Eight confusing church board issues

Church board leadership is always a challenge. And, often boards or individual members are confused on the role of the board. If these areas of confusion can be resolved, the work of the board becomes far easier. Here are eight issues that often cause confusion on a board.

1. What are we actually trying to accomplish?
This sounds like a simple question but the truth is that a majority of church boards cannot answer the question with any specificity. They have a mission but apart from that general statement which generally reflects the Great Commission (more believers and better believers), there is often no objective target that the church is pursuing and without a target there are no metrics to gauge one's progress. 

It is the board's responsibility, working in conjunction with staff to clearly determine what the church is trying to accomplish and then to assign metrics to the target so that it can evaluate its progress.

2. Who is responsible for what?
When there is ambiguity between the responsibilities of the senior pastor (and other staff) and the board there is in the worst case scenario conflict and in the best case confusion. If there is not a written document clearly delineating the responsibilities of both there will be issues that create frustration for both parties. The role of a board is governance while the role of the staff is the day to day ministry. Wherever you draw those lines, be sure you draw them so that there is both clarity and accountability.

3. How does the board interact with the church staff?
The short answer is that boards interact with staff only through the senior pastor. Staff can have only one supervisor and boards are not in a position to supervise or tell staff (apart from the senior leader) what they should or should not be doing. This does not mean that board members cannot have relationships with staff members but it does mean that they cannot direct the work of staff.

4. What is the senior pastor empowered to do on their own and in what areas do they need board approval?
None of us like micro management but this is what happens with many senior pastors who are never sure what they are empowered to do and what decisions they can make and alternatively what issues they need to bring to the board for approval. Constantly needing board approval is demeaning and demotivating for leaders. 

It is incumbent on the board to make clear the leadership parameters of the senior leader so that they are free to lead but are still aware of the boundaries that the board has established. It is the difference between a permission withholding culture and a permission granting culture.

5. What is the board's job description?
In the absence of a clearly written description of the responsibilities of the board every board member has their own definition of their role. That means there are multiple definitions of the board's role. And, it creates confusion and even conflict on the board. Furthermore, it is not possible for the board to evaluate its own work in the absence of a clear job description. 

That role description should include the fiduciary and legal pieces of their responsibility along with the responsibilities delineated in the New Testament for leaders. If you are not clear on these Biblical requirements ask me for the PDF to my book High Impact Church Boards and I will gladly share it.  

6. What are the board's rules of engagement?
In other words, how does the board operate? How does it make decisions? What happens if a board member disagrees with the majority? Does the board always speak with one voice? How does it deal with rogue board members? Is there a board covenant that spells out how the board operates together?

Because many board do not have that clarity, there is a great deal of dysfunction on church boards. This need not be the case but the board must clarify its roles (number 5 above) and how it operates. Without clearly defined guidelines, confusion and conflict will emerge.

7. Who does the board represent?
Many board members believe that they represent their particular ministry interest or constituency in the church. This can easily lead to divided boards especially if there are factions within the congregation that board members see as their job to represent. This view of church leadership has more to do with how we think about American political polity than it does a Biblical theology of leadership. 

Board member do not represent any constituency in the church. Rather they are called Under-Shepherds of the Chief Shepherd - Jesus Christ. Jesus is the head of the church and church leaders lead on His behalf (1 Peter 5:1-4). This does not mean that board members ignore the concerns of the congregation but their leadership is a sacred trust given by the Chief Shepherd. Church leaders lead the congregation where they believe Jesus wants them to go.

8. How do your choose and engage new board members?
Too many congregations do not have a process in bringing new board members on that is designed to set the board up for healthy leadership. Furthermore, in the absence of clarity on 1-7 above, there is no objective way to acclimate new board members to their role as it has not been clarified. 

The most powerful group in most churches is not the board but the committee or group that chooses board members. For a healthy board it is critical to guard the gate of leadership. Only healthy board members can contribute to a healthy board. 

All of this comes down to good clarity. A lack of clarity in these eight areas create confusion. Clarity allows you to move forward in greater health. If you desire help in any of these areas, contact me at my email below. 

Need an outside perspective for your board issues or challenges? 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. 

AddingtonConsulting.org

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

Unspoken discussions

Church boards as well as work teams are notorious for their unspoken discussions! Those unspoken discussions are the issues that are present, that people know are present, but that either individual board members or the board itself does not have the courage to discuss as a board. The elephant in the room - often key issues for the church that require being named and dealt with but the culture of the board mitigates against it.

Many individuals do not like conflict and their definition of conflict is anything that might cause individual or group discomfort. So there is subtle pressure put on board or team members to be nice and not rock the boat by naming issues that are out there and need discussion. (The same dynamics can be had on almost any team.) You know that you have breached a topic that makes people uncomfortable when you put an issue on the table and there is either silence, or someone jumps in to quickly deflect the issue from discussion.

I recently read an article about Patrick Lencioni suggesting that one of the reasons that major financial institutions have found themselves in so much trouble recently is the prevailing culture on company governance boards to not deal with issues that would make others uncomfortable. So the culture of nice sabotages a culture of truth and effectiveness.

