Bullfrogs In Wheelbarrows

One friend of mine likens church leadership to pushing bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow. It is probably not as bad as all that, but Unitarian Universalist churches present some very interesting leadership issues. The culture of our churches frequently reflects at least some of the the following core values:

• Individual autonomy and self direction
• The importance of taking everyone’s view into account
• Curiosity about human thought
• High, but relativistic, moral values
• A commitment to social justice
• Radical egalitarianism

In short, we are typically strong minded individuals who have banded together around a few key values: among them inclusion, justice, and exploration. While this makes for a terrific group of people, it can lead to very interesting organizational challenges. Our autonomy can clash with a need for organization. The importance of taking everyone’s viewpoint in account can result a paralysis in making decisions or decisions that satisfy the lowest common denominator. Our egalitarianism can undermine leadership and result in not deferring to people with knowledge and life experience.

The next few posts use a few key concepts to suggest some useful tools in leading a church in a culture as diverse as ours. Hopefully at the end of this series people will have a few new ways of looking at their role as leaders and have some practical tools to apply to church leadership.

The first concept to introduce is the notion of the chaordic organization. The Wikipedia entry for “chaordic” states:

The portmanteau chaordic refers to a system that blends characteristics of chaos and order. The term was coined by Dee Hock.

The mix of chaos and order is often described as a harmonious existence displaying characteristics of both, with neither chaotic nor ordered behavior dominating. Some hold that nature is largely organized in such a manner; in particular, living organisms and the volutionary process by which they arose are often described as chaordic in nature. The chaordic principles have also been used as guidelines for creating human organizations -- business, nonprofit, government and hybrids -- that would be either hierarchical nor anarchic.

This seems a relatively accurate description of most of our churches – neither hierarchical nor anarchic. Simply having a concept to apply to the type of organization we are in can be helpful. Knowing that we are "choardic" means that we don't have to feel guilty about not having enough structure and not being effective in a linear sort of way. Those types of expect ions go with certain structures and our churches - so long as they are chaordic - will never reflect those characteristics, nor should they. Taking the "ought" out can help us not focus on things we cannot change and focus on strategies that will be effective for our type of organization.

Many living systems live in the band of the chaordic and there is some evidence that these organizations, when functioning well, can be among the most dynamic, healthy and effective. Those organizations that rely on compete control often lack flexibility and adaptability. Those that are ordered tend towards perpetuating institutional values. Those that are completely anarchic tend to fall apart. However, that sweet spot between order and chaos can create a climate of excitement and joy as well as real growth and creativity.

A successful chaordic organization will have the following characteristics.

• It is now powered from the periphery but unified at the core
• It is based on clarity of shared purpose and principles
• It enables and empowers its constituent parts
• It is durable in purpose, but malleable in form and function
• It has distributed power, rights and responsibility
• It should liberate and amplify ingenuity, initiative and judgment
• It is compatible with and fosters diversity, complexity and change; and
• It restrains power and embeds authority in persons vested with accomplishing the tasks.

So how do chaordic organizations mange to move forward in intentional and deliberate ways? What tools are available to leaders to help them break down the complexities of an organization like this and make sense of it? How do stakeholders and constituencies work best together to further the interests of the community as well as meet their own needs? These and other questions will become the topics of he next few posts.

Next in the series. Why Size Matters


© 2007. Matthew W. Wesley. All rights reserved.