Interview: Rev. Jean "Drum" Pagano, Role of the Archdruid and ADF Study Programs

M: Thank you very much for joining me for this interview. I really appreciate your time.

J: You're welcome.

M: Can you describe the role of the Archdruid in ADF?

J: The role of Archdruid (AD) in ADF is several-fold. First of all, the AD is the administrative head of the org. I'm the Chairman of the Board, so to speak. I'm the Chairman of the Mother Grove, which is our Board of Directors. As such, we hold several meetings a year, and I usually run those meetings. I do have the ability to name people to various positions, one of which is the ADF Preceptor, who is in charge of the overall study programs, which is relevant to this discussion, and also the Clergy Council Preceptor, since I am the Head of the Clergy Council. I am also the Spiritual Head of the Organization. I say that with a little bit of caution, I mean I take that very seriously and I do my best with that.

M: You have had a lot of focus on the spiritual health of ADF for quite some time.

J: I've tried.

M: As someone who has known you for quite a while, I have seen that echoed in the work you have done. Thank you for your service in that.

J: No, thank you for saying that.

M: How would you describe the program development process in ADF?

J: Well, that's an interesting question. Much of the program development process was in place when I got here. There was a theory behind the process originally, and I don't know how much detail you want. We started with, as far as clerical studies go, we started with "The Super Druid" program, a monumental program of 17 different categories which were anywhere from counseling to cooking. 

M: Wow, 17. I didn't realize it was that big

J: I think it was 17, and you were able to originally clap out of them if you could demonstrate skill.

M: Like testing out of it?

J: Yes. So, the Super Druid program went away. It was a very difficult process, and there were challenges with the Preceptor. Because at the time, since we didn't really have rigid--I don't want to say rigid standards--we didn't really have formalized processes. It all fell on the Preceptor who got very busy, and I think got behind. And I am characterizing this from distant memory. 

Then, there was the Dedicant Program, which is our entry-level program, that came into being along with the Clergy Training Program and Guild study programs.  The idea behind some of these--there was a design behind them in that as you moved through the Clergy Training Program you were also filling courses in other disciplines. So, if you did courses in the Clergy Training Program, they counted in an equal level in the Liturgists program. To finish the first circle in the Clergy Training Program, you were almost finished with the first circle of the Liturgists Guild program. And this was the case for many of the programs, liturgists program, seers program, naturalists program, where there were four foundational courses in each that, once you accomplished those, the beauty of it was you already had a foothold in the program, and then there were more specialized programs. 

That has changed over time, that kind-of unified structure has since diminished somewhat. What has happened since then is that the development process has focused less on the whole and more on individual needs, the needs of individual training programs. I'll give you a couple of examples.

M: Thank you.

J: In ADF, we have Guilds, Kins, and Special Interest Groups or SIGs. The Guilds were the groups that had training programs. While not all Guilds had them, the intent was that they would. This year, the Norse Kin for the first time has their own study program, which has been approved and is really cool. So, that was developed because there was a perceived need to set up a study program. I don't think we really looked to the greater whole, and said, "How's this going to fit into things?" It's like, "This is off on its own, and we're going to do this program." 

We really are rather decentralized in that, and we give rather broad autonomy to groups that are going to set up study programs. The one requirement is that they are under the auspices of the ADF Preceptor. And the ADF Preceptor also deals with the Council of Lore.

The Council of Lore is made up of two groups. The one group is the Chiefs of the small groups who debate the topics that come up, and the other is the Preceptors of the Guilds who vote. Now, the Preceptor of the Norse Kin, if I understand it correctly, will also have the ability to vote on the Council of Lore, so we are kind of broadening that field. 

So, we also recently started an Initiates Program. Well, the Initiate Program was already in place, but it has been decoupled from the Clergy Council to its own council by an act of the Mother Grove, and they are designing their own [revised] study program that somewhat mirrors the previous program, but has some differences. 

One of the challenges that we have is that there seems to be a desire to take existing courses, and I'll use an example, "Magic 1," which is part of the old Clergy Training Program, that was replaced with "Magic 1 for Priests." So, Magic 1 still exists in the Initiate Program, Magic 1 for Priests exists in the Clergy Program, and now there is talk of Magic 1 in the Initiate Program. I think that the ADF Preceptor would like to see a more unified vision so that we all have the same course but currently, that is something that is being worked on, because we do give autonomy to the groups. We really allow them to do more of what they want to do. 

So, to get back to the original question of which I have gone off on a tangent--

M: No, this is great! Thank you!

J: We really try to have a unified approach to this thing, but currently, it is very much decentralized and decoupled. Whether we are able to return that unified vision is questionable just because I think of the decentralized nature of the study programs. Recently, the Magicians Guild revamped their study program, and it was done without thought to a centralized vision, since there probably isn't a centralized vision, but the way that program was developed was really by a group of officers with minimal input. They developed this and then they presented it to the membership of that group--which is how it is usually done. I'm not saying they did this wrong. I am proposing a third circle for the Naturalist Guild, and I asked the guy who I worked with on the second circle to put this together and present it. So, we try to keep the standards of the training program in mind and for example with the Naturalists Guild, we are going to create Nature Awareness 3, which is a course that doesn't currently exist, but we want to follow the lead of the other ones. So, we try to keep an eye on history and protocol and precedence, but that's not always the case.

M: So, much like the religion itself, the development of study programs is very orthopraxic, and it has to do with modeling a different structure within each one to the best of their ability with certain autonomies for each group.

