- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am copying this from a text book on Organizational Behavior. Quote:The effect of conflict on organizational performance has received considerable attention. In the past, researchers viewed conflict as always bad or dysfunctional for an organization because it leads to lower organizational performance. According to this view, conflict occurs because managers have not designed an organizational structure that allows people, functions, or divisions to cooperate to achieve corporate objectives. The current view of conflict, however, is that, although it is unavoidable, it can often increase organizational performance if it is carefully managed and negotiated.
Exhibit 13.4 (it looks like an inverted parabola in the text)High
1
A
1
1—1
1
1
1-X—-1
1
1
1—-1
1
1—1
1Low-1-1
1_____________________
—-Low
Y
HighWhere X = performance level, Y = conflict level, and A = the optimal conflict level
Quote:Exhibit 13.4 illustrates the effect of conflict on organizational performance. At first, conflict can increase organizational performance because it exposes weaknesses in organizational decision making and design and prompts the organization to make changes. Managers realign the organization’s power structure and shift the balance of power in favor of the group that can best meet the organization’s current needs. At some point (represented here as point A) an increase in conflict leads to a decline in performance because conflict between managers gets out of control, and the organization fragments into competing interest groups.
The job of top managers is to prevent conflict from going beyond point A and to channel conflict in directions that increase organizational performance. Thus, managing conflict is a way to improve organizational decision making and resource allocation, making the organization more effective
What does this mean to you in the context of the LDS Church?
I’m familiar with this, and have, in fact taught it over and over again to people of all ages — from high school students on group conflict, and to university students studying business. REcently, I did a paper on conflict as part of my ongoing education, and developed a model of managerial intervention to improve healthy conflict, and minimize unhealthy conflict…so, this is a dear to my heart. What does it mean in the LDS Church?
Well my considered opinion is this….What you quote doesn’t apply very well to the LDS Church!!
The Church’s top-down approach tends to squelch functional (healthy) conflict. We make promises not to “speak-evil” of leaders, have labels for dissenters such as “apostate” and with-hold priviledges for people who don’t hold the line. The culture of the organization is strong and discourages the kind of healthy dissent that leads to the functional benefits you describe. We invest the power to judge, punish, reward and hear complaints in the same person (the BP or SP) so there is no safe outlet to share concerns. One article in the ensign said “When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done”. I see this as an outgrowth of the tumultuous beginnings we faced when dissent threatened the Church from within, and without.
Therefore, we never reach the optimal point in the inverted U you diagrammed, because the formal structure has no formal mechanism for communicating this conflict.
On the other hand — the bad kind of conflict — dysfunctional conflict (sometimes called relational conflict) is alive and well on the Internet in non-Church websites. In fact, I think this site is aimed at trying to help people resolve such dysfunctional/relational conflict. To be at peace with those areas of functional conflict we can’t express, or those areas of dysfunctional conflict within our families or wards which cause us to want to withdraw from the organization.
The theory you quote probably has some applicability within the higher levels of the Church organization, where the apostles and higher ranking GA’s have status and the ability to give opinion that is reasonably considered without being accused of disloyalty, apostasy, or violation of covenants. However, I don’t see it happening at the local or even regional level. At all….
I find the purpose of this site is even sort of remedial, in that it’s to help people cope with the conflict they experience given the lack of progressiveness or tolerance for conflict we experience as Church members. At least for some of us.
Like SD said, one problem with the Church is that conflict is basically not allowed so there is currently no consistent mechanism to provide much feedback from the bottom up that in a healthier organization would help leaders to take corrective actions in the worst cases. The only vote members can really make at this point is to resign or say no to temple recommends, callings, and/or church attendance but this vote is generally ignored and these members are typically dismissed as lacking sufficient faith and irrelevant unless they repent and return to the fold entirely on the Church’s terms. Another question is how does the Church measure performance or effectiveness as an organization? It looks to me like they value extreme loyalty and commitment to the organization and strict conformity to its rules above all else. Personally, I think this way of measuring success is fundamentally flawed and it would probably be better for them to try to retain more members and if that is not possible then at least try to avoid leaving so many of them with such a negative impression of the Church. Basically, it seems like they have adopted a scorched earth policy where they don’t care about the way all the members that leave feel about the Church as long as there are still enough members left that are willing to believe and do whatever they say.
