Cal Habig Coaching

Few of us like conflict.  But conflict happens.  And when it does we are faced with a variety of decisions about how we will respond.

I received a note yesterday that warmed my heart.  Some of your know that I teach a course on Eastern Religions for a well known national university.  And the mixture of religious beliefs held by students in that class is always fascinating.  We have Christians, of course (although of all stripes and of all levels of commitment). But we also regularly have Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, Pagans (capital “P” Pagans), Unitarian-Universalists as well as others.  We also have lots of seekers and atheists.

It is a fun environment in which to work.  But by the very nature of the subject matter, there is potential for conflict.   Fortunately, we have usually been able to keep the discourse on a positive note and a high level.  I do not hide that I am a Christian and will (when appropriate) give an explanation and defense of my views.  But mostly that isn’t my role.

Yesterday I got a note from a student who openly self-identifies as an atheist.  (He really is a bright and delightful student to have in class).  But in a forum posting yesterday, we were talking about the Five Relationships of Confucianism.  One of those five is “Older-Younger” (“All older people have responsibility for younger people, because younger people need care, support, and character formation. This means, as well, that younger people must show respect to those older than themselves and be open to their advice.”) (Molloy, Michael. Experiencing the World’s Religions, 5th edition.  New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. pp. 239-240)

I asked about younger people being willing to accept older adults as mentors.  I didn’t think it would happen much in our culture.  The student I referred to above wrote:

“I feel that you have been a good mentor to myself [sic] and others in this short amount of time, as you seem to respect my viewpoints, no matter how often we disagree; you take the time to patiently answer questions while assuming the positive intent of others; and you seem to enjoy considering points of view that are different or even contradictory to your own philosophies.  That mutual respect is the key to true mentorship in my opinion.”

When I read that, it made me smile, of course, but it also reminded me of a diagram that I had seen from Tom Cox.  Tom is a business consultant.  I have met him (and evaluated one of his speeches) at the Feedbackers Toastmasters club of which I am a part.   (for those of you in Oregon, if that name sounds familiar, it is probably because Tom ran for Oregon Attorney General in 2000 and for Governor in 2002, both times as a Libertarian.)  He did a presentation at Leadership ‘11 in which he shared this diagram.

Tom talks about two ways we can respond to conflict.  Either:

“You disagree with me and I find that threatening.”

or

“You disagree with me and I find that interesting.”

In his diagram, Tom lays out the four-square diagram somewhat similar to the one I had a few months back with I talked about the presentation by Rory Vaden. This one, however, deals with conflict and how we choose to respond to it.

The four responses relate to the four quadrants to the right:

Active/Constructive (1)

Active Destructive (2)

Passive Destructive (3)

Passive Constructive (4)

Here are ways we can choose to respond in a conflictual situation according to each of the four possible responses:

Active/Constructive (1)

• Taking the other person’s perspecive
• Creating Solutions
• Expressing Emotions Responsibly
• Reaching Out

Active Destructive (2)

• Winning at all costs
• Displaying Anger
• Demeaning Others
• Retaliating
• Intention invention

Passive Destructive (3)

• Avoiding
• Yielding
• Hiding Emoitions
• Self-criticising
• Working Around People

Passive Constructive (4)

• Assuming Positive Intention
• Reflective Thinking
• Delay Responding
• Adapting to multiple win conditions.

I believe that this is an excellent tool.  When I am facing a conflictual situation, either personally or as a group, if I can learn to visualize this diagram and think through what my natural response would be (usually it is #3) and actively seeking to replace it with #1 or #4 (depending on the situation), I will be able to be more of an instrument of peace in those situations.

Thoughts on this…?

Tom Cox. (2011) Peak Performance Through Team Trust and  Constructive Conflict. Unpublished Handout.

You can find out more about Tom’s work at www.coxbusinesssconsulting.com.

The cross-fertilization of the different areas of my life is part of what makes my life so delightful these days. I teach college and I do professional executive coaching (which involves a lot of secular coaching reading, some of it great and some of it ‘woo-woo”) and I’m involved in ministry. The intersection of those worlds continually finds one informing the others.

