The Accommodate – Avoid Parish

There’s a model of conflict styles that looks at two dimensions – the extent of cooperativeness and the degree of assertiveness. When placed on a grid the model offers five basic styles of how we can manage conflict – competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating.[1] The model assumes that each style has its benefits and its costs – collaborating is very useful when we are trying to develop sustainable long term solutions; however, real collaboration takes a lot of time and not all issues are worth the investment of time and energy. Also, that each style may fit certain circumstances better than others – avoiding may not be very useful when the ship is sinking.

 Parishes often have an organizational culture in which one or a couple of the styles hold sway. A friend of mine interviewed to be rector in a parish that prided itself on being a “competing parish.” The parish climate was hard edged and argumentative with lots of debating. When asked if they would like to adjust the culture and expand the range of ways of handling differences, the answer was “no, we like being this way.” The priest withdrew from consideration. The withdrawal wasn’t so much over the style as it was over the unwillingness to expand their capacity. In fact, her own preferred style was Compete.

I’ve worked with several parishes in which the culture is to accommodate and avoid as a way of managing disagreements and tensions. These parishes have been so enmeshed in the styles that they are unable to learn from their own experience. A group profile of parish leaders would show a tendency toward the accommodating and avoiding styles.

One parish had a deficit budget. The total budget was around $430,000. The deficit was around $80,000.  The budget showed a portion of the deficit being covered by using reserve funds and another portion as being a deficit. When asked about the $80,000 gap parish leaders reassured members that it would be dealt with by an increase in membership and people increasing their pledges. Another element of their approach was that everything was dealt with year-by-year. That was the strategy.

What made the picture even more distressing was that the problem and the proposed solution was the same as seen in the past couple of years. Each year they would be saved by membership growth and members increasing their pledges. Didn’t happen.

In another parish large and small issues would be raised and the following year, raised again. There seemed to be an inability to either establish a strategic direction or make Sunday morning more renewing and grounding and less rushed and busy.

There was no learning from experience. Change is unlikely in the first parish. The parish avoids community wide conversations. It’s partly habit and partly a lack of skills for facilitating such conversation.  The parish also tends to avoid using trained and experienced consultants.  There’s more hope for the second parish. The parish uses external consultants for the annual vestry retreat and the rector is aware of the need to become more assertive and provide safe processes for the needed conversations.

The benefits of an accommodating – avoiding parish

There are benefits to having an accommodating – avoiding parish culture. The climate is pleasant, calm, and relaxed. Relationships are highly valued. Harmony is maintained. As with all systems, of all styles, the parish will develop a rationale for the behavior. In the case of a church it’s likely to include the unity and oneness of the church and to stress Jesus’ command to love one another.[2] Benedict’s call that there be “no grumbling” is valued while his call to consult with the community is either ignored or incompetently engaged. If structured forms of conversation are used at all there's likely to be a preference toward appreciative processes.

The difficulties

In these parishes it’s not that there aren’t people with other views but those views are suppressed, at least initially it's usually with great kindness and love. In such parishes, to raise questions is often to be seen as doing something wrong; maybe as being too aggressive. Someone violating the norms of that culture are likely to find themselves excluded or punished in some manner.

Difficulties in these parishes are embedded in the culture. It's not so much that the rector wants to hold onto power. It’s more that the rector wants to avoid tension. Self awareness may be part of the problem. Often the priest and lay leaders have no idea that they are suppressing diverse views and compulsively smoothing the waters.

Such parishes can find themselves:

• Tolerating injustice and/or unproductive direction for fear that some people will be upset about a decision.
• Avoiding a growing problem until it becomes much more difficult to address.
• Denying the reality of differences in viewpoints and gifts among members. The truth that we all have something to contribute is used to wash out uniqueness and the reality of a diversity of gifts.
• With tentative and confused working relationships
• With an underdeveloped or under-nurtured Apostolic core
• With degraded communication and decision making processes.
• Facing an undertone of resentment that is usually managed by individuals disengaging but does have the potential of breaking out into open conflict.
• Experiencing a loss of investment among a significant segment of the parish.

So what is to be done?

First, what doesn't work is assuming that people will change their temperament. It's not going to happen. At least not easily. With training, coaching, support, and personal perseverance the leaders can expand the range of their abilities. Somewhat.