Amen DA. I think conflict is allowed and church leaders know it gives growing opportunities for people, which is what church is about. I have often wondered why they would build a chapel in our area, using a smaller church building model, and when it was finished and we moved into it, we were immediately too large for the building. RS and Primary were fighting for rooms for classes, and no one was happy.
I asked my buddy, “Why wouldn’t they just build the building big enough from the outset to make us more comfortable and make it easier for us?”
He said, “Because they know we’ll have to work together to work it out. It creates learning opportunities!”
I don’t know that they set out to do that, but they don’t get bent out of shape when the conflict arises, and instead just teach the people how to deal with things Christ-like. They want to make things “just good enough” and then let the congregations have at it.
Oh, and they don’t train the leaders much…so there will always be conflict arising from people learning how to do callings.
:think: I disagree in that I think this concept applies quite well in a church context. My background is more within the social sciences, rather than managerical or organizational, but the concept that a certain amount of conflict (or anxiety, or stress) is a good thing is a well researched and documented phenomenon. This applies to athletic performance, academic performance, test taking, speaking, lots of things. Zero stress or anxiety usually doesn’t help and too much obviously inhibits performance. A certain amount is good, and increases performance.
How does this apply to church? Zero stress or anxiety regarding our eternal reward or salvation leads to no action. We don’t care. TOO much, on the other hand, inhibits our church performance or ability to function and participate and contribute as a church member. A little amount of anxiety and stress about our salvation would then be better to maximize optimum performance.
So, from an church organization perspective, the best way to get people to participate and contribute their time, talents, energy and resources, would be to create or cause just enough inner anxiety and stress about their salvation to foster this movement and participation, but not create TOO much stress so that performance is inhibited or halted entirely.
I haven’t thought about this until now, but could this be why we are seeing a softening of the dogma, with leaders like Uchtdorf, in order to bring the anxiety down? Maybe the hell, fire, and brimstone leaders of yesterday were needed to create the inner stress, but took it a bit too far and now we need to correct the flight plan slightly, in order to optimize participation, contributions, and church performance? (notice how I got the airplane reference in there?)
What do you think?
Quote:Another question is how does the Church measure performance or effectiveness as an organization? It looks to me like they value extreme loyalty and commitment to the organization and strict conformity to its rules above all else. Personally, I think this way of measuring success is fundamentally flawed and it would probably be better for them to try to retain more members and if that is not possible then at least try to avoid leaving so many of them with such a negative impression of the Church. Basically, it seems like they have adopted a scorched earth policy where they don’t care about the way all the members that leave feel about the Church as long as there are still enough members left that are willing to believe and do whatever they say.
I think compliance IS one way the Church measures its performance. I know that information regarding convert and children baptisms are sent to the COB. They also collect information on attendance at sacrament meeting and attendance at other meetings. However, I think it would be a mistake to assume that all they are concerned about is having enough members around. The “powers that be” at the COB level are fairly aware of issues regarding activity (particularly the activity levels of youth) and temple attendance. Now whether what they DO about these things is effective or not is probably up for debate. But I do believe things are DONE.
Quote:How does this apply to church? Zero stress or anxiety regarding our eternal reward or salvation leads to no action. We don’t care. TOO much, on the other hand, inhibits our church performance or ability to function and participate and contribute as a church member. A little amount of anxiety and stress about our salvation would then be better to maximize optimum performance.
Amen! In any organization, some stress (or conflict) is necessary. We may not like it but it gets us moving. I doubt the upper hierarchy of the church is aware of this principle (called the Yerkes-Dodson law) but they certainly utilize it.
Cnsl1 wrote:So, from an church organization perspective, the best way to get people to participate and contribute their time, talents, energy and resources, would be to create or cause just enough inner anxiety and stress about their salvation to foster this movement and participation, but not create TOO much stress so that performance is inhibited or halted entirely.
I haven’t thought about this until now, but could this be why we are seeing a softening of the dogma, with leaders like Uchtdorf, in order to bring the anxiety down? Maybe the hell, fire, and brimstone leaders of yesterday were needed to create the inner stress, but took it a bit too far and now we need to correct the flight plan slightly, in order to optimize participation, contributions, and church performance? (notice how I got the airplane reference in there?)
What do you think?
I don’t think this is the domain to which Roy was referring. My speciality is in leadership and management and business, I instinctively view organizational conflict as a systemic phenomenon, and look for how its processes, policies, systems etcetera support and encourage it.
