Bushwhacked by the Board
Background:
I have just completed 10 years at First Church. I have been in the pastoral ministry for 20 years and these past 18 months have been the most difficult in my years of serving churches.
First Church, prior to my leadership, had experienced 10 years of a slow decline. Upon coming, I began to refocus the attention of the congregation to outreach. During these past 10 years, the church has experienced consistent growth – numerically and financially.
In January 2007 the “wheels came off.”
The Elder Board moved against me, calling for my resignation and forcing the resignation of my son who had served as youth pastor for 4 years.
After hiring a consultant to look at where we stood, and what we needed to do, we had added a
§ Saturday worship service
§ Assistant Pastor
§ Admin Asst in Children’s dept.
We also had discussed extensive governance changes -- moving our church from a congregational model to an elder model of governance. We were about ready to present to the congregation for implementation.
The church consultant we hired had found our church, on his evaluative tools, to be “very healthy.” Our highest scores were in the areas of Member Satisfaction, Mission / Outreach / Evangelism, and Church as Community.
In October 2006 we had a change to our elder board. There were 2 new people elected that were not part of the planning process. These individuals were given all the materials to bring them up to speed and a board member offered to coach them about our process of planning and initiatives. I discovered some time following that that one of the new board members declined.
I also discovered that my senior associate pastor, when exiting the planning meetings with the consultant, had disparaged the meetings, the process and the results to some staff and elders.
One of the elders took the responsibility upon himself to talk to some people that have left the church. No, we have not had a "mass exodus."
He had confronted me at a December board meeting about these people that were so hurting and asked me what I thought about that. I told him I would like to talk with him more but I would not be able to speak clearly about it unless I knew who he was referring to. He has a history of coming to the board meetings with an issue and then confronting me rather aggressively, without the courtesy of telling me ahead of time or discussing with me so I can be prepared to respond.
On Sunday, following a meeting of the elders w/o me, he delivered a packet of his "findings". It included a three page letter from him along with letters from about 10 people that had left the church that he had interviewed along with one letter (unsigned) from a support staff and a few letters from some people who are still attending that basically vilified me.
You would not have believed how he presented the "findings" at the board meeting. After he and another board member read 5 different scriptures, making allusions to pastors taking advantage of sheep and not doing their job and God judging them, he then began listing a bunch of words and said, "how do you respond to these issues?"
I had to stop him and say, "I'm sorry, I thought you were still reading Revelation 2:4, would you list those "issues" again please?" I began writing as he listed them... "Intimidating, manipulative, unethical, deceptive, inaction, confidentiality broken, division, lying, nepotism, my way or else, use the pulpit, power corrupts."
He stated, "these are the issues, how do you respond to them?"
I was flabbergasted. Sunday night I had read through the letters from the people who had left and the others and I found that several had inaccurate statements, half-truths and outright fabrications.
I asked why he had chosen to not come in and speak with me as he had said in the last board meeting he would do. He sidestepped my question.
The encounter was adversarial and accusatory immediately.
I asked if they wanted me to address each of the letters individually or just to share my comments. They replied, "speak to the issues." So, I began to address them. As I began to speak, I was interrupted and one of two elders would go off on a long diatribe about my failings and the hurt of these people or bringing up things/issues I had never even heard of before.
I am so grieved by the lack of respect offered, for the lack of biblical process. I asked them if my comments were going to make any difference or were their minds made up already. I started with one. He said I was putting words in his mouth. I stated that my perception was that he had arrived at that meeting with his mind made up. I then asked another if his mind was made up already. He made a few comments and then said, "My mind is already made up." I stated, "So nothing I can say or my commenting on these letters is going to make any difference?" He said, "No". "So you are going to make up your mind having only heard one perspective?" He replied, "yes."
I then went to some of my prepared comments:
1. You need to know that many of these letters contain lies/fiction and half-truths.
In fact, they are not based on facts, but emotions and perceptions.
2. Some of you have arrived at a decision after hearing, reading these letters – that was listening only to one side.
3. Some of you had a decision formed and then went out and found supporting arguments and testimony.
4. In any court system, both sides are heard from before a decision is made.
In fact, scripture is very clear about how these things are to be done.
And that has not been done in this case, at all.
Is my speaking to you tonight going to make any difference?
Do you want to know the truth?
I then began polling some of the other men.
The bottom line at the end of the meeting was one elder was calling for my son (who had been hired to do the youth ministry) to be fired. He said the board had a right to do that. He and two others were calling for me to resign. I referred to the Constitution and Bylaws reminding them that they could not remove me. That could only be done by the membership.
