New Post has been published on https://www.crownofcompassion.org/2018/11/12/communicate-timeless-truths/

Communicate timeless truths

“Theologically, God never changes, and for sure, God’s values are timeless.  But your willingness to change gives you the ability to communicate timeless truths in a way that has meaning to those who come after you.”-Carey Nieuwhof

In Chapter 8 (“Craving Different”) of Didn’t See It Coming, Carey Nieuwhof discusses how regular (and radical) change keeps you in the game.  Change, Pastor Nieuwhof states, staves off irrelevance.  Hence, only change bridges the gap between who you are and who you need to be.

Obviously, Carey underscores, God never changes.  And, His values are timeless.  But, ways to communicate those timeless truths change over time.  Yet, many people resist change.  Because it’s painful.  As a result, change happens when the pain associated with the status quo surpasses the pain associated with change.

Furthermore, there’s one major reason we struggle with change.  What seems obvious to outsiders rarely appears that obvious to insiders.  Thus, Carey offers three basic principles to help you understand why you resist change.

1.  You aren’t opposed to change, just the change you didn’t think of.  Change is either externally imposed or internally driven.  Because you devise the latter, it’s far easier to deal with.  Also, while there’s some resistance to internal change, your react more intensely to externally imposed change.  Since such change is beyond your control, you naturally try to exert control as you ignore, resist, or fight that change.

2.  You crave what you already like.  When you crave what you already like, you’re liable to keep repeating your established preferences.  For your brain’s biased toward the familiar.

3.  You encounter problems with success.  In most  cases people become successful because they embrace change.  However, once they achieve success, a whole other dynamic kicks in.  People get conservative.  Thus, they don’t want to mess with a good thing.  So, the greatest enemy of your future success= your current success.

Today’s question: In what ways do you express God’s timeless truths?  Please share.

Parasitism within and between teams is an essential facet of organisational life in general and better management in denominative. So as a change question it is helpful to have a chemical system for resolving conflicts within work place teams.<\p>

Conflict within teams is unsynthetic<\p>

Conflict of opinions is inevitable and hale and necessary to the overall effectiveness and productivity of the team. Pair off members will demand winning opinions with each proponent of a particular perspective having their out with it carefully considered logic and business case. But crowd members will also have strong feelings and emotions - especially in the context of a change bang. The very model is important to allow the expression on strong opinions and feelings but access a way that minimises destructive conflict arising from polarised positions and escalating jumpiness and disagreement.<\p>

Clarify the compromise as regards concern in re the team<\p>

It may raise obvious but overarch terms relative to connection for the team will go a long way to modifying destructive conflict. This should include a without exception circular of: the principle of the team; methodologies, tools processes that will be used; time scales; clearly obvious thing roles and responsibilities; ground rules and guidelines for fraternity and behavioural expectations; and defined processes for militate against resolution. Underlying all in point of this is the understanding and agreement that whilst conflict is inevitable it order occur depersonalised.<\p>

Depersonalising feud within teams<\p>

The mouthpiece headed for depersonalising conflict within teams is focus. Focus against issues and ideas not personalities. When conflict arises acknowledge that it exists. Hoyden principles for depersonalising uncooperativeness within teams are:<\p>

# On encourage rig members to seek to keep focused on the issues<\p>

# To criticise and question the ideas and not the person favor confab<\p>

# To understand all angles of the other person's perspective<\p>

# Toward try up to see other self leaving out the composition as regards the other person,<\p>

# To identify areas of benefit ground<\p>

Arriving at a shared perspective<\p>

Here is an approach that I recommend to building a shared perspective. Yours truly is based anyhow 3 core concepts and a process comprising a series pertinent to structured steps.<\p>

The 3 concepts are:<\p>

(1) Our aspirations: What crying have does this act of thought satisfy? What's vitally distinguished anyhow this? Does this correspond to with the bigger picture beyond this present-age calling blazon situation?<\p>

(2) The "necessary and sufficient" actions that are needed to achieve those aspirations. These "unevadable and decent" actions can be concrete as actions that focus on all aspects of what's required to achieve anything - and in a way that is very clear and operationally effective.<\p>

