The one thing that is often missing on governance boards is courage

Having worked with various boards for decades, I have concluded that courage is the most missing element on boards. Without courage, boards do not confront realities that threaten the organization, dysfunctional and toxic cultures, leaders who lead poorly, church bullies who sow division in congregations, and substandard results. 

Rather than courage, boards are more often driven by fear: fear of challenging a leader, fear of calling out toxicity, fear of addressing substandard results, fear of candid conversation, and fear of naming the elephants in the room that everyone knows are present. They also fear losing what they perceive to be a good reputation and fear of conflict. 

When boards ignore apparent issues in the organization they represent, they are often preserving an image rather than solving organizational problems. Think about that. Image control is a higher priority than solving the real issues in the organization. Ultimately, that is about the board members who want to be seen as leading a healthy organization, so their genuine concern is not the organization's health but their own reputation.

In fact, what often happens is that there is a lonely individual on the board who dares to speak candidly. Those individuals are more often than not marginalized and ignored because they are rocking the boat by asking hard questions and speaking candidly.

Here is the thing: Board members usually know these issues exist. They do, But rather than discussing it, they ignore the issues because they are afraid to talk about and deal with them out of fear! Or to preserve the "peace" and avoid conflict. Or, as noted above, try to preserve their own reputation. All of these are selfish and self serving reasons not to address known issues. And self-serving is the exact opposite of what those who govern are to be about, which is the welfare, health, direction, and success of the organization they lead.

In a book by that title, Edwin Friedham calls this phenomenon A Failure of Nerve. He is right, and it is endemic on boards. 

In my many years of working with boards, I have often been called in by a board to address problems they had known were present but had ignored. In many cases, with the help of a third party, they finally dared to deal with long-standing issues. In some cases, even with the help of a third party who pointed out the obvious to them, they still refused to deal with the issue—out of fear! 

In the selection process for board members, it is not enough to have good or smart people. They must also be willing to speak candidly, challenge the status quo, look honestly at what is going on in the organization, and deal with those things that must be dealt with. They need to be people of courage, along with wisdom and discernment.

Here is an exercise that can help your board get to issues that are being ignored. Have them read this article along with the prior two blogs and then ask these questions with the responses written on a whiteboard:

• What issues have we been afraid to talk about?
• What do we know or suspect may not be right in the organization we represent that needs discussion and maybe remedial action?
• What have we been afraid to talk to the organization's leader about?
• What are the fears that have kept us from discussing these issues?
• What process can we agree to that will allow us to speak candidly about the issues we have identified?

You may need to do this in an executive session since these are issues that you have been afraid to talk about in the presence of the organization's leader. 

Do you have the courage to have a simple conversation like this? It could be a step toward a healthier board, healthier board members, and healthier organizations. Are you willing to have that kind of conversation? If not, you should step off the board you serve on.

Leadership coaching, governance/board training, staff/culture audits, change management, conflict management, establishing clarity, creating healthy cultures, leadership, and organizational consulting. tjaddington@gmail.com

When boards ignore the obvious, people get hurt

 

Here is a scenario that I have seen repeated too often. The board of a large church asked me for help regarding conflict between the senior leader and two other leaders who had just been fired, causing an uproar in the congregation.

I discovered that there were at least six staff members who had been fired or left the church on their own accord in the past two years. I asked the board if they (or anyone) had conducted exit interviews, and of course, the answer was no. I interviewed each of these staff members, and the story was a similar account of abuse and bullying by the senior leader. This was not a case of benign neglect of staff but of active belligerence and unkindness toward his reports. 

I asked why the board had not explored these issues, knowing that there was a pattern. They didn't have much to say. Unfortunately this is one of many instances where I have seen boards ignore the obvious because they did not want to wade into unpleasant waters or challenge their leader. 

In their lack of due diligence, they become complicit in the dysfunctional culture created by their leader and the unfortunate pain caused to staff members poorly treated. In this case, when the issues were brought to light with the congregation, the entire board resigned and new board members were elected. 

Boards have responsibilities to guard the culture and health of the organization they represent. When they don't do that in the face of obvious leadership issues, they become complicit. They contribute to the pain of others. And that disfunction spills over into the rest of the organization.

What leaders and board members don't know and why

 

If you are in a leadership position, or a board member I have a question for you. How much do you really know about what is happening in your organization?

