Tag: church meetings

Proposals – yes or no?

Proposals – do we really need them?

Proposals /  motions / petitions / overtures / legislation are the words that offer a direction to a meeting. (‘Proposal’ is the word that is used in consensus processes as it is meant to convey that the idea is tentative and open to discussion. So ‘proposal’ will be used here to cover all the different names that are used in various contexts.) They give leadership about the decision that a group could make. Surely they are essential?

I don’t think that proposals are always needed. I have been responsible for preparing papers for many meetings. Some of the most creative and effective decisions have started without proposals.

Proposals – the case against

1. They give extra power to the people who bring proposals

Let’s say a Committee turns up at a meeting with a proposal. What does everyone assume? These people have given this issue a lot of thought. They know a lot more about this than anyone else. Maybe the meeting participants respect the wisdom of this group.

As a result, many people do not feel qualified to speak into the debate. Also if there hasn’t been much discussion in earlier meetings, the participants have given it less thought than the movers.  Consequently, many people don’t feel like they can challenge the ideas of the people who bring the proposal. Therefore they don’t offer alternatives or challenge the ‘wisdom’ of the movers.

Why not? Sometimes it is because they don’t feel qualified. Or perhaps the direction proposed makes their idea seem “too late” to be considered. And sometimes it is because in the church we like to be nice. Pushing back on well-developed ideas is seen, in some places, as being cranky and/or obstructionist. Rather than seeing it as a constructive contribution to the welfare of the group, it is seen as not being nice.

Whoever brings a proposal is given extra influence because of the assumption that they are qualified and thoughtful leaders on a subject.

2. Proposals give movers the chance to focus the discussion

Let’s look at an example. The local church bus that is used to collect neighbourhood kids for Sunday morning activities is now 6 years old. The relevant Committee brings a proposal to the congregation that “The congregation replace the Sunday School bus with one of the same size and model.” The rationale comes with the proposal and advises about the number of miles/kilometres on the clock, the cost of the changeover and the assurance that there are sufficient funds available. A simple financial decision. At least in the mind of the movers!

Now in a consensus discernment process, it is possible to bring all the other considerations to the fore. However, in an issue like this, it makes it hard work to get everything on the table because the discussion starts with a financial proposal. Everyone’s mind is drawn to a discussion of finance and asset replacement policy. The proposal sets the focus for the discussion – it starts the group down a particular path and it always takes a lot of energy to turn in another direction.

What might be some of the non-financial considerations in such a discussion? These are some that come to my mind:

  • Stewardship: How many people use the bus that could not otherwise get to Sunday activities? Is there a more economical alternative?
  • Church values:, eg inclusiveness: Is the current model consistent with the church’s policy on inclusion eg disabled access?
  • Mission: Is this expenditure a priority alongside other ministry needs? Would a different kind of vehicle meet the needs of the Sunday program but also expand how it could be used in ministry?
  • Social justice: What are the work practices of the manufacturer? Do other models provide better fuel efficiency or lower environmental impacts? Does the model reflect the Gospel’s call to live simply?
  • Contextual considerations: Should we buy the car outside of our little town just to save some money or instead support the local economy?

I am sure that you will be able to think of many more issues. And of course that is the beauty of not coming every time with a proposal – others in the group see an alternative place to start the discussion.

By coming with a proposal right at the start of a discussion we can easily miss the more important conversations.

3. Proposals privilege the views of the movers

Another problem with proposals is that the writers get the first attempt at providing a solution. The power advantage and capacity to shape the discussion this gives has already been mentioned. But in a parliamentary style the “first mover advantage” is huge. Every other speaker has to push back against the words that have been provided. At times the alternatives are so complex that it is impossible to draft them as an alternative to what is first proposed.

It reminds me of the game I used to play with my brothers when we were young – king of the castle. We would build a huge sand hill and one of us would take the position at the top. The others had to run up and take control of the pinnacle. If you have ever played that game you know that the person on the top – the king of the castle – has a huge advantage. It’s the same for the people who draft proposals.

Well run consensus processes can overcome this problem but sometimes having no proposal at all is the best way to proceed.

4. Proposals easily set up a defensive position in the movers

Human nature being what it is we find it very easy to be defensive. When most people commit to a view they will want to defend it. In the parliamentary and debating styles of meetings that is exactly what they are expected to do – defend their position.

Consensus processes try to mitigate against that risk by the process that follows the introduction of material. However, proposals by their very nature heard people into camps that support or reject what is offered. The arguments easily become focused on the positions that have been taken and the underlying issues can get lost.

