INTERPERSONAL CRITICISM AND THE CLERGY: A PSYCHOSOCIAL STRATEGY TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACT

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of

Trinity Theological Seminary

In partial fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

By

Randy Garner, PhD

October 2009

Interpersonal Criticism and the Clergy: A Psychosocial Strategy to Mitigate Adverse Impact

Randall Garner, PhD

Read and Approved by:

__________________________________________ Elbert Elliot, Chairperson __________________________________________ Daniel Berger

___________________________________________ Stephen Williams, Vice President for Academic Affairs

ii

Copyright 2009 Randall Garner All Rights Reserved. Trinity Theological Seminary may reproduce and disseminate this document with permission of the author in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including preservation and instruction.

iii

Interpersonal Criticism and the Clergy: A Psychosocial Strategy to Mitigate Adverse Impact Abstract Three-studies involving members of the clergy as participants found that interpersonal criticism can have deleterious consequence for those in the ministry. Study one involved a randomly selected focus group of clergy who reported that criticism adversely affects interpersonal relationships and can lead to stress, burnout, and early departure from the ministry. Study 2 confirmed and extended the information found in the focus group. Clergy members reported that poorly handled criticism can lead to job, relational, interpersonal, and health issues. Study 3 presented an empirically-supported, biblically-based, practitioner-focused, psychosocial intervention designed to assist members of the clergy in addressing the difficulties encountered in criticism-prone situations. Follow-up evaluations found that the program was highly rated by the clergy-participants, resulted in attitudinal and behavioral changes related to criticism, and was recommended as a continuing education session for practicing clergy, as well as a needed addition to seminary training.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES .vii Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW . 1 Current Study .. 9 Importance of empirical Evaluation ... 12 Hypotheses ... 14 Considerations and Delimitations ... 15 Research Overview Summary .... 18 2. CRITICISM RESEARCH.. Responding to Criticism .. Giving Criticism ... What Works? . Research-Suggested Program Content . 3. BIBLICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ... Biblical Guidance and Advice .. Guidance from Jesus . Guidance from Acts 15 .. Guidance from Ephesians 4 20 21 22 23 26 28 30 30 32 37

Guidance from Proverbs .. 38

Summary .. 39 4. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION OF CRITICISM... 40 5. STUDY 1 OVERVIEW . 45 Study 1 Methods .. 45 6. STUDY 1 RESULTS .............................................................. 49 Focus Group Conclusion Statements 59 7. STUDY 1 DISCUSSION .. 60 8. STUDY 2 OVERVIEW . 64 Study 2 Methods .. 65 9. STUDY 2 RESULTS 67 10. STUDY 2 DISCUSSION 76 11. STUDY 3 OVERVIEW .. 80 Study 3 Methods ... 81 12. STUDY 3 RESULTS ... 89 13. STUDY 3 DISCUSSION ... 95 14. GENERAL DISCUSSION 99 REFERENCES . 108 APPENDIX A: Ministerial Interpersonal Skills Survey ... 118 APPENDIX B: Interpersonal Criticism Scale . 123 APPENDIX C: Outline of Criticism Management Training 124 APPENDIX D: Post Intervention Questions 126

vi

LIST OF TABLES Table Page

1. Respondents Denomination Affiliation . 68 2. Essential Interpersonal Skills Identified for Clergy . 69 3. Comparison of Respondents Perceptions of How Most People (In General) Versus Members of the Clergy Offer and Receive Criticism. 71 4. Perceived Consequences of Destructive Criticism 72 5. Attitudinal Measures of Criticism . 73 6. Received Personal Criticism in Last Year . 74 7. Mean and Standard Deviations for Each of the Immediate Feedback Attitudinal Questions and Items 89 8. Mean and Standard Deviations for Each of the Follow-up Survey Attitudinal Questions and Items 92

vii

Chapter 1 Interpersonal Criticism and the Clergy: A Psychosocial Strategy to Mitigate Adverse Impact Interpersonal skills such as the facility to handle interpersonal criticism are among the most important abilities necessary for success in various professions, including the clergy (Robinson, 2001). The inability to deftly handle receiving and giving criticism can give rise to a host of potentially adverse consequences (Garner, 2008; Hyde, Jappinen, Theorell, & Oxenstierna, 2006; Stone, Patton, & Heen, 2000). Not surprisingly, members of the clergy are not immune from the difficulties or stresses associated with criticism and criticismprone situations. Most pastors struggle with criticism (Goodall, 2003). Criticism and conflict go with the territory in professional ministry (Rediger, 1997, p. 35). Criticism can injure, discourage, anger, and cause pastors to leave the ministry prematurely. The tasks associated with the role of the minister can conflict with relationship roles that can manifest in the form of criticism, which is often viewed as being personally motivated (Friedman, Tidd, Currall, & Tsai, 2000). As part of the Pulpit and Pew Project at Duke University, Hogue and Wenge (2003, 2005) found that clergy experienced considerable stress as a result of receiving criticism from the congregation and this was identified as one of the top reasons individuals left the ministry. McKowns (2002) study of 122 members of the clergy demonstrated that interpersonal conflict, such as dealing with criticism, showed the strongest correlations with increased burnout,

depression, and the likelihood of leaving the ministry. This was consistent with Mills and Kovals (1971) earlier work which examined 500 protestant clergy and concluded that the majority had experienced strong negative stressful experiences, with the most common causal denominator being stress associated with interpersonal conflicts. Similarly, Jinkins (2002) suggests that pastors consistently report that interpersonal conflictswere among the more difficult aspects of pastoral leadership (p. 13). Lee (1999) assessed a sample of 312 ministers using the Ministry Demands Inventory (MDI). Using principal components analysis and a varimax rotation to determine groupings of stressors, factor loadings revealed that the most significant issue identified was personal criticism. This included criticism from a congregant leader, face-to-face criticism, as well as criticism about their devotion to the ministry and to their faith. According to Lee, the most stressful experience of the 17 items presented, being criticized by someone in a leadership position in the church, had been experienced by 46% of the sample at an average of twice in the last six months (p. 482). In fact, Lee concludes that ministry burnout appears to be more strongly related to the experience of personal criticism than other categories of demands (p. 488). The adverse consequences associated with chronic stress and burnout is higher in specific occupations such as social workers, healthcare providers, police officers, and clergy (Ferguson, 2008; Greenberg, 1990; Malony, 1988). Rayburn, Richmond, and Rogers (1986) found that ministers have the highest overall occupational environmental stress and vocational strain and next to the

lowest scores in overall personal resources (p. 540) (Also see Richmond, Rayburn, & Rogers, 1985). In other words, ministers are experiencing significant stressors resultant from their pastoral positions; however, they do not seek or find available appropriate resources that would help them to ameliorate the impact of such stressors. Many in the clergy find it difficult to discuss the need to ask for such assistance, as they are concerned they will be viewed by their congregation as being professionally inadequate (Blackbird & Wright, 1985; DeLuca, 1980; Ellison, Gay, & Glass, 1989; Grosch & Olson, 2000). Darling, Hill, and McWey (2004) found that stress associated with interpersonal factors such as criticism was directly and inversely related to quality of life issues for members of the clergy. Those who struggle to effectively handle interpersonal criticism are less likely to report strong satisfaction in their careers. In a study that assessed the impact of criticism on vocational issues (Garner, 2008), the stress associated with interpersonal criticism was rated as one of the highest occupational stressors and resulted in a number of reported deleterious health consequences. Additionally, the inability to effectively handle criticism has been identified as one of the top three reasons involved in terminations, resignations, and early departures from a career (Garner, 2005) and was a significant factor contributing to increased interpersonal stress and burnout. Lee and Iverson-Gilbert (2003) found that the impact of personal criticism on a sample of over 300 members of the clergy was strongly related to negative ratings on well-being and overall life satisfaction, and increased ratings for burnout.

Interestingly, research suggests that the main conflicts experienced by those who left the ministry could best be described as garden variety or everyday issues. This suggests that when such events are poorly or inadequately handled, they can create potentially disastrous results. According to Rediger (1997) it is easy for seemingly small complaints to become criticisms of the pastor if not properly handled. Beebe (2007) suggested that interpersonal conflict, such as interpersonal criticism, can be viewed as reflecting ones personal identification with and functioning in the pastoral role (p. 271). As a result, poorly crafted criticism can cut to the quick of an individuals sense of self-worth and have potentially devastating effects. Although the popular press literature is filled with anecdotes regarding parishioners questioning a pastors devotion (e.g., Rediger, 1997), Lee (1999) found that this was a relatively rare occurrence. More likely the sting of personal and family criticism was involved. Hogue and Wenger (2005) suggest that interpersonal issues such as poor criticism management, rather than doctrinal differences or hot-button issues such as homosexuality, were most likely to result in stress and end a pastors career early. Lee and Iverson-Gilbert (2003) note that although issues such as unreasonable expectations and time demands are encountered more regularly by members of the clergy, personal criticism is felt more deeply and is reported as having a more significant effect on the psychological and physical well-being of the minister. According to Becker (1999) criticism is often at the root of conflict between the clergy and the congregation, the lay leadership, and the

denominational administration; however, little has been done to empirically assess the effects or address a potential remedy. A number of studies involving clergy as participants have examined the demands of the vocation on issues such as burnout, stress, conflict, and so forth; however, few have specifically and empirically addressed the potentially negative consequences of interpersonal criticism on members of the clergy or empirically examined a strategy for reducing criticism-prone conflict. Lee (1999) suggested a decade ago that the impact of interpersonal criticism among the clergy needed much more attention. Mueller and McDuff (2004) offers that the relationship between a minister and the congregation has received only limited attention in the sociological literature. As a consequence, we know less about how working conditions affect theclergy than we know about the satisfaction of the working population in general (p. 268). Henry, Chertok, Keys, & Jegerski (1991) noted that little attention has been paid to the role and social context of pastoral ministry in research on ministerial stress (p. 932). Similarly, McKown (2002) concluded that hazards such dealing with criticism and conflict are talked about in seminars and books for pastors, however, there is currently a paucity of empirical data. One reason that the clergy-criticism phenomenon does not receive adequate attention is that clergy are faced with a role-expectancy conflict. Although clergy report that criticism is one of the biggest stressors (much more so than organizational issues or matters of theology), many ministers suffer in silence because they have been conditioned that they should be able to handle

criticism better. Clergy are prone to the social desirability phenomena and many will not admit to role overload, role insufficiency, or role strain (Beebe, 2007; Kennedy, Eckhardt, & Goldsmith, 1984; Rayburn et al., 1986). Pastors know this is a problem, but are unwilling to expose this concern for fear that they are not being consistent with their role or their calling. They want to appear to remain consistent with their vocational expectationyet often do not have sufficient and practical skills for addressing the topic of interpersonal criticism (Grosch & Olsen, 1991, 2000). Indeed, the general public often stereotype clergy as being very satisfied with their job, as these individuals are ostensibly following a calling and have self-selected to be in the ministry (Mueller & McDuff, 2004). However, research has found that clergy job satisfaction is not always high and clergy feel morally constrained to understate their dissatisfaction (Mueller & McDuff, 2004; Rose, 1999). Additionally, research suggests that pastors may tend to compartmentalize their various roles (Rodgerson & Piedmont, 1998) and may not use scriptural or religious coping strategies in their administrative or work environments. The pastor may be a different person with the congregation on Sunday than with the church staff on Monday. This role ambiguity and compartmentalizing can have consequential results for the clergy, the congregant, and the staff. Interpersonally, the minister can be in a psychological paradox by engaging in expected and accepted behavior in one situation that fulfills their public, pastoral role; however, they may find themselves operating from a different view of self in other, less formalized situations. The potential

schism that could result can lead to significant interpersonal conflict and adverse psychological manifestations (Hall, 1997; Krause, Ellison, & Wulff, 1988). Unfortunately, neither the seminary nor most denominational administrations are providing the type of practical training that could help. According to Hogue and Wenge (2005) many ex-pastors speak with considerable passion about inadequacies in their seminary education and of the insensitivity and lack of support that they receive from their denominational officials and the lay leaders of the church (p. ix). In fact, results from the Pulpit and Pew project at Duke Divinity School found that conflict with denominational officials was the second most common reason offered for why members of the clergy decided to or were required to leave local church ministry. Hoge, Dyble, and Polk (1981) suggested that denominational officials should offer more specific training in general conflict management for their ministers in order to enhance career development and vocational commitment (also see Blanton, 1992; Gilbert, 1987; Hogue & Wenge, 2005; Kieren & Munro, 1988; McKown, 2002; Morris & Blanton, 1994a, 1994b). Frame and Shehan (1994) urge denominational administrations to offer interpersonal skills training to address the problems associated with such stressors, for both the minister and their family. Hugghins (2007) indicates that while there is some general seminary training on broad conflict resolution issues, it is mainly targeted to mediating conflicts between others or addressing challenges to doctrinal issues. According to Hugghins, little specific training or discussion in handling the difficult area of interpersonal criticism is received in most seminaries. He adds

that a well-targeted course on criticism management would be welcomed by most clergy and that assistance in better addressing interpersonal criticism could be vital. Hall (1997) reports that interpersonal deficits in coping skills and relational matters, such as effectively handing criticism, are associated with an abundance of psychological problems experienced by pastors. To be most effective, Hall recommends that enhanced interpersonal and relational training should to be addressed early in a pastors career. In a study of over 4,000 senior ministers, pastors, and priests, Kaldor and Bullpit (2001) found that those who were poorly trained to handle social and interpersonal stressors had a much higher risk of burnout. Accordingly, there is a commensurate need for appropriate interventions. Similarly, Morris and Blanton (1998) called for prevention and intervention programs to assist clergy and their families to address the stress of issues such as interpersonal criticism (also see Morris & Blanton, 1994a, 1994b; Rayburn, Richmond, & Rogers, 1982, 1983, 1986). Furthermore, they suggested that congregations should be educated as to their collective impact on the well-being of the clergy and the clergys family. They particularly noted the need for support programs that allow opportunities for clergy to receive positive feedback and criticism in an environment that can be beneficial for all involved. In fact, Hogue and Wenger (2005) found that many of the issues that eventually derailed clergy careers could probably have been resolved with better awareness and training.

Lee and Iverson-Gilbert (2003) suggest that if we want to extend the career longevity of our pastors, we must teach clergy how to anticipate criticism, understand what it means personally and professionally, and respond constructively (p. 255). The seminary should provide interpersonal skills training that are needed to thrive in the social context of congregational ministry (p. 255). Unfortunately, little has been done to address this important issue. The social and psychological issues discussed above, coupled with the known deleterious health effects of criticism-based stress (Garner, 2008; Hyde et al., 2006; Lewis, Turton, & Francis, 2007; Nowack, 1989), as well as the manifestation of clergy burnout and premature departure from the ministry, speak loudly to the need for more study and research. Additionally, the development of a well-targeted, empirically consistent, intervention that focuses on mitigating the adverse consequences involved in criticism and criticismprone situations for members of the clergy should be considered essential. These important issues will be addressed with the current research. Current Study The present series of studies attempts to address a number of the concerns identified above. This research empirically examines the self-reported perceptions and expressed impact of interpersonal criticism on members of the clergy using both a randomly selected focus group and a randomly distributed survey instrument. This approach addresses some of the methodological weakness of other reports that involved single-case studies, opinion, or

anecdotal information. Additionally, a minister-centered, psychosocial educational program that is theoretically, psychologically, and biblically sound was developed and administered to a group of clergy. The goal of the program is to help participants mitigate some of the adverse consequences associated with criticism-prone situations. The intervention was empirically assessed and a pre and post participation measure was statistically evaluated. Specifically, study 1 involves an empirically sampled focus-group of members of the clergy. This group, comprised of member of a large metropolitan ministerial alliance, can provide unique insight into the impact and implications of interpersonal criticism in the lives of the clergy. Additionally, in conjunction with the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group (MAAG), the focus group was queried regarding the needed elements in creating a criticism management program designed specifically for the members of the ministry. This approach will allow for greater methodological evaluation of the process and responses, ostensibly resulting in greater generalizability of the findings. Study 2 builds upon the information gleaned from study 1. The information derived from the focus group is used in the development of an assessment instrument that allows further analysis of the impact of interpersonal criticism to a larger population of clergy. Specifically, study 2 involves a survey of members of a metropolitan ministerial alliance. The instrument is designed to better assess the implications of offering criticism and receiving criticism in the lives of the clergy. The goal is to provide insight from members of the clergy in how they view and respond to criticism, as well as the

10

impact that criticism may have on their well-being, vocation, stress, and so forth. The survey instrument was sent to a large random sample of clergy members, adding both increased methodological rigor and validity to the process. Study 3 involves the actual creation and presentation of the Criticism Management for Clergy program. In conjunction with the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group, study 3 entails the development of a specifically focused educational module for members of the clergy designed to deal with issues related to criticism and criticism-prone situations. The program is tailored to address the identified needs of the clergy who comprise the study population the ministerial alliance. The training session was created based in part on specific information gleaned from studies 1 and 2, as well as the input of the Program Advisory Council (PAC) comprised of psychologists, therapists, educators, and members of the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group. The intervention materials draw heavily from the psychosocial literature. The goal of the module is to help ministers to more effectively give criticism, to better assess and respond to received criticism, and to consider ways to solicit productive criticism from others. The training program was administered to a random selection of members of the clergy chosen from a list developed in conjunction with the ministerial alliance. This provides for a more methodologically robust evaluation of the intervention and greater confidence in the generalizability of the findings. The terminal goal of study 3 was to determine if the participants report that the information was useful and, more importantly, if the training had a tangible

11

impact on their daily interactions and concomitant interpersonal factors. This latter assessment involved a post-training follow-up survey that was administered approximately six weeks after the training intervention. Importance of Empirical Evaluation There are many publications that directly or indirectly address the issues of criticism and conflict in the ministry (e.g., Clergy Killers). Although such sources may seemingly offer sound advice on how best to handle criticism, what is clearly missing is the theoretical development and experimental testing of intervention strategies and resultant information. It is important to more carefully empirically assess the impact of criticism on the clergy and ensure that evocations offered for addressing criticism-prone situations are supported by a methodologically robust, empirical study. Literally hundreds of once promising therapies, medicines, and interpersonal analyses have been unable to withstand the scrutiny of empirical review. For example, in the past few years, dozens of once-heralded medications were later found to be ineffective at best, lethal at worstsome resulting in significant suffering. Behavioral therapies (including anger management techniques and conflict management techniques) have also fallen short, having failed the test of analysis and review, despite being once touted as an effective approach. In order to remedy this problem and refrain from exposing clergy and others to potentially flawed strategies, appropriate academic study of this area must move beyond the level of face validity and be examined with more methodologically sound designs. Such study will allow us to affirm, reframe, or remove information as the findings dictate.