J: Right. That's actually a very nice way of putting it. It's about the practice. The Magicians are going to do this, the Seers are going to do that, and they may not be the same thing. I think there are still some core programs that are the same. It used to be that when you finished the first circle of the CTP, you had almost finished the first circle of the IP. 

M: At one time, that was also the Generalists Program. 

J: The Generalists Program, right.

There was a beauty there, and that has kind of gotten decoupled, but you know, we evolve and we change. Honestly, and I don't know if the Preceptor would agree with me, but I would rather that we grow more organically in those programs than have to try to fit into a centralized, rigid structure. We are all working for the same good and working toward the same thing.

M: What role do you think the Mother Grove plays in this?

J: The Mother Grove role is when new programs are brought up, they are the ones that say, "Yes, let's do it. We approve of this program." And that is kind of a weird thing, because it's evolved in several different ways. Most recently with the Initiate Program, and I'm pretty sure that the vote on the IP to decouple it from the CTP was unanimous, we said, "Okay, here is an existing program. We are now going to move it out from under the auspices of the Clergy Council, create their own Initiates Council, and they can do their thing." And so the MG says, "Yes." So that was kind of the MG saying we agree that this piece is now on it's own. 

M: And then, once they develop new study program materials, those will then get vetted by the Council of Lore. The Mother Grove approves the body, and the Council of Lore approves the content.

J: That is correct.  The other example is the recent leadership program that was brought the MG four years ago by a couple members who said, "We think there should be a leadership program."` We brought it to the MG and said, "What do you think?" and the MG said, "okay." We basically presented the MG a structure, because this was something brand new, and so the structure was "these" are what the courses are going to be. Then, once those courses were actually built, the MG sent them on to the CoL for approval. So that's where that is. It's actually going to the CoL, and they will vote on it. So, we'll see what happens.

M: I am secretly (and not-quite-so-secretly) very excited about the leadership training program.

J: I am, too. It's really, really hard.

M: Good; leadership is hard.

J: You have to have the DP done. It is not a two-month program; it's a two-year program. I'm anxious to start it, because I was part of the development process. So, I encourage you, if you are interested, to do the work, and maybe become a reviewer, because at first, who's going to do it?

M: *raises hand* Me! I will!

J: Yeah, we'll do it! And then we can review, so that will be helpful for both of us. 

M: I'm very much looking forward to it. I've heard great things about it. I haven't seen any of the drafts, but I think it's a fantastic move in my not-so-humble opinion for the organization as a whole.

J: There were a couple members who really took a leadership role in this. Jeremy Baer, who is currently not with the organization, and Chris W(:. They really did a lot of work up front.

M: So, what other positions are important to developing programs? You already mentioned the Council of Lore. Did you want to expound upon that a little?

J: The CoL are, to use a common parlance, stakeholders in the education process, both the Chiefs of the Guilds and the Preceptors, the head of the subgroup and the preceptor who is in charge of the education. They're instrumental, because they vet the program. They say yes, this is good, this is not good, what about this, what about that....and I'm seen some good things come out of the CoL. I think we have some talented people in there. 

I think that the ADF Preceptor is also an important part of that, because they kind of in a way present the new program. I don't know that I would say they defend the new program, but they present it. I don't think the ADF Preceptor has a stake one way or another in that. I don't think the ADF Preceptor even has a vote on the CoL. 

M: I think they run the elections and serve as more of a facilitator (I'm on the CoL) where they kind of do what you do on the MG. They hold that space for the conversations to happen, make sure it's directed back toward the focus if it drifts, and then run the vote at the end of the discussion. 

J: Right. So they do that. The CoL is the functional group there. Then, underneath that, it's really the subgroups themselves. They're the ones who come up with the ideas, and they are the vehicle for the creation of the program. Whereas the CoL is the deciding body, and the subgroup is the vehicle, it is really the members within the subgroups that are the seed for those ideas. 

I would say that it is never the case, at least in the modern day, that the MG would say, "we need this program, and so we are going to do this." While we could, I think that in the common day, most of it comes externally to the MG. 

M: So, it's very "bottom-up?"

J: It's bottom-up. 

M: The folk who belong to the subgroup decide they want a program and work on creating it, the MG says yes that's fine, and then they send it to the CoL to review the content.

J: Actually, for the Norse Kin, I don't think the MG was involved at all. I think that was totally though the Preceptor and the CoL. And that was something new: first kin with a study program. With all the things we offer, we try to give autonomy to the groups beneath us. 

M: Excellent. What ideas do you have for evaluating these programs? Now that they are in place, what types of things would you like to see or what ideas do you have to help us ensure they are actually meeting the goals they promised?

J: That is a very good question, and something that I have given some thought to. I think that the evaluation process has to be somewhat statistical and somewhat evaluative. I think that it is important to say, from a number-crunching perspective, how many people finish the program. And while that is not the driving force behind it, I think that it's an interesting way of evaluating things, because if you have an old program that you revamp, and the number of people that are created from the changes hasn't changed, then I think that tells us something, and I'm not quite sure what it does tell us. But, I think that's important. I think it's also important for students to review the course and to review their reviewers. We have good reviewers, and we have reviewers that are learning. And I think the way we do that is we evaluate it. What's interesting is that when someone submits something through our tracking mechanism (SPTracker), they have the ability to take a survey. What do you think of the course, does this help your Druidry, does it not? They may or may not be the best questions, and I don't know how much that is looked at. I know that in the past when I've said, "This course was the worst course I've ever taken," that the Preceptor at the time got back to me and asked why. 

M: Oh. I've done that a couple times and no one has contacted me, just for clarity. 

