Refreshing your church's governance and leadership paradigm

 

Few things impact the life of your church more, but are thought about less than that of your governance and leadership paradigm.

Recently I was in a board conversation where a board member said, "this is the first time in decades that we have evaluated ourselves or how we do our work as a board." Think about that. All major ministry decisions go though a leadership board in most churches, but we rarely pay attention to how well we do the governance/leadership role.

Why do we regularly update our ministry strategies to meet the needs of a new day but rarely update our governance/leadership strategies to meet the needs of a new day?

Jesus designed the church to be the most effective, flexible, and missional organism on the face of the earth. Yet, our leadership systems are often clunky and difficult to negotiate. Remember this:

• In many cases our leadership systems come from many years in the past when the church was founded. A different day with different needs and a different understanding of leadership paradigms. 
• Governance/leadership systems were put in when the church was small. If your church is over 150 on a Sunday it is no longer a family church.
• Nearly every growing church has reexamined their leadership/governance systems to ensure that it serves them well today. What got you to here, got you to here but it won't get you to there.
• Boards and church leaders should examine their systems annually, yet many have not done so in a decade if ever.
• Church leaders often have frustrations about their leadership paradigms that could be eliminated if so desired.
• All this matters because the return on our ministry investment is eternal. The stakes matter and our ability to remain effective, flexible and missional is always at stake.

If you have not examined how you do leadership/governance in your congregation in the past five years, I would encourage you to do so. My book, High Impact Church Boards can help you understand how to evaluate and organize for maximum spiritual impact. 

In addition, 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.

If your leadership/governance system needs to be refreshed. Do so for the sake of the impact that God desires your congregation to have. 

Clarity is Job One in any governance system

 

Ask any board or staff member in a church or non-profit and you will get the same answer to this question: What is the number one frustration you face in your leadership role. The answers will often be these:

• We don't have clarity on who is responsible for what
• We experience frustration or conflict regarding roles and responsibilities
• We often feel disempowered by those who think they have the responsibility to make decisions we think we should be able to make
• We don't feel empowered in our role
• If only the board (or staff) would stay out of our way
• Because no one is clearly responsible we don't know who to hold responsible
• Lack of clarity is causing confusion at best and conflict at worst

All of these have one thing in common. That commonality is clarity. Clarity in roles, responsibilities, intended results and the freedom to act within boundaries without the permission of others.

I am currently working with a congregation that is in a process to clarity their governance structure. They interviewed a number of other congregations about their process of governance and the one thing that consistently came back to them was this. Have maximum clarity around roles, responsibilities and outcomes. Without clarity there is no accountability. Without clarity people are not empowered to act. Without clarity there is at best confusion and at worst, conflict.

Every governance system must define the roles and responsibilities of four parties: The congregation, the senior board, the staff and ministry teams. The clearer you are, the more empowerment there is and the more accountability there will be. The foggier you are the less empowerment you will have and there will be little to no accountability.

My observation is that many governance systems are designed deliberately to create fog rather than clarity because with clarity people can act in their sphere of influence. In such churches, you will notice that they hit a ceiling and never exceed that ceiling because clarity of roles and responsibilities is critical to growth. In their lack of clarity they unwittingly limit their growth and effectiveness.  Lack of clarity has a built in ceiling to growth and effectiveness. 

Without clarity you cannot have alignment. Without alignment you cannot move in the same direction. And, without clarity and alignment, you cannot achieve results that are consistent with your clarity. Something to think about.

If you want more help in getting to clarity, my books High Impact Church Boards and Leading From the Sandbox can point you in the right direction. Remember, clarity is always Job One.

Confusing, outdated, unclear and vague church governance systems

Many churches are long overdue to change their governance systems, but I am still surprised to read many church constitutions that make real leadership very difficult. Church leaders who would never structure their business the way their church structures leadership are seemingly OK with the fact that it is almost impossible to do any kind of leadership within their governance system.

Yes, churches are not businesses. They are far more important that a business because eternal lives are at stake. Yet we continue to hamper leadership that would help the church to be more effective. Here are some common governance issues that congregations still allow to hamper their leadership.