International mediators know the danger of taking positions. In the classic text on mediating disputes Getting to Yes Fisher and Ury argue that the worst thing to do is to turn up with fixed positions. Rather it is much better to explore and understand each other’s interests. These can be hopes, needs, fears, concerns, etc. Proposals are positions. Consensus processes want us to focus on what Fisher and Ury call “interests”. Leaving out proposals significantly reduces the chance of prematurely getting locked into positions and fighting over them.

5. Cultural disconnect

In many cultures, decisions are not made by one group coming up with a ‘good idea’ and then persuading everyone else to accept it. Instead, community issues are broached in a more inquisitive, intuitive, enquiring and open way. Stories are invited from those who gather. The sharing of values, tradition and dreams takes place. Feelings and ideas sit side by side. Then arising from this conversation the key issues are distilled and possibilities surfaced.

Many cultures begin discernment by drawing out the community’s sense of what needs to be addressed. Then they begin to think of options to address them. At this point work can be done to further develop some directions. Depending on the issue the responsibility to offer direction may come from the women, the men, the elders or some other group. The decision on what is to be done may be decided by them or come back for further discussion and decision.

There is also a disconnect between bringing proposals to church meetings and how we operate in the rest of our lives. I don’t know too many people who think it is a good idea to turn up to their children or significant other with a written five-point proposal to which they then present a rationale and invite debate on it. In our relationships, we talk first and develop options later. Why not do that in the church?

Proposals – the case for

Every decision needs to be understood and a clear record of the decision of the meeting recorded. So obviously there will need to be a proposal on which a decision is made. Proposals are a necessary step in that process.

Proposals – at the start of a discussion – make sense when something is procedural (ie that such and such happen in the meeting), formal (eg a vote of thanks) or receiving reports.

It is also useful to include a proposal at the point where the proposal is the result of an earlier more open-ended discussion. After the issues that really matter to people have surfaced, and the directions are becoming clearer it makes sense for a group to go away and document the views that have been raised. A proposal at this stage becomes a servant of the group rather than an unhelpful bind on its imagination.

Also, there will be times when an issue requiring discernment is actually very focused and not complicated. In such situations, it is OK to begin with a proposal. However, it is essential that the deliberation process ensure that all the problems with proposals are taken seriously.

Yes or No?

Proposals assist the efficiency of group decision-making processes. When well resourced with a rationale and a good process they are able to help move things along. They make the record of the decision easier to document.

Nevertheless, the built-in problems with proposals are always there. They should not be ignored. On most occasions, they will need to be addressed in the deliberation phase with well-constructed discussion points and support for a culture of openness.

But there will be times when it is far better to start in a more open way. To go back to our earlier example of the bus. In that situation, the most helpful thing would be to start the conversation with some information about the bus and the way it is used and then move to a discussion starter. The opening might be: “What are the stories that you can tell about the ministry that uses the bus?” Or, “When you hear this report what feelings or questions come to your mind?” Or, “When you hear this report what are the things that you think we should take into account as we decide our next steps?” You can find some helpful information on how to plan a meeting in The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together. 

I encourage you to look at the agenda of your meetings and ask whether it would be better to introduce some parts of the business without a proposal. If it means an extra meeting on a topic then it is worth it. Because when you make sure that you deal with the real issues, generate the most effective list of actions and build support for the final decision – you make better decisions.

11 tips to make church meetings work well

Church Meetings. Most people dread going to them. They tend to run long, easily get off course or do not accomplish goals. Time is precious and people’s patience is running low. Yet meetings matter – they are an essential tool in how the world works. It has been estimated that there are 25 million meetings a day in the USA, and 85 million world wide!

A better way for church meetings

Sometimes doing the simple things well can make a huge difference to the value of your meetings. Getting the basics right makes your meetings effective and your participants satisfied. Try these simple steps to make your next meeting productive and worthwhile for all involved.

Prepare for your meetings!

Let people know in advance when the meeting will take place and what the agenda will be. Always distribute the agenda in advance! Yes and send out written reports with any recommendations / proposals that will be put to the meeting. The more information you can share in advance the better.

Select a comfortable location – definitely not church pews! Can people see the faces of all who are present – not just the back of their head? Does the Chair of the meeting have a good line of sight to everyone in the room? A Chairperson needs to be able to pick up the non verbal cues as well as look at people when they speak. Are people going to end the meeting with a bad back because the seats are only good to sit on for 30 minutes?  Attention to the way a meeting space is set up facilitates good communication and attention.