The latest example of that is an article in the journal “The National Teaching & Learning Forum.”  There was an article back in 1999 that was recommended by Tal ben-Shahar.  As part of my continuing education for my coaching, I am viewing a video series “Positive Psychology,” which is a taping of ben-Shahar’s popular class on at Harvard University (one of the most popular courses in the history of Harvard).

ben-Shahar discusses the study, “Pygmalion in the Classroom” which was a study and a book done in 1968.  It has been widely discussed (and widely misinterpreted).  Basically the study examined the effects of teacher’s expectations on student performance.  The original studies centered on elementary students.  From the article in NTALF:

Simply put, when teachers expect students to do well and show intellectual growth, they do; when teachers do not have such expectations, performance and growth are not so encouraged and may in fact be discouraged a variety of ways.  In the famous Oak School experiment, teachers were led to believe that certain students selected at random were likely to be showing signs of a spurt in intellectual growth and development.  At the end of the year, the students of whom the teachers had these expectations showed significantly greater gains in intellectual growth than did those in the control group.  (“Pygmalion in the Classroom” National Teaching & Learning Forum.  Vol. 8, No. 2 (1999), p. 1)

The reason I pursued the article was (besides the evidence it shows for positive psychology) that in one of the schools for whom I teach, the student population is predominantly made up students who have failed in previous academic environments.  They are all adult learners and almost all of them have barely passed high school.  They have poor study skills and while most are highly motivated (at least initially) they do not have a track record that gives them self-confidence in an academic environment. (For example, I had an extended conversation this morning by phone with a student who is not passing my class and says that she “knew” she wouldn’t pass from Day 1.  The reality, from my perspective however, is that the work she has done has mostly been good and with a few adjustments she should not have any trouble passing my class in the weeks that remain.  We’ll see if my conversation with her convinced her).

The school I teach for is very strict about the guidance and mentoring that we are to do. Our e-mails to students are monitored and counted.    The extra-classroom contact we have with students is required, and also monitored and counted and becomes a part of our performance evaluations.  The exact wording that we use is critiqued.  When I initially hired on, we were told that if we did not have a specific percentage retention rate (determined by whether they signed up for another class after they completed mine), we would be terminated.  (While that is technically true, there are other factors that come into play, as you will evidence below).

Despite that, the success rate is fairly low.  I have had one class that had 100% failure rate.  (I am not alone in that). And while the students are ultimately responsible for their success or failure, it bothers me that the success rate isn’t higher.  And unfortunately, I know that I “expect” many of my students to fail…and so they do.  I am trying to think through how to change how I view their potential.

The Pygmalion article goes on to say that instructor expectations are not limited to elementary schools (as some critics have charged).  Studies have shown that expectations of college instructors also has a significant effect on student performance.  At the college level, however, a big factor is that what is expected determines what is assigned.

Again from the NRALF article:

“When you think your students can’t achieve very much, are perhaps not too bright, you may be inclined to teach simple stuff, do a lot of drills, read from your lecture notes, give simple assignments calling for simplistic factual answers.” (“Pygmalion”, p. 2)

OK, this isn’t an education blog.  It is a ministry blog.  But I suspect you know where I am going with this.  What do our expectations as Christian leaders have on both the congregations we lead as well as the disciples we mentor?

I’ve been around the church long enough (all my life) to…
…have heard plenty of conversations about the low preconceptions that Christian leaders bring to their congregational members, to church staff, to elder boards, and to preachers.
…know the low expectations (high hopes, perhaps, but low expectations) we place on new disciples.
…to know the low expectations that congregational members have that preaching will have any effect on their lives.
…to know the low level of financial commitment that we expect congregational members will be willing to give.

If you are familiar with “The Law of Attraction”, that is NOT what I am talking about.  The Pygmalion effect is scientifically observable fact.

And yet, I fear that the church has been incredibly crippled by the expectations of her leaders.

