Researching small groups

Matthew Taylor of RSA (not Returned Services Assn) and social entrepreneur Tessy Britton [pictured at right] are planning on researching small groups.

Now while this has nothing to do specifically with the small groups that are part of many Christian congregations, already their five points and the subsequent comments to the blog post give an idea as to why some small groups flourish and others don't.

Taylor and Britton have set out five areas that are the structure of their research; they're looking for people to write to them to give examples of small groups that have gone right and ones that have gone wrong. It looks already as though there are more examples of their second point - most small groups fail to fulfil their potential and here are the main reasons people give for groups under-performing - than of their first: small groups of volunteers can change the world, and here are some examples

If you've found that small groups in your church have flourished, you might be interested to let Taylor and Britton know why; equally if you've found that small groups have burnt out for various reasons, the research that these two are going to do may be of help in encouraging small groups in the future.

Google and Jobs

Two contrasting articles in Harvard Business Online are pertinent not just to leadership in general, but to ministers in churches as well.

In one, Google Grows Up, Scott Anthony points out the way in which Google has approached innovation: Engineers are encouraged to dream up pet projects in their spare time. Teams self form around the best ideas. Market-based principles ensure that the best ideas receive funding. It sounds chaotic, democratic...and intoxicating.

Anthony goes on to show that even Google is now having to be more disciplined in its approach to innovation, and, he says, constraints can focus creativity.

Bill Taylor, on the other hand, in an article entitled Decoding Steve Jobs, says that in terms of the impact his products have had on the world, Steve Jobs represents the face of business at its best. And yet, in terms of his approach to leadership, Jobs represents the face of business — well, if not at its worst, then certainly not as something worth emulating.

Jobs, he goes on to say, bullies staff, shrouds his company in secrecy and refuses basic accommodations to products that would make them more user-friendly. Typical of his attitude is the way he has often parked right across two handicapped parks in his own place of business.

Taylor goes on to note: the sign of true ambition [is] absolute confidence in your infallibility as a leader. Over time, though, it has become a warning sign of failure — whether from bad judgment, low morale from disillusioned troops, or sheer burnout. The best leaders I know don't want the job of thinking for everybody else. They understand that if they can tap the hidden genius inside the organization, and the collective genius outside the organization, they will create ideas that will be much more powerful than what even the smartest individual leader could ever come up with on his or her own. Nobody alone is as smart as everybody together.

He concluldes: Leaders who want to both change the game and stay in the game for the long haul have come to appreciate the power of "humbition" over blind ambition. What's humbition? It's a term I first heard from Jane Harper, a nearly 30-year veteran of IBM. It is, she explains, the subtle blend of humility and ambition that drives the most successful leaders — an antidote to the know-it-all hubris that affects so many executives and entrepreneurs.

Building Consensus

The following is a slightly adapted version of a piece that appeared in the latest (29.6.09) Rumors ezine.

Our organizations might be better off without either the American text on Parliamentary Procedure (Robert’s Rules of Order) or the Bourinot, the standard used by the House of Commons in Ottawa, although both Bourinot and Roberts agree on some basic principles.
One is that there can be no discussion until a formal motion defines the issue.
Another is that each person may speak only once (except the mover, who may also close the debate).
However, it’s been said about these: “If you’ve only got one chance to speak, you tend to come out with all guns blazing to support your position. You have no idea yet how others will react, so you shoot down any opposition before it can come up.”
It’s hardly a process for building consensus.
I can say this, having had – for one period of my life – a reputation for writing absolutely scathing memos to colleagues in another office, memos that have since appalled me. But I know why I did it. Because I had only one chance to convince them. Their decision would affect my reputation. So it was all or nothing.
I’ve often seen meetings where every speaker argued against an imagined opposition. When the actual vote came, everyone was in favour. The opposition was never there.
In a group of friends, ideas are traded, pros and cons weighed, implications considered… a consensus emerges.
The aboriginal practice of a circle works well, too, if the group is not too large. Everyone gets a chance to speak; everyone listens. No one interrupts; no one dominates. If there’s no consensus, you go around again.
But it can take a long time. So larger bodies tend to fall back on the rules of parliamentary procedure to expedite debate and discussion.
But there are other ways.
One church organization allows a speaker two minutes to present an idea. Any idea. It doesn’t have to be a formal motion – the official decision could get shaped later.
After two minutes, the other delegates indicate shades of support:
1. I love it, and I’ll work for it.
2. I agree.
3. I can accept it.
4. I disagree, but I won’t block it.
5. I disagree strongly, and I’ll block it if I can.
If the mood seems generally favorable, further discussion takes place. But if enough people oppose the proposal strongly enough to resist it with any tactics short of terrorism, the proponents may withdraw their proposal, or take time to make it more acceptable.
It’s a much more practical process.

I thought the above - originally by Jim Taylor - was interesting in terms of the way many church committees/presbyteries/sessions etc function...

To subscribe to Rumors: send an e-mail to: rumors-subscribe@joinhands.com

Barbara Brown Taylor

An interesting quote from Barbara Brown Taylor, in her book, Leaving Church, after she finds that life in a rural parish is just as 'busy' as life in the inner city - interesting, as this same 'busyness' is a prime factor in ministers burning out. (page 75, HarperSanFrancisco paperback edition, 2007)

I had moved to the country in order to lie down in more blessed fields, to live closer to the Divine Presence that had held me all my life, but I had once again become so busy caring for the household of God that I neglected the One who had called me there. If I still had plenty of energy for the work, that was because feeding others was still my food. As long as I fed them, I did not feel my hunger pain.

And one other quote, about her visit to Ireland:
Later I would find the Celtic theology...in which God's 'big book' of creation is revered alongside God's 'little book' of sacred scripture. I would also find Christian mystics such as Bernard of Clairvaux and Julian of Norwich, who found heaven on earth in union with the Divine. 'I have had no other masters than the beeches and the oaks,' Bernard wrote in the twelfth century, while Julian recognised the love of God in a hazel nut in her hand. Hildegard of Bingen coined the word viriditas ('green power') to describe the divine power of creation, while Francis of Assisi composed love songs to Brother Sun and Sister Moon.
'You never enjoy the world aright till the sea itself floweth in your veins,' wrote the seventeenth-century Anglican priest, Thomas Traherne, 'till you are clothed with the heavens and crowned with the stars; and perceive yourself to be the sole heir of the whole world, and more than so, because men are in it who are every one sole heirs as well as you.' Since I had received Christian education that taught me to view creation as both fallen and inert, I was happy to discover these dissenting opinions, but they only confirmed what I already knew to be true. I did not live on the earth but in it, in communion with all that gave me life.

(Page 81-82)

More on leaving Church here.

Good old ecuminism!

There's nothing new under the sun, as they say, and what you think it is a good idea is often pre-empted by someone with a similarly good idea. Nevertheless it was still good to come across the NZ Methodist Church's blog with a very similar name: Mission:Resourcing. It treats the topic of Mission Resourcing in a slightly different way to us, but the best part about it is that they too are being missional. The more the merrier.

The reason I discovered their blog was that they were advertising Lynne Taylor's seminars on using data from the 2006 Census to give pictures of the community in which parishes work. Check out the details here.
Lynne actually works for the Baptists, and is based in Christchurch. She works part-time doing statistics and logistics.
Our office has done a bunch of similar work, and very shortly the Presbytery Stats (which were sent out on DVD to all the Presbyteries early this year) will be available on the Presbyterian website.