Bandits No More

Continuing my interaction with the book, The Starfish and the Spider, I’d like to see what relevance their discussion of discerning the one from the other might have for the United Methodist church. The authors give these questions to ask when trying to tell spider from starfish:

1. Is there a person in charge? The UMC as a whole has no person in charge. The General Conference, and the General Conference alone is supposed to speak for us. In the Annual Conferences, however, the bishop is in charge, in the District the Superintendent, and in the local church – to some degree – the pastor is seen as being in charge. In each of these cases the actual degree of control varies from setting to setting, partly determined by the nature and history of that setting, partly by the personality and style of the leader. My guess is that more of us like being in charge than ought to, partly because we think something along the lines of “If you want it done right, do it yourself.” We’re take charge kinds of people.

2. Are there headquarters? Each Conference has a headquarters (at least in my experience), and we have various Boards and Agencies that in some ways serve as headquarters for the church. Personally, I feel a gap between Nashville and New York on the one hand, and the local church on the other.

3. If you thump it on the head, will it die?The UMC is not vulnerable to thumping on the head – though it may well have been at some point in Wesley’s day (in the UK) or in Asbury’s day (in the USA). I don’t think our death is coming from the top.

4. Is there a clear division of roles? We have a nearly absolute differentiation between clergy and laity. We have begun to speak in terms of spiritual gifts, but whether that will overcome our strict dichotomy, I don’t know. I have often heard people ask someone whether they have the proper authority to do what they are doing (or proposing to do). This sounds like a spider concern to me.

5. If you take out a unit, is the organization harmed? We have enough units (at this stage) that taking out one won’t harm the organization. We’re in decline, but losing units (churches/members) seems to still be more of an effect than a cause.

6. Are knowledge and power concentrated or distributed? We try to concentrate knowledge in our Seminaries, Boards and Agencies, and power in those Boards, Agencies, and key leaders. We need to do better at giving them away.

7. Is the organization flexible or rigid? We’ve started talking about being flexible, but it’s hard to make the shift. Our Book of Discipline still reads like a mid-20th century bureaucratic manual.

8. Can you count the employees or participants? We act (mistakenly, I believe) like counting all the employees/participants is a good thing.

9. Are working groups funded by the organization or are they self-funded? Funding varies from level to level. Most Boards and Agencies are funded by the organization. Each local church is self-funding. Because of tax laws sub-organizations in the local church often are pressed to be centrally funded.

10. Do working groups communicate directly or through intermediaries? In my (limited) experience most groups communicate through intermediaries. In the current Texas Annual Conference structure, we have so many new groups, and are pushing to do things in new ways, that we don’t know what we’re doing. The downside of that – from what I’ve seen – is that it means we just keep doing what we’ve always done, though with new names and titles pasted on.

We had a stormy day Tuesday, so I took it as an opportunity to read a new leadership book (new to me, anyway), The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Ori Brafman & Rod A. Beckstrom. I found it to be a useful challenge to United Methodist Churches, given our penchant for highly structured command and control organizations – “spiders” in the jargon of Brafman and Beckstrom.

The authors present 8 “Principles of Decentralization” – though I found another in their book that seems particularly relevant. I’ll give their principles below with a brief comment of my own.

“When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized.” This is closely matched with their last principle: “When attacked, centralized organizations tend to become more centralized.” From what I’ve seen, we UMs have a strong tendency to think in terms of bureaucratic solutions. A few years ago some were arguing that we needed a UM “Pope” to straighten things out. While I’ve often thought things needed correction, I think adding a Pope to the mix would be a horrible mistake.

“It’s easy to mistake starfish for spiders.” Superficially, yes. But if you pay any attention to them, or interact with them much, the differences become clear.

“An open system doesn’t have central intelligence; the intelligence is spread throughout the system.” Maybe it’d be better to say something like, “An open system doesn’t have peripheral stupidity.” Trust and shared vision and responsibility are distributed throughout an open system, leading to localized intelligences. There is no central brain that know everything that needs to be known. There is no individual participant who lacks the capacity to make wise decisions to accomplish the mission of the organization in is or her own particular setting.

“Open systems can easily mutate.” Since intelligence is distributed through the system, change happens as needed.

“The decentralized organization sneaks up on you.” The authors make a big deal of how you can cut a starfish in half you get two live starfish instead of one dead one. You think you’re doing away with them when instead you’re helping them. Try that with a spider. Rapid growth and multiplication is therefore possible. Perhaps a factor is that because intelligence is distributed, challenges become occasions not so much for worry, but creativity.

“As industries become decentralized, overall profits decrease.” This is why big business tends to prefer centralization: greater predictability and profitability. Big centralized brains are also expensive to maintain, and costly in terms of resources.

“Put people into an open system and they’ll automatically want to contribute.” Hugely relevant to the church. What would happen if our members began to see themselves not merely as members, but as organs essential to the life and flourishing of the whole body?

“Open systems can’t rely on a police force. On the one hand, there’s freedom to do what you want, but on the other hand you have added responsibility.” The authors don’t identify this as a basic principle, but I do. Churches have too long made the mistake of treating people as if their only responsibility is to give money and do what they’re told. Instead, Jesus invites us all to take up our roles in his ongoing story. He doesn’t make us do the right things, but when we do what is right, things happen that wouldn’t happen apart from our obedience. The life to which he calls us is infinitely more important than mere hoop jumping.