J: Oh, okay. That's too bad, because we should be looking at that. Let me know if that has happened and you haven't gotten a response. Because I...not all of the...our websites have gone through some transitions, and so some of the things don't go where they used to go. So, let me know, because if the website isn't working, we'll fix it. If you're not getting a response and you should be, we'll fix that, too.

M: Thank you. 

J: The course is reviewed as you submit it. It asks if you need more resources or less...

M: And for some of those, the answer is always going to be, yes, because some of those are very broad questions. Like, your exist standard is to research a thing. There are so many different sources you could choose from that there is no way we could list them all. 

J: Right, and I think necessarily the answer has to be yes. I wouldn't expect anyone to do a brain dump in a course without looking externally.

But I think that we have to review the reviewers. And we do that on a non-formalized basis. I do get feedback from people who say, this reviewer is just amazing. Or this reviewer is awful. If we have reviewers that aren't the best, they get less course work than they have.

M: Have we considered providing training to reviewers?

J: We have done some remedial work with some reviewers. We've offered it to them.

M: Oh, good. I must be doing all right then. *laughs*

J: *laughs* I've never heard a complaint about you. 

But I know in some instances we've said, "hey, person A, we looked at these things, and would you be interested in corrected this?" I don't think there is a formalized methodology for that, but I think it's more of an impromptu or ad hoc process for helping people out. Also, if we think people are overworked or having other issues, we try to lessen the workload. It's not like our reviewers are really, really busy, but the way some of them--for example, the CTP, it's very mechanical the way they are assigned. The person who designed it is an engineer, and it is an engineering work. 

M: So, I actually have a, this is kind of a tangential question, and I may or may not include this later, but I am interested in your thoughts on this. This has come up for me as I've been watching some of the changes. We've made some really good changes and some improvements to bring standardization (which I want to applaud you and Carrion for doing that, because that's been desperately needed).  My concern has been that now that the first circle priests aren't really reviewing anything, by the time they finish the second circle, they haven't reviewed anything for a very long time. So I'm wondering if there is some other way to incorporate them? Just as food for thought, to incorporate a reviewing practice for them, because all of a sudden, once they hit second circle, now that have to go back and look at stuff they haven't seen sometimes in two years or longer. 

J: Right. Well, we did that for a couple of reasons.  The old rule was that you couldn’t review something that you haven't completed yourself. 

M: I agree; it is a great rule.

J: And there was a time where the Preceptor and the Chief, or in this case the Archdruid, had to be the reviewers, because it fell to them. In many cases, the Preceptor had a hand in writing those courses, so they were intimately knowledgeable of that. You know, that's a good question, because I know that there is in the scholar's guild some stuff about reviewing. What it is now is that you always review at a level below you or where you are, if you are a third circle priest. So, first circle priest review pre-CTP people. Then, second circle priests review first circle and pre-CTP. You know, maybe we should...what currently happens is that because of the way this mechanism is in place, there is an opportunity for me, as a third circle priest, to review pre-CTP work. Maybe that's not such a good idea. Maybe that's something that should fall to a first circle priest.

M: Just some thoughts. As I was doing my other work, it's one of the things that came up. We have a whole set of people who finished the first circle of the CTP, which is a lot of work. It's a huge accomplishment at the end of which is your first ordination, and then they don't review or do anything unless there is a pre-CTP student coming up OR they've finished the second circle. I personally haven't reviewed a course in probably close to a year. 

J: Wow.

M: You know, and I'm wondering if there is a different way to make sure--it's not because I think we should have more work. If we're going to all of a sudden at second circle require them to review things, and they haven't reviewed anything in over a year, since we don't have reviewer training in place, it might help us more if the people interested in reviewing have other things to do throughout that time. Even if we just say, "hey, it's been six months. I need you to review this course." And send them a pre-reviewed course to do to keep that skillset up for them. 

J: That's what I was going to say. My suggestion was going to be maybe we can go back in the archives and take the names of a course, send it out and say, what do you think? Because I know that when Fox became CC Preceptor, he actually reviewed every course ever submitted. It took weeks to do it.

M: That's why he is the Super Druid. *laughs*

J: *laughs* That's why he's Super Druid, exactly! I mean, he reviewed everything. Not just the current era--everything. So, I like that idea. I like the idea of re-reviewing some courses, and maybe that's something....let me think about that and see how we can manage that, because it would be good to have people say, I re-reviewed this course, and this is what I see and then have a discussion with the Preceptor or somebody. That's a great idea.

M: Thank you. Since I had you in front of me, I wanted to share. I said to myself, "I get to talk to him for a minute!"

J: No, I'm learning, too, and I rely heavily on my CC Preceptor to do some of this stuff, and that's not something we thought about. OR excluding higher-level priests from reviewing introductory/pre-CTP work. Maybe the first circle priests should be the ones reviewing all the pre-CTP work, because really, you've come from it more recently than we have. A lot more recently. So, good idea. Thank you.

M: You're welcome. If you could implement one change, what would it be?

J: Implement one change....

M: This is actually my favorite question. *laughs*

J: Okay, let me think about that for a second.

 (Sue in the background, "And it can't relate to Trump." 

J: It will not relate to Trump, I guarantee you. 

M: If we had that power, we would be having a different conversation right now. 

J: Yes, that's true.)

J: If I could implement one change....I think that Reviewing the Reviewers is really an important thing, and I think that the other thing that would be interesting to talk about, and you brought this point up, is reviewing the resources that we recommend to others. Some of them are out of date.

M: And they were great at the time.

J: Right. But people like you who are involved in academia now have the ability to say, "this is the latest and the greatest."  You know, at one time, we could have said that The White Goddess was a great resource. 

