 Several colleagues have asked for my response to an interview that took place on NPR last week titled, “Annual Job Review is Total Baloney”. I imagine that many of you heard or read the interview as well. The interviewee was UCLA business professor Samuel Culbert who claims that annual performance evaluation is dishonest and fraudulent, and represents plain bad management. Culbert argues that “nothing would be better than something” when it comes to the practice of the annual job review.
I seem to run across this argument in articles or interviews several times a year. Interestingly enough, such arguments always seems to be associated with the promotion of a new publication, one that is heralded as a totally new take on performance management. Such is the case with Samuel Culbert. In his interview Culbert argues for the use of open straight talk and “performance preview” as an alternative to performance review. I haven’t read Professor Culbert’s book, but his arguments in the interview sure do sound like an attempt to assign new language to long standing principles of good performance management. I’m not sure there is anything new here. Effective performance management involves setting clear expectations about what we are looking for from our employees, providing regular feedback on how employees are doing compared to our expectations and creating open forums of communication between supervisors and employees about how to improve performance effectiveness.
Here’s what I agree with in Culbert’s arguments. Performance evaluation that is done poorly can be devastating to employee motivation and can seriously damage the employment relationship. We should obliterate the practice of bad performance review in our organizations.
Here’s where I think differently. Performance evaluation, when done effectively, is a vital and critical step in the overall performance management of our congregations. There are certain things that happen in an annual performance process that can’t fully happen in any other kind of feedback conversation.
The annual performance evaluation invites a supervisor and employee to get on the same page about overall role expectations. Once a year the review allows us to look at the overall role, what it requires and how it relates to other roles on the team. The employee and supervisor can take a big picture look at how the role has evolved over the past year, and how it might need to evolve in the coming year.
In 1997 the Gallup organization conducted a major research study, involving over 28,000 employees to determine what employees seek in their work environments. Twelve critical factors were identified. The number one factor that employees reported as being most important to a productive and happy work environment was this: Do I know what is expected of me in my job? The annual performance review is the place where supervisors and employees can most clearly establish this expectation.
The annual performance review can approach the developmental aspects of an employee in more profound ways than weekly, or even quarterly, conversations can accomplish. Once a year it is helpful to do an accounting of where the employee stands in the embodiment of their vocation. Where am I in my relationship with the congregation, my role and my vocation since this time last year?
The annual review process invites supervisors and employees to reflect upon the overall direction setting of the congregation, and each employee’s responsibility for the strategic initiatives of the congregation. As part of the annual review process supervisors and employees can set performance goals and expectations for the upcoming year. The annual alignment of employee goals helps to insure that the overall strategic direction of the congregation (as set forth by the governing body) is appropriately embodied in the life of the staff team.
If you’d like to engage a more comprehensive presentation of my viewpoints on the attributes of the annual performance evaluation, and how it ought to be administered, I invite you to listen to two webinars that I have recorded on the topic:
Setting Performance Expectations: talks about the nature of the employment relationship in covenantal communities and how to establish a performance management system that revolves around job descriptions.
Building and Delivering Effective Feedback Messages: talks about the creation of feedback conversations (including the annual performance review) between supervisors and employees.
 The role of membership director is one of the most confused roles that I encounter in large congregations. Is it an administrative role or a programmatic one? Is it mostly about tracking people, their giving and their whereabouts, or is it about developing programs of assimilation and membership? And how is the role related to discipleship, stewardship and leadership development?
Most very large congregations have a staff person devoted to managing/developing the membership base of the congregation. Once a congregation passes a certain threshold the clergy team of the church can no longer keep track of who all of the people are, and how they are assimilating into the life of the congregation. Arlin Rothauge’s early work on size transitions in congregations helped us to understand that a singular pastor maxes out at tending congregant relationships once the average worshipping community passes 150. A congregation can add additional clergy staff and each addition can also tend another 150 relationships. However, at some point adding additional programmatic clergy doesn’t effectively tend to the welcoming and assimilation function of the congregation. People begin falling through the cracks. New people arrive and stick around for awhile, only to disappear out the back door before really becoming assimilated into the life of the congregation. The sheer volume of relationships at work in the large congregation requires a more systematized way of tracking people and creating programmatic venues for assimilation, membership and leadership development.
