Organizational Conflict

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Here is what I get. This is a continuum, not an either-or dichotomy. I put the Church here at the “X”:

Adaptive_____________________X___________Inert

I agree SD that the LDS are somewhere in the middle.

It is hard applying this to churches though. Who wants to go to the Google, GE, Toyota, or IBM religion. People want a certain timelessness from their faith. We (as LDS) get all sorts of grief for being the relative new kids on the block.

On one hand the top leadership can have revelations to radically alter the way we do things, OTOH these changes happen almost exclusively from the top down. Our church is not very friendly to organic “movement oriented” growth and does not welcome free thinking charismatic “change agents”.

I personally feel a sense of purpose in continuing to participate at church because it forces others to account for people that see things differently and hopefully keeps them from getting tunnel vision group think myopia (like a one man walking diversity sensitivity training class). At the same time I feel that I am being subtly and overtly marginalized. So again our church is built to make swift changes, as long as the change comes from the top.

Quote:

adaptive cultures are those whose values and norms help [snip] motivate or inspire employees

Old-Timer wrote:

That is totally in line with the best of other denomination’s numbers I’ve seen – and it’s FAR higher than many congregations where I know the pastor and s/he is envious of our attendance rates.

Ray is right here. If part of being an adaptive organization is to inspire and motivate the members – and the LDS church routinely receives levels of attendance, participation, and commitment that make others jealous, isn’t that a strong argument for the LDS being an adaptive culture?

Or Does the perfect mixture of conflict in our theology allow us to maintain high levels of motivation despite certain inert organizational behaviours as Cnsl1 seems to suggest?

Cnsl1 wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Assuming those numbers are current and correct, you might have a case — provided attendance is an indication of engagement and commitment. Is it though? I often wonder if it is. For example, how much “presenteeism” is there? Where people are there , but not engaged? I wonder if people like myself, Cadence, maybe Roy, cWald, DA and the majority of NOM’s that attend Church might fall into this category.

The problem is we don’t know. As Ray pointed out, the raw numbers are complex to interpret….

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Quote:

adaptive cultures are those whose values and norms help [snip] motivate or inspire employees

Old-Timer wrote:

That is totally in line with the best of other denomination’s numbers I’ve seen – and it’s FAR higher than many congregations where I know the pastor and s/he is envious of our attendance rates.

Ray is right here. If part of being an adaptive organization is to inspire and motivate the members – and the LDS church routinely receives levels of attendance, participation, and commitment that make others jealous, isn’t that a strong argument for the LDS being an adaptive culture?…Or Does the perfect mixture of conflict in our theology allow us to maintain high levels of motivation despite certain inert organizational behaviours as Cnsl1 seems to suggest?

The problem I see with these raw numbers is that I think the Church depends too much on constant supervision, external pressure, and monitoring by other active members as well as other manipulative tactics to achieve these results rather than relying more on what most people can already feel good about doing of their own volition. Basically, I think some of the adaptations they have made are focused mostly on changing the symptoms (overall attendance and member retention) using short-cuts to get around the more serious underlying problem that the Church just doesn’t provide a positive experience overall for many if not the majority of Church members nowadays.

My guess is that this overdependence on external pressure to retain members is one of the main reasons that the retention rates for converts and young single adults is so much lower than for long-time active members that have been married in the temple. So rather than solving the real problem, it looks like they have mostly avoided dealing with it and have actually added to it because the attempted coercion leaves many inactive members and ex-Mormons with a very negative impression of the Church and many dissatisfied remaining active members are currently one internet search away from feeling like victims of the Church. I know most Church leaders probably don’t see it this way in part because of the idea that strict obedience and extreme sacrifices will magically lead to long-term well-being and happiness but what happens if there is no such connection in many cases? Pointless and unnecessary suffering, that’s what.

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with DA on this one….

If you were isolate many of the issues us naysayers face, they tend to be rooted in a kind of disapproval of the control mechanisms used in the short term. Those aren’t really my personal issues, but I see them referred to a lot here — denial of eternal priviledges now by the organization, rather than allowing character alone to adopt the desired behaviors (like tithing.WoW observance, for temple attendance, or participation in ordinances, for example).

