The Quaker Business Method, at least as practised
in my experience in Britain, is – when done right – an inherently
religious method with religious beliefs underpinning it. There can be
some variety in the precise nature of those beliefs, as I explored in
my Quaker
Business Method and Theological Diversity
series, but they have fundamental compatibilities in their
implication for the practice of business method.
Yet Friends have, from
time to time, wondered about the applicability of our methods, with
suitable adjustments, in secular contexts. Small borrowings have been
used successfully, but the method as a whole is difficult to square
with secular expectations or to maintain without that religious
underpinning. Indeed, there are many Friends who utterly reject any
possibility that it could ever work. This is, perhaps, related to the
rejection by some Friends – in my experience the same ones, but I
do not know if that can be generalised – of non-theistic
understandings of business method, even those of “mystical”
non-theists.
The traditional
understanding of Quaker Business Method is seeking the will of God;
liberal Quakers might readily expand this to non-Christian
understandings of God, but it is conceptually more difficult to
expand it to cases where God has no will, or there is no God. Still,
in liberal Meetings with a wide range of theological diversity, we
generally muddle along well enough.
Secular contexts,
though, imply secular methods. A meeting of a secular committee has a
secretary taking minutes, a chair directing proceedings, and takes
votes. Minutes are a record of what happened and what was decided,
but they are more or less complete depending on the directions given
to the secretary. They are, or at least should be, a record that
might be made by any observer watching the conversations and
decisions. People are talking pretty much constantly, except when the
chair asks for ideas (or even worse – volunteers).
A secular general
meeting, a meeting of all members of an organisation, is similar,
except that the chair has more control over who speaks, and there are
more rules as to who can propose what, when – necessary
modifications for dealing with potentially very large numbers. Still,
there is the chair, and the secretary, and the minutes, and
more-or-less arcane rules to deal with voting (votes of large numbers
of people being hard to manage).
I over-generalise,
certainly. Even within that basic framework there are a huge range of
possible variations, and there are secular organisations that use
methods that do not involve voting, or restrict the right of members
to speak at general meetings. Consensus methods are growing in
popularity, though for larger organisations they tend to be some form
of “modified consensus”, a term used to describe decision-making
systems that are based on the idea of consensus but, under certain
defined circumstances, do not require the consent of everyone to make
a decision. However, even consensus can be viewed as voting – just
requiring a supermajority of 100%.
Quaker Business Method,
as one of its defining characteristics, does not involve voting.
Traditionally, if someone cannot associate themselves with a decision
made by a meeting in which they have participated, they may “stand
aside” from the decision (no longer a formal practice in all Yearly
Meetings), but this does not in any way invalidate the decision of
the meeting. Even where it is used, it should not be used to simply
express disagreement or try to convince the meeting as a whole that
it has got it wrong – it is an expression of conscience. The reason
for that might be a strong conviction that the decision is wrong, and
will lead to bad results, but the intention in standing aside is not,
or at least should not be, to change the decision. The meeting as a
whole might decide not to accept the minute offered by the clerk, and
the clerk would not be in right ordering to record it as a minute
were that to happen.
It is certainly true,
however, that there is more to our business method than that. The
clerk discerns the sense of the meeting from ministry, and ministry,
properly given, is not a case of standing up and giving your opinion
on the matter. Ministry in a business meeting, just like a normal
Meeting for Worship, should be spirit-led, not intellect-led. This is
one major reason why we also call business meetings “Meetings for
Worship for Business” (or, elsewhere in the Anglophone Quaker
world, “Meetings for Worship with a Concern for Business”). We
must remember that worshipful attitude and process (however we might
understand the word worship.
We can't ask everyone
in a secular context to agree to use a method that is based on the
idea that we can put ourselves in a receptive frame of mind and be
given direction by some mysterious force, god, spirit, “better
self”, or however we conceive of it. Most people will not be able
to do that. And so we see cases where people have managed to borrow
small elements of our discipline, shorn of its underpinnings, and
make use of them in secular contexts. Sometimes it works. I am aware
of consensus-based groups instituting “speak once” rules inspired
by the convention in Quaker business meetings. I know Quakers who, in
committee meetings away from the Quaker world, have cut through
difficult problems by applying what amounts to secularised worship
sharing, asking everyone to take their time and each person to speak
once about what they consider the most important thing they have to
say about the current problem. Both of these have worked well, by
reports.
Threshing,
in its modern form, could even be seen as bringing secular methods
into the practice of the Religious Society of Friends, suitably
adjusted to fit our way of doing things. In turn, strongly
facilitated meetings in the secular world that attempt to achieve
similar objectives to Quaker threshing have certainly been known to
benefit from bringing in some of the elements and aspects that we
bring to threshing; silence between contributions, respect, and
tolerance are elements we might emphasise, but that anyone might
benefit from in a similar scenario.
But what about the
whole thing? Is there some way to use much more of the Quaker
Business Method without the religious underpinnings?
I'll be frank about one
thing: I've never heard of it being done successfully. For another,
equally frank, I am very sceptical about the possibility. But unlike
some Friends, I do not dismiss it out of hand. When we consider
conceptions of business like that of the strict
materialist, about which I have previously written, we see that
there is no part of this that most people would consider religious. I
could write about conceptions that are even less mystical, and that
approach the secular. In the experience of some Friends I have known,
it is the discipline and process of the business method, rather than
any sort of mystical or subconscious influence, that makes it work. I
may disagree, but I respect that experience.
Might we not consider
that any sort of belief in anything metaphysical or subconscious in
the business method could, possibly, just be an easy way to learn
about and trust the method? I do not mean to say we should adopt this
as a general belief, but recognise it as a reasonable hypothesis.
That belief allows us to be open to unexpected inspiration, to put
our own views aside, to not speak on a whim. It allows our clerks to
bring their whole awareness to being on the question before the
meeting and the ministry it provokes, and to trust that they will be
able to extract from it a sense that they can render in the form of a
minute.
Is it, perhaps,
possible that a person could come to those understandings, those
capabilities, without believing that ministry is anything more than a
carefully considered contribution after thinking about a matter,
digesting it thoroughly, and learning to apply more than just the
analytical mind? Some Friends will consider that idea sacrilege, but
I have enough faith in humanity to think that it might just be
possible.
How someone might
manage it, how any group might apply it, well – that is, I'm
afraid, beyond me at this time. But perhaps some brilliant pioneer,
maybe a Quaker, maybe not, will figure it out, and some part of the
benefit of Quaker methods will spread beyond our Religious Society,
far farther than it has so far. And perhaps, just perhaps, when these
secular groups apply the method and discipline without a theological
underpinning, it will be that they find themselves open to the
Divine, moved by the spirit – even if they never realise it.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.