The Importance of Interaction Part 2

In my last post, I discussed why its so important for church leaders to interact with members, visitors, etc. I covered very little regarding staff-to-staff interaction. And while many of the same points from my first post on interaction apply, I argue that its equally important (if not more so) for there to be frequent, positive interaction between church staff members.

Previous posts have mentioned the importance of relational work environments. But I think this is a topic that needs to be emphasized and re-emphasized. Church leaders can have some of the most pleasant work environments around. They can be encouraging, there can be genuine concern for each individual's well-being, and there can be room for creativity and autonomy more so than any other work environment in our entire free-enterprise system. But that is likely not the norm, meaning there are many churches where the work environment can be as cold and robotic as the human resources sector at the IRS (ok, probably not that bad).

To explain why it is so important for church staff to interact frequently and positively, I point to social network theory. This theory focuses on relationships within any given social network. Building off of the social construction theory, it also holds to the view that reality is an off-spring of social interaction. Within social network theory, individuals within a given network all possess different roles. in regard to a church, the roles could be stereotypically assigned, where a church secretary is the mother of the group, taking care of the pastor's day-to-day tasks, and constantly taking on what needs to be done. The youth minister could be the young, fun-loving one. The music minister the artsy, socially awkward one. The pastor the gentle, encouraging, motivating leader.

As I said, this is very stereotypical. And this is likely what roles most church members would assign to these staff members. However, this could be far from the truth. According to social network theory, the relationship between people in a network is more important than the characteristics of each individual. For instance, the pastor mentioned above may be gentle, encouraging, and a motivator. But if he does not act this way toward the members of his network (i.e. his church staff), then he will not be recognized as such. Instead, he will be viewed as a hypocrite, a nuisance, and/or an unfit leader.

Interaction - the frequent and positive kind - shapes the types of relationships we have for the better. Avoidance, the opposite of interaction, becomes an infection in a church network if it continues. If a moment of passionate disagreement leaves two or more church leaders needing to get away from their counterparts for a moment, this is healthy. In fact, working closely in any situation or environment will likely lead to stressful situations where each person needs to allow themselves some space for the sake of peace. This time of avoidance, however, must not last long. It can quickly become unhealthy and lead to deeper seeded problems.

If two ministers become deeply engaged in an argument over whether to put more effort into evangelizing the north side of the city or the south side, its probably a good idea for them to take a break so as to not deviate from their point of contention: where to put their church's resources. If they never come back together to figure out what to do, each will indefinitely believe the other to be hard-headed and difficult to work with. The more time that comes between them, the more each will tear down the other in their head, replaying their last conversation together and why they were right, the other wrong, and how terribly misguided the church would be if the other were making all the decisions. Then they will pass each other in the hallway after a few days of not speaking. Neither will know what to say, so they say nothing and keep walking their separate ways. With this, what began as a disagreement in vision will morph into a complete distrust, disrespect, and dismissal of the other as a ministerial teammate altogether. The simple act of each avoiding the other will confirm to both that the other is a bad minister. And in some ways a bad person. How could anyone want to work with them? What will become of the church if others agree with such foolish ideas?

Kind of sheds new light on what Jesus said in Matthew 5:24 about being reconciled with our brother before carrying out our other responsibilities. I think he knew (because he is God) that when we avoid each other, our imaginations fill in the blanks. Not true if there is frequent interaction. As we spend time together, continue talking, persevere in working out our differences, we learn to interact positively with each other. The more positive interactions we have, the more frequent they become. It's cyclical.

Often it seems counter-intuitive that the relationships a person has determines his or her role in a given network, rather than the role determining the relationships. Nonetheless, communication theorists convincingly argue the former. The influence of social networks is a powerful thing. I believe a positive social network should be modeled by church leaders. Such a network cannot happen without frequent and positive interaction.

If you are on a church staff, spend less time at your desk. We all have busy days, but we also have an important role in a social network. Your social network is of extreme importance, as it needs to be an example for other networks. Walk around to the other offices in the building. Say hello to everyone you come across. Ask someone how their day is...and mean it. Gather up everybody who can and go out to lunch. Build a network - a community - that your congregation is able to lean on and learn from.