Maybe you’ve experienced a team meeting where each person in the room seems to be focused only on his or her own agenda. In these meetings, people aren’t really listening as much as they are waiting for their own opportunity to speak. Team doesn’t mean much if individuals can’t move away from their individual agendas.

How a Team Makes Decisions

In this broken body out of which most of us come, our attitudes and agendas affect our decision-making ability. How are decisions reached in such an environment? In our experience, there are a variety of ways in which decisions occur in a team, some healthier than others.

1. By Single Dominant Individual
Teams in this situation serve little to no value. A single person, often the pastor but sometimes a producer or worship leader, dictates to the team theme(s), direction, creative elements, and even structure.

2. By Minority
This is unfortunately a common problem with worship teams, where a small group either in the meeting itself or at another time and place, make strategic decisions. The expectation with their decision is that they are final, and the larger team merely exists to provide non-strategic creative input, or just to put a stamp of approval on what has been decided.

While not as severe as #1, this also devalues and disrespects the team.

3. By Majority
More than half of those involved in the situation make a decision, and it is binding for all concerned.

It’s possible this can become an effective model, but there is danger in excluding the opinions of diverse team members, as there can be great value in listen to all opinions. For example, a team consists almost entirely of 20-somethings, except for a lone 40-something. The 20-something members make stylistic decisions as a team, some of which the 40-something member doesn’t like. The majority can discount the older member’s input and go with what they personally prefer, or realize that the older member provides a valuable perspective for reaching and growing the congregation, and make an active attempt to solicit the person’s input.

4. By Compromise
Happens when after exploring all options, team members agree on an option they can all live with. The “live with” part is critical here. Compromise shouldn’t be confused with consensus, which is both more effective and harder to achieve. Also, it isn’t uncommon for those that agreed in public to a particular course of action to quietly disagree behind closed doors.

5. By Consensus
A 100% commitment is needed for decisions of critical importance. Depending on where you are on the totem pole in your organization you may be involved with many such decisions or, as is more likely, none at all. Each person fully agrees to the action to be taken, and everyone concerned fully subscribes to the decision made.

It may require a great deal of information and time to reach consensus.

Which of these decision-making styles most closely resembles your current worship process? Take some time and reflect on the 5 options.

On Consensus

While the most challenging, the ideal of any good worship design team is consensus on the service’s theme and metaphor, directions and goals, creative elements, and structure.

Some don’t believe in consensus, saying it is an idealized fantasy and too difficult to achieve in real world situations. We think it is possible in real world situations, but within a specific understanding of what the word “consensus” specifically means.

A recent post on the online blog Journey to Authenticity stated:

“I know the word compromise has its place but I deal with human relationships daily and I am finding the word consensus more respectful. I define consensus as a win-win versus compromise a lose-lose. Consensus thought is hard work and often unattainable because of our human constraints, i.e. pride, time, laziness, lack of commitment to one another, etc. Plus our culture is built around competition rather than team building. All this makes consensus building a foreign and counter-intuitive concept.

I was explaining to someone that when you build consensus all parties involved “buy in” and it has to be done from genuine-ness and honesty. It requires people to say to themselves ?ÄòI have my way of thinking about something but I could be wrong. So I am going to listen to you and allow my mind to be influenced by you. I may not fully agree but hopefully by sharing and listening we can agree to a new solution that is ours.’ The tough part is staying in the dialogue long enough to build that consensus and I believe that is where our impatience and laziness come into play?Ķ As the group gets bigger the more likely compromise will need to have a place in the dialogue but even then the more points one can build consensus on the healthier the resolution will be.”

 Email This |  Print This |