Keep the leadership from controlling the budget

In what other arena would you find a system where those who are charged with the direction and effectiveness of the ministry (elder, Deacons or whatever the group is called in your polity), must go to another board (often trustees) to designate funds toward ministry initiatives. One board is charged with the effectiveness of the church ministry and its direction and the other board holds the dollars to carry it out hostage.

Such systems are absolute foolishness from a leadership perspective, yet they continue to exist. Every decision the first board makes must then be negotiated and made by a second board when it involves funds. And a board that is not vested with the direction of the ministry can determine whether they release the funds or not. In the best scenario this is a waste of time and energy. In the worst scenario, it sets up conflict between the two boards.

Multiple boards and multiple authorities

When you give a group the designation of “board” you give them implied authority. So, when you have multiple boards such as elders, deacons and trustees you have multiple groups with implied authority. Of course, this raises the question as to who is ultimately responsible for church leadership. When no one is in charge, everyone is in charge!

It is these kinds of structures that cause the best leaders to stay out of church leadership. They cannot lead and when they do, it is a very frustrating experience. And because no one desires to give up their power it is hard to change. In both scenarios, the power issue keeps people from making needed changes. We would not admit it, but it is true! And again, key decisions must be negotiated with multiple groups.

Confusing, overlapping and vague authority

Reading many church constitutions is a laborious activity because they are often full of confusing, overlapping and vague authority that makes it impossible to interpret who is responsible for what. Good governance documents should be simple, clear and designate lines of authority with precision. When this is not the case, the authors (well intentioned I am sure) set the congregation up for conflict and endless discussion.

If it is not simple, clear and delineate clear lines of authority it is a poor governance document and should be revised. Yet we resist revision because “you cannot change the bylaws.” Actually, you can since the bylaws serve the mission of the church rather than the church serving the bylaws. And you should.

What many don’t realize is that these kinds of poor governance structures keep leaders from leading and the church from moving forward. If you like the status quo this is a great strategy. If you care that the church is effective it is a terrible strategy. Often it takes the courage and diplomacy of a true leader to help others realize that their structures need to change if they want to be effective.

Let’s call poor governance systems for what they are and revise them for the sake of the gospel. 

Six board lessons from the recent Willow Creek events

My objective here is not to revisit the specific controversies of Willow Creek but to draw some lessons for those of us who serve on church boards to consider. For my part, I am drawing on decades of working with church boards as well as having served for years on various boards. The recent issues at Willow Creek simply serve to illustrate my observations. I suspect that the good people who serve(d) in leadership at Willow would agree with most of these observations.

One. You can have as sophisticated a board structure as you desire and still get into deep weeds. If you google Willow Creek and church governance you will see all kinds of advice for how churches should structure their governance. They used Policy Governance and wrote about running great meetings. In the end none of that mattered when the board could not hold the senior pastor accountable and failed to guard the health of the church. 

There are governance structures that will make ministry easier and some that will make ministry harder but the structure itself is only as good as the people who are leading. The bottom line is that governance structures while important are not a substitute for wise leaders. Sadly, the very ministry that held up its leadership paradigm as a model (Willow Creek), ended up with its whole leadership team resigning with no credibility left. It is a warning to all boards. 

I am very curious what the dynamics were at Willow that prevented people on the board who asked the right questions from staying in leadership. When discerning people ask discerning questions and they get shut down by the rest of the board it is a sign of a dysfunctional and unhealthy board and organizational culture.

Two: Any structure that prevents board members from asking questions of a senior leader and verifying their answers is flawed. I have encountered situations where in the name of Policy Governance, the board was not allowed to press into staff issues, or even ministry philosophy and they acquiesced to the senior leader's pushback.  Even while the senior leader was mistreating staff, creating a toxic workplace and making ministry decisions that alienated huge portions of the congregation. When it all came apart, the boards no longer had any credibility and had to step down. 

Only after the fact, and after huge damage had been done did these boards realize that they had failed to ask the hard questions, insist on answers and verify those answers. 

