Category: Consensus

World Methodist Council – 5 views on consensus

World Methodist Council (WMC) 2018

The  World Methodist Council is the governing  body of the world Methodist family. It met in Seoul Korea from July 12 – 15. The Steering Committee decided to provide training in consensus based decision making. They were convinced that the World Methodist Council needs a better way to conduct their business meetings.

The WMC wanted a process that would help them to be more respectful, inclusive and true to their Christian values. Terence Corkin and Julia Kuhn Wallace were invited to provide the training.

In the first session the principles and practices of a consensus based discernment process were presented. The content was tailored specifically to the World Methodist Council and showed how a consensus approach to meetings supported their values and goals as an organisation. Session two was a role play using a piece of business that was on the agenda.

Some participants were asked: What do you see as the potential for a consensus building approach in meetings? Here are there responses.

Gillian Kingston

Vice President of the WMC

I think it is an excellent methodology. There are concerns about how much time it can take but I think it is the way forward. The WMC should talk to the World Communion of Reformed Churches about their experience in moving in this direction. It will take longer and that may require an additional day for our meetings. It has a lot to offer.

Frank M Reid III

African Methodist Episcopal Church

The potential in consensus based decision making is extraordinary and necessary. One of the reasons that the church isn’t growing is because of the way that we treat people in meetings. We see people attend a meeting, get treated really badly and never return to church. The way we do meetings is one of the reasons that we can’t get millennials into leadership roles in the church.

David Jebb

Methodist Church in Britain

I find it clear. It encourages openness and genuine consultation which is very helpful.

Denny Nainggolan

Methodist Church in Indonesia

s

I look at the culture in Indonesia and it is a place where we only ever hear from the older people and senior Ministers. The juniors, younger ones, then have to follow.  Using a consensus process helps people to find their voice. Older people need to change their way of thinking. This approach gives people the tools to help young people to speak in a respectful way.

Lasse Svensson

Uniting Church in Sweden

The experience of the WCRC

In July 2017 the World Communion of Reformed Churches implemented consensus discernment across every aspect of their meeting. We interviewed some people who were in Leipzig, Germany about their experience.

Where next for the WMC?

The Officers and Steering Committee of the WMC will receive a report on the feedback received after the training. Responses to the experience were strongly positive. The decision now has to be taken as to whether the WMC will introduce elements of a consensus building approach into the regular life of the Council when it meets again in 2021.

9 reasons you may struggle to bring change – and what to do about it! (Pt 1)

When groups first try a consensus approach to discernment they can come up against obstacles. Today I start to look at 8 struggles that prevent consensus decision-making from being effective. Better still I offer responses to each of them!

Other common resistance points are covered in Chapter 6 of The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together  “Yes ….but …. Addressing Resistance”.

1. Tradition. “We’ve always done it this way. Why change?”

This is a very common explanation for why people don’t embrace change. People know what they like and they like what they know. Yet most people don’t usually put it as bluntly as saying “we’ve always done it this way.”

What we usually see is an inbuilt inertia in groups that make any change difficult. The tracks have been laid down over time and that’s the way things run. So the key to maximizing the chance of change is to explore where these tracks are taking you, or discuss the way decisions are made in other contexts, or introduce key elements of a consensus approach into the established processes.

Identify negative outcomes of current processes

For example, bad feelings after meetings, poor decisions, lack of buy-in, exclusion of some people/perspectives, etc. Use an annual review of the performance of your Board, Committee, Congregation, etc as a context in which to raise a discussion on whether your current approach is working for you. This may start a helpful discussion on what needs to change.

Explore alternatives from other contexts

I wonder if the people who resist consensus in meetings use the same methods/processes to make decisions in families, as a couple, or in business negotiations. Certainly, the western parliamentary approach is in sharp contrast to the way in which other cultures have traditionally made decisions. The issue here is “Whose tradition are we talking about?” It is only one tradition and it is a very narrowly applied practice.

There are many opportunities for continuing education for Boards, Committees and church members in general. Create a learning event where alternative ways of making decisions are explored. Perhaps it could be in the framework of understanding how a different cultural group makes decisions, or a workshop on how to engage in dialogue with family members, or invite a local community action group to talk about their work and how they get to agreements and commitment. Often these groups use consensus decision-making because they cannot force volunteers to do anything that they don’t want to do. The focus doesn’t even have to be on church meeting procedures! You can extrapolate later from the learning into that discussion.