If you want to look at the conflict between individual commitment and salvation as you are (valid too), I used to think that the “saved after all we can do” philosophy was the best out there. But in recent years, I’ve seen the impact it has on people’s attitudes, their judgmentalism, and even their mental health. While I think there is a need for some carrots to keep us striving, we over-do it in the LDS Church. They expect way too much and it seems to be largely about the Church. The only brakes on the one-way train of organizational commitment is if the individual makes a personal judgment to set boundaries — something that is rarely if ever discussed or encouraged at Church. There are a few scriptures about “not running faster than you have strength” and maybe a couple conference talks, but the attitude seems to be one of over-commitment lest people get complacent.
Performance, by the way, is not measured by member satisfaction either. There are no surveys to find out if people are at peace, if the Church experience is uplifting, if they feel fed. None. And if you express such concerns, the problem tends to be placed squarely back in YOUR COURT — you are not spiritual enough, you are not being service-oriented enough, you are not being supportive.
The metrics I’ve been held accountable for as a leader are:
1) Percent home teaching
2) Percent of endowed members with current TR’s
3) Convert baptisms
4) Percent of youth enrolled in seminary
5) Number of YM serving missions
6) Activity rates
7) New member retetention stats
Membership growth9) Fast offering deficit reduction
10) Tithing worthiness stats, particularly when there is a new temple or building under consideration.
11) Men over 18 without the melch priesthood.
12) Melch priesthood ordinations.
These impersonal, mechanistic measures are what matter to the Church.
If we were truly concerned about how well the Church is doing for its members, we would have an index of how much benefit the experience is giving its members too, and member satisfaction statistics. And it would be embedded in our systems, our reports, and even in our organizational structure. The organizational measurement/monitoring footprint is far too big and the measurement of member wellness is far too small.
Great responses! I’m glad that my question was so open ended to allow this discussion to move in interesting directions. I have some additional quotes that might add something to the conversation. The next chapter talks about communication from senders to receivers:
Quote:Receivers who are themselves highly competent and have high self-esteem are less likely to be “taken in,” or swayed, by logical or emotional arguments they believe to be flawed. They are more likely to “cut through the chaff” to determine if the sender is acting out of personal interest or in a way that will benefit others. Then, they can decide how to react to what the sender has said.
People with high self-esteem are very useful to have around because they are frequently the ones who will challenge the ideas or suggestions of a leader, or more senior manager, when they sense they are flawed. They act as what is known as a
devil’s advocate(bold in original) – a person willing to stand up and question the beliefs of more powerful people, resist influence attempts, and convince others that the planned actions are flawed. At this level, the issue of self interest and the intent to persuade to personally benefit does not come into play. How do you think these paragraphs apply to the organizational conflict discussion? How do you think this applies to the Leonard Arringtons, Lowell Bennions, Henry Eyrings (Pres. Eyring’s father), Richard Bushmans, Eugene Englands, Hugh Browns, Richard Polls, Robert Poelmans, John Dehlins, and Old-Timers of the church? How does this apply to your ward? How does it apply to you?
Roy wrote:Receivers who are themselves highly competent and have high self-esteem are less likely to be “taken in,” or swayed, by logical or emotional arguments they believe to be flawed. They are more likely to “cut through the chaff” to determine if the sender is acting out of personal interest or in a way that will benefit others. Then, they can decide how to react to what the sender has said.
See, in our Church the distinction between acting for oneself, and acting for the benefit of others of blurry. People use the inspiration, the one true Church concept, and promises of hellfire and blessings to serve their self interest — often believing they are acting in the best interests of others.
The GREAT EQUALIZER, is one’s personal clock. I see that now….the key to putting the brakes on this, and sorting between what is right and wrong, what is self-interested and what is for the good of others is one’s own conscience.
Devil’s advocacy works in religious settings only if the person isn’t seen as advocating for the devil. I can say a lot of things some people can’t specifically because everyone who knows me knows I really do have the Church’s best interest at heart – that I really am talking about a vision of Zion and love and “goodness” – that I love the LDS Church and its members. They know I’m not arguing just for the sake of arguing, and they know I’m not “attacking” anybody or the Church in any way. Iow, everyone who knows me knows I actually am acting as a “Church’s advocate” – even when I’m expressing opinions about what I think needs to change in the Church.