What are your thoughts?  I would like to have dialogue.

• Am I just blind to the high expectations that Christian leaders have?
• While the Pygmalion effect has been shown to be true in education over and over, is there some reason why it would not be true in the church?
• Are you aware of any studies that have been done in the church tracking the Pygmalion effect?  (Could such studies be even done ethically?)
• What relation does the pervasiveness (objectivity spoiler-alert!) of the “new reformed theology” that has swept the American church over the past couple of decades had in limiting our expectations of what is possible in the lives of believers and in churches?

Share with me your thoughts…

NOTES:
1. Pygmalion refers to the Greek myth of a sculptor who carved a beautiful statue.  It was so beautiful that he fell in love with it.  His love for the statue led him to make sacrifices to the goddess Venus, who granted life to the statue.  Under the kisses of Pygmalion, the statue became soft and warm and came to life.  The myth is the basis of the George Bernard Shaw play “Pygmalion: A Romance in Five Acts”, which then became the basis of the musical “My Fair Lady”.

2. The picture for this post is a statue by Étienne Maurice Falconet “Pygmalion & Galatee” (1763)

3. You can find the article “Pygmalion in the Classroom” here.

When churches say that they can’t afford for their minister to be coached, I smile.  That is so short-sighted.  Forget helping a pastor to be more effective simply for the kingdom’s sake! 

Look at it in pure dollars and cents:

It is conservatively estimated that the cost of pastoral turnover is equal to one and a half times the salary of the present pastor. For example, if your present pastor is receiving $40,000 it will cost you roughly $60,000 to replace him if he leaves. This happens for a number of reasons.

You begin with the least (usually) of the costs:  searching for a minister.  Depending on how many times you pay to bring candidates in for interviews and “meet the congregation” meetings, this usually runs in the thousands of dollars. If you place online ads or use snail mail, add those costs. 

While looking for a new pastor church leaders become more aware of the current salaries and benefits others are receiving. They often find they must pay a higher salary to get a person with equal experience and skills.  (I’m looking at this from the board’s perspective, not the minister’s perspective).

In many cases the present pastor will have purchased or rented a home when the rates for doing so were much lower. When a new pastor comes he most likely will need more money to cover housing costs.

Still another reason for this high cost of pastoral turnover is the fact that it takes a new pastor at least two years to get his feet on the ground and become effective in ministry. Studies have found that a pastor’s most effective years don’t even come until the 6-7th year! Pastoral turnover in the first five years represents a real loss of value that is difficult to measure.

In short it is economically wiser to keep your existing pastor than to bring in a now one.   

Coaching is a proven way to help with that.

Andre Massenburg.  “A Word to Church Leaders On Pastoral Compensation” Retrieved on 11 February 2011 from
http://www.pastormassenburg.com/Bible%20Study%20Lessons/A%20Word%20to%20Church%20Leaders%20On%20Pastoral%20Compensation.htm

A new ruling came out from the Department of Education that affects many young Bible college and seminary graduates.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act in 2007 stated that law enforcement, public schools, public interest law and emergency management, among others, would qualify for loan forgiveness.

The Act stated that if students took public service jobs at nonprofits and made on-time loan payments for 10 years, their remaining debt would be wiped out.

The law also stated that faculty at nonprofit universities and employees of 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes most churches, would qualify.

Financial aid officers at some religious schools told students of this program and a number of ministry students made education and financial plans accordingly.

Last week the Dept. of Education ruled that any employees of 501(c)(3) organizations who work in “religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing” do not qualify for the program.

You can read more about the article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/student-loan-forgiveness-clergy_n_1261334.html.

I don’t know how I feel about the student loans of clergy being forgiven (I can see points on both sides), but it does seem a bit unfair to state in 2007 that employees of 501(c)(3) would qualify for the program and then five years later in 2012 to exclude them.   Thoughts?  Those who are in Bible college or seminary or newly graduated need to be made aware of this change!

