Power or concerns: Contrasting perspectives on missionary conflict

Abstract

Among the consequences of conflicts between missionaries are a reduction in ministry effectiveness and an increase in the likelihood of missionary attrition. In contrast to perspectives of conflict management in Christian contexts which tend to focus on power (condemning the other party as sinful, enforcing submission to the hierarchical superior, or separation of the conflicting parties), the dual concern model of conflict management views conflict as an opportunity to understand each party’s concerns so that the two parties may cooperate and find solutions that correspond to the interests of both parties (Phil. 2:4). The dual concern model also predicts conflict behaviors (i.e., forcing, submission, or avoidance) when the interests of both parties are not considered. A qualitative analysis of data collected from present and former missionaries describing power issues (N = 34) indicates that the dual concern model of conflict management can be used to predict conflict behaviors and outcomes, even when conflicts are initially framed in terms of power. Recommendations for increasing cooperation between missionaries include better training in conflict management, the creation of mediation systems, and the development of an organizational culture that promotes cooperation.

Unveiling the influence of the Italian mafia as a Dark Triad threat on individuals’ affective states and the power of defense mechanisms

“…This last strategy of giving in is mainly used when there is a higher concern towards the other party than towards one’s own goals 57 —particularly when this party is powerful: “Accommodation often occurs when there is a power differential between the parties and the high power party is willing to use a forcing approach to obtain what he or she wants. Realizing that the situation is futile, the low power party accommodates to the high power party, limiting any damage to the relationship or the organization” 58 (p. 72).…”

Managing Missionary Conflict Constructively

“…This fourth approach (Collaboration, sometimes called Cooperation) has been empirically demonstrated to lead to the best outcomes in organizations (Rahim, 2001;Rhoades & Carnevale, 1999), including mission organizations (Dunaetz & Greenham, 2018). Not surprisingly, this is the exact approach that Paul recommended to the church in Philippi, "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interest of others" (Phil.…”

“…20:25-26), which is the opposite of serving the other. Forcing one's will on the other is fast, efficient, and, perhaps in some rare cases, could be considered an appropriate last resort, but it will damage the relationship, perhaps permanently, and prevent a potentially better solution from emerging (Dunaetz, 2016b;Dunaetz & Greenham, 2018). A ministry with a leader who uses such tactics is not likely to be very fruitful, at least from God's perspective (I Pet.5:2-3; cf.…”

Navigating self-managed conflict resolution: A case study

“…When there is a need to maintain harmony among employees or when a person believes they might be in the wrong, an accommodating conflict resolution process might be enacted (Gilin-Oore et al, 2015; Lawless and Trif, 2016; Rahim, 2002). While this may appear to be self-sacrifice that can preserve relationships between co-workers, a lack of assertiveness can be detrimental to resolving task-based conflict because employees fail to provide suggestions that might differ from co-workers to improve organizational efficiency (Chung-Yan and Moeller, 2010; DeRue et al, 2009; Dunaetz and Greenham, 2018).…”

“…Avoiding direct conflict resolution entails a lack of being assertive concerning the management of the problem, thus postponing the conflict to a later time (Langfred, 2007; Lawless and Trif, 2016; Rahim, 2002). An employee who wants to avoid conflict withholds their expression of frustration or displeasure with a situation, perhaps owing to having anxiety or fear of confrontation, or preferring to defer their position in the conflict to preserve the relationship with their co-worker (DeRue et al, 2009; Dunaetz and Greenham, 2018; Lawless and Trif, 2016). While avoidance can manage short-term conflict, it does not mitigate problems in the long run because neither party works to find solutions for the underlying contention (Canary, 2003; Gilin-Oore et al, 2015; Rahim, 2002).…”