Spiritual/Secular insights to principles from 18 Jan 2006

1/18/2006
Three insights and their secular and spiritual applications

1. Conflict without contention
In the spiritual realm, we often shun conflict because we associate it with contention. In reality, conflict is merely opposing ideas or forces. Contention is conflict, but conflict is not necessarily contention. In the church, we have great examples where conflicts (or opposing points of view) are necessary. All presidencies have two counselors to the president for the purpose of providing checks and balances. In many places, we have large councils. An example of conflict without contention comes from my mission. We, along with our mission president, were deciding where new missionaries from the MTC should serve and who their companion should be. We had watched the new missionaries all day with prayers in our hearts for guidance. At the end of the night, we sat down with the President and shared our ideas. I had firm ideas of what I thought should happen. As we discussed, though, we heard different ideas and different reasoning. As I heard some of these, my ideas changed. After about twenty minutes, we had reached our decision unanimously. The amazing thing to me was that we all had different ideas at the beginning, but we were united in the end. I might have made the wrong decisions if I had been making them on my own, but opposing points of few helped me to change my mind.
The same principle applies in a secular sense. Most of what we think, do, and believe in our lives is a result of our environment. Most children grow up to share the same political views of their parents. Therefore, I have a different perception of the world than those around me. In the Columbia mission, conflict would have helped create a solution. Too often we see conflict as criticism or an effort to undermine. Linda Ham and other top-level NASA administrators kept tight control over everything that happens. The attitude seemed to be “don’t rock the boat.” But the truth is that in rocking the boat, we’ll probably learn to make submarines. If the people with opposing views in NASA could have agreed at the outset to create a win-win solution, then conflict probably would have saved lives and the space shuttle.

2. Competition is bad
When we speak of competition, we aren’t referring to healthy athletic competition, although that too can get out of hand. We are referring to the competition that pits on person against another in order to be better than that person. In the gospel, competition is one of the worst problems that a person can have. A man may pit himself against another to become an Elder’s quorum president or a zone leader or a bishop. (It is possible for the person being competed against to not be aware of the competition.) When this happens, all pure motives leave that person’s heart. He is no longer doing all his home teaching for the love of God and fellow man, he is doing it to be recognized as someone who does all their home teaching. He no longer wants to teach people to bring salvation to them, he is teaching so he can be recognized as the best missionary. It is important that we eliminate competition out of our gospel lives in order to do all things for the right reasons.
Competition in the secular world leads people to make inappropriate sacrifices for the purpose of getting ahead. In the Columbia case study, we can see that Linda Ham was one of these people. In the case study, we read: “Ham also knew that a delay in STS-114 would jeopardize a major management goal- to launch Node 2 of the International Space Station by February 19, 2004. Management considered that goal critical for two reasons. First, Node 2 would complete the U.S. core of the Space Station. Second, NASA and the Space Station Program had faced increased scrutiny in recent years from the White House Office of Management and Budget.” We can see here that NASA was competing to retain funds from the federal government. This competition led the management to make flawed decisions. They refused to postpone flights that were potentially hazardous in order to avoid scrutiny and retain funds.

3. Ruthless compassion
Ruthless compassion goes beyond win-win. It is WIN-WIN. The quality of having ruthless compassion takes time to develop. In the gospel, this means that one is dedicated to achieving their goals, but they recognize that their goals can only be accomplished through people, and people are best motivated by love. I can find application for this in my calling. If a member of the quorum isn’t doing their home teaching, I have a few options. I could scream at them. I could publicly humiliate them in quorum meetings. I could threaten them with hellfire and damnation. Or, I could recognize that they have a problem. Home teaching itself might not be the issue. They could be painfully shy or don’t feel they have a testimony. I could take time to talk with them and support them. I could radiate the love of Christ for them. I could focus on them and their deeper issues rather than the immediate problem. I would be focused on what needs to be done (the home teaching) but recognizing that true home teaching could only be achieved through individuals.
The administrators at NASA could have used some ruthless compassion. They could definitely be considered ruthless- they were willing to sacrifice lives in order to achieve their goals. If they had applied compassion, they would have been willing to focus on the real mechanics that make the shuttle programs work. The real mechanics are the people. People are the creators of all machines, ideas, and results. Rather than focusing on the results, managers should focus on people in order to achieve results.