If you are the Chair of the meeting be prepared and ready. We all understand that the Chair needs to be across the agenda. But s/he also needs to have given a lot of thought to the processes that will be used for each item of business. Use different methods for discussion based on the sensitivity, complexity, newness of the business. Not all business is created equal!

Some meeting do’s and don’ts

Here are some things to consider so that the flow of your meeting is productive:

Do’s

  • As leaders gather, have a short time of fellowship. Offering tea or coffee helps set a relaxed tone and gives people the opportunity to catch-up with one another.
  • Begin with prayer and a time of centring. This practice serves to give participants a sense of the holy in the midst of their work.
  • Foster active participation. Allowing people a chance to form pairs to discuss a matter before having floor discussion helps introverts contribute and feel valued.
  • Consider another way of making decisions rather than always using Robert’s Rules of Order.  These 1863 meeting procedures were designed as rules of engagement in arbitration. Yikes! I recommend that you read our book The Church Guide for Making Decisions Together to learn other ways of reaching decisions.
  • Seek common ground to make decisions.  Be sure that your leaders consider their values as they explore and reach a final position on an issue.
  • Do the administrative tasks at the end of the meeting.  The Treasurer’s Finacial Report, Staff Reports can all be done before adjournment.
  • End on time – this is crucial.

Don’ts:

  • Skip reading the minutes of the last meeting. They should have been reviewed in advance by leaders and can be simply approved if there are no revisions.
  • Go over and over the same material. When people get bogged down on the specifics tensions rise. Consider a short break or change of approach.
  • There are people in every group who like to speak, and they do – often. Prevent people from dominating or manipulating the conversation. To break this cycle, thank them for their comment and say: “Is there anyone else who would like to contribute to this discussion?” Break eye contact with the person who is speaking too often. If the problem persists, speak to them in private after the meeting.
  • Don’t try to do it all yourself! A good leader will invite a person skilled in facilitation to guide a part of the meeting when it is complex, there is potential for a perception of bias or conflict of interest, or it is emotionally demanding. They know various approaches that foster good process and decisions.

Focus!

I know these suggestions seem basic, but they are often overlooked when a group comes together to make decisions. It is my hope that your next meeting will be engaging and productive. With a little bit of effort, it can be!

 

The World Deacons Executive change to consensus

This guest post on change to consensus is from Rev (Deacon) Sandy Boyce of the Uniting Church in Australia. Sandy is President of the DIAKONIA World Federation – http://www.diakonia-world.org

The change to consensus by the Executive of the DIAKONIA World Federation has been a huge positive. Change from a traditional meeting format to using the tools of consensus processes has increased inclusion, strengthened the group and empowered the leadership of all the members. There is no going back after the change to consensus!

Why change?

‘Slow down – please!’

‘Please stop using English colloquial expressions!’

‘Please – give us some time to catch up’.

Such were the pleas from people for whom English is a second or third language. When working together on a world committee comprised of people from many countries, cultures and language groups the way we communicate together is very important.

The World Executive (2013-17) was comprised of people from North America, Australia, England, Tanzania, Switzerland, Germany, Norway and the Philippines. In 2018 we begin with a new committee that will again draw people together from many countries and languages. All share a common desire to work towards a common purpose through the DIAKONIA World Federation.

We only meet face to face once a year, so relationship building is especially key to a successful meeting. When we spend so much time in a business meeting the quality of our fellowship at that time is significant to the quality of our relationships as a group.

How the change was introduced

When elected as President, DIAKONIA World Federation, one of my responsibilities was to organise and chair the annual meeting.  In the meeting are elected representatives from diaconal associations around the world. English is the medium for our meetings.

I had been keen to introduce the consensus decision making process into our meetings. Interestingly, some members had seen the cards in use and were not keen to use them. I was shocked to discover that the way they had seen the cards being used simply replicated a traditional ‘voting’ system. There people held their cards aloft and the cards were counted to see who was ‘for’ (orange) and who was ‘against’ (blue). So, the introduction of the consensus decision making process had to address the previous experience of the misuse of the cards and process. In addition it needed to capture the essence and energy of shared discernment and the consensus decision making process.

What I hadn’t anticipated was that the consensus decision making process would be embraced so quickly. In a multi-lingual context it provided an opportunity for people to express in non-verbal ways their response to matters being discussed. They could also visually see how others were responding. The change to using consensus building processes in our meeting enabled discussion and discernment to continue in an informed way. People better understood what was happening compared to the way they had to quickly come to a decision in a typical ‘business’ meeting. It transcended language in a way that enabled more fulsome participation in decision making.

