Assimilation vs. Acculturation

In the 1980’s, literature and workshops about assimilating new members were the rage in church circles. People were paying serious attention to declining attendance in the mainline church. The assimilation genre of literature was a massive response to the question, “Why are attendance and membership numbers showing such rapid decline?” It was before we were talking about post-modernism, “re-traditioning”, and the emergent church. Leaders were convinced that better systems of inviting, welcoming and incorporating new participants into the life of the congregation were key factors in reversing declining membership and attendance patterns.  Today you’d be hard pressed to find a workshop on new member assimilation. The center of the conversation has shifted, as has the way that we talk about receiving and incorporating newcomers.

In 1988, Robert Blass defined assimilation as having three components: absorption, integration and incorporation . Assimilation was understood to be the means by which a congregation coordinated and blended new members into a meaningful and unified whole, with the rest of the congregation. Owen Facey defined assimilation as an ongoing process of intentionally bringing, including, and integrating people into the life of the local church, with the goal of equipping and releasing them to serve.

In the 1990’s the world became sensitized to the language of assimilation. As the culture in the United States became more ethnically, racially, religiously and socially diverse, people began to question whether or not it was appropriate to use the term assimilation in corporate and business settings. It was argued by some that the term assimilation had a “melting pot” connotation that didn’t set appropriate boundaries around change expectations as newcomers are incorporated. Assimilation refers to a one-way adaptation process in which the culture of one group (the dominant culture) becomes the standard of behavior for all newcomers merging into the system. In a process of assimilation everyone, regardless of social background, is expected to conform to the norms and values of the dominant group. Little, if any, of the unique culture of the newcomer is brought to the dominant group for their adaptation .

 Acculturation was introduced as a broader term that more appropriately described the need for both the organization and the individual to mutually adapt to one another. Acculturation refers to a two way process of integration in which both culture groups (the organization and the individual) change to some degree to accommodate the norms and values of one other . I would argue that when we talk about the integration of new members into the large congregation, we need to embrace the language of acculturation, not assimilation. First, it is more appropriate for many of our congregations who are struggling to diversify membership across racial, ethnic and social groups. If we truly want to welcome members who look and think differently than the people currently sitting in the pews, then we need to approach new member integration as a mutual process of adaptation.

Second, one of the strengths of the large congregation is its ability to hold great expressions of diversity. Choices in programming and variety in worship venues allow for the presence of diversity at all times. People can find their way toward others with whom they identify, without the entire congregation having to negotiate difference all of the time. Those who are uncomfortable with difference can avoid it by choosing to place distance between themselves and the one who is “other”. And those who embrace diversity can find meaningful expression of the difference they seek. When people join the large congregation they don’t really join the whole church, they join that portion of the church with which they tend to identify. This makes room for diverse viewpoints and interests to live comfortably side by side.

If we want to cultivate a culture that embraces diversity, then we need to think about the integration of new members through the lens of acculturation, not assimilation. This ought to have significant ramifications for the way in which we approach the integration process of newcomers. What might our welcoming, orienting and membership processes look like if we are intentionally trying to adapt our membership body with each newcomer that arrives?

Photo Credit: Mario Aguirre

Administration and Ministry

Clergy leaders in the large church must come to terms with the idea that administration is a form of ministry. Those who cannot understand administration as ministry quickly burn out in the role, always frustrated as they try to get administration “out of the way” so that they can get back to the real tasks of ministry.

I often work with senior clergy on the tasks of staffing and supervision. I’m struck by how often leaders fall into the trap of thinking that supervision is only something that you do when things are going poorly.  They believe that if people would just do what they are supposed to do, then senior clergy could spend less time providing administrative oversight and more time doing “real” ministry. The seasoned senior clergy leader generally comes to see that the work of supervision is sacred work that takes sufficient time to do well. They come to understand that they will always spend a significant portion of their time (at least 30%) on the task of staff supervision. They have the choice of spending that time in a reactive way (putting out the fires that emerge around poor supervision) or they can learn to spend that time proactively, guiding the strategic direction of the staff team. Crafting a culture that supports collaborative and accountable performance management is holy work that the senior clergy leader must do. In fact, there are aspects of that job that only the senior clergy leader can do.

In the book, “All for God’s Glory: Redeeming Church Scutwork”, Louis Weeks writes insightfully about the role of administration in pastoral work. 

