Monthly Archive for September, 2011

94. Assessment as a Spiritual Discipline for Boards

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on September 26, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. Closed

Commonly we think of spiritual disciplines as individual pursuits such as prayer, meditation upon Scripture, fasting, or penitence. However, obedience to the mission and mandate of Jesus Christ forms a fundamentally important aspect of spiritual discipline, without which none of the other “exercises” have any significance. Further, Christians working together in ministry teams have the opportunity and responsibility to experience and express spiritual disciplines collaboratively. If we think of a spiritual discipline as essentially attention paid to the instructions of Jesus such that we follow him obediently and take seriously our relationship with him, then all aspects of our lives can be perceived as a cluster of spiritual disciplines as we live with deliberate “consciousness of God.”

A significant part of a church board’s governance and stewardship lies in designing, implementing and sustaining assessment processes. In other words, the board seeks to determine whether or not the goals established are in fact being achieved. Are the anticipated and desired results actually occurring? Because goals within a church context frequently are ‘soft’ goals, i.e. hard to quantify (e.g. is a person a better disciple this year than last year because of the congregation’s ministries?), church boards tend to avoid assessment. It is too hard, too time-consuming, and too authoritarian. It is difficult to discern what to measure and then to figure out how to measure it. The board’s agenda is filled with many other significant issues and the personnel, both paid and volunteer, are already overworked. As well, requiring assessment and accountability within a faith community appears to be “unspiritual,” after all God is the One Who judges our work, it is claimed. So there are definite challenges to implementing good assessment processes that church boards have to face and wisely overcome.

If as chairperson of a church board you desire to help the board members exercise the spiritual discipline of assessment, where do you begin? I would suggest the first step is to guide the board in an examination of the scriptural teaching about accountability and assessment. For example, when Jesus sends out the Twelve in teams of two to extend his mission throughout Israel, they give an account of what they did upon their return. In several of his parables Jesus compares himself or God to the owner of an estate or the ruler of a kingdom, who requires his servants to give account of their work. Paul seems to regard himself as accountable to the Antioch church because he gives these Christians a report of his work during his first missionary journey. In his letters to TImothy and Titus Paul urges certain actions and expects positive response because they are accountable to him. A biblical and theological justification for assessment of ministries is available within Scripture. More broadly the responsibility to steward the resources God provides is perhaps the most significant element in this.

A church board requires different kinds of assessments. In the financial area assessment is accomplished through annual audit or financial review. Monthly or quarterly statements with evaluation of the financial condition of the congregation provide another mode by which to assess the financial health of the congregation. Employee assessment or performance review, done annually, forms another important category. Although the board should only be involved directly in the annual performance review of the lead pastor, policy should require that the lead pastor ensure that all employees are evaluated annually, with report provided to the board demonstrating compliance. The goal here is not to create grounds for dismissal, but to discern ways by which to encourage employees and improve their capacity and competence to serve God and the congregation well. Thirdly, there will facility assessments that have to be conducted to ensure safety, to discern the appropriate focus for maintenance, to develop plans for facility improvement, etc. These three kinds of assessment are normal and expected in most church board contexts.

Two other kinds of assessment prove more challenging. One is discerning the spiritual health of the congregation. Determining what measures will enable the church board to perceive progress or lack of progress in the spiritual condition of the congregation is a contentious question. Some quantitative measurements can be defined rather quickly, e.g. number of baptisms, number of members, number of people in church on Sunday morning, size of offerings, etc.). However, most boards will not regard such measurements as a sure indication of spiritual health. Factors external to the congregation can seriously affect each of these measurements (e.g. the closure of a major industry in a small town). Conversely, these numbers do reveal something about the state of the congregation and so they need to be tracked consistently, even as important data to help in strategic planning. It is the qualitative side of the equation that proves much more challenging. Are people praying more, able to interpret Scripture with greater skill, making better ethical decisions, loving other people more deeply, sharing their faith more boldly, understanding their spiritual giftedness and vocation, etc.? Difficult though it may be, in most of these areas some data can be gathered to gain a rough sense of achievement or non-achievement of goals that are set.

