I don’t tend to join things.
I do belong to English Heritage (it’s more
proletarian than The National Trust and no prickly tweed
underwear required). We get value out of our membership because as a family we
enjoy clambering over castle walls and crawling into chambered cairns. I belong to the AA, although each year I
wonder whether a much cheaper roadside recovery club would offer a better deal. Despite being a political animal, I have not
belonged to a political party since I was a student – sadly, in making Labour
electable again, Blair’s party moved to the right where it remains, indistinguishable
from the Conservatives and their oh-so-desperate-for-power coalition
partners. And, of course I do belong to my
local church but perhaps that isn’t such a surprise...
It’s just that I have seen rather a lot of membership organisations
from the other side. For a while I was
chair of a national association in the early years field, which included the big
five children’s charities – household names all - as well as hundreds of local
groups. For six years I also had the fun of creating and directing an intermediary body – an
association of member charities – with a constituency of around 600 organisations. So I know a bit about associations, networks
and agencies that exist to support, resource and equip others. Nowadays I only
join things that offer good-value services that will help me to do my job or
enjoy my spare time but, and this is the key, with a strong preference to those
where policy and direction is shaped as much by the members as by the trustees.
In our Baptist world, our regional associations are set to
grow in significance as the central resource at Didcot reduces in size and
influence. How can the experience of intermediary
bodies in the wider world speak to our associations? Here are some early thoughts, offered for
discussion:
1.
In every association, there will be those seeking
reform and those looking simply to fine-tune what has served well in the past. Why
not bring together those pressing for a different future as sounding boards for
possible change? We need to encourage respectful co-operation between change
agents and status-quo seekers to get the best out of both since neither holds a
monopoly on truth.
2.
Significant change
only tends to arise from a compelling vision, a crisis, or both. Recent changes in
our Baptist Union were driven by a financial (and, I would suggest, a
management) crisis. While we cannot
control every aspect of the external environment in which we operate, we really
do not want to be at the mercy of crises.
As we now see from BUGB, when you allow crisis to be
the catalyst for change, you seldom have the resources or the time to bring
about change well. Therefore, a new
vision – inspired by the Holy Spirit, we hope - is the only reliable change
force we have. But the naming of this vision does
not have to be top-down or the preserve of those at the centre.
3.
If you are the one who is recognised as ‘the
leader’ then there is a strong temptation to think that you both need to
generate all possible solutions to the strategic direction of the association
and drive them forwards. I believe that
we do need ‘champions’ for change but these may well be the Mavericks on the
edges, uncomfortable though that may be for those in the centre. Mavericks cannot be contained in committees or by standing orders. President Harry Truman's remarks about J. Edgar Hoover (Google it: too rude for this blog) are apposite here.
4.
So how then to create ways in which others can
re-imagine Baptist associations? A lesson to be learned from the management
world is that successful leaders ‘unfreeze’ the status quo to prepare for strategic change. They create anticipation, like
the music in a film builds tension. So in our
associations, what mood music are we hearing now, building anticipation for a
different future?
5.
Associations will be weak if all the key players
have the same skills mix, e.g. pastors. We need strong teams that are filled with
diverse members who have a commitment to the purpose of the association but are
each capable of bringing different skills and constructively challenging others.
The best short course of all those I have ever been on is the Mennonites’ Bridge Builders
course, which is to do with handling conflict within the church. Their first lesson? Conflict is both inevitable and potentially
healthy. We should expect sparky debate! Encourage everyone to disagree creatively. Well-handled conflict helps build clarity of vision
and plan.
6.
Finally, leaders in associations may need to treat the approbation of those around them with care. As someone once said: the warm sense of
everything going well may sometimes be the body temperature at the centre of the
herd.