The most effective action to take is an organization development approach – change the structures, processes, and climate (rather than focusing on changing individuals).  Learn and institutionalize new ways for group conversation and decision-making.  When we do that we help people who may tend in their temperament to an avoiding or accommodating style to engage more collaborative or direct ways of dealing with issues and problems.  

For example, ask people to sub-group for a few minutes and identify what they like and what concerns them in the proposal being made about managing parish finances or developing a long term sense of direction. Then gather the ideas on newsprint pads.[3] Then give everyone three votes to use in placing a mark next to the ideas they see as most important. 

At the same time, you need to say “no” to a question and answer format. In an accommodating – avoiding culture the question asker can seem aggressive. Most people remain silent.  The question asker extends the length of the already boring, low participation meeting. If at all self aware the person may choose to avoid getting into that position in the future. And the avoid – accommodate culture is reinforced.

Such methods can take a lot more time than a Q&A session (unless the Q&A becomes angry). But they also usually mean greater ownership of the solutions arrived at. A good rule of thumb is to use such a method at least once in every vestry or parish wide meeting.

rag+

---

[1] There’s an instrument, the TKI, that helps an individual assess their preferred styles.

[2] The approach focuses on unity and the common life over the individual. The BCP’s statement of mission, “To restore all people to unity …” is affirmed. The approach of theologian John Macquarrie might feel uncomfortable --  "..our belief is that the whole process only makes sense in so far as, in the risk and the struggle of creation, that which is is advancing into fuller potentialities of being and is overcoming the forces that tend toward dissolution; and that continually a richer and more fully diversified unity is built up.  ...The end, we have seen reason to believe, would be a commonwealth of free, responsible beings united in love; and this great end is possible only if finite existents are preserved in some kind of individual identity. Here again, we may emphasize that the highest love is not the drive toward union, but rather letting-be."

[3] Organizational culture is such a strong influence that even standard methods to increase participation are often unconsciously modified to fit the culture. So a standard brainstorming/prioritizing process will be modified in order to make those with an avoiding and accommodating temperament more comfortable. They may use a brainstorming process in which all ideas are gathered or put up but they don't get around to allowing people to narrow down the list. There's no prioritizing. That helps the group avoid anyone feeling bad because everyone else doesn't love their idea.

Daily Office: the priority of worship

The new rector knew he wanted to have a public daily office in the parish. As he came to understand the rhythms and geography of his parishioners he decided that the best time to do it was at noon Monday through Friday. That part was easy. No one was going to speak up against praying – “if some people feel a need for that.” 

The hard part came when he insisted that the parish office close at noon for 25 minutes and that groups that had become accustom to meeting over lunch had to wait until after the Office to begin their work.

There was resistance. The priest persevered and in time the saying of the Daily Office at noon, without competition, settled into place.

Benedict understood that worship, especially the Daily Office, had priority in the community’s life.

When we allow mass or the Office to be cut across by other things we not only undermine the priority of worship, we also undermine the total health of the parish.

We allow the least faithful and proficient people in the parish to be placed in a position of power and to set the norm. We allow the pressure to produce to become more important than our reason for being. We suggest to the apostolic that they must conform to the ways of the world to avoid tension and conflict.

There are parishes that approach the tension by asking for mutual adjustment. People engaged in other activities are asked to keep the noise down. Those saying the Office or at the Eucharist are asked to tolerate a certain amount of motion and noise. The approach has some appeal. It’s easily understood by people and therefore unlikely to cause resentment. It is better than simply allowing the tension to continue and the resentment to build.

There is only one way of honoring Benedict’s wisdom – all other activities give way to the saying of the Divine Office. The parish office stops its work. Meetings end before or don’t start until after the Office is said. If we are in the middle of an activity that is set aside so we may join in the work of the saints.

I believe that parishes in which liturgy has priority are likely to be healthier communities. It helps create a climate. It helps members see what has priority in all of life. It tilts the system toward apostolic faith and practice. It empowers those that understand and live “the business we are in.”

rag+

Adult formation: modes of educating and training

I see four broad ways in which parishes are doing adult formation — lecture, interesting conversation, experiential, and entertainment.

