McDermott, Brian, S.J.

English

epublications@Marquette

Conversations on Jesuit Higher EducationVolume 47 The Spiritual Exercises as Foundation forJesuit Higher Education Article 7March 2015Discernment in St. Ignatius Loyola: GroupDiscernment: Caring for the Common GoodBrian McDermott S.J.Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversationsRecommended CitationMcDermott, Brian S.J. (2015) "Discernment in St. Ignatius Loyola: Group Discernment: Caring for the Common Good,"Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education: Vol. 47, Article 7.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations/vol47/iss1/7Conversations 13Group discernmentoffers an opportu-nity for teams ofpeople at a col-lege or universityto engage in deci-sion-making witha more unbiasedspirit than mightotherwise bepresent in the process. The spiritualfreedom at the heart of such a dis-cernment offers hope that the deci-sion arrived at will be more richlyframed than otherwise and will bet-ter serve the common good. In addi-tion, discernment allows the partici-pants to partner with God in theprocess, thus deepening theresources for their decision. A major feature that distinguish-es group discernment from ordinarydecision-making is that each mem-ber engages in individual discern-ment at every step of the process.This means that each member isalways asking for the Holy Spirit’sassistance for openness, for freedomfrom bias, and for the grace to findwhat God wants the individual tobring to the table at each stage of thedecision-making. Each member ispraying and striving for a goodmeasure of Ignatian “indifference,”volitional freedom, so as to be ableto hear and do God’s will. In ordi-nary decision-making, the individu-als may seek to become free of bias-es, but they usually advocate for aparticular position without eventhinking about seeking the Spirit’sassistance to do God’s will.The second major differencefrom ordinary decision-making isthat in group discernment all of theparticipating members seek to offerthe very best input they can regard-ing all of the proposed alternatives.In ordinary group decision-making,individuals often have their ownconvictions about the correct way toproceed and seek to convince othersof the rightness of their position. Ingroup discernment, however, theydesire to arrive at the richest possibleframing of the issue(s) facing thegroup and the most robust expres-sion of the cons and pros.The overall decision-makingprocess involves four stages: (1)evaluation (“what is the present stateof affairs, dimension of the problem,seriousness of the crisis, etc.?”); (2)recommendation (“what are alterna-tives we might choose to address thesituation?”); (3) decision (“what willbe done?”); and (4) implementation(“by whom and how will the agreed-upon decision be carried out?”).Evaluation and recommendationshould be distinct from implementa-tion of the decision. The roles of theindividual members need to be clearat each stages. All members need todo their own individual discernmentabout what God wants them to bringto the table during the evaluationand recommendation stages. At theoutset they need to be clear whetherall members will be asked to con-tribute to the implementation stageor only certain designated members.The seat of final decision-mak-ing must also be clear from the start.It can be a person, a subgroup, amajority vote of the discerninggroup, or a person or agency outsidethe group. The decision-maker isresponsible for gathering all theinput from the members, determin-ing the course of action to take, andexplaining the principal reasons forthis course of action. If the decision-maker is a member of the discerninggroup, he or she has to be one voiceamong the many during the evaluation and recommendation.Subsequent to the group discern-ment, the decision-maker will needto do his or her own individual dis-cernment with regard to the actualdecision (“given the discerned inputof the group, what decision doesGod want me to make here andnow?”). The discerned recommenda-tion of the group informs but doesnot determine the final decision.At each step of the processmembers must not seek to answerthe question, “What does God wantthe group to do?” Rather, the ques-tion is always, “What is it that Godwants me to say to the group to con-tribute to its corporate discernment?” Discernment can involve healthyconflict, since God may be asking dif-ferent individuals to bring forward dif-ferent perspectives. The contributionsof genuine individual discernment willnever be contradictory, however,Group Discernment: Caring for the Common GoodBy Brian McDermott, S.J. Discernment in St. Ignatius Loyola15304_mag_m  1/2/15  9:35 AM  Page 131McDermott: Discernment in St. Ignatius Loyola: Group Discernment: Caring forPublished by e-Publications@Marquette, 201514 Conversationsbecause individual discernmentalways bears on how God wants theindividual discerner to act freely in thehere and now. In other words, in thecontext of group discernment, theindividuals involved are always ask-ing: “What insights, reasons, consider-ations does God want me to bring tothe group at this juncture in theprocess?” There must be time forindividual prayer and