The other difficult aspect of assessment is the evaluation of programs or ‘ministries.’ It is tough in a board meeting even to ask whether or not a ministry or program is really contributing to the advancement of the mission. Significant resources are often being expended on ‘traditional’ activities which no longer advance the mission as once they did, but no one has the heart or courage to challenge their continuance, at least in their present form. It would be too upsetting for the congregation because those leading these programs exercise considerable influence and may even be members of the board or relatives. The only way to move towards implementing some kind of periodic assessment is through a policy decision on the part of the board. Some discussion with current ministry leaders would be advisable during the process to explain the reasons for this and gain their input on what a fair, manageable and helpful process might be. Gaining their ownership at the start will be important in successful implementation. Develop a schedule whereby one key ministry/program annually prepares an evaluation, with recommendations for improvement — and select the first program for assessment one whose leader is very supportive of the new policy. It will take a while to develop the process. People will be watching what the board does with the report. Are the recommendations acted upon or not? Does  the report just get shelved? Is it given due attention? How the board treats the report will either be motivating or de-motivating for other program leaders. Remember that in many cases volunteers are leading these ministries.

The board has opportunity to help itself implement good program evaluation as it reviews proposals for the initiation of new programs. At this stage the board can insist that the proposal include measurable outcomes that demonstrate whether or not the program is fulfilling its vision and is aligned with the congregation’s overall mission and vision. As well, the board can require an assessment report at a certain point as condition for renewal of funding. In other words intentionally design an assessment requirement into each new program.

Assessment is part of the spiritual discipline of telling the truth out loud. It takes courage for a board to call itself to account when no conversions or baptisms have occurred in the congregation in the last three years. What truth needs to be discerned and told in such circumstances? Assessment is also linked essentially with a spiritual disposition to accept change under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. If we cannot admit failure in the context of our relationship with Jesus and other believers, then how will we mature in our faith? If we cannot enjoy the wins that God’s Spirit generates through the board, the pastoral staff and the congregation, then what will fuel our praise of God?

 

93. Book Review # 8: “The Chairperson’s Role as Servant-Leader to the Board,” by John Carver (CarverGuide; Jossey-Bass, 1997).

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on September 19, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. Closed Tags: .

John Carver has produced a number of short, succinct discussions about various aspects of his model of non-profit board governance and its application. As the title indicates, this one focuses upon several key issues that define and shape the role of the chairperson. I appreciate the fact that he recognizes the importance of this role for disciplined, effective board work.

Carver begins by stating two key premises:

1. the description of the board’s authority, role and functions has to be defined first. “In the board-chairperson dyad, the board must unambiguously be the superior, the chairperson the servant” (1).

2. the chairperson’s role derives from the board’s job. The board appoints the chair to enable it follow its defined policies and processes so that good governance results. So the board empowers the chairperson to discern how best to facilitate the board in its work. “As point-person for board discipline, the chairperson is the leader” (2).

Carver proceeds to define then the job of the non-profit board (2-5) and this includes such things as “planning cycle,” “agenda control,” “officer roles,” “code of conduct,” “Committee principles,” and “Committee structure.” As the board develops its policies it “makes its own practices explicit” (5). Yet the broad nature of these policies require that they be interpreted and defined in their application to specific operations. This is what the board appoints and empowers the chairperson to do on their behalf in relation to board policies and board-staff linkage policies (Carver’s terminology). Similarly the board will empower the CEO, in distinction from the chairperson, to act within his or her interpretation of board-defined executive limitations and ends. The result is a chairperson who has real power authorized by the board, but also bounded authority as defined by the board.

One thing that Carver stresses is the importance for the chairperson actually to do what the board defines the role to be and to be held accountable for these responsibilities. For example, if the board says that it will evaluate its performance once a year, but the chairperson gives no leadership to the board to ensure that it is accomplished, then the chair is not fulfilling the role. Carver advises, “…if you have adopted a model, be sure to apply its principles consistently” (7).

