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?

People Don't Like Changes Or Surprises

A while back I had the privilege of sitting at the feet of Pastor Knute Larsen, long-time pastor of The Chapel in Akron, Ohio and the author of The ABF Book (Adult Bible Fellowships). For several hours, Knute shared nuggets of wisdom he had gained over many years of pastoral service. One in particular, I'll never forget:

"Remember, people don't like changes or surprises. . . and they REALLY don't like surprises!"

How true! Changes are inevitable, especially in a growing congregation, and it's usually the responsibility of Boards and Pastors to lead people through them well. One of the best things we can do to lead well through change is to avoid surprises. Change is inevitable, but surprises shouldn't be.

A few thoughts on avoiding surprises (and the pain that goes with them):

• Don't hide bad news about the congregation from the congregation. Share it kindly--be careful not to assign blame where it's not deserved--but don't hide it.
• Tell members about potential changes well before they're finalized. Even if they don't get a vote in the decision-making process, people appreciate the opportunity to share their thoughts & feelings. Your members don't always need to get their way, but they do need to be heard and understood.
• Communicate bigger changes using multiple means. The greater the change, the greater the need for communication. Talking about a significant change at a single congregational meeting is not enough. One article in the church newsletter is not enough. Use meetings and newsletters, as well as emails, verbal announcements, open forums, surveys, bulletin boards, and anything else you can think of.

One final thought on leading change: beware the danger of demonizing those who resist change. Just because someone disagrees with your proposal doesn't mean they've sided with the devil!

A few years ago, when our congregation was going through a significant change, one of my Board members sent me the following. It's been extremely helpful to me. I hope it will be for you and your congregation also.

WHY PEOPLE RESIST CHANGE

1. The risk of change is seen as greater than the risk of standing still.

2. People feel connected to other people who are identified with the old way.

3. People have no role models for the new activity.

4. People fear they lack the competence to change.

5. People feel overloaded and overwhelmed.

6. People have a healthy skepticism and want to be sure new ideas are sound.

7. People fear hidden agendas among would-be reformers.

8. People feel the proposed change threatens their notions of themselves.

9. People anticipate a loss of status or quality of life.

10. People genuinely believe that the proposed change is a bad idea.

"Hit The Bullseye" by Paul D. Borden

I've been wanting to read a Paul Borden book for a long time now. My interest was peaked when I saw how often he was quoted in Winning on Purpose by John Kaiser, a recommended resource of PBG church.

I'm now starting to work through his 2003 book, Hit the Bullseye: How Denominations Can Aim the Congregation at the Mission Field. Here's a thought-provoking quote:

". . . we must restore some kind of polity that marries authority, responsibility, and accountability. All current polities separate these three concepts. Some polities do it in theory while all do it in practice. Congregations are scared to death to put authority and responsibility together because most believe it will create organizational monsters with dictatorial leaders. This fear is well founded, if there is not clear and powerful accountability. Yet because of our concept of "family" we run from accountability like animals from a forest fire. So we create polities that separate authority from responsibility, resulting in frustration and the loss of our best leaders." (p.142)

Has your congregation experience the effects of separating authority, responsibility and accountability?

How does your church hold its leaders accountable for achieving the mission?