Pastors, leaders, board members or team members who choose not to speak in the face of real unspoken issues do a disservice to the organization they serve. The irony is that everyone generally knows that there are unspoken issues - they just don't want the discomfort of naming them. The hope is that the issue will just go away!

How we speak to the issues is important. If I approach an unspoken issue and put it on the table it will be best received if: There is not a personal vendetta; my words are not meant to hurt; I don't have a hidden personal agenda; I want the best for the organization; I communicate in a way that invites rather than disinvites dialogue; I say it in love; and I acknowledge that the issue may make others uncomfortable.

The funny thing about "elephants" is that once they are named they are no longer elephants. I once worked with a group around a whiteboard and asked them to name every elephant they felt existed in their organization. We filled the white board (a bad thing) but once up there we could talk about all of them (a good thing). Once named an elephant is simply another issue that we are allowed to talk about. Unnamed it is one of the unspoken discussions that we know we need to have but don't have the courage to discuss.

Every board, team and organization is better off with a high level of candor coupled with a high level of trust which mitigates against the candor turning into anger or cynicism.

If you are brave, I would suggest that you ask your team or your board in a relaxed atmosphere to brainstorm on any unspoken board discussions you need to have, on any elephants that need to be named, white board them and then develop a plan to talk through them one by one.

Unspoken discussions are not discussions, just frustrations and they often hide real issues that unresolved will hurt the organization.

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 excellence

Why the minority voice often wins on church boards and within congregations and what to do about it

It is very frustrating to those that make up the majority when a minority voice is able to determine the outcome of church issues. This can take place at the board level or within congregations, even when the polity is one where the majority should be able to move forward. Unfortunately, it is all too common, and church leaders often allow it to happen. In my experience, there are a number of tactics that are used to manipulate a larger group by a minority group.

One. Our voices will be loud, and we will therefore give the impression that we are many. This works well behind the scenes when there is conflict over a decision and in congregational meetings where loud voices often rule the day. 

Two. We will declare that many agree with us with the implication that if you try to move forward, you will "split the church" or cause "serious conflict and division." Now I have done a great deal of conflict resolution in churches, and I have never encountered a situation where this was actually true. I have seen pastors and boards try to push things through when a majority were dissenting (it was not pretty), but when a few voices declare that there are many with them, I am often skeptical. However, this tactic often works because leaders and congregations don't want to cause undo conflict, so they back off with only the word of a few that they actually have strong support.

Three. If you move forward with that decision, we will leave. So let's call that for what it is: congregational blackmail! Since it is considered wrong to "push people out of a church," this threat is used against the majority because the minority can claim that they were indeed pushed out. What actually happened was that the minority simply chose to leave because they didn't desire to stay. 

This is often a threat that works, but it is nothing less than congregational blackmail. The same can be said for those who declare that if you move forward, they will withhold their funding. That is financial blackmail. All threats no matter what they are, by a minority voice to block the majority should be considered blackmail and should be called exactly that - in public where appropriate.

Four. If you move forward, there will be a lot of people who will be angry. Given what I said in one and two, it is unlikely that a lot of people will be angry. Also, any time you make any decisions in a church, someone is likely to disagree, but if that is the criteria by which we make decisions, no decisions would be made. While this strikes fear in many congregants, it is emotional blackmail by those using the tactic.

One of the fundamental reasons that all these threats work is that most people are conflict resistant. They don't want to have to negotiate conflict, they are afraid of conflict, and they especially don't like conflicts in the church with people they know. Unless leaders understand this and speak to it, such threats often work to the chagrin of the majority of the congregation or board. Fear keeps leaders and congregations from moving forward in the face of threats. 

So how do you counter these tactics? Especially when you have an entrenched individual or group where dialogue and reasoning has not done anything to change their minds?

First, I would suggest that you look at the tactics of the minority group and ask whether they fit any of the scenarios above. Perhaps I have missed something but be willing to name the tactic that is being used for what it is. Explain to the individual or group involved that their tactics are not fair or honest and see if reasoning will change their behaviors.

Second, if reasoning fails, which it often will, I would encourage the board or leadership to share with the congregation what they believe to be true. That you believe this is a minority view, that you have tried to reason with them, and that you believe that for the good of the ministry, the church needs to move forward. It is possible to say these things in a way that does not disparage but does speak the truth. If leaders are cowed, the congregation will be as well. If leaders are courageous and forthright, the congregation is likely to follow. 

Third, if this is a significant decision and there is no clarity on what is actually happening, bring in a third party to ascertain what is really going on. It is not hard for a disinterested and experienced third party to evaluate the situation and determine the actual facts rather than hearsay. 

Finally, in all of these discussions, remember that what is at stake is the health and effectiveness of the Body of Christ, The Bride. Don't compromise the work of God out of fear! 

TJ Addington (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.

The quick links and index to all of my blogs on church boards and governance has been updated

Updated quick links and index to all of my blogs on church boards and governance

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