It seems as if we have adopted the “schoolmaster to bring souls to Christ” model rather than the intrinsically motivated approach specified by Christ. I don’t see the “Schoolmaster Model” in other religions I have belonged to (one other, in whichn I was raised, and in convos with other Christians), however, I suspect it may exist in the Catholic church based on its history.

Do you think other Churches have the same breadth and depth of negativity from its members as we see in the LDS Church? For example, if there an “ex-Pentacostal” site? ARe there support groups for disaffected Baptists like New Order Baptist? (I made that term up). Or is it a bi-product of truth that the disaffected are more hardened and negative than people who are disaffected from a less true religion are correspondingly less bitter?

It would be an interesting study to see whether there is the same prevalence of negativity toward other Churches from their less committed members as there is in the LDS Church.

[Anonymous]

I actually disagree with DA on this one.

Just as an example, the guidelines and instructions for missionaries have been liberalized immensely since the publication of “Preach My Gospel” – but basic baptism requirements have been “enforced” more rigorously than often in the past. There still are individual Mission Presidents who over-emphasize “the numbers” – but the foundation doesn’t support that anymore. (I’ve been thinking about doing some posts here highlighting the changes attempted by the publication of “Preach My Gospel”. I probably should do that.)

The change in local council importance put Ward Council above PEC (and the accompanying training said, essentially, “Bishops, shut up and listen. If you tell people what you think first, they will tend to agree with you. If you let them talk first, you’ll realize what they really think and be able to decide better than if you do only what you’d do naturally.”). That was a move toward greater democratization of the local units.

There are quite a few others, but the central issue, imo, isn’t a lack of effort or vision at the top; it’s a lack of listening to, accepting and implementing at the ground level – of the water not getting to the end of the row. Sure, there still are top-level issues to discuss with regard to change, but, in SO many cases, it’s the horse fighting the reins – and, relative to this discussion about change specifically, ironically, the top leadership’s unwillingness in most cases to jerk the reins so hard that the horse has no choice whether to turn or not.

[Anonymous]

But Ray, I don’t think we can just pick and choose and emphasize only those aspects that represent the kind of change some of us here advocate. (Just like I agree we shouldn’t always focus onlY on the things we don’t like, which I know I’m probably as guilty as anyone on that one, although I ask no one quotes that back to me!!!).

For example, although there has been greater emphasis on the heart in the items you have quoted, the reaching of TR status into officiating in certain non-temple ordinances is perceived as some as a tightening, rather than a loosening of the reigns, as well as the sudden appearance of vascectomies as somehow discouraged (although definitely not very measureable). Further, I think DA’s point was that the existing controls that were NOT changed in the CHI do cause a certain amount of resentment in some people — and while perhaps elevating Ward Council over PEC is a good move, and to be heralded, I think his comment focused on how the controlling aspects on individuals tends to lead to resentment. I don’t see the Ward Council policy as addressing that concern.

Are there changes at the top that represent a loosening of the control, allowing the heart to be free to acf on its own, free of the schoolmaster? The only thing I can see in the last few years is the two-year renewal period for temple recommends. I think that was a step in the right direction, as it allows for more personal discretion during that two year period. Perhaps there are others we are missing that represent less schoolmaster mentality in our Church experience?

[Anonymous]

SD, I’m saying this with a smile on my face, but I think it needs to be said:

1) Have I ever ignored the negative and picked and chosen only the positive? Seriously.

2) I spoke in generalities; you asked for specific examples. I give specific examples; you say I can’t do that.

3) Very few things we discuss are 100%, all-or-nothing, totally good or totally bad issues. Almost everything has aspects all across the spectrum. Highlighting those on the “good” end doesn’t deny those on the “bad” end or those in the middle somewhere – but their existence sheds light on the overall situation whenever a more extreme statement is mande.

