Monthly Archive for July, 2010

39. A Church Board Chair’s Check List for a New Ministry Year

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on July 29, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: , , .

What does a Church Board Chair do in the dog days of August? Usually no board meetings are scheduled. Most lead pastors are on vacation, at least part of the time. Church ministries tend to be at a low ebb, unless there are special focuses such as children and youth activities. But in 30 days or so, everything in the church community starts to regain its energy, including the activities of the church board.

So what can you be doing now in mid-summer to prepare yourself as board chair for the coming months of constant activity? How can you organize some things so that your role as chair is both manageable and in fact enjoyable?

Some church board chairs might want to respond by saying — don’t remind about what is coming! Let me enjoy a few more weeks of relative calm, these remaining few weeks free from board stuff! And in a certain sense I sympathize because the next ten months will require you as board chair to engage some difficult things. However, a little time devoted to sorting through some basic matters can serve to make your role as chair flow much more smoothly.

Let me suggest a few things you might work on now so that the work of the board in the coming months will go well. Before plunging into plans for the board it would be wise to evaluate your own spiritual preparedness for this leadership role. Romans 12 provides a good text for meditation about aspects of spiritual leadership. Further, develop a prayer schedule around the members of the board so that you can develop a discipline of praying regularly for each one and your primary ministry leaders.

One of the first things to work on is the annual schedule of board meetings. One of the characteristics of church boards in distinction from the boards of other non-profit charities is the number of board meetings that seem to be required. You know from experience that you will probably meet monthly as a board and you also probably know on what day of the week the meetings will likely occur. So, with the annual church calendar in one hand (presuming there is one) and the number of required board meetings in the other hand, put together a proposed schedule of board meetings from September to July. Indicate where you think a board retreat might fit and any other special board activities (e.g. social events with spouses). Without a doubt some elements in this proposed schedule will need to be changed when you present it at the first board meeting. However, you will have helped the board get its mind and heart around the work that needs to be done.

Second, consider what the board may have identified as the three or four primary issues or projects that the church needs the board to carry forward this coming year. You probably have already had some discussion about this with your lead pastor. You may even have a strategic plan that indicates what these focuses should be. However you discern these “big rocks”, begin to think about how to fit them into the board’s agenda over the next eleven months. Is there a priority to them that helps you establish some logical sequence? What reports have to be prepared so that the board will have the necessary information to understand the decisions they will face? How many meetings should be given to each big issue? You will also know what key items of regular business need to be dealt with at certain points in the year (e.g. budget planning, preparation for annual general meeting, lead pastor’s review, etc.). Schedule those in. So now you have the basis for an annual agenda that can guide you as chair through the year and prevent you from being surprised.

A third matter that often takes a bit of planning is the  appointment of board officials and committees. While you want the board’s input on this, nothing prevents you as chair from coming with a few suggestions, particularly for those positions that you know will be difficult to fill. You may even need to have coffee with one or two of the board members to encourage them to consider one of these roles. Coming to the initial board meeting with a bit of a plan about this can save a lot of time and hassle.

Fourthly, give some thought to what you think should be the focus of board development and education in this coming year. It may be that at the last meeting of the board a bit of evaluation occurred as the board took stock of its performance over the last year. From this they may have identified one or two key areas that they would like to have some help with. Perhaps at your next meeting with the lead pastor ask for his help in planning some means to address these issues. It may be that you will recommend to the board that you study a book together or that you invite an external person to come and share insights with the board about the issue. Again, coming to the first board meeting with some suggestions about how to proceed will encourage the board to move forward with you.

And then there is the worship time that your board has at each meeting. Now is a good time to begin thinking about planning these times so that the board is being challenged spiritually through the year. Perhaps your tradition is to have every board member lead the worship time at one meeting each year. So, build that into the meeting schedule, naming the person who will be responsible for each meeting. You might also want to suggest a theme that the board might study in its worship time. If, for example, one of the ‘big rocks’ in the coming year has to do with taking the church’s evangelism to a new level of effectiveness, perhaps the worship times could be focused around biblical teaching about and examples of evangelism. Perhaps in your opening remarks to the board at their first meeting, challenge them to engage personally in evangelism in ways they have never done so before.

