Thinking Together

As I continue to read on the theme of collaborative thinking, a number of key themes do begin to emerge:

NUMBERS are important: The issue of numbers is an interesting one. The more people that are involved, the more "human resources" are available. On the other hand, the scale of the collaboration, particularly if it is voluntary, can result in a great imbalance in contribution between those who do a lot and those who do a little. Collaborative endeavours enable you to harvest the creativity of a large group of people - which is good - but there can be issues of management or governance for a larger group.

NETWORKING enhances collaboration: The networking of smaller groups is not just a convenient way of managing larger numbers. "Small Worlds Networks" provide increases in speed of communication and creativity. New ideas often emerge in the connections between smaller groups. It is the most connected, rather than the most intelligent, who often seem to be the most creative.

SELF-ORGANISATION is essential: Attempts to organise or manage collaboration often end in failure. Teams need to set their own goals and work our how they are to function by themselves. This can be a challenge for larger networks and requires a particular approach to leadership.

Learning takes place in CONVERSATION often resulting in individual action: Collaborative organisations seem not to make decisions very often. Meetings are essential but they tend to take the form of conversations in which ideas, facts and other information is shared. Change takes place at and individual and collective level resulting in consequent individual action. This raises the question of how group decisions can be enforced - and on what level collaborative action is possible.

We need a DUAL ECONOMY: Collaboration works best when it takes place on a voluntary basis. On the other hand, we also need a dependable and equitable "resource" economy to provide infrastructure - and basic human needs. This suggests a dual economy of paid and unpaid individuals co-existing in a creative tension. Such a dual economy is already emerging in many spheres of life, including media, information sciences and the Church. Collaboration makes failure cheap - which is great for creativity - but failure is not an option when it comes to individual or organisational survival...

TECHNOLOGY affects collaboration: It is important not to overlook the impact of our technology on our ability to think, share and act together. This has always been the case, but the current explosion of "social tools" is transforming our ability to collaborate.

SPIRITUALITY should not be overlooked: I am using the term "spirituality" here in a fairly loose way - perhaps in a similar way to the term "world view". Our understanding of the basic realities of human existance and the way we view the world can have a marked impact on our ability to collaborate and the way we understand collaboration. Many spiritual traditions regard each human being as containing, in some way, an expression of the divine. Some world views regard human beings as "fallen" - others as instinct-driven animals. Our spiritualities are therefore significant for the way we work together.

These, I think, are the big brush themes that I need to explore further. What do you think? Have I missed anything?

An experiment in mass collaboration

Today's European Election - at least in the UK - is an interesting experiment in mass collaboration. After weeks of scandal around MP's expenses all bets are off about what will happen. There is great fear in the ether that something bad might happen - will this be the end of Gordon Brown? or will the BNP or UKIP do well?

Some people have argued that the British electorate is remarkably good at making the right decisions - always choosing the party that will do the best for the country. Armed with huge amounts of data, this community of diverse and independent individuals works together to make the best choice - whether individuals agree with it or not...

Others are more pessimistic and are fearful that the mob, stirred up by a hypocritical press, will make an irrational and potentially disastrous choice. One moment you're at the ballot box - the next they're burning the Reichstag...

After years of polls and pollsters, swingometers and surveys it feels odd to have a genuinely unpredictable elections. The question is, what will the British public do?

How dare you involve me!

Over the past decade or so, I have experienced the greatest amount of aggression and vitriol when I've been involved in collaborative ventures - getting people more involved...

• When I attempted to get all the groups in a church talking to each other rather than using me to settle their differences, a church warden resigned...
• When we attempted to involve all the churches in a partnership there were complaints that the smaller churches weren't being herd...
• When we consulted other denominations about our Anglican deanery plan, one colleague called it "a flawed product of a flawed process!"
• Whenever I've asked poor Jenni to gather some information she's always had a few stroppy replies from people who complained that that they didn't know about it and hadn't been asked for this before...
• Whenever I've attempted to send out information across a wide area I've always had complaints that I wasn't doing it right...
• Whenever I've attempted to involve non-stipendiary clergy - I've always had complaints about the technical language I've used or the fact that they hadn't been involved before...
• When I attempted to tidy up the diocesan yearbook so that everyone's details were correct, I was told it was a waste of time...
• Whenever I've tried to involve other denominations in a project I've always been accused of being too anglican...
• and so on...

All this vitriol should tend to make me feel that involving people is a waste of time - it certainly drains your emotional batteries... but there are reasons for this ill feeling...

I suspect the principle reason that people are so aggressive when someone tries to include them is because they have had so much experience of being excluded. They want to hit out for the times they have felt hurt or dehumanised. They may also want to test people out to see if they're genuine...

I've only had this experience in a few tiny ways, but the same dynamic is played out over and over again in the relationships which take place between different ethnic or religious groups, communities or nations... Think how difficult the dynamics must be in Israel and Palestine, South Africa or America...

All around the world we need to include people more, but we need to recognise that this isn't easy. Those we seek to involve may still need to break a few windows before they've worked it out of their systems. G20 protesters, Palestinians, Iraqis and the global poor need to become part of the global community - but they have been shut out for so long that it won't be easy to bring them in. Exclusion and abuse damages both the powerful and the powerless...

And, of course, I can't forget that God's attempt to involve people in his kingdom didn't go so well either - he ended up on a cross - but it's through the vulnerability of incarnational suffering that the doors are opened wide. In our own little way we need to accept the attacks and complaints of those we seek to serve and keep moving forward. Inclussion is only a slap in the face away.

