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.
