The concept of "team" and "teamwork" has been high on the agenda for many of us during the past few years. "Team" has become a top priority and has been seen as an antidote to hierarchy and a way of encouraging a more "collaborative" way forward, but...
...there are a few problems with teams (and groups) - particularly when it comes to decision making: Firstly, teams can indulge in groupthink as "popular", "safe", "established" or "familiar" approaches are prefered; Secondly, there is a tendency for teams to talk themselves into more polarised opinion - In other words, once a team begins to move in a particular direction, members supports and encourage each other to share the same stance - The more "popular" a decision becomes, the more "true" it can seem; Thirdly, the need for "belonging" discorages eccentrics and radicals - who may actually have something important to say; Fourthly, teams can easily be dominated by people with higher status, who speak more, or who speak first... In other words the opinions of the most highly ranked, and the most vocal, will seem more significant than those of the quieter and more reflective members.
This may sound negative, but it's worth thinking about, since it's backed up by research.
Teams are very good at tasks and projects. When you're trying to achieve an objective it is far better to have a functional team - but teams are less good at decision making and leadership, although they can have a role in managing or fascilitating leadership and decision-making processes. As far as I can see the best decsions are made when a collective and collaborative process has been used - the more people involved the better!
I've been reflecting a bit on the way the LSM Project Group has functioned over the past year and a bit. Some may well say (with some justification) that it's been somewhat chaotic, with different people involved at different stages as the discussions have meandered backwards and forwards over a range of related topics. It's been exilarating, ceratinly, and a great group to be part of - but a terrible example of "getting things done". I think it would be fair to say it's been a rubbish "team", but...
...the strength of this conversation was the collective and diverse nature of discussions - I never knew where things were going to go next - or who was going to lob in which theological handgrenade! As convener it was a real learning experience to ride the collective thought flow... It's a mirracle (in some ways) that we produced anything coherent at all - although I suspect, in fact, that the results benefited greatly from such a broad range of contributions...
It was a rubbish "team" but a fantastic process! A really creative group of people who were absolutely brilliant at tackling a very tricky issue!
As the Project Group moves into a more formal phase I suspect we need to widen the circle of vision and reflection rather than tighten things up. The success of collaborative ministry in Milton Keynes may well depend on the use of a collaborative methodology - but where will the Church in MK lead us? I wonder?...
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Monday, 14 July 2008
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Common Purpose
Today I took part in a Common Purpose course in Milton Keynes. Common Purpose is an initiative to provide community "leaders" with an opportunity to learn more about their community and network with others. It was a fascinating course to be part of and I did learn more about the city - although I've been here for 8 years.
Under the rules of the game, I have to be careful what I say about who said what, but I was struck by the continuing visionary and entrepreneurial nature of MK enthusiasts which I found encouraging and inspiring. We do have an interesting problem with the 19+ age group and the "brain drain". I am now a believer in the idea of an MK University. I'm also reflecting on the formula:
An interesting day which will undoubtedly lead to more...
Under the rules of the game, I have to be careful what I say about who said what, but I was struck by the continuing visionary and entrepreneurial nature of MK enthusiasts which I found encouraging and inspiring. We do have an interesting problem with the 19+ age group and the "brain drain". I am now a believer in the idea of an MK University. I'm also reflecting on the formula:
basic skills + emotional intelligence + creativity = future workforce skills
An interesting day which will undoubtedly lead to more...
Monday, 9 June 2008
Collaborative Leadership
I've been trying to write about collaborative leadership today and struggling, partly because I want to keep it brief, but also because words and terms are used by different writers in very different ways...
I am still convinced by the concept of circular leadership in which each individual relates to Christ. Around the circle, all are fellow servants, exercising leadership/ministry according to gift and call. Alongside this, I do recognise the need for an individual to act as guarantor, guardian or holder of the circle - note my refusal to use the term "overall leader" which is used by John Adair and others... The person who chairs, presides or oversees must not become the leader - although he or she will lead occasionally - because if this happens, Christ is supplanted...
I was struck by the image of a diocese in the States where the bishop does all his episcopal business with a team who meet once a month - apparently it's a very small diocese. I like this idea of modelling collaborative leadership but recognise the challenge that it lays down - can I, in my "leadership" roles, create and maintain an authentic Christ-centred collaborative model?
