By Phil Stokes
I’m reflecting on the fact that it is all too easy to make decisions that affect the people around us without letting them in on the process.
What is the process?
- We set our hearts on something.
- We think or fear that it may not be approved.
- We hold our cards close and ruminate on a course of action that can eventually be concealed no longer.
- The decision becomes a reality with corresponding relational shock waves and external implications that reverberate throughout our community.
I always remember a colleague sharing out of the blue his plans to leave London and to emigrate ‘for the purpose of study’. At that time we were jointly leading a church and several projects.
We were sharing as two couples do and he suddenly came out with his plans, stating them as fully formed, not up for discussion, fait accompli.
We asked questions and pointed out various implications, but he was unmoved in his resolve.
This kind of closed-door decision-making is evidence of a relational tear in the foundations of the person concerned.
It reveals an emotional immaturity and a level of insecurity that hamstrings their ability to engage others in the decision making process, for fear that what they want will be censured or judged in some way.
Healthy Relational Systems,
I am calling to mind the recent debacle following the announcement by Gianni Infantino regarding FIFA (his) plan to sell commercial rights linked to the World Cup.
From the perspective of organizational health, you might describe it as:
- A participation deficit
- A consultation deficit
- Governance failure
- Relationally disconnected leadership
- Process bypassing
- Low-trust governance
In healthy relational systems, leaders often have the authority to make decisions, but they deliberately involve those who will carry the consequences. Hidden fait accompli decisions tend to erode trust because people feel they have become objects of decisions rather than participants in discernment.
We are all tempted at times by this form of non relational decision making.
Our hearts want something more than it wants relationship and we bypass healthy communication to achieve our goal. In more extreme cases this resolves into a bullying or fascist expression of leadership, but for the most part and in most cases a person would be shocked to have it pointed out to them and the tendency remains at a low level of self deception.
In my own case I am aware that a sweet tooth has sometime led to concealing certain life choices from my wife. Or that the need for a sense of agency in my leadership has sometime led to a failure to fully consult with colleagues or friends around a particular direction.
For the most part, having been married to a hyper vigilant debriefer for 47 years I feel pretty sensitised to the implications of non relational decision making.
However, the journey of community building will always turn over new stones or hidden fears and so I pray for eyes to see and ears to hear what may be leading me down a non relational decision making pathway.
Love to hear your thoughts about NRDM


Hyper vigilant debriefer! love it 😉 Such good thoughts, Phil!
Perhaps we all have been subject to this non-relational decision making. I know I have. It hurts and feels like a betrayal. Thanks for outlining this, Phil…not so I can re-live the times I’ve suffered, but to ask Holy Spirit where I’ve done this, and whether I still have any mess to clean up.
Collaboration is king.
Just an addendum to my example from the start of the blog – I’m not suggesting my colleague made a bad decision or that he had no right to make it, it was quite likely a good decision. My point was simply that the exclusion of his friends from the process led to more disruption than was necessary.and excluded the possibility of additional wisdom and support that may have been shared with him and more community engagement and enrichment. .in summary; more relational health.