Managing Missionary Conflict Constructively

By David R. Dunaetz

This chapter is from Essentials for People Care and Development: A Collection of Best Practices, Research, Reflections, and Strategies, edited by Heather Pubols and Geoff Whiteman (Missio Nexus Improve Series).

Andrew and Brandon have recently started a pioneer church planting work in a new field with their mission. Andrew thinks that a coffee shop would be the most effective way to meet new people and develop relationships, while also providing a place for future meetings. Brandon believes it is more culturally appropriate to focus on hospitality and visiting people in their homes because sharing meals is the normal context for developing relationships; such an approach also involves much less financial risk. Their disagreement begins to intensify. Will this become a destructive conflict that will hinder their ministries, or could it be constructive and enable greater effectiveness?

Such a situation is very common in missionary contexts when missionaries work closely with each other and are highly dependent on one another, especially if they expect their team to be an important source of emotional support and encouragement. The initial tension can escalate and become destructive, eventually contributing to one or both missionaries leaving the field.¹ However, if managed correctly, their conflict can be constructive, leading to a solution that is better than either of Andrew or Brandon’s original ideas. If the missionaries are aware of each other’s concerns, their differences of perspective, and any power imbalances that exist within their team, a constructive conflict becomes much more likely. That will enable them to work better as a team making continued ministry more fruitful.

Missionary conflict is inevitable and potentially dangerous if mismanaged. However, when missionaries in conflict seek to cooperate by understanding each other’s perspectives and interests, creative solutions can be found. This requires time and effort, and sometimes outside help. However, cooperation with a desire to love and serve the other is a Christ-like response that is well worth the cost.

The Dual Concern Model of Interpersonal Relationships

To understand a conflict, it is useful to understand what each party is concerned about, that is, their interests. The dual concern model of conflict management (model simply means a simplification of a complex reality focusing on only a few key aspects) describes four different ways people respond in conflicts based on the focus of their interests.²

When Andrew and Brandon are having a conflict, their interests can be divided into two sets: the interests of Andrew and the interests of Brandon. Andrew has four ways to approach the conflict (see figure 1). First, he can be concerned about his interests, but not those of Brandon (high concern for self, low concern for other). In this case, his approach might be characterized by forcing, using his power to get Andrew to accept what he wants. A second option is accommodation (low concern for self, high concern for other), deciding to only be concerned about Andrew’s interests and denying his own.

A third approach is to simply decide that the disagreement is not worth discussing, which leads to avoidance (low concern for self, low concern for other). A fourth approach, collaboration, describes a situation with both high concern for one’s own interests and high concern for the other’s interests. If Andrew and Brandon want to collaborate, they will first strive to understand what each other is concerned about and then will consider various solutions that will maximize addressing all these concerns.

	Low concern for other’s interests	High concern for other’s interests
High concern for one’s own interests	Forcing	Collaboration
Low concern for one’s own interests	Avoidance	Accommodation

This fourth approach (collaboration, sometimes called cooperation) has been empirically demonstrated to lead to the best outcomes in organizations⁴ including mission organizations.⁵ 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” (Philippians 2:4, ESV). When missionaries disagree with each other, often both have legitimate concerns. Solutions that address all of these concerns are the best, but they often demand much time, effort, and creativity to find.

Missionary Conflict Should Be Expected

Mission organizations generally have a clear purpose specific to the organization (e.g., fulfilling the Great Commission or demonstrating God’s love through economic development). But how this purpose plays out in a specific context may be anything but clear. Missionaries working in teams must coordinate their efforts if they wish to accomplish anything. They need to share a common vision, a common set of values, and a common strategy. However, missionaries often come from vastly different backgrounds.

Andrew and Brandon may both love God and his Word, but they also have distinct personalities, perspectives, and knowledge. Andrew is more extroverted and previously worked in the restaurant industry. He can’t imagine a better form of outreach than a coffee shop. Brandon is quieter and has led several of his close, long-term friends to Christ in their homes. He can’t picture himself in a coffee shop ministry. Because their different backgrounds prevent them from understanding each other, the tension in their relationship escalates.