They went ahead and made a motion to go on record of asking for my resignation. It passed 5 in favor, 2 opposed. I have contacted our district leadership and will decide what I am going to do. I can call for a vote from the membership.
In February 2007, I invited our district denominational officials to come and give assistance and intervention (as a result of the elders calling for my resignation). There were five elders who were opposing me and two who supported me.
The district intervention team came and took testimony from myself, my son, staff and the elders. The five adversarial elders demanded binding arbitration.
The district intervention team recommended that the church come under district supervision and the elder board be dissolved. Their first draft of recommendation also included the dismissal of the senior associate pastor.
The district intervention team has also requested that I go through an assessment and coaching process and that the church go through another assessment.
The senior associate pastor was part of ongoing discussions among himself and the opposing elders about my removal. He also polarized people that were loyal to him. He has now left and taken a church out of the area.
How could I have handled this staff person differently or more effectively?
How could I have handled this crisis differently?
What should be my next step?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'll (Jim Osterhaus) take a few days to break this case down piece by piece, and my partner Joe Jurkowski will also weigh in on this. This case has a number of wrinkles to it, and will require some explanation.
Let me first say that this is a good example of an adaptive change. TAG looks at change from two perspectives. Technical change refers to fixes, such as altering techniques or acquiring new equipment or reshuffling personnel in an attempt to change the situation. These problems aren’t trivial, but they do involve solutions already existing within organizations. Adaptive solutions involve a deeper level of change; they often require us to alter deeply held beliefs and modify established habits and patterns of behavior. It is those who are directly affected by the solutions who must be guided by the leader through the process of finding the solutions, no matter how painful this process might be.
"Bushwhacked" describes a classic adaptive change, with the board being altered to an elder model. He also explains that he had refocused the emphasis of the church to outreach. The danger is to apply technical solutions to adaptive issues. This never works, and in fact, the technical solutions often exacerbates the problems.
People (in this case staff and elders) begin to push back on the intended changes as the full implications of the changes begin to sink in. The most anxiety-provoking implication of an adaptive change is loss -- people are going to have to give up something important to them. This causes pain, uncertainty, and anxiety that leads to resistance (pushback).
Take the instance of outreach. When we reach out, we bring in new people. When we bring in new people, we upset the community, and there is a sense of loss of the safety of community (even though scripture implores us to reach out). Thus shifting from community building to outreach is an adaptive issues, and the stakeholders (in this case, the congregation) themselves must wrestle with the implications.
This is so painful to read and yet I have watched it happen over and over again. The tag gang will do a great job at looking at the adaptive issues, but I want to make some simple comments about technical issues. Who leads, who decides and who does what is always something I ask myself. There are proper roles that each of us are responsible for. Legal Boards always have final decision, final authority, the idea is for stability, wisdom and balance. We ask our board not to be involved in day to day operations of the church, like who is hired and who is fired unless there is a moral issue. They have policy and doctrinal authority. The senior pastor has directional leadership, they are responsible to make sure we have vision and every one is on board with it, not the lone ranger but the Bible always seems to give someone the role of visionary, then their job is process with everyone else, they secure the direction, they bring unity and vision. Then the staff gives input into direction, bring effectiveness, team spirit and unity. What happens when there is role reversal? When the senior pastor has final authority you get dictatorship, when the staff has it you get anarchy. When the directional leadership is with the legal board you usually get committee leadership, maintenance mode and when the staff has it you get division. So what happens to implementation, when it is the responsibility of the legal board you get inadequate time to give wise policy decisions, when it is the staff you get foggy directional focus.
So as you think about all the issue take each one of these and see if you can begin to decide who leads, who decides and who does what.