12

From an academic perspective, the difficulty with the current literature on this topic as it relates to clergy is that there are few sound methodological evaluations of the issue or the suggested response (Rodgerson & Piedmont, 1998). As indicated by others (Hogue & Wenge, 2005; Lee, 1999; McKown, 2002) there is a paucity of research in this area and what has been done is often plagued by methodological concerns, a small number of participants, or an unrepresentative sample that limits generalizability. Additionally, much of what has been reported involves single-shot cases studies, unsubstantiated opinion, or anecdotal supposition. In an extensive review of the literature, there were few peer-reviewed academic articles that have extensively focused on the implications of interpersonal criticism as related to the clergy. Several studies have identified relevant issues related to clergyalthough this was a resultant by-product of other areas of research such as clergy burnout. Similarly, there are no identified peer-reviewed journal articles that have assessed strategies to ameliorate the adverse impact of criticism. As McKown (2002) and others correctly point out, there is no shortage of popular press books and programs (e.g. Alban Institute, Kairos Institute); however, there has been nothing published in the peer-reviewed literature that evaluates the types of programs or advice offered to cope with interpersonal criticism. There is no assessment as to whether programs and materials available today are providing properly targeted counsel or if they are filled with information based on folklore, inadequate approaches, or harmful advice.

13

The Importance of the Study This research agenda addresses a pertinent and needed area of study. The deleterious effects of interpersonal criticism among members of the clergy have not been well addressed in the research literature. The present study is designed not only to empirically assess the potential impact of interpersonal criticism on members of the clergy, it extends the salient information that will be gathered regarding this topic in study 1 and study 2 by creating a targeted intervention in study 3 with the objective of mitigating some of the negative consequences of interpersonal criticism. There are currently no peer-reviewed journal articles that provide this specific focus or offer an empirical evaluation of a methodologically robust intervention. As a result, the proposed study goes beyond the typical read-review-report research scenario. The ultimate goal is to create an empirically-supported, biblically-based, practitioner-focused, psychosocial intervention to assist members of the clergy in addressing the difficulties encountered in criticism-prone situations; potentially impacting issues related to their quality of life and vocation. The Hypotheses Based on the review of the available literature and the tentative information provided in a beta analysis of clergy responses to relevant questions that preceded these studies (Garner, 2007), several hypotheses are suggested: Hypothesis 1: Participants in the focus group and the survey sample of clergy will report that interpersonal criticism has a detrimental effect on their vocation, their relationships, and their well-being (studies 1 & 2).

14

Hypothesis 2: Participants will report that there are few adequate denominational or seminary resources available to better handle the issue of interpersonal criticism (studies 1 & 2). Hypothesis 3: Participants will report that a criticism management training program designed to help better give, assess, and receive interpersonal criticism would be beneficial for members of the clergy (studies 1 & 2). Hypothesis 4: Members of the clergy who partake in the biblically-based criticism management program, developed in conjunction with the PAC and the MAAG, will report that the skills and abilities identified in the session were beneficial in helping them to better address criticism-prone situations and are useful in mitigating the deleterious impact of criticism (study 3). Hypothesis 5: Post-event analysis of the intervention participants conducted six weeks after receipt of the training will reveal lasting (beyond the after-glow of the actual training event) and statistically significant, tangible benefits in handling criticism-prone situations as a result of attending the seminar (from pre to post) (study 3). Considerations and Delimitations In order to gain the acceptance of the ministerial alliance to conduct the described research, all questionnaires and materials were created with their direct involvement and vetted by representatives of the organization. A Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group (MAAG) was created to facilitate this process. As a result, a compromise in questions and procedures necessarily

15

occurs. Although the researcher might prefer different wording or to ask more varied questions, a balance must be reached in order to maintain a strong working relationship with the ministerial alliance and solidify their commitment to assist in this empirically-based research effort. The Criticism Management for Clergy training program (intervention) was developed with the input of the Program Advisory Council (PAC) comprised of psychologists, therapists, educators, and members of the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group (MAAG). Beginning with a biblical basis for handling criticism, this group vetted numerous resources, techniques, skills, and practices that were deemed by the Council to have strong utility in the development of the program. Such an approach moves beyond mere face validity and offers greater content validity (a greater probability that the program is representative of the domain to be assessed), ecological validity (results are more likely reflective of real-world situations), and external validity (generalizing to a population similar to our group). Of course, the MAAG had the final approval over all materials employed. An outline of the program can be found in Appendix C. This is an exploratory study of an issue that has not received important empirical attention in the literature. As a result, the primary goal of this effort is to see if the researcher can capture the self-reported impact of interpersonal criticism on members of the clergy and to develop an informed and theoretically sound intervention that can be helpful to the clergy-participants. At this exploratory stage, the goal is merely to determine if the training approach that was developed is on the right track. Subsequent research may better

16

assess the individual contributions of topics, issues, and components involved in the intervention. Although different denominations can have very specific meanings for terms such as clergy, pastor, minister, and so for; for the purpose of this study these terms will be used interchangeably. This is primarily done as a literary device to eliminate excessive repetition of a single term. Additionally, the term conflict has been defined in many ways and can be a broad and encompassing expression (Noll, 2003; Sande, 2005). Descriptions such as conflict, conflict resolution, and interpersonal conflict have all been used interchangeably with other terms such as interpersonal stress and criticism. However, here we are focused not on the general concept of conflict resolution, but the more specific form of interpersonal criticism. In the research conducted as a part of Duke Universitys Pulpit and Pew project, Hogue and Wenge (2005) argue in favor of narrowly focusing on interpersonal criticism in future research as they view this as a subtype of conflict. Although conflict resolution and other terms have been used synonymously with criticism, clergy tend to identify a distinction. According to Arendale (2006), clergy consider conflict resolution to refer to a formalized process to handle dispute between parties. This is consistent with definitions offered by Robbins (1986) and Yukl (1989a, 1989b). Conversely, criticism was identified by members of the clergy as a more direct affront to ones sense of self; in short, it was personal. This finding was echoed in the beta survey of clergy members (Garner, 2007) conducted for this study and was additionally

17

supported in discussions with members of the MAAG. As a result, this research is specifically focused on interpersonal criticism as identified by the clergy who comprise the study population, rather than the larger (albeit related) area of conflict resolution. The goal of this study is to more carefully examine the selfreports of clergy in how they view and respond to interpersonal criticism, to develop a sound and testable criticism management intervention, and to assess the efficacy of that program. Research / Study Overview Summary Study 1 involves a focus-group of clergy who examine the self-reported impact of interpersonal criticism. The focus group provides valuable insight and guidance into the issue of criticism in the ministry, as well as important elements that are needed for the development of a successful intervention. Study 2 builds upon Study 1, developing a survey instrument designed to assess the issue of interpersonal criticism among the clergy on a larger sample. The goals is to gain a better understanding of the impact that criticism may have on members of the ministry, including issues of frequency, severity, and adverse consequences. Study 3 is the high point of this research effort. A Program Advisory Council (PAC) was created and comprised of psychologists, education specialists, and members of the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group (MAAG). In conjunction with this researcher, the PAC examined the findings in studies 1 and 2, as well as voluminous relevant topic-related materials, to develop a biblically based, psychologically sound intervention program to assist members of the clergy in handling criticism and criticism-prone circumstances more effectively. The

18

biblical guidance is discussed in greater detail in chapter 3. The Criticism Management for Clergy curriculum was evaluated by the participants and follow-up assessments were conducted with the participants six weeks after delivery.

19

Chapter 2 Criticism Research Relatively little empirical research has been done on the nature of interpersonal criticism, in any context. Criticism is universally considered by individuals to be negative (Baron, 1988a, 1988b; Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979) and is a term that almost immediately evokes a sense of apprehension (Garner, 2006). In fact, research suggests that the use of the term destructive criticism appears to be superfluous as that negative characteristic is considered to be endemic. Typical encyclopedic definitions of the term stress the connotative negatives (e.g., to point out ones faults or to offer an opinion or judgment of what is wrong or bad about somebody or something). Nomura and Barnlund (1983) define interpersonal criticism as the expression of dissatisfaction concerning the personal qualities or behavior of another person that is offered in face-to-face dyadic encounters (p. 2-3). (These authors also comment on the sparse research available related to the topic of interpersonal criticism.) Baron (1990) defined criticism as negative feedback given by one person to another to inform the recipient that he or she was not performing in an adequate or appropriate manner (p. 241). Even though criticism is moderately infrequent, research suggests that it is very impactful on the interpersonal relationships of the parties involved. According to Baron (1988a), Those who received destructive criticism reported greater anger and tension and indicated that they would be more likely to handle future disagreements with the source through resistance or avoidance and less

20

likely to handle disagreements through collaboration or compromise (p. 199). Destructive criticism is an important cause of conflict in organizations. In a study rating the importance of 14 potential causes of conflict in their organization, poor use of criticism was perceived as a more important cause of conflict that any other item (Baron, 1988a). Destructive criticism is less accepted and is perceived as less accurate by recipients (e.g., Fedor, Eder, & Buckley, 1989; Snyder & Newburg, 1981). Studies indicate that the impact of criticism actually decreases performance (Baron, 1993; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). This can be due to the recipient focusing on the intent of the critic rather than on how to use the criticism to improve. Annoyance-driven or destructive criticism breaches the goals of effective delivery (Furlong, 2005; Ilgen, et al., 1979; Ilgen, Mitchell, & Fredrickson, 1981; Liden & Mitchell, 1985) and is often inconsiderate in tone, contains threats, attributes poor performance to internal causes, and is general rather than specific in content (Baron, 1990, p. 235). In contrast to constructive criticism, Baron (1988 a, b) indicates that destructive criticism generates strong feelings of anger, increases tension among the parties, reduces appropriate goal-driven resolution efforts, intensifies ensuing conflict, and reduces ones sense of self-efficacy. Responding to Criticism Criticism is an emotionally charged social interaction and recipients are inclined to attribute the cause of the criticism event to the personal traits of the critic (Leung, Su, & Morris, 2001). Cognitive processes play an important role in determining how individuals respond to criticism. Recipients of criticism will

21

often make negative internal attributions about the character of the critic, despite clear evidence that situational factors are involved (Morris, Larrick, & Su, 1999; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). Those who offer criticism are often viewed as biased and insensitive, even when consciously trying to refrain from generating defensiveness in the recipient (Arygis, 1985, 1991). Individuals confronted with criticism often face a dilemma as to whether to attribute the cause of the criticism to their own performance inadequacy, which may assist improvement and learning, or to attribute it to the critics personality flaws, which may help the recipients ego. Bresnahan, Brynjolsson, and Hitt (2002) found that some individuals respond to criticism assertively, others aggressively; still others may move to silence as a response to receiving criticism. Wilson, Lizzio, Whicker, Gallois, and Price (2003) and others have examined the elements of socially appropriate responses to unfair criticism in the workplace. Baron (1990) reports that responding to a critic by expressing irritation actually increased their own negative reactions rather than ameliorate the circumstance. The catharsis theory has been demonstrated to be ineffective at best, harmful at worst. The opportunity to express anger towards a critic seems to strengthen rather than reduce adverse effects and sets the stage for further costly interpersonal conflict. Giving Criticism Larson (1986, 1989) found that in addition to the difficulties encountered when receiving criticism, giving criticism was considered to be equally unpleasant.

22

Those who offer criticism of others have noted that their own use of criticism reduced the motivations of those they criticized and adversely affected their working relationships (Baron, 1990, p. 241). Managers report that offering negative feedback or criticism is one of the most difficult and unpleasant tasks they must perform (Garber, 2004; Garner, 2008; Larson, 1986, 1989; Veiga, 1988) and many avoid doing so (Baron, 1990). Managers often refrain from criticizing subordinates until the frequency or severity of performance problemsand the mangers annoyance with themrises to extremely high levels (Larson, p. 1989) (Baron, 1990, p. 235). Because there is a hesitance to offer criticism until reaching a threshold level, when finally delivered, it is often delivered in a biting, harsh, demeaning, or sarcastic manner (Barron 1988a; Heldmann, 1988). What Works? The negative effects resulting from episodes of destructive criticism can indeed be reduced by interventions designed to change recipients perceptions of, or attributions about, the source of such criticism (Baron, 1990, p. 241). Garner (2008) found that individuals who participated in a 16-hour criticism management program reported increased efficacy in dealing with interpersonal criticism and reduced adverse health-related consequences. The intervention included interpersonal skills training that specifically focused on the reception and delivery of criticism, as well as cognitive appraisal principles that examined contextual and cognitive redefinition of criticism-prone situations. Previous research (Lord, Lepper, & Preston, 1984) suggests that both the givers and

23

recipients of criticism can benefit from thinking about criticism from different perspectives. Providing training that involves better cognitive appraisal of criticism and the critics may allow for recipients of criticism to short-circuit the usual negative progression of the criticism process. Barons study found that making fewer internal attributions about the critic was an effective approach in countering the negative effects of destructive criticism (p. 238). Those in the study who used this approach reported being less angry, more happy, and rated their critic as more fair. Leung, et al. (2001) found that defensiveness is a major barrier to the effective use of criticism to bring about performance improvements (also see Leung, Smith, Wang, & Sun, 1996). Personal consideration of the recipient of the criticism is key to more favorable reactions to criticism and those offering it. Treating others fairly in a criticism-prone situation cushions the impact of the criticism by reducing the occurrence of negative dispositional attributions; [it] elicits positive attitudinal reactions in its own right (p. 1179). In a two-prong study, Leung, et al. (2001) found that criticism delivered with greater interpersonal fairness results in more favorable dispositional attributions about the supervisor, more acceptance of the feedback, and more favorable reactions towards the superior and organization (p. 1180). Cabane (2007) found that effective criticism must be specific, involve the collaborative establishment of clear goals, and be positively framed. Additionally, the criticism should, in most circumstances, be offered in private. Public criticism can be viewed as a power contest and may suggest the critic is

24

intending to belittle or demean the recipient. Individuals will actively attempt to elude attempts at public correction to avoid the appearance of incompetence (Ashford & Northcraft, 1992). Private criticism is better tolerated as it suggests the critic is attempting to preserve the reputation of the recipient. Leung et al. (2001) found that private criticism offered by a high-status, knowledgeable critic was more favorably viewed. Individuals respond better to criticism that is carefully researched and thoughtfully delivered. Nothing could be worse than offering criticism that is unwarranted, undeserved, and based on faulty information (Garner, 2006, p. 50). Research finds that critics who judiciously collect all relevant information, who know their facts, and who can offer a clear explanation for the criticism are viewed as more just and their criticism is better accepted (Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990; Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & de Vera Park, 1993; Lissak & Sheppard, 1983). Additionally, criticism that focuses on personal or professional improvement rather than the personality of the recipient is better received. The goal is to focus on the actions that are in need of adjustment, not the actor. Task-related criticism can be beneficial and improve performance on a wide range of tasks (Landy, Farr, & Jacobs, 1982; Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, & Ekeberg, 1988). Seeking criticism from respected and trusted othersrather than waiting for external events to manifestcan be particularly helpful. Baron (1990) found that seeking criticism from others (also see Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Hobgood, 2001) was a sound strategy to reduce unexpected and unanticipated

25

critical comments. Actively soliciting criticism and evaluation allows one to pick the critic, the time, and the circumstance. Because one is actually seeking such criticism, the individual will clearly be better prepared to receive the information. In fact, it may prove more effective to attempt to prevent the occurrence of destructive criticism rather than rely on efforts to blunt or counter its negative impact (Baron, 1990, p. 243). Research-Suggested Program Components: The general findings of the relatively sparse academic literature cited within will be incorporated into a biblically-based, psychologically robust intervention program for members of the clergy. Based on the limited research on the topic of interpersonal criticism, several elements emerge that warrant consideration in developing a sound criticism management module. In particular, successfully delivering criticism should focus on: (a) effective listening; (b) conveying the information in private; (c) being knowledgeable of relevant facts and circumstance; (d) clarity in the communication of the criticism; (e) positive, personal consideration of the other party in the delivery of criticism, including the motivation and goal involved; (f) the psychological state of the recipient; (g) directing comments to actual behavior, not the personality of the individual; and (h) monitoring ones own emotional contributions in the criticism process. In receiving criticism, the research suggests the following areas for incorporation: (a) better cognitive appraisal skills in evaluation criticism received from others, particularly in searching for or considering alternative

26

explanations or considerations; (b) increased emotional awareness and control; (c) a better understanding of the automatic psychological biases that can easily occur in criticism-prone situations; (d) better tools for effectively responding to interpersonal criticism; as well as (e) a focus on consciously evaluating criticism events with an eye for personal and professional improvement. These research-based elements will be combined with other suggestions offered by the PAC in the development of this program (discussed in study 3) and placed within a biblically supported framework that is essential to this project. These biblical considerations are addressed in the next chapter.