Studies show that leaders know far less than they think they do about what is really happening in their organization and that ignorance poses a danger to their leadership. It has been suggested that executives see 4% of the problems, Team Managers see 9% of the problems, Team Leaders see 74% of the problems and staff see 100%of the problems.

Anyone who consults, as I do, understands that this dynamic creates all kinds of issues that are dangerous to the organization. These include disgruntled staff, strategies that are no longer working, leaders who are creating more harm than good, and broken systems that eat up time and energy, and cost. 

Why does this "iceberg of ignorance" exist? Here are some reasons.

First, senior leaders (and board members) don't ask people in the organization the kinds of questions that would provide them with real knowledge. In fact, many in leadership don't ask questions at all. Rather, they assume that because they are in leadership that they understand and know the facts. That is a very dangerous and erroneous assumption. Leaders are often the last to know the actual state of affairs because unless asked, staff will not take the risk of being the bearer of bad news. 

Second, many leaders want to hear what makes them comfortable, not the real issues. Thus, they not only don't ask hard questions but they resist information that they find inconvenient. Staff quickly discern what it is that leaders want to hear and tailor their messages accordingly. It is simple self-preservation.

Peter Drucker is considered a management guru. He knew a ton about what was going on in industry and business. How did he know what he knew? Every morning for many years he would call "line operators" in various businesses and ask probing questions. He didn't call the presidents, vice presidents, or leadership team but those who actually did the work. And then he listened and asked follow up questions. 

One of the most strategic things any leader can do is to invest time, real time, in talking to staff at all levels. And in those conversations, ask good questions, listen carefully, and follow the trails that appear.

Here are some basic questions that will create meaningful dialogue and provide the leader with real information.

• On a scale of one to ten, what is your happiness factor in your work?
• What would make it higher?
• Do you have the necessary tools to do your work well?
• Are you being used to your fullest potential?
• What issues do you see from your vantage point that keep our organization from being as successful as it could be?
• Are there any people you work with who you think is in the wrong position?
• If you could change three things about our culture what would they be and why?
• If you were the president, what would you do differently in our organization?
• How can I and our management support you better?

The only way to truly understand what is going on outside of the rooms and meetings of power is to engage and listen to those who work at different levels of the organization. Never assume that you are getting the straight scoop from senior management. They often don't know because they don't ask the questions. But if you want to lead well, you will!

Ask the questions, listen carefully, and follow the trails and you will learn a great deal about the organization you lead. Ignore that discipline and you will be leading from ignorance. Many leaders do! Don't be one of them!

Best Practice Board Behaviors

 We give each other grace

Boards debate ideas and options and must deal with difficult decisions. Without grace toward one another and each other's viewpoints, conflict can create animosity and relational issues. Grace allows us to wade in and speak truthfully in a context of peace.

We speak the truth as we understand it

Unless we share what is actually on our minds, issues cannot be properly discussed, and options are left unaddressed. Too many board members are unwilling to speak candidly in meetings and end up talking about the issues elsewhere or living with frustration. Grace allows candid dialogue. We are responsible for sharing the truth as we understand it.

We show patience toward one another especially when we disagree

Disagreements are inevitable on a board. In fact, if there was no disagreement, a board would not be necessary. It is in the confluence of opinions, options and ideas that the best decisions are made. But getting to those great ideas requires patience with one another.

We listen carefully

The best board members are those who listen carefully and thoughtfully to others. Wisdom cannot be mined without careful listening and evaluation. The best board members are those who thoughtfully listen. When they speak others tend to listen.

We meet without a personal agenda

Boards exist for the good of the organization and its mission. Decisions are not about us or getting our way. It is what is best for the organization and its mission. Board members who must have their own way hurt the work of the board and often the organization itself.

We take a humble posture

Humility is at the heart of all good leadership. Our leadership is not about us and we do not possess all wisdom. The best leadership comes from humble leaders and board members who believe that the best decisions are corporately made. Humble board members learn at each meeting. Prideful members are simply focused on their own agenda.

We engage in robust dialogue without hidden agendas or personal attacks

Robust dialogue is the coinage of good boards. The ability to speak truth, disagree, talk through issues and even be emotional or passionate about an issue. This is healthy with two caveats: No personal attacks - it is not about people but about the mission; and no hidden agendas but only honest dialogue.

Ensuring that your new church board member will help your board, not hurt your board. Nine questions to consider.

