I liked the points that Dave B made a few days ago in his post “How to Be a Good Troublemaker” It reminded me as a manager I often asked for anonymous feedback from those that report to me. Without that feedback I would have not known about a few blind spots. I have seen many a manager that know 100% they have it all figured out on their own. Their confidence in themselves does help them move forward for a while, but often I have seen that eventually they are tripped up by something. They are not able to understand where they have a weakness. Sometimes they just don’t have all the data and don’t bother asking others to validate their assumptions. You certainly can go wrong in life trying to primarily please others, but you can miss out on a significant amount of growth from feedback.
Dave B commented in his blogpost:
The bottom line for LDS group decisionmaking is: (1) Dissent and sharing of opposing opinions improves group decisionmaking; (2) dissent and opposing opinions are strongly disfavored in most LDS group scenarios, whether local or general; so (3) LDS group decisionmaking could be improved by tolerating more discussion of opposing views.
With this strong cultural pressure against dissent, I feel this is blocking some much needed feedback within the church.
We can see that even the top leaders are getting some “pre-digested” information from the videos released by MormonLeaks. Some of the information is good, and some maybe not as blunt as it needs to be.
I have heard of some limited sampling of members from church headquarters, but it seems to extremely limited. I have heard there was one a few decades ago that led to changes in the temple ceremonies and a few lately on garments.
I have no illusions that being one of the top leaders of the LDS church is very hard. Their schedule alone is something most people would rather not do even when they are young. But traveling around is not the core of leading. Setting the direction of major courses of action within the church can have ramifications for decades is the important leading. I am sure they debate actions substantially before acting (at least when they feel they have the time to delay).
In one of my MBA classes I recall the professor mentioning a study that indicated the maximum average useful life of a CEO was about a decade. The CEO’s effectiveness fell either because they were still focused on the problem that brought them into the position and that is no longer the main issue (and lack of good feedback can perpetuate this), or they often just got bored. At least for the first issue the recommendation was to get avoid only getting information digested by multiple levels of management (yes – there is an intentional pun in there if you think about it). Honest feedback from lower level employees can be a valuable bit of information.
It really wonder if the top leaders really are even able to get this really good type of unfiltered information. Take one example of a very small survey done by David Oslter called “Do leaders understand members who are in a faith crisis?” Sure statisticians can knock it down due to it being a small self-selecting survey. But I suspect it may not be all that off from what a more rigorous survey might find if you are looking at it from a high level.
I will focus on 2 of the graphs from this survey. They show the answers to the survey questions broken down by leader’s responses vs Faith Crisis Member’s responses.
If the top leaders are asking their “direct reports” to poll those below them for information on down the line, this informal survey paints an interesting picture of the feedback they would probably be getting. If for instance there is a formal or even informal request for some feedback on reasons for faith crisis, the leaders are going to be giving a VERY different result to that request for information than those that have gone through a faith crisis.
And I think it is almost not worth mentioning that General Authorities are not normally going to get unpleasant feedback. The first reason Dave B lays out fairly well in that it is very counter to the Mormon culture. I would also add that most leaders that are talking with General Authorities are often trying to portray their best image to the “higher ups”. Anybody in most any organization that is moved up the chain will be socially adept enough to know, even if subconsciously, not to be the bearer of bad news. On top of that general members tend to “worshipy” of General Authorities.
What I have read of those that study millennials is that millennials value other’s opinions more than authority figures when compared with older generations. I think we are already starting to see this cause a rift in the church with the younger members more accepting of LGBTQ+ and less respectful towards those that are not so accepting.
Are there indications that top church leaders do have a clear picture of issues where the rubber meets the road that I am missing?
Wheat & Tares 
Feedback is important because sometimes our limited knowledge keeps us from accepting what the Spirit is trying to tell us. By broadening our knowledge and experiences, we can more readily accept heavenly guidance that points in that direction. It’s kind of like the old story about the man in a flood turning down all these people trying to rescue him because he is waiting for God to save him.
