Any human institution is liable to find itself in conflict. Yet some institutions respond better to conflict than do others. On the one hand, in some institutions conflict almost immediately turns vicious and nasty. On the other hand, in some institutions conflict doesn’t get nasty, and in fact can wind up being a source of energy that moves the institution forward. So why is it that some institutions recover very quickly from conflicts, and others don’t?
As it happens, this question has been central to my church career — I’ve spent a good part of my career helping churches move beyond conflicts. Churches are like any other human institution, and they periodically erupt into conflict. Over fourteen years of working in local churches, I’ve seen some pretty nasty conflicts up close and personal, and I’ve seen how some churches recover from conflict more quickly than others. There’s no one simple reason why this is so, but generally speaking I have found that well-managed churches are the ones most likely to recover from conflict quickly. Under the heading “good management,” I would include the following (at a minimum): transparent and open decision-making processes; a working mission statement and strategic plan; a well-maintained building that is safe, clean, and uncluttered; a motivated membership committed to the church’s mission and willing to donate time and energy and money; a contented staff who are fairly and adequately compensated and committed to the church’s mission; sound and transparent accounting practices; attention paid both to improving revenue stream and to controlling expenses.
Most of these basic principles apply beyond churches, of course. My sense is that when an institution has good management practices in place, the institution as a whole can respond to conflict productively instead of destructively. For example, when you have good decision-making processes in place (e.g., a mission statement and strategic plan), then there are institutional structures in place to channel the energy that comes with conflict. If safety and trust are built into the institution (e.g., with a safe physical plant and trustworthy accounting practices), then you have enough safety and trust to go around so that again you can harness the energy that comes with conflicts, without having that energy turn into an emotionally destructive force.
Management guru Peter Drucker believed that good management was the answer to many of the world’s problems. I have become convinced that good management is one of the taproots that allows peacemaking to flower. What do you think? Is good management necessary (but not sufficient) to peacemaking efforts? If so, what does that imply about how we should be organizing for peacemaking locally, nationally, and globally?
January 30, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Oh, I absolutely agree! Good management is an essential part of peacemaking. I do think, however, that it gets more and more complicated and difficult the bigger the organization. Hence my ramblings about how the U.S. is too big.
January 30, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I think that focusing on this sort of thing in our quest for peace is exactly the right thing to do. The mere fact that we want peace, or even that we have a lot of energy to devote to seeking peace, does not mean that we can effectively act for peace. Increasing our effectiveness is absolutely vital.
January 31, 2009 at 12:53 am
I’ve been thinking about this in regard to Pax Pac. Sometime soon, we need to think about whether we want to become a nonprofit or something more formal. Just saying that to start the thinking, not the discussion yet.
I see a danger in structure: it makes it easy to keep things going for their own sake. But it can also make it easy to keep things going so you can focus on what matters more.
January 31, 2009 at 3:38 am
Grey @ 1 — Key question then is: How big is too big? Next question: Then how do we manage the global situation so as to promote peace?
Ted @ 2 — Yes, and too often peace activism has been ineffective.
Will @ 3 — You write: “I see a danger in structure.” True statement, but at the same time we human beings have tribal structure bred into us; i.e., the tribe is a basic biological structure for us. That being the case, then some kind of structure is is going to happen in human institutions, like it or not. My feeling is, better to have an explicit structure that everyone knows about, than an implicit structure that might be positive or might be tyrannical. This is not necessarily different from what you are saying, but I’m coming at it from a slightly different perspective.
Grace Paley called herself a cooperative anarchist. Maybe that’s the ideal.
February 1, 2009 at 5:22 am
I’ll answer #1, because that’s more fun. (And this makes me think we should try having questions of the day or the week or occasional questions just to see what people say.
I always thought we would lose nations and go to something like a one-world government with many villages. How you get people from the little villages to move up to the big government, I dunno. My first thought is the government has a lottery that draws from everyone of the age of citizenship. Then people can turn down the position if they insist, but it’s almost a draft.
The second part of that is I think we need a peace meme. I just don’t know what it might be, alas.
February 1, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I think you’re right about the peace meme, Will. Maybe we should figure it out.