Member Care: Pearls and Perils, Lecture 2

Wise Doves and Innocent Serpents?
Promoting Health and Managing Dysfunction in Mission/Aid

*****
This second lecture at Fuller School of Psychology (February 2009) looked at suggestions for developing healthy organisations and for safeguarding workers in light of personal/systemic dysfunction. Human relationships and organizatinal life are vierwed as being very positive provided that good practices are understood and embraced. The lectures are available on line for free in written, audio, and video formats. We have included a few excerpts below from the second lecture to encourage you to download and watch the video.
*****
http://www.fuller.edu/academics/school-of-psychology/integration-symposium-2009.aspx

Snakes in suits, doves in snakes. © 2006 MCA/KOD

*****

Overview of Health and Dysfunction

Most of us have been part of both healthy and dysfunctional work settings. The healthy ones are personally rewarding and we feel we are contributing and growing, and challenged and respected. The dysfunctional ones on the other hand drain us, stealing our time, focus, effectiveness, and even our emotional and physical health. Much of my work in member care is devoted to helping organizations develop healthy practices. Conflict management in particular takes up a lot of time for me and many of us, especially for those in management roles. Research also supports what we all seem to know from painful experience: relational struggles in the mission/aid sectors stress us out (Gish, 1983, Carter, 1999, Fawcett, 2003). Conflicts, even if managed well, do not always lead to personal growth and closer relationships. This is especially the case when dysfunction is involved. Dysfunction disables our people and purposes, but most importantly from a Christian viewpoint, it dishonors God (Rms. 2: 21-24).

*

The above assertions may sound good and “balanced” most of the time. But we must also be concerned about the other side of the distortions—downgrading clear dysfunction and referring to obvious deviance as merely being “differences”. This will become apparent usually if skilled, unbiased people will take the time to inquire. Otherwise people back away from what is seen as a complex confusing story with two or more sides, rather than there being a cohesive core of truth that is being distorted/overlooked. So surely we must not make a mountain out of a molehill; yet neither should we make a molehill out of a mountain! The tricky part is trying to discern who has the clear or clearest perception of what constitutes a mountain or a molehill. It is also tricky since most issues are not so black and white. As Proverbs reminds us (16:2, 18:17): All the ways of a person are right in one’s own eyes, but the Lord weighs the motives; and the first to plead one’s case seems just, until one’s neighbor comes and gives input.

*

Relational Resiliency

When I teach on relationships within the mission/aid sector, I like to distinguish between functional trust and foundational trust. Functional trust is assumed, and needed so that we can work together. It believes a priori, within limits, in the good intentions and reliability of a colleague. It gives others the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, so that work-related tasks and mutual interests can be realized. Foundational trust however is much deeper and it is earned. It is developed over both time and over tough times together. Enduring and genuine friendships are based on such trust. Functional and foundational trust can overlap over time, with work-related confidence in a colleague flowing into a growing friendship. Yet it is a real mistake to think that being friendly colleagues in a work context (functional trust) is the same as being true friends (foundational trust) in life. The shift from functional to foundational trust is slow and easily hindered. As Christians, this shift leads to deeper levels of “fellowship” (koininia) as emphasized in New Testament writings (e.g., John’s epistles) and to greater levels of “oneness, unity, community” (yachad) as emphasized in the Old Testament (e.g., Psalms 133).

*

"Trust shifts" from the functional to the foundational are healthy. They happen via consistent demonstrations over time that people are seriously and sacrificially committed to each other. This is especially evident during crises which force people to work together closely with mutual dependency. Further, there is the genuine willingness to put someone else's best interests over one's own, with no strings attached. There is the deep sense that people are doing their utmost to respect and understand each other. People communicate regularly, equitably, and empathically. Finally, trust shifts happen when people fulfill their promises. Where foundational trust flows, entrenched conflicts usually do not.

*

Essential Resources: Good Governance and Good Management

Healthy people form healthy organizations, and vice versa. One of the greatest challenges of maintaining a healthy organization is to manage conflict and dysfunction well. I have learned the hard way (not simply from the literature!) that people in conflict do not always play fair and that often significant dysfunction (not just differences in opinion or personality) must be addressed. Probably like many of us, I default towards being a helper who stays neutral, preserves unity, increases mutual understanding, arrives at a “win-win” outcome, who helps people agree to disagree and believe the best in each other. This approach is usually sensible of course. However there are times when this approach is inadequate and ill-advised, and confrontation and discipline are required. This is tough love that necessitates verifiable contrition and verifiable change. Otherwise innocent people, now and in the future, get hurt. And justice is not done.

*

3. Guidelines for Grievances and Whistle-blowing. Third, I suggest that organizations have clear guidelines for handling grievances and for "whistle-blowing" including non-retaliation commitments to those who confront serious problems in an organization. These guidelines are part of good management practices and are in addition to those for conflict resolution. With regards to grievances, mission/aid organizations should also consider the role of an “ombudsman”, a person who acts as a neutral intermediary to represent and help negotiate the interests of both staff and the organization. As for whistle-blowing, one helpful resource is the Policy on Suspected Misconduct, Dishonesty, Fraud, and Whistle-Blower Protection by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability in the USA (see Box 9,). This policy takes into account the legal protection offered by the 2002 Sarbanes Oxley Act in the USA for those who report possible or actual organizational misconduct. It also urges that a variety of safe reporting mechanisms be set up that are understood and used by staff, and includes sample policies for both large and small organizations to adapt for their purposes. Note too that similar legislation to protect whistleblowers was passed in the United Kingdom in 1998, as part of the Public Interest Disclosure Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980023_en_1). See also the standards for raising concerns and retaliation at: www.business-ethics.org/newsdetail.asp?newsid=88. Mission/aid workers, whether they are employees, volunteers, or independent contractors, need to be aware of their rights/status under the law. Organizations are responsible to explain these laws to their members and to abide by them.

*

Reflection and Discussion

Here are three of the ten "Health Promoters" that are included in the article.

*
1. Healthy organizations have clear policies/procedures that are understood, recognized, and reviewed. Clear ethical values/commitments are also indicators of health. Yet even still there can be a mess when healthy practices are not followed and dysfunction exists. What do you think?

*

2. What behaviors in your experience would you consider to be dysfunctional? Examples: manipulation, lying, stealing, ignoring, ridiculing, discrediting, withholding information, blaming/shaming, scapegoating, demoting, dismissing, etc. Note that organizational and personal health can be described in opposite terms of how dysfunction is described (e.g., honesty vs. lying, affirming vs. discrediting). How can focusing on healthy practices be more constructive than focusing on the negative?

*

3. Have you had to confront “poisoned water”? If so, what were the outcomes? What helped? What did you learn? Have you ever felt like you and/or your colleagues were being harassed and “sifted like wheat” by a malignant force that seemed far greater than yourself (e.g., Luke 22:31)? If so, what did you learn?