Submission or Cooperation? Two Competing Approaches to Conflict Management in Mission Organizations

Abstract

Interpersonal conflict among missionaries is a major factor contributing to missionary attrition. This paper examines two approaches to resolving conflict, one focusing on mandatory submission to authority and the other focusing on fostering cooperation between the parties in conflict. Both biblical and empirical evidence suggest that cooperation is usually the best option. Although the submission approach is often viewed as biblical, it represents a shallow understanding of the complete biblical picture and a naïve and overly optimistic view of human nature. The cooperation approach better incorporates the biblical principles of servant leadership, mutual submission, and seeking one another’s interests. Empirical evidence suggests that organizations such as mission agencies may be more effective if they adopt an approach fostering cooperation as an organizational norm. Research on power and its abuse may be used to motivate missionaries to voluntarily limit their hierarchical power in order to better love and serve others. Viewing conflict as a decision making process can enable missionaries and mission organizations to more effectively find ways to minister and achieve their goals, including evangelism and church planting.

Power or Concerns: Contrasting Perspectives on Missionary Conflict

“…A second common perspective found in missionary circles that is focused on power, views submission to authority as the key to resolving conflicts (Dunaetz, 2016;Hale, 1995). In this view, even when a missionary's supervisor makes a decision which seems uninformed or abusive, submission is expected because it is God's will.…”

“…Leaders who try to enforce submission appear to be carrying out the defining behavior of a leader who enjoys lording it over their people, rather than the servant whom Jesus described as the model leader (Mat. 20:25-26; see Dunaetz, 2016, for a detailed discussion of the dangers associated with this perspective. ).…”

“…Such training can be theoretically based on the dual concern model of conflict (Pruitt & Kim, 2004) and focus on developing the desire and ability to cooperate. However, power dynamics (Kipnis, 1976(Kipnis, , 1984 or organizational justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001;Dunaetz, 2010cDunaetz, , 2016 could also serve as a theoretical basis. In any case, the training should include role playing and interactive activities involving negotiation (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006) and creative problem solving (Van Merriënboer, 2013).…”

Constructively Managing Program-related Conflict In Local Churches

“…Yet, sometimes what might be perceived as conflict leads to creative solutions of real problems, solutions that would not have been found unless the concerns of all the parties were understood and addressed (Dunaetz, 2016b;Tjosvold, 2008;Tjosvold, Wong, & Feng Chen, 2014;Turner & Pratkanis, 1997). This paper is an empirical study examining the conditions under which program-related conflict in evangelical churches leads to detrimental outcomes and the conditions under which it leads to constructive outcomes.…”

Constructively Managing Program-Related Conflict in Local Churches

“…Yet sometimes what might be perceived as conflict leads to creative solutions of real problems, solutions that would not have been found unless the concerns of all the parties were understood and addressed (Dunaetz, 2016b;Tjosvold, 2008;Tjosvold, Wong, & Feng Chen, 2014;Turner & Pratkanis, 1997). This paper is an empirical study examining the conditions under which programrelated conflict in evangelical churches leads to detrimental outcomes and the conditions under which it leads to constructive outcomes.…”