“Church administration is exceedingly complex.  It consists of obvious tasks: making and keeping budgets; planning and assessing programs and activities; organizing worship and work efforts; enlisting officers, teachers, and staff, as well as dismissing those who cannot effectively carry out their responsibilities.  But is also consist of subtle and systemic perspectives, for good planning makes for excellent worship and nurture; mission and witness are inextricable from effective organization; deep, trusting partnership among pastor, staff and lay leadership are built on keeping promises and meeting responsibilities.”

Many senior pastors of large congregations believe that they must either adopt a Chief Executive Officer Mantle, or reject that mantle as ill suited for leading the church. Many still want to think of themselves as pastors first, but recognize that their role usually doesn’t lend itself to pastoral kinds of activities. All senior clergy leaders grapple with how to appropriately engage in pastoral care for their size congregation, and how much time to spend on preaching and teaching.  Even pastors within a year of retirement will often articulate their as yet unresolved struggle about whom to engage in personal care. The choices that must be made always come with a measure of guilt and grief, as pastor’s yield to not personally knowing the individual challenges and triumphs of their congregants. Most struggle with ways to combine their responsibility for the business of the church and their pastor’s heart for the people of the church.

 What have you learned about managing the tension between administration and ministry?

Photo Credit: nuts and bolts by maxpower

---

Program Evaluation

The large church never met a program that it didn’t like.  The leadership default position in the large congregation is to add programming every time someone wants to enhance impact or pursue excellence. Every new strategic planning process results in the layering on of new programs without winnowing out the old. The hint that any small group of individuals in a congregation is still attached to a program is enough to warrant keeping a program around for years, even after the program has outlived its usefulness. Meanwhile, our staff teams are becoming increasingly exhausted as they struggle to keep pace; attending a vast array of choices that are no longer meaningful to the mission of the congregation. It’s time to stop the madness!  

A particularly effective tool for evaluating programs is the Program Logic Model. You can use this model to evaluate a standalone program, an entire ministry area, or to engage a more comprehensive evaluation of all the programs in your congregation. Here’s how it works. The model invites you to describe the logical linkages among the situation a program is meant to address, the inputs required, the outputs generated and the outcomes sustained. When you invite leaders to define each component you surface unstated assumptions about the program and its intentions. This allows leadership to more objectively define critical performance measures and to evaluate whether the outcomes of a program justify the investment of time, resources and energy required.  The creation of a logic model can facilitate meaningful dialogue among your leaders about what you are seeking to accomplish, and how effectively you are achieving those outcomes. Here’s the model.

Situation: What is the condition to which this program is a response? How is this program/ministry an appropriate response to the condition?

 

Inputs:  What we Invest Time Money Volunteers Partners Facilities Supplies Equipment

Outputs:What We Do & Who We Reach Classes Services Publications Meetings Meals served People served Participants engaged Members reached

Outcomes: (Short, Medium and Long-Term)Changes We Observe In: Knowledge Skills  Attitudes  Motivation  Awareness  Behaviors  Practices  Policies and procedures  Environment  Social and economic conditions

 

It works well to engage the model with a group of leaders who are relevant to the ministry. Invite the gathered group to define the situation, the inputs, the outputs and the outcomes. Then set them loose evaluating how effectively this program is serving the situation it was originally defined to address? How well does the program serve the congregation’s mission (however we currently understand that mission)?

If you’d like to learn more about how to apply the logic model in a congregational context, I’d recommend “Holy Clarity: The Practice of Planning and Evaluation” by Sara Drummond.

Who is in Charge of Growth?

Most congregations like to pin overall responsibility for growth on the senior clergy leader. Fundamentally, most of us still believe that outstanding preaching and worship is what draws people into the large congregation. These two areas of congregational life are under the direct oversight of the senior pastor; therefore, the senior pastor is the “one” most responsible for growth.

Recently I read an article posted by the Leadership Network entitled, Diverse DNA: Varying Factors in Church Cultures Lead to Rapid Growth. I found the overall article rather confusing, but my interest was piqued by these quotes from church growth consultant, Dr. Samuel Chand.

“Most senior pastors have a gift of gathering, but there is a ceiling built into that,” Samuel says. “And most staff members have the mentality of ‘you bring it in, you make it happen, and we’ll do our best to take care of it.’ But that’s a management mentality, not a growth mentality.”