Our different backgrounds shape the lenses through which we view the world. Andrew and Brandon both see opportunities for ministry through their own uniquely shaped lens. This creates the foundation for conflicts. To cooperate, Andrew and Brandon need to understand one another’s lens so that they see the situation from the other’s point of view. This enables them to consider each other’s interests and concerns. However, understanding another’s perspective requires hard work.

Collaboration Is Difficult

From a scriptural point of view, collaboration seems like it would be a natural first choice since this approach aligns nicely with the concepts of love, service, and humility. However, it can take a lot of time and effort, requiring more than what Andrew or Brandon may be ready to provide. This is especially true if there is a power imbalance, that is, one missionary has more power than the other.

For example, if Brandon is the field chair, he may have the authority to tell Andrew what they are going to do. This requires far less effort than coming up with a solution that addresses both his and Andrew’s concerns. Such an approach is Forcing, or “lording it over” (Matthew 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.⁶ A ministry with a leader who uses such tactics is not likely to be very fruitful, at least from God’s perspective (1 Peter 5:2–3; cf. Demetrius in 3 John 9–11).

An imbalance of power may also occur if one missionary is more verbally fluent and can process information more quickly than the other. If Andrew presents many reasons for his ideas faster than Brandon can understand them, Andrew may come across as trying to deceive or trick Brandon. In this case, Andrew needs to be careful not to force more information on Brandon quicker than Brandon can handle it. This makes cooperation even more difficult and time demanding.

If Brandon has positional power but Andrew has the power that comes from fluency, it is quite possible that Brandon will use his power to avoid addressing the issues that concern Andrew, or, in the worst-case scenario, use his power to remove Andrew from ministry. Andrew needs to learn how to slow down and work on persuading Brandon of the validity of his concerns in a way that does not threaten Brandon. Nevertheless, in some cases, an outside mediator will be necessary. Wise mission organization leaders will provide such a structure and encourage missionaries to use it.⁷

Mediation

Sometimes understanding each other’s perspective and interests is so difficult that it requires outside help from a third party. A mediator can come alongside two missionaries in conflict and help them find a solution that they both find satisfactory and beneficial. In general, mediation is a very effective way to resolve conflict.⁸ Not only can it lead to a constructive solution that benefits both missionaries, but it can make their relationship stronger as they understand each other better and grow in mutual trust.

Who Should Be the Mediator?

Mediation is different than both adjudication and arbitration.⁹ In adjudication, a judge has the legal power to choose the outcome after hearing each party’s evidence and argument. In arbitration, this power is given to an expert who understands the technicalities involved and is committed to fairness. However, in mediation, the mediator simply helps the two parties come up with a solution that is acceptable to both. The two parties are not adversaries, but rather collaborators who work together in a process directed by the mediator.

This means that the mediator must be impartial and trusted by both missionaries. If the mediator is not impartial or trusted by both parties, collaboration is less likely. One missionary can quickly feel that the mediator is more aligned with the other missionary, which may hinder the communication needed for constructive problem-solving.

In missionary contexts, location and culture become important factors in determining who should be a mediator. Ideally, the mediator should be someone who can physically meet with both of the missionaries to make effective communication more likely. This might mean that the missionaries ask a trusted member of the local culture or a coworker from their home culture whom they both trust to be a mediator.

However, such a person might not exist. In that case, meeting with a trusted person from their sending organization via video conferencing might be appropriate. To be an effective mediator, this person should be known by both missionaries, either personally or through endorsement by mission organization leaders who have encouraged the use of a mediator.

Sometimes mission organizations have a designated mediator (or ombudsman) who is a member of the organization or who has a contract with the organization to help out when a mediator is needed. For mediation to be effective, both missionaries must trust this person; if mission organizations promote using this person as a mediator before conflicts occur, missionaries are more likely to trust him or her, increasing the likelihood of successful conflict resolution.

