Tag: consensus building

5 Questions for Efficient Meetings

meeting

Efficient meetings – a dream or reality?

I am sure all of us have attended way too many meetings where too much time is wasted. It can be frustrating to struggle through a discussion that takes forever to get anywhere. Then even worse the destination turns out to be a dead end.

No one wants to waste their time. But also we don’t want to rush and make people feel left out, or dominated by the powerful, or end up making a bad decision because we didn’t take everything into account.

Being efficient does not mean rushing. Being efficient means only talking about things that actually help us to make a good decision!

There are many tools that help us to make good decisions in a time-effective way. This post looks at five questions that can help us to be clear and focused on the task, and ensure that we know when we have talked enough to make the decision.

What are we here for?

This is not a question that needs to be asked every time but it is something that should be considered from time to time. There will also be situations when it is just the right question to get people back on track.

I have been to many meetings where an issue comes up and people want to tell you their experience of this issue. Or the conversation leads to commentary on the motives or credibility of the people bringing the idea. Have you ever been to a meeting where the group is asked to provide advice on a question and they want to spend their time saying what they think should be the final decision? All of these things cause a meeting to wander away from its purpose. They are classic time-wasters. When people talk about what is not their business it is very inefficient!

Any member of a committee can remind the group of their purpose. If no one else does it then it is up to the Chair. Simple comments like: I think the question before us is …; or We were not asked to make a decision on this subject but to identify the relevant issues for the Church Council; or We don’t have the authority to act in that way so there isn’t much point talking about it; or Can you help me to see how this conversation is helping us to get an answer to the question in front of us; etc.

There are many ways to pull people back on track. However, too few people are prepared to do it and so meetings wander off into all sorts of blind alleys. If the meeting is wandering one very useful tool is to remind people of the purpose of the meeting/discussion in which they are involved. Be polite – but just do it.

What is the issue?

A common way that meetings waste time is to not address the main issues. Instead, they talk about all sorts of things that are irrelevant to the topic. Often this is not done deliberately. People think they know what the issue is but they are wrong – so they talk about things that just don’t help to get the job done.

So the absolutely best way to make your meeting efficient is to make sure that everyone understands what is the issue that is before the meeting. Now, this is not as easy as it seems! Let’s look at an example.

Recently I was having a conversation with a regional church leader who said that a local congregation and his committee had to make a decision about whether a local church Minister would get an extension beyond their current term. On the surface, it looks pretty simple. The issue seems to be “Should  Rev X get to go beyond 10 years?”

But dig deeper and the issues expand. Ask the question again: “What are the issues at stake when we consider an extension for this Minister? Now we start to see that the deeper issues include

    • the effectiveness of the mission of the church
    • the health and well being of the Minister and congregation,
    • the Minister’s professional and vocational development
    • the personal needs of the Minister and congregation
    • the best use of her gifts across the church
    • is there a “church policy” that needs to be accepted or challenged

As you can see, by digging deeper to find the issues that lie beneath the presenting question we can better see what we need to talk about. If we don’t dig deeper then when the talking starts some people will speak to the first point, others the fourth and the talk will jump all over the place and make it hard to get to a point of decision.

This list of “what we need to decide” is very important. Write it up so everyone can see it. You are going to come back to this list. After creating this list, ask one more time: “Is there anything else on which we need to make a decision as we discern this matter?”

One outcome of this process is that it is possible to systematically work through each area rather than wandering all over the top of them and confusing the discussion. A second benefit is that you can prioritize the issues. Another is that you have now moved the conversation from one about strategy (in this case an extension) to goals (ie why would we give an extension).

What do we need to know?

What information do we require if we are going to understand these issues and be well informed? This step significantly reduces the potential for people to bring up red herrings, irrelevant minutia and overweighting their bias rather than dealing with the data. All of these are great time wasters.

So in the example above, the answer for issue one might include things like:

    •  we need to know the mission priorities for the congregation
    • the skills of the Minister and the members
    • decide if the Minister can make a significant contribution to that mission direction
    • etc

Do we have the information that we need?