Too many egos

A little while ago I was in a room with a group discussing their logo. It turned out that they had talked about it a while ago but couldn't agree on one. "Why?" I asked. The answer turned out to be, "Too many egos!"

Organisation are often set up with a collaborative intent, but they are often set up by powerful individuals who all want to be the one that the others collaborate with...

We do this in church life and many church leaders talk about collaborative leadership but live out a form of central authority. We need to learn to be facilitators and enablers - even if it means we are less obviously efficient in our work... at least in the short term...

Today in London, twenty of the worlds most powerful men and women are gathering to talk about the worlds problems. The test that they all face is the challenge of recognising that none of them have all the solutions by themselves. President Obama may be bright, new, powerful and shiny - but he won't achieve anything if he tries to negotiate from a position of strength. Gordon Brown may be the host, but he can't assume that his agenda will have any more priority than that of India, China and Russia. Nicolas Sarkozy would be foolish to walk away and Germany can not go it alone...

True collaboration is a sophisticated and ever developing thing - and those in the room need to remember that it only works if you are conscious of those beyond it. Those who protest also have a voice that needs to be heard and the world's poor must not be ignored. Will the G8 rise to the occasion? I hope so, but it really depends on where they've put their egos.

As for the rest of us, we need to keep listening and recognising that we need every voice. It's slow, I know, but the only way to go.

Back to the evenings...

Tonight was a fairly familiar (pre-sabbatical) evening: two meetings on one night! I met with the Archdeacon and Will and Heather from Woughton to talk about the new appointment there. I then popped in on the All Saints Worship Team. As part of this meeting they discussed my sabbatical report. They raised the issue of collective leadership and gave themselves a big (deserved) pat on the back for being quite good at it. I pointed out that the problem with collective leadership and collaborative ministry is that those in authority can quickly take them away if they choose to. The LSM group has reflected on a number of stories about churches who had been doing well until a change of "leader" produced rapid (and undesirable) change. The challenge for ASL and the Watling Valley will be to find ways of maintaining collaboration through future changes of clergy... This issue is the central motivation for finding a more structural way of supporting collaborative ministry through LSM or another appropriate "scheme".

6. Collective Leadership

During my sabbatical I've been looking back at my experiences of leadership and ministry. The theme of collective leadership has been a significant one:

I was deeply influenced by Derek Hanscombe and Peter Price as an 18 year old Root Group member. Derek's commitment to community was powerful and his use of group organisation tools was inspiring. Peter's demonstration of Liberation Theology in biblical studies was life-changing and I was fascinated to discover when I went to Bristol (see Mutual Ministry in Bristol) that they were still working together a few years later and founded New Way of Being Church. As I pointed out to Alister Palmer, It's fascinating how my journey has taken me back to my early mentors and influences... I am amazed, looking back over the past twenty years, how often I have used the lessons I learnt with USPG.

The second key infuence was my time with SCM in Aberdeen. I was convener of the local university group for three years, on the scottish and national exec - briefly - and represented SCM at the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland in 1992 - where I first met Bev Hollins. This was a time for radical thinking about community, political action and theology. We dreamed about networks and collective action. It was here that I began to develop my interest in alternative worship - which had sadly been neglected during my time with the C of E. One of the more significant elements of that journey was the input Trish gave about anarchistic organisational methods (see Leadership Under Development). I have used and developed these in practice in Milton Keynes.

The concept of Cell has been a key part of my thinking since 1986. Although Richard Davis discovered it in 2004 and got very excited, I've been thinking in terms of small communities for a much longer period. I first noticed it in the writings of Paul Yongi-Cho from Korea. Even in the nineteen eighties I was beginning to wonder how it might be adopted and developed for a more traditional western context. I looked at our local anglo-catholic church and began to see how each group within the church provided some form of micro-community within the body. I wondered about cells as a strategy for SCM in Aberdeen - although it didn't go further than that... The concept of small, intimate, active communities was part of the inspiration for joining Root Groups, where I learnt an enormous amount. In Watling Valley, we have done little more than hint at the possibilities of cell - or small self-managed micro-churches. I have tried to introduce the term "cellularisation" to indicate that this is a process rather than a structural goal, but with little success. Steven Crofts, Transforming Communities, is a good example of fresh thinking on small groups. I am also encouraged by my experience of small churches (see Mursley).

In Slough and Watling Valley I was able to try out some of my ideas about collective leadership and develop some processes. Finnishing my MA gave me an excuse to raid libraries and give myself a mini-course on management and strategic planning. SHIFT was the main play ground for experimentation and I wrote this up in my MA dissertation. Since then I have been able to reflect on experiences and refine my thinking. Each new tool gets added to the collection. I am grateful for the opportunity this has provided.

As I said in Leadership under Development, collective leadership has alway been a key element in my thinking. It was neccesary in the Watling Valley. In my vision leadership does not rest with Ministers or even the Ministry Team but with the people, and should be expressed through councils, congregational meetings and discernment processes. Three months of reflection and study have given me a chance to develop my thinking about collective leadership (See The Wisdom of Crowds, Wikinomics and the Folly of Teams.) As I return to work I hope to develop this further in practice.

When I put forward a suggested theology for Local Shared Ministry, James Cassidy agreed with most of the things I was trying to say, but challenged me on the concept of collective or circular leadership. I am very grateful to him for doing this since he has encouraged me to really give this issue some proper thought and get reading! I finish my sabbatical convinced that collective leadership is both possible and necessary. I also have a whole new set of theological and practical tools to play with. What fun!