Two other aspects deserve attention. During the previous year of board work you undoubtedly made some mental notes about the kinds of reports the board was receiving. Perhaps some time in August would provide an opportunity to meet with one or two church volunteers or staff whose reports did not really serve the needs of the board and help them to design their reports in a more effective manner.  As well, make sure you schedule one meeting with your lead pastor by the end of the first week of September. It is important for you both to touch base about the coming year of ministry.

Undoubtedly, no matter how well you seek to plan the year ahead some matters will emerge as total surprises. However, if you have most things planned well, then you will have time and energy left to deal with these emergency matters effectively.

38. Board Dynamics and Cultural Diversity: Part III. Power Distance and Board Leadership

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on July 20, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. Closed Tags: , , .

All cultures develop power structures. When you grow up in a specific culture, you learn how to navigate within its specific power structures. For the most part we acquire this knowledge naturally, like learning a language. However, we also tend to assume that all other cultures have the same understanding of power structures, but this is a big mistake.

James Plueddemann in his book Leading Across Cultures devotes an entire chapter to something termed “power distance”, i.e. “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (quoted from Geert Hofstede, Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind). Some cultures possess high-power-distance values. In this case large inequalities in power are the norm, with some people holding significant power, but the majority having little power. Other cultures embrace low-power-distance values. In these cases equality defines power relationships and the culture strives to minimize the power status that various groups or people may possess.

How does power distance play out within an organization? If you live in a culture where high-power-distance is the dominant value, then people in that culture will expect leaders to possess more authority and status than followers. Often the leader assumes the right to make decisions unilaterally. So children will obey parents; employees will follow the boss’s instructions, students will accept what teachers communicate. In such a situation when a leader seeks to consult and arrive at a decision based on consensus, it may communicate lack of leadership ability.It is normal when such values are present for leaders to have special privileges and if these are not evident, again questions arise about the person’s leadership capacity.

If you have lived in a culture where low-power distance is normative, then you expect leaders to work collaboratively with teams and consult before making decisions. You expect to have voice in the operations. A more democratic model prevails. If a leader starts making unilateral decisions, rebellion will occur in some form. In these contexts good leaders are expected to break down barriers that divide. Privileges are a sign of corrupt leadership, not respected leadership.

Broadly speaking North American and Western European-influenced cultures tend towards low-power-distance values. Conversely, Asian, Eastern European and African and Latin American cultures tend towards high-power-distance values. Of course, these are very broad generalizations. Variables affecting these generalizations include education, wealth, religion, occupation and urban versus rural context. Plueddemann comments that in every country where high-power-distance tends to be normative, people tend to desire less power distance. After reviewing various biblical cases, he concludes that “Scripture seems to leave room for some flexibility regarding power distance in leadership style but not in leadership attitudes. The heart of every leader must be humble, seeking the good of others and suspicious of one’s own motives” (103).

Challenges may arise when ministry teams are multicultural, composed of people from cultures that value both high-power-distance and low-power-distance. If the members of the team do not understand this cultural phenomenon and determine to exercise great sensitivity and respect towards one another, the team will become dysfunctional.

When we set these dynamics in the context of a church board, practical processes such as decision-making may be affected. For example, individuals used to operating in a culture where high-power-distance values are the norm, may not be comfortable with board discussion that seems to challenge the lead pastor’s proposal for ministry strategy. Similarly the very thought of evaluating a leader when such values predominant will be distasteful. Further, discerning when a decision has occurred officially may also be confusing. Consensus decision-making may even feel disrespectful of the primary leader’s prerogative.

Alternatively, those board members whose experience is limited to contexts where low-power-distance values dominate, will bridle when a leader used to operating with high-power-distance values feels he has authority to make the final decision, despite what the board may say. Such board members will expect the lead pastor to be evaluated and the more thoroughly this is done, the better.

A chair finding himself or herself facilitating a culturally diverse board will need to understand these dynamics. Careful delineation of which groups in the organization speak into which issues and which group has authority to make specific decisions may prevent considerable distress. Further, having some discussion among the board members to clarify their preferred means of working together will help the board members understand each other more fully. It may even be helpful, when a decision has been achieved only after considerable conflict and dissenting opinion, to review with the board what happened and help each person to understand why that decision seemed to be so difficult. Perhaps different understandings of “power-distance” were responsible for some of the conflict.

