Structure for Permission Giving

The following conversations took place on our Advanced leadership forumYou can subscribe to it by clicking here

A Question from our advanced leadership forum.

"I have not gotten a response back from him yet about your responses to the question. He does ask good questions. He would like to see something in print which we could hand out to the congregation, something like a FAQ sheet, which might alleviate some of the potential concerns that might arise. This is one of the least controlling churches in which I have ever served, so I don't anticipate a great resistance. I just want to concisely and accurately get my ducks in a row without experiencing analysis paralysis (something that, as a certified "Analyst" on the DISCernment assessment, I am prone to do). Being permission giving has been a big leap for me too, but I trust it is a leap of faith that will glorify God."

Response from Bill Easum

Do you have the two articles on the web about "What I Am learning About Permission Giving? You can find them on our website in our archive section of articles that appeared in Net Results.

Also, One of the things that we must guard against is applying a new set of policies or rules on top of a permission giving system or it will be wind up just like the old system. what has to happen is that people have to trust that the leadership system is made up of people who can be trusted. Most of the questions you originally asked are questions that center around trust. The more the system is trusted to work and the longer it works the more people will learn that God's church can be trusted to do what is good. I know this sounds simple, but Trust is the key word in this system. If the leadership is functioning around an organic approach, have a clear sense of mission, vision and values, then like Margaret Wheatly says, organism exist to self organize. You do not have to impose a structure on them, it just happens. Fish swim, birds fly, organic systems work naturally without rules or policies. Like all organic systems, they are messy and the leaders lead around the messy edge of chaos. Or as Tom says, they learn to live with a barely contained chaos. But as they do so, they learn to trust the system. This means that it is more important that the leaders are an extension of the mission, vision, and values than it is how the system works. If they are an extension of them, it will work on trust not policies.

Now you need to hear from Tom on the Prescriptive and Proscriptive aspects of this. That should also help.

From Tom Bandy responding to a member of the advanced forum

Following up on Bill's remarks about the messiness of the servant empowering organization (as I call it in Christian Chaos) ...

The first and primary accountability vehicle is the genetic code which is the clear consensus of core values, beliefs, vision, and mission. One church literally prints T-Shirts for every team leader, worship leader, newcomer, staff, etc. On the front are the top 10 values every member is expected to model in everyday living; on the front are the top 10 beliefs every member will turn to for strength in trouble. They sing the vision every time they worship, and the mission statement (Peter Drucker style) is printed on every park bench outside the building.

Within that framework, people are free to do whatever they want ... but there are a few more "proscriptions" to consider as a secondary vehicle of accountability.

Here is the difference between "prescriptive" thinking and "proscriptive" thinking. The former lists everything you have to do. The latter simply identifies what you may not do. The list of proscriptions may especially apply to the three core management teams (human resources, training, and administration). Note: these three teams can replace most if not all of what you UMC's have as a streamlined council.

Proscription lists need to be very brief, and are customized for every context. Generally, however, you may find some things related to expectations for personal/spiritual growth, safety and confidentiality, basic coordination of activities, and standards of quality. These items further protect the church from litigation issues (since lawyers are the least respectful of "trust" in society). Their design is like the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt NOT...". As long as you don't do anything expressly forbidden, you are free to do whatever you want without asking permission.

My book on Christian Chaos talks about this more.  

Final note: The reason the shift boggles the mind is that this is not mere restructuring. I think much of the recent conversation about the permission giving organization has missed this point. This is really a different philosophy of organization, and therefore a different attitude. Once people get it, the new organizational structure is actually very easy to do. Far easier than traditional bureaucracies and their supposedly streamlined hybrids. But the different philosophy must be discovered. This is hard for European church leaders, since we have had four centuries of bureaucracy and hierarchy embedded into our psyche. The reason you have such stress and confusion in organizational change? Addiction.

Who can coach you? You may find church leaders who can do it, but don't count on it. Look to non-profit CEO's on the cutting edge of the Carver model of management. Look to your own laypeople from business, social service, or health care, many of whom have been moving in this direction of team-based, policy (identity) driven organizations for some time. Look to recent immigrants who remember their church organizations from home, and who were never comfortable our European style bureaucracies anyway.

Another post from the Advanced forum

<< Here is the difference between "prescriptive" thinking and "proscriptive" thinking. The former lists everything you have to do. The latter simply identifies what you may not do. >>

Thanks. I have used both words used before but was not real clear on the difference until I read this.>>

The reason the shift boggles the mind is that this is not mere restructuring. I think much of the recent conversation about the permission giving organization has missed this point. This is really a different philosophy of organization, and therefore a different attitude. >>

My systems analyst member noticed this right away. He had many questions until I began forwarding some of this list's responses to him. He said, "Oh, you're talking about a different philosophy here" and now I think he "gets it" better than I do. But he's a very intelligent Gen X and I have been doing things the same old way for 13 years. Sigh.

Another Post,

Hey, , just to encourage you, this sounds very confusing at first to everyone. A year from now you won't be able to remember why you were ever confused. It gets easier and easier to understand as you live it. A year ago I wasn't sure what Bill was talking about, now it seems like the most natural thing in the world. Just hang in there and trust God and the process.