Introduce consensus processes into your current meetings

Consensus building values and techniques can be present in a parliamentary style of meeting. As an add-on they will not change a culture but they can provide a taster of what is possible when change is made. Examples of things that a Chairperson can do include: make sure that everyone understands the issues before starting the debate; include more prayer and spiritual disciplines in the meeting; create spaces where alternative voices can be heard; don’t rush to a vote just because it looks like there is a clear majority; and more. Chairpersons should lead into an alternative experience of Christian community around decision-making. Change can be gradual and incremental – until there is ownership of the decision to make real change.

2. Some people need to “win”

Winning is “fun”. It’s natural that when people value a position that they want to see it happen. I’m sure we have all been in that situation. However what is embedded in this comment is insidious. There are people who actively resist and undermine a move to consensus because they know how to get their way under the current rules. Getting their way has become the prime goal and they do not want to empower others to have a chance of changing the outcomes. They want to keep control.

I have met people like this in local and international meetings. It is both sad, disappointing and serious. Changes in the power balance affect who has influence. Some people get this and try to keep ahead of the curve by shutting down the chance for change. There are solutions but they need to be tailored to your context. If this is your situation maybe you need a coach to help you work it through.

However, in addition to handling the pushback from cynical and frightened power brokers, there are conversations that can be fostered. Even people who like to get their preferred decision in a church meeting are willing to count the cost. Very few people embrace a pyrrhic victory.

I am sure that you have seen many examples of where the “win” that was achieved came at a high price. It could be as serious as people leaving the church, a significant drop in income, loss of morale, the development of factions, or loss of support for a pastor. The losses might be more subtle: the person who stops volunteering, loss of a skilled person on the church Board, people don’t turn up to congregational meetings because of the atmosphere, a negative vibe develops in the congregation, etc.

Maybe the people who think they are winning are not winning at all. Develop a case study on how the handling of a decision led to negative consequences for a congregation or group. It doesn’t have to be from your congregation but if there is a recent example I encourage you to be brave enough to name it. Focus particularly on developing a “ledger” of wins on one side and losses on the other side. Get people to put a value (not all will be a $ value) on the “entries” on each side of the ledger. The lesson that people are encouraged to learn is to be aware of the consequences of their actions and to not just focus on the task of “getting the decision I want”.

A great follow up – maybe at the next meeting – is to explore “What could we have done differently that would have avoided or reduced these costs?” That’s where your knowledge of the whole range of consensus-based discernment tools will allow you to shine. The most comprehensive collection of resources for this is in our book The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together 

3. We don’t need cards because everyone here is able to speak up.

This is quite a common perception. The orange and blue cards are a very important part of the Uniting Church in Australia’s consensus process. They are also used in the World Council of Churches, the World Communion of Reformed Churches and other places. They are also often seriously misunderstood.

The idea in this resistance point is that the cards are the way to get attention so that you can get the floor. So if you believe that everyone is able to contribute due to the healthy culture and processes of the meeting then it seems like you don’t need cards. The cards are more than the equivalent of lining up at the microphone to get the Chairperson’s attention. But let’s start the conversation on the terms that it is offered.

In my experience, such a statement is very rarely accurate. There are always people who remain silent. They do so for many reasons. It is not just because they cannot get the attention of the Chair.

As a test for this hypothesis have a person quietly keep tabs on the names of who speaks, the frequency and time taken by various speakers over a few meetings.  Report on the results.  This could make for an interesting conversation.

However, the cards serve a much richer purpose than indicating a desire to speak. Members are to show a card whenever a person makes a contribution. If they are warm to a comment then they display the orange card. If they are cool to the idea or not persuaded by it they show blue. This process encourages active listening. Also, it allows every person to indicate their perspective – without the need for speaking. In fact, the opposite of the opening statement is true. You actually need the cards so that everyone can contribute!