Adding a new member to your board is an opportunity to strengthen the governance to your organization. In many instances, however, it does the opposite because the new member has not been vetted well and they bring their own agendas to the board. This is especially true with church boards.

Here are specific questions you want answers to before you bring a new member on your board.

1. Does the prospective board member meet the Biblical qualifications?
While this may seem obvious, it is not! We overlook issues such as divisiveness, ego, lack of humility and even Biblical knowledge, especially when they are people of influence or wealth. Your board documents ought to specify the Biblical qualifications and any board that does not honestly evaluate a candidate against those qualifications is generally in for trouble down the road. 

2. What do you need on the board at this time to strengthen it?
A board full of type A personalities may well need someone who is more mercy oriented. Alternatively a board of nice Godly people who don't have strategic gifts may well need board members who think strategically. 

There have been too many instances in recent days of board members who have allowed ego driven pastors to do things that have caused shipwreck to the church because they did not have the courage or ability to speak truth and hold others accountable. In many of these cases the senior leader has stacked the board with individuals who will do their bidding rather than serve in a governance role in protecting the church.

3. Is the individual thoughtful and discerning?
Thoughtful individuals may not speak a lot but when they do, they often speak from a place of wisdom and discernment. Thoughtful and discerning individuals see below the surface, can identify the real issues at hand, and take a wholistic view of the ministry. They think before they speak, are able to identify key issues and contribute well to healthy solutions. They also ask the hardest questions which causes the board to think at a deeper level.

4. Do they understand how your board works and the ministry philosophy of the church. Are they in sync with that ministry philosophy? This question assumes that the board has done the hard work of determining the rules of engagement for the board, has a defined way that the board does its work and has that information in writing. The same needs to be true of the ministry philosophy of the church. Where these documents don't exist or are not known by board members chaos and conflict will inevitably take place. 

I have seen boards add people to the board who "represent rival philosophies within a church" so all voices are represented. This is foolish thinking as the board will not be able to work in a unified way. If a prospective board member does not agree with the rules of engagement for your board or are not in sync with the ministry philosophy of the church they will hurt you rather than help you.

5. Have they displayed any tendencies toward a critical spirit or divisiveness in their past?
Past performance is a pretty good indicator of future attitudes or actions. Critical spirits and attitudes will hurt your board while gracious individuals will help you - even when they are asking the hard questions. Those who have any history or being divisive may well do the same on the board which will hurt you badly while those who can unify will help your board. 

6. Are they team players who will wrestle well with issues and humbly submit to decisions of the majority?
Board members who are not team players and who will not submit to the decision of the majority end up holding the board hostage. These are signs that their personal agenda supersedes the united agenda of the board which will divide the board, stall its work, create unnecessary conflict which then needs to be resolved and hinder the work of the group. 

7. Are they financially vested in your ministry at a reasonable level?
Yes, before you bring an individual on the board be sure that they are generous with the church personally. Those who are not financially committed are out of sync with God's mandate of generosity and will likely turn out to be critical board members. No one who is not personally generous should serve in church leadership where they are to model a lifestyle that pleases the Lord of the Church. Ignore this at your own peril.

8. Will they abide by your board covenant that spells out how you interact with one another?
Any board that operates without a board covenant does so at its own peril. Further, if you do you have no objective standards by which to judge the behavior of any board member. You want to know that the new board member understands the expectations of board behavior and agrees to it fully. If you don't have such a covenant, I strongly advise you to develop one today.

9. Do you have any reservations about their being added to the board?
If you do, don't put them on the board until those reservations have been satisfied. Too often we overlook concerns in the name of optimism that all will be well. That is foolish and unwise. If you have reservations you may want to talk with the individual and honestly share your reservations. Only when you are satisfied with their answers should you put them on the board.

I am available to meet with church boards and dialogue with them on the challenges they face and possible solutions. With zoom technology, this can be done easily at low cost to you. If interested, you may contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com.

Four kinds of boards: Which do you have?