The danger is that we slip back into the far simpler pattern of DIY - Decide it Yourself - because that's quicker and easier to do, but not as empowering for other people - and not good practice in a discipleship focussed church...
I am still convinced by the concept of circular leadership in which each individual relates to Christ. Around the circle, all are fellow servants, exercising leadership/ministry according to gift and call. Alongside this, I do recognise the need for an individual to act as guarantor, guardian or holder of the circle - note my refusal to use the term "overall leader" which is used by John Adair and others... The person who chairs, presides or oversees must not become the leader - although he or she will lead occasionally - because if this happens, Christ is supplanted...
I was struck by the image of a diocese in the States where the bishop does all his episcopal business with a team who meet once a month - apparently it's a very small diocese. I like this idea of modelling collaborative leadership but recognise the challenge that it lays down - can I, in my "leadership" roles, create and maintain an authentic Christ-centred collaborative model?
The danger is that we slip back into the far simpler pattern of DIY - Decide it Yourself - because that's quicker and easier to do, but not as empowering for other people - and not good practice in a discipleship focussed church...
Thursday, 5 June 2008
Befriending the Scapegoat
There is an old line about escaping from a bear. How fast do I need to run? The answer: faster than you!
For various reasons, groups and communities often feel the need to identify an individual who is the slowest runner, or the one perceived as "the problem". In a time of crisis or uncertainty this need is aggravated. The crisis can lead to "violence" between groups who could otherwise co-operate. Removing, or marginalising this scapegoat can restore peace and order within the group bringing about co-operation and general well-being - at least for a time.
I've just been reading an interesting paper by Thomas A Michael which looks at the issue of scapegoat. It's on the web: How to Scapegoat the Leader: A Refresher Course. I'll just quote his final paragraph:
"Both the authority and subordinates are fearful of chaos, so everyone demands rules, procedures, hierarchies and prohibitions to maintain order. Any member of the group who becomes too much like the leader may be accused of causing trouble. Any member who deviates too much from the norm may be singled out for scapegoating. When there is a lack of differentiation, the tendency is to search for one who is different. If the disorder becomes too widespread, so that nobody within the ranks can be singled out, then the result will be the scapegoating of the leader. It is not just because he or she is in a position of authority, but because by being in that position, the leader is Other. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” (Shakespeare, Henry IV, part II)"
As I reflect on my experience of churches, groups and communities, I've seen this phenomenon take place a number of time, and I have to confess, have often been one of the people who was glad not to be the slowest runner when the bear is loose. How many times have I been happy that someone else was identified as "the Other" so that I had a hope of being part of the newly reconciled group?
Reconciliation through scapegoating does have some biblical resonance, but it's Christ who achieves peace by being set aside as the ultimate "Other" on whom all our "violence" is placed. He achieves peace by absorbing our weakness. Atonement could be described as a divine decision to turn and face the bear...
Within our churches, groups and organisations we do indulge in scapegoating, either consciously or unconsciously. Victims can include those perceived as a bit odd, those who's opinions are a bit "off the wall" or those who challenge our perceptions about how things should be... Bishops and other church leaders are not immune from the process. I remember Richard Holloway saying that there was a vacancy for a nutty bishop in the UK and media picked on him...
What's the Gospel message for us. Well, I suspect we start by recognising that scapegoating does happen within our organisations and that we all have a natural tendency to indulge in it - largely out of self defence (to avoid the bear). The awareness that it happens - and how it happens may help us to avoid participating in it... Perhaps we should also start to befriend our scapegoats, since a) we can't really get rid of them, and b) they are ultimately within Christ's redemptive will... Reconciliation is best achieved by hugging your goat - not abandoning it...
Of course, I also recognise that many of our clergy, and lay leaders, easily become scapegoats for the churches they serve. This is not an easy burden to bare, but is, as Thomas A. Michael suggests, an inevitable consequence of being "the Other". Perhaps this is another good argument for Mutual Ministry - or Collective Leadership - since our churches would then have to deal with one another, rather than bury the hatchet in the nearest available authority figure...
In the meantime, I'm tempted to get a t-shirt printed (there's a cartoon in here somewhere) which says "Love your Scapegoat".
For various reasons, groups and communities often feel the need to identify an individual who is the slowest runner, or the one perceived as "the problem". In a time of crisis or uncertainty this need is aggravated. The crisis can lead to "violence" between groups who could otherwise co-operate. Removing, or marginalising this scapegoat can restore peace and order within the group bringing about co-operation and general well-being - at least for a time.
