Tag: consensus building

9 reasons you may struggle to bring change – and what to do about it (Pt 2)

Bringing about change needs energy! In electricity, resistance is a measurement of the difficulty encountered by a power source in forcing electric current through a circuit. So it also indicates the amount of power used up in the circuit.

Measuring resistance let’s you know how much energy it will take to get a result. The same applies when bringing change to an organisation. If you use too little energy then the resistance will prevent the power moving through the system. If you have too much energy coming to low resistance then you’ll blow up the circuit!

So it is worthwhile to examine your group for resistance (and other challenges) as you decide the best way to bring about change!

‪1. It just doesn’t fit the official picture.

Churches develop a culture just like any other group. Part of the culture of a group is the way that decisions get made. What this means is that sometimes change doesn’t happen because it just doesn’t fit the “official” culture.

A consensus approach may even be seen to be working in other situations but “that is them” and “this is us”. When something doesn’t feel like a natural fit, or like a clash of cultures, then people resist considering it. Change to something different needs to feel like a “fit” for a group.

Strategies to change culture in a group

The first thing to note is that cultures in groups are complicated. There is not just one culture or value. There are many values in a group. It is just that some get more prominence than others.

So, when thinking about the different cultures of a consensus discernment approach and a parliamentary style, ask where the common ground might be.  By identifying the common values you can then offer consensus building approaches as the way to support the traditional values. For example parliamentary ways of making decisions value the right of anyone to participate in the debate; resist capricious actions by the Chair in favor of democracy; value clear reasons and principled decision-making; and want people to accept the final decision; among others. These are all held in common with consensus building approaches to decision-making!

Talk about the common values. Give prominence to the once that align with consensus based approaches. Then recommend consensus strategies that affirm and support the group’s cultural values. This is not so much about changing a culture as realigning its priorities so that it is more true to what it says. Now that could change how things look and feel!

Change of culture often requires that the dominant culture is challenged. One great way to do this in the context of church meetings is to remind people of the broader culture of the Christian faith. Many times people behave in meetings in ways that just don’t look like mature Christian behavior. So point out the culture of the group and what we understand to be the proper culture of the church.  A Bible study on the character of Christian community is a great tool to help people reflect on their practice. Or develop a worksheet that lists the practices of the group in one column and Christian virtues in another. Get people to draw links between them and see how many are not aligned with Christian virtues – or could be changed to better reflect / support Christian practices.

2. A lack of people who understand how the process works.

Absolutely an issue!! When people have a bad experience of a consensus building process it can put them off it for a very long time. It’s a pity the same doesn’t seem to happen when Roberts Rules of Order give people a bad experience!

Induct, train and coach

It is not fair or smart to expect people to change to a process that they do not understand. Therefore before bringing in any change you have to train people in the process. In the context of a meeting you need to induct them by walking through the key points. This is not just the flow of the meeting and the techniques. It is also very important to speak about the values that lie behind the process – the “why” and not just the “how”.

The times I’ve been involved in ‘unsuccessful’ consensus decision making the main problem has been that the meeting chairperson doesn’t understand, or sufficiently understand, the process. Therefore this key leader cannot help people to use it well. It is impossible to overstate the importance of thorough training for Chairpersons and others who will lead the process. Key leaders also include the meeting secretary, people presenting proposals, small group leaders and the Facilitation Group (if using them).

Even the number one ranked tennis players in the world have a coach. So it makes sense that when you are using a new process you should have a coach. Don’t underestimate the value of having someone alongside you as you learn to implement the consensus approach to discernment. The coaching can include helping you to prepare, comprehensively, for the meeting; responding to questions and scenarios that you expect to face or have met in a meeting; even being present at a meeting to assist you on site. I encourage you to think about what kind of coaching option is best for you.

3. Things get really confusing and the discussion rambles on

A very common complaint is that because consensus often seems to be asking people why they can’t agree to what has just been said, the talk just goes on and on. “We never seem to get anywhere” is a complaint that I have heard a bit.

Related to this concern is that many people don’t know what they are making a decision on. The ramble leads to confusion about what is being discussed and therefore what has been decided. Clearly, a consensus approach isn’t helpful when it ends in an untested ramble and no one knows what was decided. Deliberation has to end in a decision or no discernment has happened.

When the decision taken is not clear to people then you often have people saying later that “I didn’t agree to that”. Or, for other reasons, there is less support for a decision than there should be.