I am re-reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Life Together (for the umpteenth time) and am struck anew by these words:

If we do not give thanks daily for the Christian fellowship in which we have been placed, even where there is no great experience, no discoverable riches, but much weakness, small faith, and difficulty; if on the contrary we only keep complaining to God that everything is so paltry and petty, so far from what we expected, then we hinder God from letting our fellowship grow according to the measure and riches which are there for us all in Jesus Christ.

This applies in a special way to the complaints often heard from pastors and zealous members about this congregations.  A pastor should not complain about his congregation, certainly never to other people, but also not to God.  A congregation has not been entrusted to him in order that he should become its accuser before God and men.   When a person becomes alienated from a Christian community in which he has been placed and begins to raise complaints about it, he had better examine himself first to see whether the trouble is not due to his wish dream that should be shattered by God; and if this be the case, let him thank God for leading him into this predicament.  But if not, let him nevertheless guard against ever becoming an accuser of the congregation before God.  Let him rather accuse himself for his unbelief  Let him pray God for an understanding of his own failure and his particular sin, and pray that he may not wrong his brethren. Let him, in the consciousness of his own guilt, make intercession for his brethren.  Let him do what he is committed to do, and thank God.

Life Together, pp. 29-30.

No commentary needed.  I am sufficiently chastened.  

From our Wednesday night’s Toastmasters meeting (Feedbackers evaluation club):  a quote from speaker Craig Valentine (1999 Public Speaking World Champion):  “When you squeeze your information in, you squeeze your audience out.”

In preaching (as in all public speaking) we want to be content-rich.  HOWEVER, there is a definite point of diminishing returns.  We can cram so much information in that our speech or sermon is just a content blur.

People need to reflect on the content.  They need to see it illustrated. They need to hear it stated in different ways.  When we push one point and then another point, and then another point and then (before we close) one more point, most of those points will not be remembered.   Are we trying to help our listeners truly understand and remember what we are saying, or are we trying to impress them by how smart and erudite we are and how hard we have studied in preparing for this speech?

If memorability (and follow-up action) are what we want in a sermon, then this is a case where less truly can be more.

(Thanks to Eric Winger (see his blog here) for bringing that quote & principle to light).

I want, so badly, to be a fan of Alexander Strauch. I REALLY do.  I have known about Strauch for several years. He first published the work for which he is most widely known, Biblical Eldership, in the late 1980s. Someone who writes intelligent biblically-based works on the importance of lay eldership would seem to be someone who would excite me.  Right?

But he doesn’t. And it is not so much what he says. I agree with probably over 95% of what Strauch says. But what I don’t like is the condescending know-it-all attitude that permeates the book. I was amused when one of the most conservative elders in my last church told of throwing the book Biblical Eldership across the room in anger as he read it. The irony was that this elder should have agreed with even more that Strauch says than what I do. But it was the attitude that the book communicated that infuriated this elder.

Why do I raise the subject of Alexander Strauch now? (I haven’t cracked my copy of Biblical Eldership in years and have no intention of doing so any time soon).

The reason is that Strauch was the speaker at the Spurgeon Fellowship lectureship yesterday at Western Seminary here in Portland. I have written about the lectures at the Spurgeon Fellowship numerous times—generally very favorably.

When I saw that Strauch was on the docket for yesterday, I really debated about whether or not I should go. Why go when I figure all that will happen is that I will be irritated?

But the subject (believe it or not) was (drumroll please) “Love.”

Wow.

Love.

OK.

Maybe I should go. It so happens (I discovered) that Strauch has written such tomes as “Love or Die: Christ’s Wake-up Call to the Church”, “Leading with Love”, “Agape Leadership” and the wonderfully titled, “If You Bite & Devour One Another.”

So, I took a risk.

Bad mistake.

How can someone take the subject of “love”, fill his presentation with scriptures on love and do it in such an unloving manner?

Strauch’s first lecture was on losing one’s first love (Rev. 2:1-7). Strauch is known for his exegetical approach to scripture and he eminently demonstrated that in his first lecture. Alex noted that in Rev. 2, the phrase that the Ephesian church had “lost [their] first love” (mentioned in v. 4) does not have an object. Their love of what?  Strauch states (correctly, I believe) that that first love can be a combination of love for God, love for the lost and love for one another.

