Have you every found yourself in a group or in a position where action needs to take place, yet there continues to be debate and discussion that delays action from being taken? I know that I have and find that everyone seems to be polite and inclusive to everyone so that everyone has a voice in the situation. Where this may be the right thing in the interest of the inclusive ideal, this is not always the right thing needed in every situation and there for leads to indecision and potentially missing the opportunity to take action at all.
This indecision is a decision. Let me explain my position. The group has decided that everyone’s voice is more important than actually taking action. The action itself then falls further down the list of priorities and therefor is delayed in the interest of consensus or good will toward others. What is decided is of little to no concurrence as long as everyone has had a chance to weigh in and/or debate. Where this is a grand idea and can lead to an environment where everyone gets along, the action that was needed takes a back seat and in some cases, no seat at all, to the ideal of inclusion.
There have been a number of occasions where I have been in a group of people trying to decide where to go to eat. Each member is asked where they would like to go and inevitably someone in the group objects, for whatever reason, and the debate continues. Meanwhile, there are those that are in the breakfast conversation to fellowship with friends and the place that happens is not important. The debate continues for 15 minutes only to decide on a place that is no longer serving due to the timing we would be able to arrive, and the process begins again. The indecision results in a canceling of the plans due to time constraints that would have been avoided had someone just made the decision to go as opposed to then needed consensus as to where. The reality is that the where was not as important as the why and due to the indecision, the why was not accomplished.
I am not saying that all decisions should just be made and inclusion is not important, it is. What I am saying is that at some point, the decision needs to be made so that we can get on with things and take action as opposed to just talking about action. Jesus was saying this to the people of Laodicea in Revelation.
“15I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” — Revelation 3:15-16 (ESV)
When action is needed, decisions must be made. Standing around debating the decision may work in minor inconsequential situations. When things come after and require additional actions to be taken, those decisions must be made. Sometimes the whole is of more consequence than the part when it comes to decisions. The situations drives the decision making process. It is important to look at the larger picture to understand the whole and decide on the actions that should take place to satisfy the situation’s need as opposed to the decision’s need.
What actions have you seen that were delayed or canceled due to indecision or apathy? Were you one that was more interested in the decision than the situation? What if we reviewed the reason for the decision and decided to take action as opposed to deciding to decide and not taking the action?
Trevor's Thoughts 