Additional tools used to help the change

I introduced the yellow ‘question’ card. This proved invaluable, especially for those for whom English was not their first language. For some on our World Executive, English was only one of a cluster of languages they spoke. Having to listen and speak in English while internally processing their thinking in another language presents special challenges.

The yellow card ‘democratised’ the process, in that all members of the committee could feel free to ask questions. Having shown the yellow card, a member could take all the time they needed to frame their question and speak to it.

Others would be especially attentive to understand the gist of the question, and any further comments, and to discern the implications for the discussion at hand. The card gave people confidence to participate more fully. Our meetings have been enriched as a consequence. The privilege accorded to native English in meetings was (in part) addressed by this opportunity . This change strengthened the strategies for intentionally making space to listen well to questions and comments that is inherent in a consensus approach.

Then, I sensed the need for a further card.  The orange and blue cards remained the colours related to the consensus decision making process itself. But this purple card served another purpose. It is used by people who experienced (and expressed) a constant frustration at the speed that native speakers of English spoke during meetings.

Those listening could not keep up with the internal process that was required to convert English to their own language. People need to think and process, and then consider a response, before converting back to English. Everyone wants to, and should be able to offer, a response to the committee. However when they were ready the discussion may have moved on and they missed an opportunity to contribute. All of this internal processing activity happened silently. Such silence from non-English speakers could easily be construed as agreement. In fact it often signaled active internal processing of language.

Native speakers of English from different countries speak with such a wide diversity of accents. This requires a different way of listening. Unwittingly using colloquial expressions that did not translate easily even for speakers of English happens a lot. Hence the pleas of those who were not native speakers of English for people to ‘slow down’, ‘stop using colloquial expressions’, and to create some space for processing what they have heard.

The purple card had the specific purpose of providing a visual clue to the person speaking – slow down. They needed to be more attentive to the process of speaking and listening. The exasperation and frustration gave way to a greater sense of inclusion and participation.

Was the change worth it?

Our DIAKONIA World Executive meetings have been enriched by the consensus decision making process, and the use of the blue and orange cards. The use of the two additional cards that have been integrated into the process have enabled more fulsome participation and understanding across the breadth of the membership of the DIAKONIA World Executive.

The experience has been a very positive one for the Executive members. I strongly commend that groups take seriously how to involve people from different language groups and cultures. Consensus processes and tool are the key to making an effective change.

 

When to use a facilitator

Situations that deserve a third party facilitator

Determining when you need a neutral third party facilitator is an important leadership task.  In times of transition or in situations where the stakes are high, inviting a third party to facilitate a process with your group can make a positive difference.  Facilitators can model the skillsets necessary for your group to improve their interactions with one another.

If you recognize any of these situations in your organization, you may need the services of a third party:

  • Emotional level between parties is high with anger and frustration
  • Communication is poor
  • Stereotypical views of positions and motives are preventing resolution
  • Behavior is negative
  • Conflict is at a high level
  • Parties cannot agree on what information is relevant or required
  • Various issues are present or the matter is complex
  • Values differ greatly and parties disagree on what is fundamentally right
  • The task before you make you realise that “this is beyond us”

What is a third party facilitator?

A third party is a trained leader who is recognized for their ability to work well with a group. They get results.  Examples of a third party leader may be a Mediator, Litigator, or Process Facilitator.  They have usually been certified or have completed a training program.  Most important, they have the experience necessary to lead your group through a situation successfully.

Questions for Consideration:

  • Does the person have the skills necessary to help move your group forward?
  • Where were they trained? When?
  • Can the third party provide references from past work?
  • Are they available to work with you on your schedule?
  • Is their personality a good fit for your group?

How can I find a third party facilitator?

Locating someone who has the skills your group needs is important. Ask your peers who they have used in a similar situation.  Authors of books can also make an excellent resource. You can also find the right person on the internet by researching blogs, articles, and events related to your issue or need.

Hiring a third party facilitator

  1. Form a Hiring Team with the responsibility to come up with a recommendation.
  2. Find at least three people who meet the skills you are looking for in a third party.
  3. Contact each person and explain the situation your organization is facing. Let them know that they have been recommended to you and ask if they are interested in working with your group. Answer their questions.
  4. Ask them if they are interested in making a proposal for consideration of services. Be sure that they outline their approach and provide a cost for their services. Ask them to list 2-3 references.
  5. Once you receive their proposals, have your hiring team review them. Sort the applicants into first, second and third. Check references.
  6. Arrange an interview with those your Hiring Team thinks are worth talking to in detail. Decide a clear choice.
  7. Present your top choice to your leaders for their support.
  8. Contract the work and set the timeline and budget.

