Concept III

GB Concept III. As a traditional means of creating and maintaining a clearly defined working relationship between the groups, the Conference, the General Service Board and its General Service Office, and of thus ensuring their effective leadership, it is here suggested we endow each of these elements of service with a traditional "Right of Decision"

World Service Long Form III. As a traditional means of creating and maintaining a clearly defined working relation between the groups, the Conference, the A.A. General Service Board and its several service corporations, staffs, committees and executives, and of thus insuring their effective leadership, it is here suggested that we endow each of these elements of world service with a traditional "Right of Decision."

World Service Short Form III. To insure effective leadership, we should endow each element of A.A.—the Conference, the General Service Board and its service corporations, staffs, committees, and executives—with a traditional "Right of Decision."

Application in AA:

Under Concept I, the final responsibility and ultimate authority reside with the groups, which constitute the fellowship
Under Concept II, groups establish a General Service Conference to be the active voice and effective conscience
This means that Conference makes the decisions but is informed by the groups about how to make those decisions
This is an act of delegation
Delegation then continues throughout the structure, from Conference, to the Board, and thence to the Sub-Committees and the service corporations
The Conference is chiefly a decision-making body

Its decisions are at the level of general policy and finance

The remaining structure below Conference comprises active bodies

Their decisions are at the level of implementation

Before the remaining structure is discussed, the Concepts divert into three areas of general application
The first of these is the 'Right of Decision'
The problem that Concept III addresses

Conference is made up of Delegates representing different groups (or groups of groups)
They will therefore carry different views
Unless the Delegates can find a way of achieving consensus, unless the groups happen to have agreed, no decisions can actually be made
The Conference therefore is not merely a voting urn
It is a spiritual entity, like the group, in which the individual consciences are merged into a single conscience
This conscience then engages in discussion, vote, and substantial unanimity to make its decisions
This being the case, the Delegates must have the freedom to think and evolve beyond the views conveyed to them by constituent groups
This is the essence of Right of Decision

Why can't Delegates be informed only by the groups they represent?

AA varies hugely throughout the country
The views provided to a Delegate represent the experience not of the whole fellowship but of the local groups only
The Delegate must make decisions based on the experience of the whole fellowship, as provided by other Delegates
The General Service Board also has input into the decision-making process, in particular with regard to:

Practical aspects of implementation
Financial aspects
Legal aspects
Effects of a decision on other parts of the fellowship or the structure
Etc.

The groups do not, therefore, have all the facts at their disposal
They also do not have personal experience of all layers of the service structure
Conference usually takes place a while after the Delegates are briefed: the situation may have evolved
The Delegates must therefore be informed by:

Groups
Other Delegates
The Board
Other information introduced into Conference
Their own conscience
Changes in circumstance / the evolution of the situation

Delegates may therefore vote against how they were briefed by their groups
They must account to the groups for the decision
The groups must accept that this has happened
The groups may employ any of the four corrective measures, however (see below)

Who are the Delegates serving?

Each Delegate serves the fellowship as a whole
... not just his or her own groups
The former takes precedence over that the latter
This enables a unified group conscience at Conference: everyone is serving the fellowship as a whole

What does the right of decision mean in practice?

Delegates take four types of action:

They act

Which can include onward delegation (Tradition VIII, Tradition IX, Concept VIII)

They consult

... those affected ...
... those with specialist knowledge ...
... the delegators, for more details on the scope of the delegation

They ask for help
They report back

Part of the Right of Decision is the right to determine which of these four actions to take at a given time

Broader application

Right of Decision is enjoyed by any trusted servant
This therefore applies to:

The General Service Board
The members of national sub-committees
The directors of corporations
The employees of corporations
Any other serving members, e.g.:

Public information officers at Intergroup
The tea person at your meeting

The process of delegation:

The delegator determines:

The scope of the delegation

The outcomes to be achieved

... and maybe ...

The actions to be taken
The manner of those actions

The delegate may then act within the scope of this delegation
If a delegator is lax on defining the scope, it cannot easily complain that the delegatee has acted outside of it

If a group delegates to a secretary the task of finding speakers for a meeting but does not stipulate characteristics of those speakers, it cannot easily complain that the speakers are 'inappropriate'
If a group wants speakers for instance to have completed the Steps or be five years' sober, it must say so
'Never make silent demands'

As a delegator, I need to give people the space to do their job without constant scrutiny or micromanagement
I leave people to exercise their right of decision
Provided that a regular reporting regime is established, there will be a time for the delegatee to report back

Being a trusted servant

As a trusted servant, my job is to help the people who gave me the job get the result they want
I cannot unilaterally change the output / outcome
If I want to request an alteration in scope, a reduction in scope, or an expansion in scope, I must ask for it

What happens if something goes wrong?