How to cut through the ramble and confusion

The first thing to do is to have a Chairperson who understands the process! When asking for input from people who are showing a blue card there are more options than asking “Why don’t you agree?” That can be a useful question but it often leads to the dead ends that were discussed above.

There isn’t space here to go into all the training but Chairpersons and other leaders need to hold a key goal in mind as they think about how to move the discussion forward. The goal of the process is to build consensus.

If we are going to achieve that goal we need to be exploring what will overcome the reasons that a person is showing a blue card. So a follow up question might be “What could be done to help address your concern?” Or if it has come up a few times ask “Does anyone have any ideas about how we can meet these needs?” A Chairperson or secretary could summarise and / or reframe the issues that are being raised (by one or more people) and offer a way forward. There is an end point to the process! Keep working to overcome the reasons that people cannot support the option that is before the meeting.

Confusion at the point of making a decision is best avoided by being clear at each point on the wording as it is developed. In larger meetings it is a good idea to have the words of the proposal on a screen and make changes as the discussion progresses. The changes can be agreed to as the discussion proceeds. So that by the time the group is ready to conclude the discussion there will be little left to adjust.

At the point of determination always read out the words that will be recorded as the decision of the meeting. Just because the process is incredibly fluid doesn’t mean that it has to be sloppy at the end!

4. We don’t need training in how to be Christian!

I have certainly met people who think that it is very judgemental and unfair to suggest that they don’t know how to behave in a Christian way. As a result, they resist any reflection on their meeting practice and training in how to do things better.

Let’s do some theology

I agree that love is natural (for a person born of water and of the Spirit). That’s a theological affirmation. Does that mean that we then know how to live the Christian life – in every part of our life? I’m sure we don’t have time for a treatise on justification and sanctification / conversion and holiness – but surely that is relevant. Being Christian doesn’t prove that we know how to get it right all the time. So the faithful Christian posture is always humility and openness to correction.

In the context of meeting processes we can easily think about the relevance of a conversation on what love would look like in a Christian meeting. A Bible study on 1 Corinthians 13: 4ff might be a good place to start.

The other tac to take is that we are not just talking about values and character training. We are talking about skills training. Being a Christian doesn’t mean that people have no need to learn how to listen well; to find words that invite participation and show respect; to be humble, vulnerable and excited by the potential that different perspectives bring; etc. Heaven knows that I’ve needed to learn how to do these things!

5. Rushing to an agreement because it seems bad to question a proposal

There was a fascinating example of the consensus process at work in a recent meeting of a Uniting Church in Australia (UCA) Synod. A major proposal for change and refocus for  youth ministry in the Synod was put forward. When it was presented people were asked their first impressions. It was strongly supported and the Chairperson quickly moved to have the Synod determine the proposal. All orange cards – except one. To everyone’s astonishment, it was the proposer who held up a blue card.

He said that he felt the project was too important to be so easily agreed to. It  actually warranted more discussion so that the Synod was sure that it had fully understood what it was committing to. So there was more discussion, with people engaged with the complexities and challenges in a deeper way.

‪When a little while later it came again for determination the proposal was unanimously approved.

‪The point of this is that the idea of ‘consensus decision-making working’ should not be taken merely as ‘getting all orange cards held up’. As the proposer of the Synod proposal pointed, out rushing to a consensus can sometimes be a bad decision. The process is intended to facilitate discernment and some issues do require more work than others.

Slowing things down

One of the most important outcomes of consensus processes is that they build the strength of support for a decision. That decision may be either for support or putting an idea aside. When we rush to a decision without deliberation then this important building of confidence that “this is the way to go” is forfeited. So slow things down. Make it clear that there is no such thing as a foolish question. If something looks like a ‘motherhood motion” then get people talking in table groups around some well constructed discussion questions. For example: “What questions come to your mind as you hear this proposal?” “What might people who have not heard this presentation have to say about the proposal?” “Does the proposal address all the possible considerations?” The particular questions (usually only one or two used each time) will be shaped by the proposal and the context.

Another way to slow down the rush to a decision is to remember that in consensus decision-making there isn’t a vote. It is a determination. Holding this distinction before us helps to reduce the risk of using the cards as simple voting cards and so undermining the process by drawing people into thinking “yes” or “no”. Orange doesn’t mean “yes” and “blue” doesn’t mean “no”. Blue cards mean (among other things) “I am not ready yet.” Asking if people are ready to make a decision may lead to a different response than asking are they ready to agree to the proposal.

