I hope you found my Summit talk stimulating - now I'd like to hear from you. I've posted some process questions and am hoping to get a discussion started around each one. I'll check back often and throw in any comments that I think might be helpful. You can also find resources and information about a workshop I'll be doing.
- Gary




Inviting Input

At several points in my talk, I suggested that the work of creating strategy needs to be highly participatory - that every church member (and perhaps community members) should have the chance to input ideas. Does this make sense to you? Have you tried anything like this in your church? And if so, with what results? Or if it seems impractical, tell me why and I'll see if I can't provide some practical pointers.

- Gary

08/05/2009 10:18 PM

Filed under:

Comments
Tom 08/06/2009 02:09 PM
I really enjoyed your presentation this morning. The idea of a decentralized organizational/leadership structure is so foreign in Western thinking, I am still having a hard time wrapping my mind around what that would look like for a twenty-first century church in the U.S. I suppose we impose our own preconceptions on what we read of the first century church that it is hard to reconceptualize our authority strictures based on a non-Western, first century biblical structure.
idelette 08/06/2009 03:16 PM
Wondering what you think about participation during the "sermon," ie preacher/teacher becoming facilitator. Any experience with this? Any suggestions/pointers please? Thank you!
Darren 08/06/2009 04:36 PM
Gary. I appreciated the talk very much. i was extremely intrigued by how Dell is using ideastorm. I think this is incredibly powerful with at the very least a lot of potential. I would love too see some kind of application that would invite the congregation, visitors (not just staff) to give feedback, ideas, thoughts to be considered for future opportunities. I would actually even love to see the local city involved in the process as well. I'd be curious if you have seen ministries use this approach and what if any software you may have encountered that facilitates this, at least to some degree.
Nate 08/06/2009 04:37 PM
I agree that broad participation is important. One crucial point must be added, namely, the mission and purpose of the input must be clear! Open source products on the internet have a clear purpose/mission. It cannot be assumed that all churches have a clear mission and purpose. If that is not clear, then giving a voice to everyone can easily lead to chaos. What have you found helpful in guiding the feedback so that it is focused on mission and purpose?
Dale 08/07/2009 12:58 AM
Gary, I also enjoyed your presentation. It really challenged me to think outside of the box. However, how do you get people in your church to give their input when they're already too busy and can't even respond to their e-mails?
Laura 08/07/2009 07:37 AM
Your suggestion of 'crowdsourcing' has been used in other arenas to solve problems, gain cohesion, vote on an organization's direction or priorities ... Blackboard, a leading company in course management systems, recently put it to use in prioritizing bug fixes in their next software release... One software that could be used for this purpose is called Uservoice (uservoice.com). I agree with Nate though, unless the church has a clear mission and purpose, inviting such participation could lead to chaos. Faith musings: http://www.ebuford.com/kyrie_eleison/
Matt 08/07/2009 06:55 PM
Coming from a business enviroment where as the the top alway felt like the bottom had nothing to contrbrute, you reinforce my belief that the successes I experience 5-7 years ago using bottom up strategic planning was not an aberration but a barometer of the future. The future leaders will tend to be more facilitators and mentor that encourage the germination of new ideas and experiments, while acting as cheerleader and providing cover when their charges fail, from those who do not understand this paradigm shift. The knowledge to solve tomorrow problems reside with those that are closer to where the rubber meets the road, not the ones holding on to the steering wheel. The movement to online collaboration is more main stream than ever, even being taught in HS to encourage contribrutions. Items like Zoho.com, group wikis, and even Google docs allow free tools to encourage the participation. One final comment, without having contribrutions from the rank and file in developing the plan or mission you will fail to gain the support and buy in to achieve the goals. The mission must be everyones, not just a committee. Still has to specific and focused, but everyone needs ownership. The leader's challenge is to moderate the group and keep reality as part of everyone trying to reach for the stars without extinguishing the energy . Thanks for an dynamic presentation and the also the Lunch Q&A.
Rachel 08/08/2009 03:32 PM
Gary: I loved hearing your presentation knowing that you are a man of faith. Wow! We have tried collaborative approaches at our church, but it seems that things get bogged down with so many strong opinions and we never quite reach satisfactory closure. It seems to me that the leader's role needs to reside somewhere between facilitator and encourager, and spiritual leader and decision finalizer. This is tough for pastors who often are at one extreme or the other. Any thoughts on how to create the structure for a truly collaborative church? It feels right, but Is this Biblical?
