What’s the Best Way to Launch New Small Groups?

March 14th, 2008 by Mark Howell

The Connection Strategy

  1. Uncertainty about the maturity or appropriateness of the person chosen to lead
  2. Lack of control about the quality of the leader candidates
  3. Those chosen to lead may be unwilling to commit to leading
  4. Might necessitate an honest conversation if the group chooses someone with insurmountable issues

The HOST Strategy

  1. Uncertainty about the maturity or appropriateness of the person who volunteers to host
  2. Lack of control about the quality of the HOST candidates
  3. Those who commit to host a group may not wish to continue
  4. Might necessitate an honest conversation if the host candidate doesn’t meet your qualifications

Conclusion? Based on these problem sets, which way do you go?  You can surely see that there really isn’t a problem-free solution.  Which set would you rather have?  In some ways it may depend on things like how concerned you are about your unconnected members and attendees, how effective you’ve been at recruiting and developing new leaders, or how well you know the unconnected people in your congregation.

What do you think?  Got a problem that I need to add to my list?  Want to argue for another possible solution?  I’d love to talk about it!

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

Posted in Frequently Asked Questions | 4 comments

Previous post:
Next post:

  • Adam-Small Groups Pastor in MD

    Right now we are using a “morphed” approach. We have an introduction to Community Group Leadership called “Essentials” first. This is one of the places we intentionally try to surface new leaders. A few weeks after Essentials we have a “Group Launch.” We have done this twice now.
    The first time I had trained leaders in place, and we connected about 35 people, and started 4 groups.
    This last time, I had 2 leaders in place, but we were expecting 40 people. So, as I told them, we initiated Group Launch “Beta”. It was a good thing we did because 50 people showed up. We launched 5 groups, 2 with prepared leaders, 3 groups surfaced their own. So far, all are going strong. Each group lasts 6 weeks and then decides whether or not they want to keep meeting (so there is an on ramp and off ramp). If the groups that self-identified leaders want to meet past the 6 weeks, they then attend Essentials (where they learn the 7 Essentials of CG Leadership), fill out an application and agreement, and then interview with me.
    My current problem is finding enough coaches. :(
    (I’d like to know how NorthPoint finds enough leaders who are prepared in time for GroupLink.)

  • http://profile.typekey.com/markhowell/ Mark Howell

    Good job Adam! I’d suggest watching the difference between the two sets of groups(those with prepared leaders and the three without a prepared leader). Look for differences in how things turn out. In a recent interview we did with Stephen Redden, Director of Community Group Operations at NorthPoint, we were told that they have prepared leaders for about 60% of what they launch. The rest of their leaders are chosen by the group as a result of an 8 session curriculum. Interesting…don’t you think?
    mark

  • http://www.allthingsworkplace.com Steve Roesler

    Mark, here’s a somewhat different approach than the “normal” three.
    We decided that, if someone has a passion and felt call that lends itself to a group, then we make sure that everyone knows about it in this way:
    1. The person says “Hey, I’d like to get a small group together with our focus being______”. (Could be a small group for marrieds of 2. On a given Sunday, the person’s small group idea is announced, he comes up and speaks for 3 minutes or less at all four services, and then is in the Welcome area afterward.
    3. If a critical mass of interested people commit to coming together to get started, it starts.
    The objection: “How do we know this person is a mature leader?”
    The action: Each new group has an elder or known mature leader to come alongside at start-up and walk alongside via coffee, lunch, and other informal mentoring sessions. At some point, the new group leader moves out on his own; or, other options are pursued.
    The big idea: Don’t get in the way of a person with a focused, felt call and the willingness to start a small group. Do provide the level of guidance needed for development and mature leadership.

  • Anonymous

    That’s good Steve! It’s a blend of the old fashioned way and something new. The key to the old fashioned way is that a “leader” is either recruited or volunteers and then is given members somehow. By allowing someone to choose an area of passion and then promote it you’re introducing a new tweak. Not problem-free…but then that’s the point!
    A question might be, “how dependent is the concept on the opportunity to promote the group as a way of engaging members.” If it depends on that, scalability would have to be listed in the problem set.
    Still, I like the openness to a new way!
    mark