I am often amazed at how often meetings are prepared to make a decision when they do not have the information that they need! To make a good decision you need the right information. By agreeing ahead of time what you need to know then you can decide if you have the answers that you need. This helps efficiency in at least two ways. First, it means that you only have a discussion when you are in a position to make a decision. Second, it reduces the chance that someone will turn up at the next meeting and say “We didn’t take this into account” and start the discussion all over again. Yikes!

If you do not have the information at this meeting then ask: how do we get it, who will collect it and by when? If this question is right up front then it is less likely that you talk for ages and someone decides that they have to postpone the discussion until another meeting because there is something they need to find out.

Have we talked this through?

Talk through the issues one at a time then move to the next one. Summarize the comments. If there is agreement then note it. If there is a difference of opinion then acknowledge it.

After going through the list of issues that you wrote up at the beginning of the discussion summarize what has been said and see if there is a consensus on the presenting question. It may be that the conversation leads to discernment about the appropriate path forward on the presenting question.

It is also possible that people want to give more weight to one of the underlying issues than to another. For example, some people may want to give the most weight to the family’s needs, others a policy or bias against long terms, or others the mission of the local church. Not all considerations are created equal! But getting these out in the open reduces the risk of it becoming a shouting match or a time for accusations that some people just don’t care about the Minister’s family.

If it becomes clear that there are strongly held different views on what should be the most important factors then make that topic the discussion for a time. One thing that may be helpful is to give people two or three coloured dots and ask them to put a dot next to the two or three things that are most important to them as they make this decision. People can share why their top one is important. This kind of process encourages transparency and makes it possible to address the feelings and values of the committee members as well as their ideas. This step plays into achieving positive relationships among the members and ensures that everyone is respected and has the chance to share their point of view. This may seem to some to sacrifice efficiency for a feel-good vibe in the meeting. However, that sets up a false choice. At the end of the day good, respectful and open relationships enhance the ability of a group to work effectively together over time.

Conclusion

It is very easy for members of meetings to wander all over the place and take way too long to get to a conclusion. The best solution is to have a structure for exploring any issue that is before the group. This post could only offer one example. However, I encourage you to think of an important agenda item from a recent meeting that you attended. Were there more issues under the surface than seemed obvious from the way the business was presented? Did the group try to make a decision without realizing all the information that is needed? Did the meeting go around in circles or have people talk back and forth at each other because they had different priorities and they were trying to wear the other person down? All of these problems can be overcome if you ask the five questions for efficient meetings!

 

Community based decision-making process – 3rd step: deliberation and decision

In any decision-making process deliberation and decision is where most people want to rush. This is the part of the process that most people think about when they talk about making decisions. It is the very heart of a decision-making process.

This is the 3rd post in a series of four posts that walk through the steps required for effective community based decision-making. Step 3 is deliberation and decision. Step 1 is preparation, step 2 is invitation and step 4 is implement the decision.

The material below is expanded upon in the book: “The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together” in pages 93 – 95 and 186. You can get your copy at Amazon.

Before the deliberations begin

We are absolutely convinced that when you complete the first 2 steps properly (Preparation and Invitation), then this step is a real delight.

First a reminder. Because this process is community-based, gathering the community for this work is crucial. Therefore people should know the issue(s) in advance and receive all relevant materials before the meeting. They should come to the meeting with a sense of prayer and wonder at what God is about to do through them. Supported this step with deep prayer and reflection. Sadly, some people come to meetings loaded for bear. That is, they take sides in advance and are convinced that they need to argue their point. Winning is their motivation. However, nothing is further from the truth of what community based discernment is about!

Here is a basic outline of an agenda for the deliberation and decision-making part of a discernment process.

Gather the Community

Participants are reminded, affirmed and built up as a community in this part of the meeting. When done well people will:

  • be welcomed
  • share a time of worship or devotion
  • build community
  • set boundaries or guidelines to complete the work ahead
  • review and agree to the agenda with appropriate break times
  • receive an overview of the consensus process.

Information Phase

Most leaders tend to ignore or limit this part of the meeting. Many questions and confusion easily arise when this happens. The issue or topic to be discussed is presented and relevant supporting material distributed.

