A curious shift in the “shop talk” was noted recently among a group of pastors who get together each year for a retreat in California’s beautiful Santa Cruz Mountains.
In the early years, stories typically began: “You won’t believe what my senior pastor said after our rock concert last week!” One associate pastor reported he was up to his ears in parish work while the senior minister indulged his interest in stained glass.
“How can I say it?” he fumed. “His distinguishing characteristic is insensitivity. He called on one lady whose husband had just died-mainly to ask if he could have the man’s stained-glass materials. He wants me to get out and ‘bring in more pledges,’ while all he talks about is his last trip to the great French cathedrals.”
But as the years have ticked by, new laments are now being heard: “We just called an assistant pastor, and the first thing he did was criticize our covenant groups.” Another tells of hiring a bright, young assistant-the daughter of a career youth worker-who in the interview voiced marvelous ideas for sparking a dormant group of teens. “We opted for the quick fix,” the pastor says. “Well, by the time a year had rolled around, she had shot her wad. Talk about disorganization; she set up a choir tour and didn’t even have a choir! Then she left, seduced by another church after sixteen months.”
What is happening to this retreat group, of course, is simply a change of villains. These pastors have become the bosses they once judged.
But is life in a church staff relationship really as bad as the folklore? To find out, LEADERSHIP surveyed both heads of staff (pastors) and staff pastors (associates). The 350 responses represented a demographic spread of readers, including both sexes and a wide range of ages, denominations, and years of experience. Here’s what the survey found:
Senior Pastors’ Responses
Those in charge of a staff divided themselves into two types: those who don’t enjoy staff supervision and those who do. Perhaps Lyle Schaller’s terms shepherd and rancher best describe the difference.
Shepherds love nothing more than touching lives one by one. They enjoy counseling. They disciple individuals. They would rather tend the needs of sheep than look after organizational tasks such as administration, sermon preparation, planning, and staff supervision.
Ranchers are group leaders. They want to reach people, too, and the more the better. But their strategy is different. They work not primarily with the sheep but with the people who tend the sheep. They minister through others, but this means troubleshooting, supervising, and studying-which take them away from many of the sheep.
On the survey, 84 percent appeared to be ranchers, saying they would like even more staff. Typical comments included: “Because of my openness and availability to staff, I don’t always get my work done as quickly as I would like. But I feel the time spent in building relationships with staff increases my personal effectiveness in ministry.”
“A good staff member is like another arm. A good staff provides expertise unavailable to a single-staff pastor.” A rancher considers working with staff a major part of his ministry.
On the other hand, shepherds tended to say:
“A great deal of time is required in administrative affairs. I personally prefer ministering.”
“Staff does not ease any burden. Staff always increases the burden-trying to stay up with them, plus trying to meet your own areas of responsibility.”
Two very different ways to approach ministry. Shepherds tend to be uncomfortable dealing with staff rather than needy people. Ranchers, on the other hand, enjoy working through other leaders to meet the needs of people.
While five out of six pastors indicated they wanted more staff, the surveys did show that senior pastors pictured the staff working environment more positively than associates (see chart). Fully 21 percent of the associates expressed some discontent with their present position, yet not a single pastor considered his staff frustrated with their roles. When asked “How do you think your staff feel about their roles?” pastors’ replies were 87 percent positive and 13 percent neutral.
The two groups were not necessarily commenting on the same churches, of course. But perhaps the pastors, charged with responsibility for staff effectiveness, were prone to look at the positive side of things, while the staff, feeling in no position to change the situation, were more apt to see the negative.
What do pastors appreciate from their staffs?
Cooperation. Mutual respect, support, and team spirit popped up repeatedly. As orchestra conductors, pastors appreciate harmony. Attention-stealing virtuosos work against the pastor’s music-making purposes.
One pastor, when asked what staff attitudes are most helpful, responded: “Respect for each other’s abilities. Flexibility in mood and attitude toward each other; not in competition.”
Loyalty. As team builders, pastors valued associates who would not talk behind their backs, build their own fiefdoms, or prove dishonest. Some of the attitudes praised were “loyalty and desire to support one another in new efforts” and “determination to support each other publicly even though we may have our disagreements in private.”
Honesty was not considered a given. It received many votes as an essential component of loyalty. Pastors want associates they can trust.