Church and non-profit boards can be divided into four kinds according to how they operate. Unfortunately only one of these board modalities is consistent with good board work. If you have served on a board or currently serve on one, consider these four ways that boards operate and whether your board is operating in an optimal way. Here are the four kinds of boards:

The controlling board
Members of controlling boards see their job as "keeping watch" over their leader to ensure that they don't do anything that they would consider improper. All ministry decisions are required to go to the board for their approval. Often these boards, see their jobs as guarding the status quo and ensuring that there is not too much change. Controlling boards believe that they are the real decisions makers which means that their leader and staff are not empowered to make very many decisions. Essentially there must be agreement by the board before anything happens. I will address the deficits of this board modality later. Thousands of church boards are controlling boards.

The passive board
Passive boards see their job as largely to simply give their leader the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for his/her proposals. In many cases, passive boards are led by leaders who have hand picked their board members for their "cooperation" and often these leaders are intimidating, "forces of nature" and not people you want to disagree with. In many ways, the descriptions of the board at Harvest Bible Chapel. According to former board members it was not possible to contradict their leader without repercussions. The same can be said for the recent board Willow Creek Community Church which was unable to hold their leader accountable or disagree with him in a meaningful way.

The management board
This is a board that sees its job as making decisions that staff ought to be making. They get into the details of the day to day management of the church or organization: hiring staff, pay grades, staff deployment, and all kinds of daily management decisions. In this modality of board work, there is significant confusion between the disciplines of management (day to day details) and governance (the mission, vision, direction and values of the organization). Again, a high percentage of church and non-profit boards operate in this mode. In the process they miss the most important part of board work.

While these kinds of boards are common they are also deficient in important ways. First, these three do not focus on the most important board work which is to define the mission, direction, values, and Big Rocks that the organization needs to pay attention to. Good governance answers three questions: Who are we?; Where are we going?; and How are we going to get there? They define the mission, culture, direction and values of the organization and guard these non negotiable pieces of who they are.

Further each of these three board models have a fatal flaw. Controlling boards handcuff leaders by preventing them from moving forward. Passive boards allow leaders to do as they please without accountability. Management boards focus on the wrong thing: managing the day to day instead of the larger and most important issues. Of course, no board would call themselves by these three names but their behaviors do!

The governance board
This is a board that focuses its efforts on governance or the Big Rocks of the organization and leaves the day to day management to the staff. Governance boards focus on the large issues such as culture, mission, direction and values and are always looking at the future and the opportunities that should be anticipated. For churches, the board must ensure that the five responsibilities of leaders are fulfilled, even though they may not do them personally: Ensuring that the congregation is taught; protected; led well; the spiritual passion kept high and people released into meaningful ministry. Rather than deal with individual issues, a governance board makes policy that can cover other situations as well. Governance boards empower leaders within limits that are clearly defined so that leaders are free to lead.

Good governance boards know what they are responsible for and focus on those things. They know what staff are responsible for and release those issues to them. They spend more time focused on the future than on the present, pray often and seek God's agenda rather than their own. They stay within time limits and operate off of a clear agenda.

TJ Addington of Addington Consulting has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com

Creating cultures of organizational excellence

When boards don't know the morale of the staff or choose to ignore it

It is not uncommon for me to deal with situations where the board of a church or non-profit (it happens in the for profit world as well) seem to be ignorant of the moral of the staff in the organization. In many cases I have been called in as a consultant because of low staff morale. When I report to the board my findings either the reaction is one of surprise or embarrassment. Surprise when they had no inkling of the issue and embarrassment when they did but chose to ignore it and hope it would go away.

When this happens it is always unfortunate because the common result is that good people leave the organization disillusioned with the leadership and discouraged with the lack of concern for the staff. Usually, by the time the issue is dealt with, some of the best people are gone.

Why does this happen? First, boards rightly assume that staff issues are the purview of the senior leader so they don't get involved. At one level this is correct. Boards should not be giving direction to staff apart from their senior leader. But at another level this is flawed thinking. If the senior leader were taking the organization in directions that were disadvantageous to the organization, the board would step in. Where there are serious morale issues, those issues are a threat to the organization - if the staff involved are good staff that the organization wants to keep. Healthy boards never ignore threats to the organization.

So how does a board keep a pulse on staff in a church or ministry non-profit. Informally, conversations with staff where the board member is not giving direction but simply listening to how the ministry is doing can be helpful. 

More formally, the board can ask for reports on any trends regarding resignations from the organization. Such reports are consistent with policy governance and certainly can give a board a heads up if there seem to be common issues. 

Third, there are software programs that can measure engagement of staff and general satisfaction with their work. Such programs can be a great help to senior leadership and boards have every right to see the monthly results as well.