Both: And at the time it was!

J: It was fantastic, but now, it's not so good. It would be nice if we could have....I don't want to say a Board of Regents, have some people who at least say, "look, I've just gone through these books, and I think this is a really good book to add as a resource." 

M: It might be useful to hand that to the CoL as the people who are managing the study programs and have them ask the subgroups for a list of the sources for their study programs, and if there is anything more than 10 years old, send it back to them and ask them to at least look for an updated source. If the one listed is the definitive text, then so be it, but we will know that. Just put this to the people who are running the individual programs to maintain that bottom-up structure and not put it all on one person.

J: I like it. No, I like that idea, so when you send me a copy of this, if that's incorporated in there, then I will definitely have it.

M: *laughs*

J: Because that makes sense to me. So, those are two things. The other thing that I think would be helpful--and this is really not prophecy, but pre-announcement--would be Deputy Preceptors. They would really be helpful for the ADF Preceptor, and we already have that in the DP world. The announcement is on the tip of someone's tongue now. So, we have Deputy Preceptor or Preceptors coming. And they can handle some of the stuff. The reporting process for the ADF Preceptor is pretty large. 

M: Yes, it is quite an undertaking! I've read a lot of the previous reports from many different areas in the course of my studies, and the Preceptor is a very large role.

J: You know, the Preceptor has to wait for all the other reports to come in before they can file theirs, and sometimes when the subgroup Chiefs are late, the Preceptor report says, "I wrote to this person and am still waiting for this report." It's like a 75-piece jigsaw puzzle with only 60 pieces on the board sometimes.

So, I think additional help is important, and those are my three topics. If I had a magic wand, and I could wave it, I would have more people involved in the study programs. I tried in my own way to take those programs myself and finish them so that someone would say, "Oh wow. Someone finished that program. Maybe I can do it, too." Some were more difficult than others. You know, I'm not much of a warrior-type of a guy, and that program has been hard for me. I'm also not a drinker, but I did finish the first circle of the Brewer's Guild program, which was very enlightening. I think it broadens us to do things we haven't done.

M: I agree. It's actually been inspiring for me to watch you finish a lot of these programs and see that you can do it. So, it has been working! I don't know if that's been recognized by other people, but I would imagine there are people like me who have noticed your work and been moved to do more as a result. You're idea to say, "we can do this" has a lot of potential to be useful.

J: Thank you. I try to lead by example. I used to have more time than I do now to finish those programs. It was something I thrived on. I'm kind of a geek, and I would go home and that's what I would do. Study programs. 

M: I did, too, until I started my Masters. 

J: I'm sure! I would like to go back to school, too, but right now, my time is tapped. 

M: We certainly appreciate your gift of time.

J: I have two full-time jobs. One is ADF, and one is work. 

M: Final question: If you could preserve something, what would it be?

J: I'm going to give you two answers. The first answer is the Super Druid program. I would really like to see the Super Druid program become the fourth circle of the clergy training program, because you know what? I think our third circle priests would maybe like something else to do. I would like to take some of those courses. Some of them were monsters. I remember Fox talking about the counseling one where he had to provide pastoral counseling for someone and get counseling himself as part of it. Wow! That's a big one! That's bigger than the cooking requirement. I'd like to preserve the Super Druid program not only as a historical resource, but as a living process for continuing education. 

The organization has changed in terms of education, but I think that as a Capricorn and maybe as a person who has been in the organization for a long time, that there is some value in those older things. That's the first one.

I wish there was a way to get more people into the programs. I want to preserve what we've done so far, and if it would be possible, more resources that say, look, for Missy Ashton or Jean Pagano, here is the work that they did in these programs. We could have excerpts from them on the website. For example, we would have Missy's Magic 1, questions 1, 4, and 7. Because, there are people out there like Kirk Thomas and MJD who have copies of theirs available.

M: Crystal, Robb....

J: Yes. And when I get stuck on a question, I can go and see what they did to help me. 

M: I go to their work often, because I like to look at what sources they used to and then go back to that resource directly. Most of the time, they are books that I already have, and this is useful for me to unlock my writer's block on a question.

J: Exactly. 

M: I actually find it to be a great resource. 

J: I think that is helpful as well. And the idea behind not printing everything is that, I mean I trust our members, but there may be someone who will try to use someone else's work wholesale, and you can't police all of that. 

I think that it would be nice to have. Sometimes, it is not a resource issue. It may be a matter of "what are they asking for here?" I think people have gotten better on the delivering end of asking what the questions mean.

M: General Bardic Studies, genres and styles are the same thing. Actually, no they're not.

J: Exactly! No, it's not the same thing. SO it's hard. I think if we had those resources there...

We are working on revamping the website. That's coming. Hopefully, in our lifetimes. I think it's coming sooner than that, but hopefully, we will organize things a little bit differently.

I think preserving the work that has been done and preserving the programs we've had in the past are important. There are occasionally times when people come to us and say, "I was an ADF member in 1999, and I did my DP and turned it in. Do you still have it?"

M: Wow.

J: And, that would be nice to have. We have a recent example of a former member who said, "I did my DP and my computer crashed and I lost it. Do you have a copy?" I think it would be nice for us to do this and in many cases, we can. But when people are no longer members, I don't know what happens to those documents. I hope we keep them. 

M: Minus the ones we lost in the fire.

J: Yes, exactly. So, those are my hopes. That's my wishlist.

M: Do you have any final statements you would like to speak on?

J: I really appreciate the time to talk about this, because I really don't think about this as a whole very often. I think about the pieces, and usually just the pieces that bubble to the surface. So, you've given me some things to think about today and some things to do. 

