by Eddie Pipkin

If you’ve been catching the World Cup action like us, you have been greatly entertained.  The highs; the lows; all the spectacle and pathos that a worldwide sporting competition can generate.  Of course, as is always for any high-stakes event in which humans engage, there has been plenty of controversy.  Questionable officiating calls.  Politicians inserting themselves into the process.  All the drama.  And people have opinions.  Strong opinions. People always do.  That’s half the fun, isn’t it?  That is, if you’re watching sports.  People carry over that propensity to express passionate opinions into the ministry space, too, and that’s not always fun, is it?

Any close call in a World Cup game is going to have fans celebrating or protesting, depending on their team.  The official is either going to be the wisest of the wise or a corrupt villain intentionally sabotaging your favorite players.  It can get intense, and the ubiquity of social media has only intensified the intensity.  In a 24-hour cycle of leveraged outrage, the Internet stokes the flames of argument.

Ministry decisions, likewise, have always provoked strong opinions.  People react to changes in ways that can challenge leadership.

It is a worthy debate whether the societal shifts in combative opinion-sharing have carried over into other social settings, in our case the life of the local church, but even if that is true, it’s only an evolution of a reality that has always existed.  Change the worship times for your congregation: expect a backlash!  Change the style of worship music: batten down the hatches in preparation of the resulting firestorm!  (Music changes were the singular defining element of the “worship wars” of the past couple of decades.)

In very few of these cases is the reaction exclusively negagtive.  A response to a universally negative reaction would be conceivably easier.  Our usual confusion and drama are the result of reactions that reflect diametrically opposite opinions.  Half the people love the change.  Half the people hate the change.  Conflict ensues.

It’s good to step back and appreciate the positives of people having such strong reactions.  If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t react.  Just as soccer fans have intense feelings about their national teams, local church participants feel strongly attached to their worship communities.  We are messing around with things they love.  We would do well to honor their passion and connection.

We should reflect on ways to promote healthy change while honoring that passion and sense of identity.

We also make the process better when we have established a culture of feedback.  If there is a safe, standard way to express opinions and share ideas – if it’s part of who we are on a regular basis – people feel empowered to share what they are feeling.  They will tend to do that sharing in healthier ways, and they will genuinely feel like they are being heard.

These two important considerations mean that it’s a good idea, when contemplating a potentially controversial decision, to consult the people most likely to be impacted.  Avoid the impression that they have veto power over any decisions, but give them a chance to offer insights and ask questions that can help define your decision-making process.

When we’re making a tough call, we should be crystal clear about our criteria for making that call, and we should communicate clearly and patiently why we have decided to do what we’re doing.  Sometimes, clear and honest communication helps sway people to agree with us.  Sometimes, it gives them space to begrudgingly agree that, while they would do things differently, there are honest and thoughtful reasons for the path we are choosing.  They can disagree and yet respect our choices.

If they don’t agree and can’t see the logic of our decision-making process, we should give them a chance to blow off steam, if possible.  Acknowledge that their emotions are valid.  Give them a chance to grieve, if our decision impacts them in a significant way.  We should always encourage people to express their displeasure or question our judgement in ways that are healthy and purposeful, not destructive.  But we should not be dismissive of their feelings or opinions, if expressed in good faith.  If we can offer them a way to channel their negative or grief into something positive, it’s worth making that effort.  In this way, from pain something positive can come.

As in soccer competitions (where FIFA rules the roost), the decision-making process should always be explained fully, as often as possible in as many venues as possible.  We should be clear about what each decision-making process is and who has the authority to make decisions.  This builds trust and promotes integrity in the process.  (Many soccer fans would, of course, argue that their governing bodies still have loads of work to do in this regard.  How do you think your reputation as leaders would be described if your congregation was asked about transparency in decision making?)

Giving people a voice and partnering with them in the making of decisions does not guarantee that there will never be disgruntled community members after you make a tough call, but it does lessen the volume of complaints, dampen the negative effects of blowback, and instill a sense of humility and honest dialogue in the dealings.  These are worthy outcomes that lead to better relationships (the core of our work) and productive cultures that are able to get things done with a minimum of friction and an abundance of team spirit.

You can even infuse these processes of feedback and expressions of institutional frustration with FUN.  I ended the opening paragraph of this blog with the assertion that “It isn’t much fun is it?” when people express their displeasure, and, it’s true, people can be downright nasty when they are unhappy, but if we lay some groundwork about how to express displeasure – the most common of emotions! – and do it in a way that is loving and even playful, it’s like putting rubber mulch on the playground.  People are less likely to get hurt in the normal course of the daily rough-and-tumble of getting things done.

Instead of having a plain old nondescript complaint or suggestion box, we could have a big paper-mache T-Rex complaint receptacle (feed him your complaints).  You could have a meeting where you ask people to write their complaints and/or suggestions for you on sticky notes and then have them physically attach them to you!  You could ask people to write one thing they would change in chalk in a group brainstorm session (public writing tends to be more civil and thoughtful).  There are a thousand ways to have fun with this.  Keep the dialogue going on a regular basis, which always creates a better interaction when tough-decision time looms.  And, as often as you can, make people balance their critiques with their praises.  Frame what they would change as a counterpart to what they love and would preserve.

What are the challenges you have faced in your leadership moments as you faced tough, controversial calls?  Have you found a way of approaching these difficult moments that keeps the peace and helps you feel positive with the results, or do you dread every instance, anticipating chaos and drama?  Share your stories!