Three: Unhealthy pastors can and do use their boards to protect them and to silence discerning members of the congregation who are asking penetrating questions. When you try to silence others you either create a cult like atmosphere and healthy people leave, or there is a blow up when the voices persist (Willow Creek and Mars Hill), and finally leaders must confront it. Certainly not all voices in any organization are created equal but when people of good reputation and discernment speak up as they did at Willow Creek and Mars Hill they are ignored at the board's own peril. As they discovered.

One other observation. Boards cannot be intimidated by their senior pastor. If they are they will not be a healthy independent board. 

Four: Unhealthy governance systems or groups will eventually cause significant issues in the congregation. In the case of Mars Hill, the church ended up disbanding. In the case of Willow Creek, the leadership resigned. Think of the pain felt by the congregation in both cases. When there are unhealthy pastors or boards, that health issues will eventually be felt by the congregation. 

Five: Sometimes a board needs an outside voice(s) in order to help them see beyond their desire to protect the pastors, themselves or the church and to do the right thing. In the middle of a crisis or when people feel under siege, poor decisions are often made. What might have happened at Willow if the board had brought in and listened to a wise outside voice. Someone who has stature in the Evangelical community. This is not a sign of weakness but a sign of maturity. If nothing else an outside voice of reason and wisdom can verify the board's approach - or challenge them. 

Six. A sign of a healthy leader is their willingness to be accountable to a board even if they disagree with some of their decisions. Healthy leaders solicit the opinions of others, listen to their authority, respect it and abide by it even when they may disagree. If a senior pastor will not abide by board decisions or allow the board to make those decisions beware! It means the board has authority in name only and not in reality.


See also Willow Creek and governance. A watershed moment

Willow Creek and governance lessons: A watershed moment

The inevitable resignation of the entire board of Willow Creek Community church today along with that of the two senior pastors is a watershed moment for church governance - and its failure. There are many lessons to be learned about what good and poor governance look like when it comes to the church. The leadership failures at Willow will become textbook fodder on governance for years to come.

One: Boards exist to protect the church as a whole and not one individual. 
For several years as allegations have swirled around their senior leader the board tried to protect him even though many credible individuals came forward either who had been abused by him or knew of abuses. Yet the board chose to try to protect their senior leader rather than to uncover the truth of the claims even to the point of suggesting that the victims were lying and calling their character into question. 

This is not unusual. I once did an intervention in a church fraught with conflict. There had been a string of resignations over a three year period of staff. When I asked the board why their staff members had resigned they said they didn't know. So I interviewed every one of them and it always came back to abuse by the senior pastor. When I reported my findings back to the board they hung their heads in shame. Of course they knew something but they had chosen to ignore the obvious, not ask the relevant questions and protect their pastor while painting the victims as the villains. Subsequently for this and other governance failures I recommended that the entire board resign which they did.

Boards exist to protect the health, financial stewardship and direction of the church. They are responsible to ensure that the congregation is taught, led well, protected, released into ministry and that the spiritual temperature is kept vital. They may not do it themselves but they ensure this happens. This did not happen at Willow. Actions show that through a several year period the board chose to protect their pastor over dealing with issues they knew to be present. It was a classic failure of governance which will damage the church for years and possibly threaten its existence in its present form.

Two: Boards that are intimidated and manipulated by their senior leader cannot govern - period.
Some churches have such strong leaders that it is almost impossible for a board to hold them accountable and the board ends up working for the senior leader rather than the senior leader being accountable to the board. Whenever this happens alarm bells need to sound because boards that are intimidated or manipulated by their senior leader cannot govern. Rather they end up serving the agenda of their senior organizational leader.

This is why executive sessions are vitally important for any board even if there are no significant issues to discuss. It provides a forum where sensitive issues can be put on the table and candid discussion can take place outside the influence of the senior leader who is accountable to them. Even if this is resisted by the senior leader it should happen on a regular basis because many boards will not bring up sensitive issues in the presence of their senior leader. 