4. Power imbalances

Power is real and some people have it in groups and others do not. When power is used to limit the participation of all people then consensus discernment will struggle. Not all power is malicious or used deliberately to put people down. Although sometimes it is.

For example:

  • Some lay people don’t think they should argue with Ministers
  • In some cultures women or young people don’t value their voice
  • Patriarchy exists in a lot of churches and oppresses women
  • Language and education can give more power to some participants
  • Knowledge is power – who understands the business or process best?
  • What other examples can you add?
Plan to deal with power

You are very wise not to underestimate the importance of power dynamics. So once you have taken it seriously it’s important to do strategic thinking ahead of time on how to address power imbalances.

There are a number of strategies available in addition to a well led use of consensus processes. Consensus processes make it possible to address power imbalances but they have to be used very well to do so.

Preparation includes thinking about the power imbalances and what strategies can be put in place to limit their power. Examples include: deciding when translation is required; how to ensure everyone has the same information; when small group discussions (maybe in cultural, gender or age groups) can help people to find their voice that can then be fed back into the larger group. As you prepare for your meeting list the power dynamics and line up alongside them the tools that help to overcome them.

Also the leaders must model alternative ways of being in community. They  must demonstrate and support a culture of collaboration and equality.

Conclusion

I encourage you to respond to pushback in a way that is respectful and consistent with the values of consensus discernment. Ask questions so that you understand what they are saying. Probe for what is behind the comments. Assume goodwill until there is a good reason to do otherwise. Strengthen your fellowship in the face of difference.

Once you understand the issue before you there are simple and practical things that you can do that make a constructive response. Don’t argue but rather invite exploration through the types of processes offered in this article.

Change is possible! Next week I’ll look at some other things that may cause consensus to struggle.

‪

Why isn’t consensus embraced?

If consensus is so wonderful then why doesn’t every group take it up? In a recent post, I spoke about 16 wins that come from using consensus-building approaches. So, if it achieves so may good results why is there resistance to consensus-based discernment?

Nothing is broken

There’s an old saying: “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it!” There are many people who think that the parliamentary model works just fine. So they don’t see any point in going to all the trouble of learning this newfangled consensus stuff!

The people who are content with the current approach are the people for whom it works. From the perspective of people for whom English is a second language, the less well educated, women, young people and the marginalized the current way decisions are made is broken. Ask these people if a parliamentary / Roberts Rules of Order approach is good for them.

It is also broken because way too many decisions do not get implemented. The same old issues keep returning. Decisions are made and they don’t get put into effect. Decision-making that doesn’t result in action is broken!

Consensus approaches are resisted because people with influence claim that nothing is wrong. Check it out for yourself – are they right? If you want to encourage consensus discernment processes in your church then start pointing out where the current model is broken.

Fear of Losing Power

As the old saying goes: “winners are grinners”. Who would not be happy with a process that improves their chance of getting what they want? So, naturally, people resist consensus discernment when its introduction threatens their power.

When changes are made in a system the equilibrium is upset. A repositioning of power takes place. There will be resistance from those who fear losing power. Consensus – despite all its benefits – is not taken up because it has enemies.

If you want to encourage consensus do not be naive. Expect opposition and plan ahead for how you can make and support the case for change in a highly ethical way.

Obstacles to Consensus in the Culture

By far the biggest obstacle to the embrace of consensus discernment is culture. Basically, we have it in our head that some things are valuable / sensible / right and others are not.

So in Western culture, we find the following.

  • ideas that are expressed in clumsy ways or tentative terms are regarded as inferior to those presented in clear and assertive words
  • asking questions is seen as nitpicking and a diversion from the main discussion
  • complexity is avoided in favor of pithy statements and confident speeches
  • passion is alright but don’t show too many feelings
  • analysing and exploring implications is seen as going off on a tangent – never regarded as a good thing!
  • being productive / fast is valued whereas going slowly is frowned upon
  • questions are perceived as challenges – as though the questioner has done something wrong
  • presenting an alternative point of view is seen as being negative or a conflict that must be solved as quickly as possible
  • once a majority view is said to exist everyone else is expected to get on board or be seen as a spoiler

Culture is hard to overcome. If you want to bring change you will have to challenge the prevailing culture and affirm its alternatives. Think about some of the ways that you can do this in a meeting. What affirmations can you offer to the people who are devalued? What interventions can you make or statements of another way can you offer? Find and affirm values from the Christian faith that align with consensus approaches to discernment.

