The Benefits of Being Decentralized
I recently read The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Rod Beckstrom and Ofi Brafman. While not written from a movement (or even a Christian) perspective, the authors quantify principles that explain what makes decentralized movements healthy and resilient.
Any movement of new disciples and multiplying churches is a work of God. But we can and should seek both best and biblical practices as we pursue those movements.
The main focus of “The Starfish and the Spider” is decentralization versus centralization. Below are some principles of decentralization the authors share throughout the book. (In this post, the authors’ original content is italicized; my thoughts are not.)
When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized.
It’s easy to mistake starfish for spiders. (The authors used a starfish to describe a decentralized organization or system and a spider to describe a centralized one.)
An open system doesn’t have central intelligence; the intelligence is spread throughout the system. Information and knowledge naturally filter in at the edges, closer to where the action is.
Open or decentralized systems can easily mutate.
The decentralized organization sneaks up on you.
As industries become decentralized, overall profits decrease.
Put people into an open system and they’ll automatically want to contribute.
When attacked, centralized organizations tend to become more centralized.
How decentralized is your church?
Below are 10 questions the authors give to determine where an organization or network falls on a centralized/decentralized scale. (If all 10 are yes, then an organization is completely centralized. If all 10 are no, it is completely decentralized.)
Is there a person in charge?
Are there headquarters?
If you thump it on the head, will it die?
Is there a clear division of roles?
If you take out a unit, is the overall organization harmed?
Are the knowledge and power concentrated? (“No” means they are distributed.)
Is the organization rigid? (“No” means it is flexible.)
Can you count the employees or participants?
Are the working groups funded by the organization, or are they self-funding?
Do working groups communicate through intermediaries? (“No” means they communicate directly with each other.)
Let’s take a minute to score some organizations:
The current missions organization I report to: 5 yes, 5 no. Overall, this seems like a pretty good score for a large ministry with workers both stateside and abroad.
My previous organization: 8 yes, 2 no. Some of this was due to the specific focus of its work, and in case you’re wondering, it wasn't the centralized/decentralized aspect that led to me moving on.
My current home church: 8 yes, 2 no. This would be most legacy churches and, in turn, explains why the 2020 pandemic caused such major upheaval for them. From personal experience with several traditional churches during 2020, I saw that the main focus was survival and continuity.
How would you score your organization, church, or network?
The Five Legs of Decentralization
The authors then go on to offer these five legs of decentralization:
Circles. Independent, autonomous but connected circles of like-minded individuals. I would add to the authors’ explanation and say the circles should be filled with practitioners. These could take the form of training groups, coaching circles, residencies, or (best-case scenario) healthy churches, but circles of individuals in ongoing relationships are key.
Catalysts. People who start things, inspire others, lead by example, and connect people into circles. "A catalyst is like the architect of a house: he’s essential to the long-term structural integrity, but he doesn’t move in.” (The authors say the catalyst, but I think it is better to have catalysts upon catalysts). If you find yourself as a catalyst, there’s a delicate balance: You need to lead by example and inspire the troops, but if you stick around too long or make yourself too essential, you’ll inadvertently centralize the work around you.
Ideology. This is probably the most important leg. Decentralized structures need to have a common ideology to hold them together.
The pre-existing network. The authors gave examples in two circumstances (the abolitionist and women’s suffrage movements) of how pre-existing networks helped facilitate the work catalysts were starting. No matter our context, we should look for people who already want to make disciples and reach the lost. There are many people who are hungry but need someone to connect them with each other and the right practices. You can read more about being a Kingdom Connector here.
The Champion. The Champion differs from the catalyst in that they are not usually the starter. Instead, they are the person who won’t stop talking about it. They don’t centralize around themselves, but everywhere they go they are connecting people with the ideology and other circles. I like to think of them as a late-to-the-game catalyst.
The catalyst's tools
The authors offered a gold mine of how we can all act more like catalysts:
A genuine interest in others. We’ve all been on both sides of this: in a conversation where one party is not that interested in who the other person is or what they are about. A catalyst is rarely in this place; they find other people genuinely interesting all the time.
Loose connections. Catalysts are okay with the tension of having hundreds or thousands of loose connections. They still have close friends, but they also see value in the looser connections.