The board has to define its own standards of conduct. It then appoints a chair to enforce those principles within the board’s operations. Carver emphasizes that the more the board members take responsibility for good governance, “who the chair is makes far less difference” (9). He provides a sample board policy entitled “Chairperson’s Job Description” (8). The description empowers the chair to lead board meetings, limits the chair’s role to the interpretation of board governance process and board-staff linkage (thus preventing the chair from interfering with the CEO), and authorizing the chair to represent the board as required.

Carver goes on to define other board officers, i.e vice-chair, secretary and treasurer (10-11). He urges a minimalist perspective, as few officers as necessary. The secretary preserves the integrity of the board’s records, i.e. “what the board has done” (11).

Another section is entitled “Tips for Chairing Effectively” (11-13). Here the essential point is that the chair “should lead individuals to become a leadership group” (11). The chairperson is not the CEO, so do not try to be. The chair’s role is to “lead the board, not the CEO” (12). Enabling the board to define its leadership, “design its discipline” and “evaluate its performance” form significant components. Two operational competencies are important — designing good agendas and ensuring the board members are participating in the discussions. Finally, he urges chairpersons to help their boards “build capacity” for good governance and this requires that the chair have a clear commitment to “the long view” (13).

His final comments address the issue of succession. Wise boards deliberate carefully over this question. Selecting and appointing a good chairperson is a critical part of good governance.

Perhaps Carver best summarizes his perspective on the role of the chairperson in this comment: “Your job is not to lead the organization — it is the far more sensitive and demanding task of helping the board to lead the organization” (14). Thus casting the role of the chairperson as ‘servant-leader’ is entirely appropriate.

Evaluation

Whether or not your church board has adopted”Policy Governance®” as your model of board governance a number of the principles Carver defines are highly applicable to the realities of a church board and the work of its chair. However, because Carver attempts to provide principles of chairing that pertain to all non-profit boards and to do this in a very brief and summary form, some of the unique dynamic and ethos that defines a church board and its work are not considered.

For example, the role of the lead pastor cannot be defined simply in terms of a CEO position. This means that the relationship between the chairperson and the lead pastor/CEO in a congregational setting will have some different contours. The pastoral staff and the board members, for instance, are responsible both for the mission of the ministry agency as well as the spiritual health of the congregation. The conversations between the lead pastor and board chair will have to consider both of these elements carefully as they coordinate the work of the board and of the staff.  As well, not every lead pastor sees their role as encompassing CEO elements. Sorting these things out creates complexity.

In smaller churches, i.e. less than 100 people, the ability of the board to implement Carver’s model will be limited. Because of necessity it will also serve partially as a management team for the congregation. Sorting out these diverse and sometimes conflicting roles takes considerable skill and understanding. In addition, for larger churches, discerning ways for the “board” to give significant oversight to the spiritual health of the congregation while tending its other “board” responsibilities, can also be a challenge.

Further, the chairperson is part of a congregation, a community of faith, within which he/she lives and actively follows Jesus. These relationships and spiritual dynamics also affect how the chairperson’s role is defined and fulfilled.Similarly each of the board members functions in that same community. Board members are appointed because of their perceived spiritual maturity and wisdom, as well as their possession of other competence.

I would suggest that a significant operational competency for the church board chairperson is enabling the board members to view their activities as worshipful work. Decision-making within a church board always occurs in the context of prayer and careful reflection upon biblical principles. We invite the Holy Spirit to be part of the proceedings. Decisions are not always made in terms of the financial bottomline, but may be based on other, more significant principles.

Cultivating congregational relations forms a critical part of the chairperson’s responsibilities. Much of this centres around the planning of the annual general meeting. The congregation is simultaneously stakeholder, “owner”, and beneficiary of the ministry agency’s work.

 

 

92. Principles for Selecting a Model of Church Board Governance (#5): Education, Decision and Implementation.

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on September 12, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. Closed Tags: , .

Developing a process to assist a church board discern whether or not it should adopt a different model of governance requires education of the board members and their prayerful, careful analysis of the possible options. Presumably such a discussion has arisen because of some felt need experienced among the board or its leadership. The board’s ability to provide strategic leadership is hampered and it cannot achieve its potential resulting in dissatisfaction among board members, or some crisis has shown the inadequacy of current practice, or the congregation has outgrown the capacity of the current model board governance to provide sustained strategic leadership. Whatever the cause, discussion has ensued about the need to discern and develop new approaches to board work in the church.