The Spirit may tell us one piece of the puzzle and we’re extrapolating out from that based on our own knowledge, assuming that all of our conclusions are based on revelation and underestimating how much they’re really based on how our experience. It’s as if God gave us the quadratic equation and we think we know what a, b, and c are, but really God expected us to use those around us to figure out what the real values of a, b, and c are. The quadratic equation or revealed truth are still true, but we are led to an incorrect conclusion due to our own limitations.
One thing I didn’t like about the Oslter survey is that many of the responses are probably more similar than the survey shows due to differences in how each group perceived the issue. For example, a disaffected member might say it was the Church’s LGBT policy and view it as independent from their faith or relationships with leaders. Their leader, on the other hand, may view it as the disaffected “being offended” by the Church policy, “conflict with … leaders” on the issue, etc. Another way of looking at it may be that the disaffected tend to focus more on the issue (“the policy sucks”) and the leader tends to focus on the disaffected’s response to the issue (“they didn’t have enough faith”). One side is saying the coins is heads, the other is saying tails, and neither realizes that they’re looking at different sides of the same coin.
One of the areas where the church and members suck about getting feedback is that sometimes “revelation” is received too soon, or is announced as such to others before they’ve had a chance to study it out and respond to it without knowing it was revelation. This short circuits their ability to provide useful feedback and properly examine the issue. Revelation was had. God has spoken. Are you going to be the one to deny that the bishop has actually received the revelation he says he has? Why provide feedback on the wisdom of a certain course of action, if The Answer has already been determined? On occasion, my wife does this and I’m put in a position of either telling her that I doubt her ability to properly interpret what the Spirit is telling her, or just going along with it. To preserve her feelings and the relationship, I go along with it, but I think we are less effective for it.
HH, I’m glad my post got you thinking. I think Church leadership desperately needs to establish additional avenues for honest and candid feedback from the membership. We all know they live in a bubble surrounded by yes men. The only ones who don’t see this are the senior leadership themselves. You know they’re living in a bubble when they publicly deny they’re living in a bubble (Elder Holland did this a couple of years ago).
Of course, candid feedback is not, in itself, going to change anything. I think the leadership is almost always going to see criticism, however positive and however accurate, as unwarranted. Anyone offering honest feedback that isn’t packaged as fawning adulation is going to be marginalized or attacked. The problems go much deeper than simply an absence of feedback and bottom-up communication.
Dave B. Perhaps you meant Elder Ballard: ““I have heard that some people think the Church leaders live in a ‘bubble.’ What they forget is that we are men and women of experience … we live less in a ‘bubble’ than most people. … We have experienced it all, including the consequences of different public laws and policies, disappointments, tragedies, and deaths in our own families. We are not out of touch with your lives” (“Stay in the Boat and Hold On!” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2014, 90).
I have heard of occasions when a stake president gave visiting authorities honest feedback and arranged for them to hear it from others as well. Responses varied.
From B. K. Packer’s infamous Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council: Elder Lee had agreed to give me counsel and some direction. He didn’t say much, nothing really in detail, but what he told me has saved me time and time again. “You must decide now which way you face,” he said. “Either you represent the teachers and students and champion their causes or you represent the Brethren who appointed you. You need to decide now which way you face.”
We all know which way Packer faced. There was no feedback.
Bishop Bill —the same talk relates his proof texting scripture, getting called on it and being grateful for the correction. That was striking to me. His acknowledgement that not all authority was hierarchy.
EDS — “One thing I didn’t like about the Oslter survey is that many of the responses are probably more similar than the survey shows due to differences in how each group perceived the issue”
Very much. Especially “being offended” vs “feeling judged” You hit an excellent point.
Dave B. you are absolutely right. The Church does need better avenues for bottom-up input and participation. Without this, the GAs will be continually ambushed by issues and problems. The Church will continue to struggle with difficult issues.
As an example, the missionary program is currently struggling. Instead of continuing to put patches on the existing system, there is a need for a complete overhaul of the program. Frank input from missionaries past and present is desperately needed.
