, it was decided that the space would be used for children and youth ministry. Money was raised. As the building was completed, a small group made the decision to move the adults into a nice, new space. Feeling betrayed, parents of children and youth threatened to leave if the church leaders did not honor their agreement. When the Church Council refused, the parents and their families left leaving only a handful behind to pay the mortgage. Unable to make payments, the church building was put up for sale and the congregation disbanded.

Conclusion

It is essential to recognize the level of conflict and respond appropriately. It teaches us how to work through difficult situations with a sense of grace and purpose. When the level of conflict is managed well, everyone wins and the congregations become resilient.

We need to talk!

Why talk together?

We need to talk together because the world is changing! The days of the local church where everyone came from the same background, had similar religious experiences and shared the same cultural views and practices are numbered. Sure they will hang around for a while but they are dying out.

In a very simple, clear and accurate article, Wesley Granberg-Michaelson writes about the future of the church. He makes the compelling case that the game is up for would be homogenous churches. Try as they might most of these types of churches can not grow. This is because demography, culture and changing world views have left them behind. In the US it is expected that 100 of these aging white Protestant mainline churches will close each year for the foreseeable future. It has been happening in Australia and Europe for decades.

Lectures and directives from the pulpit might work when the majority accept the dominant world view. However, when groups are diverse and hold different perspectives and experiences they will not be told. Talk together is the key to sustaining diverse communities.

The changing landscape for the church

Granberg-Michaelson says that the changes that make this death spiral inevitable include:

Multiracial congregations are expanding to draw 1 in 5 churchgoing Americans. Surveys on American congregations report a higher level of spiritual vitality among them compared with racially homogeneous congregations.
For 400 years, the faith has been moulded by the largely European culture that came out of the Enlightenment. But today church vitality is coming from emerging expressions of Christianity in Africa as well as in Asia and Latin America.
These new influences are raising new questions about the relationship of the individual to the community, rational versus non-rational pathways to perceiving truth and the interplay of the spiritual and material realms.
As the yearning for authentic spiritual experience moves from the head to the heart in this new environment, spirit-filled communities are flourishing.
The culture wars in the church are divisions that are not seen as the core of the gospel and many contemporary people don’t want to fight over them.
“Belonging before believing” is reshaping pathways of discipleship. The demand that outsiders first adhere to specific beliefs expressed in creeds or confessions is giving way to inviting them first to explore and share in worship, reflection, and service.

Evangelism needs us to talk together

Anyone who has a genuine concern and capacity for evangelism knows how important it is to understand the context. To understand context – the life, experience, and values of people – requires listening. Talking together starts with the dominant group listening to the ones who are different.

When it is appropriate there will be a place for the evangelical person, or church, to share their perspective. However, it can never again be in the arrogant, superior, assumption of knowing what others need to learn. The talking will be more in the form of testimony about what God has meant in their life. Then, once again, it is time to listen to how others have experienced God in their life.

To talk together today about faith (or anything in the church) requires patience and humility. It requires a setting and practices that make it possible for all to share. Many of the processes in the Western church assume that there is one place of knowledge and one way to work it out. We need processes for being in a community that is open to learning from the stories and experiences of others. There needs to be space to experience the non-rational ways of gaining insight.

How does your congregation foster open, honest and risk taking conversations? When you meet for Bible study how do you listen to one another? When you meet to make decisions about how to you talk together so that all perspectives are heard? Unless churches develop a process that help them to talk together they will not navigate the changing landscape of society and the church.

Six Thinking Hats – A Book Review

6 Thinking Caps

A special way to think

Six Thinking Hats by Edward de Bono was first published many years ago (in the 1980’s). As such it could be considered out of date. However, it remains highly relevant and should be introduced to a new audience.

De Bono believes that there is a problem with the normal approach to dealing with issues. The normal approach is to talk about what you like or do not like about an idea. This leads to people becoming combative and only seeing the issue from their point of view. De Bono sees this argumentative approach as inefficient and unproductive. Like people who are committed to consensus building, he wants people to work together. His way of getting people to work together is to divide up the consideration of an issue into six categories. The 6 ways to look at an issue are called six thinking hats.

The Six Thinking Hats

When you approach an issue that needs a decision what do you need to know? Some people want information, others need to be sure that risks are taken into account, for some people how they feel is a crucial consideration and others look for new options or a positive view in a situation. Each of these is a way of exploring an issue and each has its place.

Based on these different approaches de Bono offers a “hat” for each one. His six hats each have their own colour and when wearing it people look at an issue from a different angle. The hats are:

White: is neutral and objective. Wearing this hat people are focused on facts and figures – data.

Red: carries the idea of passion, emotions. Wearing the red hat people talk about their feelings, provide an emotional perspective on the situation.

Black: is serious, maybe even negative/sombre. When working with this hat people are encouraged to point out weaknesses and to be cautious and careful.

Yellow: is sunny and positive. Wearers look for the positives and point to where there is hope.

Green: carries the image of abundance and growth. This is the place for creativity and generating new ideas.

Blue: like the sky, it is above everything else. The blue hat is concerned with organizing the process and the use of the other hats.

How to use the hats

This is a fairly simple process but because it is a new thing to many people de Bono spends time unpacking the use of the hats. For example, the black hat is curious and careful and should not be only seen as negative; and the red hat allows emotions to be respected without having to justify them and then to be able to be placed alongside other perspectives.

Basically the leader of a discussion says to the group that now we are all going to put on a particular hat. So if it is our white hats -what information or data do you know or need to know to help us to think about this problem? Putting on the green hat has everyone bringing their creative thinking to the task and thinking laterally about an issue – it encourages creativity.

The key to using the hats is to sense when a particular perspective on a problem is going to move the discussion along. Here the leader is crucial as they will need to sense the next thing that is necessary to build insight and discernment.

Thinking hats and consensus building

The main similarity between de Bono’s thinking hats and a consensus approach to decision-making is that both want people to work together rather than to argue with each other. De Bono emphasizes that arguing back and forth only entrenches positions and does not guarantee that all the information and options are in front of the group. His approach is to get people to work together by looking at an issue or problem from the same angle at the same time. This builds collaboration, shared understanding and a sense of partnership in finding a solution.

Consensus building also affirms the value that we are all on the same team and has the aim of ensuring that everything that we need to make a good decision is out on the table. The six thinking hats, like consensus processes, respect all points of view and know that we need all of them to make a good decision.