Showing honor and deference to the board is one way we enhance the dignity of an institution.
—David Hubbard
Arelationship of integrity between the leader and the board is crucial. Members of the board must be able to say no to the leader. The leader must respect their authority enough that if the board says no, he or she will make one of two choices: resign or say yes to the board’s will.
You cannot have a board whose authority you defy.
I have never been too frustrated by board structures. They come with the territory, and I believe in them deeply for several reasons.
First, if the leader enables the board to be a good board, the board then enables the organization to minister effectively.
Second, good organizations spread power. When the power is spread, the board sees itself at the bottom of the pyramid, not the top. Rather than thinking the pastor is at the top with the board beneath, or the board at the top with the pastor beneath, we see the mission at the top of the pyramid with the rest of the organization next, supported by the board.
Boards serve an essential purpose: They’re required by law for organizations. If a corporation owns property or pays employees, a board is responsible for the adherence to the rules and regulations of each state.
Beyond that accountability, the board represents the organization to the community, giving it credibility and a sense of integrity. A board brings support, vision, and something many people don’t think about—continuity. Leaders change at some point, and the board is responsible for succession. The board is the group committed to the continuity of the organization’s ministry.
Showing honor and deference to the board is one way we enhance the dignity of an institution. An institution that does not treat board members well is like a family that doesn’t honor its parents. To the extent that board members are manipulated or finessed, to the extent a leader makes end runs around them or doesn’t take their will and wishes seriously, to that extent the dignity of the institution is compromised. Board members lose motivation, and the staff’s accountability to the trustees is degraded.
Here are some ways I try to bring out the best in the board I lead.
Believer Selection
In prospective board members, we look for people who already believe in our organization. I never want to use the board as a way of getting people’s interest. I’ve tried that before, and it doesn’t work. It backfires because it doesn’t have integrity. I look for loyalty, for someone who has already started to give, for somebody who is already on the way.
Second, I want to know how a person uses power. People who want the board position because it will give them power differ from people who want the board position because it gives them the opportunity to serve and grow. So I try to find out how someone behaves when they “lose.” Everybody on the board loses at some time or another. At that stage, if they pick up their marbles and leave, they aren’t good board members. Knowing how to lose gracefully and maintain their loyalty when their peers have out-voted them is an essential element of their Christian maturity.
Of course, such things must be discovered about a person before he or she is in the fires of board conflict. We learn about people by being in their homes, talking to them, talking to people who know them; by visiting their place of business, seeing how they treat the staff; by seeing whether they are process persons or Lone Rangers.
Lone Rangers may be wonderful contributors to an organization, but they don’t always make good board members. They are accustomed to making suggestions that others implement. People who have worked more in corporate or educational life are used to negotiating. Surgeons don’t negotiate much! (Although many medical people have made fine board members.) Persons who work where they largely have full authority need to be checked out to make sure they know when they lead and when they don’t lead. That requires knowing them well.
Sometimes a church nominating committee is pressured by others in the congregation to nominate someone who has been in the church twenty years but doesn’t meet these standards. In such cases the pastor must remind the committee what the essential question is: Will he or she be a good elder? If the answer is no, then it’s incumbent upon the staff and the lay leadership to find other roles for those people that honor their seniority.
Many of those who would not make good board members would make good independent consultants. Staff members can have breakfast with Charlie Jones, saying, “This is what we’re thinking. You have been here a long time; you have a sense for the history of the church. What would your counsel be? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this proposal? What should we watch out for?” You can use those people without putting them in a situation where they have to negotiate, compromise, and fit in with a group.
A board has to see itself as a team. It doesn’t have to agree on everything, but it has to trust the decision-making process.
Roles Played
Good trusteeship carries a lot more with it than simply being at the meetings.
First, when board members vote, they are governors. The right group makes basic decisions in a proper manner. Decisions are not ad-libbed or ad-hocked. This keeps the process tidy, orderly—and legal!
Second, board members are consultants. Each board member will have areas of expertise and special experience. The consulting role will often be exercised outside the board meeting.
Because of his profession and aptitude, our board chairman, Sam Reeves, is the most important financial consultant we have at Fuller. But he doesn’t talk a lot about that at board meetings. Occasionally he will give a rundown on what he thinks is going on in the economy, but he helps us most over the phone with the key financial players. The same is true with our board members who are lawyers, developers, business managers, or professional educators.
