Tag: theory

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!

 

Overcoming our blind spots

overcoming blind spots

Blind spots and me

Blind spots – all of us have differing degrees of ignorance about what is going on inside us. In the previous post, I used the example of white privilege as a case study on blind spots. There I wrote about the reality of them and how they distort our relationships and world view.

It is dangerous for others and harmful to us when we don’t recognize our our blind spots. When we don’t recognize our privilege then we:
    • mess up and don’t make the best response to situations
    • don’t understand the feelings of others
    • fail to provide genuine spaces for all to contribute
    • damage relationships
    • miss out on accessing the best wisdom to address our problems

Blind spots are real and we need to deal with them for the sake of creating healthy communities – Christian and otherwise.

Consensus discernment is hampered by blind spots

Have you ever been in conversation, or perhaps a meeting, where someone is incredibly biased? So often this person doesn’t even realise how their behaviour is excluding or harming others. For them, their attitudes are normal and they assume that everyone else thinks the same. And if they don’t think the same then they certainly should!

I recall working with a church body introducing them to consensus processes. After the presentation, the first three people to speak were all white, male, middle-aged, first world, well-educated clergy. They were all opposed to consensus processes. From their point of view, the parliamentary style of debating was just fine and everyone could do it. It was immediately clear that they just did not recognise the privilege that came from their position as white, male, middle-aged, first world, well-educated clergy! Multiple blind spots prevented them from seeing how other people were disadvantaged by the things that work for them.

Consensus building is seriously disadvantaged when people do not deal with their blind spots. Consensus discernment only works if:

    • all the people in a meeting can contribute
    • the culture and practices make it a safe space to contribute
    • the powerful keep quiet long enough to hear from the weak
    • people are humble enough to be corrected by different perspectives
    • the methods for exploring issues do not privilege certain participants

What can be done?

1. It’s a spiritual problem

The first thing to understand is that these blind spots are a spiritual issue. This is because they prevent us from living as Christ intends. When we live out of our subconscious privilege then we disempower and estrange others which is the antithesis of the reconciliation that God seeks through Christ.

Therefore the first thing that we need to do is to listen carefully to the heart message of the Scripture. In this, we must take on the role of the humble one who expects God to correct us.

Quoting Richard Rohr: “Evil is always incapable of critiquing itself. Evil depends upon disguise and tries to look like virtue. We have to fully cooperate in God’s constant work, spoken so clearly in Mary’s prayer (Luke 1:52) which is always “bringing down the mighty from their thrones and exalting the lowly.” It is the de facto story of history, art, and drama. And we have to get in on the story.”

Groups that seek consensus will create a culture where people can be challenged to see their biases and the weak can find their voice. We have to live the story of “exalting the lowly” and “bringing down the mighty” – even when we are the mighty ones.

2. Spiritual disciplines

If we have a spiritual problem then we need spiritual resources in order to effectively address it. Richard Rohr is a contemplative Franciscan so he offers the experience of his tradition.

“Some form of contemplative practice is the only way (apart from great love and great suffering) to rewire people’s minds and hearts. It is the only form of prayer that dips into the unconscious and changes people at deep levels — where all of the wounds, angers, and recognitions lie hidden. Prayer that is too verbal, too social, too external, too heady never changes people at the level where they really need to change. Only some form of prayer of quiet changes people for good and for others in any long term way.”

The important take away here is that the spirituality of our meetings cannot be some superficial touch of the Bible and a few rushed words of prayer. People in our meetings are full of feelings and in need of correction and healing or both. So we need a spirituality of gathering that makes room for these things to be addressed. These are not things that we put at the start and end like bookends to a collection of stories. They are the story.

3. A deep and genuine desire for equality

Rohr again: “As long as all of us really want to be on top, and would do the same privileged things if we could get there, there will never be an actual love of equality. This challenges all of us to change and not just those folks who temporarily are ‘on the top.'”

This is an attitude of the mind, and orientation of the heart. It requires the saving work of Jesus Christ to have touched our lives and an openness to the Holy Spirit leading us to sanctification.

How sad I find it when I am present at discussions among Christians and arrogance is so obvious. It is as though the experience and the perspectives of others are irrelevant. Yet in the ecclesiology of my church, this is a heresy. The Uniting Church declares that government in the church is a calling from God to women and men who are chosen because God has gifted them for this role. So to deny them processes that help to give them their voice is to insult God. All persons who are present in our decision-making contexts are there because God has gifted them to us. Therefore we do well to create processes that ensure that all can contribute.

