Gaining internal commitment and sustainability

The behavioral scientist Chris Argyris offers a theory about how to increase the odds of people developing a high level of internal commitment and a feeling of responsibility. The target is to increase the number of vestry members who are acting from internal commitment rather than simply conformity to expectations. When internal commitment is a strong factor the decisions of a vestry are more likely to hold over time and under stress and are likely to be more open to re-examination.  

The theory assumes that this capacity is based on two building blocks.

1.     The more there was a sense of free choice in making the decision the more likely the internal commitment. The process needs to enable that choice to be: based on an exploration of options; voluntary, not from habit or coercion and proactive, not reactive. This capacity for free choice is in turn dependant on information.

2.     The more the information the vestry is working with is valid and useful, the more likely the free choice. This means information that can be publicly verified; that can be tested with a broad range of people; that can be openly gathered and discussed. We are not talking about

Our assumption is that having parish leaders, including the current vestry, make a real choice about its role is likely to result in a high degree of commitment.

Other considerations

There are other considerations that will effect the decision about the role and degree of centralization.

1.     The parish’s culture and character

For example – The parish we both attend in Seattle has a strong value about inclusion and taking into account everyone’s views. It’s a reflection of the broader Seattle culture. There is actually something called “the Seattle Process.” That either means a decision-making process that is thorough, inclusive and involves carefully listening or as one member of city council characterized it, it’s a process that, "It's taken so long and cost so much to get a product that isn't satisfactory to the community."  One of us, Bob,  had a different experience in a Trenton parish in which there was a lot of consultation and participation in shaping overall direction and then the responsible groups and leaders acted with a high degree of self-direction (within the agreed broader direction and vision). This can also be looked at in terms of organizational character. Some parishes are more inclined to dealing with concrete needs, others are more visionary; some are more committed to acting from principles and logic, others are more focused on the impact on people. The functioning of a parish vestry will need to both fit the parish’s culture while also having some capacity to stretch beyond that.

2.     Where the parish is in its life cycle

For example -- In stable and healthy parishes we need to avoid the “centralized” vestry as much as allowing the rector to do it all. It can undermine the sense of responsibility and initiative among people. It also means that the vestry becomes a bottleneck that can kill parish energy. When the parish is in crisis it may make sense for the vestry and rector to function in a more centralized fashion. While it may cause some resentment it also allows for more timely and integrated action in response to the crisis.

3.     Parish size

For example – Some middle-sized parishes still insist on having “liaison” people from the vestry serve on each committee and working group in the parish. It has a certain logical appeal but in practice usually overburdens the people involved and the system. There are other ways of facilitating communication and alignment that take less time and energy and may also increase the sense of responsibility in committees and groups.