Ability. Pastors want associates with skill, who can shoulder responsibility and get a task done. One pastor liked the fact that “each staff member has a job to do and is doing it.” Others praised a willingness to take initiative, to be a self-starter. They like staff members who run with the ball when it is handed to them.
Unfortunately, managing a staff is not all joy. Pastors also related their share of staff difficulties. “Sometimes you have to be the boss, other times you need to be the pastor; it’s difficult to be both.” This mixed role of boss and spiritual guide presented difficulties in “how to help associates in ways that seem necessary and effective without coming across as dictatorial.”
The other mixed role of supervisor/doer also gave pastors problems. On one hand, they have staffs to keep happy and productive. On the other, pastors have their own ministries to perform.
One supervising pastor expressed a concern “not to get all my personal time involved in their areas of ministry,” and another confessed, “My ability to delegate is only in word and not in reality; I continue to strive laboriously with details even when I have given the job to another.”
Having to remove the incompetent or misplaced associate is one of the hardest tasks a pastor faces. Many in the survey considered a staff conflict their most difficult experience. Nice guys don’t relish giving an associate the boot. But sometimes it is necessary.
One pastor wrote, “A stepping-stone person took the youth position and did not feel called to youth ministry. As a result the whole church suffered.”
Another said his most difficult experience was “trying to motivate a staff pastor who is a hireling rather than a minister.”
Such situations are difficult; yet dealing with the personal problems of an associate is even harder.
Consider morals: “He confessed a problem of a moral nature to me and asked for my forgiveness. An hour later the parents of the teenage girl involved came in. Only then did I realize his confession probably was not voluntary. We worked together six more years, but the harmony and joy were sadly lacking.”
To cope with these and other issues, some pastors seek management training. Probably the most transparent response came to the question asking pastors if they had been trained or learned supervision on their own. One guileless soul wrote, “I wasn’t trained, and I have not learned too many things on my own.” He may be more blunt than most; however, the large majority of pastors have learned supervisory skills by Braille-feeling their way through.
The response “For the most part my training was very inadequate; I’ve had to take responsibility to acquire training” speaks for most pastors. What training they received usually came as the result of personal initiative. Continuing-education seminars and books appeared regularly as the main resources for personal education. A few expressed appreciation for a former pastor who intentionally took them under wing.
Associates’ Responses
Associates fell predictably into two sets: those who felt permanently called to staff positions and those passing through on the way to solo pastorates or senior-pastor positions. In response to the question “Do you consider the pastoral staff role a lifetime career?” exactly half answered yes, and another 24 percent were unsure. Only 26 percent considered a staff slot a preliminary position.
Even associates who had serious difficulties with their present pastor often expressed a continuing desire to serve as associates, though perhaps with a more understanding supervisor.
Of all the associates responding to the survey, 62 percent felt positive about their ministries and another 17 percent were at least neutral. Only about one in five was actually discontent, and only 9 percent were strongly so. In fact, fully 22 percent of associates couldn’t think of a single complaint about their pastor. The vocal minority appear to be the source of the put-upon stereotype.
Discontent with their present position was expressed by 20 percent of career staffers and by a similar 21 percent of those eventually looking for a pastorate of their own. But career staffers did indicate a higher level of contentment (66 percent) than those expecting to move on (51 percent content), of whom a significant number remained neutral about their present contentment.
Many associates praised their pastors:
“He is personally warm and relational in his attitude toward staff and genuinely open to the Holy Spirit’s leadership for our church.”
“He creates an atmosphere that covers you to tap your creative resources,” responded another.
When associates were asked what they liked most about their supervision, a number of responses appeared regularly:
Latitude. Associates appreciated being given significant responsibility with the trust to carry it out. Most did not want a foreman watching their every move. Typical comments included: “He makes allowances for creative diversions in major areas and hasn’t predetermined how my job should be done,” and “I am given freedom to do what I have to do; I am basically trusted.”
Individuality. Associates appreciated being recognized as ministers in their own right. Career associates seemed to need to justify not “aspiring” to senior-pastor positions. When asked why he considered the staff role a lifetime career, one associate stated bluntly, “Somebody has to do it!”
Perhaps more perceptively, another wrote, “I feel there are some staff members who work better for someone else than themselves.” Many referred to their “call” to staff positions. Reading between the lines, one could detect weariness at being asked too many times when they will become “real ministers.”