If board members believe that there is an issue that needs to be addressed with staff morale it ought to be a topic in executive session and then raised with the senior leader. And there needs to be a way to verify what is true and if there is a plan to deal with morale issues, whether it is successful. While boards need to give their senior leader wide latitude in assessing and solving morale problems they are also ultimately responsible for the health of the organization so cannot ignore the issue. 

I am even more concerned when boards seem totally unaware of serious issues within the staff. What this tells me is that the board has inadequate policies or procedures in place to monitor the health of its most important asset: the staff. If it matters to monitor the financial situation of an organization it matters just as much to monitor the satisfaction of the staff. Both are active indicators of the organization's health.

Policy governance in the church: An Overview

Policy governance, popularized by John Carver is getting increasing attention as a governance method in the church. I have helped many non-profits and larger churches move to a policy governance model. In this blog I will give an overview of policy governance and in subsequent blogs I will lay out the advantages and disadvantages of this governance approach when applied to the local church.

Boards are notoriously poor at doing effective board work. For instance, boards often:

• Rehash decisions endlessly
• Make decisions that others in the organization could make faster and better
• Focus on the small rocks rather than the big rocks
• Are unable to prioritize their work
• Control the leader of the organization rather than releasing him/her
• Routinely get into staff issues
• Do not have defined boundaries between staff and board roles

All of these hinder the organization (in this case the church) from being as effective as it could be and it discourages good leaders both on the board and outside the board. Policy governance is meant to cut through the clutter of poor board work, release the leader within boundaries and create a framework for how the board operates. Here are the basics of policy governance.

The board operates with four sets of policies which cover their work

The first set of policies is called Executive Limitations. These lay out what the senior leader of the organization cannot do without the permission of the board. Anything that is not prohibited in these policies the senior leader can do and he/she is expected to use reasonable interpretation of the policies in making leadership decisions. In the event that the senior leader is out of compliance with any of these policies they must inform the board of their lack of compliance and their plan to get back into compliance.

The second set of policies is called Linkage which is the relationship between the board and the staff of the organization. It is common for boards to get into staff decisions below their senior leader (who presumably everyone reports to). In policy governance there is only one employee of the board and that is the senior leader. Boards are not to get into other staff issues as their linkage to the staff is through the senior executive or pastor. While this policy is often misinterpreted in the church (and can be misused by the senior leader) it clarifies the reporting role of the staff to the senior leader and prevents the board from giving direction to staff apart from the senior leader. 

The third set of policies is called Board Policies which define how the board operates, what the qualifications for board members are, how they make decisions, resolve conflict and all issues related to board work. Since church boards are notorious for not defining many aspects of their work, the Board Policies force the board to define their work. In addition, things like Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles and other key church health commitments are found in the Board Policies.

The fourth set of policies is called Ends Policies, which describe what the goals of the ministry are, or what the board is holding the senior leader accountable for accomplishing. This goes back to the vision and mission of the church and clearly defines the ends that the board is committed to. This is the hardest set of policies to write but one of the most important as churches often cannot define the target that they are working toward. They operate like Charlie Brown who never used a target when using is bow and arrow. When asked why he answered, "Because this way I hit it every time."

The board can change policies at any time

In Policy Governance, the policies are a living document that the board can change at its discretion. For leaders who lead well they may broaden the range of freedom given that leader. For leaders who have challenges in certain areas, they may contract the freedom in those areas. Thus, the board is able to redraw the lines for the senior leader, for itself (Board policies) or its ends as it deems helpful and necessary.

The board governs through policy

Many boards waste inordinate amounts of time dealing with individual situations which may be revisited numerous times. In policy governance the board focuses on general or specific policies so that as like circumstances arise the policy is in place and the board need not again address the issue. This forces the board to focus on the principle behind a policy rather than individual situations. 

Policy Governance forces boards to address and clarify fundamentally important issues in the church, its mission, vision and desired outcomes. It raises the bar for what the board does as well as for the senior leader. It clearly delineates the boundaries between staff and board and who is responsible for what. And it frees senior leaders to lead without board interference in those areas where the board has not placed limitations.

Caveats

I believe that Policy Governance as practiced by non-profits generally need to be modified for church use and I will address this in the near future. I also believe that policy governance can by misused by leaders if not carefully overseen by governing boards. Boards and leaders who do not have a solid grasp of policy governance can do a great deal of harm to a congregation which I will explain in subsequent blogs. Done right it can expedite decisions and ministry effectiveness.

