Making meetings work Small is beautiful


MEETINGS! For many people the idea of a church business meeting brings about a fair amount of despair. They are often not happy occasions: they can be dull, bad tempered or just plain frustrating. Some waste time with trivial business, others are filled with trivial discussion on legitimate items. They often involve a great deal of people-time for surprisingly little output.


But good meetings, when they take place, can be a real joy with a sense of purpose, of working together and with positive outcomes. Official gatherings of a Church Council, Kirk Session, Diaconate, Select Vestry, Trustees, Finance Team, or whatever should be positive, effective, Christ-centred, enjoyable occasions. It’s worth studying the subject and seeking to make church business meetings work well. The idea of this series is to move beyond the basics to think about some new ways of creating effective business gatherings.


In this fourth article in this series I investigate the value of keeping groups that meet as small as possible. Have in mind a church council or equivalent body of no more than 12-15, a leadership group of no more than six or seven, and a committee responsible for one specific area of church life or an event of no more than three or four.


1: Advantages


There is a range of impressive plus-points for limiting the number of people on a group and so at decision-making meetings. Here are seven.


• I pointed out in the last article that teams do not work with large numbers (over 15, say, although the best teams are usually six to nine). This is because the number of relationships between people increases as a square of the number involved. In simple terms that means that the number of relationships within a group goes up much faster than the number of members as that increases. So you need small numbers for good teamwork.


• With smaller numbers you cannot have passengers: everyone should feel they are valued and have real ownership of the group’s task. This gives a higher level of motivation and enthusiasm for sharp but wise decision- making.


• There should be clearer focus on the purpose and vision; the group can operate at a greater speed than a larger body can hope for.


12


• By keeping groups small you save a great deal of people-time which might be better invested in ministry rather than in discussion.


• There is a greater ability to maintain right confidences.


• Members get to know each other well which increases understanding and trust. The leader has a closer relationship with each member than in a larger group.


• As a result of all this meetings are more enjoyable and effective and because of that you have greater commitment to the group and its work.


All this points to an effectiveness through simplification of organisation and structure, less waste of time and a real commitment to make meetings work.


2: Dangers


That does not mean that there are not dangers in any movement to smaller decision-making groups. Here are seven pitfalls to be aware of.


• Smaller numbers may give less breadth of expertise, whether in terms of experience, skills or theological understanding.


• There might also be a weaker representation of the wider population of the church’s membership.


• When trying to imagine new ideas, there may be less innovative thinking or identification of issues (although the opposite can also be true).


• If the aim of speeding up action is met, the group could take decisions too hastily without pausing for sufficient time to think through the implications.


• If people miss meetings, the number meeting


JOHN Truscott continues his series on what may for you be new ideas to ensure that church business meetings are effective. This will be relevant for Ministers, office-holders, and all members of councils and planning groups. The previous articles have covered the idea of an agenda for a whole year, balancing out the tenses of past, present and future, and the idea of playing like a team. In this fourth article John promotes the idea of keeping decision-making groups as small as possible in their membership and giving them a limited lifespan.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32