I've just been reading an interesting paper by Thomas A Michael which looks at the issue of scapegoat. It's on the web: How to Scapegoat the Leader: A Refresher Course. I'll just quote his final paragraph:
"Both the authority and subordinates are fearful of chaos, so everyone demands rules, procedures, hierarchies and prohibitions to maintain order. Any member of the group who becomes too much like the leader may be accused of causing trouble. Any member who deviates too much from the norm may be singled out for scapegoating. When there is a lack of differentiation, the tendency is to search for one who is different. If the disorder becomes too widespread, so that nobody within the ranks can be singled out, then the result will be the scapegoating of the leader. It is not just because he or she is in a position of authority, but because by being in that position, the leader is Other. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” (Shakespeare, Henry IV, part II)"
As I reflect on my experience of churches, groups and communities, I've seen this phenomenon take place a number of time, and I have to confess, have often been one of the people who was glad not to be the slowest runner when the bear is loose. How many times have I been happy that someone else was identified as "the Other" so that I had a hope of being part of the newly reconciled group?
Reconciliation through scapegoating does have some biblical resonance, but it's Christ who achieves peace by being set aside as the ultimate "Other" on whom all our "violence" is placed. He achieves peace by absorbing our weakness. Atonement could be described as a divine decision to turn and face the bear...
Within our churches, groups and organisations we do indulge in scapegoating, either consciously or unconsciously. Victims can include those perceived as a bit odd, those who's opinions are a bit "off the wall" or those who challenge our perceptions about how things should be... Bishops and other church leaders are not immune from the process. I remember Richard Holloway saying that there was a vacancy for a nutty bishop in the UK and media picked on him...
What's the Gospel message for us. Well, I suspect we start by recognising that scapegoating does happen within our organisations and that we all have a natural tendency to indulge in it - largely out of self defence (to avoid the bear). The awareness that it happens - and how it happens may help us to avoid participating in it... Perhaps we should also start to befriend our scapegoats, since a) we can't really get rid of them, and b) they are ultimately within Christ's redemptive will... Reconciliation is best achieved by hugging your goat - not abandoning it...
Of course, I also recognise that many of our clergy, and lay leaders, easily become scapegoats for the churches they serve. This is not an easy burden to bare, but is, as Thomas A. Michael suggests, an inevitable consequence of being "the Other". Perhaps this is another good argument for Mutual Ministry - or Collective Leadership - since our churches would then have to deal with one another, rather than bury the hatchet in the nearest available authority figure...
In the meantime, I'm tempted to get a t-shirt printed (there's a cartoon in here somewhere) which says "Love your Scapegoat".
Thursday, 29 May 2008
Leadership under development
One of the greatest influences on my thinking about leadership was a woman called Trish who worked for SCM in the early nineties. She was really interested in anarchistic organisational theories - which may sound slightly contradictory. She then went on to be a consultant to radical campaigning groups who wanted decision making structures to fit their egalitarian beliefs - rather than the power ethic of big business.
Her basic argument was that in order to allow each person to be heard - which is basically what an anarchist would want - you actually need tighter rather than looser structures of organisation. Anarchist organisation is not an oxymoron, it's actually essential - and prevents a slide back to "he who shouts loudest gets heard!"
She demonstrated her theory through a very neat decision making game which I've used at various time since then - once enabling a ministry team on the brink of crisis to actually talk to each other!
As I said yesterday, I believe that the Spirit is active in each person, so the leading voice of Christ can be found in each church member. This is a kind of Christian, anarchistic, democratic, pneumatological theory of leadership. Each person is a leader, whether they know it or not. Their actions, words and ideas contribute to the life of the whole - even if it is by withdrawal or abstention. The task of "leaders" is to enable the collective voice to be heard - which includes the voice of minorities or individuals. This is not majority rule - all must be heard, since it is often through the forgotten or seemingly unimportant that Christ's Word can be received. The Magnificat is a great warning to those who seek power or control.