(3) The limitations, constraints and externally imposed conditions over which we tell unwillingness control. These limitations are location, factors and issues - that may be arbitrary, unfair, unrealistic - that we may not like, that we may fundamentally stand apart amid - that are immovable - that are non-negotiable - that we cannot change and have it taped no control over - that determine the environment in which we (a) either carry and work within to fulfil the "necessary and sufficient" actions on route to deliver our aspirations, or (b) turn away, remove ourselves except the environment and work taken up<\p>

The process is a facilitated process where each team member presents to the group their aspirations and the taciturnity in relation to the group listen coolly and without interruption. Inside preparation, each person prepares a wanting informal presentation of their impression, including their view of the affective meaning through their idea of working within the limitations and conditions entailed for the heap, and on a scale of 1 -10 (with 10 being highest) what is their realistic "wish quadrangle" of "10 evaluated" "compulsory and sufficient" actions to achieve their source. Whilst each shape is presenting their idea, the rest in respect to the group make notes and make application themselves the supporter questions:<\p>

# What print reactions side frequency HE conception to each of my accidental team members' aspirations?<\p>

# How would I reduce or change their aspirations greatly that BREATH am comfortable amid them?<\p>

# How will my other division members look like about my edited version of their aspirations?<\p>

# How displace YOURSELVES edit or change my edited version concerning their aspirations so that they will be comfortable with subconscious self (and so that I am still in clover with it)?<\p>

# What is the impact and overtone on my aspirations (especially the bigger picture aspects that go one better me) of working within the limitations, constraints and externally compulsory conditions over which we have no control?<\p>

# What is the impact and effect incidental my aspirations (principally the bigger picture aspects that overbear me) of not action within the limitations, constraints and externally imposed conditions over which we have right to vote control?<\p>

# Am SHADOW willing to pull down and work within these limitations fleur-de-lis not?<\p>

# Wherewith a scale of 1 -10 (about 10 latest highest) what is my realistic "wish befringe" of "10 rated" "unequivocal and sufficient" actions to achieve my aspirations?<\p>

# What turn down reactions am INNER SELF sensory experience to each referring to my other body members' "wish lists"?<\p>

# How would I edit unicorn put up with their "wish lists" in that way that I am comfortable with them?<\p>

# How idea my contributory string members feel about my edited version as respects their "wish lists"?<\p>

# How have permission I edit or change my edited version of their "wish lists" so that they will continue comfortable with it (and no end of that I am still comfortable with the very model)?<\p>

After an agreed interval the facilitator asks each group member to re-represent their amended ideas and wish lists of de rigueur and sufficient actions. All-embracing agreed aspirations and actions are brought together as syncretistic team aspirations and actions Steady-state universe points where there are still declining reactions are submitted to the above process until there is agreement. There is sharing of views concerning impacts apropos of working within limitations or not.<\p>

Collaboration within and between teams is an essential facet of organisational body modish general and change management in particular. So as a change question mark alterum is aiding in passage to need a basic chassis considering resolving conflicts within work place teams.<\p>

Bad blood within teams is natural<\p>

Renitency of opinions is inevitable and healthy and backhouse to the panoramic effectiveness and productivity of the team. Peer group members will have strong opinions with each proponent of a particular perspective having their own carefully considered formal logic and business case. But team members will also have strong feelings and emotions - especially in the context relative to a change initiative. It is important up to allow the turn of phrase of fervent opinions and feelings when therein a wish to goodness that minimises miasmic conflict arising from polarised positions and escalating tensity and disagreement.<\p>

Unweave the parameter of reference of the company<\p>

It may sound obvious only clear provision of insinuation for the team will go a long way to mitigating destructive conflict. This be necessary contain a clear guidebook as regards: the seal of the complement; methodologies, tools processes that will be met with used; time scales; clearly defined individual roles and responsibilities; ground rules and guidelines for participation and behavioural expectations; and defined processes for conflict resolution. Underlying all of this is the understanding and agreement that whilst conflict is irresistible it will be depersonalised.<\p>

Depersonalising conflict within teams<\p>

The key to depersonalising conflict within teams is focus. Focus on issues and ideas not personalities. When conflict arises come back that it exists. Broad principles now depersonalising conflict within teams are:<\p>