Help your board do self-evaluation of their work with seven evaluative statements

Church boards (and other boards) often forget what good governance looks like. Not because they don't care but because in the press of ministry life they forget. 

A simple way to evaluate your board work is to have everyone on the board assign a number from 1 to 10 for each of the statements below. Ten signifies we do this well and consistently and one signifies we do it poorly or inconsistently. Average out the scores for each statement and have a board conversation around it.

1. We have an outward vision rather than internal preoccupation

Churches with an outward vision do so because their boards are more occupied with thinking how to impact the community and world rather than spending the majority of their time discussing what happens inside the church.

2. We encourage a diversity of viewpoints

Healthy boards do not do "group think" but encourage each member to think for themselves, share their thoughts and through the diversity of viewpoints come to better decisions.

3. We do strategic leadership more than administrative details

Boards are not designed to spend their time on administrative details that others can do. They are designed to provide strategic leadership to the organization and grapple with the BIG rocks.

4. We have a clear distinction between the board and lead pastor roles

A lack of clarity between the responsibilities of a church board and that of a lead pastor creates either confusion or conflict. Clear distinctions between board and lead pastor roles fosters healthy relationships between the two and smoother leadership.

5. We make collective rather than individual decisions

Healthy boards make collective rather than individual decisions. They also have an understanding that once the decision is made each member will be supportive of the decision. No individual can force their will on the board or choose not to support its decisions.

6. We are more future focused than we are present or past focused

The best boards have a clear focus on the future rather than on the past or present. While they may need to deal with current crisis or some administrative details, their primary focus is on the future and how they can help the organization to meet the needs of the future.

7. We are committed to being proactive in our leadership rather than reactive

The vast majority of church boards live in the reactive world - dealing with crisis or day to day issues. The best boards are proactive in their leadership by setting appropriate policy and thinking about the future rather than  doing reactive leadership that is focused on the present and second guessing the decisions of others.

See also, 
Church board self assessment. 15 Questions

Seven personal behaviors for the best board work

We give each other grace

Boards debate ideas and options and must deal with difficult decisions. Without grace toward one another and each other's viewpoints, conflict can create animosity and relational issues. Grace allows us to wade in and speak truthfully in a context of peace.

We speak the truth as we understand it

Unless we share what is actually on our minds, issues cannot be properly discussed, and options are left unaddressed. Too many board members are unwilling to speak candidly in meetings and end up talking about the issues elsewhere or living with frustration. Grace allows candid dialogue. We are responsible for sharing the truth as we understand it.

We show patience toward one another especially when we disagree

Disagreements are inevitable on a board. In fact, if there was no disagreement, a board would not be necessary. It is in the confluence of opinions, options and ideas that the best decisions are made. But getting to those great ideas requires patience with one another.

We listen carefully

The best board members are those who listen carefully and thoughtfully to others. Wisdom cannot be mined without careful listening and evaluation. The best board members are those who thoughtfully listen. When they speak others tend to listen.

We meet without a personal agenda

Boards exist for the good of the organization and its mission. Decisions are not about us or getting our way. It is what is best for the organization and its mission. Board members who must have their own way hurt the work of the board and often the organization itself.

We take a humble posture

Humility is at the heart of all good leadership. Our leadership is not about us and we do not possess all wisdom. The best leadership comes from humble leaders and board members who believe that the best decisions are corporately made. Humble board members learn at each meeting. Prideful members are simply focused on their own agenda.

We engage in robust dialogue without hidden agendas or personal attacks

Robust dialogue is the coinage of good boards. The ability to speak truth, disagree, talk through issues and even be emotional or passionate about an issue. This is healthy with two caveats: No personal attacks - it is not about people but about the mission; and no hidden agendas but only honest dialogue.

Why boards need to change as an organization grows

Boards, especially in the non-profit world are not static entities. Unless they grow along with the growth of the non-profit they represent they will eventually stall out the effectiveness of that organization.

Consider, for instance five identifiable kinds of non-profit boards.