M: Thank you.

J: I appreciate that, and your input is always important to me. Thank you for taking the time. 

M: Thank you very much.

J: My pleasure.

-->

Our Programs of Study in ADF

Ar nDraoicht Fein, A Druid Fellowship, Inc. (ADF), provides four distinct avenues for pursuing study in the practice of Druidry. The Dedicant Program is the introductory study program, consisting of analysis of the eight major holidays, three book reviews, a look at grounding and centering practices, and a mental discipline/meditation practicum. Upon completion, the student may enter a variety of additional programs designed for enhanced specialization. The Guild programs focus on specific skillsets: bardic work, brewing, naturalist practices, liturgy, or study of Indo-European beliefs regarding magico-religious and divinatory practices, to name a few. The Generalist Program is a full course of study that encompasses aspects of all of these specializations. Finally, there are two courses of more intense study that includes a dedication to service in the organization: the Initiate Path and the Clergy Training Program. The Initiate work is designed for individuals who wish to be of service without ordination. The Clergy Training results in full ordination and provides the polity necessary to pursue a Masters of Divinity through an accredited university.

ADF is unique in that there are not many neopagan/polytheist training programs based on such sound scholarship and practical materials. The programs themselves were developed as needed by the Elders and Founders of the organization. The current staff of reviewers and mentors is in agreement that we have lost our edge and are in need of updating our resources. Our marketing is minimal to the point of word-of-mouth, as is common in the greater polytheist community. There is stigma, often negative, attached to our practices, and there are many participants who study under a pseudonym.

It is because we are unique that we need the program. Although it is a perceived need, it is one of great import to those who hold it. When the program was being developed, there was nothing like it. Most of the folks who practiced an earth-based religion were in hiding and met under the light of the moon to protect their identities. We have known folks who were fired and even lost their children due to misconceptions and prejudices against non-monotheistic religious identities. Still, our founder, Rev. Isaac Bonewits, decided he was done being in the shadows. When he founded ADF, his sole purpose was to provide safe space for earth-based folks who just wanted a place to pray. The study programs followed almost immediately as folks wished to learn all they could about the various practices of the folks of ancient Indo-Eurpoean tribes.

While the initial programs were developed, there was no real data collection. We are currently in our third version of the Clergy Training program as we have attempted to fill the gaps we discover haphazardly in our training. Mostly, when the folk we serve tell us they need us to do a thing, we figure out how to provide it. It is not the most effective way to build a program, but so far, it has served us. Until now, that is. We have finally reached a point where improvements are needed beyond our ability to simply perceive them. ADF has grown into a complex organization over these 30 years.

As we move forward, we are in desperate need of modifications, but these must be made with care. Full analysis of the program in the words of those we serve as they describe their experiences will not only shine a light on the areas for improvement, but also provide data about what we are doing well. Great care must be paid to ensuring we preserve those parts that are worth preserving and change those things that are no longer serving the folk or the organization.

Stakeholder Roles in Evaluation of the Study Programs

Stakeholders are those with "vested interest" in the focus of the evaluation; they are the individuals who are most likely to be affected by the outcome (Thayer & Fine, 2001, p. 104).  Depending upon the nature of their involvement with the program, various stakeholder groups may have different perspectives on what is important  in terms of areas to address and required feedback. For example, it may be important for the reviewers to know how many students are enrolled and how many have completed the programs, but the local leadership may be far more concerned that the students who complete the coursework are able to fulfill the roles for which the program has trained them.

1. The Students. These folks are currently enrolled and will provide data real-time regarding the struggles and benefits of the program as it exists. The previous students who are now unenrolled may have useful data, but the passage of time has likely clouded the memories of the experience. Further, the students who complete the programs have typically collected additional knowledge, which has the potential to simplify the previous program of study by comparison.

2. The Reviewers. These folks have the unique ability to capture common misconceptions as they appear in the course submissions. For example, if the majority of the students for whom they review are asked to revise the same question, there may be an issue with the wording or the source for this question. Combined with the data from the students, there is the potential for a broader-scope analysis.

3. Dedicated Congregants/Local Leadership. These folks are working with the students as they complete the training and begin doing the work. They will provide data regarding how well they are equipped upon completion and what additional training had to be provided. For example, a first circle liturgist who needs no help running a service would be seen as successful whereas a first circle liturgist who requires additional guidance would reveal areas for improvement.

In terms of the empowerment model, all three groups have the potential to ensure the success of the evaluation through their input for such things as creating questions, analyzing short-answer responses, and assisting with implementing any changes we agree to make.

Thayer, C.E. & Fine, A.H. (2001). Evaluation and outcome measurement in the nonprofit sector: Stakeholder participation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 24:103-108.

Stakeholders of the Study Programs

The three primary stakeholders of the ADF study programs are:

1. The Students: The folks who are actively enrolled and completing the coursework are the direct recipients of the program, and as such, they are the most important stakeholder group. Their role is critical in understanding what the program is and is not providing to them during their learning. For example, as a trainer ritualist, I can write courses regarding cosmology, comparative mythology, and bardic arts in religious ceremonies. For me, these are all useful topics. The students are the ones who will be able to tell me whether or not these courses are in line with their expectations, are written for the appropriate audience (meaning there is not assumed knowledge that they do not possess), and are relevant to the overall objectives of the program.

2. The Reviewers: The Reviewers are the second group of stakeholders and the people who grade the submissions. In order to become a reviewer, one must have completed the program themself. When we propose changes, we must ensure the reviewers are up-to-date with the knowledge they will need to grade the coursework, especially for the courses that are more subjective and do not currently have rubrics. They are also the people who work directly with the students and are therefore the logical choice for exit interviews with each completion to survey the students. I truly believe having survey questions is imperative, since so much of our study programs are done in an online format.