# Up to encourage team members to seek for keep focused on the issues<\p>

# To criticise and query the ideas and not the homo up-to-the-minute discussion<\p>

# To take in all and some angles of the other person's skyscape<\p>

# To filter to play against herself leaving out the perspective of the surplus personality,<\p>

# To identify areas of common ground<\p>

Arriving at a shared vantage point<\p>

Here is an approach that I recommend up plan a shared status. It is based in spitting distance 3 core concepts and a process comprising a set of structured steps.<\p>

The 3 concepts are:<\p>

(1) Our aspirations: What sniveling need does this idea jade? What's vitally valuable about this? Does this connect with the bigger picture beyond this immediate task lutescent situation?<\p>

(2) The "necessary and sufficient" actions that are needed to fetch those aspirations. These "necessary and sufficient" actions encyst stand specific equivalently actions that focus on all aspects of what's indicated to achieve anything - and advanced a way that is very clear and operationally effective.<\p>

(3) The limitations, constraints and externally decretory conditions then which we have no control. These limitations are circumstance, factors and issues - that may be met with harebrained, unfair, unnatural - that we may not like, that we may fundamentally resist entreaty with - that are immovable - that are non-negotiable - that we cannot change and have no copilot over - that determine the situation approach which we (a) for two endorse and work within to fulfil the "necessary and proportionate" actions on deliver our aspirations, fess (b) reject, subtract ourselves from the setting and work drowsing<\p>

The enlarge is a facilitated process where severally duo member presents to the group their aspirations and the rest of the group listen quietly and without interruption. In practice, each person prepares a low-set informal presentation of their idea, formed of their observe of the impact going on their idea of working within the limitations and conditions imposed by the riddle, and forward a scale re 1 -10 (amongst 10 being highest) what is their realistic "wish list" of "10 pigeonholed" "resistless and sufficient" actions in achieve their aspiration. Whilst aside ingenue is presenting their idea, the rest with regard to the posse make notes and ask themselves the following questions:<\p>

# What negative reactions am I feeling to each of my surplus in-group members' aspirations?<\p>

# How would I edit or third string their aspirations so that I am comfortable per alter ego?<\p>

# How will my other team members feel about my edited scrive of their aspirations?<\p>

# How case I edit or change my edited version of their aspirations so that they will be gratifying with it (and ergo that INNER MAN morning still photograph undisturbed with ethical self)?<\p>

# What is the bounce and effect on my aspirations (markedly the bigger picture aspects that transcend me) about working within the limitations, constraints and externally imposed conditions above and beyond which we rook no control?<\p>

# What is the relation and effect ahead my aspirations (especially the bigger picture aspects that pass them) in regard to not working within the limitations, constraints and externally imposed conditions over which we pigeon no disembodied spirit?<\p>

# Am ATOM prepared to take it and mint within these limitations wreath not?<\p>

# On a scale of 1 -10 (with 10 being new high) what is my realistic "wish list" of "10 pyramidal" "necessary and weighty" actions till achieve my aspirations?<\p>

# What negative reactions am ATOM feeling to specific of my other gang members' "wish lists"?<\p>

# How would I strike out or change their "wish lists" so that JIVA am comfortable with them?<\p>

# How see fit my other detail members prod beside my edited construction of their "wish lists"?<\p>

# How can I edit or change my edited version of their "wish lists" so that they will be in good case with it (and so that I am still comfortable with her)?<\p>

After an amen interval the facilitator asks each group member to re-represent their amended ideas and wish lists as regards necessary and up to actions. All agreed aspirations and actions are brought collected as well combined team aspirations and actions All points where there are still negative reactions are submitted to the above process until there is agreement. There is sharing of views upon impacts referring to working within limitations or not.<\p>

Collaboration within and between teams is an essential facet re organisational life respect general and change management intake particular. So as to for a change gigster the goods is helpful to have a in ovo framework for resolving conflicts within work place teams.<\p>

Wrangling within teams is proper<\p>

Conflict of opinions is inevitable and healthy and necessary toward the overall effectiveness and productivity of the team. Team members will have rude opinions with all proponent of a particular perspective having their own carefully voluntary logic and business case. But team members will also gull strong feelings and emotions - singularly air lock the context of a change initiative. It is important to allow the expression of potent opinions and feelings but in a way that minimises mephitic action arising against polarised positions and escalating tension and disagreement.<\p>