Rich Hurst
Pastor of Leadership and Staff Development
McLean Bible Church
Washington DC
Hi! As Jim mentioned I will offer some ideas about how we at TAG approach highly conflicted situations. Jim will look at the change issues and I(Joe) will focus on the personal issues. All of us have been here at one time or another and all of us can feel the pain of the pastor in the "bushwacked by the board" narrative. It's just about impossible for most of us not to react intensely when our purpose and integrity are called into question. It's easy to feel very wounded and non valued and then to question ourself about everything we have tried to do. I know you can identify with this dedicated pastor who has always tried to do what he thought was being asked of him. When something like this happens we are stunned by how we are being characterized by those we trusted. And after the shock the mix of emotions seems to move back and forth from hurt to anger to fear and back to hurt. This however is our greatest moment of opportunity and our moment of greatest leverage. In the next few days I am going to share with you a few ideas about how to use these difficult and highly conlficted situations to unite the community you serve. And here is the first step: when flooded with emotion and your head swimming with many thoughts DO NOT respond. With all the grace you can muster simply say "thanks for the feedback. I had no idea you felt so strongly about the new program. Let me think about what you have said for a few days and then let's meet again and I can share with you some of my thoughts." You must give your self a chance and if you don't it's unlikely anyone else will. Remember, if you are feeling scared and threatened, the person, the team, the board, whomever it is confronting you is also feeling the same things. If you engage the person in the moment it's likely that you will confirm for them what they already believe to be true about you. They can't hear anything you are saying no matter how articulate you are. Do your best to buy a little time for yourself and reflect pray and get some support. Please feel free to comment or ask questions about anything Jim or I write in the blog. Joe
Ok so you have managed to gracefully give yourself some time to reflect on what you have heard. Now what? The very first thing you need to do is allow your thoughts and feelings to run free. I mean do not censor or try to block what you are thinking and feeling. The hurt,angry,scared feelings you are having in moments like this will give you many clues about the dynamics of the situation and you will need all those painful thoughts and feelings to help guide your thinking! If there is someone outside your congregation that you completely trust it's a really good idea to share your initial reactions with them. Notice I say outside of your congregation or your internal circle of friends. Your role as Pastor i.e leader prevents anyone within your church from effectively helping you. Remember they are part of the community and are influenced by the DNA of the community. DNA as you know is the foundation of who we are. DNA is the genetic code and living organizations also have a DNA or genetic code. More on Code another time. The key here is finding support outside of your church.
As a pastor you are a powerful figure. Most men and women in positions of leadership completely underestimate the power of their role. They underestimate the effect the Role of Pastor has on those they work so hard to serve. So as you begin to reflect on what's actually happening, your first real task is to begin to separate your self from your role. It's not easy to do but it's necessary if you are to begin the process of using the conflict to heal and help your community to make progress on highly charged issues. When people ask you what you do, how do you answer that question? If you begin to anwser that question with the phrase "I am the (fill in the blank)----You have confused the role with your self. I am a lawyer ---I am a doctor no---I practice law ---I practice medicine. I am a Pastor---no--- I (fill in the sentence for yourself). Remember feel free to ask questions about anything that you don't understand as we write about conflict and using conflict. Talk to you soon!
Joe
It is important to note the energy that is emerging from these board members. That should be a signal that:
1. The energy fueling this is probably coming from issues other than those that are posed.
2. That those resisting and attacking are representing a segment (however small) within the congregation of folks who are feeling anxiety.
Adaptive change -- change that challenges our basic beliefs, assumptions, and ultimately our behavior -- always creates a great deal of heat. That's because as the implications of the change become apparent, anxiety rises due to the losses that the adaptive change offers. Yes, losses. All adaptive change involves loss. Let me give you an example.
A pastor friend of mine in a fast growing ex-urb wanted his ushers to welcome all the newcomers to the church, so he wrote out a script for them. Then he realized that the ushers weren't using the script, or greeting any newcomers. He asked me what was happening. I told him that all of the people moving into the area (a very bucolic, pastoral setting with rolling hills and horse farms) presented an adaptive issue. The ushers knew that they needed to greet new people, but they had the competing value of a close-knit community in a beautiful setting being forever destroyed (the loss). The competing values (outreach over against loss of security in the familiar community) represented a great dilemma for the ushers and the, by implication, most of the congregation (that's where the ushers in this case represent a larger contingent in the congregation). As such, the issue could not be handled technically ("Here's a script for newcomers"). The stakeholders (i.e. the congregation) had to wrestle with the implications of the change. The pastor needed to place before the congregation, in a safe environment, the adaptive challenge ("Our community as we've known it is being disrupted, and that is hurtful. But we are also challenged to reach out to newcomers. How should we reconcile this?").
The bushwhacked pastor, after attending to his own shock and upset, as Joe suggested, needs now to begin to intuit the adaptive issues that need to be placed before the congregation. This obviously takes more time. Adaptive work always does. But the clean-up and pain caused by applying technical solutions to adaptive challenges takes a lot more time and effort, and usually leaves people very wounded in the process.
Jim
I guess I'm wondering what people think of the senior associate in this case -- here he appears on the surface to be loyal, but he goes ahead and acts behind the senior pastor's back, and stirs up all kinds of controversy. So what needs to happen with him?
Jim
Just for review:
1. you gave yourself some time before you responded
2. you have begun to separate your self from your role
3. you have arranged to talk with a friend outside of your church about what you are feeling....
