From Dan Rogers,
Superintendent of U.S. Ministers
From Dan Rogers,
Superintendent of
U.S. Ministers
PASADENA—Our goal in this series of articles on church administration is to acquaint leaders and members with the principles and systems of church governance set forth in the new Church Administration Manual.
Last month we discussed shared leadership lived out through various leadership teams in our congregations. This month John Stonecypher writes about consensus- building, an essential skill for implementing shared leadership. John pastors the congregations in Des Moines and Mason City, Iowa.
My prayer is that these articles will help equip our members and leadership teams for their work in advancing our mission to make disciples who make disciples, all for the glory of God.
Shared leadership is lived out through the skillful use of collaborative decision-making processes that achieve consensus among the members of a leadership team. Consensus is achieved when all team members agree to support a particular decision. Though each team member may not see the decision as best, they agree to fully support its implementation.
Collaborative, consensus-building decision-making processes
* invite the lead of the Holy Spirit.
* are driven by the shared vision and values of the team.
* hear and consider the viewpoints of all those involved in the decision.
* result in a final decision that all leaders are willing to carry forward.
The consensus-building process
Consensus is built by leading a team through an orderly series of smaller agreements. For the process to work, it is essential that the whole team move from one phase to the next together. For example, it is necessary to define the problem and analyze it before anyone starts discussing solutions. It is the facilitator’s responsibility to guide the order of the discussion process.
Below is a basic consensus-building process adapted from David Straus’ book, Making Collaboration Work: Powerful Ways to Build Consensus, Solve Problems, and Make Decisions.
Phase 1: “What is the problem?” The best way to sabotage problem-solving is to proceed without agreeing on what the problem actually is. One team member may think the problem is “how to get rid of the worship leader who selects too many slow songs,” while another may think the problem is “how to develop a worship service that connects with younger visitors.”
These two team members will be able to agree on the solution only if they first agree on the problem. Each team member must be given the opportunity to say, “This is the problem as I see it.” Everyone else listens without comment at this stage, though clarification questions may be asked.
Phase 2: “What are the causes of the problem?” To come to a common solution between conflicting parties, you must analyze the problem before suggesting and considering solutions. This enables the group to diagnose and treat the disease rather than the symptoms. Often, a group that disagrees on how to treat symptoms can agree on how to treat the disease.
A helpful exercise at this stage is to have the participants envision what it would be like if the problem did not exist, and if things were working like they should. This helps unearth the core desires of the participants, and it is common to find that those desires coincide on both sides of the conflict. Generally, the more time spent in this phase, the better the final solution will be.
Phase 3: “What are some possible solutions?” Now that the team has reached a shared vision of the future, it is time to be creative and brainstorm as many solutions as possible that might help the team move forward together into that future. Encourage participants to share any and all ideas, regardless of how silly or impractical they are.
The goal is generating a large list of alternatives, with the goal of finding possible solutions that achieve the team’s objective by incorporating the core concerns of each participant. At this stage, no evaluation or criticism of ideas is allowed.
Phase 4: “What makes some solutions better than others?” Once the group has exhausted its creativity, it is time to turn on the group’s logical brain and evaluate the various solutions that have been proposed. After the brainstorming, the participants will have a clearer idea of the criteria for what is a good solution and what is not.
Make a list of criteria that the group members feel a good solution should meet. After this list is made, it may be helpful to brainstorm a little more to imagine solutions that can meet all the criteria on the list.
Phase 5: “Which solution can we agree on?” Of all the various workable solutions, which one best accomplishes the team’s core purpose, while meeting as much as possible the root concerns of all the participants? Which alternative can all team members commit to implementing?
When a clear direction begins to emerge in the conversation, it is the facilitator’s job to propose a consensus statement and call for indications of agreement with the statement.
While all leadership teams should be committed to making all significant decisions through consensus-building processes, at times a consensus cannot be achieved. For this reason, it is necessary that the team have a predefined fallback method for making the final decision. In the WCG (as described in the Church Administration Manual) the fallback method is for the designated team leader to make the final decision.
Copyright © Worldwide Church of God, 2004