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

Not everyone is qualified to serve on a church board, and choosing the wrong people condemns the board to dishealth and frustration for years to come. Putting someone on a board is easy and hard to remove. So, who should not serve on a church board?

Those who have a personal agenda for the church. Jesus designed church leadership as a plurality of leaders, not an individual leader. That, by necessity, means that we intend to seek God's face together regarding the direction of the church. Rather than a personal agenda, we are committed to a corporate agenda based on seeking God's will. Those with individual agendas will sabotage that corporate pursuit of God's will.

Those who cannot submit to group decisions. The humility to seek God's will as a group and then submit to that direction is a natural extension of the comments above. Regardless of their reasoning, people who need their own way are not qualified to serve in church leadership. Divided boards ultimately create divided congregations.

Those who are black and white and inflexible. Group leadership requires flexibility in the opinions of others and the ultimate decisions of a group. Those who draw fine lines on issues and cannot be flexible will find it difficult, if not impossible, to serve well in a group setting. This includes legalists who draw fine distinctions in lifestyle and fine points of theology where there is legitimate room for disagreement.

Those who cannot deal with conflict. High, high mercy types are better off serving on care teams than leadership boards, as every key ministry decision has the potential to make someone unhappy. That requires that one has the ability to negotiate conflict and even live with the fact that not everyone is happy. It is hard to do if one is extremely high on the mercy scale and does not want to make anyone unhappy.

Those who cannot think conceptually. Some people can only deal with details and love to drill down to the details of anything under discussion. Leaders, however, are responsible for a higher level of discussion and leadership requiring conceptual thinking. Concrete thinkers will always find it hard to do the needed higher-level thinking of a leadership board. 

Those who have a history of conflict or relational dysfunction. Healthy boards are built on healthy relationships. Anyone with a history of creating conflict or relational issues should not be put on a leadership board where healthy relationships with God and one another are the coinage of leadership. Leadership is always about helping people become what God wants them to become. It is hard to do if one has a history of conflict and relational dysfunction.

Those who like power. Unfortunately, Power brokers are a fact in many congregations and are always a sign of dishealth. Power brokers are people with a personal agenda that is of higher value to them than a board's corporate decision-making process. Power brokers create factions for their side, which creates division in the board and church. They are dangerous people in any church.

Those who don't truly pursue God fully. Church leadership is about Jesus and where He wants to lead a church. That requires a higher degree of followership to the one on whose behalf one leads and a deep sensitivity to His direction and will. That is only possible with individuals who pursue Him. In defining the character qualities of those who should serve in leadership, the New Testament naturally rules out those whose spiritual life is not healthy or mature.

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

Boards that ignore the obvious and allow toxic behaviors to flourish

The classic book on governance boards is "Boards That Make a Difference" by John Carver. I have encountered some boards that make a huge difference because of their careful governance. But what stands out for me after decades of consulting with boards is the number of boards that ignore the obvious, allow toxic behaviors to flourish in the organization they represent, and look the other way when leaders create toxic cultures and hurt multiple members of their staff with impunity.

A fundamental truth is that boards oversee organizations, and as the highest authority in the organization they oversee, they are ultimately responsible for its health and well-being—not because they manage the organization but because they oversee its leader.

But here is the dirty little secret of many boards. They don't hold the senior leader accountable for the health of the organization and frequently overlook and ignore what is actually taking place in the organization they represent. 

This begs the question of why? In one recent case where I conducted a Culture Audit of a staff of 70 individuals on the East Coast last year, the results painted a picture of massive toxicity. The transcripts of those interviews included 850 pages, and the findings were mind-blowing in their dysfunction. When I shared the results with the board heads nodded up and down in agreement as if to say, we suspected as much. Yet the board did almost nothing to address the toxicity but rather went into a protective mode to ensure that the institution involved looked good to the public rather than became good in its culture. 

The same can be said for many church boards that ignore massive toxicity generated by a senior leader whose narcissistic tendencies leave a pile of bodies on the side of the road for years, creating untold hurt and pain for numerous staff. Rather than holding the leader involved accountable, they often circle the wagons to "protect the wonderful ministry that is taking place." 

In both cases, staff are deeply hurt, but more importantly, their boards have empowered dysfunctional and toxic leaders to flourish at the expense of the staff they oversee. 

Let me make several observations. 

One: boards that make a difference are made up of people who have the courage to call out dysfunction and hold leaders accountable. In fact, the best boards empower leaders and hold them accountable for the health and productivity of the organization they lead. Leaders who are empowered but not held accountable are dangerous leaders who create toxic cultures.

Two: Healthy boards never substitute success at the expense of a healthy culture. Healthy cultures create healthy staff, and the opposite is equally true. Unhealthy leaders create unhealthy work and organizational cultures. For any organization, this is unacceptable. In the end, only healthy cultures can create long-term healthy results, and good board members know this and insist on it. 