3. Dedicated Congregants/Local Leadership: ADF is a series of local churches known as groves that all fall under the umbrella of the parent organization. The dedicated congregants and local leadership team are the folks most affected by the success of these study programs. Since these programs also serve as our training programs, the quality of religious services is affected by the effectiveness of the coursework. If a course of study on leading temple services does not provide all the skills a person needs to perform this duty, the congregants will suffer the consequences. It would be prudent to ask these folks what it is they want to see in their religious leaders and adjust our programs accordingly. After all, the purpose of all of this is to serve these folks. They need a voice.

Group Dynamics: A Short-Overview

Traditional Models

Hierarchy. In a hierarchy, decision-making is often done from a top-down vantage. Those at the top, the point-person or person(s) in charge, have final say and may or may not take the perspectives of those beneath them into account. This type of decision-making is best suited for on-the-fly and immediate need decisions.

Democracy. A democratic group involves a voting process where the majority rules in terms of decision making. This type of decision-making process is useful when stakes are low and emotions are less likely to flare based on the outcome. High-stakes decisions are better suited for a process that has a built-in mechanism for ensuring buy-in from all parties involved (stakeholders).

Working Together: Building a Group Dynamic

Collaboration is the process through which two or more individuals or parties work together to produce something. Collaboration is teamwork under more cognitive circumstances (higher-level skills work), whereas teamwork is often highly mechanical (hands-on work). (Dictionary Collaboration)

Consensus is a type of decision-making process in which all parties must agree unanimously in order for a decision to be made (Dictionary Consensus).

How do these terms relate to one another? Collaboration is the process of creating something. Consensus is the end-result of a decision. Both are important parts of teamwork, especially when the setting is one in which the input and opinions of all parties are seen as having merit and deserving to be heard.

Different Methods for Group Decision-Making

Consensus Decision-Making and Interest Based Problem Solving. Consensus, when used to reach a decision, gives everyone the ability to say, “I have said all that I have to say and believe all can understand me. I have listened to what others have said and I believe I understand them. I will support the decision of the group though it may not have been my first choice” (Gallicano 378). Consensus Decision Making (CDM) is a strategy that many nonprofit organizations use to work through and manage conflict as well as for routine decisions of operation. Consensus is the opposite of the traditional top-down authoritarian and democratic models common to most organizations. When coupled with collaboration, consensus serves to prevent the undermining of the organizational unity. Even in a democracy, someone wins and someone loses, potentially creating animosity and generating conflict. (Gallicano 370)

Consensus Decision Making specifically coupled with Interest Based Problem Solving (IBPS) provides a template for collaboration. Traditionally, conversations focus on the positions of the individuals involved. IBPS refocuses the conversation on the interests of the group/organization. Instead of each person trying to convince the other that they are correct in their position, IBPS asks all parties to consider this: there may be an alternative to the positions that have been presented. IBPS asks each stakeholder to consider the best-possible outcome, and then the team collaborates to achieve the goal(s) agreed upon in the CDM process. (Gray 3)

Collaborative groups. Collaborative groups are groups of people coming together for a purpose without centralized structures of command and control (Starhawk, 2011, p.2).  Again, to work in collaboration is to work together on a cognitive goal. Teamwork, a term commonly associated with collaboration, refers to the more hands-on, mechanical tasks (“getting a job done”). Working collaboratively in a group is the process of working in unity for a common purpose without any one person above another such as in a hierarchy. Collaboration implies a balancing of power-dynamics, and although there is no defined hierarchy, there is a point-person, or facilitator, whose role is to guide conversation and action plans toward the agreed-upon goal. Long-term collaborative groups function best when the facilitator is rotated to avoid the most common pitfall of group dynamics: social dominance and unspoken power.

The Pitfall

Social Dominance Theory. We often say no one is in charge in our collaborative groups, but when no one is in charge, the person(s) with the most social dominance often ends up unofficially in charge by default when tensions rise. There is typically someone in a group to whom everyone else will defer as an unspoken rule. Dominance Hierarchy arises when members interact aggressively, such as when debating a course of action or defining participation in an event. This results from a collection of accumulated individual interactions and is something that has been a big issue for the pagan community at large.

References

Dictionary.com The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Collaboration. Web.

 - Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. Consensus. Web.

Gallicano, Tiffany Derville. “Internal Conflict Management and Decision Making: A Qualitative Study of a Multi-tiered Grassroots Advocacy Organization.” Journal of Public Relations Research, 25: 368-388. 2013. Print.

Gray, Kelsey, Ph. D. “Interest-Based Problem Solving Process and Techniques.” Washington State University Cooperative Extension. Seattle, WA. 1996. Print.

Starhawk. (2011). The empowerment manual: A guide for collaborative groups. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

A Personal Leadership Statement

Leadership can seem like a nebulous topic, something that you either have or do not have as an innate skill, and despite the myriad volumes of books available, many of them provide little by way of what to do when faced with a challenge. The following is a reflection on my own journey as a leader, what experiences have led to me where I am, and my potential for impact and growth.

I grew up in a small town in Reno, NV. My father was on disability, and my mother worked in a casino in a cash cage to make ends meet. Neither of them went to college, and neither of them held any titles in their employment history. Yet, when their friends needed guidance, they sought the advice of my parents. I remember them sitting down to pots of coffee with friends, laughing and then crying, sorting out the details and making a plan for moving forward. This is my earliest exposure to what it means to be a leader.