The third role of board members is ambassador, which means representing us. They represent us with a constituency, with a particular group that they are close to. They help interpret what the institution is doing. They defend it when it is under pressure. They bring feedback on how it is perceived.
The fourth role board members play is sponsor. They give of themselves and encourage others to give. We say to those we recruit, “We expect you to give proportionate to your means and to assign a high priority to our institution.”
To get a board to work well is labor-intensive. You could put all this in a job description, but it may never get off the page unless the leader takes the initiative. Most trustees of churches are busy and hesitant to impose themselves. But they are waiting to be asked.
Board Care
It’s my job to see that board members do not lose interest in their responsibilities. Good people don’t want to be part of an organization in which they are not asked to contribute or their contribution is not recognized. Volunteers need to be drawn into the center of the organization. Every organization needs a strong center, but people will only be drawn into the center if the demand is made and if they are supported in the fulfillment of that demand. They will serve wonderfully if they are challenged and helped. Henrietta Mears said, “Never let a volunteer fail.”
We want to make a board meeting an event. Our board chairman wants us to experience community as we share ourselves and taste the joy of life together.
The payoff for board members comes at a couple of places. One is that they grow personally. This happens, among other ways, by bringing in experts who talk about something that will help board members grow.
The other payoff is joy. We want each member to say that it has been good to be with these people. We can have that joy even when dealing with tough situations because Christ is present. A spirit of love, honesty, and integrity while handling issues can feed joy even when the news itself is not as bright as we would like it to be.
Leaders need to coach people to view the board as a ministry rather than an obligation. Start by improving the spiritual and intellectual relationship among board members. If I were moving into a pastorate, I would make Bible study, personal sharing, and prayer times with the board a high priority. I would seek times when they could be weak, honest, and vulnerable with one another. I would also try to model that.
You might have to start with three or four people within the group who are more open to this practice. Begin a weekly breakfast with that group to lay out your vision. Help them see the board not as the way the church does its business but as the model of the church in prayer, study, and service.
Meeting Prep
The missing ingredient in most church board meetings is planning. A board meeting has to be structured to enable people to contribute. Getting the board members’ contribution is the most important single goal. Find issues with which they can become involved: wrestling with problems, seeking out possibilities, and promoting ideas. Do some “blue sky” thinking so board members feel they have done more than come, listen, and vote. When the meeting ends, people need to know the ministry is different because they made the effort to be there.
Planning starts with the pastor and the chair of the board (or whoever is the appropriate layleader in that congregation) sitting down together and figuring out the three or four most important things to accomplish at that meeting. If they plan accordingly, the board meetings will not be laundry lists of activities or times for reading off report after report. Anything that can be mailed out and read in advance ought to be handled that way. Board members should not have to sit through a meeting having reports read to them.
Keep meetings on track by using a timed agenda. The standard criticism of church meetings is that they’re too long. They are too long because nobody weighs the relative value of the various issues and suggests the amount of time each item is worth. In this instance, Parkinson’s Law takes over: the amount of discussion becomes inversely proportional to the importance of the issue. We take an hour on the color of the wastebasket and just ten minutes on something crucial for the ministry of the church.
The role of the chairperson or moderator is to keep the meeting focused. Time is wasted when the focus gets blurry. If this happens, the chair needs to say, “Let’s focus on the issue. Here’s what’s before us as I see it.”
Another responsibility of the chairperson is to test the support of an idea. If people can register their support, then you can promptly end the discussion and move on to the next component. But the chair has to read the climate and be sure all sides are heard from. The chair needs to watch body language. The chair may say, “It looks to me like most of you are with this proposal, but I’m not sure what I am reading from you (to a particular member). Do you want to share with the group what you are feeling?” Good chairing makes time productive and still gives people a chance to express their convictions.
Conflict Handling
Years ago when we were choosing an architect, one trustee was a strong advocate for a certain world-class designer, but another trustee criticized this person’s work. This made the one trustee so angry he left the meeting and walked around the block.
When he came back, he asked to speak to the board. He said he was learning that we have these tensions because we care so much. Rather than seeing the tensions as bad behavior, we can see them as the expression of personal investment. To care too much and to lose a little control over your tongue may be healthier than having people who could care less about how things go.
While disagreements are part of the process on a healthy board, we can do several things to minimize harmful conflict. Sometimes we need to take a break. Try to talk with people during the break to help them clarify the issues. Sometimes we will ask a person to write out their concerns so we can address them specifically.
