Sunday, Eastside held our annual meeting. So I thought I would share my initial thoughts while they are fresh in my mind.
First, I must tell you that I am interested in group dynamics, people are interesting, but when they are put into group situations something special happens. Each year I am always interested to see the interaction that takes place in the church. This year we had one nominee for the Board of Deacons and three resolutions to the Constitution and By-laws.
When it comes time for the meeting you never know what things will come to the surface, which makes for a little anxiety on my part, but usually is never warranted. I tried something different this year, instead of presenting a whole list of goals for our church this year I gave one “project” for us to focus on in 2009 - RETENTION OF VISITORS to the church. (You’ll be seeing a lot of my thoughts on this in the coming weeks).
But the real fun came when we broke down into groups. Each group was given the following assignment:
1. Choose a leader
2. List 3 things about Eastside that are good.
3. Name one thing about Eastside you would change.
4. Develop a strategy for making the change
The results of this were interesting, not because of the specific responses, but due to each group’s approach to fulfilling the assignment. The point of this exercise was to get real ideas about the perceptions in the congregation. I chose to use groups in order to stay away from individual sensitivities or pet-peeves, hoping that the groups would be forced into consensus responses. So here are my observations.
There were seven groups. Four of the groups followed the directions exactly. Three did not - they came up with multiple answers to number 3 (Name ONE thing about Eastside you would change.) The reason – they could not come to a consensus on one item and/or the leader who wrote down the responses controlled the pen and wrote what he/she wanted. But then added what the others in the group had expressed. Hence the multiple answers.
Almost every group listed the same three for four “good things” – just a note here. Every group said that Eastside was a friendly church. I believe this to be true; however, does any church think they are unfriendly? I point this at because I don’t want to think we have this mastered, there is plenty of room for improvement. (Remember this is our focus for 2009)
Every group had a different change they would make; even the multiple answers were not repeated. Which tells me that all in all Eastside is a healthy church because we don’t have that big obvious flaw that most troubled churches have. Also the things listed were far from being major issue items. (Don’t tell this to the groups, they probably think they are major or they wouldn’t have listed them.)
When it was all said and done, it was really a very productive and yes, an enjoyable experience, can’t wait until next year. (OK, that went too far, didn’t it?)
First, I must tell you that I am interested in group dynamics, people are interesting, but when they are put into group situations something special happens. Each year I am always interested to see the interaction that takes place in the church. This year we had one nominee for the Board of Deacons and three resolutions to the Constitution and By-laws.
When it comes time for the meeting you never know what things will come to the surface, which makes for a little anxiety on my part, but usually is never warranted. I tried something different this year, instead of presenting a whole list of goals for our church this year I gave one “project” for us to focus on in 2009 - RETENTION OF VISITORS to the church. (You’ll be seeing a lot of my thoughts on this in the coming weeks).
But the real fun came when we broke down into groups. Each group was given the following assignment:
1. Choose a leader
2. List 3 things about Eastside that are good.
3. Name one thing about Eastside you would change.
4. Develop a strategy for making the change
The results of this were interesting, not because of the specific responses, but due to each group’s approach to fulfilling the assignment. The point of this exercise was to get real ideas about the perceptions in the congregation. I chose to use groups in order to stay away from individual sensitivities or pet-peeves, hoping that the groups would be forced into consensus responses. So here are my observations.
There were seven groups. Four of the groups followed the directions exactly. Three did not - they came up with multiple answers to number 3 (Name ONE thing about Eastside you would change.) The reason – they could not come to a consensus on one item and/or the leader who wrote down the responses controlled the pen and wrote what he/she wanted. But then added what the others in the group had expressed. Hence the multiple answers.
Almost every group listed the same three for four “good things” – just a note here. Every group said that Eastside was a friendly church. I believe this to be true; however, does any church think they are unfriendly? I point this at because I don’t want to think we have this mastered, there is plenty of room for improvement. (Remember this is our focus for 2009)
Every group had a different change they would make; even the multiple answers were not repeated. Which tells me that all in all Eastside is a healthy church because we don’t have that big obvious flaw that most troubled churches have. Also the things listed were far from being major issue items. (Don’t tell this to the groups, they probably think they are major or they wouldn’t have listed them.)
When it was all said and done, it was really a very productive and yes, an enjoyable experience, can’t wait until next year. (OK, that went too far, didn’t it?)