The board looks to you as chair to provide some guidance and direction. How do you proceed?If there is deep consensus among the board that change is necessary, then you have a great opportunity. If the board is divided about exploring alternative governance models as a solution to current problems, then your initial task is to discern the worry points of those board members who are uncertain and seek to provide information and assurance so that the board can move forward together in this conversation and discernment process. One thing you can do is to prepare a “Discussion Brief” that summarizes the current state of board operations and effectiveness as you perceive it. It should propose a process of discernment and a pathway to decision that gives comfort to all board members that their perspectives will be considered carefully and decisions will be taken based upon good information and general board consensus (not unanimity). If there is confidence in the process, then the board in most cases will follow.

Often some education is necessary. For many who serve on church boards the suggestion that there are various models of church board governance will come as a surprise. They may never have thought about this possibility. For others the idea that the board should consider board governance models that are not spelled out in Scripture will raise considerable angst. Will such exploration lead the board to adopt ideas and processes that are contrary to Scripture or denominational tradition, thus weakening the church’s witness? Engaging someone who has experience and expertise in these matters, but who is somewhat distant from the congregational context, enables good information to be shared, allows board members to ask their questions and probe without the presenter feeling defensive, and gives opportunity for the board to understand the pros and cons of potential directions. It can be a great exercise in building board relations and modelling ways of working together as a board that the members may not have experienced.

After the information is gathered and discussed, perhaps encourage the board to form a small taskforce (two or three people at most from the board), who will sift the data and evaluate the discussion, and prepare a report with recommendations regarding a model of governance. This may take a month or two to prepare. Better to give it enough time to be done well, than to rush things and reach a poor decision. As chair you may need to be one of the task force members, along with the lead pastor. Make sure the task force considers implications for possible bylaw changes that their recommendations may require. It is important for the lead pastor to be involved because the model of board governance recommended may also require some changes in how his position is defined and understood. It is also quite possible that the role of the chairperson will have to adjust.

If the church board decides to adopt a new model, then much of the responsibility for steering this implementation process effectively will rest upon the chairperson. So make sure you understand the governance model as clearly as possible, i.e. become the resident board expert. Develop a realistic assessment of the amount of change that will occur and what timeline will be required to bring it all together. Be wary of making grandiose announcements to the congregation, which may establish unreasonable expectations or create uncertainty. Selecting a new governance model should have little impact upon the life of the congregation, other than to enable its mission to be accomplished more effectively. At some point various bylaw changes will probably have to be processed and at that time more explanation can be offered. Also, pay particular attention to changes in position descriptions that will ensue — board member, chairperson, lead pastor. Explicit financial costs will probably be relatively modest, apart from board education. However, if there are major changes required in the position description of the lead pastor, this may have salary implications. Once you have decided on the model, then try to locate a church board that has used that model for some time and request permission to use their documentation as a template for the initial development of new policies, etc. Do not worry about getting everything right the first time through. As your board gains experience in using the new model, they will discern ways to improve it. This means that new policies should automatically have a two year review cycle.

Bathe the entire process in prayer. Listen carefully. Be unswerving once the board has made a decision.

 

# 91. Principles for Selecting a Model of Church Board Governance (#4): Operational Considerations

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on September 5, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. Closed Tags: .

Boards excel and flourish when they follow a model of governance that enables them work together effectively (get the job done) and efficiently (get the job done in a timely manner using the board’s resources wisely). Operating in this way requires a board chair to learn to recognize and assess the board’s own effectiveness and to recommend ways and means of enabling the board members to work collaboratively, use their time and energy in a smart manner, and apply the board’s resources (e.g. expertise, wisdom, skills, etc.) productively. Models of board governance are means to an end and so the means should be effective and efficient towards accomplishing the agency’s primary outcome within appropriate legal and ethical boundaries.

To help the board in its discernment of an appropriate model of governance, the chair should be able to articulate for the board the primary functions it must perform well if the agency’s mission is to be accomplished. For example, your church constitution and bylaws may mandate the board to work with the senior pastor to do three key things:

to ensure that the church’s mission is accomplished,

to protect and nurture the congregation’s spiritual life, and

to oversee and manage the resources of the congregation.