Three. Individuals who cannot deal with conflict should not be put on a church board. 
With leadership there is always conflict. Issues within a church that must be dealt with, differences of opinion on boards and sometimes relationships with senior leaders. Where I used to live we called the conflict resistant culture "Minnesota nice." This is the tendency not to deal with conflict. There is a lot of "church nice" on leadership boards where we don't have courageous enough people to put issues on the table and insist that the board look honestly at them. If someone cannot deal with conflict they should not serve on a church board.

Many congregations suffer for years without good leadership or pastors without adequate accountability because of "church nice" boards. Who suffers? The congregation! 

This also has implications for who ought to serve as the chair of a board. It takes a strong and independent individual to serve well as a board chair. They must be able to graciously police the board, interact with the senior leader, keep the board on track and in cases such as what happened at Willow Creek, lead the board in critical conversations. When this does not happen board chairpersons need to be challenged and/or replaced.

Four. When serious issues occur the board must find the truth and speak the truth regardless of the consequences.
Christian organizations generally have a poor track record of transparency around such issues as financial impropriety, sexual abuse, leadership abuse and issues that might impact their reputation. Unfortunately, when organizations try to hide issues it causes more damage then when they admit and deal with issues. 

Outsiders looking in on the actions of the board at Willow Creek have wondered about their actions during this period especially in the face of very credible individuals who have come forward with their story. Why did they not deal with issues that many others saw? The answer is simple: they were trying to protect their leader and the reputation of the church rather than trying to find the truth if it hurt either of these. In the process they destroyed their leadership (hence their resignation), hurt the church beyond what the senior pastor is responsible for and set the church up for trauma for years to come. Their "independent outside investigation" was not designed to find the truth but to protect their interests. 

Five: Church boards must understand their role as a governance board.
I have to conclude that the board at Willow did not understand their role as a governance board. But they are in good company as many church boards do not. If they did, the story would have played out much differently than it did. They did not safeguard the health of the church. They did not protect the flock (or the abused). They did not listen to credible voices. They allowed their leader to manipulate them and the process. They protected the guilty rather than the hurt. They did not truly seek truth but sought to protect. In the end they caused more damage than they did to resolve their issues.

All of this to suggest that this episode ought to be a wake up call for the evangelical church regarding what good governance looks like. For the sake of the church - the Bride of Jesus.

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!

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

High Impact Church Boards and Leading From The Sandbox are both back in print

For organizations or churches who order either of these books for their board or staff I offer a free Skype meeting to discuss questions or principles.

Eight dysfunctions of church governance boards

Church boards who live with their heads in the sand

Pastors, staff and board members who use inappropriate language, emotions and actions

Eight reasons that boards do not address known issues of a senior leader

A dialogue between TJ Addington and Tony Morgan of the Unstuck Group on church governance

Signs that leaders are leading from a posture of fear and insecurity

A YouTube video that illustrates much church leadership

Some of the worst things leaders can do when there is controversy or conflict in the church

Congregational meetings and church health

The use of church discipline to control people or shut down discussion in the church

Nine church board mistakes I have been seeing lately - from Tony Morgan

15 unfortunate things boards do

Why boards can be so frustrating to serve on and how to solve it

Passive boards and controlling boards: Both are dangerous

Dumb things church boards do

Practices of healthy boards

Big rocks, pebbles and sand

Signs of a dysfunctional church board

Signs of healthy and unhealthy boards 

When board members don't get their way

When boards are unable to police their own

Conflict and problem avoidance create sick churches

Choosing and preparing new board members

Church board development

The failure of church boards to realistically evaluate ministries they oversee

Church boards and church culture

Violations of good board behavior that kill good governance

 Healthy board/pastor relationships in the church             

Church renovation

Undiscerning church boards: A case study

Should a church be run like a business

Church boards and fear

Church culture trumps everything

Church boards and failure of courage

Staff and board relationships in the local church: What is healthy and what is unhealthy

Split boards, split congregations

The profile of an effective church leader

9 Principles for healthy governance in the church

Eight kinds of people who should not serve on a church board

Every congregation is one leadership board away from trouble and decline

When leadership boards become the barrier to church growth

Rethinking leadership selection in the church

Church board self assessment: 15 questions

Guard the gate to your church leadership

Boards that are not united and don't face reality

Antiquated church governance systems that hurt the mission of the church

Our church governance systems do matter!

