Practicing "normalizing conversations" when there is conflict

 

There are many things that can introduce conflict or awkwardness into relationships: disagreements; words spoken; actions or even second hand conversations that come back to us. It can cause us to back away from a relationship, suspect that others don't have our best interests in mind and create an invisible wall between two individuals. It happens in families, among friends and in the workplace - anywhere we have key relationships.

It is also very easy to allow that conflict, misunderstanding or break in the relationship to linger, leaving a break in the relationship. The truth is, however, that in most cases, this break in relationship can be resolved. And we should always try.

This is where normalizing conversations come in. Rather than live with our perceptions or assumptions about where the other individual is coming from, or the awkwardness that has been introduced into the relationship, normalizing conversations can clarify and remove relational walls that have been created. It is a courageous decision we make to seek peace, clarity and understanding by candidly talking to another about the events that have transpired.

Unaddressed issues between individuals create walls and distance while discussing those issues can remove those walls and bring parties closer together.

A normalizing conversation is very simple. It is taking the step to initiate a conversation in order to understand one another and remove the invisible wall that has been created by words, actions or assumptions. Choosing to initiate a conversation with another to clarify issues and create understanding  is a courageous and peacemaking practice. And too rare.

A normalizing conversation is not a confrontation but a conversation. It may or may not result in agreement but it can result in understanding. Because you have invited the other individual to be candid with you as you are with them, it removes future awkwardness in the relationship even if you did not come to agreement. It is simply a conversation to "normalize" what has become problematic.

The major barrier to such conversations is our own fear. In my experience, our fear is usually unfounded and we find the other party relieved to be able to lower the walls and understand each other. Even if the conversation is hard, it opens up the ability to communicate and creates greater understanding and that by definition almost always lowers the relational walls. It is about calming the relational waters.

I will often start such a conversation with something like this. "I know that there has been some awkwardness over (whatever the issue it is) and that it has impacted our relationship. Can we have a candid conversation about this issue and simply try to understand one another? I don't like where we are and really want to see if we can better understand one another." In almost every circumstance this leads to a productive conversation and usually the lowering of walls.

The words of a leader

The two boys God gave me were highly sensitive growing up to the words and reactions of their parents. I remember one time giving one of them my "look" and he responded "Don't yell at me!" Actually I had not said anything but I had communicated with my body language and he had felt the message! 

Leaders are not parents to those they lead but like parents, their words have extra weight than the words of others.

Leaders often do not appreciate how their words can hurt, wound, lift up or encourage those in their organization. Because they are leaders their words have extra weight which means that what they say and how they say it impacts people deeply, positively or negatively in significant ways. Their words carry more weight because people don't want to let them down and staff feel it deeply when words spoken carelessly come their way.

This means that leaders have a higher responsibility than others to filter and control their words (yes emails) and reactions so that they do not negatively impact others or send messages they don't want to send. While everyone has a responsibility to watch their words, this is absolutely true for leaders who set culture by their words. Their words have the power to uplift, help or wound and bring down,

Leaders should remember:

• Words of affirmation are huge.
• Careless passing words that construe disappointment or cynical can hurt.
• You can say a lot with body language. Be aware and careful.
• Measure your responses to control your emotions so that your emotions don't get in the way of the message.
• Think before one speaks: both about the message and the way it is delivered.
• If you are going to say hard things because you must, think carefully about how you do it and focus on behaviors rather than on motives. Your words carry extra weight so use them carefully!

Unspoken Discussions on church boards and work teams

Church boards and work teams are notorious for their unspoken discussions! Those unspoken discussions are the issues that are present, that people know they are present, but that either individual board members or the board itself do not dare to discuss as a board. These are elephants in the room - often critical issues for the church that require being named and dealt with, but the board's culture mitigates against it.

Many individuals do not like conflict; their definition of conflict is anything that might cause individual or group discomfort. So, there is subtle pressure put on board or team members to be friendly and not rock the boat by naming issues that are out there and need discussion. (The same dynamics can be had on almost any team.) You know that you have breached a topic that makes people uncomfortable when you put an issue on the table, and there is either silence or someone jumps in to quickly deflect the problem from the discussion.

I recently read an article about Patrick Lencioni suggesting that major financial institutions have been in trouble lately because of the prevailing culture on company governance boards to not deal with issues that would make others uncomfortable. So, the culture of nice sabotages a culture of truth and effectiveness.

Pastors, leaders, board members, or team members who choose not to speak in the face of real unspoken issues do a disservice to their organization. The irony is that everyone generally knows there are unspoken issues - they just don't want the discomfort of naming them. The hope is that they will just go away!

How we speak to the issues is essential. If I approach an unspoken issue and put it on the table, it will be best received if there is not a personal vendetta and my words are not meant to hurt. I don't have a hidden personal agenda; I want the best for the organization; I communicate in a way that invites rather than disinvites dialogue; I say it in love; and I acknowledge that the issue may make others uncomfortable.

The funny thing about "elephants" is that once they are named, they are no longer elephants. I once worked with a group around a whiteboard and asked them to name every elephant they felt existed in their organization. We filled the whiteboard (a bad thing), but once up there, we could talk about all of them (a good thing). Once named, an elephant is simply another issue that we are allowed to talk about. Unnamed, it is one of the unspoken discussions we know we need to have but need more courage to discuss.

Every board, team, and organization is better off with a high level of candor and trust, which mitigates the candor turning into anger or cynicism.

If you are brave, I would suggest that you ask your team or your board in a relaxed atmosphere to brainstorm on any unspoken board discussions you need to have, on any elephants that need to be named, whiteboard them, and then develop a plan to talk through them one by one.

Unspoken discussions are not discussions, just frustrations, and they often hide real issues that unresolved will hurt the organization.

Avoiding the Activity Trap

One of the most strategic things we can do - and insist from our staff is not to fall into the activity trap. Simply put, the activity trap is the mistake of believing that activity is synonymous with results. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Think for a moment about people you know. Some of them are always busy, but the results from their work are, well, meager. Others may or may not seem busy, but the results of their work are significant.

I have watched senior leaders and even CEOs fall into the activity trap, endlessly busy with "important things" but truly meager in terms of the results of their work. If it were not for some good folks around them, they would be seen as the "emperor without clothes." Sometimes, they can fool outsiders who see the activity, but insiders have difficulty figuring out what they produce.

What differentiates those who see meager results and those who see significant results?

The difference is that those who see the best results understand that activity does not equal results. Activity is simply being busy. But if that activity is not carefully focused on specific outcomes, one is left merely with activity.

General or unfocused activity yields broad and unfocused results. Specific and focused activities will deliver pre-determined outcomes that help the organization realize its objectives. In the first case, the activity is focused on activity, while in the second, the activity is focused on outcomes. It is a critical difference.

I am not indicating that those with unfocused activity are not doing good things. The question is whether the activity is focused on the good things that will yield the results they are after.

A problem with typical job descriptions is that they are a list of activities rather than a description of necessary results. That is why it is far better to have job descriptions with Key Result Areas, which are the outcomes wanted for the position, than to have a list of activities. With Key Result Areas, any activity in the job is focused toward a few definable results that spell success for the job.

One of the ironies is that those who do less often accomplish more because they are more focused than those running at a heavy pace.

To avoid the activity trap, we should be able to answer these questions:

What specific results do I want from my work? For instance, I have five Key Result Areas that spell success for my work. Can you define what spells success for you?

Is my daily, weekly, and monthly activity focused on achieving the specific results I have identified?

Do I have a strategy for making sure I stay focused? After all, it is very easy to drift, and a strategy for staying focused is essential.

If you are a supervisor, can your reports answer these questions?

The Six Way Fracturing of Evangelicalism by Michael Graham

 

The Six Way Fracturing of Evangelicalism by Michael Graham

This article explains a lot about the conflicts and divides within American Evangelicalism today

On Racial Justice, Individual Guilt, and Institutional Responsibility - David French

 

On Racial Justice, Individual Guilt, and Institutional Responsibility

The Incredible Shrinking Church - Ralph Moore

 See this insightful short article and video