One of the most complicated things about the role is the way that it seems to emerge and then evolve over time. Typically, when the congregation engages 600-800 in average weekend worship attendance, the need emerges for better management of the assimilation function. When the role first emerges it is almost always placed on the administrative side of the staff team and it is almost always staffed part time. The staff member spends most of their time developing a reporting system to track participation and membership and to better manage the welcoming function at weekend worship. The position is usually staffed by a lay member of the congregation who knows a lot of people and cares deeply and passionately about the mission of the congregation. As the congregation continues to grow past the 800 mark, the demands on the membership role become more significant and the role begins to require more than the original occupant can supply. A more sophisticated program of assimilation needs to be developed that can guide the footsteps of a first time visitor from the first point of entry until they are a fully engaged member, participating in the leadership life of the congregation. In the very large church the membership staff role is responsible for the welcoming function, membership classes, and early work in discipleship and stewardship. Sometimes the development director is housed under the pastoral care arm of the staff team, and sometimes under the education arm.
In many of the large congregations I’ve worked in recently the Membership Director is suffering from an identity crisis: where do I fit on the staff team and exactly what is it that I am supposed to be doing? The lack of clarity about what the role is meant to accomplish creates a great deal of role conflict (and resulting stress) for the occupant of the role.
I wonder why this particular staff role is so much more conflicted than any other role in the large congregation. A youth director, a director of worship, a children’s ministry director…all of these roles are pretty consistent from one congregation to the next. Why is this role configured so radically different from one congregation to the next?
Photo Credit: Reese Photography
 Greetings Readers! I’m sorry to have been so silent these past few weeks. It’s the end of the program year and that’s a very busy time in the life of an Alban consultant. Every client needs us onsite in late May and early June to get in one last piece of work before the summer hiatus begins. I’ll be back and posting more regularly in a few more weeks when my travel schedule slows down. I’m picking up lots of new conversation topics along the way to introduce on the blog. So, keep posted.
In the meantime, today I ran across this interesting essay on the website of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research. It’s authored by Loren Mead and addresses the dynamics in the relationship between large and wealthy congregations and their middle judicatories. It’s long, but worth the read!
I’m going to be hosting two live online webinars on Supervising Your Staff Team in the month of June.
Part 1 of the Series takes place on Tuesday, June 8 from 1:00-2:00 PM (Eastern) and is titled Setting Performance Expectations for Your Staff. This webinar will help supervisors to think about the nature of employment relationships in the church and how to establish meaningful performance expectations for employees. This online learning opportunity will help supervisors to think about their role as a supervisor within a covenantal community. Are employment relationships in the church different in significant ways from other jobs? How is supervising different from coaching, pastoral care, are any other type of one on one helping relationship? Participants in this webinar will learn how to construct a job description as a meaningful and useful tool of performance management and accountability.
Part 2 of the series will be hosted on Tuesday, June 15 from 1:00-2:00 PM (Eastern) and is titled Building and Delivering Effective Staff Feedback. Participants will learn how to craft and deliver three distinctly different kinds of performance feedback messages:
• the daily feedback conversation
• the quarterly progress conversation
• the annual performance review
We’ll examine the ways that employees sometimes deflect or sidetrack feedback and show you some helpful ways to keep your message on point.
I hope that you’ll consider joining me for these two live events. You can register to participate at alban.webex.com
 At some point in time every large church asks the question, “Are we utilizing volunteers the way that we should?” The question usually emerges in the midst of a budgeting or financial planning meeting as leaders grapple with an ever expanding staff budget, or yet another request for an addition to staff. It seems that the effective recruitment and management of volunteers ought to be able to substitute for some of the hired staff of the congregation. Sometimes the question emerges in a board meeting as lay leadership tries to figure out what the role of laity is in a congregation where the staff team operates as the central operating feature of the congregation. What, if any, meaningful role does lay volunteerism plan within the large staff-driven congregation?
Once a congregation passes a certain size threshold the complexity of running the church requires an organizational structure that centers on a professionalized staff team. After a congregation passes 450-500 people in weekend worship attendance, or functions with an operating budget of more than $1 million, the congregation begins to operate with standards of excellence in programming and worship that are almost impossible to maintain with lay leadership. It’s not that lay leaders don’t have the desire or ability to create programs of excellence; it’s that they don’t have the capacity in terms of time and/or expertise. Beyond a certain point, excellence requires the dedication of consistent and regular hours and developed expertise devoted to the ministry. Once a congregation passes this threshold laity often struggle with understanding their part in the ministry equation.