We know that Scripture teaches us to respect one another and honour those who are entrusted with leadership. As well, Scripture is clear that we must mutually submit to each other. We are one in Christ and differences such as race, gender, and socio-economic status should not affect the way we value another believer in Christ. The concept of the priesthood of the believer is a fundamental New Testament principle. However, we also know that God has established order and commands us, as part of our subjection to Jesus as Lord, that we work respectfully with those whom the congregation has entrusted with spiritual oversight. We must adapt the high-power-distance and low-power-distance values to work in conformity with biblical principles.

 

 

37. Board Diversity and Cultural Diversity: Part II: Perceptions of Time and Organization

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on July 13, 2010 in Board, Board Chair and Board Member. Closed Tags: , .

In part I of this series about the implications of cultural diversity for board leadership we introduced the concepts of “high context” and “low context” cultural frameworks. This second installment considers how these divergent but equally appropriate cultural perspectives view and value time. Again I am indebted to James Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures (2009) and to Mark Naylor for their insights.

The terms “polychronic” and “monochronic” identify two very different cultural understandings. High context cultures tend to be “polychronic” and low context cultures usually display “monochronic” characteristics. In a “polychronic” culture essentially interruptions are non-existent, because time is a limitless resource and people and relationships are more important than efficiency.  To refuse to meet a person when you are present because of a prior schedule would be considered most rude. People in a polychronic context will understand when a leader stops what he is doing to attend to a person’s situation, expecting that others present are competent to carry forward the discussion and arrive at a good decision. Stuff happens in the normal rhythm of life and needs to be attended to, despite some prearranged schedule.

Conversely, a “monochronic” culture tends to view time as a commodity that should not be wasted. Interruptions then become irritating because the scheduled time is being spent on something not immediately germane to the meeting. The priority is placed on efficiency. Distress emerges when the decisions expected to occur in the context of the meeting cannot be made because of other circumstances, interruptions or relationships.

An example of how this works on the ground in a low context, monochronic culture would be a board meeting in which the chair kept to the agenda and did not allow for diversions because it was important to make decisions in that meeting. The focus is on task, working promptly and consistently. Conversely, in a high context, polychronic culture the chair of a board meeting would attend to interruptions and concerns both internal and external to the meeting, rather than completing the agenda. As emergencies intervene, the leader would put people ahead of task, assuming that the business will get done at some time, but there is plenty of time. For example, if his cellphone rang, he would not hesitate to answer it because he knew that the meeting would continue as he responded to that interruption.

On the one hand, a chair who is enculturated in a high context, polychronic way of living will give more attention to interruptions than in completing the agenda.  On the other hand, a chair who is enculturated in a low context, monochronic culture will struggle when the meeting does not follow the agenda and loses focus because other things pre-empt the meeting’s stated outcomes.  Again I would emphasize that these cultural perspectives are different, but one is not necessarily better than another.

As a general principle where the Bible leaves flexibility for various cultural norms to operate, then acknowledge that. However, it is probably wise to try and chair a board in accordance with the values of the local host culture. So a chair needs to assess what that host culture’s primary orientation is.

In most churches whose attendees primarily are second or third generation Canadians, the cultural ethos will tend to be low context, monochronic. However, as the membership of a church board may change and incorporate individuals whose cultural ethos is high context and polychronic in character, then the chair should seek to find ways to respect and value aspects of that cultural perspective.  For example, the chair might give space in the meeting for relationship building, i.e. times to share personal blessings and challenges, stop for prayer about particular issues, lead the meeting with attention to the agenda, but in a relaxed mode, not becoming agitated if the agenda is not completed at that meeting. Placing the most important items that need decision at the head of the agenda will ensure that necessary decisions are made, but it will give time for other, unplanned discussions to occur in the meeting.

In a high context, polychronic culture the chair as leader understands the discussions within and without the board meeting are part of the decision-making process. He will know when decisions need to be made and moderate the discussions and manage the interruptions so that progress is made, but not in rude or disrespectful ways. In a low context, monochronic culture the chair as leader enables the board to progress by careful attention to the agenda, the process, and existing policies.