You know I’m not some ostrich Pollyanna who only touts the positive, but there are positives – and I think they are valid to mention when addressing a viewpoint that said:

Quote:

So rather than solving the real problem, it looks like they have mostly avoided dealing with it and have actually added to it because the attempted coercion leaves many inactive members and ex-Mormons with a very negative impression of the Church and many dissatisfied remaining active members are currently one internet search away from feeling like victims of the Church.

I am saying they aren’t “avoid(ing) dealing with it” and that there are many examples that show they aren’t “attempt(ing) coercion” but actually are trying to “solve the real problem”. They might see the real problem differently in some cases than you or I or DA or anyone else does, but I really do think they are trying to solve the real problems.

That’s all – and examples are the only way to make that point, which is why you asked for them in another thread.

[Anonymous]

Here’s where I apologize if I came across as unfair in my assessment…sorry about that!

[Anonymous]

Nice discussion!

SilentDawning wrote:

Do you think other Churches have the same breadth and depth of negativity from its members as we see in the LDS Church? For example, if there an “ex-Pentacostal” site? ARe there support groups for disaffected Baptists like New Order Baptist? (I made that term up). Or is it a bi-product of truth that the disaffected are more hardened and negative than people who are disaffected from a less true religion are correspondingly less bitter?

I know Brian had mentioned some ex-JW sites, and I have seen a documentary about the dark underbelly of hardcore born again-ism especially the effect is has on homosexuals. It would seem that the more influence a religion seeks to have over its members (or the greater the level of influence the parishioners willingly give the religion) the greater the pushback when someone has a faith crisis for whatever reason. The southern Baptists are even considering changing their name due to the negative associations.

Roy wrote:

If part of being an adaptive organization is to inspire and motivate the members – and the LDS church routinely receives levels of attendance, participation, and commitment that make others jealous, isn’t that a strong argument for the LDS being an adaptive culture?

OTOH many cult like religions require and receive a fanatical level of commitment and that doesn’t make them an adaptive culture. Perhaps they don’t enjoy sustained growth levels, but surely there must be more important criteria to being an adaptive culture than simply growth. (FWIW I am not suggesting the LDS church is a cult. I studied with a group in college that assigned you a friend/sponsor. Yes, the friend was to encourage you in the strait and narrow (not unlike temple marriage) but the friend was also to report any backsliding you were experiencing. I have never seen anything of this nature in the church (the strengthening members committee as a bit of an aberration).

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

The problem I see with these raw numbers is that I think the Church depends too much on constant supervision, external pressure, and monitoring by other active members as well as other manipulative tactics to achieve these results rather than relying more on what most people can already feel good about doing of their own volition.

In contemplating this, I am torn. Yes there is supervision, external pressure, and monitoring and perhaps these things get results. How much of what the church does is inspiring the individual to spiritually soar and how much is to help the individual find safety and security in the beehive? Some do better within the group ranks, some yearn to roam free, some (like Ray) seem adept at straddling the line. It can be a delicate balance to tether the kite of your soul. How much string do you give? What are the wind conditions? Would it not be safer to huddle in the pile with the other kites (like emperor penguins shielding each other from the wind blasts)?

Organizationally it is like the paradox Richard Bushman had mentioned – That JS imbued each man with a role of importance and authority but at the same time that empowerment increased the powers of the center like spokes on a wheel.

Interesting :think:

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

It would seem that the more influence a religion seeks to have over its members (or the greater the level of influence the parishioners willingly give the religion) the greater the pushback when someone has a faith crisis for whatever reason. The southern Baptists are even considering changing their name due to the negative associations.

I would agree with this….very much. I think this is an insightful comment.

Roy wrote:

Yes, the friend was to encourage you in the strait and narrow (not unlike temple marriage) but the friend was also to report any backsliding you were experiencing. I have never seen anything of this nature in the church (the strengthening members committee as a bit of an aberration).

I think the home teaching program does this, actually. It is not billed as “snitching program”, and overall, the intentions are very altruistic, but we are told we are “watchmen in Israel” which implies watching not only for people who have needs, but for apostasy and other things that can hurt the Church. News about Apostate behavior travels very quickly in the Church through monthly HT reports, PPI’s, and PEC meeting (and probably Ward Council now too), along with valid needs.

