Managing the Church
For council chairs, trustees, and others with gifts of administration
Busyness and church business
by James M.Harder
Since volunteer time is “free,” churches can be as guilty as other organizations of being poor stewards of committee time. When that happens, the work begins to feel more like “busyness” than “business.” Interest wanes, commitment to group process weakens, and a debilitating downward spiral of organizational energy can begin.
The “I’m-too-busy-right-now” response to invitations to serve is often an early warning sign of such a situation. The hesitation is not necessarily related to how much time the task involves; it may be related to low expectations of how well time is likely to be used, and whether basic principles of organizational effectiveness are likely to be followed. Many volunteers also want to have a clear sense that the tasks they agree to undertake will have value.
Paying close attention to these motivators is crucial to the recruitment of volunteers for congregational leadership roles and committee assignments. It also helps to assess your church’s “business culture” by asking questions like the following:
1. Is the purpose of meetings clear?
Has the convener done sufficient work in advance that he or she can clearly describe to those in attendance the purpose of the meeting and the types of outcomes that are required? Printed agendas that propose a specific sequence of meeting topics, estimate time allocations, and specify needed outcomes can be strong statements of planning and clear purpose.
2. Is the scope of authority clear?
Does decision-making power really lie with this group? Or is its function primarily reportoriented or consultative (in which case final decisions are made by a different group)? Does everyone see this the same way?
3. Is coordination effective?
Church councils are especially prone to frustration when roles and lines of authority are fuzzy, especially if multiple committees relate to them for “coordination purposes.” There is no one best choice among the range of options for centralized versus decentralized leadership; it depends on the setting. But where central coordination is desired, it is both healthy and necessary to talk openly from time to time about boundaries of power and authority between different leadership groups and committees. This minimizes potential misunderstandings and maximizes the empowerment and role satisfaction of all within the system.
4. How do people get to the leadership table?
Are people expected to volunteer for leadership roles, in hopes that good people with free time will step forward? Or do groups select their own representatives, expecting them to reflect the interests of the sponsoring entity? Alternatively, is there a unified selection mechanism, where all positions are filled in consideration of the needed balance of skills and of a vision of the whole? This last approach is most likely to produce a group that is equipped and empowered to lead—accountable to each other and to the whole.
5. Is the group the right size for the task?
A larger group typically reduces the sense of commitment of each individual member and can quickly lead to a perception of wasted time. Generally, purely administrative committees can be quite small, while tasks requiring more consultation and idea testing will warrant larger groups.
6. Does the group celebrate its context?
Committees find enduring energy whenever they see their work within the context of the vision and mission of the broader church. Are communitybuilding activities—sharing time, corporate prayer, celebration of joys and concerns, or moments for reflection—a normal part of the group’s culture?
7. Is history remembered and respected?
Nothing is more frustrating than needlessly having to re-invent the wheel. Are minutes kept and reviewed? Are meeting agendas sent out in advance so people can be reminded of commitments to follow up on tasks? Are new members given sufficient orientation, outside of regular meeting times?
8. Is the role oaf staff clear?
Clarifying staff and committee responsibilities is crucial. Leadership groups tend to do best at review functions, brainstorming, and identifying priorities and desired outcomes. Staff members do best at coordinating, implementing, informing, directing, remembering, reminding, initiating, and detailed planning. In understaffed church settings, delegating a particular task to a volunteer is often more effective than trying to use committees to augment the work of staff.
9. Does the group have a culture of adjournment?
Are the time commitments of volunteers honored? A group leader can maintain a culture of on-time adjournment by placing the most critical or time-sensitive items first on the agenda; by encouraging good stewardship of committee time; by delegating some of the group’s work to individual members; and by separating work time from social time.
James M. Harder is Vice President for Institutional Planning at Bluffton (Ohio) University and is a member of the Mennonite Church USA Executive Board.