“Instead, Samuel says, each department should have its own growth goals—with measurements and accountability.”

“Churches do not grow exponentially through Sunday morning,” he adds. “They grow exponentially when every department head takes responsibility for growth.”

I have found that the place where growth is managed in a congregation is largely dependent upon the size of the congregation. All churches grow when members invite others to join them in worship, learning and service. All churches grow by adding programs, educational opportunities, service opportunities and worship venues. But different sized congregations manage the growth process from different places.

Congregations with worshiping communities that number 150-400 primarily manage growth at the board level, with strong input from the staff team. Congregations with 400-800 in worship manage their growth through a centralized staff team that collectively coordinates and manages the life of the congregation. The board may provide oversight, expressing expectations about growth, but the growth itself is managed by staff. Congregations worshiping 800-1,200 manage their growth more strategically. Typically an executive team within the staff team takes overall responsibility for coordinating the growth centers of the congregation. After 1,200 the management of growth becomes decentralized and is managed in multiple places at the same time.

How and where is your congregation managing its growth process?

Photo Credit: jimflix at flickr.com

Is “BIG” a Core Value?

What are the central essential characteristics that make this congregation unique? This is a question that I frequently pose to congregations who engage me as their consultant. Healthy congregations typically provide a concise response to this question and the response is consistent when posed to different leaders in different venues. Healthy congregations know who they are and how they are different from other congregations.  A healthy congregation might respond with something like this, “We are a congregation that values excellence in worship and the arts. We have a progressive theology and are known for our commitment to the pursuit of social justice.” Or, “We are proud of our intergenerational approach to faith formation and development. We excel in offering a strong Sunday school program and a vibrant small group ministry that thrive side by side.”

Recently, a congregation that I worked with posed this question to their membership, as part of a series of listening circles designed to help leadership listen to membership. A disturbing phenomenon surfaced as we began reviewing the collected data. A significant number of people responded to the question about central essential characteristics by replying with some version of, “Well, I guess what makes us unique is that we are big”.

As we probed the response a little further we discovered that people meant many different things when they named size as an essential characteristic of the congregation.  Some talked about the fact that the size of the congregation generated enough resources to insure that the congregation was impactful in its ministry. For others, size produced a capacity for excellence in worship and education that they valued. For still others the size of the congregation was a measure of prestige. They valued being part of the “biggest and richest” congregation around. (Leadership expressed a collective “ouch” in response to that last interpretation.)

As you can imagine, this data set produced some interesting dialogue among leadership. Can/should our size be one of the core values expressed by our congregation?  Is size an end unto itself, or a means to accomplish something else? If we cease to be a large and resource rich congregation, will we have failed in our mission? If we are not known for being one of the  denomination’s largest financial contributors to mission, what will we be known for?  Has our image of ourselves as the big and resource rich congregation become an anchor or albatross, holding us down?

I suspect that this conversation could (and perhaps should) take place in any number of large mainline Protestant congregations. What value does your membership place on the size of the congregation? Is “big” one of your core values?

Photo Credit: Gabriele at flickr.com

Can Our Youth Save Us?

Congregations love to advocate on behalf of youth ministry…at least in principle.  At some point in every congregational planning process someone stands and issues the battle cry, “We need to be doing a better job with our youth. They are the future of our church. If we have a thriving youth program, the church will grow.” The notion that a thriving youth ministry will lead to church health and vitality is a long standing assumption in most of our congregations. 

We look at the void of young adults in our congregations today and we aren’t quite sure what to do about that. We see young adulthood as a time when people are not inclined to seek out church participation, and so we convince ourselves that reaching out to young adults is simply too hard. But youth ministry, that’s a different story! We know that the teen years are critical faith formation years, and we know from our own personal experience that parents will attend almost any church to which their adolescent children feel attracted. Many of us also have fond memories of vibrant youth ministry years in glory days gone by, and we’re sure that the way back to those glory days is to tend to our youth and to get that particular vibrancy back.

Over the last several years nearly every congregation that I have worked with on strategic planning has claimed children’s ministry or youth ministry (or both) as one of their 2-3 key strategic initiatives for moving forward. In other words, they recognize that their children and youth ministry programs have lost their impact and they believe that infusing energy and resources into these ministries will make the biggest difference in the right direction for the future health and vitality of the congregation.

