Fausto commented in the comments of the post:
If you have correctly diagnosed the problem, then the "hive-mind" must be even more "stuck" than our local congregations, because for the last 50+ years it has been following its own nose down one self-absorbing rabbit hole after another, rather than leading the congregations in a discernible, realistic, relevant, effective direction.
He has a point.
I don't think that I said that the UU HiveMind, that amorphous collection of UU Staffers, elected leaders, activist lay people, denominational active ministers and other professionals, the formations formally known as Independent Affiliates, caucuses, GA Junkies and social media presences, is always right. I just said that the HiveMind is where change comes from, not the local congregation.
Often, the HiveMind is stuck, too, because it has "rules" for its discourse, unspoken limits to the conversation, such that the HiveMind will tend away from being "realistic, relevant and effective."
One key assumption is that the real legitimate leaders of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations are the lay leaders of the local congregations, who are usually not in the metaphorical room.
Another assumption is that the real power is somewhere else. There's a "they" and a "them" and they hold all the power. They are not you or me and they are certainly not the lay leaders of the local congregation. There is a crisis of legitimacy because legitimate power has been usurped.
Get those two rules and everything makes sense. The legitimate authority is not here and there are hidden insiders also somewhere else who have all the power. We here, the ones talking and conversing, are powerless. We're like people who twitter each other during TV shows; it's fun, but it won't change the plot.
The rules of the HiveMind encourage triangulation and unaccountability. In any discussion, it is OK to speak on behalf of somebody else and to argue that someone you disagree with has no legitimacy. (You're the UUA Staff or a self-appointed GA Junkie, some kind of "insider big shot" not a legitimate leader of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.) It's OK to take a position of permanent, blanket opposition and farm out your proposals to an absent other. (Everything the the UUA has done has been stupid when what they should have done is whatever the local congregations wanted.)
What we need is a serious (but which I mean, non-anxious and constructive) discussion of what we ought to be doing. We need a responsible discussion which assumes that all of us are involved in an important discussion with partners and it matters what we conclude. We need a discussion in which people claim and own their leadership and act like leaders.