Often this material takes the form of a petition or proposal to considered. Time must be given to answering questions on the topic so everyone is clear what they are being asked to do, understand the matter before them and the implications of their decision.

An often overlooked important piece of information is what is important to the decision makers as they consider the issue. People decide things on what they think is important. If other people don’t know what matters to others then they will not know where each other are coming from. Worse still, important needs and concerns will not surface. This means that all the issues will not be addressed and the full range of possible outcomes will be cut off.

Deliberation Phase

It is very important that you provide enough time for this phase. This is where creative options surface and the shape of the decision starts to come into focus.

In Robert’s Rules of Order, this is often a time of making amendments and substitution which can be confusing. In a community-based consensus process, it is a time for respectful conversation and consultation with one another to share experiences, hopes, values, feelings, and theology on the proposal. By doing this you begin to see what is acceptable in the proposal and whether there are other ways to achieve goals.

There are many ways to help these sorts of discussions and to capture the developing consensus. One valuable technique to foster these conversations is to form smaller groups of 6-8 people to seek direction.

Determination / Decision Phase

This is the place in the meeting where the decision is made. Perhaps the decision is that it is not time to finalise the issue. So the matter will be referred to a group for further work. That group will then bring back the next phase of the discernment in a new proposal.

Often, a group decides they have had enough conversation and are ready to share alternate ideas gleaned from conversation and prayer in the Deliberation Phase.  If you have completed the previous phases with integrity, there may be a clear cut sense of direction. This is the point where leaders ask the group if they are ready to make a decision. A revised petition or proposal may be presented to the entire group from feedback in small group sessions, or through other strategies.  Remember the point is to draw from the wisdom of the community.

Ultimately it is time to make the decision. This can be done with a show of hands, ballots, or other means. Once the decision is made it should be documented so anyone not present at the meeting understands what has happened and what the next steps will be.

Conclusion

Close the meeting by thanking people for their participation and hard work. Where appropriate end the meeting with an acknowledgement of what the group has worked on and been through. This may be a time for a prayer or song.

I am deeply troubled when a group says that this work takes too much time. They prefer a simple yes or no vote. The answer is simple: take just enough time to discern the will of God on a matter with your brothers and sisters. Then people have ownership of the decision. You will know that you have spent time wisely when you hear people say that they fully understand the decision and are prepared to support it.

If you do not take adequate time for this step then you will waste time later revisiting the matter, or suffering from people’s confusion or lack of support. Groups have split over less!

What a wonderful feeling it is when a faith community knows that they have discerned the will of God on the matter and are prepared to embrace it together!

Post your response to this article so that we may hear your experience and insights about making decisions well.

 

 

 

Community based decision-making process – 2nd step: invitation

 

Who would throw a party and not send an invitation to guests? Sounds silly, right? Would you believe that many church leaders plan for an important decision and fail to get the right people to the table? Therefore in an effective decision-making process invitation is essential. So give careful thought to who should be present. It takes effort to think this through. However it is well worth it.

This post is part of a series of four that walk you through the steps required for effective community based decision-making. The first step is preparation. Step 2 is invitation. Step 3 is deliberation and decision. The final step 4 is to implement the decision.

“The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together” expands on this material in pages 92, 93 and 185. You can get your copy from Amazon.

Decide who should be present

I know – it sounds obvious, but this step is often overlooked. Who should be on your invitation list? Some meetings have a limited group of people involved in the decision-making. Some decision-making bodies like congregations can be quite large. When holding important meetings make sure to hold them when as many people as possible can participate. The first group of people who need to be present are the people who need to make the decision – plan for maximum involvement.

Decision-makers need good information and good processes. Therefore the second group of people you need at a meeting are resource people. They may be subject experts who offer technical information or other data.

Some discussions are complex and need processes that can maximize participation, exploration of issues, and the drawing out of opinions. Not every Church Board or congregation has experts in meeting processes. So consider – do we need some help in developing the processes for our discussions?