As Jim mentioned you will need to discover whether the issue presented is the real issue or a substitute for another issue that has yet to be articulated and understood. But before we explore what might be going on under the surface with the board it's crucially important that you explore what's going on with you first. In those immediate moments when you felt attacked many intense feelings overtook you. By the way we call this the Red Zone. The Red Zone is our particular unique way of handling anxiety that arises whenever we feel threatened. If you look closely at how you respond in these situations you will notice a familiar pattern. And our way of handling anxiety is repeated whenever we find our selves in conflict with anyone. We can be in conflict with our spouse, our children our colleagues or whomever, it doesn't matter. We repeat our pattern over and over again.
So these conflicted moments in our lives present a very important opportunity for us if we take it. It's during this time of intense emotional turmoil that we can get a glimpse into ourself and begin to see the issues that are unresolved in our own life. What has always been fascinating to me is how hard it is to gain insight into our self when our life is calm. We gain our deepest insight when we are in the struggle if we are willing to embrace the distress. It is hard to look at our self and realize that we are responding in ways that we are not necessarily proud of. And what's worse when we really look at what's going on, we can see that the way we handle anxiety is very similiar to how we handled anxiety as a young child. The responses we used in childhood were effective and they were meant to reduce the anxiety we felt. Unfortunately what worked so well in childhood does not work too well as an adult. As adults we have to learn new ways of handling our feelings expecially when we find ourself in these conflicted situations. Here is the good news: If we learn how to handle our own feelings we will be so much better equipped to help the people we serve handle theirs.
So if you are genuinely willing to embrace what you are feeling you have the opportunity to become the person you want to be. Talk with you soon. Joe
Like those who have responded before me, I (Scott Kronlund), too, have seen this painful scenario play out several times in the past. Perhaps in this situation, my comments may be considered too little, too late; however, "Bushwacked by the Board" highlights the need for effective board governance within our churches. Here are just a few points to consider:
First of all, from the perspective of sound policy governance, board members must realize that they, as individuals, have no authority to act in and of themselves. The authority of the board only exists within the board as a whole when conducting business during a properly called meeting. Having been a personal witness to a similar "coup" attempt by an isolated board member of a Christian organization that I serve, I fully understand the issues faced by “Bushwacked.” In our case, the board, as a whole, exercised its authority to censure the member for seeking "feedback" on the performance of our executive director and presenting his "findings" to the board in a completely unauthorized and independent fashion. When individual board members have concerns, these issues must be properly raised through the formal processes established by the board as policy. Only then should the board, as a whole, consider what further actions should be taken, if any. And, or course, these actions must be supported by the governing documents of the organization.
Secondly, the tenets of healthy board governance would say that once the church’s strategic direction has been determined, the board speaks with "one voice” in support of that plan. This assumes, of course, that the strategic initiatives are the result of a sound planning effort from both a Spiritual perspective (i.e. prayerfully seeking God’s will) and a process perspective (i.e. open, honest, and respectful dialogue and discussion among all participants). Disagreements must be settled during the planning process, not after.
Thirdly, these principles should also extend to the recruitment of new board members. In fact, I strongly favor the orientation of prospective board members to the strategic plan during the screening and nominating process, long before specific names are submitted for final election. This does not mean that the board should only seek “yes people” to serve; but it does seem responsible to seek a candidate’s concurrence regarding the church’s strategic direction before asking them to serve. After all, the board is, by definition, the church’s official “keeper” of the strategic plan and “guardian” of its implementation. Once the election has taken place, it may be too late.
Finally, healthy boards function within the context of policy governance. In other words, one of the board’s essential roles is to establish the proper separation between its policy- and direction-setting responsibilities from the operational responsibilities of the church’s staff, including the Senior Pastor. Unfortunately, this is particularly difficult for many church boards because board members often wear two hats: they serve as both the governors of the organization while also serving as volunteer “staff” members and ministry partners. However, this can duality can be addressed through the establishment of a strong executive function within the church. This way, the board can simply hand-off most of the operational details to this executive function while remaining within the bounds of policy governance.
Under the circumstances, this would be an opportune time for First Church to consider moving to a formal model of policy governance as it appears to moving from a representative form of governance to its proposed elder model. However, the church must remember that leadership is truly a shared function between the governing board(s) and the church staff where the roles of each are quite different, but tied together by a shared vision of the future (i.e. strategic initiatives) and a properly established model of policy governance.