The delegating authority may:

Censure the delegatee
Redirect the delegatee
Reorganise the committee (if work is delegated to a committee)
Replace individual delegatees

These four levers act as the safeguard against the inappropriate wielding of power
Concept VII provides a further safeguard: the power of the purse

How else could this problem have been solved?

A complex set of rules and regulations

This would have been cumbersome, inflexible, and inadequate to the infinite range of situations arising

No rules at all: each matter being resolved in an ad hoc fashion

This would have given rise to considerable disagreement, with no way of resolving it

Application in other parts of the service structure

Committee members and employees must be given free rein to act
They're constantly present and active and know the 'nuts and bolts' better than the Directors, Trustees, Delegates, and groups
If they're micromanaged and have no 'Right of Decision':

Their actions will not be optimal
The best outcomes will not be achieved
They will be demoralised
They will ultimately rebel or resign

Application in life:

When tasks are delegated to me by the Higher Power, I have Right of Decision
That means I get to think for myself:

'intelligent agents, spearheads of God’s ever advancing Creation' (page 49, Alcoholics Anonymous)
'Under these conditions we can employ our mental faculties with assurance, for after all God gave us brains to use' (page 86, Alcoholics Anonymous)
I am a co-creator
I am not an automaton

Credit and gratitude

God takes the credit
Accept gratitude with grace but always (internally, at least) pass it on to God
Do not take gratitude personally

In any situation, I must decide whether to:

If there is an action, take it
When the ball is in someone else's court, communicate that
Follow up where necessary
Monitor
Assess
Adjust
Loop back

Consult

... anyone affected
... specialists
... trusted advisors
... God

For further guidance from the delegating authority
For help from others
For help from God

Report back to the higher level

To the material world delegators
To the ultimate authority: God
Listen out for a change in policy
Loop back to Act

How to practice Concept III

Delegation takes place

From God directly (through my conscience)
From God through others

I must decide whether to act, consult, ask, or report
If I decide alone, I am really deciding with my ego
So I must ask God instead

'we ask God to direct our thinking, especially asking that it be divorced from self-pity, dishonest or self-seeking motives.' (page 86, Alcoholics Anonymous)
'In meditation, we ask God what we should do about each specific matter. The right answer will come, if we want it.' (page 69, Alcoholics Anonymous)
'We may not be able to determine which course to take. Here we ask God for inspiration, an intuitive thought or a decision. We relax and take it easy. We don’t struggle.' (page 86, Alcoholics Anonymous)
This means that my real action is prayer

The practice of Concept III therefore requires the practice of Steps Three and Eleven

I turn the service over to God
I ask for knowledge of His will for me and the power to carry that out

Any further action simply flows automatically from that prayer

The Right of Decision with defects / addictions

Whilst there is only one option (ego / addiction), there is no right of decision, because a decision requires more than one option to be available
Whilst there is only one option available, I am powerless
Once I have been given a programme, which affords me access to God from day one, I have more than one option
The availability of more than one option requires decision-making
Once there is more than one option, I am given a Right of Decision
This decision is always between:

Falling back into ego and addiction
Seeking knowledge of God's will for me and the power to carry that out

Right of Decision gives me the potential for access to power
Exercising that right by choosing God gives me actual access to power
I move from being powerless to empowered (not powerful: the power flows through me)
When faced with a defect or an addiction:

Recognise I have a problem (Step One)
Recognise there is a solution (Step Two)
Make a decision to seek that solution (Step Three)
Describe the problem: where am I wrong in:

Belief
Thinking
Behaviour? (Step Four)

Disclose the problem (Step Five)
Be willing to surrender the problem to God (Step Six)
Actually surrender the problem to God (Step Seven)
Seek God's guidance & power to solve the problem (Steps Eight–Twelve)
There are three decisions in the process

The decision to engage in the process of solving a problem (unnumbered / Step Zero)
The decision to analyse the problem (Step Three)
The decision to live in the solution (Step Seven)

Respecting others' Right of Decision

This is connected to Tradition IV: letting others plough their own furrow
If you want to drink, that's your business
If you don't want to work the programme, that's your business

First 164

Search This Blog

Concept III