27

Chapter 3 Biblical Considerations in Handling Criticism The issue of biblical application to the area of interpersonal criticism is involved in the methodological considerations of this series of studies, particularly in the development of the intervention program for members of the clergy. A strong biblical foundation is vital for this research effort. As a result, this chapter is dedicated to reviewing such principles and guidance, particularly those scriptures identified by our focus group participants (study 1). Although there are literally dozens of potentially relevant scriptural references, we will focus on those deemed most salient by the advisory and focus groups. These scriptures are foundational in the program development discussed in study 3. Biblical Considerations of Criticism Criticism is an inevitability of life. The apostles were criticized and most were ultimately martyred because of disagreement, conflict, and criticism. In fact, the Bible is filled with those who were harshly criticized while doing the work of God. Every person of God whose story is told with any level of detail in the Bible was likely the recipient of criticism. Moses, Elijah, and David all had their ardent critics. The suffering of Job offers a case study in judgment and criticism. Jesus himself was above sin, yet he was constantly criticized. He was even criticized by his own disciples who often misunderstood him, his actions, or his motives. Ironically, Jesus, the greatest teacher, was criticized for his teaching particularly by those who believed themselves to be deeply religious (Mat 9:3;

28

Mark, 2:6-7; John 6:41-42). Even during his last hours on the cross, He was criticized by soldiers, by the crowd, and by one of the criminals crucified with him. Yet, how did Jesus respond? Jesus replied with forgiveness, love, truth, and humility. When questioned about his earthly mission, Jesus often responded to criticism with scripture or used a parable to offer a teaching moment (e.g., Mat 22:15-22); however, when He was personally criticized, Jesus remained silent (Mat 23:63; Mat 27:11-12), offering no response at all. In doing so, Jesus gives us important lessons on how to deal with criticism. When we are personally criticized, we often engage in immediate and fervent defensiveness. Jesus listened without defense or response. At other times Jesus appraised the criticism and it source, then dismissed it (Mat 27:13-14). In his book on studying the parables of Jesus, Jones (1999) suggests that one could devise a life sermon from Luke 15:1-7 on How to Handle Criticism, as Jesus was a role model for handling criticism redemptively. Jesus also provides direction regarding our behavior when we are offering criticism. In Mathew 7:1-5 Jesus reminds us not to blame or degrade others, for we too have sinned. We are not to focus on the speck in the eye of another while ignoring the plank in our own. Jesus speaks with an awareness of our human tendency to be far more critical of others than we are of ourselves. We are cautioned not to judge others unfairly, but by the standard set by Christ himself: with the empathy and fairness of the Golden Rule (Mat 7:12) and with an expectation to freely and fully forgive others (Mat 6:12, 14). Interestingly, the Do not judge comments of Jesus are considered to be the most well-known

29

scriptural reference by most Americans (Geisler & Zukeran, 2009), yet are likely among those that are most misunderstood. The translation from the original language finds the term can mean either to evaluateas it does in this context or it can mean to condemn or despise. Jesus is not saying to refrain from making any assessment of anothers conduct or character; he is saying do not condemn others with a critical, fault-finding mind-set. As is evidenced in the following verses, He is cautioning us that we must have the right spirit. If you judge others unfairly, you will be judged with that same critical, biased yardstick. That is why the apostle Paul writes to Timothy Correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction (2 Tim 4:2). When we are positioned to offer criticism to others it should be with the proper mindset, attitude, and heart. Offering correction should be like the actions of a caring doctor, the purpose is to bring healing not strife. Biblical Advice and Guidance Although there are dozens of other biblical examples in how we might better handle criticism, three are particularly salient and were the scriptures most often confirmed by the Focus Group for this study. Guidance from James 1:19-20:
19

My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow
20

to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.

James (1:19-20) provides us with practical advice on how to deal with criticism. He gives us a three-prong approach: 1) Be quick to listen, 2) slow to

30

speak, and 3) slow to become angry. Essentially, there are three God-given directives: we need to be active and attentive listeners, we must think before we talk, and we need to slow down our responseparticularly as it relates to the emotion of anger; the often cited product of interpersonal criticism. Quick to listen: In the original Greek this phrase can be translated as being ready to grasp or understand. Considering that a substantial amount of criticism is often based on incomplete information or misunderstandings, to listen carefully seems to be a prudent admonition. Unless one is able to truly understand what the other is really trying to communicate, we do not have enough information to formulate a responseeven if that response were to be silence. Of course this runs counter to our natural inclinationwe often begin our defensive retort even before the other party has finished talking. We do this for many reasons, not the least of which is to regain our emotional equilibrium and begin to restore our often wounded sense of self. Unfortunately, all too often the actual grievance may not be clear or may be something completely different than the topic of the current criticism. We should strive; however, to be responsive and reflective, not reactionary. James is suggesting that we develop an attitude of reflective listening to gain greater insight into the true nature of the criticism and the critic. Slow to Speak: As the saying goes we regret our words more than we regret our silences. The literal meaning of this scriptural phrase in Greek is to deliberately meditate, consider, or contemplate our commentsrather than just blurting out whatever emotionally-triggered defensive comments may be

31

brewing. Proverbs is filled with admonitions regarding our careless or harsh words. He who holds his tongue is wise. He who guards his lips guards his life, but he who speaks rashly will come to ruin. (Prov 13:3). Do you see a man who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for him (Prov 29:20). (Also see Proverbs 11:12; 12:18; 17:28; 18:21; 21:13; 34:13.) Clearly God is telling us something significantrepeatedly. Slow to Anger: James is telling us we need to have long fuses. We need to carefully listen, reflectively consider, and carefully respond. In the Greek the word we identify as anger has two roots. Both are destructive in the sense that one (thumos) involves the impulsive, rash, reactive anger; the other (orge) relates to resentful, lingering feelings that we harbor even long after the perceived attack or hurt has passed. Unfortunately, some experiencing the sting of this latter category will often outwardly appear to be handling the criticism acceptably; however, they are internally concealing a storm of emotional turmoil. Again, Proverbs offers further guidance: A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control (29:11). A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult (Prov 12:16). Finally, James reminds us that inappropriate anger does not bring about the life that God desires for us to have. Guidance from Acts 15: Chapter 15 of Acts offers particularly relevant advice on how best to consider criticism. The church in Antioch was involved in an intense dispute as to how Old Testament traditions were to be addressed by the Gentiles. Paul and

32

Barnabas, as well as Peter had been teaching and evangelizing among the Gentiles bringing many to follow Christ. They were not requiring Gentiles to follow Mosaic customs such a circumcision. Other Christian leaders disagreed, demanding that the Gentiles must be Jews first. A notable member of this conflict was James the brother of Jesusnot an insignificant critic! Acts 15: The Council at Jerusalem Some men came down from Judea to
: 1

Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." This
2

brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church
3

sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed
4

by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5

Then some of the believers who belonged to

the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
7 6

The apostles and

elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted
8

them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no
9

distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now
10

33

then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We
11

believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

12

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul

telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers,
13

listen to me. Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his
14

concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the
15

prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16

" 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

17

that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things
18

that have been known for ages.

19

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the
20

Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in
21

every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

34

The manner in which this criticism-prone circumstance was handled offers biblical guidance for us. Several key elements are important to consider: 1. They Met Face-to-Face. This was an extremely important matter involving long-held traditions and customs. It was vitally important to talk to, not about, those involved. Meeting in-person shows respect and can help to minimize further misunderstandings and miscommunication. Mathew 18:15 offers related advice from Jesus. ("If your brother sins
against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.)

If

there is a problem go to the person directly; speak to them discretely in hopes that all can be resolved without an escalation. 2. Listen to Each Other. Verse 12 states that as Paul and Barnabas spoke the whole assembly became silent as they listened. They listened intently as they were told of the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. Only after listening did others speak. Listening, truly listening, to another is a challenging proposition. Yet only through carefully listening are we able to fully begin to understand the root issues that may need to be addressed. Empathetically listening also demonstrates respect and allows us more fully consider the positions of others. 3. Offer Clear Evidence Guided by Scripture. In addition to the evidence of miraculous results offered by Paul and Barnabas, Peter spoke with great sensitivity and offered scriptural reasons that supported the position that Gentiles were not required to follow the Jewish customs.

35

Referring to scripture provides a standard that is greater than supposition. Jesus often referred to scripture when he was confronted on matters of theological (but not personal) significance. Offering specifics regarding what guidelines or which rules are relevant provides clarity concerning the yardstick being used. 4. Consider the Truths. After hearing all of the discussion and the evidence offered by those assembled, including Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, James, the brother of Jesus, spokeonly after listening. He reflected on what he had heard and on Gods word. Despite having previously favored a different position, he now offered a judgment that did not required strict adherence to all Jewish customs. He considered the evidence without defensiveness and contemplated Gods perspective. He was able to do this because he carefully listened and reflected all that had been said. 5. Protect the Feelings of Others. As James finished his summary of the decision of the group, he sought to protect the feelings of those Jewish sisters and brothers that did not prevail in this issue. This matter was a personally and culturally significant event that changed the course of the future. Recognizing this James offered that although they were not going to make it difficult for the Gentiles who were turning to God by imposing requirements of circumcision and other significant restrictions, the Gentiles would be required to follow a few special rules (abstaining from food offered to idols, sexual immorality, and from the meat of strangled animals and blood) of Mosaic importance. In essence, James

36

communicated that he respected the views of others, even if there was disagreement on the position. 6. Communicate Clearly. Finally, the apostles and elders drafted an unambiguous letter to be sent to the Gentiles so there would be no further confusion. This decision was too important to leave to possible misinterpretation. It would do little good to have an understanding among the elders that was not well communicated to others who were affected by the decision. The biblical principles in Acts 15 provide direction for the creation of a program geared to help members of the clergy more effectively deal with criticism. Guidance from Ephesians 4:25-32
25

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his
26

neighbor, for we are all members of one body. "In your anger do not sin"[d]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the
27

devil a foothold. He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must
28

work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.

29

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what

is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you
30

were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and
31

anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and
32

37

compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

Here Paul is offering very pragmatic advice about interpersonal relationships that directly apply to handling criticism. We are called to be truthful, not to allow festering anger (often the result of receiving criticism) to cause us to sin. Note that Paul is not suggesting that we never become angryas anger is a God-given emotion that can be used for good or evil. The Bible speaks of Gods anger. Jesus demonstrated flashes of anger (Mark 3:5, John 2:13-17). However, these are the appropriate uses of anger; to seek what is righteous. Anger becomes destructive when it controls us or is used to punish or retaliate against others unjustly. Paul also cautions us not to speak ill of others, but to offer only that which can help others become better. We must unmistakably know how our comments will benefit another before we speak. Finally, we are instructed to be kind and compassionate, removing all bitterness and anger. We are reminded of the forgiveness we experienced from Christ and how we must forgive others. Guidance from Proverbs: Members of the focus group involved in this study also offered other scripture from Proverbs to focus on the importance of properly receiving criticism from others: It is a badge of honor to accept valid criticism (Proverbs 25:12 LB). If you refuse criticism you will end in poverty and disgrace, if you accept criticism you are on the road to fame (Proverbs 13:18LB)

38

A soft answer turns away wrath. (Proverbs 15:1). Dont refuse to accept criticism; get all the help you can (Proverbs 23:12)

Summary There are many Biblical examples of how we might better give and receive criticism. Those listed abovethe ones most confirmed by the focus group memberswill serve as the backbone for our intervention for clergy discussed in study 3. Deftly handling criticism is a difficult proposition. As the great preacher Norman Vincent Peal observed, The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise rather than saved by criticism. One of the goals of this series of studies is to assist members of the clergy to reconsider interpersonal criticism in a way that will help to save them from its detrimental effects and consequences.

39

Chapter 4 Psychological Considerations of Criticism In addition to a strong biblical and spiritual base, any proposed intervention or program designed to ameliorate some of the deleterious effects of interpersonal criticism must have a sound psychological and sociological referent. As a result, a brief synopsis of the literature on the psychophysiology involved in our reaction to criticism is in order. The psycho-sociological processes involved are inextricably linked to key physiological reactions that impact how we perceive and react to criticism-prone situations. Psychologically, individuals often assess criticism as a threat; a threat to their well-being, their safety, their reputation, and so forth (Garner, 2005, 2008; Pettit & Joiner, 2001). Much in the same way as the near automatic trigger that occurs when we perceive a stressful situation, the body can engage the fight or flight response (Selye, 1976; Maslach, 1997). The brain has difficulty distinguishing between a physical threat and a psychological onethe physiological reaction is relatively similar. Without clear and conscious intent, the body begins dumping adrenaline into the system and engages the process of diverting blood to the large muscle groups (e.g., arms, legs) in preparation for fighting or fleeing. Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of vital oxygen-enriched blood to less immediately essential areas of the bodynamely the higher-order brain processing centers. As a result, at the very time we should be more carefully cognitively assessing the criticism trigger, we are operating at a physiologically diminished capacity to do so.

40

When presented with information that is interpreted as an affront to ones self-esteem, we tend to go into defensive mode and we have a tendency to engage the self-serving bias, attempting to reestablish our sense of self-esteem (Campbell & Sedikides, 1999; Ross & Sicoly, 1979). The self-serving bias is a psychological tendency to always perceive oneself favorably. This often occurs when we attribute positive outcomes to oneself and negative outcomes to other factors. Unfortunately, this often occurs by attacking the source of the criticism; endeavoring to diminish the critic and the criticism, thus trying to restore our esteem. Genetic attributes and years of social conditioning often direct us toward aggressively overcoming this perceived threat and strive to winat all costs (rather than amicably working to resolve the issue). This can be true even if the criticism might be valid (though oftentimes poorly delivered). As a result of heightened physiological arousal and lessened cognitive processing, we tend to focus on the critic; creating a usually negative attribution regarding their intentions and methods (Heider, 1958). Within the area of attribution theory in psychology (the study of how people explain others behavior; usually by attributing it to internal dispositions or external situations) is the essential cognitive biasing influence termed the Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross, 1977). This is a bias we use rather automatically that attributes the cause of a persons behavior (in this case the criticism) to some personal characteristic or trait. In other words, we quickly create a storyalmost always negativethat explains their actions as being a product of their self-centered,

41

hostile, uninformed, mean-spirited nature (Fiedler, Asbeck, & Nickel, 1991; McGuire & McGuire, 1986; White & Younger, 1988). The Fundamental Attribution Error has its roots in another related cognitive heuristic known as the Actor-Observer (A-O) Bias (Jones, 1976). The A-O bias indicates that when we act, we tend to focus on the situation (I tripped because there is a crack in the sidewalk). When we observe others act, we often ignore the contributing factors of the situation and focus solely on the character of that individualusually in a negative way (You tripped because you are a klutz) (Jones & Nisbett, 1971). As a result, when someone is criticized, their first reaction may be to ignore the possible situational factors (including that the criticism is accurate) and focus instead on the critics perceived lack of civility and other presumed character flaws. This process of experiencing criticism as a threat, the associated physiological response, and the cognitively compromised story we create, can lead to an emotional response that ultimately results in some behavior. Of course, the emotional response is elicited from often incomplete or inaccurate data via the heuristic processing. As a result, the behavioral response (criticism, back-biting, retaliation, etc.) may be inappropriate. In a similar way, when we are primed to offer criticism to others, we may follow a comparable pattern. We notice a behavior that we do not like or, if in a work environment, may violate a policy or standard. The observation, influenced by the cognitive biases of the A-O and Fundamental Attribution Error, leads us to create a story as to the cause of their offending behavior. This

42

is a rather automatic process, not a reflective engagement. The story we tell ourselves can lead to an emotional consequence. We may perceive, based on our potentially compromised and incomplete story, that the individual acted with deliberate intention, thus eliciting a similar version of the fight-or-flight syndrome. As a result of our likely imperfect observation, our incomplete story, and our heightened emotional state, we may find ourselves poised for attack. For example, if a supervisor noticed an employee arrived for work late, the supervisor may immediately assume that the individual is lazy, inattentive, must not appreciate their job, and may even view this as a personal affront to their own supervisory authority. As a result, this story (as incomplete as it may be) can elicit an emotional reaction. The supervisor may become indignant that a worker would slough-off their responsibilities on their watch. The supervisor may even begin to ruminate on how this unacceptable behavior jeopardizes his job and adversely impacts the other workers. Again, this process can occur in seconds; it is likely that it took much more time to type this sentence than it took for this process to unfold. Consequently, the supervisor may launch into a tirade of criticism aimed at the employee. Of course, the employee being on the receiving end, will often immediately experience the process mentioned above, quickly concluding that the supervisor is a rude, thoughtless, mean-spirited, critical jerk. This may be especially true if the tardy arrival was due to a family emergency, an unavoidable traffic delay, or any of a host of other circumstances that the supervisor did not bother to consider.