Four key church board documents

What boards and pastors need to know about each other

Operate without a church board covenant at your risk

A failure of nerve

Bold or timid church leadership

When board members allow friendship and relationship to overshadow their governance role

When should a church change their governance system?

Board members and their intellectual capacity

Courageous church leaders

Church leadership and trust

Effective churches have pastors and boards with a bias toward strategic action

Empowering pastors

Spiritual discernment in ministry leadership

Signs that your church board needs renovation

When elephants fight the grass gets trampled

Ten marks of a united church leadership board

The five dysfunctions of ministry organizations

When everyone is in charge no one is in charge

Should church staff serve on the elder/leadership board?

Why boards must always speak with one voice

Interminable board meetings

Churches and group think

Paying greater attention to gifting when it comes to those we put into church leadership

Not ready, proceed slow, lets go: When leaders resist change!

Is your church more missional or institutional?

Board evaluation

Toxic team and board members

I cannot find good leaders for my church

Unspoken board discussions

Checks and balances in church leadership

Proactive or reactive leadership

Ministry accelerators and anchors

"I knew I should have said something."

The dysfunction of control in ministry organizations

Leadership board time outs for reflection

Dealing with organizational elephants

Choosing the right leaders in your church: You get what you deserve.

The biggest favor you can do for your pastor and your church

Want to grow your staff/leadership board?

Candid discourse among church leaders

Four skill sets every team and board can profit from

Who is best qualified to serve as an elder or church leader?

Rethinking the relationship between pastors and lay leaders

Continuing the question as to whether staff should serve on the elder board

Does your church have a meaningful job description for your senior pastor?

Policy governance in the church: An overview

Willow Creek and governance lessons: A watershed moment

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

Seven personal behaviors for the best board work

Why boards need to change as an organization grows

How do you measure the success of your organization?

If your board needs help, I can help

Five simple principles for governance in churches and non-profits

With over thirty years of working with boards I am available to help your board be the best they can be. Whether remotely using technology or in person, together we can make substantial strides toward healthier and more missional board work.

As the author of High Impact Church Boards I have worked with thousands of board members to ensure that the right people end up on an organizations board, that the board is intentional in its work and that the culture of the leadership system is empowering rather than controlling. Cost is kept to a minimum by using technology like Go To Meeting, or I can join you in person for governance training or retreats.

I can be contacted at tjaddington@gmail.com or 615.840.1676. I look forward to talking to and working with those who desire to raise the level of their board's effectiveness. 

Antiquated church governance systems that hurt the mission of the church

A fundamental concept for any governance system (how you do leadership) is that the system should serve the mission. Unfortunately, there are still many churches that are living with antiquated and ineffective governance systems that actually hurt the congregation's ability to do what Jesus called them to do. In these cases, the mission ends up serving the governance system - the opposite of what ought to be the case.

Poor governance systems tend to be "permission withholding" structures rather than "permission granting" structures. 

In permission withholding structures:

• Decisions must be made more than once
• Permission and agreement must be negotiated with multiple groups
• Timely decisions are tough
• There is confusion of authority and responsibility
• Church bylaws are confusing and bureaucratic
• It is hard to make decisions and implement them
• The mission of the church is compromised

In permission granting structures:

• Decisions are made once
• There is no need to negotiate permission with multiple groups
• There are clear lines of authority and responsibility
• Church bylaws are brief and allow for flexibility
• It is easy to make decisions and implement them
• Timely decisions are easy
• The mission of the church is easier to implement because the systems support the ability of leaders to lead.

Jesus designed the church to be the most effective, flexible, and missional organization on the face of the earth. Permission-withholding structures (most antiquated church governance systems) make the church inflexible, relatively ineffective and certainly compromise its mission. If your governance systems are antiquated and no longer help fulfill your mission, be courageous enough to change them. The third section of "High Impact Church Boards" provides a roadmap for changing your governance systems.