Category: Negotiation

A Case Study on Church Conflict

First: Review the 7 Levels of Conflict

Church conflict happens in lots of places. Understanding the dynamics and what can be done needs practice. The following case study is a chance for you to put theory into practice.

Review the Case Story

Background

Blessed Peace Church is located in Keiffer, a small town. This congregation has been in existence for over 135 years. There is a sense of wellbeing in the greater community and the population has been growing steadily in recent years due to the high quality of life offered. Keiffer has a college, a new telecommunication center for a large insurance company and an established manufacturing factory nearby that employs a lot of people. Because of these factors, new people are moving into the area alarming older residents with the need for new schools and other services. Change is happening despite growing opposition.

Current Reality

This growth has also brought about challenges in the congregation over the last 5 years.  Once a small church, Blessed Peace has now grown in size (Average Weekly Attendance 115) and style offering a full program for children, youth and adults.  Its ministry has developed, stretching the budget and space needs. There is now a growing college student program that is led by a new member, Charles Tony. Mr. Tony has been a member of the congregation for less than 2 years and has established an effective ministry with students that totals 45 each Sunday. He tends to work best alone and values growth.

Pastor Martha Rowlings has been at the church for 6 years and is now receiving a steady stream of complaints about the Student Ministry from older members. They share that this new group is not sharing space well, they consume a part of the budget that could be used on other ministries and seem not to appreciate established leaders or approved ways for doing things.

What Happened

At a recent Church Council Meeting, Mr. Tony made a request on behalf of the students requesting that a second worship service begin next month. They would meet on Sunday evenings in the Fellowship Hall and offer a contemporary style of praise and song. He would take the responsibility to find musicians and promote this new venture on behalf of the congregation. When Pastor Rowlings, who did not know about this request in advance, asked that the congregation form a task group of 7 members of the church (older members and students) to further study this matter to gain support and to properly organize this activity, Mr. Tony objected. He stated that if the church did not approve his request, he would quit and the students would leave.

A heated debate occurred that raised all the underlying issues that the congregation was struggling with over this ministry: lack of communication, the difference of perspectives, allotment of resources, confusion and a desire to do things the way they have been done in the past.  While no one opposed the request, some expressed doubts that the request was brought before the Council properly and with the support of the Pastor, as it should be. Assumptions and insults followed over whether the proper process was followed. What was the impact on the budget expected to be? The congregation wanted to support student ministry but not be held hostage.

In frustration, the Council Chair finally deferred the matter until the next meeting. He suggested that the Pastor and Mr. Tony meet together during the week to work out a proposal that would be beneficial to both the students and the church. Mr. Tony did not show up for that meeting.

Afterwards…

People began to talk and take sides. Some believed that the student ministry was taking over the church and needed to be more respectful. Mr. Tony had overstepped his boundaries. Other leaders wanted to do all they could to support the newer members and suggested that a second worship service would help alleviate tensions between the 2 groups. My Tony did bring new energy to the church and the young adults responded well.

Sadly, nobody knew what to do to resolve the matter or the conflict that led to the place that they now find themselves. So they call you…

Discussion Questions

  1. What level of conflict do you think the church is encountering and why?
  2. What would you suggest be done to resolve the tensions and bring about a restored trust and wellbeing to the congregation?
  3. Is there a way to meet the needs of both the older members and students? Can you see a way forward?

Negotiation & Consensus: Getting to Yes

Common concerns

Negotiation principles are widely applied in many different contexts. What about consensus building appraoches to grooup decision-making? One frequent objection to consensus based decision-making is that it is a new fangled idea that has no track record of success. Some of the ways that this is expressed include:

  • the whole idea is a wishy washy approach that doesn’t work in real life
  • leads to lowest common denominator outcomes
  • it’s all about making a compromise – lose / lose
  • it lacks robust engagement
  • no one uses consensus-building – because it doesn’t work

Negotiation as a conflict resolving tool

For centuries people, businesses and countries have negotiated their way through disagreements. They have used different techniques. Among them have been:

  • threats – if you don’t do what I want then I will make you suffer
  • power – if we don’t agree  then I will use my power to get what I want
  • compromise – each party gives up something to get a bit of what they want
  • interest based negotiation – each seeks to meet the goals of both sides

In the last 50 years or so the the most widely used and effective form of negotiation has been “interest based negotiation”. The classic book on this subject is Getting to Yes: negotiating an agreement without giving in by Roger Fisher and William Ury. It was first published in 1982 and has sold millions of copies through many reprints since then.

Interest based negotiation, sometimes called principled negotiation, is well summarised in the chapter headings of Getting to Yes.

Don’t bargain over positions

When people enter into a dispute they usually start by focusing on what they want out of the situation. That is a position. For example: A couple arguing that only $X is available for a new car. Or “We need to cut the church budget to cope with increasing costs.”

The reason there is a conflict is because the outomes – or positions as they are called – held by the parties are different. Both sides can’t get what they want if they focus on a position.

Instead the focus should be on the things that are most important to the parties – the true goal stripped of the particularity of a position. What is the true interest. For example: “We have only a limited family budget and I don’t want to upset my partner who has other priorities instead of a car.” Or “I’m concerned that the church reserves are going down under my watch as Treasurer.”

These are interests. The deeper need / agenda that is hidden behind the positions of the price to be paid for a car or a focus on budget cuts. By identifying interests and starting the conversation there it is possible to have a very different conversation about options that meet those needs.

Method in interest based negotiations

Separate the people from the problem. Don’t make the dispute personal. See the other party as someone who has legitimate interests and – like you – is trying to have them met. Do not treat them as an enemy. Work with them as a partner in finding a solution that works for both of you.

Foucs on interests not positions. As noted above there is usually more room for conversation around interests than there is about positions. If the argument is about the price of something then there are only so many points to make. However if the discussion also includes ongoing relationships, total family budget, and priorities in the budget then that can be a lot to talk about!

Invent options for mutual gain. The classic “rule” in negotiations is to give something to the other party that is of the highest value to them and the lowest cost to you. As interests are identified and owned it is possible to see what matters most to the parties. By taking a collaborative approach it is possible to create offers that are great gains for the other side but are not a great cost to you. For example: I may be very happy to give up my Friday  pizza and beer night for a year and put that towards the cost of car repayments. After all I was considering going on a diet anyway!

Insist on using objective criteria. Participants in disputes often become very emotive, or base decisions on their understanding of the data. By insisting on “checking the facts” through an objective mechanism some of this emotion can be moderated. When everyone can agree on the data it makes it much easier to find common ground. Negotiations have to be based on reality.

Negotiation and Consensus

If you are familiar with consensus building, as we have presented in our book (The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together) and blog posts, you will immediately see the similarities between negotiation and consensus based discernment. I will not highlight them again here.

The common ground between negotiation and consensus building is huge! In fact consensus building can be considered as interest based negotiation for groups.

If anyone tells you that consensus building discernment is just a fad that has no track record in real life – tell them they are wrong! Interest based negotiation is the standard for international diplomatic and trade negotiations. It is also the same approach that is used in interpersonal mediation. Consensus building discenment draws on the same principles and practices and locates them in the framework of Christian discipleship.

A consensus building approach to discernment is grounded in solid academic research and practical experience. If you want the best chance of creating lasting, owned and implemented decisions then you must use consensus building in your church.