Associates appreciated opportunities to do their own work rather than the pastor’s work. One associate wrote that his pastor “treats me as an equal professionally and respects my gifts and abilities.” Another liked his supervisor “emphasizing the role of associate as a colleague, not a hired ‘go-fer.’ “
Recognition. Associates were grateful for pastors who recognized their contributions. Of the respondents, 46 percent strongly agreed with the survey statement “I feel appreciated.” Several wrote comments like “I am treated as an equal professionally with respect for my gifts and abilities,” and “I am not viewed as a subordinate; I have assisted, but I am not the ‘assistant.’ “
Another appreciated the way his pastor made him feel significant: “He shares the glory-baptisms, preaching, and sacraments.”
Support. Associates voiced their need for support. Many were young or inexperienced. Over a third (36 percent) from our survey were under thirty, and 70 percent under thirty-five. Nearly half (47 percent) were in their first position. They looked to the pastor for help.
While 88 percent considered support very important, only 57 percent felt they had it. That leaves a significant number of associates valuing support but not getting it.
What associates are looking for is summed up in one comment: “He loves me, encourages me, corrects me, and shares his heart with me.”
Freedom with support appears to be the magic ingredient for satisfied associates. For instance, one said he liked his pastor’s “continuous support and willingness to give rein. He also will help out when a project is failing.”
When asked what, if anything, their pastors had done to make working conditions more difficult, the greatest complaint was anything appearing unilateral.
One-way communication topped the list. Only 32 percent of associates considered themselves informed about things they needed to know, yet twice as many-64 percent-considered such information very important to their satisfaction as ministers.
Most are probably not as unhappy as the one who wrote of his pastor’s “persistent, consistent, tenacious lack of communication.” Yet common responses included “He keeps secret what he’s up to and fails to pass along necessary information” and “If you do something wrong, you hear about it; if you do something right, that’s just expected.”
Associates also disliked unilateral gathering of praise. One associate wrote, “He tries to give the impression he’s the only pastor here.” Others wrote of the pastor’s “excessively high need for recognition” or “his being threatened by my abilities and the people’s love for me.”
Associates also wanted to participate in decision making, especially in their own ministry areas. One groaned, “I do not have authority within my own area of responsibility.” Another said his pastor “doesn’t include me in his planning.”
“He continually increases my work load and overrides my decisions,” claimed another.
Associates considered unilateral accountability another sore spot. They wanted at least some measure of mutual accountability. An associate told of a pastor who didn’t respect his schedule: “It’s OK for him to be late or miss an appointment, but I must respect his time and calendar.” Another didn’t appreciate a pastor who had “higher expectations of me than of himself.”
Divided Loyalties
One area where pastors and associates differed noticeably was the importance of staff relationships for job satisfaction (see below). The four factors associates identified as most important were:
I am part of an effective ministry team.
The senior pastor supports me in my ministry.
I feel appreciated.
I have a good relationship with the pastor.
Three of the four deal specifically with the relationship to the pastor. Getting along with lay leaders, in contrast, ranked last in their consideration.
Pastors, however, found their loyalties split. They also ranked staff relationships high, but equally important was their relationship with lay leaders. The four factors most important to senior pastors’ job satisfaction were:
I get along well with lay leaders.
Our staff is an effective ministry team.
I have a personal relationship with our staff members.
Our staff works well together.
Therefore, while associates look most to the pastor for affirmation and personal relationship, pastors find themselves dividing their energies between two groups. Associates want to “go steady” while pastors must “play the field,” which provides grist for misunderstandings and unmet expectations.
Suggestions on Supervision
When asked what one principle about supervising pastoral staff they would pass on, senior pastors’ responses clustered around four admonitions: hire carefully, delegate thoughtfully, jump patiently, and communicate regularly.
Hire carefully. Hiring is a delicate dance. You are looking for more than skills; viewpoints, orthodoxy, training, and personality figure in as well. According to one pastor, it boils down to “Don’t hire cheap labor; you get what you pay for.”
“In our team arrangement, I must be sure those brought on are self-starters,” writes another.
“Be careful in enlisting staff members and pray a lot about it,” cautions a third.
These and other comments show the need to scrutinize both the prospective associate and the present pastor. Is the pastor a shepherd or a rancher at heart? Is the prospective associate a lifer or someone passing through on the way to other endeavors? Matching a shepherd with a stepping-stone associate may produce two uncomfortable leaders. Mix a rancher with the same associate, and you may have the makings for a fine learning situation for the associate.