I've just been reading the chapter on leadership in "Emerging Churches" which talks about participation, gifting, servant leadership, leading as a body, etc... It's made me reflect on our journey in Watling Valley. When John left there was a general desire to reform the Ministry Team as a "leaderless group" - that was the majority view. In the end we decided to have a Team Chair/Leader - which is the role I found myself in. From the beginning this was a challenging appointment since I was tasked with facilitating or enabling collective leadership in the Team without acting as a leader. Over time I developed a number of techniques for doing this, including listening, chairing, structuring conversations, reflecting back, etc... I also did a certain amount of "servant leadership" - through the Service Planning, central admin, etc... Through it all I made many, many mistakes as I found myself slipping into traditional roles, or taking the easy options. At the end of this period I think I've learnt a lot about collaborative leadership whether I was any good at making it happen or not.
I've also used a non-directive approach to leadership in a number of churches - which has not always been fun. Refusing to act as the mediator or ultimate authority can be unpopular with people who want you to impose their will on other people! Ultimately I agree with Rolland Allen who insists we "tell it to the church" - rather than sort it out for them.
The negative side of non-directive, facilitative leadership is that you can be seen as weak. The negative side of enabling and empowering ministry is that you are no-longer seen as the hero. More and more, I find myself less central to the stories of ministry that I'm involved in. Others get the praise, the status or the respect. I begin to wonder if people think I'm any good myself? All this, of course, is the necessary side effect of "lifting up the humble" and "bringing down the mighty from their thrones". We would all like to be the downtrodden poor who get lifted up, but sometimes we need to be the rich who are sent empty away. As an ordained, professional minister, "I must decrease that he may increase" - to borrow the words of John the Baptist.
So what is leadership in the church today? It is, I believe, the gift of each church member, but some individuals will act as focusses of that leadership at particular times. We all have our "leadership moments" so to speak. There are some, however, who are called to make that collective leadership possible. This is a challenging and sacrificial calling which involves a real responsibility to listen for the authentic voice of Christ - wherever it may be found..
Power does corrupt, but through the grace of Christ leaders can lay it down at his feet, perhaps recovering their own lives in the process...
Her basic argument was that in order to allow each person to be heard - which is basically what an anarchist would want - you actually need tighter rather than looser structures of organisation. Anarchist organisation is not an oxymoron, it's actually essential - and prevents a slide back to "he who shouts loudest gets heard!"
She demonstrated her theory through a very neat decision making game which I've used at various time since then - once enabling a ministry team on the brink of crisis to actually talk to each other!
As I said yesterday, I believe that the Spirit is active in each person, so the leading voice of Christ can be found in each church member. This is a kind of Christian, anarchistic, democratic, pneumatological theory of leadership. Each person is a leader, whether they know it or not. Their actions, words and ideas contribute to the life of the whole - even if it is by withdrawal or abstention. The task of "leaders" is to enable the collective voice to be heard - which includes the voice of minorities or individuals. This is not majority rule - all must be heard, since it is often through the forgotten or seemingly unimportant that Christ's Word can be received. The Magnificat is a great warning to those who seek power or control.
I've just been reading the chapter on leadership in "Emerging Churches" which talks about participation, gifting, servant leadership, leading as a body, etc... It's made me reflect on our journey in Watling Valley. When John left there was a general desire to reform the Ministry Team as a "leaderless group" - that was the majority view. In the end we decided to have a Team Chair/Leader - which is the role I found myself in. From the beginning this was a challenging appointment since I was tasked with facilitating or enabling collective leadership in the Team without acting as a leader. Over time I developed a number of techniques for doing this, including listening, chairing, structuring conversations, reflecting back, etc... I also did a certain amount of "servant leadership" - through the Service Planning, central admin, etc... Through it all I made many, many mistakes as I found myself slipping into traditional roles, or taking the easy options. At the end of this period I think I've learnt a lot about collaborative leadership whether I was any good at making it happen or not.
I've also used a non-directive approach to leadership in a number of churches - which has not always been fun. Refusing to act as the mediator or ultimate authority can be unpopular with people who want you to impose their will on other people! Ultimately I agree with Rolland Allen who insists we "tell it to the church" - rather than sort it out for them.
The negative side of non-directive, facilitative leadership is that you can be seen as weak. The negative side of enabling and empowering ministry is that you are no-longer seen as the hero. More and more, I find myself less central to the stories of ministry that I'm involved in. Others get the praise, the status or the respect. I begin to wonder if people think I'm any good myself? All this, of course, is the necessary side effect of "lifting up the humble" and "bringing down the mighty from their thrones". We would all like to be the downtrodden poor who get lifted up, but sometimes we need to be the rich who are sent empty away. As an ordained, professional minister, "I must decrease that he may increase" - to borrow the words of John the Baptist.