But if it gets too hot, break off and give a little space. Often people will get together and work differences out by themselves. Or the person will cool down and apologize after the break. Just allowing a little breathing room with good people usually takes care of any bad feelings.
Occasionally we need to delay a decision. We had to do this with the inclusive-language issue. A dozen people felt strongly about it and were articulate. At any given point we could have gotten the vote, but Sam and I have always felt there are some things more important than getting the vote. At some point you have to vote and get on with it, but you don’t want the vote to tear the place up.
Indeed, this issue threatened to tear us up. We had many public discussions, and I had whole days of private communication with some people. They weren’t only being mean or obstreperous or causing trouble; they were agonizing over it. On one occasion, Sam bought an airline ticket in order to spend hours with one trustee who was in terrible personal pain over this issue. Sam let him know he was loved and valued, and heard him out. This trustee’s view of God was at stake. He was waging a spiritual battle.
That issue was on the front burner for at least two years. Eventually we did have to bring closure to it by taking a vote. We had about four negative votes out of thirty people, but it cleared the air. Nobody has brought it up again; nobody has harked back to it as a time when we made a great mistake.
When someone votes against the majority and obviously feels strongly about the issue, I try to make immediate contact with that person after the meeting. If somebody has been wounded by a board decision, it is important to reach them as soon as possible to see how they’re doing. Don’t avoid them. I often go and hug that person after the meeting or at the next break.
As painful as it is, conflict can help the organization if handled properly. Before the 1980 presidential election, Rev. Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority were getting a lot of attention from the press. I told the executive committee that I wanted to distinguish between where I was and where we were as a seminary in relation to the emphases that Dr. Falwell was putting forth.
Some board members felt more closely drawn to the Moral Majority approach than I did. Frankly, they thought I was out in left field, and I felt they didn’t fully understand the situation. I was pained over that and somewhat depressed for a while because I had thought we were closer in our viewpoints. Yet it was probably my fault. I had not done as good a job in mentoring the trustees as I thought.
I had been surprised, hurt, and angry, but out of that tension, I decided to act constructively and began to write the drafts of what became our Mission Beyond the Mission Statement. We spent almost three years discussing what Fuller cared about beyond the training of evangelical leadership in our three main areas (theology, psychology, and missions). We were able to build consensus around that document. It has helped us know what our margins are, what range of opinions we can tolerate. Along with our mission statement and statement of faith, it has given us another screening device to test whether faculty members and trustees will fit.
I thought it was important to involve others in the process of drafting that statement. I drafted it first, but the statement went through ten drafts before it was published. What I do in such situations is include every idea that possibly can be included from board members, staff, and faculty members.
We as leaders don’t want to narrow the work of an institution to the shape and size of our own vision. It is our task to be vision-sparkers, vision-gatherers, vision-organizers, and visionsorters. Every congregation, every board, if it’s any good at all, has more vision than can possibly be put to work. The leader’s responsibility is to bring out the best of that vision. The vision is a corporate activity. In theological terms, the vision is an exercise in the communal life of the body of Christ and the shared practice of the gifts of the Spirit.
Leader Production
It’s the little things that help leaders work successfully with a board. I try to know the board members well, to be familiar with their families and businesses. I need to know them, their pain, what’s going on in their lives. I try to be there at their times of special need. And I need them to know where I am, what I’m struggling with, what I need to do. The little things come out of seeking to know one another well.
Can a pastor justify spending so much time and energy with a limited group of people in the church? I think so. Although you pastor the board with an intensity you can’t possibly give even a tenth of the congregation, this builds into the congregation a nurturing pattern that spreads and catches almost everybody.
If developing and nurturing leadership is important, then the important thing is not only that the board gets its work done. Pastors have an opportunity for personal influence on the members of that board unlike that which they may have on any other group in the church. What better place for nurturing leadership gifts? Pastors can urge people forward, encouraging them to do what they didn’t think they could, enabling people to take steps toward maturity in Christ. They are then equipped so others will follow them in the steps of our Lord.
While I consider relationships within the board as important as their votes, I haven’t always maintained as good a balance as I’d like. Most leaders are more agenda-driven than relationship-driven. If you win the issues but lose the people, you lose. If you succeed in getting buildings built or programs set up or money raised, but you leave a lot of wounded in the field, that’s not good. You have to keep moving toward the target, but you only reach that target if people believe in it and help you reach it. Everything we do that amounts to anything is done through and for people.
Copyright © 1997
