The Straitjacket of Conventional Thinking
Want to connect people you’re not currently connecting? Then you need to do things you’re not doing now. Obvious…right? After all, if what you’re currently doing worked, at least to the degree you need it to, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
What’s keeping you from doing things you’re not doing now? Conventional thinking. After all, everyone knows you need to be in a group before you can lead a group. Right? And everyone knows you need to be an apprentice before you can lead a group. And while we’re on the subject, doesn’t everyone know you need to be a really mature Christian before you lead a group?
I mean really, don’t you really want to be 100% sure that there’s no possibility of even a slight possibility that there could be any POSSIBILITY of a small group leader leading an innocent sheep astray? Come on…right?
Let me tell you something. Every one of those thoughts are examples of conventional thinking. They’re not an example of biblical absolutes. Just the way we’ve always done it.
In some ways, like being in a straitjacket.
Want to escape the straitjacket? I really like the way Gary Hamel describes the challenge of escaping the straitjacket of conventional thinking.
“To escape the straitjacket of conventional thinking, you have to be able to distinguish between beliefs that describe the world as it is, and beliefs that describe the world as it is and must forever remain (p. 131, The Future of Management).”
Got on a straitjacket? What conventional thinking do you need to shed? You can click here to jump into the conversation.
interesting, is this what saddleback is doing with their leadership pathways?, I’m trying to process within the Sunday School model, it is harder when they meet in a group under the church roof on Sunday morning, however I think their is hybrid appraoch somewhere in there
Thanks for jumping in here, Ross. You can certainly see clear evidence of unconventional thinking in Saddleback’s leadership pathway. Lowering the bar on the front end and providing a pathway that includes a customized coaching plan along with both centralized and decentralized training allows them to escape the straitjacket of conventional thinking. By the way, their methodology also allows them to connect people at crowd’s edge.
Here are links to my two interviews with Saddleback’s Steve Gladen: http://www.markhowelllive.com/steve-gladen-on-saddlebacks-leadership-pathway/ and http://www.markhowelllive.com/steve-gladen-on-saddlebacks-coaching-strategy/
We have explored lowering the bar to obtain small group leaders. In the past we have test driven the concept of allowing members to host/lead groups for a pre-determined amount of time for a special dvd drive series without the achievement of certain spiritual maturities. This worked well and gave the leader as well as members the opportunity to be involed in a group without a long term commitment. This became a win-win for all involved. The members and leaders did not have to commit beyond the 4-6 week series and I did not have to commit to endorsing a leader who may not have the skills or giftings to lead. On the other hand, I am not convinced that lowering the bar for leadership on permanent or long-term groups is wise. I may be open to adding steps to help a leader reach the bar, however to lower the bar of leadership expectations would have us redefine the term leader. Members must be challenged to grow spiritually, to stand on their own two feet, to trust in the Word and have confidence in doctrine. Otherwise, I believe we do harm and keep would-be leaders from reaching their potential.
Let’s face it, living life together can be challenging and it takes a committed, growing leader to stand when conflict and difficulty arises. I am taking a breath to say that I am not opposed to allowing members who do not meet the bar to facilitate a series and grow, however I do feel that to be a leader for the long run you must obtain certain spiritual disciplines that sanctioning leadership without them could cause harm and set them up for failure.
Would you then say I am locked into conventional thinking?
Thanks for jumping in here, Joanne. Whether you’re locked into conventional thinking or not probably depends on your ability to conceive of an operational plan that lowers the bar and THEN help those newest leaders to enter into a leadership development pathway (ala Saddleback’s as described by Steve Gladen right here: http://www.markhowelllive.com/steve-gladen-on-saddlebacks-leadership-pathway/).
See what I’m saying?
mark
I like Joanne’s thinking here. We are embarking on a huge “out of the box” project to test small groups that will require us to recruit more facilitators than we have ever used before. Conventional wisdom would say train the trainers and once you ramp up to the 30 to 40 you need, start your groups but then we miss out on the new people that leaders from the edges of our congregation will likely bring. It looks like we are in for a very interesting and exciting process. I’ll keep watching these pages for helpful advice and news of others on this same journey.
Thanks for jumping in here, Norm. I would urge you to remember that we really are entering a season where the the only thing relying on the conventional has demonstrated is an inability to reach the 60%. While it may seem out of the box…I would argue that we’re in a time that is eerily similar to the 1st century when “messy” came with the territory. You only have to read the Book of Acts and Paul’s letters to see instances that beg the question, “Just how prepared were the earliest group leaders when even Apollos only had part of the story?”
It’s something to think about, isn’t it?
mark