That’s the biggest difference, I think, between how I am perceived and how someone like John Dehlin is perceived. John has a history of . . . reformation attempts, if you will. He has a history of taking his opinions public and “agitating” for change in a “challenging” or “attacking” way – or, at least, in ways that appear to be attacking. It’s harder for many people to see him as a “Church’s advocate” – and, at the most fundamental level, even I’m not sure if I can see him in that light in everything he does. (In many things, absolutely, I can say that – but I can’t say that about all his actions.) I realy like and admire John – but I am torn about how I see lots of things he’s done and groups he’s formed. (For example, I commented briefly in one of the online groups he formed a while ago, but I left after only a very little time – specifically because I didn’t like the tone and the content of most of the discussions.)
Roy wrote:Quote:…People with high self-esteem are very useful to have around because they are frequently the ones who will challenge the ideas or suggestions of a leader, or more senior manager, when they sense they are flawed. They act as what is known as a
devil’s advocate(bold in original) – a person willing to stand up and question the beliefs of more powerful people, resist influence attempts, and convince others that the planned actions are flawed. At this level, the issue of self interest and the intent to persuade to personally benefit does not come into play. How do you think these paragraphs apply to the organizational conflict discussion?
How do you think this appliesto the Leonard Arringtons, Lowell Bennions, Henry Eyrings (Pres. Eyring’s father), Richard Bushmans, Eugene Englands, Hugh Browns, Richard Polls, Robert Poelmans, John Dehlins, and Old-Timers of the church? How does this apply to your ward? How does it apply to you? Old-Timer wrote:Devil’s advocacy works in religious settings only if the person isn’t seen as advocating for the devil…I can say a lot of things some people can’t specifically because everyone who knows me knows I really do have the Church’s best interest at heart… They know I’m not arguing just for the sake of arguing, and they know I’m not “attacking”anybody or the Church in any way. Iow, everyone who knows me knows I actually am acting as a “Church’s advocate” – even when I’m expressing opinions about what I think needs to change in the Church. Personally I think there are no devil’s advocates in the Church that enough top leaders like Monson, Packer, and Oaks will ever really listen to and they are mostly surrounded by yes men. Any devil’s advocates in the Church are typically censored or ignored so the communication ends up being mostly one way. The Church currently seems to be very unfriendly toward any dissent whatsoever from top to bottom no matter how careful people are about trying to present any unorthodox views in the least threatening way possible.
It sounds like Hugh B. Brown wanted to eliminate the racial priesthood ban long before they finally did. Leonard Arrington was released from his duties as Church Historian without the typical vote of thanks. Poelman was asked to edit his talk to the point that it hardly resembled the original version. I’ll believe some original idea has really gotten through to enough top Church leaders as soon as I see a significantly different message in the correlated lessons, talks, and official Church publications.
Oh, and I know enough about how the Q12 operates to know there is “organizational conflict” in the Church – probably more as a straight percentage, ironically, at the top levels than further down the chain. Old-Timer wrote:Oh, and I know enough about how the Q12 operates to know there is “organizational conflict” in the Church – probably more as a straight percentage, ironically, at the top levels than further down the chain.
Yes, because at their level, to speak out is not considered apostate….
SilentDawning wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Oh, and I know enough about how the Q12 operates to know
there is “organizational conflict” in the Church– probably more as a straight percentage, ironically, at the top levels than further down the chain. Yes, because at their level, to speak out is not considered apostate….
I don’t doubt that there is some conflict at the top but what is the range of ideas and potential decisions they are willing to seriously consider or not? For example, B.H. Roberts had a big argument with Joseph Fielding Smith about “no death before the fall” and the possibility of men existing before Adam and they came to the consensus that Adam supposedly had to be the first man but other than that we don’t know the details about how God created everything. So it seems like they are already working within certain pre-defined constraints based on the general acceptance of the LDS scriptures and traditional restoration story with some limited room for creative interpretation and selection of which points they want to emphasize over others.
Suppose someone suggests that maybe it’s not the best idea to ask Church members to sacrifice so much if there’s a good chance that maybe it will never end up being worth it. The problem is that there are so many scriptures and examples of previous prophets and apostles talking about how people should be willing to sacrifice everything and many of these leaders will probably think that if it was alright for them to be so obedient and make sacrifices for the Church then it should be alright for younger generations as well. That’s why it could take some serious glaring failures of the current doctrines and policies to really get their attention to the point that they are ever willing to re-evaluate some of this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.