4. Live the way of Jesus

“Jesus’ basic social agenda was simple living, humility, and love of neighbour. We all have to live this way ourselves, and from that position, God can do God’s work rather easily.” (Richard Rohr)

Consensus-based processes assume love for neighbour and humility. By building these expectations into the way we discern Christ’s will for his church we are laying down the tracks that will help overcome blind spots. Sometimes we have to learn by doing. Therefore using processes that match what we know is authentic Christian behaviour – even before people are ready to do it – can deliver positive outcomes and change lives. I think it was John Wesley who, when concerned about the poverty of this faith, was told to “preach faith until you have faith”.  So let’s do the things that express and foster faithfulness until they become natural.

Conclusion

It is naive to think that we can avoid subconscious biases influencing our meetings. Therefore the best thing to do is to name the issue right out in front. This will mean that on some occasions we name our privilege and the disadvantage of others so that we can try and work out what to do with it.

It is foolish to think that people will do their own spiritual work before they come to our church meetings. Of course, some will but many will need help. Embed deep spiritual practices into your meeting – especially when biases start to show up and/or things get ugly!!

Create processes that reflect the highest Christian expectations – equality, respect, humility, love, desire for growth and maturity in faith, etc. Lay down the tracks for faithfulness until that behaviour becomes the norm.

Conflict is Your Friend

Conflict is your friend

How does growth happen in a person or organization? What makes learning and new insights possible? Something new shows up! When what we know is challenged by the new (conflict) we have the opportunity to grow as a person or an organization.

No one learns anything without being challenged to revisit what they already know or believe!! Into our life comes something that invites us to think of an alternative to our exisiting behaviour, knowledge, values, beliefs, etc. Two ideas trying to occupy the same space is a conflict. Conflict invites us into a new space. Therefore conflict is our friend because it makes growth possible.

Of course, we are talking about conflict that is handled well. When these contested spaces lead to unhealthy and negative reactions then harm is done. However when handled well conflict – in the sense of choices between different options – is an indispensable gift that makes imcreased maturity possible.

Healthy engagement builds trust and confidence

When people make their different points of view known they can do it in a way that is encouraging of discussion or in a way that is attacking. The latter approach generates negativity and breaks down relationships.
However when our different perspectives, knowledge and experience are shared in a humble and gentle way relationships are strengthened. By sharing important things – even different ones – people deepen their relationships.
By being able to work through our differences in ways that build up, and not pull down, we can learn to trust each other. We can believe that the other person wants the best for us and themselves. When we succeed in navigating significant differences we build confidence in our interpersonal skills and the quality of our relationships.

Relationship can be restored and strengthened

We all have times when we don’t welcome new ideas or the people who bring them! When handled badly conflict can break relationships. But what if you don’t let those bad feelings fester? Things can improve.
Don’t run away from the people with whom you have had a bad experience in conflict. If you possibly can, seek them out and try to start the conversation over. Don’t put the blame on them for the strain in the relationship. Own your part and let them decide what they will own up to. Use “I” statements so that you keep the focus on what you have seen, heard, said, felt, interpreted and done.
My experience is that when I do “the hard yards” in seeking to overcome a negative conflict then it makes the relationship better. There is something deeply satisfying and encouraging when we get over a bad experience of conflict. Such experiences give us confidence that if we can fix this then we can handle bigger issues too.

Issues are decisively resolved

One of the best things that you can do when you have a conflict is to admit that it exists. Ignoring conflicts never causes them to go away. Instead they undermine relationships and often lead to negativity.

When there are differences of opinion in a group get them out in the open. Help people to share their thoughts.  Create a safe space for talking together. Specifically invite people to share their ideas. Use processes that are respectful of all voices and give them a chance to be heard.

Once you know what the issues are then you can resolve them. A consensus building process is a great way to get all the ideas out there and to get to a resolution. No one likes problems that just keep hanging around! Name the differences, talk about them and work out a solution together.

New insights and discoveries made

Once again The Beatles got it right. They sang “Nothing you can know that isn’t known. Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.” (All You Need is Love, Yellow Submarine, 1969). Yep – we need people to share their knowledge and insights. Unless people do that then we live stunted, narrow and ineffective lives.

I can never understand churches that think they already know everything and refuse to listen to new ideas! Churches that stop hearing and engaging with new ideas will not gain new insights and discoveries. Any church that says that it has it all worked out is both arrogant and wrong. They condemn their church and members to living as stunted, narrow and ineffective disciples.