However, there may be a problem with our assumptions about the role that youth ministry plays in revitalization.  In 2009 the Hartford Institute for Religion released the findings of a significant research project called American Congregations 2008 . The report states the following:

“Interest in many areas of congregational life cycle up and down over time. Youth ministry is one of these. Right now interest is rising. The reason may be because of increasing worries about flat to declining memberships and the perception that youth programming would stimulate growth. Interestingly, FACT2008 finds that a positive relationship between youth programming and growth (For FACT2008, in worship attendance) only holds for our Evangelical Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox families, and even here it is not very strong. For Oldline Protestantism the relationship is actually negative, although again not very strong.”

What are we to do with this piece of information? It’s startling and it feels counter-intuitive. Certainly no one is suggesting that we eliminate an emphasis on youth ministry. But, if your congregation has limited resources to invest in revitalization efforts (and what congregation doesn’t have limited resources), is youth ministry the best thing in which to invest those limited resources?

Here is one of my favorite mantras as I work with large congregations in the midst of planning. The large church has the capacity to do just about anything it chooses to do with excellence, but no church has the capacity to do all things with excellence. No congregation has unlimited resources. Choices must be made. Realistically, a congregation can only focus on two-three key strategic initiatives at any one point in time.  Should youth ministry be showing up on every congregation’s list right now?  Are we investing ourselves in an area of ministry that feels safe and familiar when a riskier approach, with greater potential for impact, remains unexplored?

Photo Source: poptart prince

Who Does the Planning?

Who participates in strategic planning in the large congregation? We all know that the overall responsibility for creating a strategic plan resides with the governing board. The board is responsible for the strategic leadership of the congregation. But when it comes to actually formulating the plan, who is involved? Does the board as a whole facilitate the planning process, or is it delegated to a committee? What role does the staff team play? How is the voice of the congregation represented? How much influence should the voice of the senior clergy leader carry? 

I suppose the answer to these questions depends upon your theological perspective about where vision resides in the life of a congregation. Most of the clients that I work with believe that the vision of the congregation, and consequently the strategy that supports the vision, ultimately reside in the hearts and minds of congregational members.

The senior clergy person can articulate a vision on behalf of the congregation, but if the congregation doesn’t resonate with that vision there isn’t much hope that the vision will take hold.

The staff team operates as the organizing managerial center of the large congregation.  However, it is the role of laity, not the staff team to claim the overall strategy. The viewpoints of staff must somehow be incorporated into vision formation. Staff members have their hands on the pulse of ministry and can often name the challenges and opportunities that inform what happens next. How are the voices of staff honored in strategic planning, without being overly influential in the work that belongs to lay leadership?

Most boards find that if they try to facilitate the self study that undergirds a strategic plan, they end up losing focus on their oversight responsibilities. The process of strategic planning (from the ground up) can be a daunting and time consuming undertaking, taking anywhere between six to twelve months to complete. Most large congregations find that they need to form a separate planning team/committee that is accountable to the governing board. These committees are charged with fully engaging congregation members, board and committee members and staff members in a collective dialogue about the future of the congregation.

I am frequently asked to talk about who should serve on the planning team and to describe the team’s role in decision making about strategy. Let’s talk about role first. Once the role of the team has been defined it is much easier to figure out who should be serving on the team.

A planning team operates best when they understand their role as facilitators of dialogue, not decision makers about strategy. The planning team is charged with designing and facilitating a self study process that will create meaningful venues for the congregation to discern, register opinions and explore options. This is done through a carefully crafted process of data gathering that often includes: a congregational survey, listening circles, demographic studies, community leader interviews and congregational visits. The planning team doesn’t need to personally conduct the entire data gathering process, but they do need to design the overall data gathering framework and recruit leaders who can assist.

Once data gathering is complete, the planning team works to facilitate discernment and decision making conversation with congregational leaders. It is not the role of the planning team to “decide” what the strategy and vision should be on behalf of the congregation.  It is their role to make meaning out of the data and to present digestible summaries of the data to the leadership of the congregation. Finally it is the role of the planning team to convene leadership gatherings that invite the articulation of core values, strengths to preserve and the new strategic initiatives. The team synthesizes what it has heard and prepares a planning document to present to the governing board for their final discernment and approval.