Conclusion

There are always things that will help and hinder the implementation of consensus based discernment. I hope that these couple of posts have given you encouragement that there is always a way to bring about change.

Frankly, the best way to get through these problems is to just have a go at it. learn by doing and grow your capacity through experience, study and reflection on your practice. If you have any comments or questions then drop us a note here, on our Facebook page @makingchurchdecisions or drop me a line at terence@makingchurchdecisions.com

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.

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!

Communication in the groan zone

Communication is important at any stage in a group decision-making process. But to get through the groan zone requires special attention to your communication and leadership.

  The Groan Zone

Signs that you are in the groan zone

  • it seems that the discussion is going around in circles
  • misunderstandings and miscommunication abound
  • tensions are rising as people press for a solution when none seem obvious
  • people are defensive, short tempered and insensitive
  • exasperation, confusion, frustration, boredom and aggravation are present

The groan zone is the most difficult place in the process of group decision-making. Yet it is the essential bridge on the way from a wide collection of divergent ideas to the development of an agreed decision.

The dynamics of group decision-making

When discussion commences on a new topic what usually happens is that people start with a “business as usual” approach. So the first ideas are familiar opinions. Suggestions are usually to follow a well known path – even if it is known not to work!

Stage two is possible when the culture and practices of the group encourage the sharing of different perspectives. This is where different approaches and life experiences can be shared; “left field” ideas get floated; and new insights can come forward. At this point the thinking of the participants is becoming more divergent – the range of the discussion is widening, looking less controlled, the possible outcomes expanding and the end point less certain.

Stage three is the groan zone – more on this later.

Stage four is where the ideas of people start to coalesce and come closer together. The thinking of the group is converging. From being like the wide end of a funnel it gradually narrows down to a clear point from which a solution can emerge.

Stage five is the decision point – all these divergent ideas from the start of the process have converged to one agreed point of decision.

Communication in the groan zone

As a group moves into the place of greatest divergence in its thinking, and least clarity about where this is all going, there are key communication messages. The first responsibility of a facilitator or leader is to encourage people to hang in there.

People don’t like uncertainty. They stress out when they think that a process is not going anywhere. They get angry if they see a solution and other people keep slowing things down by talking about “other stuff”. Therefore many people want to get out of this space as fast as possible. So they simplify things too quickly – rushing  prematurely to a decision.

When people experience discomfort in a process they often judge the group to be dysfunctional and the / or the process to be bad. Communication that helps people to see that this phase is normal and necessary encourages them to stay with it for a bit longer. The groan zone is a direct and inevitable consequence of the diversity that exists in a group. Assure people that this cluster of many ideas and perspectives are the ground from which a solution will come.

Communication strategies

  • When people are rambling – paraphrase what they are saying
  • If there are misunderstandings and miscommunication ask open questions or check with people what they have said
  • Where people press for a premature solution ask what areas of the discussion this solution may not be taking into account
  • Encouraging empathy and supporting openness are responses to defensiveness, short tempers and insensitivity
  • Explore the sources of exasperation, seek clarity and respect feelings

The goals of your communication strategy

People have to sit with the tensions and the desire to “get this over with” that is inherent in a group discernment process. It is by spending sufficient time growing insight and understanding of one another and our ideas that make it possible to see common ground.

Therefore the key goals of your communication strategy in the groan zone are to encourage patience, enable perseverance and to foster tolerance. By using your communication skills to create this culture in the group you create the space for the process goals to be achieved.

The process goals are increased understanding of one another, recognition of options that meet the needs of more people in the group, and beginning to explore for common ground. Convergence will not happen unless the leader makes the groan zone a tolerable experience. It will always be hard but it can always be worse!

Conclusion

Group decision-making provides the most creative, effective and long term successful form of decision-making. However the path is not a straight line. First there must be an expansion of the conversation from the familiar to the new. Later these new insights will be incorporated into a solution that will be reflected in a well supported decision. The link between the divergence phase and the convergence phase is the groan zone. Here the disparate pieces are processed, the common ground discovered and collaboration is fostered – community is built! There are many resources available for how to build consensus through this stage. Please avoid the trap of pressing for premature agreement just because it gets a bit too hard.

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.