The Mediation Process

There is no right way to do mediation. Any process which will get the missionaries to collaborate constructively to resolve their conflict is appropriate. However, there are some general steps that many mediators follow. These include initial meetings with the two parties separately, one or more problem-solving sessions, and follow-up.

Initial Individual Meetings

If Andrew and Brandon agree to mediation, and if they both trust Charles who is willing to play the role of the mediator, Charles may meet with each missionary separately to clarify what is going on and what the issues are. Charles will ask Andrew probing questions to understand why a coffee shop ministry is so important to him and what he expects the outcomes to be. Charles will ask about other concerns that Andrew has. Those concerns are often more psychological such as how the coffee shop ministry relates to his identity, what he wants his relationship with Brandon to look like, and what he considers a fair way to resolve the conflict.¹⁰

Charles will also explain that the purpose of the mediation process is to help Andrew and Brandon to work together to find a mutually beneficial solution to their conflict. He will ask Andrew if he agrees to that purpose and if he is willing to follow some basic ground rules requiring a willingness to listen to Brandon’s point of view and to speak only in a respectful way when they all meet together. After meeting with Andrew, Charles will organize a similar meeting with Brandon.

Meeting All Together

After connecting with the two missionaries individually, the mediator (Charles) will organize a meeting for all three of them together. At this meeting, Charles will again emphasize that the purpose of the meeting is so that Andrew and Brandon can figure out a solution together that responds to both the concerns of both. He will also explain the importance of the ground rules concerning respect and listening to each other.

After gaining verbal agreement to the process, Charles will ask one of the missionaries to explain what he wants first, and then ask the other to share what he wants. Charles will guide the conversation so that Andrew expresses all the concerns that he had previously shared with Charles, making sure that Brandon can provide feedback to Andrew demonstrating that either he understands these concerns or that he needs additional information to understand them. Similarly, Charles makes sure Brandon shares all his concerns and that Andrew understands them.

After all the concerns have been clearly communicated, Charles will lead the two missionaries into a period of brainstorming of possible solutions. The possible solutions will be discussed, evaluated, and possibly modified. An important part of this discussion is negotiation, modifying a proposal so that a maximum number of interests are met in a mutually beneficial way.¹¹ Some Christians confuse negotiation with moral compromise and thus refuse to modify their initial proposal or demands. The role of the mediator is to make clear that most, if not all, of what is being negotiated is not a question of moral right or wrong.¹² In this case, there are no biblical injunctions against either witnessing in a coffee house or in individuals’ homes.

Charles will ensure that Andrew and Brandon keep negotiating until they come to a mutually beneficial solution. In this case, Andrew and Brandon agree to set up a coffee shop for an initial six-month trial. They will measure the success of the coffee shop ministry by the number of visits made to the homes of the people whom they had met in the coffee shop. Andrew and Brandon tentatively agree that if during the first six months, they each visit at least 20 families because of this ministry, it will be a success. This solution responds to both Andrew’s concern for starting a coffee shop ministry and Brandon’s concerns of limiting the financial risk and focusing on meeting in people’s homes.

Follow Up

To close the negotiating session or sessions, Charles will encourage Andrew and Brandon to write down their agreement. After several months, Charles may contact them to see how it is going. It is possible that further mediation might be necessary, especially if the trial solution is not going well. But it is even more likely that Andrew and Brandon have learned, through this process, how to constructively manage their disagreements.

Recommendations

Although collaboration ought to be the default approach to managing conflict on a missionary team, finding possible solutions that take into consideration each missionary’s perspective, values, interests, and concerns is time-consuming, hard work. Philippians 2:4 describes collaboration perfectly, “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (ESV). The preceding verse explains how we can do it: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3, ESV). The verses which follow underscore that such collaboration is a manifestation of the Christlikeness to which we as Christians and as missionaries are called, “Have this mind among yourselves which is yours in Christ Jesus, who … emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:5–7a).