Conclusion

Leaders who decide hire a Third Party Facilitator to lead their group are smart. It is not possible for local leaders to be all things to all people. Choosing an effective third party frees you to participate in the process as well as learn new skills.  Follow the steps recommended in this blog to find the right person to do the work necessary to help your group resolve issues and move forward together. You will be glad you did!

 

 

 

5 factors that lead to failure

 

Making changes in any organisation may result in failure. Moving toward a consensus based process of making decisions is no different. Avoid these 5 factors and improve your chance of successfully bringing in consensus discernment.

It takes time and energy to bring change. Obviously there are factors that can lead to failure when implementing change. However it is well worth the effort when you hear people exclaim that they have finally worked together faithfully to discern the will of God. Anyone can make a decision – it takes a faith community to discern a Godly direction!

The process outlined in our book, “The Church Guide For making Decisions Together” involves Preparation, Invitation, Deliberation, and Action. When done properly, people will feel good about the decisions they make together. When not done properly, people feel cheated and misled. There are ways to reduce the risk that your change process will lead to failure.

Here are 5 major mistakes that leaders often make when introducing a consensus building approach to making decisions. Watch out for, and guard against, these 5 factors that lead to failure.

  1. Failure to model the approach

    From the Chairperson to the newest participant, active listening and respect for one another is crucial when making decisions. Leaders must be genuine in wanting to hear all points of view. Show patience and careful listening in their Deliberative Sessions. Be sure to ask people what they mean if it is not clear. Help those who need it to say what is on their mind. This helps people see how it works. Once confident, they will be willing to try it in their own context.

  2. Failure to adequately prepare people

    People deserve to know what is expected of them in this discernment process and how to engage fully. This is the same with anything new.  Therefore, there is no substitute for an Orientation Session that explains the process well and how to participate. When people are confused they make mistakes or find it hard to trust the leadership. As a result they will complain and drag their feet.

    Another failure in preparation is not forming inclusive and diverse small groups ahead of time. Neglecting to identify and train the small group facilitators to guide their work is a recipe for disaster. We recommend hiring a Process Facilitator for the first time the process is used in large groups. This ensures that no preparation is missed and leaders are trained and participants engaged.

  3. Failure to ask open questions

    Open questions (one’s that cannot be answered by “yes” or “no”) lead to a good discussion and creativity. If people are offered only the chance to agree or disagree the conversation quickly grinds to a halt. Examples of open questions are: “What might be some of the things we need to take into account about this idea?” “How do you feel / respond / think about that comment?”

    All too often, leaders unintentionally ask questions that lead people in a specific direction. “Do you believe that…?”  “Don’t you agree that…?”  “Should we do this?” Questions from the Chairperson can make people feel like they are being railroaded into a particular direction. Therefore a consensus building decision-making process crafts questions that engage people around both the possibilities and consequences of their decision. Powerful questions include: “What do you need to know in order to make this decision?” “Why is this issue important to you?”

    Closed questions close off discussion. However open questions generate the response necessary to generate new insights and options. They make it possible to complete the process with integrity.

  4. Failure to get the right people to the table

    Who would throw a party and not make a guest list?  Silly, right?  Leaders who have an important decision looming need to give thought to who should be involved in making it. When possible, leaders (as well as stakeholders) should work together. This eliminates the mistake of making assumptions or not making decisions based on reality.

  5. Failure to provide enough time for the process

    We have seen facilitators not schedule the process wisely. So inadequate time is provided for Information Sharing and not enough time for the small groups to complete their discussions. Time spent doing these things well means that the time used in moving to a decision is often much quicker. Yes, this process invests more time than a traditional “Let’s vote!” approach in the information and discussion stage. However it gets results because the best options for action get raised, there are less amendments from the floor, and reduced confusion about what is being decided. Plus, less time is spent revisiting issues later with this approach!  The book lists various tips that save time. These include the use of colored cards to gauge feelings without the need for people to make speeches at the microphone.

Conclusion

With knowledge, you can avoid making these mistakes. Reading our book:  “The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together” and using the process in your setting will work. Send specific questions to us through this site and we will respond. We are also available for consultations and training. Contact us for more information at julia@makingchurchdecisions.com or terence@makingchurchdecisions.com.