As I grew older, I found myself rising to meet the needs of others, just as I had modeled for me. I was also strong academically and excelling at music. When I graduated high school as salutatorian and prepared to move into my dorm room for college, my mother told me how proud she was. I was the first woman in my family to go to college, and no matter where I ended up, I was paving the way for those who came after me. My first tangible leadership lesson was this: lead by example.

During my first attempt at college, I did just that. I attended class, volunteered with the local school system as a tutor, and even got a job as a waitress. I held myself to high standards, and I found that those around me rose to them, as well. I wanted to be the kind of person who brought the best out in others. When I found myself pregnant in my third year of college and lost my scholarship, I was humiliated. I moved back home, but I chose not to tell anyone I was pregnant. I had been keeping things to myself that I worried would tarnish my name, and it wasn’t until I was almost eight months along that I informed my family. Once again, my mother was there with my second leadership lesson: lead with integrity and honesty.

After my first son was born, I put myself through school to finish my Associate’s Degree in Medical Laboratory Technology. Not quite the four-year degree I hoped to obtain, I was still the first woman to go to school and acquire a degree. My second and third child came eighteen months apart from one another, and my youngest son changed the course of my life forever. My Timmy was nonverbal until he was six, and the challenges of raising a son on the spectrum were just our way of life. I remember getting compliments on how strong I was and what a patient mom I was, but for me, there was no choice but to be the strong and patient so my son could have a safe environment in which to learn and grow. We developed our own methods of communicating, and as he learned how to interact with the world without my help, I went back to school to finish my Bachelor’s Degree in Medical Technology. My lesson from Timmy has always been that leading others often involves creating safe space for them to fail. As I embraced this, I even learned to create space for myself to fail, as well.

Now that I am completing a Master’s Degree, the first one in my family for anyone, I look back on those formative lessons and can clearly see how much these experiences changed who I am and how I operate in relationships with others. I would add perseverance and compassion to my list of leadership traits through my careers. Working in pediatrics and eventually being ordained as a minister taught me the value of meeting others with compassion, which means to suffer with, and sticking to the work until we reach our goals. These are the lessons that arise when I hear, “leader.”

When I grow up, I aspire to be a big picture leader. Daniel Goleman (2014) defines big picture leaders as a “rare souls who operate on behalf of society itself rather than a specific political group or business” (p. 59). Though my journey started out about me as an individual, I can do a lot of good in the world for others. My experiences in medicine, in working with children with autism, and in my newest role as a Board Member for PFLAG Boulder County, opportunities abound for me to make a difference in far larger circles than the one drawn around my own little family. I identify as a great leader currently and do my part to address systems that are no longer serving our needs, whether in my department at work, in my role in the community, or in the community at large. Only together can we speak truth to power, and my lessons in leadership have prepared me to create space for others to lend their voices to the fray. We are stronger when everyone has a chance to be heard.

I have read many books on leadership theory, and I do not espouse to any one in particular. The first book that had a major effect on the way I interact with people was not a leadership book, but rather a psychology/self-help book entitled, The Five Love Languages. In his book, Gary Chapman (1995) discusses the different ways we give and receive love in one of five love languages: quality time, acts of service, gifts, words of affirmation, and physical touch (p. 10). Learning to name and express my own needs as well as to decipher the needs of others provided me with a unique foundation as a young adult to start building relationships with a genuine desire for all participants to love and feel loved in return. From this place of mutual respect and vulnerability, we find greater opportunities for growth and accomplishing goals.

Fast forward though years of ethics and pastoral study brings me to Tom Rath and Barry Conchie’s work. In their book, Strengths Based Leadership, I saw the importance of knowing not only how we feel, but also what skill sets we bring to the table as individuals to strengthen us as a team. Focusing on strengths rather than weaknesses builds self-confidence, which reaps a “cumulative advantage that continues to grow over a lifetime” (Rath & Conchie, 2008, p. 16). When we couple the focus on strengths with the best means of communicating this, we build teams that are more effective together than the individuals are alone.

I then came upon Simon Sinek’s golden circle: most folks know what we do and how we do it, but what truly inspires people is telling them WHY (Sinek, 2009, p. 37). Up until this point, I fell into the trap of thinking that being a good leader meant providing sound business policies and procedures and a clean, comfortable work environment. What was lacking was motivation. What was lacking was a way to inspire my team. When I first saw the TED Talk Mr. Sinek gave on the golden circle, I was inspired, and I wanted to bring that to my team. This work greatly improved my ability to communicate with my team and achieve results or implement change at a much faster rate. The simple act of explaining why improved relationships and provided opportunities for folks to thrive by stepping into the work with the knowledge of how they fit into the project before it even began. This was truly a gift to learn.

I also studied Paul Schmitz’s Everyone Leads: Building Leadership from the Community Up. His work is a combination of strengths based leadership and community problem solving that directly involves taking asset inventory from the community members and empowering them to find their own solutions (Schmitz, 2012, p. 138). When we replace “community” with “department,” this work becomes directly relevant to problem solving with the team. This method has made a profound impact on the way we work together as a team, and I would not have been able to implement this without the previous study, which gave me the “why” behind this leadership style.

All of these have paved the way for my preferred leadership style: Mindful Leadership. Mindful Leadership is another simple change in the way we interact with people. When asking busy leaders, movers, and shakers what they would say is the one thing missing from their leadership training, ability to execute goals, and work-life balance, they all answered with one simple concept: space (Marturano, 2014, p. 10). Blending mindfulness practices with leadership presence affords a leader the ability to cultivate focus, clarity, creativity, and compassion in the service of others (Marturano, 2014, p. 11). In studying this leadership style, I finally found the place where compassion fits into leading others.