A group is energized

“Success breeds success” is an old and accurate saying. When individuals or groups get things done it encourages them to do it again. So when groups learn to cope with differences in a healthy way they are no longer worried about differences. Groups learn that new insights are creative, positive and make good decisions possible.
Groups are energised when conflict is handled well. This is in contrast with groups that are paralysed by conflict because it is such a painful experience. Give energy to your group by helping it to learn and appreciate different points of view and experiences.

People are engaged

A key reason that people behave badly in conflict situations is so that they can get their way. People frighten, bully and belittle opponents to silence them. When people are intimidated in a conflict they withdraw and stay on the sidelines. They are not engaged.

However if you create a positive culture about how to handle differences among people then everyone stays in the conversation. Then people become excited about the new possibilities, or what they are learning from others.

A powerful witness is given

Sadly we live in a world where negative conflict (combat) is the norm. Our societies are at risk of fracturing as groups move into armed camps and enclaves. Our world needs the church to witness to another way of being in community at the points of our disagreement.

The heart of the gospel is the reconcilliation of the whole of creation to God and to one another. What a wonderful hope to offer a world where the different are demonized and attacked!! Christians have an amazing opportunity to point to another way of dealing with difference. It is a way that shows respect, care and openness to the other. Sadly too many churches are caught up in the culture of our times and attack those who are different. My encouragement to you is to see the way that you handle conflict as, probably, the most evangelical act that you can engage in at this time.

Conclusion

Conflict is like fire. It is both dangerous and comforting. It is life threatening and life enriching. Like fire, handled well, conflict makes our life so much better.

Crucial Conversations – tools for talking when the stakes are high

Crucial Conversations – a book review

This is an amazing book. Patterson, et al write with an easy to read, engaging and humorous style. Yet even better than this – the content is life changing!! Based on 25 years of research Patterson and his colleagues have identified a way of communicating that saves lives, enriches personal relationships, saves corporations millions of dollars, and can even improve your health!

Crucial Conversations: tools for talking when the stakes are high is a very practical resource for people who want their organisations and relationships to be healthy and flourishing places. In addition to the value in the book, there are links to a treasure trove of videos, research and other resources. The free videos and research articles will help you learn, and to lead others in learning, how to hold crucial conversations. You can find some of them here.

What are crucial conversations?

There are three elements that are required for an interaction to be regarded as a “crucial conversation.” There has to be

  • opposing opinions – usually very strongly held views
  • strong emotions – the kind that usually causes people to flee
  • high stakes – the issues on the table are significant

Finally, of course, there can only be a conversation if someone is prepared to face the challenging situation and not avoid it. This book resources you to be the person who can help that crucial conversation to happen.

Some of the key points

  • Avoid making the “fool’s choice”. The “fool’s choice” is to imagine that there are only two alternatives.
  1. Speak up and turn someone significant to me (boss, workmate, partner, etc) into a sworn enemy. Or
  2. Suffer in silence and make a bad decision that has devastating consequences.
  • Getting into dialogue takes a conscious choice – it is hard, requires skill, and an audacious hope that there is a way through.
  • Start with what really matters to you. Avoid knee-jerk emotional responses that usually lead to negative outcomes. As Ambrose Bierce said, “Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret.”
  • Understand yourself. Know your style when under stress.
  • Create pools of shared meaning – get everyone to bring their best insights to the discussion. “The pool of shared meaning is the birthplace of synergy.”

Who is this book for?

It may seem trite to say that this book is for everyone – but it is! However, if you are a leader then you must read this book. Leaders who want to make decisions that are effective, owned by the people in the organisation and create a positive culture will use the insights in this book every day.

At Making Church Decisions we believe in the same outcomes that are fostered through Crucial Conversations. One of the great contributions made by this book is that it develops the skills that make it possible to have safe, respectful and engaging conversations.

Consensus building needs the sharing of all insights and experiences relevant to a decision. Yet people often flee from such conversations because of the culture of a group or the power of people in the system.  By using the skills in this book you will be able to keep the dialogue going when there are opposing positions,  emotions are strong, and the stakes are high.

In future posts, I will unpack some specific ideas from the book Crucial Conversations – tools for talking when the stakes are high.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify negative outcomes of current processes

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

Explore alternatives from other contexts

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

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

Introduce consensus processes into your current meetings

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

2. Some people need to “win”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Power imbalances

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

‪