- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The following posted on my personal blog this morning. I thought of some of the current threads here when I saw it this evening and thought I would post it here, as well:
I’ve said often that the thing I love most about the LDS Church is the amazing growth-producing structure for each and every member, but the fact that we deeply flawed mortals are the ones who are charged with administering that structure leads to some really bad implementation and too much unrighteous dominion.
If all unrighteous dominion was imposed by “evil” or even “bad” people, that would be rather easy to handle.The problem, however, is that many good, sincere people end up exercising unrighteous dominion simply because they care and/or believe so much that they can’t recognize their own actions that overstep righteous boundaries – or because they are thrust into leadership positions for which they are not prepared and are forced to learn on the job (much like a new parent who screws up with the first couple of kids before getting it right with the next two). That’s why I believe it is vital to strive to develop charity.
I know I am going to look back 40 years from now and be astounded about the ignorance of some of what I have said (and be mortified at some of what I have done),and I hope those who read what I have written publicly and know of what I have done incorrectly are charitable in their view of me despite my many mistakes. I desire that for myself, so I try very hard to give that same courtesy to others. I still have a ways to go with that effort, but I can say honestly that it has become a strength – largely because I have focused on it so carefully for so long. I can go along with this, provided we extend the idea of directing charity to entire organizations. Meaning, you have to look at the organization with compassion — and not just certain individuals. Particularly when the weaknesses are widespread and consistently observed across a wide variety of wards and stakes. I think what W. Edwards Deming observed is very true — that 80% of the problems are with the system. And many of the issues we’ve been discussing fall into the systemic category. They are a result of policies, leadership statements, the management style of the people called into positions (a high proportion from business management backgrounds), the structure of the organization, sanctioned, landmark talks in GC, etcetera, all of which are systemic. And those systemic issues create the cultural problems we have been discussing in other threads.
And one also has to judge what goes along with the compassion — should one also give up their inner peace by repeatedly embracing situations where the organization is not performing at its best? I think not. Compassion, perhaps coupled with boundary-setting, and mitigation strategies to prevent the growing, learning organization from having too much negative impact also help both the giver and the receiver of the unrighteous dominion.
I’m not convinced by Deming’s argument, at least not entirely. The model I find more convincing is that problems we encounter form on one of 3 levels: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systemic. While the systemic may not eradicate or may even encourage interpersonal or even intrapersonal problems, that’s not where those problems originate, so I don’t think it’s where they are ultimately solved. Solving at the system level is a very controlling approach, as Deming knew well – hence the entire quality movement of the 80s and 90s is a movement of applying systems and controls, measures & monitors. However, I really don’t believe that 80% of problems beganwith faulty systems. More like 20%, IMHO. I think systems should do what they can to improve the natural intra- and interpersonal problems that are inevitable. But let’s talk about specifics for a moment. Is it a systemic, interpersonal or intrapersonal problem when a person is chosen for a leadership role but is a jerk or clueless at dealing with people?
–
intrapersonal: the person selecting them is a poor judge of character or looks for the wrong traits, the person selected is good at misrepresenting himself. Individuals think they are totally fine, and it’s everyone else. Solution: identify these individuals as outliers, help them develop individually. –
interpersonal: other qualities are prized higher than emotional intelligence (e.g. individual worthiness over empathy), people misunderstand the fallout of human dynamics. Personality clashes exist. Solution: Educate leadership (those who select leaders) on qualities needed for various leadership roles. Provide individual coaching and council-style decision making. All for mediation between disputing parties. –
systemic: leaders need better training or we need a more fool-proof selection process. Solution: leadership training to the masses (done, but how effective is it if the problem is really interpersonal or intrapersonal? People just sit there and think “Yeah, I bet all these other people really need to hear this. Good thing I know what I’m doing.”) I’m just not convinced that you can solve intrapersonal or interpersonal at a systemic level. You can encourage the right behaviors by adding measurement and transparency, but that’s not so much a solution as an early detection program.
I think the church’s philosophy of taking the slums out of men rather than men out of the slums applies here. You have to change individual human hearts to change these things.
I was curious what I could find that has been taught on the subject in the church. I found a good article from 1990, I only wish I had felt more of an emphasis on this topic when I was younger. Quote:Avoiding Unrighteous Dominion; Ensign, Sept 1990
http://lds.org/ensign/1990/09/avoiding-unrighteous-dominion?lang=eng&query=unrighteous+dominion …It surprises some people that unrighteous dominion can occur not only in the workplace, but in church settings as well. Even so, it is true that the Lord’s warnings to us about pride, ambition, and control were in the specific context of priesthood leadership. In our own experience, each of us may have seen church workers who dictate rather than listen to others, who care more about appearances than experiences, who see callings as status rather than stewardship. It is easy to forget that we are called “not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace” (2 Tim. 1:9), and that the Lord often uses the weak things of the earth to accomplish his purposes.
. . .
We often speak of those who hold positions of authority over us as our “superiors.” However, the term does not describe the comparative character or worth of people and has no relevance to the mutual respect and support we owe to each other. Nevertheless, those in supervisory or leadership positions may come to act or to think of themselves as actually superior to those whom they have been called to serve.