Role expectations must be spoken. The shepherd who wants help but not a lot of bother had better inform the associate who seeks a side-by-side mentor. The temporary staffer eventually heading to solo ministry needs to declare such intentions to a rancher wanting to build a lasting team. Church staffs, it appears, must be matched with care.
Delegate thoughtfully. “Give staff people areas of responsibility and allow them to develop their ministry, but stay on top of their progress and be ready to help when needed,” suggested one pastor.
“Grant authority as well as responsibility. Some pastors believe there is only one pastor in a church and the others are only ‘assistants to’ or ‘ministers of.’ “
Associates prefer genuine responsibility. Pastors are wise to supervise without smothering in a carefully selected ministry.
“Don’t be afraid of the bright ones. Loose them and let them go,” wrote a pastor.
The vital transition from trying to do all the work to managing the work done by associates is crucial. Some pastors make that switch and seem to have relatively content staffs. Others resist the change or are oblivious to its ramifications and frustrate their staffs.
The pastors skilled at management have learned the theory and baptized the practice by their own initiative. They picked up skill at writing realistic job descriptions, delegating authority with responsibility, and using the right amount of personal supervision. Sizing up their associates’ strengths, they turn them loose to minister within those areas with the freedom and support to accomplish their goals.
Jump patiently. Though it sounds like an oxymoron, this phrase describes the divergent advice on the survey. In dealing with staff problems, some pastors counseled patience and understanding: “Realize that associates will make mistakes; bear with them.” Others, however, advised immediately confronting any problems: “It’s almost always better to confront a situation than to hope it will go away. Things don’t just work themselves out.”
So pastors must jump on a problem quickly while waiting patiently for things to unfold?
Upon analyzing the problems each group faced, however, the conflicting advice is for two separate kinds of situations.
The “jump quickly” folks had encountered character problems: interpersonal conflict, immorality, malfeasance. Given time, such problems would only compound. The “wait patiently” advocates had experienced competence problems: greenness, lack of seasoned judgment. Their suggestion was to give the associates time to get up to speed, to grow, to learn.
Pastors need the wisdom to know the difference between a jump problem and a patience problem.
Communicate regularly. Nothing appeared as regularly in the survey as communication. Communicate “clear job descriptions to begin with.” Communicate “clear definitions of what is expected and a system of accountability.” Communicate that you “like the people you have on staff as persons; develop a sense of friendship and community.”
“Take blocks of time to pray and talk together so you can see the other is on your side and not one to be threatened by.” The flow of information and affirmation nourishes staff relationships.
Communication needs to occur on several levels. The business level involves one’s ministry: “What do I need to know to get my work done? If I do this, how does that affect what you’re doing?” Less than a third of the associates in this survey felt they were told all they needed to know about their ministries.
The spiritual level means scheduling time to pray together. Even wrestling through difficult questions from the junior high whiz kid or a knotty sermon text provides joint spiritual stimulation for a staff.
A personal level of communication is also helpful. One associate remembers: “One of the best things we did on staff was play tennis together. You don’t know how good it felt to kid the ‘boss’ about his serve or banter with him about the weather. When he asked about my family, it showed he truly cared about me as a person, not a cog in his machinery.”
Many wrote appreciatively about personal care and communication from their pastor or associates. Senior pastors, who often confessed a loneliness in their role, appreciated associates who gave “lots of support during tough times.”
Staff harmony-if this survey is any indication-is happening. Although pastor-versus-associates war stories will no doubt continue to be told, it’s encouraging to know they’re not the whole story.
James Berkley is associate editor of LEADERSHIP.
WHAT ONE THING MOST AFFECTS YOUR JOB SATISFACTION
(Four most frequent and single least frequent responses)
Associates
1. I am part of an effective ministry team (22%)
2. The senior pastor supports me (18%)
3. I feel appreciated (17%)
4. I have a good relationship with the pastor (10%)
* * *
11. I get along well with lay leaders (1%)
Pastors
1. I get along well with lay leaders (16%)
2. Our staff is an effective ministry team (16%)
3. I have a personal relationship with our staff (16%)
4. Our staff works well together (16%)
* * *
11. I have too many bosses (0%)
Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