The first two are probably the most used. Clergy and lay educators are familiar with lectures from their own experience in college and seminary. So, we do what we have seen. Lectures are useful and necessary adjuncts to experiential methods but on their own they are most often a poor fit for the learning needs of people. Interesting conversation is often very helpful in feeding people’s desire for inclusion and connection with others. On it’s own it will in time become narcissistic but as part of experiential programs it is essential. 

Formation as entertainment is all too often what parishes end up with when they squeeze things in between liturgies on Sunday. It’s not really enough time to develop proficiency. It also cuts across the time in which we build a sense of community through informal time with one another. There’s nothing wrong with showing slides or a video of “my trip to the Holy Land.”  We just need to remember that such offerings don’t do much in shaping healthy parish culture or developing competence in spiritual practices.

Experiential methods (*see below) are going to have the most impact if we want people to develop Christian proficiency. They need the opportunity to actually try a practice and then in a disciplined manner reflect on, and learn from, the experience. That process is the one in which people can learn to engage the Eucharist, say the Daily Office, find effective ways of being reflective about life, participate in community and serve others.

I find it useful to consider the matter in terms of pastoral and ascetical theology — What kind of oversight and leadership, structure, and spiritual life do we need in the parish church to effectively form Christians, in our tradition, for this age? How might we effectively and efficiently engage the task of living the Christian life and reflecting upon it? What kind of person and human community do we want to form? How might the parish contribute to that task? What are the practices that will best do that in our time? What are the “spiritual life maps” that offer us an integrated and systemic approach?

I’ll play out one aspect of this. I’ll use the spiritual map from the In Your Holy Spirit books —Eucharist, Daily Office, Community, Refection, Service. I’d ask parish clergy to explore these two issues:

1.  How might this parish help those members who wish to become proficient in living the Christian life do so within a three year period? What mix of training, coaching, integrating practice into the routines of life, and reflecting and learning from the experience help the person become proficient?
2.  How might the parish: a) establish a climate that supports and nudges people toward apostolic faith and practice (without being heavy handed in the process, while also accepting people where they are on the journey) and b) set in people’s minds the five areas of the spiritual map? Of course if we manage to accomplish the first that will helps us with the second. A core of people with basic competence in living the Christian life will help set the needed climate and will over time influence the way others think about the areas of proficiency that are central to that life.

What I come up with when I consider those questions, and then return to the issue of how to use the various modes of educating and training, is the need to place the emphasis on experiential methods. The parish needs:

1.  A Eucharistic Practices session in which participants get to actually engage a practice and then reflect upon it.
2.  Programs in which people explore ways to say the Office as part of the routine of daily life. For example, for a week they try an approach they think will work for them and then they are helped to assess how that went for them. They are then helped to modify the approach as seems best.
3.  Opportunities to consider how they participate the parish community and the other communities they are part of.  If they wish an chance to stretch themselves in how they participate. 
4.  An exploration of practices that for them as they attempt to gain perspective and insight in daily living as well as practices to effectively connect daily life with faith and the presence of God.
5.  Ways to have people see how they are already serving in the routines of daily life — in family and with friends, in the workplace and civic life. The starting place is organic — in as much they have been incorporated into the love of Christ they will express that in daily life. They can also be helped to consider ways in which they might serve others within the parish (by joining a daily office team, by helping with coffee hour). A few will also be interested in how they might join with others in the parish in acts of service for people outside the parish. However, it is critical that we keep the emphasis on the daily life of the baptized. That's 99% of how the parish serves the world.

All five items to be done in a manner where the person: learns actual practices, has the experience of reflecting on experience and making changes based on that reflection, and is provided with coaching along the way.

rag+

 ________________________________________________________

*About learning from experience and spiritual practice 

It is a core assumption that we do not learn from experience itself; we learn from disciplined reflection on experience.  The learning process is really one of learning about our experience from a structured reflection on our experience. The method is sometimes called --- E - I - A - G.

E – Experience

I – Identify

A – Analyze

G – Generalize

This has been a core learning method in experiential education. With adaptation it has been used in team development and Organization Development efforts.

Experience – Actually doing the spiritual practice. Not just talking about reverence but bowing to the altar or to one another. Not just adding about the Daily Office but doing it for a week. 

The reflection on the experience then has three phases.

Identify – This is a description of what actually happened. 