His second lecture was from Heb 10-:24-25: And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Strauch spoke about how to “stir up one another to love and good works.” He suggested that we more intentionally study love, pray for love, teach love, model love, guard love and practice love.  WONDERFUL outline. 

I really liked his suggestion in premarital counseling that we have couples take the first 15 weeks of their marriage and look for ways to implement the fifteen descriptions of love found in I Cor 13:4-7)

1. Love is patient
2. Love is kind
3. Love does not envy
4. Love does not boast;
5. Love is not arrogant
6. Love is not rude.
7. Love does not insist on its own way
8. Love is not irritable
9. Love is not resentful
10. Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing
11. Love rejoices with the truth
12. Love bears all things
13. Love believes all things
14. Love hopes all things
15. Love endures all things

But that hoary problem of Strauch’s attitude crept in again. It was that cocky, “I’m right, you’re wrong.” One example: he posited that while women flocked to women’s workshops in the 1980’s to learn how to be a submissive wife, husbands would never go to workshops and conferences to learn how to to be a more loving husband. When several of us shook our head in disagreement, (I was thinking of the millions of men who flocked to Promisekeepers conferences in the 1990’s) he looked straight at me and said (quite literally), “It doesn’t matter whether or not you agree. I’m right.”

The mocking of others was a continual verbal parade during his presentation. He referred to the Beatles’ song “All You Need Is Love” and (appropriately) pointed out its vapid emotionalism. But he then went into a mocking tirade against the Beatles.

His shameless plugging of his books was also blatant. He kept telling people to quit taking notes and buy his books instead. “Every time you take a note, you miss the next thing I am saying.” (as if the worst thing in the world was to miss his next “gem” and thus not have the need to give him money by buying his book.

Perhaps it is picky because I evaluate public speakers, but that cocky, “I’m special and important and you’re not” came through even in his ignoring of the clock.  The speakers at the Spurgeon Fellowship are given a large block of time in which to make their presentations.  Any announcements are minimized and this time even corporate singing was cut shorter than usual.  But did Mr. Strauch honor those present by staying within his time frame?  No, and he boasted that he wasn’t about to do so.  “You don’t look hungry.  You need to hear what I have to say.” was what he said when the time appointed for ending had passed.  He exceeded his allotted time by 15 minutes both times that he spoke.  The rudeness and arrogance of that behavior did not jive well with a presentation on the importance of love. 

I am sad to say that my opinion of Alex Strauch stays intact. Someone who is so right in (most) of his doctrinal beliefs and teachings, but so wrong in the attitude that he uses to communicate it.

Strauch closed his talk with the words of the apostle John: “Little children, let us not love in word or talk, but in deed and in truth.” (I John 3:18)

If only Alex Strauch would heed the very words he reads.

Eric Jackson has written a helpful article in this week’s Forbes Magazine.  He focuses on Spectacularly Unsuccessful Executives.  As I read the article I thought of specific ministries/ministers I have known. 

The seven habits with a warning sign of each is below.

Habit # 1:  They see themselves and their companies as dominating their environment.

Warning Sign for #1:  A lack of respect

Habit #2:  They identify so completely with the company that there is no clear boundary between their personal interests and their corporation’s interests

Warning Sign for #2: A question of character

Habit #3:  They think they have all the answers
Warning Sign for #3:  A leader without followers

Habit #4:  They ruthlessly eliminate anyone who isn’t completely behind them

Warning Sign for #4:  Executive departures

Habit #5: They are consummate spokespersons, obsessed with the company image

Warning Sign of #5:  Blatant attention-seeking
Habit #6: They underestimate obstacles

Warning Sign of #6:  Excessive hype

Habit #7: They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past

Warning Sign of #7:  Constantly referring to what worked in the past.

What are your thoughts on this as it relates to the church?   Read the article here. 

