Incumbents update

In a previous post, I mentioned we were wrestling with the issue of incumbents facing re-election. Our questions were:

"Do incumbents have to re-nominated by a congregation member or should their previous nomination still "count?"

If a current Board member is interested in seeking a second term, do they automatically get on the ballot? Or, do they go before the nominating committee like everyone else? (In other words, could the nominating committee choose NOT to put them on the ballot, even though they are eligible?)

If incumbents do get on the ballot, how many non-incumbent candidates should there be?"

I think we came up with a pretty good solution. Here's the new policy we developed for our nominating committee:

"All incumbents who are eligible and interested in serving another term shall be included on the final slate and do not need to be nominated again. The final slate, however, must include at least as many non-incumbent candidates as incumbent candidates."

Our feeling was that it was better for the voters to make the final decision on incumbents, rather than a small committee. This policy allows voters the most options. They can re-elect all the incumbents, none of the incumbents, or any combination of incumbents and non-incumbents.

How does your church address the issue of incumbents?

Meeting Frequency

I'm also interested in hearing how often the governing boards of other PBG churches meet.

When we transitioned to PBG, we kept the typical once/month meeting schedule for our governing Board, with occasional extra meetings scheduled in between.

I know that some PBG church resources encourage having Board meetings only once/quarter, to prevent Boards from dipping into the "how" stuff.

What's your Board's practice?

Incumbents

Next month, we'll be holding our annual elections for new Board members. For the first time ever, our Board has some members interested in seeking RE-election. This has presented some interesting questions, such as. . .

• Do incumbents have to re-nominated by a congregation member or should their previous nomination still "count?"
• If a current Board member is interested in seeking a second term, do they automatically get on the ballot? Or, do they go before the nominating committee like everyone else? (In other words, could the nominating committee choose NOT to put them on the ballot, even though they are eligible?)
• If incumbents do get on the ballot, how many non-incumbent candidates should there be?

I'm curious to hear how other congregations have dealt with this issue. Please...post your PBG church's practice in the comments!

Forcing You To Do Something

I'm often asked, "What do you like about PBG?" Here's one answer I often give: PBG forces us to DO something.

The natural drift of most church leadership boards is to take reports & give reports, but not really accomplish very much. They look back at what happened in the last 30 days and ahead to what's coming in the next 30 days. PBG forces us to try and do more.

At a minimum, if we simply read and follow our Board policy manual, the following things will happen:

1. The Board will have to develop "desired outcomes" for me. They will have to define what a "win" looks like.

2. I will have to lead the staff in drafting specific ministry plans to achieve the desired outcomes.

3. I will have to submit regular reports to the Board about the progress (or lack of progress!) we're making toward the outcomes.

4. The Board will hear and evaluate the progress updates and have to give feedback about the adequacy of our ministry plans.

None of that guarantees success, but it's a huge step in the right direction.

Does your structure force you to do something?

Callahan On Committees

Another helpful quote from Ken Callahan's book, Effective Church Leadership:

"The old myth was, the more people on more committees, the higher the ownership for the local church. The truth was, the more people on more committees, the more meetings that were held and the less mission that was achieved." (ECL, p. 213).

That's a harsh quote, but generally true in my experience.

That's why PBG churches are structured, not around committees, but around ministry teams. How are the two different? Here's a few examples:

1. Committees are appointed by a nominating committee. Ministry teams are gathered by a leader.

2. Ministry teams usually have a starting date and an ending date. Committees usually last forever, whether they're effective or not.

3. Ministry teams actually do stuff. Committees tend to talk more about doing stuff than they actually do stuff!

4. Committees tend to meet once/month (because that's why they've always done!). Ministry teams meet as often as their work requires them to meet, which may be more or less frequently than once/month.

What other differences have you seen and experienced?

PBG Lessons from Effective Church Leadership

Over Thanksgiving break, I discovered Ken Callahan's book, "Effective Church Leadership" on my father-in-law's bookshelf. It's certainly not a new book, having been published in 1990 by Harper Collins. However, the chapter titled, "Missional Structures" caught my eye. In it, he provides a great summary of why the traditional Church Council/Boards structures fails to work effectively in many congregation. Callahan calls it "the tree-forest flaw":

"People cannot see the forest because of their preoccupation with the trees.

Each person gets to the council bringing the tree of which they are in charge. Each person counts on the council to provide coordination and cooperation so that each tree around the table will get "its fair share of water" on an annual basis. But suppose you ask that council, "What major priority to advance the whole are you, as a team, growing forward in the coming three years?" Usually, the response is a blank look or a puzzled silence.

That council cannot see the forest because of the trees. They have been so busy ensuring that each part gets its fair share of water each year. They have two difficulties:

1. seeing the whole
2. looking more than one year ahead

The test is very simple. Read the minutes of most councils for October of a given year. Then read the minutes for October two years earlier. The names will have changed. The discussion will be the same." (ECL, p. 231).

Does that quote sound sadly familiar to you? If so, it may be time for you to start looking seriously into PBG.

PBG Reflections Inspired by Bill Hybels' Axiom

Bill Hybel's 2008 book, Axiom, recently reminded me of a challenge I've experienced in putting PBG theory into practice in the church.

In writing about his experience in managing church staff, Hybels says,

"For years I wondered how closely I should lead our staff, how tightly I should manage people. After lots of experimentaton, here is where I have landed.

If staff members are doing their jobs really well--meeting or exceeding my expectations--then I give them more freedom and look over their shoulders less. I explain my spirit of liberty to them by saying, 'You've earned this latitude with solid performance. Your diligence and thoroughness and 'win' rate have bought the privilege of my looser management style.'

But if performance begins to sag--the monitoring increases--quickly...

Performance buys freedom." (Axiom, p. 137)

That sounds a lot like how I anticipated PBG would work in the church. But my experience so far has been that the monitoring level of our Board doesn't change very much. I submit the same reports whether "performance" is good or bad. My suspicion is that Boards are much better at increasing monitoring when performance is poor than they are are decreasing monitoring when performance is good.

I guess I'm not surprised by that. When monitoring is done face-to-face, as in Hybels' illustration, changes are easier to make. But PBG Boards do accountability largely through policy, not inspection. And once policies are written down, most Boards are reluctant to remove them, even if they don't appear to be needed.

I'm curious if others have experienced this too. Any wisdom to share?