The Strengthenting the Member’s committe at least doesn’t assign a “friend” who has you on a negative watch list though…which is a point in its favor. I wonder if they look only at high profile figures, or have all of us on the list too if they can figure out who we are? However, the fact they are installed by the higher ups to exist at all suggests to me that it is not an anomaly — it’s a conscious institution that has existed for over a decade.

Roy wrote:

In contemplating this, I am torn. Yes there is supervision, external pressure, and monitoring and perhaps these things get results. How much of what the church does is inspiring the individual to spiritually soar and how much is to help the individual find safety and security in the beehive? Some do better within the group ranks, some yearn to roam free, some (like Ray) seem adept at straddling the line. It can be a delicate balance to tether the kite of your soul. How much string do you give? What are the wind conditions? Would it not be safer to huddle in the pile with the other kites (like emperor penguins shielding each other from the wind blasts)?

Organizationally it is like the paradox Richard Bushman had mentioned – That JS imbued each man with a role of importance and authority but at the same time that empowerment increased the powers of the center like spokes on a wheel.

Interesting :think:

That has been my mantra lately — most Church policies are created to no only benefit the member, but give some kind of simultaneous benefit to the organization, particularly when there is a financial cost.

WRT non-financial policies, again, it’s a mix. There are good intentions, but when the behavior being sought isn’t forthcoming, then there are negative consequences. I see the Church as implementing a concept from psychology…there is reinforcement for desired behaviors, and punishment for undesireable behaviors. If you can set up near immediate consequences which simultaneous reward good behavior, and punish the opposite of that behavior, you tend to get strong compliance. In the case of the Church, I’m not sure if it’s conscious though — it’s more like the scriptures and promises of blessings provide the reward (in the future) but the policies and culture provides immediate negative consequences for divergent thinking and behavior.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I tend to agree with DA on this one….If you were isolate many of the issues us naysayers face, they tend to be rooted in a kind of disapproval of the control mechanisms used in the short term. Those aren’t really my personal issues, but I see them referred to a lot here — denial of eternal priviledges now by the organization, rather than allowing character alone to adopt the desired behaviors (like tithing.WoW observance, for temple attendance, or participation in ordinances, for example).

…Do you think other Churches have the same breadth and depth of negativity from its members as we see in the LDS Church? For example, if there an “ex-Pentacostal” site? ARe there support groups for disaffected Baptists like New Order Baptist? (I made that term up). Or is it a bi-product of truth that the disaffected are more hardened and negative than people who are disaffected from a less true religion are correspondingly less bitter?…It would be an interesting study to see whether there is the same prevalence of negativity toward other Churches from their less committed members as there is in the LDS Church.

I know there are some ex-Baptist and ex-Pentecostal sites but the only DAMU/NOM style sites with closet “heretics” frustrated with trying to blend in with traditional believers I have seen are some disaffected JW and Muslim forums. I think one of the main differences between the LDS Church and most other churches that I know of is simply that in many other churches if you don’t care for some of their doctrines it would generally be easier to get away with not paying much attention to what they preach or just walking away but with the LDS Church not going along with any of the core doctrines is not acceptable to most other active members. This intolerant and inflexible attitude leads to additional pain and frustration for many members that lose faith in the Church more than I would expect to find in most other churches.

[Anonymous]

There was an article WF posted about Hyrum Smith (?) of Franklin Covey. After his excommunication, one of the higher ups comment that “now he will know who is friends really are”. The implication was that this person (I think it was a GA, or Apostle) knew very well that certain members would ostracize him because of his mistake. Personally, I would want this person to feel he has a friend, and would go out of my way to reach out to him….this is what Jesus did.

This is a result of what I’ve noticed — the people I worked hard alongside for many years have literally no interest in talking to me anymore since I quit as a HPGL. None whatsoever. And what I did wasn’t even something that disqualified me from a temple recommend. Yes, we make it hard on ourselves — we often treat the good people who are sliding out the door badly, but feel we are doing well to chase after the people who are stone cold that we might have turned around. I’m sure Elder Uchdorf would not be pleased.

[Author]

Posts