In the large church the relationship between staff and lay leadership can be characterized in these simple terms. Lay leadership is responsible for the Governance (policy making, oversight, accountability) of church life. Lay leaders are also actively engaged in “doing” the tasks of ministry. The staff team is responsible for Ministry Management (program leadership and daily administration) of the church. Together, lay and staff leadership have shared responsibility for mission, vision, and strategy. For a better understanding of these distinctions and this relationship see Governance and Ministry by Dan Hotchkiss.
Having made these distinctions, let’s explore the role of volunteerism in both governance and ministry? In congregational life the governance work is an entirely volunteer run process. The work of governance is carried out by the governing board/body and its appointed committees; all volunteer operating groups. The work of ministry is managed by the professional staff team of the church and lay volunteers who serve on committees that help to shape and support those ministries. Volunteers also function as ministry participants (choir members, teachers, youth workers, mission project participants etc.).
When congregations begin to wonder if there isn’t a better way to utilize volunteers to reduce staffing costs, they typically aren’t thinking about adding more volunteers on the governance side of the equation, and they typically aren’t thinking about adding more volunteers as ministry participants. They are most often thinking about using volunteers in the management and administration of ministry.
So, what is the correct way to think about utilizing volunteers in the management and administration of ministry? Simply put, volunteerism on the staff team can work if the volunteer is:
- Equipped with the full skill set required to fill the role. The large church can’t operate with multiple semi-equipped volunteers in a role that needs the devoted skill set of a professional. Willingness to help and the availability of time cannot substitute for expertise.
- Committed to keeping regular and consistent hours in service to that role. Volunteers who have isolated pockets of time, and are looking to work only when it’s convenient within their schedule don’t work well as volunteers in the large congregation. Volunteer staff must schedule and coordinate their time away from the job just like paid staff members do.
- Willing to be subject to accountability standards. Staff volunteers need to function with defined job descriptions, be subject to regular supervisory meetings, and receive regular performance feedback, including annual performance reviews.
When these three sets of conditions are met, volunteers can and do function effectively as members of a staff team.
 One of the hardest things for staff teams to figure out is how to handle complaints brought to them about other members of the staff team. Sometimes the complaints are brought by members of the congregation and sometimes they are brought by other team members. We call this process triangulation. Person A has a strained relationship with Person B and instead of working out the tension of the relationship directly with B, Person A goes to Person C to complain or vent about Person B. Person C listens to A and becomes engaged in the tension between A and B, so that now Person C begins to develop a strained relationship with B. The more triangulation that develops within a staff team, the higher the level of tension and conflict within the team. In a healthy team environment staff members always encourage direct communication between others and never foster anonymous feedback or complaints.
Let’s look at a typical example. A congregation member approaches the associate pastor to complain about something that the pastor mentioned in her sermon last Sunday that offended the congregation member. The associate pastor has to figure out how to handle himself with regard to the complaint. Does he listen to the parishioner’s complaint in the interest of being attentive and available? And if so, what does he do with the complaint after he receives it, especially if the congregant wants to protect her identity? How does he have a meaningful conversation with the senior pastor about the complaint without being able to mention the name of the person who registered the complaint? “Hey Amanda, people are saying…” This is not particularly helpful feedback.
So, what is the appropriate response of the associate when the congregant first comes to him in an attempt to get the associate engaged in the congregant’s unhappiness with the pastor? I recommend that staff team members adopt the following protocol for handling complaints brought to them about other staff team members.
Step 1: Say to the complainant, “Have you gone directly to _______ to discuss your concern?” If the person indicates that they couldn’t possibly confront the person with whom they have issue, or that they have tried and have not been successful, then go on to step 2.
Step 2: Say, “May I go with you to speak with _______ and help you get your concerns addressed?” If the person says yes, then by all means go and help mediate a direct conversation. If the person indicates that they are hesitant to have the direct conversation, even with your involvement, then go on to step 3.