Another aspect/source of our GAs being out of touch is their history/path to leadership. I would guess that most were put into leadership positions relatively early in their lives. From bishopric, to bishop, to high council, to stake president…etc. Once in such positions their exposure to what is really going on “in the trenches,” and more to the point, getting much honest feedback from fellow members became limited. For example, there was a period in my past where the stake president was in our ward. He would attend HP class about once a month and would become engaged in our sometimes lively discussions (Prop 8, for example) and his most common discussion technique was to simply sidestep mine and others’ points by saying that we just didn’t understand (in other words: we were simply wrong).
But, even more than that lack of meaningful history is their age. As has been written about many times in the blogosphere they are OLD. So their experience “in the trenches” is very dated.
In this age of social media, it would surely be possible to have a feedback chanel for the top leadership. Again though it would be a question of how it is interpreted. If for example they asked how you feel about the policy of exclusion and 75% said no problem, would they realise that 25% are unhappy or just be comfortable with a 75% approval rating? Would they look to see what % of under 30s are approving? Would they be open to explanation from each side? Or would they attribute wrong motives as discussed above. (My reason for thinking the pox is not correct has very little to do with the world and a lot to do with Christlike love).
The church’s system for getting feedback reminds me of something a friend told me.
“When my wants my opinion,” he said, “she’ll tell me what it should be.”
I think the GAs claim they don’t live in a bubble because they spend so much time “out among the people”. A tour of the world, however, does little to broaden your perspective when 80-90% of the time traveling is spent with faithful members fawning on you. GAs should spend more time breaking bread with Sunstone attendees and less time “presiding” at gatherings of the ninety and nine.
They also meet with focus groups all over.
How are the attendees of focus groups selected though? Who selects them? Unless it is somewhat random, there is always going to be a bias toward faithful members. Those chosen reflect upon the person doing the choosing. Especially if it is a SP who is putting forward his ‘flock.’
I have never heard of church focus groups. Where do they occurr? How can a member communicate their concerns to the leadership?
This reminds me of my days serving as a missionary in Washington state. Missionary leaders would put forward some extremely stupid tactics and I would tell them how flawed the idea was, while missionaries would treat them with total adulation. I would go back to my area and proceed to work as directed and those other missionaries would just not follow the directives. I was labeled a kicker and passed over for leadership, while the disobedient missionaries received plenty of leadership opportunities.
THEY DON’T WANT HONEST FEEDBACK!
Most of the GA have spent many years in high leadership positions. My experience as a lifelong member is that little “feedback” is sought at the local level and definitely not forwarded “up the chain.”
I listened to an interesting podcast somewhat related to this topic:
https://whyy.org/episodes/what-is-self-awareness/
One interesting point brought out in the podcast was that people with more power/authority in an organization often have lower (than average) levels of self-awareness, yet when feedback is allowed/sought it is nearly always beneficial.
Several years ago, my bishop called me into his office to give me a new calling. He began to explain that this calling “came from the Lord” through careful prayer and consideration. A few days earlier, I had just signed the closing papers to buy a new house, which was located across town and would put us in a different ward and stake, and I hadn’t yet told anyone at church about it. When I told the bishop that we would be moving out of the ward in few weeks, he was initially surprised, but then quickly replied, “you know, the best sources of inspiration for Church leaders are the members themselves”. He politely withdrew the calling and wished me well.
All church leaders, from bishops on up to the President of the Church, only know what they know, and don’t know what they don’t know. Having channels for feedback is crucial to the health of an organization. Good ideas can come from anywhere, especially from down in the trenches from the people who are most likely to be affected by the leader’s policies and directives.
Lois – I listened to that whyy podcast. It is interesting that it was said that I think 70% of people are not very self aware AND as you go up the ladder in corporations the level of self-awareness actually decreases. People higher up tend to feel more confident of thier own capabilites. Could it be that top leaders do truely feel they are getting better and better at “feeling the spirit”?
ReTx and Geoff, I have received emails direct from church inviting to answer surveys.. The surveys have good questions but they also calibrate your relevance by asking how often you pray and have family home evening, attend church. As nothing has come of it, no focus group invite for me! I presume that it is not an exercise in casting a wide, inclusive net; and why should they? Everyone else, except maybe Muslims and Catholics, are casting ever wider nets.