Justin 08/10/2009 08:41 AM
TOTALLY!!! I loved your point. I just wish, especially in a large church such as Willow, there was more transparency as to why some decisions are made. As an example: Willow brought in Kate Goselin(sp?) of Jon & Kate Plus 8 to speak at Willow and I truly wonder what the decision making process of that was. So, if there was something like this, more input from all then it would hopefully be something I could go back and see and resolve to some degree. FYI: Not trying to throw any flaming arrows at Kate Goselin. My questions more revolve around cost and affect. Such as - was it really about numbers or leveraging her celebrity status to achieve numbers? Similarly, we could bring in some huge celebrity who may or may not be a Christian to get numbers. I just heard that Kate's speaking cost was 25k and it bummed me out that Willow may have paid that $$ to her.
Wayne 08/10/2009 09:14 AM
This is one of the biggest philosophical changes I have made in leadership since moving more "missional" in my ecclesiology. It is an approach I am still growing in. I have found that although people are used to a more standard top down leadership approach, they are highly responsive to being invited/included in the process (whether staff, elders or the congregation as a whole). It is powerful to give value to other voices. It is an essential value for reaching emerging generations. Clarity about the mission and patience with a less efficient process are important. However, the benefits and experiences are radically better. Rather than decisions being handed down from "on high" by a few, ownership is exponentially higher through inviting different voices into the mix. It comes with the conviction that the Holy Spirit resides in all members of the Body and not just the leaders. We hear God through one another, sometimes from the most unexpected sources. However, leadership still has the role of making decisions. The difference is the involvement, ownership, and spiritual development of the congregation through the decision making processes.
Steve Harris 08/10/2009 09:59 AM
I find it hard to get behind church leadership when it usually ignores the greatest source of spiritual gifts, the body. My leadership is in the secular world. We allow the employees to change the direction of a process, idea, layout, equipment purchases, etc. They might have insight we are not seeing. So, we seek out their voices and value it. We will not move forward with an idea unless everyone has their voice heard and they agree. If we do not have their support how can we be sure that they will follow the new thing, whatever it may be. If they have ownership it has a far greater chance of success. They feel valued. Then I enter church where it is totally leader driven. What drives leaders to ignore the most valuable resource God has blessed them with, the body. Why do leaders feel they have to go it alone or that they have to be in total control. I would love to use my leadership gifts to help take my church to the next level. I see our church going down hill, I would love to help but, like others, am often ignored. I will keep serving and attending but have given up using my gift of leadership. This is my experience.
Jim Heckel 08/10/2009 10:23 AM
Gary: I am a life-long student on the topic of leadership and it took me 20 years to actually come up with my own definition of leadership, which imho, is "the art of affecting change." Hey, I'm a bit slower than others! Your message was spot on! Having over 30 years of corporate leadership/managerial exposure/experience, grassroots leadership is *the* most powerful resource that most organizations fail to fully tap. In fact, I would submit that especially within the secular world, there is a myth that high ranked managers are also brilliant leaders. This may or may not be true as the political machine plays such a significant role and positional power does not always go along with solid leadership. Within the Church (Christ's, that is) we may not have the blatant politics in play, but I fear that there *still* is enough to potentially squelch grassroots and unleashed congregations. This is insidious and can be where the evil one stifles growth in numbers and in spirit. We need many 'unleashed for Christ' leaders that are allowed to take some risks, make some mistakes and challenge the status quo. Can we imagine the positive impact of empowered Christ followers in a church of, say, 500? Look at the impact of 12 disciples unleashed! Thank you for your passion on this critical topic!! ...and continue to be 'unleashed for Christ!' Jim Heckel
Charles 08/10/2009 11:04 AM
Community involvement is essential - how else will we know what will be attractive to a guest? But greater than that, the act of opening doors in hospitality opens opportunities of cosmic proportions.