Step 3: Say, “May I go to speak with ________ on your behalf, with your name attached?” If the person says no to this offer then gracefully remove yourself from the conversation. There is nothing further that you can do that would be helpful to the scenario. Further conversation in the interest of letting the person vent their feelings is really just gossip and not productive for you or the complainant. They are not seriously interested in getting the situation resolved.
This simple 3 step process has been very helpful to many staff teams that I’ve worked with. Obviously, before you enter into the 3 step process you need to listen to discern something about the severity of the issue. If the issue involves potential abuse or harm to the complainant or another, you want to pursue a different kind of process. Similarly, if you are the supervisor of the person that they are complaining about you may or may not want to use this approach. But if the complainant is trying to engage you (a bystander) into their tension with another person, resolve the conversation as quickly as possible. Participation in gossip about another member of your staff team (triangulation) is never a helpful role for a staff team member to play.
Photo Credit: The Tidal Rabbit at flickr.com
 This week I engaged two separate congregations in conversations that initially appeared very different. One congregation contacted me about working with them on strategic planning. The other congregation was interested in talking about creating a multi-site regional ministry, bringing together a thriving large church with several nearby smaller congregations that appear to be failing. Central to both conversations were issues about buildings.
The first congregation, the one focused on planning, is in the midst of a significant zoning argument with community leaders about their proposed plans for building a family/community center. The immediate neighborhood doesn’t want this building that the congregation intends to use to serve the larger community. The congregation has been trying to birth this new location for thirty years and has already invested significant sweat equity in bringing the plans to fruition. The congregation is divided about whether the building plan is a good idea or not, and leadership is having a hard time keeping congregational mission at the core of the conversation.
The second congregation (focusing on the regional ministry concept) is struggling with how to think about the usage of buildings that are already owned by several merging congregations. Is there something about the “soul of place” attached to these locations that needs to be preserved in the usage of the buildings, or should the buildings be sold and the assets used to better resource the new Regional ministry. And what happens when the buildings are not owned by the congregations, but are owned by the denomination. Who has a right to make decisions about the future of these sacred spaces?
(Very coincidentally, both the planning congregation and the congregation planning a regional ministry happen to share a property line. They are next door neighbors. Both are large congregations. One is Episcopal and the other is Presbyterian.)
At the heart of both conversations are questions and themes about building usage, community needs and sacred space:
- What is the relationship between congregations and buildings going to look like in the next decade of church life?
- Will large campuses and building structures continue to be foundational to life and ministry in the large church, or will the large church become more about taking ministry out into neighborhoods, making use of smaller building units strategically located to meet local demographic needs?
- How do you keep conversations about buildings focused on the right kinds of questions, so that the conversation is primarily about mission and only secondarily about the buildings that make the ministry possible?
- Does space have a soul? Is there something inherent in the very space itself that must be tended in decision making about buildings?
As I ponder these questions, and try to help these congregational leaders frame the right questions, I am reminded of a helpful resource that was published by the Indianapolis Center for Congregations. The name of the book is Holy Places: Matching Sacred Space with Mission and Message by Nancy DeMott, Tim Shapiro, and Brent Bill. The book introduces a 3 pronged approach to decision making about buildings and space; discernment, deciding, doing. If your congregation is engaged in conversations about building usage, I’d highly recommend this text.
Photo Credit: Br3enda’s
 Pastors are symbols of their congregations. The person who occupies the office of pastor must, on some level, embody the culture and mission of the congregation. This phenomenon becomes more pronounced the larger a congregation becomes. In the very large church people who listen to the pastor teach on Sunday morning rarely encounter the pastor as person at any other time; they only experience a pulpit persona. Effective large church pastors know how to craft and project themselves as effective symbols of their congregation.
Recently, Doug Riddle at the Center for Creative Leadership posted a blog entry about the Leader as Symbol. Here’s what he said:
“Among leaders I’ve coached, one of the most difficult transitions is the one from person to symbol. It’s not that one stops being a person. Rather, the body politic needs symbols that can provide a rallying point. People may not read the Constitution of the United States, but they need it to be there. Flags are more obvious symbols of our collective identity, but people are, too. This explains the demand to see our leaders. Consultants advise presidents and CEOs to “make themselves more visible.” Visibility in leaders is important because they play a magical or symbolic role.