Decision-makers are not the only persons affected by a decision. So it is important to have people who are affected by a decision, present at some stage in the decision-making process. Decisions-makers need to understand the impact of a decision. This is important information for decision-makers. Therefore think about who can help a group understand the impact that their decision will have. Then add them to the invitation list.

When possible, make a list of people who need to participate. This group will include those with authority to decide, people who can assist the knowledge base and processes of the group, and others who help to make the impact of the decision clear to the decision-makers.

Develop a clear communication plan – invitation

Participants need to know what is happening. Encourage people to understand why it is important that they attend. Also they need to know where the meeting will be held and other important details.

A note in the bulletin or minutes is not enough to get the word out. Try some of these ideas: send an open letter to the congregation or organization, make numerous announcements, present involvement as an invitation to something important, and introduce the process leaders to your group and have them explain what will happen.

Practice the Means of Grace

Invite people to be in a spirit of prayer for the meeting. Encourage them to pray and reflect on scripture during this time. Every member of the community of faith is a partner in the process. So respect them and affirm them by providing them with the opportunity to support the process through prayer and other acts of faithfulness.

Conclusion

When you have the right people at the table, the process of making decisions goes better. Take the time to invite people in as many ways as possible. Encourage their participation by providing good information, specific invitations and concrete recommendations for how they can be involved.

Do the ideas in this article match things that you have done? How did that work out?  Let us know your thoughts, experience and questions.

 

 

Liminal spaces – a waiting time

Easter Saturday and Consensus Building

Liminal spaces are essential in life. What can Easter Saturday teach us about how to do discernment? For these ideas, I am indebted to my colleague, Rev Dr John Squires. John wrote a very fine post at Easter called: “A time in-between the times, a space in no space.”

In his reflection, he observed that “Easter Saturday is a liminal space. The word liminal comes from the Latin word līmen, which means “a threshold”. Technically, that is the place that marks off one space from another.” For the first disciples, there was something slow, cautious and anxious about Easter Saturday. For today’s Christians, there is a waiting hopefulness that there is something to celebrate after Easter Saturday. For all, it is a time in between – neither one thing nor the other.

You can’t rush from Good Friday to Easter Sunday – one just has to wait in hope. There are no shortcuts – it takes time and patience.

Consensus building discernment has these times of waiting. Times between what is known and what might be. This is the creative moment where God is doing God’s work while we stand by helpless – except in our patience and hopefulness.

Liminal spaces – waiting for God

I know so many people who resist using consensus discernment because they can’t cope with the uncertainty. Consensus discernment is a process that requires us to let go of what we know and to wait in hope. Built into it is uncertainty!

Instead many people like to stay with what they know – never letting go of their points of view and the importance they give to their experience. Many people cannot let go of their preferred solution. So they stay mired in the present and the future is lost to them.

Others want to rush to the next idea, a great plan, a quick fix that will remove the tension of not knowing what to do. For these people there is no “time between time” and they cannot find “a space in no space.”

However, the way to God’s future so often requires patience and waiting!! Instead of clinging to the past or rushing to our idea of the future, consensus-building invites us to wait. The waiting is not passive or lazy. This waiting is expectant, attentive to the movement of the Holy Spirit and patiently waiting for God to do what we cannot do in our human strength and wisdom. Discernment needs its Easter Saturday experiences.

What to do in the liminal spaces

Like the disciples – be together. Stay connected to the community of discernment and support each other.

Do not pretend that it is easy to wait for discernment to come – because a lot of times it isn’t! Share honestly the experience of loss and grief that comes with the realization that things are being put to death.

Reach out to the God who has brought you to this liminal space of waiting – keep praying and engaging in spiritual disciplines.

Don’t try and come up with a quick fix – there probably isn’t one! In patience imagine all the possibilities and then let God surprise you with the gift of new insight and a future that you could never have made happen.

Conclusion

As John Squires observed: “On this Saturday, the day in between Friday and Sunday, we look back at what was lost … and we yearn for what is yet to be.” Consensus-based discernment is a spiritual practice that can mirror the Easter experience. Yes, there is loss, waiting, anxiety and uncertainty – but ultimately there is new life by the grace and work of God.