43

Fortunately, this criticism-reaction sequence can be positively impacted. Studies have shown that people can become more aware of these biasing influences (Myers, 2008). They can slow down their aversive reactions by considering other potential influences, and they can cognitively reframe the entire process. The present study will utilize some of the psychosocial tools and techniques that have been show to be effective in ameliorating the problems identified above. Consideration of these biasing heuristic influences were components of the Criticism Management for Clergy training program (intervention) that was developed with the input of psychologists, therapists, educators, and members of the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group (MAAG). Beginning with a biblical basis for handling criticism, the Program Advisory Council (PAC) vetted numerous resources, techniques, skills, and practices that were deemed by the Council to have strong utility in the development of the program, including the psychosocial processes identified above. Ultimately, the MAAG exercised final approval over all materials and curriculum components involved in the intervention.

44

Chapter 5 Study 1 Overview Study 1 involves a focus group of clergy members who are asked to consider a series of questions that examine the impact of interpersonal criticism on the ministry. The qualitative focus-group approach provides valuable insight and guidance into the implications of interpersonal criticism in the lives of the clergy, as well as important elements that are needed for the development of a successful intervention. Study 1 involves an empirically sampled focus-group of clergy comprised of members of the ministerial alliance. Additionally, in conjunction with guidance received from the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group (MAAG), this focus group was queried regarding the needed elements in creating a robust criticism management program designed specifically for the members of the ministry. This approach allows for greater methodological evaluation of the process and responses, ostensibly resulting in greater generalizability of the findings. Study 1 Methods Participants From a list provided by the ministerial alliance, 30 members of the clergy were randomly selected and invited to participate in the focus-group. Scheduling and other conflicts limited the final participation to 22 individuals. These selections were made without regard to denominational or other such considerations.

45

Materials Based on the guidance from a pretest procedure that involved a survey sent to 100 members of the clergy regarding issues of vocational stress, burnout, and criticism (Garner, 2007), as well as the input of the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group, the focus group was asked to concentrate on these particular issues: 1. How would you define criticism? 2. Complete the following: When unfairly criticized, the emotion I usually feel is:_____. 3. Interpersonal Criticism has been defined as negative feedback given by one person to another to inform the recipient that he or she was not performing in an adequate or appropriate manner (Baron, 1990). Would you agree? 4. Is interpersonal criticism a problem for most ministers? 5. If so, how prevalent is it? 6. What is the impact of criticism both personally and professionally? 7. How does it manifest in clergy-congregant relations? 8. What are some best practices in handling criticism? 9. What would a strong program designed to help pastors better handle interpersonal criticism need to contain? 10. What scriptural references do you believe are particularly salient to this issue?

46

Design and Procedure Participants were invited to attend a two and one-half hour focus group session. Logistical considerations dictated that the meeting would be held contemporaneous with a regularly-scheduled Alliance conference. This allowed for greater participation without undue impact on the personal schedules of the focus group members. The participants were informed of the topic to be considered by the focus group when they were originally contacted and had been asked to reflect on this issue prior to the meeting. This is consistent with the research regarding the fallacy of traditional brainstorming techniques. Research demonstrates that prior consideration of issues to be addressed can result in more productive meetings and greater participation (see Brown & Paulus, 2002). Participants were informed of a few general ground rules to assure an orderly process and to ensure a more effective collection of the information. All participants were informed that no individual or personally identifying information would be collected. Each was asked to be forthcoming with their discussions, as the contributions of this group would be used in the development of a survey instrument and a topical intervention program. To further ensure a more robust dialogue, participants were invited to offer anecdotal information as well as information based on direct, personal knowledge. Additionally, participants were asked to consider how most other clergy might respond to these items. This provides a greater psychological freedom to respondents, reducing the personal or individual focus of their comments. Each of the

47

identified general discussion questions was considered in sequence; though contributions were offered on a variety of issues throughout the session. Whiteboards and flip charts were used to capture salient information. Additionally, two research assistants were tasked with taking copious notes. Every effort was made to accurately depict the discussion and all materials and notes were cross-referenced to ensure reliability.

48

Chapter 6 Study 1 Results As this is a focus group, a qualitative, rather than a quantitative analysis was employed. Therefore, no reductionist or inferential statistical analyses were involved. Qualitative data analysis can take a wide variety of forms; however, it tends to differ from quantitative research in its focus on holistic and contextual language and meaning (Fischer, 2005). The focus group generated substantial discussion on each of the identified questions. The responses were informative and instructive. Each of the items are discussed below. Question 1: How would you define criticism? This general question was intentionally asked first in the sequence. Although a research-based definition of criticism is offered in a later question (on which the participants can comment), the idea was to have a more general response here without the influence of a potentially biasing formal definition. The responses were as expected with a focus on the negative and personal impact. Some of the representative comments are captured in the quotes below: Criticism is a negative evaluation. It is others calling you to task for sinning differently than they do. Criticism is a term that is always negative. There is no such thing as positive criticism. The difference between positive and negative criticism is the attitude of the one delivering it.

49

Criticism is usually a negative assault; often by someone without all of the facts.

Criticism is a rebuke. Criticism is a personal attack; feedback is used when it is positive. I think it is a negative comment that often hits one in the ego. Criticism is akin to fault-finding; its telling someone that they dont measure up.

Question 2: Complete the following: When unfairly criticized, the emotion I usually feel is:_____. The overwhelming response to this question was anger; although there were variations, including frustration, irritation, aggravation, and pain. Further discussion revealed that after the surge of anger there are often other considerations such as disappointment and discontent. Some also expressed that while they initially feel anger or irritation, they often feel guilty about having this initial emotion. This can lead one to feel even worse or work to improve their reception of criticism. Question 3: Interpersonal Criticism has been defined as negative feedback given by one person to another to inform the recipient that he or she was not performing in an adequate or appropriate manner (Baron, 1990) would you agree? There was broad agreement that this definition was generally accurate; however, the clear sense was that it was somewhat sterile and lacked the

50

emotional connotation that can accompany the actual event of dealing with criticism. Some of the representative comments are identified below: Wellthis is true; however, it seems to me that criticism is more personal. It seems to me that it is often negative and hostile. Actually, dealing with criticism is more impactful than this definition allows. I think it is often viewed as a personal assault. Its probably a good definition for researchers.

Question 4: Is interpersonal criticism a problem for most ministers? There was quick and ample agreement regarding this item. Interpersonal criticism was identified as a significant problem for members of the clergy. Of course, there was discussion that criticism posed a concern for many people, not just the clergy. The important point for this research was the clergy did not see themselves as being immune from the deleterious effects of criticism. Further, several individuals indicated that criticism adversely impacted their ministerial role. Some of the more recurrent comments are captured by the quotes listed below: It can be a real blow to the ego. Ive been devastated by what I perceived as unfair criticism. I have had a personal struggle when criticized; I know I should be tolerant and forgiving, but there is a struggle between ones mind and ones emotions.

51

I think that we often view criticism as an assault to our competenceand that can be demoralizing.

No one likes to be criticized. I was shocked that people criticized a pastorI thought people respected the role and being God-directed. Boy was I wrong. In my conversations with my colleagues it is clear that criticism is alive and well in our congregations.

I think some people feel they are entitled to offer their critical opinions about anything to which they personally disagree. There is a lot of its all about me attitude.

I had people tell me that since they pay my salary I have to listen to everything they want to get off their chestinformed or not.

Question 5: If so, how prevalent is it? With regard to the prevalence of criticism, there was wide variation among the group members. Some indicated that it was nearly a routine occurrence within their congregation; others indicated that it was relatively rare. However, there was considered agreement that regardless of frequency, the impact of interpersonal criticism was substantial. It was not the frequency, but the intensity of the emotional impact that captured the most discussion. There was a general consensus that most pastors encounter a significant criticism event at least every six months. Some of the more recurrent comments are portrayed in the quotes listed below:

52

Its not so much how often it comes; it is more of the punch that it packs when it does.

I know of pastors who have simply been devastated by criticism. I am sure there are several ministers who have been lost in the wake of interpersonal conflict and criticism.

Criticism is like poison, it doesnt take much to have a big effect!

Question 6: What is the impact of criticism both personally and professionally? The primary discussion on this topic centered around the issues of stressand the associated problemsand occupational burnout. Participants offered a litany of psychological and physical consequences of poorly handled criticism. In addition to the usually cited potential health consequences, sleep disturbances were particularly (and unexpectedly) identified as a consequence of ruminating about interpersonal criticism. Professionally, the participants talked of disengagement and vocational burnout. Nearly half of the participants indicated that they knew a former pastor (this also included youth pastors, etc.) who they believed left the ministry prematurely due to the effects of conflict and criticism. Some of the more recurrent themes are identified in the quotes below: The effects of criticism can leave you feeling emotionally exhausted. Criticism is a drain on the conscience. Unfair criticism accounts for a lot of upset stomachs and sleepless nights.

53

Its not just us that suffer; our whole family stresses when we are under such emotional stress.

Headaches, your stomach is in a knot, high blood pressure, feeling like youve been rung out; what can I say, criticism can pack a wallop.

When I have received what I considered to be unfair and harsh criticism, I was constantly fighting my bodythe physical effectand my emotions. Unfortunately, those unsettled feelings seem to linger and return each time I thought about the incident again.

The effects of conflict and criticism are often cumulative. After a while you just want to retreat.

Its not a big secret; though not many talk about it. Conflict and criticism equals stress; stress equals consequences with your health and your emotions and that leads to burnout; burnout equals an early departure.

It is sad that more is not done to address this problem. Im glad that something useful will result from our discussions.

There are those individuals who you simply want to avoid; the chronic critics. Its really about self-preservation.

It is really a significant issue. Most of the problems are not about theology; they are about personality.

Question 7: How does it manifest in clergy-congregant relations? The participants relayed that the most significant result from poorly handled criticism between the clergy and the congregants was either the loss of

54

their job or the defection of members of the congregation. Interestingly, there were three participants who divulged that they had been involved in unfortunate circumstances that resulted in their premature departure from a particular church. (In one case the participant was an associate pastor who indicated he was caught up in the guilt by association phenomena.) Additionally informative, none of the conflicts involved substantial issues in doctrine or theology. Two of the three clergy indicated it was merely personal differences and the other indicated there was a mismatch in expected worship style. Some of the more recurrent comments are captured by the quotes listed below: Ive seen more than one minister who just mishandled a relatively benign issue. Unfortunately, these things tend to fester. It is critical for those in pastoral leadership positions to have top-notch skills at interpersonal communicationparticularly in handling criticism. This can derail someone very quickly. Its almost never about your beliefs, although some people try to use that to get at something else. Dynamite comes in small packages, but can have big effects. Once I took a stand on a particular issue in our community and preached about it from the pulpit. I have never received more criticism than I did thenand about 10% of the congregation left the church. I was devastated. Even though it was only about 10% that left, they were a very

55

vocal group and at the time it seemed like nearly everyone was against me. It was one of the biggest shocks I ever experienced. The other side of the equation is that some pastors simply hunker down when they are hit with unfair criticism. Obviously this limits the effectiveness of that pastor to his flock. Its really a no-win situation. No one benefits from this kind of situation; it really a lose-lose. We need to provide better training in the seminary for the realities of dealing with peopleI think we could definitely improve. I look forward to seeing a seminar that will give us some tools to better deal with this issue. Question 8: What are some best practices in handling criticism? The participants offered practical advice in handling criticism. There were a variety of suggestions offered by the group; the most frequently cited are identified below: Make sure you hold your tongue. James had some great advice here. Try to understand where the other person is coming from. They may be hurting and are just venting. Always focus on the issue, not the person. I think one of the most important things is to not overly dwell on criticism. I work to learn something from it if I can and move on. This is tougher than it sounds, but Im sure it is the right thing to do. We

56

sometimes seem to ignore all the positive things other say and focus on the one or two negative comments. Thats not even good math! Seek Gods help right away. I try to see if God is sending me a message for improvement. Of course, depending on the circumstance and the emotions involved, this can be a bit difficult at times. The old standby of counting to 10 before you say anything has helped me more times than I can count. When giving criticism or feedback, make sure you know exactly why you are doing it; is your heart in the right place? I try to ask as many questions as I can---it helps. If I need to offer correction, I try to make sure I have all of the facts I need. I give criticism and feedback with the mindset and spirit of improvement. If I am facing a particularly touchy area, I make sure I run through the facts, the way I want to deliver the information, and consider how the other person my respondbefore I say anything to the person.

57

Question 9: What would a strong program designed to help pastors better handle interpersonal criticism need to contain? The responses focused on the need for practical consideration in handling this difficult communication issue. Some of the illustrative comments are listed below: Well, all of the stuff we have just been talking about. I can tell you that it needs to be practical---that cant be stressed enough. Practical advice is what will make the difference. We know scripture. We know we should hold our tongue. We know we should immediately forgive. What is needed is ways to deal with criticism and the emotions that will allow us to be more effective. In other words, and I know this is sensitive, but what would be most helpful is to give those in the seminary and practicing clergy tools that will help us to deal with the psychology so we can remain focused on the theology. If we are going to be honest, I can tell you we need more than an admonition to forgive the offending party. I think we need to offer tools for everyone to deal with the unexpected criticism that sneaks up on us. We need to do this in the seminary; we do not provide this type of here is what to expect training for new ministers.