Three: Healthy boards are not afraid of the truth. They want to know the true state of affairs in their organization and find ways to gauge its health or dishealth. Unhealthy boards are more concerned about the public image, while healthy boards are more concerned about the true state of affairs within the organization. Time after time, I have encountered boards that intentionally chose to ignore what was obvious to staff and others to protect a public image. 

Four: The whole premise of a healthy board is to empower healthy leaders, to hold leaders accountable for how they lead, and, if necessary, to take remedial action against leaders who consistently violate their leadership trust. Yet this fails to be the case all too often.

In one organization I worked with, two loved leaders had been summarily fired by their senior leader. In meeting with the board I discovered that six other leaders had been fired or chose to leave in the preceding several years. I asked if they had done an exit interview with those leaders, and they said no. So, I contacted each of them and heard a common story of abuse at the hands of a toxic leader. This board had failed in its duty to understand what was going on and to hold their leader accountable. In the end, both the board and the senior leader resigned. As they should have. 

The greatest failure I see with boards today is failing to define what is critically important for their organization and failing to hold their leaders accountable for moving the organization forward toward its preferred future in the context of a healthy culture. 

There is never any excuse for boards that ignore the obvious and allow toxic behaviors to flourish—not Ever! Yet it happens all the time, and those who get hurt are usually the organization's staff. This is inexcusable, wrong, and sad. The victims are the staff who have no recourse as their leader is often the one creating the toxicity and a board that willingly looks the other way because they are unwilling to confront it. 

There are way too many boards that don't make a difference, and that is a leadership failure.

The church stage, staff culture and leadership boardroom: Two of the three are indicators of culture in a church

The church stage on Sunday mornings often does not reflect the true nature of a church's culture. One wishes it always was because the stage is a put-together, friendly presentation of the church's persona. The only issue is that it is often not a true persona of who the church is. When it is, it is a beautiful thing. Sometimes it is not. The stage says this is who we are - please believe us.

The stage is a church at its best in many ways. But, the authentic culture of a church is not found on stage - that can be manufactured just like all the happy families who come in the doors after fighting with one another on the way to church. The true nature of a church's culture is found in the everyday relationships of staff: how they treat one another, speak about one another, support and cooperate with one another, resolve or don't resolve conflict, and the level of politics, silos, and turf wars (per Lencioni) that exist. 

How staff are treated by leaders and how they treat one another tells the story of church culture better than anything else. Healthy cultures have healthy relationships and are full of individuals with healthy EQ. The fruit of the Spirit is evident and easily found. Gossip and backbiting are rare. Conflict is resolved in healthy ways, and there is freedom on staff to speak one's mind, and candid dialogue is encouraged. This is a true sign of a healthy church culture. I don't assume anything from the stage presentation when working with a church. Instead, I press into staff relationships. And I don't rely on the word of the senior leader but instead, ask questions of the staff themselves. 

Staff retention speaks volumes, while a pattern of staff leaving - whether resigning or being let go - says something else. I once asked a church board who had retained me to determine why the senior pastor had just fired two beloved staff members if they had interviewed any of the many staff who had left in the past five years, and they all looked down sheepishly. So, I interviewed them myself and heard a familiar story. On the other hand, where staff stay long and remain engaged in their job with one another and others, you know that there is usually good DNA at work.

I often conduct staff audit interviews with all staff with open-ended questions. Very quickly, common themes emerge that speak to staff culture's health or dishealth. This is valuable information for churches desiring to improve the staff's health.

A third indicator of a healthy or unhealthy culture is the leadership board of a church. I often speak to individuals recruited to serve on a church board who entered that job with optimism and energy, only to be disillusioned by what they found. They often encounter boards that don't speak candidly, allowing elephants to exist in the boardroom that everyone knows are there. Still, it is not OK to talk about them, gloss over issues that ought to be examined and discussed, and a significant lack of clarity about who the church is and where it is headed. The closer you get to the core of leadership, the closer you are to a church's authentic culture. 

There are notable exceptions of healthy boards that operate in healthy ways. This is the exception rather than the rule, however. Boards are not trained in healthy governance, are reticent to address known issues, and are often either passive or ultra-involved depending on the season, with little in between. One thing is usually true: board health often reflects staff health. Where there is dysfunction on staff, there is usually dysfunction on the board, which is why the staff dysfunction is allowed to exist and flourish.

I long for church staff and boards to have the same joy, spiritual presence, and professionalism found on stage each Sunday morning. If that is true in your church, I congratulate you. Often, though, the authentic culture of a congregation is not found on stage. 

