I often make time to check out Alban Institute's weekly newsletter. Alban's work focuses on developing congregation leaders, and their newsletter's feature article is usually insightful, practical, and real-life. Recently, when the congregation where I worship was caught up in messy, self-destructive conflict among its leadership, Alban was right there every Monday morning with an offering of fresh perspective and a dose of just-in-time valuable advice that was worthwhile sharing with warring parties.
But this week they have me scratching my head.
Dan Hotchkiss, in his article "All I Really Needed to Know I Learned at Work", tells about a challenging time he experienced as a new pastor. It was difficult getting church leaders to agree on direction and actions because he didn't realize that the process was being shaped by assumptions leaders (many of them from IBM) brought from their workplace experiences. There were groups of "visionaries" (explore the alternatives, flesh out the possibilities), "administrators" (the more information, the better), and "entrepreneurs" (let's get moving!). Each group had a different set of preferred behaviors that had served them well in their workplaces, and they expected these behaviors to work just as well in their church leadership roles.
Hotchkiss graciously suggests his own inexperience contributed to the difficulty. Yes, we all have lessons we learned when we were 27. I have a bunch I learned at 27, 37, 47 ... thank goodness, we keep on learning!
Today's older, wiser Hotchkiss recognizes that "each person around the table has learned at work how to behave in groups". As a consultant, he now asks "what is your work?" to open up dialogue around differing beliefs about working in groups.
Maybe the article has been cut short; maybe there's more to follow. I hope so, because it seems to me that worrying over "powerful occupational subcultures" is missing the more important learning. Yes, it's important to understand the strengths, talents and experiences each person brings to the group ... and to look to capitalize on that abundance and diversity. It's also important to recognize that people usually don't want to live bifurcated work/faith lives -- ask any business person who's tried to leave their soul in the parking lot on Monday morning.
But way before all of this, it's MOST important to ask a group to get clear about its purpose, about what it's being called to do. The process can then be shaped by this intention, rather than the behavior that's most familiar to each player. When the work gets off course, the team can be reminded of and called back to its purpose. When energies wane, the group can re-connect with what got them motivated in the first place. When conflicts erupt, the team can sort out differences based on what will serve their cause. Their calling serves as their compass.
Isn't this the lesson of the IBM experience that Hotchkiss cites ... that rallying around the intention to design a personal computer, IBM'ers were able to set aside their usual bureaucratic approach in favor of a more nimbler way of operating? That they were able to put their habits aside because they had a big game to play and win?
And isn't this the opportunity that the faith community presents to us business people? The model that when we rally around what's important -- God's vision for us -- that we, our workteams, our community, our world can be transformed?
Yes, whether workplace or church, there is a powerful subculture influencing us -- one that encourages us to jump into action, find a solution -- fast! But, whether workplace or church, skipping over the initial step of getting clear about our purpose risks false starts, dead ends, and confusion.
And, whether workplace or church, perhaps the most important question is not "what is our work/process?", but "where are we going?"