So what is leadership in the church today? It is, I believe, the gift of each church member, but some individuals will act as focusses of that leadership at particular times. We all have our "leadership moments" so to speak. There are some, however, who are called to make that collective leadership possible. This is a challenging and sacrificial calling which involves a real responsibility to listen for the authentic voice of Christ - wherever it may be found..
Power does corrupt, but through the grace of Christ leaders can lay it down at his feet, perhaps recovering their own lives in the process...
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Growing Leaders
I took Isla for a run this morning. We did three miles in 28 minutes.
In the morning I aslo met with Mike to talk through his new role as Team Leader. It felt odd in some ways putting all this time in to support someone in this kind of a role. I seem to remember just drifting into it without any support or clarity. I'm sure this way is much better, but it's another clear indication of how far we've moved in a short period of time. Mike will be a great Team Leader, and I look forward to seeing how it all goes...
At lunch time I met with Linda from the Friday Cell Group who is doing a great job as leader/facilitator of that group. I hope she found the time useful.
In the afternoon I had a funeral visit in Shenley Church End, and I spent som time working on worship material for All Saints' Day 2008 - which needs to be finished by tomorrow.
In the evening I went to the Deanery Pastoral Committee at which we agreed to support the proposal from Water Eaton to develop "a Local Shared Ministry" which effectively means setting up a leadership team which will include two retired priests - with me as Area Dean acting as incumbent. This proposal is intended to give Water Eaton some breathing space to continue their development while waiting for more clarity about a long term vision...
We also discussed a proposal about Deanery posts which we will now be exploring with the Bishop, Archdeacon, and PDA. This was a good discussion and moved things on a bit... We seem fairly clear in our minds that there are three posts we want. The question is how to create them, locate them and whether they will be full or part time. All may be revealed on the 15th March...
Local Shared Ministry was also discussed and there seems to be a concensus that we are moving away from models toward process and support structure...
So much of my work today, as usual, has been about developing and encouraging our leaders. This is where my energy must be put if we are to build a sustainable and growing deanery/partnership. It's crucial that we nurture those who will provide the quality leadership that our churches need. I think most of my "parishioners" still think I sit around (between cups of tea) waiting for the phone to ring for a baptism, wedding or funeral. They probably even think I write sermons... The truth is I spend most of my time growing the ministery of others - and actually quite enjoy it...
In the morning I aslo met with Mike to talk through his new role as Team Leader. It felt odd in some ways putting all this time in to support someone in this kind of a role. I seem to remember just drifting into it without any support or clarity. I'm sure this way is much better, but it's another clear indication of how far we've moved in a short period of time. Mike will be a great Team Leader, and I look forward to seeing how it all goes...
At lunch time I met with Linda from the Friday Cell Group who is doing a great job as leader/facilitator of that group. I hope she found the time useful.
In the afternoon I had a funeral visit in Shenley Church End, and I spent som time working on worship material for All Saints' Day 2008 - which needs to be finished by tomorrow.
In the evening I went to the Deanery Pastoral Committee at which we agreed to support the proposal from Water Eaton to develop "a Local Shared Ministry" which effectively means setting up a leadership team which will include two retired priests - with me as Area Dean acting as incumbent. This proposal is intended to give Water Eaton some breathing space to continue their development while waiting for more clarity about a long term vision...
We also discussed a proposal about Deanery posts which we will now be exploring with the Bishop, Archdeacon, and PDA. This was a good discussion and moved things on a bit... We seem fairly clear in our minds that there are three posts we want. The question is how to create them, locate them and whether they will be full or part time. All may be revealed on the 15th March...
Local Shared Ministry was also discussed and there seems to be a concensus that we are moving away from models toward process and support structure...
So much of my work today, as usual, has been about developing and encouraging our leaders. This is where my energy must be put if we are to build a sustainable and growing deanery/partnership. It's crucial that we nurture those who will provide the quality leadership that our churches need. I think most of my "parishioners" still think I sit around (between cups of tea) waiting for the phone to ring for a baptism, wedding or funeral. They probably even think I write sermons... The truth is I spend most of my time growing the ministery of others - and actually quite enjoy it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)