Mapping. Speaking of connections, catalysts naturally map those connections (maybe geographically, but not strictly). They are building connections between people in their minds nearly as an afterthought and then connecting them with other people as a matter of habit.
Desire to help. The authors describe their interaction with catalysts as wondering: Are these people for real? Do they really want to help? Yes, they do.
Passion. “The catalyst provides the drumbeat for a decentralized organization…the role of constant cheerleader."
Meet people where they are. It’s the difference between providing your answers versus helping others ask themselves the right questions.
Emotional Intelligence. They have high emotional intelligence. When we think of movements, a catalyst also needs to know how to give a simple plan for anyone to follow, because not everyone else will have that high emotional intelligence. I think of simple tools like the Sent Ones Disciple-Making Communities that can help any disciple train another disciple.
Trust. Trust the network. A catalyst doesn’t feel the need to micromanage.
Inspiration.
Tolerance for ambiguity. This is the one I struggle with the most. But processing this book has helped me with that.
Hands-Off Approach.
Receding. Catalysts are always passing things on and moving on to new things. If I’m honest, I wish that some of the catalysts I’ve had time with would stick around longer. And on a personal level that’s probably an okay thing to wish. But I really shouldn’t judge someone for moving on before I want them to move on, because there can be more harm done when a catalyst remains too long than when they move on too early.
Remember: The goal isn’t to become someone you’re not. If God didn’t make you to be a catalyst for Jesus, don’t lament that fact; just be the follower of Jesus He created you to be. At the same time, any of us can learn from the above list and act more catalyst-like. And, if you are created as a catalyst, do it for God’s glory to build up the Kingdom.
How to Shut Down Decentralization
Lastly, how can we apply these principles if we would want to stop a decentralized network? Thinking in reverse can help us make sure our organizations, churches, and networks are strong. The authors share these three principles to fight decentralization:
Strategy 1: Change the Ideology.
At the core of any network is an ideology that holds it together. Usually, a catalyst calls people to it, maybe defines or shapes it, but at some level, it is already there. To take down a decentralized group, you need to change their ideology.
If a decentralized network of disciples and churches ever stops being about reaching the lost, making disciples, and reproducing leaders and churches, it will cease to exist. It may exist in name, but the function it currently carries out will be gone.
The reverse side of this is instructive: One of the best ways to keep a decentralized network strong is to keep banging the ideological drum. Vision casting is not just a cute part of the three-thirds meeting model; it’s an essential way to keep the movement on track.
Anyone who has a microphone should podcast, those with a keyboard should blog, and those with a camera should have a YouTube or Instagram channel. We are what we communicate, and to keep a decentralized network strong you need to constantly communicate the biblical principles and vision.
Strategy 2: Centralize Them.
There is a fascinating story of how the Apache Native Americans were eventually conquered. (Note: I completely disagree with conquering indigenous peoples. I’m only interested in the lesson we should learn here.) The leadership of the Apaches had remained mobile, catalytic, and diverse so that no outside group could conquer them for 200 years. That changed when the American Government gave them cows. Yes, cows. They were given a scarce resource, and then the figurative power that they had used to inspire others shifted to a literal power, one which centered around a scarce resource. Once there was a static leader to remove, they were conquered quickly.
One of the best ways to keep a decentralized network strong is to make sure no one single person or organization owns too much of the pie.
Strategy 3: If you can’t beat them, join them.
This is not a worry. If someone wanted to slow down a decentralized network focused on multiplying disciples and churches until the ends of the earth are reached by building their own network that’s doing the same thing… Well, that sounds like a win in my book. Now we have two networks instead of one.
This quote from the book is a great way to end:
"When measuring a decentralized network, it’s better, as the saying goes, to be vaguely right than precisely wrong. What matters more is looking at circles. How active are they? How distributed is the network? Are circles independent? What kind of connections do they have between them? Likewise, when we monitor a starfish organization, we ask questions like: How’s the circle’s health? Do members continue participating? Is the network growing? Is it spreading? Is it mutating? Is it becoming more or less decentralized?”
This post originally appeared on: https://ontheroad.link/blog/how-to-kill-noplaceleft