So what kind of board governance model will best enable your church board to do its job responsibly? The advisory board model will not help the board advance the mission of the congregation or oversee and manage the resources of the congregation because such a board has no authority to do any of this. A model of governance that focuses on monitoring and guarding will only achieve a small portion of this mandate. More appropriate would be a model that enables the board to focus its energies on discerning and planning for the future, assessing all aspects of the present ministry implementation, and giving the spiritual care required for the health and growth of the congregation and its employees.

One way to evaluate your current board’s effectiveness and primary focus is to review the board meeting minutes for the past two years. As you do this note the various kinds of activities and issues that occupied the board’s time and energy. For example, how much time in each board meeting was given to receiving and hearing reports from staff or committees? Were decisions about management issues forming the content of most motions? How much real time did the board spend assessing ministry programs, evaluating trends, praying and discerning future direction, evaluating the senior pastor? If the bulk of time and energy was preoccupied with monitoring and managing, then your church board will not be able to advance the mission of the congregation. Remember, boards are to govern, not manage.

Another operational aspect is the development of broad policy that guides the board and the senior pastor in their respective responsibilities. When was the last time your church board developed a board policy — not a management policy. By this I mean a policy that set parameters within which the board or the senior pastor would operate? When was the last time your board reviewed a policy and made significant revisions? Does your church board have well defined statements about the measurable outcomes it is striving to achieve this year so that the mission is advanced? If the board does not know where it discerns the congregation should be in 12 to 24 months, then how can it provide strategic leadership to ensure it arrives at the desired destination?

The third operational area I would suggest for evaluation would be the ability of the board to function as a ministry team, engaged in worshipful work. In other words, will the governance model chosen enable the board to discern and conduct its work with a deep and constant consciousness of the spiritual dimensions and dynamics? Church board work should never be allowed to occur in a spiritual vacuum. A church board then will select a governance model that supports its spiritual values and its spiritual work. This means that the agendas, discussions and decisions can be framed to express this spiritual mandate. The commission of Jesus will shape the board’s work; the Holy Spirit will guide the interactions; God’s kingdom values and plans will form the context for all discussions. As chair you do not want to keep forcing the governance model to attend to this spiritual ethos, but the governance model should enhance the ability of the board members to provide the spiritual, strategic leadership the congregation requires. What governance model will enable the board members give appropriate, energetic attention to the core issues that will enable the congregation’s mission to be achieved? What governance model will support values of integrity, excellence, respect, sacrificial service, and mutual trust?

As chair you should encourage the board to adopt a governance model that gives them the time they need to focus upon the big questions and not get bogged down in minutiae or side-tracked by personal agendas or become preoccupied with micro-managing the agency.

Some are proposing a model of board governance in which the board functions as a networked team, with all decisions taken by consensus or with unanimous support. The members are the ministry leaders. In their view such an approach to church governance reflects more adequately the family or community essence of the church. If you think that this model suits your congregational ethos, then beware of two fundamental issues that will arise. First, the phenomenon of fatigue. Participants may start out with energy and enthusiasm, but when the hard work of gaining consensus runs up against diverse opinions stubbornly held, then impatience and irritation may soon erupt. In such a model what do you do collectively when you cannot achieve consensus? Second, this model of governance usually blends governance with management. In other words the leadership team is the governing body. Maintaining the distinction between governance and management decisions will be a challenge. As well, those in charge of specific ministries may become reluctant to make decisions and constantly throw back to the leadership team decisions that they as leaders have the authority to make. Such a model eventually will prove ineffective and inefficient, in my opinion, within the context of a local church.

One other observation that may be pertinent. Sometimes it is not possible because of theological values or denominational traditions to adopt in a pure form a model of board governance. I would suspect that few church boards succeed in implementing a model of governance perfectly. Something in the local context will probably require some modification. That’s all right in most cases. Take the gains you can and implement well. As the board members see the value of the operating model in terms of their collective work, it may convince them to move to the next level of implementation.