1. The Board of Friends and Relatives. Organizations start with the vision of an entrepreneur who has a vision to change something that needs changing.  There is nothing more natural than to find a group of friends and ask them to help you by serving as your board. The upside is that you have some advocates who will help you get the organization started. The downside is that they are friends and will not easily challenge the leader as the organization grows. Friends rarely challenge friends and certainly easily acquiesce to them. Thus while the board of friends and relatives may be appropriate for a season, it is only a season.

2. The Perpetual Board. These are boards that have no real mechanism for adding or subtracting board members and they serve in perpetuity. I have worked with these boards and they can be characterized as ingrown, a determination to hang on to power and control the staff of the organization, are resistant to change and are often led by a strong individual - perhaps the individual who had the original vision for the organization's mission. That individual often controls the board that controls the organization. There is not much upside to Perpetual Boards as they remain locked in the past while the organization needs to move forward.

3. The Controlling Board. These are boards that feel that nothing can take place in the organization without their blessing. Many church boards function this way. Rather than empowering the leaders of the organization, they essentially hold them hostage by requiring that they receive permission for anything they do. In addition, they often get involved in the affairs of the staff when in fact, staff should report not to a board but to the leader of the organization who reports to the board. Controlling boards do not understand the role of a board and the role of staff and will keep the organization from becoming all that it can become. In my view, there is no upside to a Controlling Board.

4. The Protective Board. These boards believe that it is their job to protect their leader at all costs. In the church it is why arrogant leaders get away with their behavior when the rest of the world knows something is not right. Boards are not there to simply protect the leader but the organization.

5. The Healthy Board. These are boards that empower leaders within boundaries while holding them accountable, are clear about the mission and its results, encourage robust debate and dialogue and ensure the health of the organization. This is a very different kind of board than the first four boards and unless boards move in this direction they will hinder the capacity and opportunity of the organization. 

All boards exist on a continuum between dysfunction and maturity. Healthy boards regularly access where they are and have an annual plan to up their game and governance. This starts with regular self analysis and even hiring a coach when necessary to move to the next level of maturity. Healthy boards lead healthy organizations whereas dysfunctional boards contribute to dysfunctional organizations.

Five simple principles for governance in churches and non-profits

Governance systems in churches and non-profits are often antiquated, discouraging, and massively complicated. The result is that it is hard to make decisions, know who is responsible, ensure results, and create accountability. The result is that the return on mission is significantly compromised.

There are five simple principles that should apply to any governance system. You can also measure your own governance against these five principles and determine if there is reason to rethink how you do governance. Often, systems that work in one season do not work in another.

Keep it simple

There has been a tendency to make governance systems complicated because we are afraid that someone will make a poor decision. The real result is that you have to make decisions more than once, with multiple parties making for a complicated and time-consuming process.

Keeping it simple means that:

• There is only one board
• Decisions do not need to be made by multiple groups
• The decision-making path is clear and understood
• Decisions can be made in a reasonable time

Keep it clear

Clarity means that everyone knows who is responsible for what, that there is no overlap or ambiguity in responsibilities, and that individuals and groups know their responsibilities and the limits to those responsibilities. Clarity is particularly important between those things that are delegated to a senior pastor staff as opposed to areas that are the responsibility of the leadership board. When that clarity is not present, there is confusion at best and conflict at worst. In congregational government, the congregation often signs off on items such as the sale and purchase of property, changes to the by-laws, the calling of a senior pastor, election of the leadership board the annual budget. Again, there should be clarity on what goes to the congregation and what does not.

Keeping it clear means that:

• Everyone knows who is responsible for what
• There is no overlap in responsibility
• Decision-making pathways are always clear

Keep it empowered

Empowerment means that those who are responsible for certain areas also have the authority to make decisions for those areas. If the Senior Pastor or nonprofit leader is given responsibility, he/she should also have the authority to act. The same for those areas under the purview of staff. This is not about turf but about the ability to make effective decisions in an efficient manner. Keeping it empowered means that those who have responsibility have the authority to act in those areas

Keep it accountable

One of the reasons that clarity is so important is that ambiguous governance systems (where multiple groups are responsible for a decision) make accountability for decisions equally ambiguous. Any time an individual, group, or board has responsibility and authority, they must also be accountable for the outcome of their decisions. Empowered governance means that those responsible can act within their scope of responsibility but always with accountability for the results of their decisions.