Coach trainer Christian Mickelsen listed the following 7 questions to help you evaluate what changes you need to make for 2012.  Want to have your best year ever in 2012? Here are 7 questions to ask yourself to be set up to *CRUSH IT* in the year ahead. Grab a pen and paper (or just click reply and type inside this email)…

#1: What went really well over the last year? Even if you didn’t achieve everything you wish you had, there were probably some highlights, list those.

#2: Why did it go well?  Rarely do people think about WHY good things happened. Be sure to examine this. Then ask…

#3: How can you do more of it?  Let’s amplify your successes

#4: What could have gone better? Let’s not spend a lot of time on this, but find your top 3 areas where there’s room for improvement

#5: What will you do differently this year?  What are you going to stop doing completely, outsource, or get better at in 2012?

#6: What would make the coming year a total 10?  A total 10 for results AND a total 10 for fun and enjoyment (gotta enjoy the ride)

#7: What could make achieving a total 10 year faster and easier?  What would short cut the achievement curve so you get to the good stuff even faster? Maybe hiring someone new or making some great connection? Or something else?

Then I make sure you’ve set specific goals to help make 2012 more of what you want.  like  …Here’s to making 2012 your best year ever!!

When I did a survey this summer of the 500 people on my mailing list, asking them what was the #1 ministry/professional issue that troubles them, the run away winner was: Conflict. (#2 was staff relations, but more about that later). I asked the same group what the #1 interpersonal problem was that troubled them, their answer was…you guessed it:  conflict. 

I am currently working on a Teleseminar and a Group Coaching program for the spring on Conflict Management.   As I am reading and researching, I will occasionally throw out what I believe are helpful tidbits to be of help to you (and also hopefully whet your appetite for the program that is coming in the spring). 

To understand the cycle of conflict is to better be able to identify when a group is moving into significant conflict. (the cycle is not a one-time thing, but a repeating and escalating cycle. 

The four phases are:

1. Issues:  the cycle begins with issues that arise in need of resolution.  That may seem obvious and straightforward, but seldom is.  At times parties will disagree that an issue even exists.  (I have recently been working with a church where [as the church is imploding] the chairman of the elders refuses to allow a mediator to come in because “we really have no conflict.” )  Other times even when the discomfort is blatantly obvious, there is disagreement on the issues that are causing the discomfort.    In still other cases, presenting issues can be only an outward or current expression of what are the real issues—often deeper and longer term than the current “issue”.  Those issues may be substantive, psychological or procedural.

A critical skill in this phase is to enable various parties not only to identify, but also to express what it is that they really want.  (They may not even know!)  If the issues can be identified early in the process and honestly explored, the cycle can often be stopped.

2. Triggers:  Once the opportunity to address issues passes without action, escalation usually begins.  Events related to or arising out of the issues occur that inflame one side or the other or both.  The basic theme in this phase is that emotions become actively involved.   The issue may even become increasingly buried beneath the expression of negative emotion. 

3. Behaviors:  We begin to make choices about how we will respond to the conflict situation.   The more these choices are consciously thought out the more able we are to be able to contribute positively to the situation.

4. Consequences:  We eventually begin to see the effects of our behavioral choices. Sometimes our choices have the consequences we intend.  Other times they do not.   The key is to not lose sight of intent and to clearly keep the real issues at the center of the discussion. 

If the church leader(s) is not attentive to the real issues and the phases of the conflict cycle, the cycle continues with new triggers, new behaviors and deeper consequences.    The longer the cycle goes on, the faster the cycles move and the more intense they become. 

If the parties involved are willing to search together for the issues behind the cycle, resolution is more likely to occur.   The goal of the church leader should be to decrease the frequency of the cycle and to keep the parties focused on the issues that are its source.

More could be said (and will be).  But that is enough conflict theory for today.  Do you have thoughts or examples of any of this?  Please share them in the comments below.

(Some of the above content came from a workshop presented by the Atlantic Provincial Primary Health Care Initiative and the Nova Scotia Dept. of Health.)