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

Questions to ask about the intellectual capacity and EQ of potential board members

Serving on a board, church or otherwise, requires a special intellectual capacity or ability. This is not about education - many educated people have limited intellectual capacity and many who lack higher education have it along with good common sense.

It is the ability to think conceptually, to visualize what could be rather than simply what is, to be able to focus on the big picture and concepts rather than on the small picture and details and enough personal flexibility to be open to new ideas, and work constructively with other board members. It is also the ability to entrust staff to do what they must do and to always be pushing the missional agenda of the church or organization. It includes the ability to problem solve in creative ways rather than simply to fall back on what they have seen before in another church or organization.

Not everyone can do that and too often we bring well meaning, even Godly individuals onto our boards who actually hinder progress by their narrow views, inability to think conceptually and who believe that board work is guarding the status quo and controlling staff. Those who have worked on boards with people who do not have the intellectual skills enumerated above know how frustrating that can be. 

Among other considerations you may have in choosing board members it is helpful to ask the following kinds of questions:

• Do they think big picture of small picture (You want them to think big picture)
• Can they engage the future of the organization or simply deal with status quo? (You want them to think future)
• Do they exhibit personal flexibility or are they inflexible in their thinking? (You want them to be flexible)
• When problem solving do they see all the pieces or just some of the pieces? (You want them to think of all the pieces)
• Do they like to micromanage or empower? (You want them to empower)
• Can they trust staff or do they need to know everything before staff can act? (You want them to trust)
• Do they work synergistically with others or do they need things their way? (You want them to work synergistically)
• Do they think missionally or like to deal with inconsequential issues? (You want them to think missionally)
• Are they articulate and thoughtful or confusing and quick to make judgements? (You want them to be articulate and thoughtful)
• Do they exhibit personal humility or are they proud and overbearing? (You want them to exhibit humility)
• Do they have all the answers or are they open to discussion and flexible in the solution? (You want them to be open and flexible)
• Are they able to negotiate conflict or are they black and white and tend to see winners and losers. (You want them to be able to negotiate conflict well)
• Are they generally positive or negative in their outlook on life? (You want positive people who believe good things can happen.

These are matters of EQ and intellectual capacity and they directly impact the health and effectiveness of a board and therefor the organization the board serves. Again, it is not about educational level. It is about the ability to think well and understand the big picture of the organization - in order to help it move forward. Think about the board members you know who do this well and those who lack these skills. There is a difference! The quality of your leadership is only as good as the leaders you choose.

Creating cultures of excellence
AddingtonConsulting.org

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

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.

If your board needs help, I can help

The quality of the work of a board whether a church board or other non-profit directly influences the ability of leaders to lead and the mission to be accomplished. If you want to gauge the health of your board's work, take the test below. If all board members take it and discuss the results it will be a good conversation.

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.

Here are the links to all of my blogs on church boards.


To assess the relative health of your board, take the test here.

Operate without a church board covenant at your risk!

I have recently been reminded by several conversations how important it is to have a board covenant that spells out how board members relate to one another and work together. It takes only one board member to cause significant chaos in a church and on a board when acceptable behaviors are violated.

Verbal agreements about board behaviors are not enough. They can be forgotten and disputed. Written covenants that are agreed to and signed by board members clearly delineate what is expected of those who are serving as leaders. It is hard for other board members to ignore behaviors that are clearly defined, in written form, and signed by all involved.  

Here is an example of such a covenant from my book High Impact Church Boards.

Knowing that we, as leaders of this congregation, must model godly relationships before one another and the church, we commit ourselves to:

• Pray daily for fellow members of the leadership team and for the ministry of the church
• Never speak ill of any member of the team
• Resolve broken relationships personally and quickly
• Forgive one another when offended and hold no grudges
• Always support the decisions of this board once they are made unless a biblical, moral issue is at stake
• Care for one another when a member is hurting
• Always be honest in board deliberations and never devious in seeking personal agendas
• Never betray the confidence of the board
• Hold one another accountable for this covenant and agree to step off the board if there is a regular violation of these agreements.

The most crucial piece of the board covenant is the last one. When there is a violation of acceptable practices, the rest of the board will hold the one(s) who have violated the covenant accountable for their behavior. 

Why? Unhealthy boards compromise the health of the church! Board behavior is the model for congregational behavior. Boards that don't hold one another accountable for agreed-upon behaviors cannot hold others responsible for their behaviors. And it takes only one unaccountable board member to poison the board and cause chaos in a congregation. There are numerous stories of congregational pain and conflict when a board member violates acceptable practices, compounded when the rest of the board does not hold them accountable.

Too often, we ignore board covenants, assuming that everyone will behave. Some don't. Too often, we ignore violations as not a big deal: They are! Overseers are told to protect the flock: it starts with themselves. Ignore board covenants and problematic behavior to your own peril.