reflectionbefore each group session; after that,individuals bring the fruit of theirindividual discernment to the group.In considering alternatives thenegative should be considered firstand then, often in a second session,the positive. All must contribute tothe session(s). In the course of thegroup deliberation it may well hap-pen that a contribution from one ormore of the discerners may call for areframing of the question, issue, oralternatives. The point is to developas rich a framing of the issues andalternatives as possible. The discerning group needs toagree ahead of time about how tocome to a conclusion about the rec-ommendation(s) to be made to thefinal decision-maker. And it mustagree at the start of the process toaccept the decision-maker’s decision.The first two stages are consultativein nature. The decision-maker’s dis-cernment, on the other hand, is theexecutive decision. At the end of theprocess the individual membersneed to pray for an open and coop-erative spirit, particularly if the deci-sion went contrary to their desires. Let me offer a brief example ofthe process. A small team of admin-istrators in university humanresources is facing a challenge.Higher-ups have seriously reducedtheir budget for the new fiscal year,and they have to make some toughdecisions about how to allocatetheir reduced funds. They can’t con-tinue to fund all the projects theypreviously underwrote. What proj-ects should be dropped or reducedin size? All the members of the team havetaken workshops at this Jesuit univer-sity on Ignatian values and discern-ment. They agree that they want to bediscerning in their deciding. Not allmembers of the team are believers,but all are willing to relate to Spirit –that is, God or their true self – forassistance in their process.The first thing they do is to meetand pray for the Spirit’s guidance dur-ing the whole process. They ask theSpirit’s guidance at each step, individ-ually and as a group. Then they indi-vidually reflect on the best way toframe the alternatives. Returning tothe full group, they share what theyhave come to individually, listening toeach other very carefully. Then theygo back to reflect and pray over theinput from the whole group, and thenthey return again to the whole groupto share what they sense is the bestframing of the alternatives.A fter lis-tening to each other they are delight-ed to notice that they are in agree-ment that the alternatives are the fol-lowing: (a) to reduce by 25% thenumber of leadership for mission pro-grams for administrative staff at theuniversity; or (b) to reduce by 25% thenumber of leadership for missionworkshops for full-time faculty; or (c)to reduce by about 15% programs forboth constituencies. They reflect andpray about each alternative by bring-ing forward reasons against the alter-native at one meeting and then rea-sons in favor at the following meeting. During the process they are allstruck by the changed atmosphere ofthe decision-making. Three newexperiences they name were: (1) thereseems to be a marked decrease ofpersonal stress; (2) everyone feelsunited in seeking what is best for thedepartment and the university; and (3)all are energized by the common taskof bringing their best thinking to bearon both sides of each alternative. As aresult of this process, many perspec-tives are “put on the table” and thismakes the discussions very rich. At the end they come to a com-mon decision to select alternative “c”:they will reduce the programs offeredto both constituencies each year by15%. The principal reason thatemerged was that it is important eachyear to expose at least some membersof both constituencies to the perspec-tives on leadership for mission. Butanother conclusion they come to, asan offshoot of the process, is to advo-cate to the higher authorities onbehalf of restoring full funding of theprograms, making the strongest possi-ble arguments about how these pro-grams foster the greater good for theuniversity, because they contribute toa shared understanding and advance-ment of the Jesuit identity and mis-sion. The head of the humanresources department agrees toengage in this advocacy, and thedepartment begins the practice –which it hopes will be short-lived – ofreducing the number of programsoffered to the two constituencies.Group discernment is a remark-able process that shifts a group’sdecision-making from being aprocess it carries on its own collec-tive shoulders to a process that it isshared with Spirit, whose resourcesand commitment to the commongood far exceeds the humanresources of the group. Dependenceon God, dependence on the deepestground of our humanity, makes theyoke and burden of making toughdecisions easier and lighter.  ■15304_mag_m  1/2/15  9:35 AM  Page 142Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, Vol. 47, Iss. 1 [2015], Art. 7http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations/vol47/iss1/7

Discernment in St. Ignatius Loyola: Group Discernment: Caring for the Common Good

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1914&amp;context=conversations

Discernment in St. Ignatius Loyola: Group Discernment: Caring for the Common Good

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette