Conflict: Generational Differences tagged: ,

Conflict: Generational Differences

Posted by in Uncategorized

“I don’t think he meant any harm. He’s a good man.”

These words were spoken by a pastor while describing a tense meeting with his church leadership. The words are probably true; they are also beside the point.

“I don’t think he meant any harm” makes several assumptions. First, the statement implies the pastor and his critic share a common definition of the problem. When trying to solve the same problem, I can be right and you can be wrong (or misinformed or well intended). For example, if we are traveling toward the same destination and on reaching a crossroad I want to turn right while you insist on going to the left, then one of us is right and the other is wrong. But, what if our destination is “home”: turning right would take us to my home while turning left is the way to your home. Or, what if my intention is to stop and pick up a third passenger before we arrive at our destination? The argument over which direction to travel means nothing until we know we are trying to solve the same problem.

Second, the pastor’s assessment was beside the point because every man is the hero in his own story. The pastor’s evaluation of the situation is only helpful if he first understands the church member’s perspective. How does the critic understand the problem? What assumptions is he operating from? What does he think a successful solution to the problem looks like? What is his story and in what way is he the hero? None of us can escape our culture; and each generation within our larger culture views the world in a slightly different way. Imagine a multi-faceted object with each facet representing a value we all (or nearly all) agree are good. Each person ranks those values differently. While I am well aware there are differences in each generation – individuals don’t always fit neatly into sociologist’s categories – it is helpful in managing conflict to keep in mind how different people within your church (or within the denomination) rank different values.

It is common to speak of four broad categories of adults in the U.S. today.

The Builder Generation: These are the people born prior to 1946. They are aged 61 and above. Builders experienced the Great Depression (either as an adult or a child) and WWII. They also experienced the post war boom and the idyllic 50′s. They value:

Hard work
Loyalty
Privacy
Cautiousness
Stability

Baby Boomers: Born between 1946 and 1964, Boomers are now between the ages of 43 and 61. Boomers tend to value:

Causes
Results
Independence
Quality

The Buster Generation: Born between 1965 and 1981, Busters are between the ages of 26 and 42. They tend to be:

Pragmatic
Community oriented
Rejecting of what they see as the “Me first” consumerism of the Boomers

The ‘Net Generation: The Internet Generation are those young adults born after 1981. These are people who:

Thrive on change
Have no denominational/party loyalty
Are more comfortable with digital communication than face-to-face communication.
Are somewhat jaded. Nothing shocks them; they’ve seen it all.


Let’s take a little side trip into how generational differences play out in church or denominational conflict. At lunch recently a friend was telling me about a church council meeting he attended earlier that week. He assumed everyone in the meeting was interested in being transparent and raised the question of how best to communicate the content of the meeting to the whole congregation. In return he was accused by a senior adult (the proverbial “little old lady”) of not understanding church polity and warned that chaos would follow if everyone in the church were informed of the decision making process. People needed to trust the leaders they had chosen, he was told, keeping the congregation abreast of the process as well as the final decisions made would simply lead to anarchy. My friend was so surprised he was speechless (something that doesn’t happen often).

Notice the clash of values: transparency is good, my young friend believes, so we must attempt to communicate the process as well as the outcome. The discussion and arguments that would likely ensue are worth the trouble so all can have input, instant (relatively so) communication, and the church leadership will have the information necessary to make on-the-fly adjustments (flexibility). Or the senior adult woman’s belief: maintaining the status quo will promote stability: it’s the manner in which the church is accustomed to making decisions. The people trust their lay leadership; that why they voted for them. Excessive disclosure would send the message that the leadership is floundering and needs direction: people would begin to wonder what was wrong.

Listening to the other side means validating the underlying themes: flexibility and stability are both worthy goals and aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Privacy and community are equally appealing; both have their place in life.

Finally, the morality of the critic is not necessarily germane to finding a solution to the problem. Good men sometimes make poor decisions. Bad men can have good ideas; even if their motivation is one of self interest.

What to do with critics? Empathy is the first step. Walk a mile in his shoes. Or, to borrow a newer aphorism, seek first to understand. Any solution you propose that leaves him being less than the hero in his own story will lead to more conflict, not less. Next, work on framing the problem in a manner that is understood by all. If you are going to disagree at least the argument will be an honest one over the best way to achieve the goal; not a frustrating, endless escalation because the two of you are trying to reach different destinations. Finally, don’t be afraid of conflict (not that the pastor I was talking with was afraid; but conflict avoidance is common among ministers). Sometimes our best attempts to reach a mutually agreed upon solution are just not meant to be; calmly holding firm to a clearly articulated position at least buys you respect.