Growing health and effectiveness

A blog centered around The Addington Method, leadership, culture, organizational clarity, faith issues, teams, Emotional Intelligence, personal growth, dysfunctional and healthy leaders, boards and governance, church boards, organizational and congregational cultures, staff alignment, intentional results and missions.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Confusing, outdated, unclear and vague church governance systems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. 







Friday, January 11, 2019

The culture of your church staff directly impacts the culture of your congregation


How healthy is your church?

One of the leading indicators of that question's answer is the health of your staff culture. The culture of your staff is generally a microcosm of congregational culture, and whether good or bad, will ripple on the rest of the congregation. When I work with congregations who are struggling with significant issues, one of the first things I do is to get a handle on the culture of the staff. It will tell me a great deal.

The best way to understand the staff culture is to do a staff audit. These are 30 to 60-minute individual conversations with all staff with a carefully chosen series of open-ended questions - usually conducted by an independent third party that staff will feel free to open up with. Having completed many of these, I have learned that staff are willing to share honestly about the joys and challenges of working in their environment. The results of such an audit help senior leaders understand where they are doing well and where they could do better.

In this process, you can learn how empowered or controlled staff feel, whether they have what they need to do their jobs, whether there is alignment throughout the team regarding ministry direction if there is clarity around who the church is and where it is going if they are coached intentionally or left to their own devices if there is a collegial or competitive spirit and even the general happiness of staff in their work.

Here are some observations.
  • Where staff are not empowered, volunteers in the congregation are not empowered either.
  • Where there is openness among the team and the freedom to talk and share honest opinions and ideas, there is generally an open atmosphere in the congregation where people feel free to tell their stories without fear of censure. The opposite is also true. 
  • A happy staff usually indicates a happy congregation.
  • Leaders who control staff members often try to control people and ministries across the church.
  • Where leaders allow unresolved issues to fester on staff, they also tend to allow the same in the congregation. 
  • Leaders who don't shepherd and care for their staff often do not do so with the rest of the congregation.
  • When there is a culture of grace on the team, you usually find that same culture within the congregation.
Much of staff culture reflects the commitments of the senior leader. The best leaders pay careful attention to the culture they create on their staff, knowing that what they build there will become the culture of the congregation as a whole. Self-absorbed or controlling leaders are more concerned about themselves and the church's image than they are about the health of their staff. The result can be a ministry that looks great on the outside with a significant lack of health on the inside. Many congregations fit that bill. This is true of some of the largest congregations in the country.

Staff turnover reflects dysfunction within the staff environment and its leadership. Healthy churches have low staff turnover and, interestingly, greater retention in the congregation. Where turnover is high, someone needs to pay attention and ask why. There are always reasons. 

The lesson: As it goes on staff, it goes to the congregation. Pay attention to your staff culture. That culture will ripple on the rest of the community in good ways and bad. Problems within the staff culture may also indicate problems in the congregation. Your culture is your brand.