If as chair you perceive that your board contains members from both kinds of enculturated perspectives, how can you facilitate the board’s work without frustrating one or the other group of participants?  The following might be some strategies to consider:

1. the chair needs to have a very good sense of the timeframe in which particular decisions need to be made. This will allow him to guide the board’s discussions in a relaxed, but intentional mode.

2. while the board meeting will normally be the context where a decision finally is recorded, the chair can propose to the board various contexts in which discussion leading to decision might occur. For example, at a social evening where the board members and spouses are meeting for the purpose of building relationships, the chair might engage the entire generally in a discussion about an issue that the church is facing. The intent is not to reach a decision or to discuss highly confidential matters, but rather to let the discussion flow in a different rhythm and context.

3.  develop a practice of introducing matters one or two meetings prior to the time when decision is needed. Discussion can proceed within and without the board by the members, with plenty of time for diverse opinions and insights to be gathered. The meetings become a point of touching base about the issue, consolidating thinking, and charting new insights.

4. engage the board members in some discussion about whether cellphones should be answered during meetings. If the board grants permission to one another for this to occur, then board members need to agree as well that the board’s discussions will go forward.

5. engage the board members in some discussion about how they should respond to family priorities that from time-to-time conflict with board schedules. There will be different perspectives on this, but the board members should develop some common understanding, giving permission for board members to respond as they perceive their responsibilities, without other board members becoming judgmental.

In a sense the best response of a chair is to give considerable attention to developing agendas that allow the strengths of both perspectives to have play.

[I am appreciative of the insights shared by Mark Naylor, Coordinator of International Leadership Development, at Northwest Baptist Seminary. However, the final shape of the article is my own responsibility. Larry Perkins.]

36. Review Article # 2: T.J.Addington, High Impact Church Boards (2006).

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on July 4, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Book Reviews. Closed Tags: , , .

T.J.Addington, High Impact Church Boards. Oakdale, MN: Sandbox Resources, 2007. 217 pages.


T.J.Addington is a Senior Vice-President with the Evangelical Free Church of America. For over fifteen years he has consulted with many churches and Christian, non-profit organizations, seeking to help them develop effective boards and improve related organizational issues.  He writes in response to boards who are “looking for help to lead better and to ensure that their ministries are more effective” (1). He believes that in many cases church leadership has “allowed accidental rather than deeply intentional ministry to characterize our leadership….our structures have made leadership a chore rather than a joy” (1). From his experience he knows that many church leaders long to develop and experience “empowered leadership structures and cultures in their congregations” (2). He offers effective, biblically consistent tools that enable churches to “maximize ministry impact” (3).

Within his book he focuses upon three key issues that he believes are critical to enable church leadership to make an impact:

1. “health of church leaders and clarity in what God has called them to do;”

2. “a commitment to deeply intentional ministry on an annual basis….a simple, workable paradigm for moving your congregation intentionally in the direction to which God is calling you;”

3. friendly leadership structures “and an empowered church culture that allows leaders to lead and participants to minister” (3).

When these three areas are attended to well, Addington believes it generates “the High Impact Revolution” in church life. The book’s three sections consider healthy leaders (four chapters), intentional leaders (five chapters) and empowered leaders (four chapters).

An initial test (4-5) enables the reader to evaluate how well his or her church board may be functioning as a high impact leadership group.

All of this is driven by Addington’s belief that the primary business of an effective board is requiring identifiable “return on mission” (7). His book attempts to help boards function with specific focus on their church’s ROM.

Addington provides a very helpful resource that enables church board members to discern their role more clearly, embrace processes that enable the church to fulfill its mission, and, in short, to be effective as boards. If a board is looking for a book they can read and study together to enhance their ability to serve, then this deserves a serious look. Although I will engage several of Addington’s ideas and offer some alternative perspectives, I want to affirm that he offers a valued resource.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35. Board Dynamics and Cultural Diversity: Part I: “High Context”…”Low Context”

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on July 4, 2010 in Board, Board Chair and Board Member. Closed Tags: , , , , .

In Canada, particularly in urban settings, cultural diversity characterizes our society. Our churches are beginning to reflect this reality. As immigration patterns continue to bring hundreds of thousands of people to Canada from many different cultural groups, our multiculturalism will become more pronounced. Evangelical churches need to find ways to invite these new Canadians into their communities. Both Jesus and Paul emphasize hospitality as a Christian virtue and practice that demonstrates God’s love for every human being.