 

Values Trump Facts – Is Consensus-Building Possible?!?

Is there hope for consensus-building when the facts don’t overcome existing values / biases? According to some the answer is “NO!!!” I’m not so sure. Here’s why.

Why don’t facts seem to matter any more?

On May 8th, 2019 David Barker and Morgan  Marietta wrote a piece in Niemanlab. In the article they explored  the impact of the Mueller Report on US public opinion about the President of the USA. Mueller’s investigation into the Trump election campaign and the Russians found no collusion but  areas where there may have been an obstruction of justice by the President.
These two eminent political scientists concluded that the Mueller Report did not move the needle for the vast majority of people in the USA with respect to their attitude to the President. If people already thought that the President was engaged in illegal activities they were confirmed in that view. If they thought the President was innocent then Mueller confirmed it for them.

Values count more than the data

Why does this happen? According to Barker and Marietta it comes down to this. “We found that voters see the world in ways that reinforce their values and identities. If they start with a particular set of values then everything they receive by way of information is interpreted as support of those values. In such a context “fact checking” or hearing “the other side’s point of view” has no impact on changing the mind of people.”
An interesting illustration of this phenomenon is the attitude of Americans about whether there is racism in the USA. Quoting from the article: “… according to our data from five years of national surveys from 2013 to 2017, the most important predictor of whether a person views racism as highly prevalent and influential is not her partisan identification. It is not her general ideological outlook. It is not the amount or type of media that she consumes. It isn’t even her own race. It is the degree to which she prioritizes compassion as a public virtue, relative to other things like rugged individualism.”

What does this mean for consensus-building?

The pessimistic view of the authors is that “Perhaps the most disappointing finding from our studies … is that there are no known fixes to this problem.” Well that’s all a bit disheartening!!! I disagree with them.

The first things that it means for a consensus-building approach are not to try and ram “the facts” down a person’s throat; and secondly do not be disparaging of others as bigots and closed minded.

Findings like those is this article are greatly encouraging to the people who understand consensus based discernment or decision-making. Why? Because it affirms how important it is to get behind the presenting words and feelings. It compels us to look past the first things that people say, and instead attempt to understand what is important to them. Consensus-building processes know that people act out of their values – fears, hopes, identity, world view. These processes want to hear about these things from people. Consensus-building processes take values and identity seriously and respect them.

Where values differ these need to be explored. However, it is a much richer and respectful conversation if we invite others to tell us what is important to them. This is a much healthier and more constructive approach than seeking to persuade them about “the facts”.

The great failure of the parliamentary style of debate and decision-making is that it gets into this world of duelling facts. Then when the debate is over and the vote is taken there is a decision. But in the world we live in today the divisions remain because the values have not changed.

What can be done?

Here are some attitudes and strategies that can be used in a consensus-building context to help avoid the stalemate that comes when facts reinforce values.

  • Get the agreed facts out on the table (even the ones that you don’t like!)
  • Ask people what they conclude from / make of this information.
  • Take a step back and find a way to talk about our values or the things that shape what is important for us. In the church this can include significant faith stories.
  • Speak about our understanding of God and God’s hope for the world.
  • Seek out common values and affirm the common ground. Note that people have many values and some will have precedence at different times. Some we may disagree with, yet many we will share.
  • Explore, with respect and humility, how the options / actions that we are discussing support our shared values.

Optimism can be found for the Christian community in that when we go deep enough we do have a common narrative /vision / hope. Many societies can find this common ground too – if they are prepared to work to find it.

However the great advantage that Christians have is that they have at their foundation the community that God has created through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This common ground is not their choice it is the will of God and our responsibility is to live into that reality. As the Apostle Paul noted there is one faith, one Lord one baptism – one God and Father of us all (Ephesians 4: 5,6).

Conclusion

Of course we have to deal with reality. There are not really ‘alternative facts”.

However we need to understand that it is our values that give meaning to the things that we see. If we are going to get past “duelling facts” and name calling them we have to explore values.  Consensus building processes understand this. They foster this deeper and respectful engagement, and provide the tools for discovering shared hopes and then actions.