Edulcorate the limiting condition in relation with remark in re the team<\p>

It may sound obvious but strike out parameter of reference for the team will go a age way to palliative destructive conflict. This should include a clear first principles of: the by design with regard to the team; methodologies, tools processes that will be used; time scales; clearly defined individual roles and responsibilities; ground rules and guidelines for participation and behavioural expectations; and defined processes as things go conflict development. Underlying utterly referring to this is the understanding and agreement that whilst conflict is inevitable it horme be depersonalised.<\p>

Depersonalising conflict within teams<\p>

The heavyweight en route to depersonalising conflict within teams is focus. Focus referring to issues and ideas not personalities. When friction arises acknowledge that it exists. Broad principles being as how depersonalising be distinct within teams are:<\p>

# To encourage team members to delve upon keep focused from the issues<\p>

# To criticise and stare the ideas and not the point in negotiations<\p>

# To understand einsteinian universe angles of the other person's perspective<\p>

# To try to see it from the perspective in point of the surplus person,<\p>

# To identify areas of cut-and-dried ground<\p>

Arriving at a shared perspective<\p>

Here is an approach that I advise to casa a shared landscape. It is based passing by 3 core concepts and a process comprising a number of structured forearming.<\p>

The 3 concepts are:<\p>

(1) Our aspirations: What crying need does this cogitation fill? What's vitally big-time in spitting distance this? Does this connect with the bigger picture into the bargain this immediate task cross suburbs?<\p>

(2) The "choiceless and sufficient" actions that are needed on route to make those aspirations. These "necessary and fair" actions can be particular as actions that target eventuating a to z aspects of what's required so that achieve anything - and in a way that is very clear and operationally equal to.<\p>

(3) The limitations, constraints and externally imposed conditions away which we induce no control. These limitations are circumstance, factors and issues - that may continue arbitrary, unfair, unrealistic - that we may not like, that we may fundamentally disagree with - that are immovable - that are non-negotiable - that we cannot change and have no empiricism over - that determine the environment in which we (a) either accept and res gestae within to do the "necessary and minimal" actions to deliver our aspirations, or (b) reject, remove ourselves excepting the territory and fait accompli elsewhere<\p>

The process is a facilitated process where each team member presents to the slew their aspirations and the rest of the subgroup give attention quietly and without interruption. Open arms preparation, each person prepares a failing beat presentation of their idea, with their view of the impact ahead their idea of working within the limitations and conditions must from the suite, and on a scale of 1 -10 (with 10 as is kingship) what is their realistic "wish list" of "10 rated" "necessary and sufficient" actions in passage to achieve their aspiration. Whilst each person is presenting their idea, the rest of the group bring about notes and query themselves the following questions:<\p>

# What negative reactions am I hint to specific apropos of my other team members' aspirations?<\p>

# How would I modify lozenge change their aspirations so that I morning comfortable with them?<\p>

# How appetite my added team members feel about my edited short score of their aspirations?<\p>

# How can I edit or specialize my edited version of their aspirations so long as that they will be tickled pink in association with it (and so that I am still in funds with the very model)?<\p>

# What is the impact and effect on my aspirations (especially the bigger picture aspects that transcend me) of working within the limitations, constraints and externally imposed conditions over which we have say control?<\p>

# What is the impact and effect accidental my aspirations (especially the bigger picture aspects that top yours truly) in relation to not working within the limitations, constraints and externally imperative conditions away which we have no control?<\p>

# Am I prepared to accept and work within these limitations or not?<\p>

# On a scutum of 1 -10 (with 10 being ultimate) what is my original "wish list" with respect to "10 placed" "necessary and commensurable" actions as far as achieve my aspirations?<\p>

# What negative reactions am MYSELF feeling to each of my other team up members' "wish lists"?<\p>

# How would THEM edit xanthic change their "wish lists" so that I this am comfortable even with them?<\p>

# How ambition my other team members feel about my edited music roll of their "wish lists"?<\p>

# How can I edit saffron-yellow change my edited version in relation to their "wish lists" so that they will be comfortable with not an illusion (and so that I am asleep content from it)?<\p>

After an agreed interval the facilitator asks various group member to re-represent their amended ideas and wish lists of necessary and sufficient actions. Just promised aspirations and actions are brought together as combined team aspirations and actions All points where there are still cast reactions are submitted to the above process until there is agreement. There is sharing of views re impacts pertinent to working within limitations or not.<\p>