Keeping it accountable means that:

• Those responsible for decisions are also accountable for those decisions
• All actions should be consistent with the mission of the organization

Keep it focused

Our focus must first be on Jesus and then on the mission He has given us. Mission drift is endemic in churches and Christian non-profits because leaders have not done the work they need to do to keep the most important things most important. 

This also means that we are committed to alignment around the priorities and direction we have committed ourselves to. All directional arrows of all ministries and initiatives should be pointed directly at the bulls-eye of our mission and vision. When they are not, we have lost focus!

When we ignore organizational issues it usually comes back to haunt us

Leaders, whether on boards or those who lead organizations and teams, have a responsibility to deal with "known issues" that they face in the organization. Often we choose not to do so because we would rather hope that they will go away. And we are averse to dealing with people or issues that might cause conflict. Unfortunately, they often do not go away but rather become larger.

Take a team member who is not in alignment and is therefore disrupting the rest of the team. Choosing not to deal with that staff member allows them to disempower other teammates, create friction and/or conflict and bring down the level of synergy and cooperation among the team. This is a no-win situation and can easily result in your best team members choosing to opt out rather than deal with the conflict.

There are also instances where team leaders and organizational leaders exhibit behaviors that are highly problematic, but boards are notorious for choosing not to deal with them. After all, they are the leader, and they may be doing great things for the ministry, so who are we to make an issue of it. Often, however, those behaviors are hurting the staff behind the scenes, and eventually there is a good likelihood that it will "blow up" in a fashion that creates chaos in the organization.

In the aftermath of such situations, I have often asked board members whether the behaviors they saw in the leader they were responsible for overseeing would be acceptable in their own workplace. Often the answer is "no." Why I asked were they then acceptable in the church or organization I am working with? There is never a good answer except that they chose to let it ride, hoping it would get better. The fascinating thing is that they usually knew but chose not to act until it was too late and great damage had been done.

The same can be said for issues like a declining financial base or financial choices that, if not addressed, will cripple the ministry. Ministries are notorious for simply believing that God will provide when in fact, we need to make realistic decisions based on wisdom even as we ask God to provide. When we ignore ongoing deficits or spending that is not in line with what we can reasonably expect to come in, it creates a crisis eventually. In one church I worked with, there had not been a balanced budget for almost ten years, and finally, the leader had to leave in order for the elders to bring the financial situation under control and into a healthy spot which took three years and a fair amount of trauma.

It really does not matter what the problematic issue is - there can be many but the job of leaders, whether on boards or others, is to be acutely aware of threats to the ministry and deal with them appropriately when they become aware of them rather than waiting until they become a crisis. Usually, I find that leaders were, in fact aware but chose not to act at the time they became aware. The aftermath was rarely pleasant.

If you are a board member or a leader, make a list of any known issues you have that are a potential threat to the ministry and start having conversations about how you are going to handle it. It is never too early to have the discussion, and it will likely help you stay healthy in the long haul.

At Addington Consulting,

We Simplify Complexity

Speak Candidly

Help You Find a Way Through

tjaddington@gmail.com

When board members don't get their way

One of the reasons that I believe humility is so important for those serving on a church board (and other ministry boards) is that we must be willing to allow the board to make decisions and then set aside our personal preferences and accept that decision. It is the way boards are supposed to operate but unfortunately there are often board members who refuse to give up their pet issues or put issues to rest that the board has decided. It causes frustration for other board members and can often lead to dysfunction on the board.

There are some individuals who cannot give up their issues no matter how often the board decides differently. The issues just keep coming up and the board member just keeps pushing. Such an individual does not belong on the board because they do not have the humility or flexibility to allow the board to make corporate decisions - decide issues - and move on. It is what boards do.

What drives such frustrating behavior? It can be a lack of humility. It can be a personal agenda. It can be that they are just inflexible individuals and they elevate their preferences to the only solution even when the majority disagrees. I often get push-back when I suggest one must guard the gate to church leadership. Some believe that all that matters is that someone loves Jesus. That is just foolishness! When individuals do not allow the board to operate as it should they hurt the board, the leadership and the church. I often tell congregations that they get what they deserve when they don't guard the gate.

Boards need to learn how to clarify expectations of board behavior and they need to learn how to police renegade board members. If you have someone who will not let an issue go in the face of board action, ask them to step off. They simply don't understand how boards work.

See also
Rethinking leadership selection in the church

Eight dysfunctions of church governance boards

Dumb things church boards do

Board members and their intellectual capacity

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.