Steve Pye 08/10/2009 12:33 PM
I believe that it's just as important to have quality input as it is to have quantity input, and for that reason, it's great to be highly participatory, but depending on the context, you may need to also be realistically selective. I lead a team of professionals in a for-profit company founded on Christian principles and practices, and have found the quality/quantity factor to be especially true in ministry-oriented leadership, where both professional wisdom and spiritual wisdom are required. Ideas are often quite clear-cut in professional settings: they can usually be classified as right or wrong quickly, but spiritually-driven ideas often carry a degree of subjectivity that creates conflict, especially when matters of doctrine come into play. In the context of spiritually motivated activities, quality input is more important than quantity input. The difference between the two requires the team leader to have a healthy spiritual wisdom, as well as a spiritual and professional understanding of the factors of urgency and importance, relative to the goals and mission of what is being accomplished, and know how to discern the two. Brainstorming--the phase at which ideas are captured from the team--must be purposeful and positive, collecting ideas from as many people as possible. It's perfectly acceptable to exclude people from those sessions if they have a history of generating contextually inappropriate or unimportant ideas. A good strategy session involves capturing ideas, organizing and prioritizing them, identifying obstacles to success, solving those problems, and then moving ahead with a completed plan. Under this approach, there are two idea phases: first in generating ideas for projects and plans as a whole, and second as a solution method for overcoming obstacles. Quantity ideas may be appropriate for brainstorming, but quality ideas are essential when problem solving. In that latter context, a quantity of ideas creates urgency but may subsequently create a false sense of importance. Handling that correctly as a leader means including people at the right phase in a project to ensure that what they are able to contribute is being honored and respected at the right time. To me, having the right people at the right time is more important than having as many people as possible at the wrong time.
Holly 08/10/2009 01:27 PM
At a previous conference, I picked up on this: people are more likely to get on board with something they don't at first agree with if they feel like they have been heard. They want the respect of knowing their opinion counts, even if it doesn't go their way in the end. Since then, I have changed how I see having some of those conversations that used to be difficult. Not only is it valuable to me to consider other sides of an opinion/idea, but it respects the people serving with me and encourages them that their opinion is valuable. So, beyond even further input & ideas, I would agree that it's a great thing to let people speak their mind and take ownership in this way. It's worked for me.
Dean Pappas 08/10/2009 09:51 PM
My initial reaction is if I want something to fail, form a committee. I found that listening to all the ideas and thoughts builds a sense of belonging in the group but at some point somebody has to be empowered to rate those ideas and compare them with the overall vision and mission of the Church. If you're not the one empowered to make that decision, how do you make a difference or even get you're voice heard? In my corporate experience, being on the bottom of the corporate food chain means being ignored.
Roger 08/11/2009 02:44 PM
We have been giving this thought a lot of value recently. One thing we have started with is having a night where we invite everyone interested to come to a brainstorming session to troubleshoot a given topic (adding a service, or space issues). We break people up into small groups and let them brainstorm possible answers to an issue. We then have each group express one or two of their best ideas. This gives participants not only input to issues, but leadership new ideas, and also helps give a good grasp of issues to lots of folks in our congregation. We do this 3 or 4 times a year. These meetings have been extremely effective for us.
Bobbi 08/13/2009 12:56 PM
After reviewing my notes from the summitt and viewing the bonus footage my thoughts are that what Gary has presented is nothing new. Many people have been using his principle practically and Gary has so vividly captured the essence of it. I applaud him for this. For one, I am frustrated, usually , with most organizations (the church being the highest level) that I have volunteered for because they follow the "old way" and not venturing out to try new ideas and ways. If I followed the same path with our business ,needles to say, we would be out of business. Gary's work gives me creditablity for my views. What I have found is that our society looks for people who are accomplished rather than streetmart . They are the ones that get things moving.I look forward to receiving the book that I ordered. Thank you Gary.
Scott Jones 08/13/2009 02:10 PM
Dr. Hamel, I must tell you how mind-blowing and energizing I found your presentation. In terms of grabbing my all-too-comfortable grey cells and stretching them until it stung (this is a good thing), yours was the presentation from which I got the most. I am so excited about the idea of making church more experiential and participatory, from innovative new ministries to the idea of sermon-as-dialogue as opposed to sermon-as-lecture. Questions arise for me mostly in the area of quality assurance, if you will. If we were to flatten out church organizationally and programatically, how might we safeguard the integrity of what we offer in terms of solid doctrine and quality programming? I'd be a tad anxious if we enabled things to come out that felt poorly planned-out, or were doctrinally iffy. Any thoughts for a a guy like me with no experience in this sort of thing as of yet? Oh, and one more query: what of us leaders who have churches with a death-grip on traditional practices out of touch decades ago--churches that are in real danger of extinction unless they start moving toward full engagement with the world around them. Any strategies for overcoming this sort of inertia? Thanks very much--your insights have been a real gift to us all.