Janice Marturano (2014) describes what she calls the “purposeful pause” (p. 55). This is recognizing a moment when our attention is not where it should be, stopping for a moment to provide space for this to pass, and bringing out attention back to the present. Staring into space, a quickening of our breath, breath holding, palms sweating, or dozing off, may mark these moments. When we pause to intentionally be present with our bodies and minds, we create the space for what lurks beneath these reactions to surface. Once they are in the forefront, we can address them and ensure we move forward with the best planning in our endeavors.

This mindfulness works in interpersonal dynamics, as well. For example, I have an employee who made several mistakes in a short period of time. When I brought it up to her in a coaching session, she apologized and was ready to go back to work. I noticed her nonverbal communication, she looked at the floor then around the room before answering, as though looking for something else, and I knew there was more. I took advantage of the opportunity to create space for her, and she revealed to me that a man at her gym had died while she was there, dropping over not far from her after what turned out to be an aneurysm. She was having a hard time focusing. Without taking this moment to acknowledge the difficulty of this situation, we would not have been able to address the underlying issue and would have ended up in a disciplinary action process.

Incorporating these styles into my own blended expression of leadership has been effective. I have received feedback from my staff as well as from my peers that I am someone who is approachable and a good listener. I have worked through the tendency of this style to allow others to the advantage of me, and this is my current focus for personal growth. I believe a leader must be one who gives others a reason to follow, and if I fall prey to someone’s ability to manipulate my compassionate nature, I will not inspire those who come after me.

The greatest strength of this combination of styles lies in the ability to work well in a diverse or global environment. Each of us comes to the table with our own strengths and areas for improvement, with our own knowledge and experiences. By creating an environment where those differences are seen as an asset rather than requiring assimilation invokes trust in the team. Here at Kaiser Permanente (KP), we strive to operate as One Laboratory in line with KP’s One KP initiative. We have 32 medical office laboratories (MOLs) that feed into one regional reference lab (RRL). The lab has a long-standing history of the typical us and them mentality, which is difficult to change. I started at KP as a MOL supervisor. After my first year, I was promoted to the manager of the Core Laboratory at RRL. It was not until I changed roles that I understood the vastness of the divide between the two worlds.

As an MOL supervisor, integrating into the culture at RRL was difficult at best. I was grateful for my skills at nonverbal communication I gained in having children on the autism spectrum. I knew the trust was low, so I led discussion with the why’s behind any changes we implemented. I took time to allow them to voice their concerns. I spent time complimenting their strengths as I noticed them and asking for assistance in projects based on their skills as well as areas where I saw opportunities for folks to learn something new. Over time, I have been so proud of our ability to come together as a team. We have a long way to go, but I am confident that we will travel together successfully. My peers and management team above me have noticed the change spreading to the way the RRL staff interacts with the MOL staff, as well.

Taking up the mantle of leadership is often not a conscious decision. Most of us find ourselves taking the lead in a situation without any real knowledge of how we ended up in a position of trust and authority. The study of leadership styles, as Simon Sinek prepared me to understand, is the understanding of the why. We all know what we do and how we do it. Discovering the why provides a wealth of understanding that spreads to those around us. As John C. Maxwell said, "Leadership is not about titles, positions, or flow charts. It is about one life influencing another." When we lead by example with integrity, honesty, perseverance, and compassion, when we take the time to allow others to shine and share their perspectives, we create a space where everyone has the ability to grow and succeed, building a foundation for a team who is only limited by their own imagination.


References

Chapman, G. (1995). The five love languages: The secret to love that lasts. Chicago, IL: Northfield Publishing.

Goleman, D. (2014). Leading for the long future. Leading Organizations: Perspecitves for a New Era. (3rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. p. 56-65.

Marturano, J. (2014). Finding the space to lead: A practical guide to mindful leadership. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

Rath, T. & Conchie, B. (2008) Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why people follow. New York, NY: Gallup Press.

Schmitz, P. (2012). Everyone leads: Building leadership from the community up. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Twelfth Night Charm

On this, the final night of Yule, we celebrate with a Core Order of Ritual, Deity of the Occasion as fitting based on your chosen form of divination. The following charm may either be performed alone just prior to divination or as part of the working of the rite with the divination to be a forecast for the year to come for the collective of folks gathered.

Devotional/Prayer: A Charm of Twelfth Night Blessing and Divination for the Year to Come

For this, light one candle for each line of prayer and then make the offerings when instructed.

With this first flame, we honor our Mothers of Old.
With second flame, our hearth and home.
With flame of three, our land-kin, most fair and free.
With flame of four, men upon our family trees.
Five flames bright, our beloved housewights.
Six flames bright, our Ancestral Guides.
With the seventh flame, the Winter Goddess we hail.
With the eighth flame, the Evergreens prevail.
With flame of nine, our allies be praised.
With flame of ten, to the Gods be our glasses raised.
Eleven flames, bring in the boar.
Twelfth Night’s Flame, completes the lore.
Reflections on the year now past
Inform our paths as we now cast
Our lots to see what the future holds
May our fortunes be foretold!
​
Cast your divination set or take your annual omen per protocol. Once your reading has been made clear, offering a spirit, food, or incense in thanks.

At midnight, take the Yule log outside and throw it on the fire while bringing next year’s log into the home. If you are not using a Yule Log, you may want to carry out the “old year” with the tea lights on a cookie sheet and “bring in the new year” with a fresh set of tea lights.