Conclusion

Change to consensus needs to happen! There are many good reasons why this is so – at least 16!  Consensus is good for individuals and groups and yet this is not universally recognised. Resistance comes from a lack of awareness of the problems, fear of losing power and the influence of culture.

Support the people who experience the pain of the current approach, educate others about its limitations, take the power issues seriously and teach and model an alternative church culture.

Consensus-building: 16 wins you get now!

Consensus-building approaches to decision-making are often criticised for taking too long to get a result. While I don’t agree with this view I want to encourage you! There are lots of great wins to be had. They come long before and after a decision is reached.

Values Shape Individuals and Organisations

Consensus-building rests on some key values. They include

  • full participation
  • seeking mutual understanding
  • desiring and generating inclusive solutions
  • accepting shared responsibility to find answers to challenges

When these principles of participatory decision-making are employed in churches and other organisations then they produce significant results. Consensus-building approaches to discernment build stronger individuals, stronger groups and stronger agreements.

Stronger Individuals

  • Improved leadership skills

By learning to attend well and to support others, people enhance their ability to lead in many different situations.

  • Stronger powers of reasoning

By taking into account all the relevant information people learn to discern what is important and how the parts fit together. Generally, they get better at working things out!

  • More confidence

People who are affirmed about their contribution feel good about themselves. This enhances their willingness to make a contribution at other times.

  • More commitment

Consensus-building assumes that people see themselves as part of a team. Its foundational assumption is that we are in this together. You get what you expect from people! Groups that regularly use consensus-building techniques experience higher levels of commitment from the membership of the group.

  • Better communication skills

Any process that expects people to listen carefully, check that they have heard accurately, and to carefully and respectfully present their views is a training ground for good communication skills! People don’t lose these skills when they leave a meeting that uses consensus-building processes.

  • Greater ability to assume broader and more difficult responsibilities

A key value is that everyone in a group shares responsibility for the work and the outcome. So, this broadens people’s horizons about what their role is in the group. Their success in offering leadership in the consensus-building process gives them confidence that they can do it elsewhere.

Stronger Groups

  • Greater ability to utilize multiple talents

If your decision-making process expects you to use the insights, experience, wisdom and personalities of everyone – why wouldn’t that spill over to other times? Discovering and valuing multiple talents benefits a group in every circumstance.

  • Access to more types of information

Groups can be closed or open. They can be inward-looking or seeking the best information from wherever they find it. It is a no brainer to work out which groups will thrive. You can foster and honor an organisational culture that seeks the best information from whatever source is appropriate.

  • Development of a respectful, supportive atmosphere

When members of a group know that they are respected and learn to support each other it makes for a great workplace, church or group. These types of groups just work better! So use a consensus-building approach to discernment because it significantly reduces combative and disrespectful interactions. Win!

  • Clear procedures for handling group dynamics

Groups are complex. However with the values of full participation, seeking after mutual understanding, desiring and generating inclusive solutions, and accepting that people share the responsibility to find answers to their challenges the procedures are in place to handle any kind of situation in your group.

  • Increased capacity for tackling difficult situations

A group that draws on all members, is open to generating new ideas, is patient, respectful and positive has the ability to tackle complex matters. Put in place the values that undergird consensus-building discernment. Then you will ensure that your group can handle more difficult situations than when people were just told what to do.

Stronger Agreements

  • More ideas

Generating more options for action means it’s far more likely that you will come up with something that works.

  • Higher quality ideas

It makes sense that if you generate more ideas that the quality will go up. Also, the commitment of consensus-building processes to quality information, from wherever it is sourced, provides the seedbed from which great ideas can grow.

  • Solutions that integrate everyone’s interests and hopes

When discussions focus on needs, hopes and interests then it is possible to find a lot of common ground. However, when the focus is on positions and “what I want” people get locked in. Consensus-building discernment understands that people have many interests embedded in an issue. It identifies these on the way to developing an agreed course of action.