Oddly, this is one of the constraints upon senior leadership because this role has little obvious content. It is nearly all emotional force and it is strangely important for the shaping of organizational culture. The personality expressed on the stage stands for the culture of the organization and we see it most clearly in those who have shaped their companies through their personalities. Steve Jobs is Apple and Apple is Steve Jobs. This is not true only for the employees, but the stockholders whose hopefulness rises and falls on rumors of his health.
Leaders are real people, certainly, but part of their duty to the organization is fulfilled in their flag value. Unless you created the organization and still head it, you will need to decide what elements of the existing culture you will work to change and what you will inhabit. Either way, the higher you rise in your organization the more seriously you need to take your signal value. For a few close friends you may still be Dorothy or Ahmed or Seymour, but for many more you are the company.”
So, have you stopped to think recently about what kind of signal value you project in your congregation? What symbol are you communicating by your presence? How is that symbol creating or reinforcing congregational culture?
And perhaps more importantly, how are you tending the well-being of the person behind the symbol, so that you don’t lose yourself along the way?
Photo Credit: Holy Symbol of Sikhs from Captain Suresh
When I work with congregations in the midst of change I often speak about Rogers Innovation Adoption Curve . It’s important for leaders to think about where they are focusing their energies among follower groups as they seek to lead change, (innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards). So often, leaders waste their energy trying to get “laggards” on board with a proposed change. The reality is that laggards are never likely to come on board and they’ll sap all of our leadership energies if we let them. The diffusion of innovation curve reminds us that it’s much more effective, from a leadership perspective, to focus our energies on the innovators and early followers. This week I discovered a wonderful TED talk video that illustrates the importance of harnessing the energy of those first followers. Check it out. It’s funny and SO true.
How to Start a Movement
 I’ve just finished studying the Faith Communities Today 2008 research (released in late 2009). It has some interesting things to say about the large church that I hope to unpack on this blog in the days ahead. Here is the notable topic that first grabbed me. The survey identified and queried congregations on five different approaches to member assimilation.
- Invitation to participate in a class for new persons (47% of all congregations surveyed use this pathway)
- Invitation to join a small group (40%)
- Invitation to participate in worship (60%)
- Regular fellowship activities (58%)
- Invitation to participate in community service (49%)
- Invitation to serve the congregation on boards and committees, etc. (49%)
Survey results suggest that congregations with over 500 attendees in average weekly attendance have to be, and are, much more intentional in their strategies around assimilation. (See page 21 of the report) Larger churches use significantly more pathways and they are more intentional about creating and communicating those pathways to newcomers. That’s not particularly new or attention grabbing. I think we’ve all intuitively known that.
But this is remarkable! The survey also measured the percentage of congregations who actively contact members that have stopped attending.
Average weekly attendance % who contact lapsed members
Less than 50 63%
50-399 62%
400-499 64%
500+ 37%
The drop off in this practice after the 500 mark in worship attendance is significant. After reporting this statistic the FACT 2008 report goes on to say, “ Given the positive impact of such a seemingly simple practice in larger congregations, the fact that congregations of over 500 attendees are significantly less likely to do it suggests a potentially simple way such congregations could enhance their growth prospects.”
As I ponder this statement made by David Roozen , author of the report, I’m trying to decide if it’s insightful, naïve, or both. It’s pretty clear to me that large congregations don’t follow up with lapsed attendees because of the sheer impossibility of the task. How do you track attendance, participation and lapsed members; particularly across multiple worship venues and campuses? It’s not the “simple practice” that Roozen suggests when it comes to the large congregation.
If we could track, and if we did follow up, would it make a difference? Or, are large churches just naturally more transient? Does the low percentage of churches that engage in this practice suggest that it’s just too hard to do it in the large church, or is it a reflection of the fact that churches have tried it in the past and it just doesn’t produce any meaningful impact? What say you?
Photo Credit: Flickr.com
|
|
|
Several colleagues have asked for my response to an interview that took place on NPR last week titled, “Annual Job Review is Total Baloney”. I imagine that many of you heard or read the interview as well. The interviewee was UCLA business professor Samuel Culbert who claims that annual performance evaluation is dishonest and fraudulent, and represents plain bad management. Culbert argues that “nothing would be better than something” when it comes to the practice of the annual job review.
Recent Comments