Scott, thanks for your very helpful comments. Scott is a little ahead of me here but his insights are too good for me not to respond. When a TAG member is working with a church, or for that matter any of the organizations in the private sector that engage us, we talk about organizational integrity. There is not a lot actually written about the difference between personal integrity and organizational integrity but this is a key concept. Perhaps the single most important role of the organization's leader is to protect the system/ organizational integrity. Some time ago Duke's basketball coach, Coach K as he is known was asked what was the most important aspect of coaching. Without hesitation he anwsered. "As head coach it's my job to protect the Duke culture by ensuring that every decision we make reflects what we believe. If I do that then the players can do their job". Scott is writing about system integrity when he talks about how the board should operate. It's so easy in moments of high tension to personalize the conflict and fail to see the organizational dynamic present. Organizations will always recover from a lack of personal integrity but if there is no one to ensure the organization's integrity then the church or the business will be governed by self interests. The personal agendas of individuals who understand how to wield power will dominate what matters and where resources are allocated. Most pastors that we work with have almost no idea how to deal with this type of individual and this type of organizational dysfunctional. The vast majority of leaders will see the individual as the problem or trouble maker and never understand that weak system integrity is "the thing in the bushes." And the "thing" they are not addressing. The real policies that govern the behavior of every member of the organization matter. If the decisions we make do not reflect the values we espouse we undermine system integrity. Think about what I am saying here and I will provide some examples the next time I write. And as always feel free to contribute. Thanks Scott for jumping into the dialogue.
Joe
I hope each of you had a wonderful and blessed Christmass with your family. As we move into 2008 we will be adding a lot to our blog. It should be fun and helpful as well.
In my last post I indicated I would provide a few examples of system/organizational integrity. For all of you in positions of leadership it's critical that you understand the concept of organizational integrity. The values that your organization espouses must be the basis for the daily decisions you make. Every decision you make will either reflect what you stand for or undermine what you stand for. Sometimes there will be competing values present and when that occurs it will require the exercise of leadership to resolve the conflict. More on competing values and how to resolve them at another time.
For now here is a common example that occurs regularly in many different types of organizations. Most organizations especially churches have some value statement about honesty. Honesty implies that we will behave in accordance with our understanding of what being honest means. Yet honesty as a value is compromised regularly and most of us don't realize it. Here is what I mean!
A staff member makes a decision that creates a conflict or a problem for another staff member. Everyone knows about the problem but no one raises the issue or does anything about it. This state of denial compromises the value of honesty. Everyone secretly agrees to act as if they don't know what's happening. Staff members wait for the leader to handle the issue. And often he or she does. It would be tempting to think the role of the leader, your role, is to handle staff conflict like this. So it would be understandable if you stepped in and helped the conflicted staff members resolve the issue. Many others would be glad you took control of the situation and exercised your authority. This scenario happens everyday. This is the role of the leader correct? No, it's not your role to resolve the conflict. It's your role to ensure that the organization's intergrity is maintained. If you step in and resolve the issue you have inadvertently undermined the value of honesty. If you allow staff members to operate as if they don't know what's happening or unwilling to do anything about what's happening then you undermnine the organization's value of honesty. It's not for you alone to uphold the values of the orgnaization. It's the responsiblity of everyone to help resolve the conflicted situation. And your role is to hold your staff accountable for doing so. Everyone in the organization must embody the values of the organization. Christians in particular have a difficult time challenging another staff person or family member because they worry about hurting feelings. But when we are unwilling to deal with issues that are problematic no matter the reason, we are compromising our beliefs. In our culture of relativism it's easy to justify anything. So it's critical as leaders that we very carefully think through how we will help resolve issues when they arise. You will feel the pressure to do something, to reduce the tension, to provide an easy answer but resist. Your organization's intergrity might just be at stake. Talk to you soon!
Joe
Recently I have received several e-mails from different pastors asking me essentially the same thing. They write," I have been a pastor for over 15 years and have experienced conflict in every area of my ministry. Can I really learn the skills you are writing about in the blog?" Here is my anwser! Yes you absolutely can learn the skills Jim and I are writing about here and in our Thriving book. It's the reason we wrote Thriving Through Ministry Conflict. Learning how to exercise leadership in the post modern world is the foundation for helping the congregation you lead become a life giving community. Because you are a pastor you have a unique opportunity to make a difference in the lives of those you serve. And while your position gives you the opportunity to exercise leadership it does not guarantee that you will. THe majority of pastors have never had the chance to learn the skills they need to lead. The world has changed and the search for meaning and puprose in our lives has become more important even as our culture has devalued so much of what we believe. Learning anything new is difficult --think golf--but with study and practice you can learn new ways of leading and using conflict to unite your community. And when you feel stuck get help don't just struggle with the issue alone. Call a friend or call us and get support for yourself and your work. And thanks for the e-mails. You can ask the questions write here on the blog and either Jim or me will be glad to respond.
Joe
Post a Comment