This cultural diversity is shaping the composition of church boards. Frequently church boards will have members from three or four different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. This diversity is good

and we celebrate it as one of the wonderful elements of God’s family. We want to accept one another as equals in Christ, understand one another and respect one another as board members. So far so good.

What we fail to recognize more often than not is that this cultural diversity also leads people to have very different views about group interaction, appropriate kinds of communication, honour and shame, the nature of decision-making, the relationship between younger and older members, etc. We are all embedded in cultural realities that shape how we understand such issues and behave in response to them. James Plueddemann (Leading Across Cultures, 2009) urges us to realize that “the more we interact with each other, the more we need to understand each other’s underlying cultural values” (73). So each person in a team ministry needs to learn the “language of respect” that others use.  A westerner may think he is being honest and direct in his discourse, “speaking the truth in love,” only to discover that he has treated with considerable disrespect someone in the group who operates within a different frame of reference.

Let’s consider an example. The congregation appoints to the board a respected Christian leader who has recently (last five years) emigrated from mainland China. He is 38 years old. For the first three board meetings, this new member contributes almost nothing to board discussions. He listens intently and seems attentive, but offers no comments. What is the chair to make of this behaviour? Is the person behaving in this way because he is shy or naturally reserved? Is this his first experience as a board member and his reticence results from uncertainty? Perhaps, but the other newly appointed, 45 year old board member who was born in Alberta, certainly is not shy about presenting his opinions.

As the chair begins to explore the dynamics of this situation he discovers that Asian cultures tend to express respect and values differently than Western cultures.  Chinese culture is characterized as a “High context” culture.  This means that a person will discern values and respect from the way people act, not from what they say. Much more weight is given to non-verbal aspects of communication, i.e. the setting of the room, facial expressions, body language. Verbal communication tends to more flowery in its expression. The majority of the information gets communicated through these non-verbal elements. Western culture in contrast tends to be a “Low context” culture. In other words almost all of the weight in communication is placed on the verbal communication, i.e. what is said explicitly. Plain, direct speech is the valued commodity. In high stress contexts people tend to revert to their cultural norm. We should not think that one way of communication is better or worse — they are just different.

The new board member’s “shyness” is occurring because he is trying to get his bearings in this very different cultural context.The room the board meets in is a basement room of the house in which the church offices are situated. Other board members dress very casually and there is plenty of informal joking and sharing. Interactions in discussions get very direct, often rather confrontational as serious questions are debated. The younger members do not seem to wait to get their direction from the older members. For someone used to the communication dynamics of a “High context” culture, this ethos creates significant problems. He struggles to know how to “read” what is happening and so he is reluctant to participate lest he misunderstand what is happening.

What can a board chair do in this situation to help the new board member feel at ease and discern how to participate well? Perhaps the most important response is to find a way to help, but do so privately. Do not try to address this in a board meeting with everyone present.  In fact, the chair should not do this personally. Rather try to find a “bridge person,” someone who has experience in both cultures. This person should find a way to connect with the new board member and express how much the chair respects and values this individual’s involvement in the board. However, the representative will also indicate that the chair is concerned that the new board member’s important perspectives and ideas may not be heard. The “bridge person” would explore gently whether everything is all right, whether a meeting with the board chair would be fruitful, etc.  In all of this the strong signal is that  you want him to serve well as a board member and this can only occur if he is engaged in the discussions. In many cultures indirect approaches show more respect and value than direct approaches.

The goal is not to induce the new board member to change. Rather the best outcome is that the both parties learn to respect and value the communication processes that each uses, rather than judging the other inappropriately. So a second strategy would be for the chair in some of his introductory comments at a board meeting to acknowledge the cultural diversity, explain its implications for mutual understanding, and offer suggestions that will help the whole board to interact more effectively. Mutual respect and a willingness to learn from one another is an essential foundation for Christian hospitality.

[I am indebted to Mark Naylor, coordinator of international leadership development at Northwest Baptist Seminary, for his assistance with this article. The final expression of the ideas is my own. Larry Perkins.]