Decision-making comes in all shapes and sizes. Some are complex – some are simple. If you use the wrong process for complex decisions, the outcome will be less than ideal. You might even make things worse is you don’t apply the right process to certain decisions you are trying to make. It’s reasonable to assume that decisions will be on a spectrum from simple on the one end and increasing complexity as you move to the other end.
When you are making a simple decision, you can use a process something like this:*
You pick your topic, hear the various perspectives and diverse opinions, then move to convergence and a decision.
For example, if you are trying to decide on the paint color for the fellowship hall, a committee meets and share their opinions on what color will work with varying opinions. Usually, however, it doesn’t take too long to agree on what color will work and a decision is made. That type of decision is not usually that challenging and you an go from divergence to convergence fairly quickly.
What about more complex decisions? Let’s say you are wanting to articulate the core values for a congregation, or decide on the kind of pastor you should hire, or decide on the changes that should take place to your Sunday service, or articulate your disciple-making strategy be. How will you think about that process?
Complex Decision-making – A Framework to Consider
To make complex decisions collaboratively, you need a process that allows better ideas to emerge in between divergence and convergence. You need a groan zone or a space where emergence can take place. The picture looks like this.
In both scenarios (simple and complex decision-making) you have divergent opinions but if the issues are complex, the vocal and influential people will dominate and most likely, push through towards a decision. Part of the group will feel left out and fail to be given an opportunity to speak to the issues until clarity comes. Without a groan zone (time to feel the frustration, feel stuck, grow tired) the best collaborative decisions will not be reached. If you need a groan zone but don’t allow for it, the best decision will not be made and implementation will be more challenging than you think.
In the groan zone, people are given permission to wrestle with ideas, share without judgment, be listened to, understand each other, and discern God’s will prayerfully. The results of taking a little more time and attentive facilitation during the process will be greater clarity and better decisions.
In the facilitating and coaching work I’ve been doing the past couple of months, I’ve been seeing results from this collaborative approach.
- Ownership of decisions are broader.
- Follow through keeps moving.
- Greater unity in the Spirit is achieved.
- Appreciation for the differences in others is valued.
Applied to Transitional Work
Churches in transition need leaders who know how to facilitate the decision-making process in a way that fits the issue being addressed.
To facilitate effectively, you need to fill your coaching and facilitating tool box along the appropriate tools for the job at hand. Collaborative decision-making requires tools like asking powerful questions, world cafe, guided small group discussion, harvesting, re-framing, summarizing, and active listening.
As you grow in both the understanding of how decisions are made and how you guide the process, you will see people go from, “I wonder what God would have us do?” to a place where they say, “Now we see together what God would have us do!”
Now back to you
How does this process connect with your experience?
Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.