Analyze – We explore and examine the experience that has been identified. We may look at the impact or effect of the behavior(s) involved; share how we felt, what we thought, how we acted, etc. Look at our judgments – was the behavior helpful or hindering? Analysis may include relating the experience to some theory, model or research from pastoral or asctical theology of the behavioral sciences.

Generalize – An opportunity to state what we have learned; to generalize what has been learned into other situations. Based on the analysis, we can say what we might do in a similar situation, what we might have done differently in this situation, what conclusions we have drawn, etc.

Honeymoon: Part V

What we need to look for in a parish priest

So, the new priest has started and the honeymoon is underway. That means the new vicar has some emotional space - right? The new rector will be given the benefit of the doubt - right? The new priest-in-charge will not be getting assessed by members - right?  

Well ....  The first two - right! The last one - wrong!

People are noticing and assessing immediately. They can't help it. They are having responses to what the new priest does and doesn't do. They notice that the new priest is warmer and friendlier than the last one. They notice the level of skill the new priest has in conducting meetings. There's a necessary, low level of trust offered in giving the benefit of the doubt. That begins to shift right away into a deeper trust (or mistrust) based on decisions being made and encounters experienced. Is the new vicar reliable, responsive, congruent, mutual and connected? Deeper levels of trust are built on those foundations.

I have a list.  It's my sense of what a parish needs to seek in the priest 

If the parish is to develop into a healthier and more faithful community, what do we need to look for in the parish priest?

1. Leadership ability. This is the ability to get others to move; to listen and respond to one another, to the needs and opportunities, to God; political common sense; to occupy that role in a parish’s life in such a way that the parish is moved toward greater health and faithfulness.

2. Emotional maturity. Including an awareness of your own emotions; accepting responsibility for how you act on your emotions; an understanding of the impact of your behavior on others; self-confidence; self-control; the ability to stay with something while being flexible; the capacity to negotiate with others; the ability to be part of the group as well as to stand apart from the group.

3. Spiritual maturity. Being a person of Apostolic Faith, including maintaining a spiritual discipline. (Note: needs to be a spiritual discipline that is adequately connected to the spirituality of the parish. It can be richer and deeper than the parish's as long as the priest doesn't attempt to push it upon the parish. Rarely can it be a spirituality that is of a different tradition or shallower than the parish's and not lead to difficulty.)

4. Competence in many of the skills related to effective priestly ministry. Presiding at liturgy, preaching, spiritual and pastoral guidance, Christian formation, etc. In each there are skills related to designing as well as implementing.

5. Priestliness. The person has something of the enchanter about them, can be “with God with the people on your heart,” sees the “inward and spiritual grace” within the life of individuals and the community and accepts being human and being a sacramental person. One of my friends has offered a caution based on her experience with one priest who seems to fit the “enchanter” description. We need to see the difference between the healthy enchanter that Terry Holmes wrote about in The Priest in Community and the narcissistic leader who’s more about looking good and being right.*

The list comes from Fill All Things: The Spiritual Dynamics of the Parish Church, Robert A. Gallagher, Ascension Press, 2008                                                                   

Here's the other side of things -- the new priest is doing the same thing in regard to the parish. Allowing space. Giving the benefit of the doubt. And assessing. The new priest is noticing the congregation's reliability, responsiveness, reciprocity and congruence. 

rag+

* There are two books I find useful in seeing the distinction. In The Priest in Community, Seabury Press, 1978, Holmes writes of the priest as “one who raises and expands the consciousness of those he serves” and as being “the ‘hook’ on which we ‘hang’ certain symbols or archetypical images.” In an appendix he offers a chart of character traits that suggest readiness for priesthood and others that suggest the opposite. So, Holmes’ enchanter priest also has humility, humor, earthiness, flexibility, compassion, is nonconformist but interdependent, responsible and forgiving. The opposite is self-righteous, heresy hunting, certain, oriented to activity for its own sake (particularly in the face of death), status oriented, secretive. The other book is Peter Steinke’s Congregational Leadership in Anxious Times, Alban, 2006. In a postscript called “People of the Charm” he writes about narcissistic clergy. He notes that it’s a relational activity. Some “congregations attract narcissistic clergy because they need someone outside themselves to motivate them.” He sees a connection between the charmer and the charmed – the functioning is one “of mutual reinforcement and self–deception.” Signs of the dynamic include no checks and balances, groupthink, avoiding outside influences (might be consultants or a lay leader with too many questions) demonizing those who might uncover the truth. Some of the characteristics of the clergy involved include: expert at disguise, appears to be in command of situations, cleaver charming, persuasive, star quality, fun to be with, articulate, unable to use self examination, and exploitatively ambitious. The task is to sort out Holmes' enchanter from Steinke’s charmer. 