  • Wiser decisions

When the perspectives of everyone are taken seriously then the best mind of a group can come to the fore. Churches that make decisions by consensus (ie aiming for 100% support) appreciate that wisdom is not always the property of the majority. Sometimes the wisdom is about the timing of actions or that further things need to be done before implementation.

  • More reliable follow through

If people don’t see their needs being met in an agreement then it will not get implemented. Strong agreements happen when people see their hopes realised in a decision. There is no process that is more likely to produce high levels of buy in than a consensus-building model.

Conclusion

Using consensus-building approaches to decision-making gives participants a great experience. They learn new skills and create better options for action. This experience gives a group great wins in addition to the quality of the decisions that they make!

Culture and Consensus – an African story

Culture can be a significant factor in whether or not consensus building can be effective. Some cultures support community developed and own decisions. Others favour individuals and the exercise of power by a minority over the majority. In this post we have an honest interview with Rev Dr Paul Mpongo from the Presbyterian Church in Congo.

TC:       Paul please tell us about your role in the church.

PM:      I am Deputy Legal Representative of the Presbyterian Church in Congo living in Kinshasa. I am also pastoring a small church congregation and teaching as Professor of Ethics and Theology in three universities.

TC:       What are some of the particular challenges that face the country and church in the Congo?

PM:      The Democratic Republic of the Congo has a long and continuing history of civil war. Pervasive poverty means that 80% of its primary and secondary school buildings are in a very needy state. Poverty also prevents schools from providing books, desks, teacher training, equipment like chalkboards and scholarships for girls and orphans. Congo, currently ranks near the bottom of the United Nations Human Development Index. This is a measure of life expectancy, education and income per capita. Life is very difficult for many people and the churches try their best to improve the lives of people through education and health services.

TC:      You responded by email to me after a post about having the courage to move away from power to relationships. How do you see power operating in the churches in Africa?

PM:      Conflict in the African church is coming from the need for power, the love of money and tribalism. Power is the way that people get money, the way that they control things to get what they want.

In Africa tribal loyalties and hierarchy is very strong so people who have high standing expect power as their right. It goes against the dominant culture in tribal societies to give up power.

TC:       What other factors in Africa encourage people to cling to power?

MP:      Everyone wants to be bishop and a small god.

In Africa it is complicated to do consensus because democracy is not strong . Democracy does not have deep roots in Africa. Also much of the teaching that has been received, including in the churches, has emphasised the idea of strong leadership.

TC:       In a culture where there are many injustices, and power is the way of the world and the church, it must be very hard to talk about building consensus.

MP:      Many people in Africa – whether educated or illiterate – take over majority strategy as the way to deal with injustices and tribalism. This is what they know from their life experience. This is normal in our society. If people have power they get what they want. If they do not have power they often suffer.

Consensus has a great problem to fit with this mind. It is not a familiar idea in our culture.

TC:       Is change possible in the African context?

PM:      It is hard in Africa to come up to this mind.

We need more understanding from the perspective of God’s love than human rights and cultures. In the church we know that God’s ways are not like human ways. We need to look in the Scriptures and the witness of the early church to find encouragement and models for how to live without the power relationships of our human culture.

Church policy of consensus needs love and binding to others as members in the body of Christ. If we see each other as one body, serving the one cause of Jesus Christ we might change. Love and concern for all is the key.

TC:       Is it possible in Africa that people will give up power in favour of relationships?

PM:      The power of Jesus’ Spirit is strong and powerful to overcome our human limits.

We need courage to love each other and to accept each other. God calls us to love each other. We need to give this the highest priority. Exercising power over people must not be the first thing in our relationships in the church.

TC:       It sounds like it is very hard in the African church to deal with power.

PM:      Yes it is. But we must have the courage to be of a strong faith – which cannot go back and never fail because of hardship.

The courage required can also mean that the leader must have the will to leave the leadership post – even if people do not like you to quit.

TC:       Paul, do you have hope that relationships can take priority over the exercise of power in the churches in Africa?

MP:      I believe with the heart of love and humility, everything will be fine
in our churches.

A very special thanks to Dr Mpongo who has generously contacted me many times about our posts on this website. I encourage everyone to offer comments in the comments section at the end of every post.