Chad 08/13/2009 04:18 PM
Dr. Hamel, Thank you so much for your insights and ideas on how we might be able to be more effective as a Church - not just my local church, but His Global Church. I am excited about some of the opportunities we as the Church have in front of us. In particular, I am challanged to: - simplify what we do (focus on what we do well) - partner with other churches to more effectively "Be the Church" to our community - listen to the "fringe" to identify what we should be doing differently - identify those things that are barriers to us actually "being the church" to each other and the outside world Again, thanks for taking the time to share with us. Interestingly enough, we have a relatively unique situation in Sioux Falls, SD where many churches partner together each year to help organize a Free Christian Music Festival called Life Light. We've had 350,000 in attendance and our city is only 150,000. I wonder what else God might have for us to do together...
Jim 08/24/2009 09:23 PM
Gary, not only do I think this is a good idea, I think it is absolutely essential. We tend to think that participatory governance is a thing that is reserved for governing our country, and not our businesses or churches. In fact, the idea originated with God. When the ten commandments were given to Moses, it was in the midst of a world of monarchs and noblemen. However God introduced a new form of governance, where kings and nobles, the rich and powerful, were subject to the same laws as the peasants. Evidence of this new attitude is David's reaction to Uriah's story about the nobleman stealing the peasant's lamb. Knowing that this is God's design, if we are God's church how could we not listen to every opinion, involve everyone in the process? Jim
EnnisP 08/29/2009 03:59 AM
Thanks Gary. A great presentation! A few years ago I began looking for ideas from other churches to get our ministry back into a growing situation (we had become stale and stiff) and, finding some, I attempted to present them to my congregation. We had many discussion sessions but they were ultimately not very useful and eventually resulted in a split/explosion. Part of the problem was my inexperience leading in an open forum and part of the problem was failing to realign the vision properly. Several in this thread have mentioned the importance of focus. In that regard I think our focus was too general to begin with and I didn't do a very good job of connecting it, such as it was, with the new strategies. As a result the new "how" I was presenting came across as a rejection of the familiar "what" in which everyone had accumulated lots of emotional equity, to use your analogy. I also think that church traditionally done has a culture that is loaded against an open forum approach. It is viewed as anti-doctrine and resisted. That isn't to say it can't be done but in some cases it might be wise to move elsewhere and start again.
Anyerin Drury 08/29/2009 07:37 AM
Loved the idea of changing up the centralization of decision making. We tried this in an easy practical way when we sen out our music team schedule in a google doc for everyone to edit. In the past we had called everyone, and had several meetings to decide who best to fill the ever changing roles, as availabilities came in. We though 'people can at least draft a proposal of where they would fit best, when they're available and who they can fill in for, then a few leaders can make some key decisions.' Unfortunately we underestimated what people might think of a 'draft schedule.' many people got excited about the particular week they were on, even though alot of them changed in the end. We had to do hard follow up work with ppls hearts. It didn't feel strategic, just disorganised. Upon reflection, I wonder if we just send out a form that asks them if they can be free on certain dates, and break down the process into a few smaller steps, which is still hard work. I think even with a prep email, our folks weren't prepared to see the schedule in its entirety. What do you think? P.S. Our ppl are really servant, tender hearted Christ followers. All have given their lives to Christ (though most only recently), and most come very open handedly. I think it's less their hearts, and more our approach. :)
Rocky 08/29/2009 12:51 PM
I thoroughly enjoyed the teaching at TLS09. A question that I have is regarding the untold thousands of rural churches that inhabit our lesser populated towns and cities. How do these changes affect them and how could they be redesigned and implemented to produce positive results?
Karla 09/02/2009 04:55 PM
Our church, and Im pastor´s wife, has a type of government in which few have a real opportunity to decide about important things. And we have had real problems in the past with treason and bad doing among closer leaders. How can we estimulate the members to participate and have confidence in their loyalty. Is their any strategy to accomplish such a thing!
POST YOUR COMMENT