Attitudes toward a Crisis

This weekend S. (pictured), M., and I did about 15 hours of training for the short-term mission leaders in a local church. We were using a program called CultureLink. None of us had previous experience with this curriculum, although we have lots of experience with short-term mission teams. As part of preparations for my Saturday session on cultural understanding I picked up the classic book by Lingenfelter and Mayers, “Ministering Cross-Culturally.” You never learn so much as when you have to teach! The authors use a model that plots individuals and cultures on six scales. One of the scales was particularly helpful as I look at the storm we’ve been caught in at work. It describes how different people respond to danger, risk and crisis. Those following what the authors call a ‘crisis orientation’ will believe that -

“Crises should be avoided when at all possible, and careful planning done to anticipate problems. [They] seek out expert advice and are single-minded in applying that advice when they face crises. When a crisis does arise, they work rapidly to resolve the issue. Further, once they have identified an efficient procedure, they use it repeatedly rather than try something new or different.”

On the other hand, those who follow a ‘non-crisis orientation’ behave quite differently:

“Their brand of crisis management is experience-oriented, choosing from multiple procedures and options. Such persons decide between alternatives that emerge from each new situation, and their style of management is open-ended. They can tolerate considerable ambiguity in their lives and do not push people or situations to an early resolution of conflict or decisions. Further, seeing themselves as qualified by their own experience to manage each situation they are skeptical of experts.”

For example, the Micronesian culture within which one of the authors was working was typically non-crisis oriented, whereas the Coast Guard station on the other side of the island was crisis-oriented. You can imagine the military approach: they put a lot of energy into anticipating what could go wrong and have rigid plans to make sure they are prepared for it. The Micronesians can be trained to do that, but it would not be their normal response:

“Yapese response to typhoons will serve as an illustration. From their experience the Yapese know that far more warnings than actual storms come to Yap. Further, when a storm does come its direction determines its major effects. … they tackle the problems unique to each storm, protecting material possessions most immediately effected.”

Well, mission agencies attract people with both orientations. Each can cause tensions. If the manager has a non-crisis orientation, crisis-oriented people will get frustrated and may eventually leave because of the stress and lack of predictability; to them the leaders seem to be taking foolish risks. If the manager has a crisis-orientation, those who cannot work within the confines of the plan may be overruled or dismissed; the non-crisis-oriented people who work for them may see them as rigid and putting the project before the people.

Everyone assumes that his or her perspective on how to respond to a threat or crisis is the right one. It’s easy to start accusing someone who comes at it from a different angle as not having faith, or not being responsible.

I tend to be non-crisis-oriented but am fairly close to the middle. I hate wasting time making plans that are never put into effect. When we brought in a crisis-oriented manager who required us to put detailed, measurable plans in place many months in advance I felt like we were writing fiction (as it happened we were). I like to look at things much more holistically and adjust the plans according to the realities of the situation. But sometimes under pressure my orientation switches: I reach the point where I can’t take any more ambiguity or ill-placed optimism. I have a hard time trusting someone who seems out of touch with “reality,” and get frustrated by those who would disregard deadlines and standards and move ahead in spite of clearly defined danger. Which orientation is right and which is wrong? Well, since we're talking about culture, you probably know the answer:

“Crisis-oriented and non-crisis-oriented people have much to contribute to each other, but this can be accomplished only when there is an attitude of mutual understanding and acceptance.”