58

Question 10: What scriptural references do you believe are particularly salient to this issue? Several scriptural references were offered by the participants. This information is more fully covered in chapter 3 and, thus, will not be repeated here. In particular, several proverbs (e.g., 13:18, 15:1, 23:12 25:12), the first chapter of James, chapter 15 of Acts, and Mathew 7:1-5 were most often cited. Focus Group: Conclusion Statements At the conclusion of the focus group session a series of statements were identified that captured the sentiment of the group as a whole. All statements were based on the focus-groups conversations and were voted on by the participants. Various summary statements were offered to the group; however, only those items that received majority support were included. The focus group, en masse, agreed that: Interpersonal criticism is a challenging communication event that impacts clergy as it does many others. Interpersonal criticism can have a detrimental effect on the life satisfaction and health of clergy members. Interpersonal criticism can adversely affect interpersonal relationships, including pastor-congregation, pastor-staff, and pastor-family relations. Although interpersonal criticism is infrequent; the impact can be consequential. A program that provides specific, practical advice for clergy on how to better handle interpersonal criticism would be valuable. 59

Chapter 7 Study 1 Discussion Despite some initial trepidation that the participation might be less than vigorous, the discussion was lively and the participants were engaged. There was a healthy exchange of ideas. There seemed to be a sense that this was an important issue for the group and they understood that their input was vital to the further development of the survey and the intervention. The prior notification of the focus group members regarding the topic to be discussed was helpful in this process. The participants had been told of the subject of the focusgroup and were asked to come to the session prepared for the discussion. This allowed for a prompt engagement and dialogue. The participants had already considered their potential contributions and had time to reflect on their thoughts prior to arrival. This allowed for the best use of the limited time. This approach is consistent with the advice provided by Brown and Paulus (2002). Additionally, the participants were free to offer not only their own considerations, but also to offer input on how most other clergy might respond. This process allows participants to more freely express views that they believe others may hold or views that they themselves may have, but would feel uncomfortable expressing them as a personal position. The results of the focus group support the related hypotheses (1, 2, & 3). There was clear agreement among our clergy-participants that criticism is viewed as a negatively focused interaction that can have an adverse impact both personally and professionally. This is consistent with the findings of Darling, et

60

al. (2004), Hogue and Wenge (2005), and Lee (1999). The discussion also revealed that many clergy mentally correlated negative criticism with a negative attitude on the part of the critic. Interestingly there was some discussion that we all should consider using the term feedback rather than criticism. However, that was quickly rejected when it was realized that this labeling was rally a function of the recipient. No matter what term a critic might use (feedback, evaluation, assessment, etc.), ultimately the comments are interpreted by the person being criticized. Previous research has suggested that individuals tend to label evaluative comments as feedback if they are delivered in a manner that regards the feeling of the recipient and is done so in a spirit of helping one to improve (Leung, et al., 2001). Comments delivered without such regard were often identified as criticism. Criticism was often seen as a personal attack rather than constructive advice. Receipt of criticism was reported to be accompanied by feelings of anger and frustration, particularly if the criticism was unfair (also see Baron, 1990; Wilson et al., 2003). Interesting, other research suggests that although we most often identify our emotional reaction to criticism as anger, this is often an imprecise label. Frequently what some may label as anger is actually composed of other feelings and emotions such as embarrassment, shame, pride, and so forth (see Ingram & Johnson, 2009; LaHaye & Phillips, 1982, Patterson, Grenny, McMillian, & Switzler, 2002, 2005). Although harsh criticism was received relatively infrequently; when it occurred it was reported to often be impactful for our clergy sample. It has a high

61

valiance with significant emotional intensity. The resultant effect can involve psychological and physical consequences. Gastrointestinal distress, hypertension, and emotional fatigue were cited. The psychophysical consequence of sleep disturbance cited in this group was somewhat unexpected. This does seem to be intuitively consistent; however, this symptom is not widely addressed in the literature. Additionally, many in the focus group knew of former pastors who left the ministry prematurely as a result of the effects of conflict and criticism. Obviously, this is an issue for inclusion in the Study 3 intervention. The trigger events that precipitate criticism were viewed as less substantial and rarely involved issues of theology or doctrine. The participants indicated that ones inability to properly handle criticism was the consequential element; not the topic itself. This involves not only better handling criticism that is received from others, but equally important, providing criticism that does not unnecessarily offend and engage the defenses of the recipient. Again, this seems to suggest the need of including in the study 3 intervention a skill set focused on handling criticism itself more effective, regardless of the severity of the topic. Participants provided both practical and biblical guidance that should be considered when working with criticism-prone circumstances. These elements will be incorporated into the intervention described in study 3. What is striking was the focus by the participants on the need for practical techniques and skills. There was a clear sentiment that scriptural direction was foundational; however,

62

the group expressed that realistic advice and considerations allows one to better remain consistent with their biblical principles. In sum, the focus group determined that a program designed to assist pastors in better handling criticism-prone situations was necessary and valuable. It was particularly noted that this type of program should be considered in seminary curriculum. The clergy-participants collectively agreed that interpersonal criticism was a seldom-addressed problem in the ministry that can have detrimental effects on their interpersonal relationships and personal wellbeing. These issues will be further explored in study 2 with a larger sample of clergy. Additionally, this pertinent information will be used in the development of the study 3 intervention.

63

Chapter 8 Study 2 Overview Study 2 examines the issue of attitudes and influences related to interpersonal criticism among members of the clergy more fully. Study 2 builds upon the information identified in the study 1 focus group by developing a survey instrument designed to explore the area of interpersonal criticism among the clergy on a larger sample. The goal is to gain a better understanding of the impact that criticism may have on members of the ministry, including issues of frequency, severity, and adverse consequences. Specifically, additional insight from members of the clergy on how they view and respond to criticism, as well as the impact that criticism may have on their well-being, vocation, stress, and so forth is examined. This survey of members of a large ministerial alliance explicitly considered the role of criticism in the life of the clergy and their congregation. Information gleaned from study 1, and a beta test of this survey instrument found that criticism is often viewed negatively and can have deleterious effect upon members of the clergy. After the administration of the beta-test instrument, the survey and procedures were refined based on the beta results and on input from the advisory group (MAAG) composed of members from the alliance. The formal survey administered to a larger sample of clergy confirmed the findings of the focus-group in study 1 and provided additional insight into the salient issues of clergy-criticism interactions.

64

Study 2 Methods Participants One hundred and six (106) senior and associate pastors from various denominations were randomly selected to participate in the study survey. All were members of the clergy and were associated with a large ministerial alliance. Materials The Ministerial Interpersonal Skills Survey (MISS) is an exploratory survey instrument that was created in collaboration with social scientists, the area ministerial alliance, and members of the clergy. The MISS consisting of 20 sections (most sections have multiple questions) that are designed to examine the interpersonal skills that members of the clergy consider to be essential in fulfilling their roles. More specifically, this instrument assesses the role of criticism in the lives and working relationships of clergy members. Consistent with the prevailing literature in secular occupations, various issues regarding the impact of criticism and criticism-prone situations are explored as they relate to the clergy. The MISS assesses the potential role that interpersonal criticism may have on health, occupation/vocation, family, stress, burnout, and relationships. The survey also has a section devoted to open-ended comments for participants to freely express how they view the impact of criticism on members of the clergy. Additionally, this instrument collects general demographic data to examine potentially important associations such as the relationship of gender, ministerial position, denominational influences, number of years in the ministry, and education level. (See Appendix A for complete survey.)

65

Design and Procedure A listing of participating and associated members of the clergy was obtained from the ministerial alliance. From this listing, 106 clergy were randomly selected to receive the Ministerial Interpersonal Skills Survey. Participants included those that were identified as either senior or associate pastors; however, data from the alliance revealed that this could also include youth pastors and other related positions. Each of the 106 individuals identified were sent a copy of the MISS along with a cover letter explaining the general purpose of the research project and a personal request for their participation. A postage-paid return envelop was included and affixed to the survey. Previous studies have determined that participation substantially increases if a personal request is made (Cialdini, 2000; Garner, 2005), if the survey instrument is not cumbersome, and if there is no associated cost to the individual (Cozby, 2008); thus, the inclusion of the postage-paid envelop. Participants were assured of their anonymity in their responses (no specific identifying data were collected), they were asked to honestly and reflectively complete the survey instrument, and were directed to return the survey via the postage-paid envelop within a three-week time frame.

66

Chapter 9 Study 2 Results The MISS survey was analyzed using general statistical procedures and encoding through SPSS. Return Rate: The survey return rate for this group was 78.3%. Of the 106 surveys sent 83 were returned within the three-week window provided. This is somewhat higher than is usually expected for unsolicited surveys. Three additional surveys were received after the indicated timeframe and were not included in the analysis. However, a post-analysis examination found no important differences between the late surveys and the aggregate results reported here. General Demographics of Respondents: Age: The mean age of those who completed the survey was 46.9. Associate pastors were somewhat younger (34.2) and senior pastors were slightly older (54.6). Gender: Respondents were overwhelmingly male, (85%; n= 71) as compared with females (15%; n= 12). The ministerial alliance leadership suggests that this is consistent with their expectations. Pastoral Position: There were 47 individuals who identified themselves as the senior pastor and 33 who indicated they were an associate pastor. (Three individuals did not respond to this question.) Time in Ministry: The average time in full-time ministry was 23.8 years.

67

Education: The highest level of education was modally indicated to be a Masters degree (n = 38). Of the remaining respondents, 18 indicated they had a Bachelors degree, 11 identified that that had some college credit, 7 reported earning a Doctorate, and 2 indicated they had an Associates Degree. None of the respondents indicated that they had no college and 7 did not respond to this item. Fifty-two of the respondents indicated that they had graduated from seminary. Denomination: The breakdown of denominational affiliation is presented in Table 1. However, caution must be exercised when interpreting these data. Although a randomization procedure was used to select potential participants, the sample size is relatively small and the respondents were required to be active members of the clergy who had an affiliation with the area ministerial alliance. Table 1 Respondents Denominational Affiliation 26 Baptist 19 8 7 6 5 3 3 2 2 Methodist Lutheran Nondenominational Presbyterian Church of Christ Assemblies of God Pentecostal Catholic No Response

68

Interactive Demographic Analysis: Given the relatively small number involved, between-cells analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences in response patterns based on gender, position, age, education, or denomination. There were interesting trends suggesting that younger respondents reported greater frustration and experienced greater stress as a result of criticism than did older participants; however, these were not statistically significant. Survey Results Respondents were asked to identify the top three interpersonal skills essential for members of the clergy (question 1). The results are provided in table 2. Communication, listening, and handling conflict / criticism were the most frequently identified. Of those items, the participants were asked in a follow-up question (2) to identify the one skill that caused the most difficulty for clergy and congregations. Handling conflict / criticism was selected more than any other category. Table 2 Essential Interpersonal Skills Identified for Clergy Number of Times Item Identified 71 64 61 39 19 15 12 Skill Effective Communication Listening Handling Conflict / Criticism * Stress Management / Health Goal Setting Problem Solving Relationship Building 69

12 9 7 3

Assertiveness Conducting Meetings Team Building Delegation skills

* = Identified as the most difficult skill

Note: Respondents were allowed to freely list their top three essential skills; therefore the totals will exceed the number of participants. Some participants identified more than three items; others less. All responses were included in the analysis. A secondary question asked them to identify the skill that caused clergy and congregation the most difficulty, from among those skills they identified.

Similarly, analysis of question 3 in the survey found that 91% (n = 74) of the respondents indicated that difficulty in handling criticism and criticismprone situations was one of the major problems in leadership effectiveness (note 3 individuals did not answer this item). When assessing the explanations offered for this perception, the most frequently cited issue was the lack of adequate preparation or training in dealing with this sensitive issue. The respondents indicated that the majority of individuals (non-clergy) tend to offer criticism in a more destructive (77%) rather than a productive manner. The respondent also indicated that most people receive criticism defensively (91%). (See Table 3 for summary of items 4 & 5.) However, when it comes to perceptions of how members of the clergy address criticism, there seems to be a sense that clergy can do a better job of offering and receiving critical comments. Of the 80 individuals who responded to these items (6 & 7 in the survey, respectively), 72% indicated that clergy are more productive and effective in offering criticism to others and tend to accept criticism less defensively (61%). 70

Table 3 Comparison of Respondents Perception of How Most People (in general) Versus Members of the Clergy Offer and Receive Criticism. Group Most People Clergy Offer Criticism Productively Destructively 23% 72% 77% 28% Receive Criticism Acceptingly Defensively 8% 61% 91% 39%

Note: This question was asking respondents about both people and clergy in general. This was not a question that addressed how they individually handled criticism.

Despite this perception, the majority of clergy (96%) indicated that when they receive criticism they occasionally become angry, annoyed, frustrated, or irritated. Additionally clergy members overwhelmingly believe that poorly delivered criticism can impact ones self-esteem (96%), cause one to become defensive (93%), and hurt ones feelings (96%). When considering their own response or reaction to receiving criticism, only 7% (n = 6) indicated that they always assess and respond to criticism effectively. Some clergy indicated that their reaction was to retreat when faced with criticism (n = 22) while others indicated that they were more likely to offer a robust defense (n = 16) or occasionally offer a counterattack (n =9). When examining whether the respondents and other members of the clergy could benefit from learning how to better give and receive criticism more effectively, the results were unequivocal. Of the 79 individuals who responded to this question, all (100%) agreed that such training could be helpful. Additionally, of the 80 respondents who considered whether members of congregations could

71

benefit from learning how to better give and receive criticism, all but one (n=79; 98.75%) indicated that there was value in this type of education. There was strong agreement that the consequences of destructive criticism can have adverse implications. (See table 4.) It is important to note that issues of job stress, health, relationships, and burnout were all identified by more than half of those responding as a penalty of dealing with destructive criticism. Further, the majority of respondents indicated that within the last year, they received unfair criticism (72.2%), and had received personal criticism from someone in a leadership role in the congregation (53%). (This is discussed more fully in Table 6.)

Table 4 Perceived Consequences of Destructive Criticism (N = 83) Number of Times Item Selected 78 77 77 68 66 65 14

Issue Job Stress Interpersonal Stress Relationship Issues Health Issues Family Difficulties Burnout Other

Percent 93.9% 92.7% 92.7% 83.0% 79.5% 78.3% 16.8%

Note: Respondents could select as many items as they believed applied.

72

One section of the MISS utilized a five-point, Likert-type attitude assessment. The results are presented in table 5. Clearly, the respondents confirmed that criticism can be a significant stressor for members of the clergy that can lead to adverse personal and professional consequences. Additionally, the clergy indicated that their preparatory or seminary training ill equipped them to effectively deal with interpersonal criticism and that denominational administrations should provide more training and educational opportunities to members of the ministry to handle issues of conflict resolution and criticism.

Table 5 Attitudinal Measure of Criticism (N = 81) Question Criticism can be a significant stressor for clergy. Poorly handled criticism can lead to adverse professional consequences. Program for clergy to better handle criticism is beneficial. Criticism at work can impact relationships at home. Giving criticism is difficult, as the other person may not want to hear it. Denominational administration should provide more training and educational opportunities to deal with conflict and criticism. Biblical precepts can be used to assist clergy and congregations to more effectively handle criticism. Preparatory or seminary training provided little or no specific training to deal with interpersonal criticism.

Mean 4.77 4.65 4.60 4.38 4.63

SD .474 .504 .492 .645 .486

4.82 4.92

.386 .276

4.54

.502

73

The MISS question (item 16) that asked participants how frequently they actively sought to receive criticism from others was noteworthy. None of the respondents indicated that they frequently solicited criticism. Of the remaining categories related to this question, 50.6% indicated they occasionally sought criticism (n = 40), 27.8% selected that they rarely solicited criticism (n = 22), and 21.5% indicated they almost never sought criticism (n=17). In the section of the MISS that addressed personal criticism, respondents indicated whether or not they had received communication within the last year that they identified as criticism. Table 6 provides the specific areas identified by the clergy in which they received criticism. Table 6 Received Personal Criticism in the Last Year (N = 83) Number of Times Item Selected Issue Percent 68 Criticized by congregation member. 81.9% 60 44 9 7 3 Criticized unfairly. Criticized by congregation leadership. Voiced doubts about your faith. Questioned devotion to ministry. Other 72.2% 53.0% 10.8% 8.4% 3.6%

Note: Respondents could select as many items as they believed applied. Finally, the open-ended section of the MISS provided participants with an opportunity to offer comments regarding the impact of criticism on members of

74

the clergy that might not have been addressed in the previous questions. The comments associated with this section resulted in further verification of the deleterious effects of poor handling of criticism and criticism-prone situations. The most frequent comments involved a sense of frustration over criticism received based on unreasonable expectations that are held by some members of the congregation. Additionally, these comments suggest that criticism has a significant impact on personal and professional relationships.

75

Chapter 10 Study 2 Discussion The response rate for this randomly-assigned survey was a strong 78.3% (n = 83). Considering that the typical response rate for an unsolicited survey is usually around 38%, this result was impressive. Additionally, such a strong return rate provides additional confidence that the results can properly generalize to the larger population. The findings confirm the information identified in study 1 and further support the related hypotheses (1, 2, & 3). This speaks to the reliability of the measures employed, considering the pretest survey, the focus-group findings, and the results found in study 2 were all internally consistent. Members of the clergy recognize that handling interpersonal conflict and criticism are important skills for members of the ministry. Clergy were allowed to open-endedly identify the most salient interpersonal skills. Those related to the area of communication topped the list (communication, listening, criticism / conflict). More telling, however, was that though handling criticism and conflict was ranked third in the overall list of important skills, it was ranked highest as being the area that caused the most difficultly for clergy. Additionally, the clergy-participants indicated strong agreement with the proposition that handling criticism and criticism-prone situations was a major issue in leadership effectiveness. Interestingly, the participants indicated that they believed that clergy were likely more productive and effective in offering criticism to others and tend to accept criticism less defensively than the general public. It is important to

76

note that this question addressed clergy in general, and was not a response based on any individual participant. It is possible that there was an undercurrent of social desirability in addressing this issue. In the item that addressed their personal responses to criticism, the participants overwhelming indicated that they occasionally became angry, annoyed, frustrated, and irritated when faced with criticism. Additionally, from a personal perspective, clergy members soundly indicated that poorly delivered criticism can impact ones self-esteem (96%), cause one to become defensive (93%), and hurt ones feelings (96%). Further, few clergy indicated that they always assess and respond to criticism effectively. The majority of respondents indicated that their reaction to criticism was to retreat or offer a defensive responseoccasionally characterized as a counterattack. Ingram and Johnson (2009) report that when such conflict occurs, either we blow up and attackor we retreat in fear of confrontation (p. 140). All too often we do what is comfortable in the short term, rather than what is helpful in the long term. Although typically sparse, the research literate was supported regarding issues of job stress, health, relationships, and burnout as a result of dealing with destructive criticism (e.g., Darling et al., 2004; Ferguson, 2008; Hogue & Wenge, 2005; McKown, 2002). The clergy-participants overwhelmingly indicate that improperly handled criticism can have a consequential penalty on personal well-being and result in untimely ended careers. Additionally, the survey revealed that most clergy reported they had received communication within the last year that they identified as unfair

77

personal criticism and most had received criticism from someone in a leadership role within their congregation. This is consistent with previous research in which harsh clergy criticism was found to be infrequent but impactful (Beebe, 2007; Lee & Iverson-Gilbert, 2003). Further, the present findings are supportive of the research conducted by Lee (1999) which found that criticism received from someone in a leadership position was considered to be the most stressful event of the 17 items listed in the survey. The attitudinal section of the survey revealed further confirmation that criticism can be a significant stressor for members of the clergy, leading to adverse personal and professional consequences. This provides convergent validity to other sections of the MISS, as well as previous related research (e.g., McKown, 2002; Lee, 1999; Lee & Iverson-Gilbert, 2003). There was near unanimous agreement that criticism impacted vocational and personal relationships. Additionally, the attitudinal questions established that clergy found their preparatory or seminary training to be insufficient in effectively dealing with interpersonal criticism and that denominational administrations should provide more training and educational opportunities to members of the ministry to handle issues of conflict resolution and criticism. This is consistent with the finding of the study 1 focus group and previous research. Hogue and Wenge (2005) reported that many who have left the ministry speak with passion regarding the lack of support or assistance from denominational officials and the limitations of their seminary training. Hoge, Dyble, and Polk (1981) suggested

78

that denominational officials should offer more specific training in areas such as this. Previous research (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Baron, 1990) has indicated that soliciting criticism and feedback was an effective strategy to mitigate some of the deleterious effects of criticism. However, none of the respondents indicated that they frequently solicited criticism. Most indicated that they seldom or occasionally sought criticism. This seems to suggest that this issue, as well as others identified above, should be addressed in the intervention developed in study 3. The overview of study 3 and development of this program is discussed in the next chapter.