Questions for Reflection

• This chapter presents collaboration as the best solution to missionary conflict in most situations. What do you think are some of the greatest barriers to collaboration? What can be done to reduce these barriers?
• Occasionally, forcing, accommodation, or avoiding might be better responses to missionary conflict than collaboration. Under what conditions might each of these be the most appropriate response?

About the Author

David R. Dunaetz is chair and professor of leadership, organizational psychology, and public administration at Azusa Pacific University, California. He previously served as a church planting missionary for 17 years with WorldVenture in France.

Parts of this article have been published previously in David R. Dunaetz, “Missionary Conflict: Destructive or Constructive?” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 58, no. 2 (2022): 57–59 (used by permission).

Notes

1. Rob Hay et al., Worth Keeping: Global Perspectives on Best Practice in Missionary Retention (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2007). ↩︎
2. Ralph H. Kilmann and Kenneth W. Thomas, “Developing a Forced-Choice Measure of Conflict-Handling Behavior: The ‘Mode’ Instrument,” Educational and Psychological Measurement 37, no. 2 (1977); David R. Dunaetz, “Submission or Cooperation? Two Competing Approaches to Conflict Management in Mission Organizations,” in Controversies in Mission: Theology, People, and Practice in the 21st Century, ed. R. Cathcart Scheuermann and E. L. Smither (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2016); Jeffery Z. Rubin, Dean G. Pruitt, and Sung H. Kim, Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement, ed. Philip G. Zimbardo, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Series in Social Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994). ↩︎
3. Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, Social Conflict; Dunaetz, “Submission or Cooperation?”; W. W. Wilmot and J. L. Hocker, Interpersonal Conflict, 8th ed. (McGraw Hill, 2011). ↩︎
4. Jonathan A. Rhoades and Peter J. Carnevale, “The Behavioral Context of Strategic Choice in Negotiation: A Test of the Dual Concern Model,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29, no. 9 (1999); M. Afzalur Rahim, Managing Conflict in Organizations, 3rd ed. (Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 2001). ↩︎
5. David R. Dunaetz and Ant Greenham, “Power or Concerns: Contrasting Perspectives on Missionary Conflict,” Missiology: An International Review 46, no. 1 (2018). ↩︎
6. Dunaetz and Greenham, “Power or Concerns”; Dunaetz, “Submission or Cooperation?” ↩︎
7. David R. Dunaetz, “Long Distance Managerial Intervention in Overseas Conflicts: Helping Missionaries Reframe Conflict Along Multiple Dimensions,” Missiology: An International Review 38, no. 3 (2010). ↩︎
8. P. J. Carnevale and D. G. Pruitt, “Negotiation and Mediation,” Annual Review of Psychology 43, no. 1 (1992): 531–582; D. G. Pruitt and P. J. Carnevale, Negotiation in Social Conflict (Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1993). ↩︎
9. Wilmot and Hocker, Interpersonal Conflict. ↩︎
10. For a detailed explanation of what these concerns might look like in missionary contexts and why they are important, see D. R. Dunaetz, “Mission in Evolving Cultures: Constructively Managing Music-Related Conflict in Cross-Cultural Church Planting Contexts,” Missiology: An International Review 44, no. 3 (2016a): 296–310; D. R. Dunaetz, “Constructively Managing Program-Related Conflict in Local Churches,” Christian Education Journal 16, no. 2 (2019): 259–274. ↩︎
11. C. K. W. de Dreu, S. L. Koole, and W. Steinel, “Unfixing the Fixed Pie: A Motivated Information-Processing Approach to Integrative Negotiation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, no. 6 (2000): 975–987; Wilmot and Hocker, Interpersonal Conflict. ↩︎
12. L. Greenhalgh, “Managing Conflict,” Sloan Management Review 27, no. 4 (1986): 45–52. ↩︎