Honeymoon: Part IV

Blindsided

It's easy to get blindsided during the honeymoon. Almost unavoidable. 

I had consulted with this east coast parish for many years. As the long term rector was approaching retirement he gave some thought to what things to change before he left. There were two categories we discussed. One was about changes that were basic matters of parish health. The other were areas where his practices were likely to get in the way of the new rector.

He had used the Anglican Missal for the weekday masses for many years. He knew that fewer and fewer priests used the Missal. A new rector would most likely stop using the missal and that might set off a small conflict with a few lay people attached to the Missal.  The rector thought that he could make the change with less difficulty than a new rector would face. So,  the Anglican Missal was retired to a drawer in the sacristy. The Book of Common Prayer altar book was then used for the weekday masses. 

My last piece of work with the parish was to be a meeting with the new rector and vestry. It was an opportunity to assess the current state of the parish, connect the new rector with the background of parish development work that had been done, and bring to a conclusion my work with them. The session went well. During a break there was informal conversation about the weekday masses. The new priest mentioned how unfamiliar he was with the Anglican Missal. I expressed surprise and said, "How did that get reintroduced after Fr. ____ ended its use last year?" The new rector got a shocked look on his face, "I've been blindsided. Jess told me that we have always used the Missal and so I agreed to continue the practice."

He had been blindsided.

1. To attack when and where a person is vulnerable or uninformed.

2. To surprise or shock (someone) in a very unpleasant way
3. To be bushwhacked, caught unaware, sucker punched

A priest is especially vulnerable to being blindsided in the first months of the relationship. There are people in the parish that have been unhappy with some of the decisions and practices of the former rector. This is an opportunity to change that. A chance to have things "my way" (also known as the correct way). This is common whenever there is a change in institutional leadership. It happens in churches, non profits and businesses. There may also be a communication gap in which the new rector doesn't learn of some practices because no one thinks to share them.

-The parish musician was unhappy with the norms of the former rector about music in the liturgy. So, she just changes how she does things to fit her preferences without mentioning the changes to the new rector. 

- In your opinion someone hadn't been properly reigned in or admonished about their behavior. So, you have a meeting with the new rector "just so she knows."

- A member who dislikes the intimacy of groups sitting in a circle as they meet arrives early at the first few meetings to "help" set up. Tables are brought out to sit around. He tells the new rector, "We always sit around tables at meetings and in classes."

- No one tells the new priest when the parish patronal feast day is. It gets missed that year.

-And so on

What can you do to avoid being blindsided?

1. Make it a practice to ask a group not just individuals. After a weekday mass ask people to stay a few minutes and let you know how things are usually done. 

2. Find a few people you are certain will tell you the truth about existing practices even if they don't agree with the practices. And, will not use your openness as a chance to push all their ideas about what you should do. You want to know what the practice has been recently and what came before that. 

3. Test out assumptions and information. If something doesn't seem right, ask. You may want to make a list of questions to ask the previous rector about his rationale for some decisions and practices.

4. Follow a wise naval tradition. In the change of command on a ship the new captain will include a statement that standing orders will remain in effect.  As a new rector be clear that you expect all staff and lay leaders to stay with existing practices until changes are made by appropriate authorities.

5. Assume responsibility for presiding in the community -- preside at vestry meetings (even if the last rector had allowed the wardens to lead the meeting);  preside at parish community meetings; and preside in the liturgy (even if there are other clergy in the parish it's wise for the new rector to preside and preach at all liturgies for the first month. Even after that it's smart to preside at least half the time and preach three out of four Sundays). You need to allow yourself to play that focal role in the community. And use your presiding role to facilitate and equip shared leadership. 

  

Please note -- this isn't about not making any changes. It's about having useful information and free choice in making any needed changes.

rag+