79

Chapter 11 Study 3 Overview Study 3 involves the creation and presentation of the Criticism Management for Clergy program. In conjunction with this researcher and the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group (MAAG), a Program Advisory Council (PAC) was created to aid in the development of this program. The PAC was comprised of psychologists, education specialists, and members of the MAAG. In order to develop a comprehensive intervention, the PAC examined previous research, the findings in studies 1 and 2, as well as voluminous relevant topic-related materials. The goal was to develop a biblically based, psychologically sound, intervention program to assist members of the clergy in handling criticism and criticism-prone circumstances more effectively. The program is specifically tailored to address the identified needs of the clergy who comprise the study populationthe members of the ministerial alliance: (a) to more effectively give criticism, (b) to better assess and respond to received criticism, and (c) to consider ways to solicit productive criticism from others. The intervention was delivered to a group of clergy as a continuingeducation training program. In order to develop a methodologically robust intervention program, these psychosocial elements were mapped onto biblically sound guidance for handling criticism. The biblical guidance is discussed in greater detail in chapter 3 and was guided by the recommendations of the PAC, the MAAG, and the responses from the clergy focus-group.

80

The training program was administered to members of the clergy randomly selected from a list developed in conjunction with the MAGG. The terminal goal of study 3 was to create and evaluate a viable, empirically-driven intervention. Specifically, the immediate and post assessment process was designed to determine if the participants report that the information presented in the targeted program was useful and, more importantly, if the training had a tangible impact on their daily interactions and concomitant interpersonal factors. The post-training follow-up survey was administered approximately six weeks after the training intervention. Study 3 Methods Participants Forty-five members of the ministerial alliance were randomly selected from the full listing of interested clergy provided by the MAAG and invited to participate in the Criticism Management for Clergy program. As a result of the randomization procedure, denominational, demographic, or vocational considerations of the participants were not involved or assessed. Although the ideal number of participants was estimated to be approximately 30 (in consideration of logistical issues such as room size, interaction opportunities, etc.), the group was oversampled in recognition of the numerous scheduling conflicts that were likely to exist. A robust 34 full-time senior and associate pastors participated in this portion of the study. Each participant attended a 3.5hour program.

81

Materials Participants completed the Interpersonal Criticism Scale (ICS) prior to receiving the intervention training. The ICS is designed to elicit an individuals assessment of how they handle interpersonal conflict and criticism. This instrument was designed to help the participant establish current benchmarks by which they might later individually assess their own potential improvement. In order to maintain confidentiality, and to alleviate the concern that some participants may have regarding personal disclosure (even in the classroom) of potentially sensitive information, this instrument was not collected. It was merely used as a self-help assessment tool for the participants to anchor their efficaciousness in handling interpersonal criticism. The ICS included Likert-type questions such as I always receive criticism from others effectively, I always offer criticism to others constructively, and I seldom feel stress when receiving interpersonal criticism from others. Each item was self-scored on a typical 7point attitudinal rating scale (see Appendix B). Participants were provided with a 3.5-hour intervention identified as a ministerial workshop entitled: Criticism Management and the Clergy: How to Better Give, Receive, and Solicit Criticism. The content of this session was developed by this researcher in conjunction with subject matter experts who comprised the Program Advisory Committee and in consultation with members of the ministerial alliance. The PAC reviewed dozens of journal articles, texts, monographs and curriculum of other training programs (e.g., Allen, 2005; Bramson, 1981; Bright, 1988; Cava, 2004; Crowe, 1999; Cupach & Canary, 1997;

82

Garner, 2006; Meier, 1993; Patterson et al., 2002, 2005; Poirier, 2006; Sande, 2005; Stone, Patton, & Heen, 2000; Ursiny, 2003). The information and materials that were deemed by the PAC to have relevance, empirical support, and practical utility were synthesized into the program. The foundation of the intervention was based on sound biblical principles and examples (see chapter 3). No instructional element was included if it did not meet the seminal test of biblical veracity. Each area of the workshop was vetted by the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group (MAAG). The workshop included the following sections: a. Criticism and the Clergy: Whats the Toll The Research on Criticism The Research on Clergy

b. History of Criticism c. Redefining Criticism Using the GRIPE approach

d. Causes of Criticism e. The Bible and Criticism f. How Would Jesus Criticize? g. Benefits of Criticism h. Critical Communication i. Criticism: Is it better to Give or Receive? j. Giving Criticism more Effectively k. Receiving and Appraising Criticism 83

l. Criticism as Information m. The ABCs of Responding to Criticism n. Criticism Techniques o. Becoming an Effective Criticism Manager p. Scenarios and Practice Additionally, each participant received a copy of an appropriate text, a related study guide, and a workbook. The initial evaluative procedure consisted of an immediate survey that was similar in construction to that used in other Ministerial Alliance training. This was done at the request of the MAAG and involved 7 attitudinal questions that generally assessed the speaker, the topic, and the relevance using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Additionally this form had an area for open-ended comment from the participants. (See Chapter 12 for the list of all items and responses.) The six-week follow-up was a web-based evaluation that consisted of seven Likert-type attitudinal questions, a section that allowed open-ended responses regarding the participants evaluation of the most useful elements of the workshop, a section that solicited specific behavioral examples that were impacted by attendance in the class, as well as a self-rating concerning the participants handling of criticism before and after the workshop. (See Appendix D for the follow-up evaluation items.) Design and Procedure In conjunction with the MAAG, an informational flyer and other interagency communications regarding the availability of the Criticism

84

Management for the Clergy workshop was made available to members of the area ministerial alliance. After allowing for a time-frame in which the program information had been readily available to their members, the MAAG contacted their membership and developed a listing of those clergy who expressed some level of interest. The MAAG identified a range of interest levels (e.g. Somewhat Interested, Very Interested) however, all who responded affirmatively, regardless of valence, were placed on the list. There were no restrictions or requirements for participation other than one must be a member of the clergy and be available for the full training event. There were no costs associated with this training for the participants; all materials and resources were purchased, created, and provided at the expense of this researcher. Based on the list provided by the MAAG, 45 members were randomly selected and received an invitation to the training program. As indicated above, this is an intentional oversampling to compensate for likely scheduling and other conflicts. Of the 45 invitees, 34 were able to attend. The invitation procedure was used to provide some predictability as to the number of participants. The invitation offered a personal request designed to increase commitment (Cialdini, 2000) and provided attendance boundaries to ensure that program supplies and resources were adequate. In other words, this allowed for some control in the number of attendees so that the interest in the program did not exceed the materials or logistical resources available for the event. Participants arrived at the training venue and were provided with all necessary materials. Each participant was asked to sign-in and then given a copy

85

of the ICS to complete as a means for assessing their current performance in handling conflict and criticism. It was made clear that this was merely a tool designed for their own edification and would not be collected or shared with others. The goal was to encourage a completely honest self-evaluation without the need for face-saving or impression management that might occur if the instrument was collected. The participants were encouraged to keep the ICS and evaluate their self-reflected improvement in the weeks to come. Members of the MAAG recommended this to be the best approach. After providing time for completion of the ICS, the workshop commenced with an overview of the research on criticism, particularly as it relates to clergy and congregations. This was followed with some of the perceptions that are held regarding criticism, as well as an historical overview of the way this term has changed over time. The group explored the potential benefits of productive criticism and the potential causes and problems associated with negative criticism. The workshop addressed some important biblical principles and precepts that relate to this topic and considered ways in which criticism could be offered in more productive ways. The workshop extensively covered important considerations in giving criticism more productively, addressed ways to better appraise and respond to interpersonal criticism that is received, and discussed a number of specific techniques. Finally, there was a dialogue regarding characteristics of those individuals who tend to manage criticism and criticismprone situations more effectively.

86

This was a fast-paced and intensive workshop designed to help participants to more effectively handle various aspects of interpersonal conflict and criticism based on the relevant research literature and biblical precepts. At the conclusion of the workshop, participants were asked to complete an evaluation before they departed. This program evaluation was designed to not only provide an assessment of the participants perceptions of the current offering, but to also provide information that may be useful in better tailoring future workshops. Approximately six weeks following the completion of the workshop all participants were contacted and provided with an on-line follow-up questionnaire regarding the training. The follow-up questionnaire was created using a web-based professional survey software program that allowed participants to go to a secure on-line link and provide their anonymous responses in a quick and efficient manner. It was requested that the participants complete the evaluation and submit or return it within 10 days. This instrument was designed to assess the enduring effects of the training. The goal was to determine if the participants had used the material or techniques discussed and if they determined that the session had been personally beneficial. This type of assessment is important, as other research has demonstrated that the positive appraisals taken immediately after a training event may not have an enduring impact. Additionally, the desire was to assess whether the participants reported that their handling of criticism and criticism-prone situations had improved

87

after receiving the training and to solicit particular examples of how they applied the information received. Specifically, the follow-up evaluation had an attitudinal measurement section that assessed (a) the participants general rating of the workshops value, (b) a section that allowed the respondents to assess their pre-and post-workshop handling of criticism and (c) an open-ended section that allowed participants to identify the best portions and techniques offered in the workshop, as well as suggestions for improvement or changes. The final section allowed respondents to offer a specific example of an interaction or particular event that was impacted by what had been learned at the workshop. (See Appendix D for a sample copy of these items.)

88

Chapter 12 Study 3 Results Immediate Feedback Survey The immediate feedback provided by the participants indicated the intervention program was well received. Of the 34 attendees, 33 completed the feedback instrument; though not every person responded to all questions. This evaluation was a general assessment of the speaker, the topic, and the relevance. The evaluation consisted of 7 attitudinal questions and an open-ended section for additional comments. In this case, a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree) was used for the attitudinal questions to match the evaluation instrument employed by the Ministerial Alliance in other training and seminar events. Table 7 summarizes the attitudinal responses provided by the participants. Table 7 Mean and Standard Deviations for Each of the Immediate Feedback Attitudinal Question Items. Survey Question The ministerial workshop on criticism management was beneficial. The speaker/facilitator was knowledgeable about the topic. The content of the workshop relates to my present work. The instructional methods were conducive to learning. As a result of my participation in this workshop, I think differently about criticism. M 4.94 4.91 4.74 4.68 4.94 SD .251 .300 .512 .591 .251

89

The Criticism Management topic should continue to be offered to members of the clergy. A similar workshop designed for members of the congregation would be useful.

4.76 4.74

.502 .512

In addition to the attitudinal measures, an open-ended question provided participants with an opportunity to provide additional comments. These comments were generally brief (a result of the short time allotted at the conclusion of the session) and positive. A representative sampling is provided below: Outstanding! Great job bringing the class into the presentation. I must admit to being initially skeptical; however, this was a great class. Excellent. We all need this. This needs to be at our conference and in every seminary Excellent instructor. Very knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and made the subject interesting. This needs to be a course in the seminary and a much longer workshop for the rest of us. Great session. My only comment is that this needs to be longer. I had never considered a session on criticism and Ive never heard of this being done before. Kudos, this was fantastic. OK, now if you could only come to my church and teach the congregation how to criticism me properly! This is exactly what is needed in the seminary.

90

Follow-up Survey Of the 34 participants involved in the ministerial workshop, a robust 32 completed the follow-up evaluation. The instrument was differentially analyzed based on the type of question (open or closed ended). The attitudinal items yielded descriptive data and the pre- and post-attendance questions allowed both descriptive analysis as well as a paired-means comparison. The open-ended items were coded based on their content for ease of analysis. Attitudinal Questions Table 8 captures the question items and descriptive data for the attitudinal items. The resulting means are based on a 7-point Likert-type scale that is anchored from Strongly Agree through Strongly Disagree (see Appendix D for complete scale). The mean and standard deviation are presented for each attitudinal item. The final item was intentionally reverse-worded as an integrity check. This provides some confidence that respondents are not merely straight-lining their response; providing scores based on general impressions without carefully reading the questions. There is no evidence of that concern based on these results. The participants reported that the criticism management workshop was beneficial, that it resulted in improved handling of criticism, that they put particular techniques into practice, and they overwhelmingly indicated that this type of workshop should not only be continued for the clergy, but should also be expanded to a workshop designed for the congregation.

91

Table 8 Mean and Standard Deviations for Each of the Follow-up Survey Attitudinal Question Items. Question The ministerial workshop on criticism management was beneficial. Since completing the ministerial workshop I have improved my response to criticism. I think differently about criticism since completing the workshop. In the last few weeks, I have used specific techniques or elements presented in the workshop. The Criticism Management topic should continue to be offered to members of the clergy. A similar workshop designed for members of the congregation would be useful. The Criticism Management workshop was not valuable. Mean 6.78 6.65 6.15 6.46 6.42 6.25 1.25 SD .491 .545 .677 .507 .567 .842 .508

Improvement Evaluation The participants were asked to rate themselves on a general scale from 1 to 10 (1 = poor; 10 = excellent) on two questions. One question dealt with their self-assessment of how well they handled criticism before attending the workshop and the other addressed how they rate themselves at handling criticism after attending the training program. They were asked to reflect on their ICS self-assessment ratings that they completed prior to the program. This approach assists the participant in minimizing recency bias in recall.

92

The results were robust. The respondents mean rating for pre-workshop handling of criticism was 6.25 (SD = .508) as contrasted with the post-workshop mean rating of 8.03 (SD = .474). A paired-t test resulted in a statistically significant finding, t(31) = 14.264, p< .001. The self-reports of the participants indicate that they substantially benefited from their involvement in the training program and continued to hold this position a month and a half after the conclusion of the program. Open-Ended Item Analysis The most frequently occurring comments regarding what participants identified as the best part of the workshop can be classified into four general areas: (a) the cognitive reappraisal steps identified in redefining and offering criticism, (b) the focus on practical ideas within a biblical framework, (c) the focus on the productive potential of properly delivered criticism, and (d) the value in seeking criticism before it seeks you. More specifically, respondents identified the best techniques offered in the workshop were: (a) the ABC method of responding to criticism, (b) the new definition of criticism based on the history of the term, and (c) the mindset of offering criticism as though you are offering it to a child and (d) the importance of asking and using questions to mitigate ones own emotional response and gain useful information. The two most frequently cited suggestions for improvement were to make the session longer and include more written and role-play scenarios.

93

A number of individuals provided specific examples of how their involvement with the ministerial workshop on criticism management had impacted their actual behavior. Each of the offerings involved one or more of the above identified best practices techniques. These included examples such as: (a) Engaged thinking and assessment before comment. I find myself being more thoughtful and reflective regarding criticism. I make sure I ask questions, to both clarify the criticism I am receiving and to short-circuit the emotional element. (b) Considering the actual purpose of criticism. I give more consideration to the goal of any criticism I may offer. I make sure the focus is on improvement or helping the other person to grow. (c) Thinking about the potential productive nature of criticism. I think it is important to follow the advice offered in the seminar and actively look for ways to use criticismeven if it is undeserved or poorly deliveredto improve. Even if that improvement involves gaining more tolerance and patience, I have benefited. d) How to better assess the criticism that one receives. I have used the ABCs several times since the session and found it to be very helpful.

94

Chapter 13 Study 3 Discussion The final study in this series culminated in the development of a biblically sound, psychologically appropriate, and methodologically robust Criticism Management for Clergy intervention. The reporting of this program and the process on which it was derived cannot adequately capture the many hours of work and development that was necessary to reach this goal. Neither can it adequately capture the multitude of logistical complications nor the dedicated work of the MAAG and the PAC to see this project to fruition. The intervention program was based in part on the information gleaned from the study 1 and study 2 findings. As a result, this biblically directed and practically focused approach was conceptually, concurrently, and contextually valid for this group. Although this was not a true experimental design (because of logistical considerations), the sample selected for participation in the intervention was randomly derived from a list generated by the MAAG. This was a reasonable approach, as it provided a random control element and gained logistical influence so as to ensure an adequate delivery of the intervention to a manageable group of participants. We did not want to outstrip our ability to deliver a quality program or exceed the capacity of our resources. As a result, the generalizability is formally limited to those members of the clergy who have expressed at least some interest in this topic. Of course, it would be unlikely that anyone hostile to such a program would ever consider attending. As a result, the

95

general findings would seem to reasonably apply to those members of the clergy for which the program was developed; those who are seeking additional information, guidance, or help in addressing this often difficult interpersonal issue. The logistical complexity involved in this process was daunting. Developing the curriculum and support materials required a substantial commitment of all involved in this effort, particularly the PAC members. Additionally, the diversity of this group provided unique challenges for the coordination of the venue, the scheduling, and the provision of other support services needed for the training event. However, the session was well attended, the participants were engaged, and the session was well evaluated. Importantly, hypotheses 4 and 5 were confirmed. Both the immediate participant evaluations and the follow-up evaluations indicated that the program was well targeted to the group and setting. The curriculum content was well received and the comments regarding the instruction were strong. The main limitation identified in both the immediate and follow-up survey was the recommendation for additional time. Of course, such comments often occur for programs that are highly evaluated; we would all like to engage more of that which interests us and is beneficial. Although future training events may increased the allotted time, the MAAG and the PAC both determined that the 3.5 hour instructional block was appropriate. The concern was that if a longer session was offered, the number of available participants might drop precipitously. In fact, in a beta analysis and interviews with members of clergy

96

conducted before this project commenced, the majority of interviewees indicated that they would not likely agree to attend any session that lasted more than a half day. It is only with the hindsight of a highly-rated event that the participants lobby for more time. However, when contrasting this 3.5 hour session with the 16 hour intervention conducted in another research-based evaluation (Garner, 2008), increasing the programs length and enhancing the programs content should be considered for future research. It is particularly noteworthy that the follow-up analysis, conducted a month and a half after the session concluded, resulted in such demonstrative ratings. This suggests that the topic was not only interesting in the short run, but was identified by the participants as being useful long after the immediate afterglow of the initial training. The follow-up survey provides compelling evidence that this program is needed, beneficial, and should be expanded. The pre and post self-evaluations of the participants revealed a statistically significant difference in their efficacy to handle criticism and criticism-prone situations. The open-ended comments offered verification of the attitudinal items and demonstrated that the participants were actively engaged in the session. That engagement manifested in actual behavioral changes identified by members of the clergy. All too often seminars are attended with interest but with little resultant change in behavior or attitude as a product of ones participation. In many cases individuals may attend a session with an appealing topic or content; however, the information is never put into action. In this case, we have

97

clear evidence that the session was not only highly rated both immediately and at the time of the follow-up; we find that the impact of this program affected the lives and interactions of the participants in meaningful ways.

98

Chapter 14 General Discussion Members of the clergy are not immune from the difficulties and stresses associated with criticism and criticism-prone situations. The consequences of poorly handled criticism can result in a host of physical, psychological, sociological, and vocational problems. There is a strong inverse relationship between destructive interpersonal criticism received by members of the clergy and overall ratings of well-being and life satisfaction. Unfortunately, little research has focused on this area and the paucity of research that has been conducted often suffers from methodological concerns, unrepresentative samples, or few participants. Prior to the research reported herein, there were no identified peer-reviewed journal articles or empirical reviews that specifically addressed strategies or assessed targeted interventions to assist members of the clergy in ameliorating some of the adverse psychological and physiological costs associated with criticism. The present series of studies attempts to address a number of these concerns and omissions. The relationship developed with the Ministerial Alliance and the creation of both the Ministerial Alliance Advisory Group (MAAG) and the Program Advisory Committee (PAC) were instrumental to the success of this effort. Although compromises were made to solidify the support and participation of the alliance, it is unlikely that a study of this scope would have been possible without the development of such a strong partnership.

99

The randomly selected focus group of clergy members involved in study 1 provided valuable insight and guidance into the implications of interpersonal criticism in the lives of the clergy, as well as important elements that were needed in the development of a successful intervention. The clergy-participants collectively concluded that interpersonal criticism was a seldom-addressed problem in the ministry. There was clear agreement among the participants that criticism is viewed by members of the clergy as a negatively focused interaction that can have an adverse impact both personally and professionally. Receipt of criticism, particularly if it was perceived as unfair, was reported to be accompanied by feelings of anger and frustration. Although harsh criticism was reported to be received relatively infrequently; when it occurred it was often accompanied with significant emotional intensity. Psychological and physical consequences were reported by the clergy-participants, including issues involving gastrointestinal distresses, hypertension, sleep disturbances, and emotional fatigue. Additionally, poorly handled criticism had vocational consequences as well. The focus-group identified conflict and criticism as a precursor for some former pastors who left the ministry prematurely. Importantly, the participants indicated that ones inability to properly handle criticism in general, not the subject matter of the criticism, was the consequential element. Major issues involving doctrine or theology were not the problem, as the topics that lead to impactful critical interactions were often described as garden variety. This information provided important data used in

100

the development of the intervention and allowed for a focus on enhancing an appropriate skill set rather than examining topical defenses. Additionally, the focus group continually expressed the admonition that the intervention for clergy members needed to be realistic and practical. It was particularly noted that this type of program should be considered in seminary curriculum. Study 2 extended the information identified in the study 1 focus group. To gain a better understanding of the impact that criticism may have on members of the ministry, a survey instrument was developed to explore the issue of interpersonal criticism. This survey was administered to a random sample of clergy that were representative of the study population. Specifically, this survey more fully examined how members of the clergy view and respond to criticism, as well as the impact that criticism may have on their well-being, vocation, stress, and so forth. The robust response rate for this randomly-assigned survey suggests that confidence is warranted in the generalization of the results to the larger population. This is particularly important, as this addresses a methodological concern identified in much of the previous related research. Members of the clergy recognize that handling interpersonal conflict and criticism are important skills for members of the ministry and a major issue in effective leadership. Although handling criticism and conflict was ranked third in the overall list of important skills identified in the survey, it was identified as being the single most difficult area for members of the clergy.

101

Though participants indicated that clergy, in general, were likely more effective in providing and accepting criticism than the general public, they overwhelmingly reported that they occasionally became angry, annoyed, frustrated, and irritated when faced with personal criticism. Additionally, clergy members report that criticism can affect self-esteem, increase defensiveness, and wound feelings. Further, criticism was reported to impact job stress, personal and psychological health, interpersonal relationships, and vocational burnout. The survey additionally revealed that most clergy had received unfair, personal criticism within the last year. Though not necessarily frequent, it was reported to be very impactful. The attitudinal section of the study 2 survey provided confirmation of the findings in the other sections of the MISS regarding the adverse impact of criticism on vocational and personal relationships. Further, this section established that clergy found their preparatory or seminary training was insufficient to effectively deal with interpersonal criticism and that denominational officials were not doing enough to address this important issue. Study 3 involved the development and presentation of the biblically based, psychologically sound Criticism Management for Clergy intervention designed to assist members of the clergy in handling criticism and criticismprone circumstances more effectively. The program was specifically tailored to address the identified needs of the study population. In order to develop a methodologically robust design, the intervention was based on the empirical evidence gleaned from studies 1 and 2 and the

102

participants were randomly selected. As indicated elsewhere, this addresses important conceptual, contextual, and experimental concerns identified in prior research. The participants were randomly selected from a list of alliance members which was generated by the MAAG. The MAAG identified those clergy who expressed some interest in the topic. As a result, this is not a true experimental design, in that the random selection was not drawn from the entire populationthe complete membership of the alliance. However, given that it would be unlikely that individuals would participate in a program for which they had no expressed interest, the general findings would seem to reasonably apply to those members of the clergy for whom the program was developed and we can express confidence in the reliability of these results. Additionally, the denominational diversity involved in the composition of the ministerial alliance is important. Rather than a study done involving a single or limited number of denominations, here we have a representative cross-section of the clergy that is likely to be reflective of the vocation in general. Though there may be interesting differences among the denominations regarding this issue (seminary preparation, administrative support, etc.) for the present exploratory study, this diversity is appealing. Perhaps future research may wish to tease apart denominational influences. Any discussion on the actual development and presentation of the study 3 intervention will be inadequate. This was a complex and logistically challenging process requiring substantial commitment of the research team, the PAC, and the participants. A mere description regarding the particulars of the program

103

will necessarily fail to capture the difficulties of completing such an ambitious endeavor. However, satisfaction is received when considering both the immediate participant evaluations and the follow-up evaluations. The curriculum content was highly rated, the program was well targeted, and the comments regarding the instruction were outstanding. The most frequently occurring comment regarding the session was the desire to have even more time. This can reasonably be construed as an indication that the topic struck a chord with the participants. The follow-up analysis was equally positive and encouraging. Indications of actual behavioral change as a result of attending an intervention are seldom identified in much of the research reported in behavioral science. The majority of research in these areas concludes with a report of an attitudinal shift or adjustment. Each of the five general hypotheses identified in chapter one was confirmed. In both study 1 and study 2, the participants indeed reported that interpersonal criticism had detrimental effects on their vocation, their relationships, and their well-being (hypothesis 1). Additionally, these two studies found that denominational and seminary resources were inadequate in addressing the issues and implications of interpersonal criticism (hypothesis 2) and that a program designed to help clergy better address this area would be beneficial (hypothesis 3). The overwhelmingly positive results found in study 3 confirmed the final two hypotheses. The participants reported development of significant skills and benefits in mitigating the deleterious impact of criticism as a result of their

104

attendance in the intervention (hypothesis 4). Further, these benefits were still evident six weeks after the initial program and resulted in statistically significant self-ratings by the participants who assessed their pre-intervention handling of interpersonal criticism contrasted to their post-intervention efficacy in dealing with criticism (hypothesis 5). As a whole, these series of studies provide an important contribution to the literature. The methodological fidelity employed provides robust results that offer greater generalizablity than is found in much of the previous literature. Many previous reports involved inadequate or convenience samples, were based on unsubstantiated opinion, employed single-shot case studies, or offered anecdotal suppositions. The studies reported herein use experimental protocols that can provide greater confidence in inferring the study results to the larger population. Additionally, the development and empiric evaluation of the intervention has not been reported elsewhere in the academic literature. Though there is no shortage of information targeted to pastors on conflict resolution and criticism, there have heretofore been no peer-reviewed journal articles that involve the development and experimental assessment of a clergy-based targeted program of this type. Future research may wish to add to the knowledge developed here. More empiric-based, academically focused research is clearly desirable in this area. Such research needs to be published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals, which could result in greater general interest in the topic and provide a growing dialogue. Additional program development that more precisely identifies the

105

more salient elements that are beneficial in assisting the clergy to better address the consequences of interpersonal criticism should be considered. Offering the curriculum or some modification to larger populations under methodologically controlled conditions is also needed to further support the findings identified above. The studies reported here have only begun the work that is warranted. Finally, lest we get overly focused on the details and the methods involved in any empirical study, one must remember that only those things which are undertaken with the proper spirit and attitude will be successful. Though we can offer strategies and techniques to address some of the issues involved with our imperfect human nature, ultimately we must realize that it is God who is in control. All that we do must be reflected in sound biblical direction and principles. The Bible is filled with guidance on how we can better address many of lifes challenges, including criticism; some of which were discussed herein. Jesus tells us that if we are criticized because of our belief or faith in him, it is a blessing (Mat 5: 11-12). Notwithstanding the necessity of careful research and review, the most important message is how we should strive to be more Christ-like in our lives and in how we handle criticism. When giving criticism we must ensure that we have the proper spirit, an accurate attitude, and a correct motive; that we are striving to help others to improve, to grow, to prosper, to recover, or to develop. When receiving criticism we should endeavor to listen carefully, assess thoughtfully, and respond appropriately.

106

Dealing with criticism can be very difficult. Considering the mindset of a forgiving Christ can allow us to view criticism differently and overcome some of the tribulations we experience as a result. Christ, the very embodiment of perfection in character and deed, was constantly criticized. The greatest teacher and extraordinary leadership role model was criticized by his disciples who often misunderstood him, by those who thought only they were the truly religious, and by the political rulers who were troubled by his message and impact. As a result, he faced the ultimate criticism; the criticism of the cross. However, it is here that we find the vital lesson for all of us. Though he was criticized and crucifiedhe arose.

107

References Allen, B. (2005). When people throw stones: A leaders guide to fielding personal criticism. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. Arendale, R. (2006). Conflict in the Community. Houston, TX: Gulf Press. Argyis, C. (1995). Strategy, change and defensive routines. Belmont CA: Pitman. Argyis, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69, 99-109. Ashford, S., & Cummings, L., (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370-398. Ashford, S., & Northcraft, G., (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of impression-management in feedback-seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 310-334. Baron, R. (1988a). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, selfefficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 199-207. Baron, R. (1988b). Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating role of apparent sincerity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 111-127. Baron, R. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 235-245. Baron, R. (1993). Criticism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived unfairness in organizations: Effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Becker, P. (1999). Congregations in conflict: Cultural models of local religious life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Beebe, R. (2007). Predicting burnout, conflict management style, and turnover among clergy. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(2), 257-275. Blackbird, T., & Wright, P. (1985). Pastors friendships: Project overview and an exploration of the pedestal effect. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 13, 274283.

108

Blanton, P. (1992). Stress in clergy families: Managing work and family demands. Family Perspectives, 26, 315-330. Bramson, R. (1981). Coping with difficult people. New York: Dell. Bresnahan, T., Brynjolsson, E., & Hitt, L. (2002). Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firem-level evidence. Quarterly Jounral of Economics, 117(1), 3390376. Bright, D. (1988). Criticism in your life: How to give it; How to take it; How to make it work for you. New York: Master Media. Brown, V., & Paulus, P. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 208-212. Cabane, O. (2007). The art of criticism. American Lawyer, 29:2, 65-66. Campbell, W., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology, 3, 23-43. Cava, R. (2004). Dealing with difficult people: How to deal with nasty customers, demanding bosses and annoying co-workers. New York: Firefly. Cialdini, R. (2000). Influence: Science and practice, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Cozby, P. (2008). Methods in behavioral research (10th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill. Crowe, S. (1999). Since strangling isnt an option: dealing with difficult people, common problems and uncommon solutions. New York: Berkley Publishing. Cupach, W., & Canary, D. (1997). Competence in interpersonal conflict. Long Grove, Il: Waveland Press. Darling, C., Hill, E., & McWey, L. (2004). Understanding stress and quality of life for clergy and clergy spouses. Stress and Health, 20, 261-277. DeLuca, J. (1980). The holy crossfire: Diagnosis of a pastors position. Pastoral Psychology, 28, 233-242. Ellison, C., Gay, D., & Glass, T. (1989). Does religious commitment contribute to individual life satisfaction? Social Forces, 68, 100-123.

109

Fedor, D., Eder, R., & Buckley, M., (1989). The contrtibutory effects of supervisory intentions on subordinate feedback responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 396-414. Ferguson, J. (2008). Understanding the sources of occupational stress and burnout among Assembly of God clergy and the resulting implications. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 69(6-B). Fiedler, K., Asbeck, J., & Nickel, S. (1991). Mood and constructive memory effects on social judgment. Cognition and Emotion 5, 363378. Fischer, C. (Ed.) (2005). Qualitative research methods for psychologists: Introduction through empirical studies. Academic Press. Frame, M., & Shehan, C. (1994). Work and well-being in the two-person career: Relocation stress and coping among clergy husbands and wives. Family Relations, 43(2), 196-205. Friedman, E. (1985). Generation to generation: Family process in church and synagogue. New York: The Gilford Press. Friedman, R., Tidd, S., Currall, S., & Tsai, J., (2000). Task versus relationship conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 32-55. Furlong, G. (2005). The conflict resolution toolbox: Models and maps for analyzing, diagnosing, and resolving conflict. Ontario, Canada: Wiley. Garber, P. (2004). Giving and receiving performance feedback. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Garner, R. L. (2005). Police chief longevity: Predicaments, problems, and politics. Paper presented to the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, November 2005. Garner, R. (2006). Criticism management: How to more effectively give, receive, and seek criticism in our lives. Prescient Press. The Woodlands, TX. Garner, R. (2007). Clergy attitudes towards criticism. Unpublished data. Garner, R. (2008). Police stress: Effects of criticism management training on health. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 4(2), 243-259. Geisler, N., & Zukeran, P. (2009). The apologetics of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

110

Gilbert, B. (1987). Who ministers to ministers: A study of support systems for clergy and spouses. New York: Alban Institute. Goodall, W. (2003). How to handle criticism. Enriching Pentecostal Ministers. AG Publishers. Greenberg, J. (1990). Comprehensive stress management. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Grosch, W., & Olsen, D. (1991). Clergy burnout: A self psychology and systems perspective. Journal of Pastoral Care, 45, 297-304. Grosch, W., & Olsen, D. (2000). Clergy burnout: An integrative approach. Psychotherapy in Practice, 56 (6), 619-632. Hall, T. (1997). The personal functioning of pastors: A review of empirical research with implications for the care of pastors. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25(2), 240-253. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. NY: Wiley. Heldmann, M. (1988). When words hurt. NY: New Chapter Press. Henry, D., Chertok, F., Keys, C., & Jegerski, J. (1991). Organizational and family systems factors in stress among ministers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 931-952. Hobgood, W. (2001). Welcoming resistance: A path to faithful ministry. Washington, DC: Alban Institute. Hoge, D., & Wenge, J. (2003). Experiences of protestant ministers who left local church ministry. Presented to the Religious Research Association, Norfolk, VA, October 25, 2003. Hoge, D., & Wenge, J. (2005). Pastors in transition: Why clergy leave local ministry. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Hoge, R., Dyble, J., & Polk, D. (1981). Organizational and structural influences on vocational commitment of protestant ministers. Review of Religious Research, 23(2), 133-149. Hugghins, K. (2007). Preparing for the Ministry. Presentation to the Baptist Alliance, March 2007. Houston, TX.

111

Hyde, M., Jappinen, P., Theorell, T., & Oxenstierna, G. (2006). Workplace conflict resolution and the health of employees in Sweedish and Finnish units of an industrial company. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 2218-2228. Ilgen, D., Fisher, C., & Taylor, M., (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371. Ilgen, D., Mitchell, T., & Fredrickson, J., (1981). Poor performers: Supercisors and subordinates responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 27, 386-410. Ingram, C., & Johnson, B. (2009). Overcoming emotions that destroy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Jinkins, M. (2002). Great expectations, sobering realities. Congregations, 28(3), 24-27. Jones, E. (1976). How do people perceive the cause of behavior? American Scientist, 64, 300-305. Jones, E., & Nisbett, R. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the cases of behavior. Morristown NJ: General Learnin Press. Jones, P. (1999). Studying the parables of Jesus. Macan, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing. Kaldor, P., & Bullpit, R. (2001). Burnout in church leaders. Adelaide: Openbook Publishers. Kennedy, K., Eckhardt, B., & Goldsmith, W. (1984). Church members expectations of clergy personality. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 3(3), 9-18. Kieren, D., & Munro, B. (1988). Handling greedy clergy roles: A dual clergy example. Pastoral Psychology, 36, 239-248. Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A., (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-285. Krause, N., Ellison, C., & Wulff, K. (1988). Church-based emotional support, negative interaction, and psychological well-being: Findings from a national sample of Presbyterians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 725-741. LaHaye, T., & Phillips, B. (1982). Anger is a choice. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

112

Landy, F., Farr, J., & Jacobs, R. (1982). Utility concepts in performance measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 15-40. Larson, J. (1986). Supervisors performance feedback to subordinates: The role of subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 391-408. Larson, J. (1989). The dynamic interplay between employees feedback-seeking strategies and supervisors delivery of performance feedback. Academy of Management Review, 14, 408-422. Lee, C. (1999). Specifying intrusive demands and their outcomes in congregational ministry: A report on the ministry demands inventory. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 477-489. Lee, C., & Iverson-Gilbert, J. (2003). Demand, support, and perception in family-related stress among protestant clergy. Family Relations, 52, 249-257. Leung, K., Smith, P., Wang, Z., & Sun, H. (1996). Job satisfaction in joint venture hotels in China: An organizational justice analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 947-962. Leung, K., Su, S., & Morris, M. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The role of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations, 54(8), 1155-1187. Lewis, C., Turton, D., & Francis, L. (2007). Clergy work-related psychological health, stress, and burnout: An introduction to the special issue of Mental Health, Religion, and Culture. Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 10(10), 1-8. Liden, R., & Mitchell, T. (1985). Reaction to feedback: The role of attributions. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 291-308. Lind, E., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P., (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959. Lind, K., Kulik, C., Ambrose, M, & de Vera Park, M., (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224-251. Lissak, R., & Sheppard, B. (1983). Beyond fairness: The criterion problem on dispute intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 45-65.

113

Lord, C., Lepper, M., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1231-1243. Malony, H. (1988). Men and women in the clergy: Stress, strains, and resources. Pastoral Psychology, 35, 164-168. Maslach, C. (1997). Truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. New York: Scribners. McGuire, W., & McGuire, C. (1986). Differences in conceptualizing self versus conceptualizing other people as manifested as contrasting verb types used in natural speech. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1135-1143. McKown, D. (2002). Pastors in conflict: The nature, extent, contributing factors, and consequences of conflict in ministry. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B, 63(1-B). Meier, P. (1993). Dont let jerks get the best of you: Advice for dealing with difficult people. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Mills, E., & Koval, J. (1971). Stress in the ministry. Washington, DC: Ministry Studies Board. Morris, M., & Blanton, P. (1998). Predictors of family functioning among clergy and spouses: Influence of social context and perceptions of work-related stressors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 7 (1), 27-41. Morris, M., & Blanton, P. (1994a). The influence of work-related stressors on clergy husbands and their wives. Family Relations, 43 (2), 189-195 Morris, M., & Blanton, P. (1994b). Denominational perceptions of stress and the provision of support services for clergy families. Pastoral Psychology, 42, 345364. Morris, M., Larrick, R., & Su, S., (1999). Misperceiving negotiation counterparts: When situationally determined bargaining behaviors are attributed to personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 52-67. Mueller, C., & McDuff E. (2004). Clergy-congregation mismatches and the clergy job satisfaction. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43:2, p. 261-273. Myers, D. (2008). Social psychology (9th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.

114

Noll, D. (2003). Peacemaking: Practicing at the intersection of law and human conflict. Telford, PA: Cascadia Publishing. Nomura, N., & Barnlund, D. (1983). Pattterns of interpersonal criticism in Japan and United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, p. 1-18. Nowack, N. (1989). Coping, hardiness, and health status. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 145-148. Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial Conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. New York: McGraw-Hill. Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2005). Crucial Confrontations: Tools for resolving broken promises, violated expectations, and bad behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pettit, J., & Joiner, T. (2001). Negative-feedback seeking leads to depressive symptom increases under conditions of stress. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23(1), 69-74. Poirier, A. (2006). The peacemaking pastor: A biblical guide to resolving church conflict. Ada, MI: Baker Books. Pritchard, R., Jones, S., Roth, P., Stuebing, K., & Ekeberg, S. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incintives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337-358. Pruitt, D., & Rubin, J., (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. NY: Random House. Rayburn, C., Richmond, L., & Rogers, L. (1982). Women, men, and religion: Stress within sanctuary walls. Journal of Pastoral Counseling, 17, 75-83. Rayburn, C., Richmond, L., & Rogers, L. (1983). Stress among religious leaders. Thought: Fordham University Quarterly review, 58, 329-344. Rayburn, C., Richmond, L., & Rogers, L. (1986). Men, women, and religion: Stress within leadership roles. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42(3), 540-546. Rediger, G. (1997). Clergy killers: Guidance for pastors and congregations under attack. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

115

Richmond, L., Rayburn, C., & Rogers, L. (1985). Clergymen, clergywomen, and their spouses: Stress in professional religious families. Journal of career development,12, 81-86. Robbins, S. (1986). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Robinson, H. (2001). Biblical preaching: The development and delivery of expository messages (2nd ed.). Baker Academic. Rodgerson, T., & Piedmont, R. (1998). Assessing the incremental validity of the Religious Problem-Solving Scale in the prediction of clergy burnout. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 517-527. Rose, M. (1999). Forecasting job satisfaction: What occupational profiling tells us. Working paper 2 of the Bath University Work Centrality, Work Careers, and Households Project. Bath, UK: Economic and Social Research Council. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10. NY: Academic Press. Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 322-336. Sande, K. (2005). The peacemaker: A biblical guide to resolving personal conflict (3rd ed.). Ada, MI: Baker books. Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life. NY: McGraw-Hill. Snyder, C., & Newburg, C. (1981). The Barnum effect in a group setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 622-629. Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2000). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York: Penguin Books. Ursiny, T. (2003). The cowards guide to conflict: Empowering solutions for those who would rather run than fight. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks. Veiga, J. (1988). Face your problem subordinates now. Academy of Management Executive, 2, 145-152. White, D., & Younger, P. (1988). Differences in the ascription of transient internal states of self and others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 292-309.

116

Wilson, K., Lizzio, A., Whicker, L., Gallois, C., & Price, J. (2003). Effective assertive behavior in the workplace: Responding to unfair criticism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33:2, 362-395. Wright, P., & Blackbird, T. (1986). Pastors friendships: The impact of congregational norms. Journal of Psychology and Theology,14, 29-41. Yukl, G. (1989a). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289. Yukl, G. (1989b). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

117

APPENDIX A MINISTERIAL INTERPERSONAL SKILLS SURVEY

118

Ministerial Interpersonal Skills Survey

This is an anonymous survey designed to gather information for a larger research effort addressing interpersonal issues among members of the clergy; particularly issues involving interpersonal criticism.

1. Please list the top three interpersonal skills that you believe are essential for members of the clergy: (e.g., listening, handling conflict / criticism, patience, etc.) 1. 2. 3 2. Which of the above skills do you believe can cause the most difficulty for clergy and congregations?

3. In a recent study involving public sector administrators, difficulty in handling criticism and criticismprone situations was identified as one of the major problems in leadership effectiveness. Would you suggest that this result would be similar among members of the clergy? _______ Yes _______ No Please explain:

4. In your experience, how would you characterize the way in which most people generally tend to offer criticism: ______ Productively (Effectively / Kindly) ______ Destructively (Relatively Poorly / Harshly) 5. In your experience, how would you characterize the way in which most people tend to receive criticism from others? ______ Defensively ______ Acceptingly 6. In your experience, how would you characterize the way in which most members of the clergy generally tend to offer criticism: ______ Productively (Effectively / Kindly) ______ Destructively (Relatively Poorly / Harshly) 7. In your experience, how would you characterize the way in which most members of the clergy tend to receive criticism from others? ______ Defensively ______ Acceptingly

8. Does criticism you receive cause you to occasionally: (Select all that apply) _____ Become angry _____ Become annoyed _____ Become frustrated _____ Become irritated _____ Other:__________________

9. In your opinion, can poorly delivered criticism: (Check all that apply) _____ Impact ones self esteem? _____ Make one feel defensive? _____ Hurt ones feelings? _____ Other: _________________ 10. When criticized, do you feel that you: (Check all that apply) _____ Always assess and respond to the criticism effectively _____ Offer a robust defense _____ Occasionally offer a counterattack _____ Retreat / withdraw _____

11. Do you feel that you and other members of the clergy would benefit from learning how to better give, receive, and even solicit criticism more effectively? _____ Yes _____ No

12. Do you believe that members of congregations could benefit from learning how to better give and receive criticism more effectively? _____ Yes _____ No

13. Do you believe that the consequences of destructive criticism can lead to: (Check all that apply) _____ Job stress _____ Health issues _____ Relationship issues _____ Interpersonal stress _____ Family difficulties _____ Burnout _____ Other: ___________________ 14. Do you believe that biblical precepts and examples can be used to assist clergy and congregations to more effectively consider criticism? _____ Yes _____ No

120

15. Using the 1-5 scale listed below, please rate your level of agreement with the following statements:
1= Strongly disagree 2= Disagree somewhat 3 = Neither agree or disagree 4=Agree somewhat 5 = Strongly agree

_____a. Criticism can be a significant stressor for members of the clergy. _____b. Criticism that is handled poorly by the recipient can lead to adverse professional consequences. _____c. A program to better help members of the clergy deal with criticism could be beneficial. _____d. Criticism of performance at work can impact relationships at home. _____e. I find giving criticism to be difficult at times, as I know the other person may not want to hear what I have to say. _____ f. I agree with researchers who have suggested that denominational administration should provide more training and educational opportunities to members of the ministry to deal with issues associated with interpersonal criticism. _____ g. I believe that biblical precepts and examples can be used to assist clergy and congregations to more effectively consider criticism? _____ h. My preparatory or seminary training for the ministry provided little or no specific training to deal with (e.g., give, receive, solicit) interpersonal criticism.

16. How frequently do you actively seek to receive criticism from others? (circle one) Almost Never / Rarely / Occasionally / Frequently

17. Personal Criticism: In the last year or so, which of the following have you experienced? (Check all that apply) _____ a) You were criticized by a congregation member. _____ b) You were criticized unfairly. _____ c) A member voiced doubts to you directly about your faith. _____ d) You were criticized personally by someone in a leadership role in the congregation. _____ e) A member questioned your devotion to the ministry. _____ f) Other: ____________________________________

121

18. Family Criticism: In the last year or so, which of the following have you experienced? (Check all that apply) _____ a) A member raised questions about how you or your family spends money. _____ b) A member questioned your familys values. _____ c) A member complained to you about someone in your family. _____ d) Other: ____________________________________________

19. In considering the impact of criticism on members of the clergy, are there other issues or considerations that should be addressed? Please feel free to elaborate.

Demographic Information:
Denomination: ______________________________________ Gender: _____ Age: _____________ Ministerial Position: _________________________________ (Sr. Pastor, Assoc. Pastor, Youth Pastor, etc.) Years in current ministry position: _________ Years as a full-time member of the clergy: _________ Size of congregation: ____________ Highest Level of Education: ______ No College ______ Associates ______ Masters

______ Some College Credit ______ Bachelors ______ Doctorate _____ Other: ____________________

Seminary Graduate: Yes:_____ No:______ Year: ___________

Thank You! Please Return Your Survey via the Instructions Provided 122

APPENDIX B INTERPERSONAL CRITICISM SCALE QUESTIONS

Using the 7-point scale, please respond to the following items. This exercise is solely for your personal self-reflection. Your responses will not be collected or assessed.
Strongly / /Somewhat/ Neither agree/ Somewhat / / Strongly agree / Agree / agree / nor disagree / disagree / Disagree / Disagree 7----------6----------5--------------4----------------3---------------2-------------1

____1. I always receive criticism from others effectively. ____2. I always offer criticism to others constructively. ____3. I seldom feel stress when receiving interpersonal criticism from others. ____4. I can easily view criticism as simply receiving information from others. ____5. I seldom experience an emotional response when dealing with criticism. ____6. I believe that I am above average in my ability to offer criticism without eliciting anger or frustration from others. ____7. I believe that I am above average in my ability to receive criticism without getting angry or frustrated. ____8. Handling criticism effectively is an essential skill for members of the clergy.

123

APPENDIX C OUTLINE OF CRITICISM MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM 1. Criticism and the Clergy: Whats the Toll a. The Research on Criticism b. The Research on Clergy 1. Vocation 2. Health 3. Family 4. Career 2. History of Criticism 3. Redefining Criticism a. Using the GRIPE approach b. Focus on Information 4. Causes of Criticism 5. The Bible and Criticism 6. How Would Jesus Criticize? 7. Benefits of Criticism 8. Critical Communication 9. Criticism: Is it better to Give or Receive? 10. Giving Criticism more Effectively 11. Receiving and Appraising Criticism a. Appraising Criticism: The LAURA Method 12. Criticism as Information 13. The ABCs of Responding to Criticism 124

14. Criticism Techniques 15. Becoming an Effective Criticism Manager 16. Scenarios and Practice

125

APPENDIX D POST INTERVENTION FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS (Electronically delivered via on-line survey software)

Evaluation of Ministerial Workshop: Criticism Management for Clergy Recently you attended the above entitle workshop. We are evaluating that program and would appreciate your comments. Your responses are completely anonymous. I. Using the following 7-point scale, please respond to the following items:
Strongly / /Somewhat/ Neither agree/ Somewhat / / Strongly agree / Agree / agree / nor disagree / disagree / Disagree / Disagree 7----------6----------5--------------4----------------3---------------2-------------1

______ 1. The Ministerial Workshop on Criticism Management was beneficial. ______ 2. Since completing the Ministerial Workshop I have improved my response to criticism. ______ 3. I think differently about criticism since completing the workshop. ______ 4. In the last few weeks, I have used specific techniques or elements presented in the Workshop. ______ 5. The Criticism Management topic should continue to be offered to members of the clergy. ______ 6. A similar workshop designed for members of the congregation would be useful. ______ 7. The Criticism Management workshop was not valuable. II. Please Complete the following: 1. For me, the best part of the workshop was: 2. The best technique or element of the workshop was: 3. Do you have any specific suggestion for improvement of this workshop? III. Can you offer a specific example (keeping it anonymous) regarding a recent specific event that was impacted by attendance at this workshop? IV. Improvement Measures: 1. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 = poor and 10 = Excellent; how would you rate yourself in handling criticism after attending this workshop? _______ (1-10) 2. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 = poor and 10 = Excellent; how would you have rated yourself in handling criticism prior to attending this workshop? _______ (1-10) Thank you.

126