Unrighteous dominion may also be reflected in a judgmental attitude. A piece of ironic folk wisdom, Cohen’s Second Law, observes that “the world is divided into two groups, the righteous and the unrighteous, and the righteous do the dividing.”
Because of the gospel’s moral code, some Latter-day Saints may feel morally superior to those who are not of our faith. But in passing judgment on others, we ignore scriptural warnings that self-appointed superiority is unrighteous. The Lord warns such self-appointed judges that “they that have watched for iniquity shall be hewn down and cast into the fire.” (D&C 45:50.)
And now I realize this becomes a vicious circle or a two edged sword. My sensitivity to this topic can easily transition me “watching for iniquity” to the point where I also become judgmental about the self-righteousness of others.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I’m not convinced by Deming’s argument, at least not entirely.
While I think your categorization of problems as systemic, intrapersonal and interpersonal is a useful model, I do think that in our Church, where there is so much top-down scripting, there is also greater onus placed on the people at the top to make the right decisions. Therefore, Deming’s ideas carry a lot of weight.
In a Church where everyone tows the line and interprets everything consistently, if a policy is bad, IT’S BAD ALL OVER THE PLACE, particularly if it is one that paints all situations with the same color and brush. The more diverse we get, the worse and worse it is to have certain policies that are applied as a blanket to the whole organization.
Therefore, I accept Deming’s argument in the case of the LDS Church, and perhaps your view for organizations that are more decentralized. The reason I’m so ticked about callings and releases is because, in my view, the policies and shared values surrounding them are bad, and lead to a sense of entitlement to members’ time, regardless of personal circumstances. Leaders actually get judgmental about people who won’t serve or feel it’s time to move on.
Case in point, a member of our Bishopric started pumping my wife about why I’m not so warm to service right now. She cited my concerns, including the utter lack of sensitivity to my own situation back when I needed a release. There were a lot of reasons, ranging from some lingering ill feelings, as well as the insensitivity of oru SP.
This Bishopric member replied “Well getting involved again is a lot better than going to hell”. I used to really respect the guy (and still do for certain non-Church characteristics he has), but when he said that, I realized that if a talented, effective, genius-level Senior manager of an international company can assimilate that attitude about callings in our Church, we have a problem. Ray is correct, we have to be charitable, but at the same time, one has to question just how much we’ll subject ourselves to those attitudes.
And as another anecdote, our former Bishop asked my wife about me shortly after I was released, and she said I was enjoying the light callling I had at the time. He replied “I’ve been giving him a break because he had a rough time as a HPGL, but it’s not going to last forever!” The underlying assumption is that Silentdawning is his to do with as he pleases. Heck, he hadn’t even bothered to figure out why I “went off the deep end” in my last calling. Perhaps there is an underlying issue that should be discussed before we go saddling the guy with another situation like that?
I find it strange. One person said that we tend to beat up on the people we love the most — our family members. We get angry and harsh and short with them. We are much more polite to strangers. The same applies to the committed and less committed members. I find the Church is generally nicer to me during the periods of semi-activitythan when I’m fully committed. It’s as if commitment is an invitation to take people for granted.
Quote:It’s as if commitment is an invitation to take people for granted.
Yep, that’s the human nature default. It goes to believing something so strongly that it’s hard to recognize it when we step over the line and start accepting general assumptions – and it applies every bit as much to the disaffected as it does to the uber-committed. It’s just hard for each side to see their own blind spots and judgmentalism – he says in as non-judgmental a tone as possible.
I’ve had bishops in the same system on both sides of this divide. Some of them do feel grateful for the volunteers, ask rather than “expect,” and check in to be sure all is well and to ask if more is needed. There are others who feel entitled to the help they get, controlling over the callings or decision-making, never appreciative of sacrifice because it’s what we owe God; perhaps they are even resentful of their own callings even without knowing it, and therefore can’t empathize with those whose callings are less demanding than theirs. They are the ones who get people who start out committed but end up not magnifying their callings. I don’t think we can only beat up on the person in the calling whose spirit has been deflated by an unappreciative and controlling bishop. But I don’t think all bishops are like that either. hawkgrrrl wrote:I’ve had bishops in the same system on both sides of this divide. Some of them do feel grateful for the volunteers, ask rather than “expect,” and check in to be sure all is well and to ask if more is needed. There are others who feel entitled to the help they get, controlling over the callings or decision-making, never appreciative of sacrifice because it’s what we owe God; perhaps they are even resentful of their own callings even without knowing it, and therefore can’t empathize with those whose callings are less demanding than theirs. They are the ones who get people who start out committed but end up not magnifying their callings. I don’t think we can only beat up on the person in the calling whose spirit has been deflated by an unappreciative and controlling bishop. But I don’t think all bishops are like that either.
Amen, and Amen again. I think this is a balanced way of looking at it that recognizes the stark realities and the good people who are grateful for all they are given by the members. I suspect the Bishops’ you mention first in your comment are happier overall.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.