As more and more churches embrace the idea of multisite focused growth and vision, it seems that there are two clear camps emerging: one that focuses more on uniform consistency across the board between all locations, and one that allows for more local autonomy and independence in campus decision-making.
While there is certainly no right or wrong way to do this (my church approaches it from the former perspective), it seems that there are a growing number of churches embracing the latter perspective.
I recently heard the saying that, “You can have control or growth, but you can’t have both.”
Regardless of the direction of church vision, either has a tremendous impact on how a tech team would implement systems and practices across the board, and having clarity of vision is vital to determining how and when to provide support moving forward.
I recently heard the saying that, “You can have control or growth, but you can’t have both.” For many of us tech leaders, we probably tend to lean more towards the “control” side of the equation, simply because we may fear the idea of others making ill-informed decisions that lead to problems. If others would just listen to our perspective or follow our lead, we may think, then we could avoid potential issues.
That, then, can become a prevailing thought or tension when it comes to determining multisite vision. Perhaps we may have concerns about how effectively a remote location can manage its own decisions if left to its own devices.
But if the church has a vision to grow, then at some level, we should embrace the idea of letting go of overall control, knowing that by doing so, we may be empowering others to bring new ideas to the table.
If a church is considering the idea of more local autonomy or independence by its campuses, I believe there are three key questions a tech leader should ask during this process.
1-Should there be consistency with equipment?
This is a resourcing question.
When a central team is supporting multiple campuses, having consistent equipment across the board helps tremendously. It’s easier to support remotely, it makes repairs and replacement easier (since a single spare unit could work at multiple locations), and it makes team management easier because volunteers could operate interchangeably among campuses.
However, if the vision is to create more local autonomy, then perhaps it’s OK to have differences in systems across locations. But if that’s the direction of choice, there’s greater emphasis on the local team making effective decisions, since a central support team may not be able to provide support.
Does the local campus team have enough industry knowledge to understand technology trends when it comes to equipment usage and purchasing, or will they simply Google a term, click on the first link, and buy whatever pops up? Are they capable of developing relationships with manufacturers and vendors to get appropriate support when issues arise?
Are there enough financial resources to support the purchase of consumable supplies and replacement equipment?
Do they have enough inherent technical knowledge and skill to handle their own maintenance and troubleshooting without feeling the need to call a central person for support? Are there enough financial resources to support the purchase of consumable supplies and replacement equipment?
If there’s a feeling that leaders at a local campus have access to these kind of resources and can handle decisions effectively on their own, then it could be worth considering allowing them more autonomy when it comes to their equipment and infrastructure.
2-Should there be consistency with programming?
This is a vision question.
For many churches, the driving factor behind consistent campus programming is essentially to protect their brand.
When people show up at any location of that church, the hope is that any attendee at any location would have a similar experience to someone at a completely different site. The worship set feels the same, the atmosphere/experience feels the same, the lobby feels the same, the host moment feels the same, and on and on.
For many churches, the driving factor behind consistent campus programming is essentially to protect their brand.
The unfortunate drawback to this is that some parts of a city or state may require a more customized worship experience to more effectively cater to the people in that area. What works in one place may not work in another.
So, there must be clarity up front regarding how programming will be managed: centrally determined or locally planned and executed.
If a local team will have more say in the flow and feel, this could have a great impact on how technology is used (and what is even purchased to begin with) and may end up driving the need for unique components at one location that wouldn’t be a factor at another venue.
Ultimately, ministry vision is what determines technology response. So, instead of trying to mandate for consistent programming style and technique, as a central leader I should then be open-minded to allowing the local team to speak into what tools they need to best execute their vision.
If they feel that a certain piece of equipment or a certain lighting technique is necessary, then I need to be willing to support that decision, regardless of how it does or doesn’t line up with my personal preference. I need to trust the fact that church leaders have been empowered to make those kind of decisions and then choose to align myself with that process.
And who knows? By allowing a location to introduce something new, I may end up learning something new simply because I was exposed to a different way of doing things.
3-Should there be consistency with team development?
This is a culture question.
It’s common knowledge that teams often take on the personality of their leaders. In essence, the loudest voice they hear, or the closest person providing influence, is who ends up shaping what the team environment looks and feels like. This can be either a good or bad thing.
When local campus leaders are provided the authority to develop their own people, they have the ability to create whatever sense of team culture is necessary to most effectively reach their local community. They can mold and shape the atmosphere to whatever they do or don’t want it to be.
However, the opposite is also true: by choosing to not invest in a team, there’s the unfortunate opportunity for unhealthy culture to develop simply because nothing is being done intentionally to turn the tide in a different direction.
When campuses are expected to operate with autonomy, there is more emphasis on those local leaders carrying the weight for all manner of team development: recruiting and training new team members; building a culture of community and fun; and creating a fun and engaging atmosphere that people desire to be part of.
So, regardless of who is designated as the point person for a local campus tech team, whether a campus pastor, worship leader, or even a volunteer tech leader, there should be an expectation that that particular person is also owning a process of creating health on that tech team.
I’ve seen many situations where non-technical leaders become very hands-off with a technical team simply because they don’t understand the technical side of what the team does. This lack of investment and care can lead to stagnation and unhealthiness because there’s a lack of leadership investment.
And if a campus is expected to provide that sort of touch locally, without there being a centrally managed support system, it’s crucial to do as much as possible to keep a team healthy and vibrant.
Local campus independence can be a great and effective way of doing multisite church, as long as it’s a well-thought-out process filled with intentional decisions.
A ministry cannot function effectively without healthy people to keep it running, and if conscious effort isn’t being put into developing the necessary service teams, it becomes nearly impossible to provide an excellent, consistent worship experience week-in and week-out.
So, this all ultimately becomes a cycle: if there are no healthy people on the team, then there’s nobody to maintain systems and make local technical decisions. And if the systems collapse, then there’s nothing to support the vision of reaching a local community. And if the community isn’t being reached, there’s no influx of new people to come in to keep it all working.
Local campus independence can be a great and effective way of doing multisite church, as long as it’s a well-thought-out process filled with intentional decisions. By letting go of central control, it can be possible for a church to achieve extraordinary growth and develop new ways of achieving its mission of reaching its local community.