The planning team needs to be made up of congregational leaders who can organize people and data, while keeping the larger picture in view. Planning team members should be good process designers, good strategic thinkers and well connected in the life of the congregation so that they can invite widespread participation. Planning teams should be selected on the basis of their ability to represent the entire congregation. They should not be selected based upon their ability to represent a particular constituency or point of view. They should not be selected based on their ability to fund the new initiatives. Teams that are appointed with a representational viewpoint in mind always end up in turf war debates. Teams that are made up of the moneyed members of the congregation often don’t engage in very effective process.

Hands down, the best strategic planning team that I have worked with was made up of the senior pastor, the executive director (pastor), the current church moderator (president), and the four previous church moderators.  Every member of the team was a good strategic thinker, operated on behalf of the whole congregation, and was well connected to congregational communication channels.

How do you engage planning in your context?

Photo Credit: Veeder73 at flickr.com

Declining Attendance

Traditionally, those who study the health and vitality of congregations have used average weekend worship as the pivotal evaluator of congregational well-being. The average number of people who participate in weekend worship (including children in the Sunday school program and their teachers/care providers) has long been viewed as the best indicator of the active number of people participating in the life of the congregation. Declines in attendance and giving have been the bellwether indicators that something is amiss in the life of a congregation. When average attendance numbers begin to decline, congregational leaders get nervous.

Lately, I’m noticing that at every event where I teach or speak I am approached by large church leaders who say, “Our average weekend worship attendance is falling, but every other indicator of church health is on the rise. Membership is up. Giving is up. Midweek programming is up. What does that mean? Should we be worried?” In fact, I’m hearing this so frequently that it has really grabbed my attention. What is the decline in worship attendance trying to tell us?

Lovett Weems published an article in the October 5, 2010 Christian Century titled, “No Shows”. Here’s what Lovett said:

            “One feature of the recent downturn in attendance is the changing pattern in large churches. In the United Methodist Church, large churches (those averaging 350 or more in attendance) showed steady attendance growth during the 1980s and significant growth during the 1990s, reaching a high point in 2001.  Their decline in attendance began in 2002 and has continued every year since.  If the large churches had held their attendance numbers at previous levels, there would still have been denominational decline, but much less. In essence, the smaller churches continued and somewhat accelerated their decades long decline while the large churches for the first time joined the decline.”

If we adopt Weems’ interpretation as our own, we can’t help but be worried. Things are not looking good. I have worked with a number of clients in recent years whose experiences validate Weems’ concern. They are declining according to every possible measure of congregational vitality. However, I don’t think that the simple statistics presented here tell the whole story. I’m seeing too many congregations with declining weekend attendance that are thriving by every other measure of church health. Something else seems to be at work.

Increasingly I’m convinced that weekend worship attendance isn’t the best indicator of health in large congregations (or at least not the sole indicator). I can identify a variety of factors that explain why attendance might be waning in the large church, without necessarily indicating a major health problem.

• Worshipers are attending less frequently. Weems article talked about the many pastors who are sensing that the same individuals are worshiping throughout the year, but that they worship less often. The cultural shift in Sunday morning activity places increasing time demands on congregants, demands that often interfere with a regular Sunday morning worship experience. Jobs, sports and scheduled recreation often keep people away on the weekend. These conflicts don’t necessarily mean that people are any less committed to their discipleship or their membership responsibilities…or do they?
• Younger worshipers (under the age of 40) don’t necessarily treat the Sunday morning experience as the focal point of their involvement in the life of the church. They may not even be particularly attached to ministries that take place within the church building, preferring to identify with small groups and the social justice ministries that take place out in the neighborhoods served by the church. This doesn’t make their attachment to the church any less relevant or important…or does it?
• The large church offers so many programming options that the Sunday morning experience is declining in importance as the primary feeder system of the church. People who are attached to the church school, a fine arts program, a recovery program or support group, may not be particularly drawn to the weekend worship experience. Nevertheless, these people believe that they are active participants in the life of the church, and they expect that the community will care for them, educate them and tend to their spiritual needs. They may not be formal members of the church, but they often describe the church as their own.

So, how big of a problem is this really? If the importance of corporate worship in the life of the congregation is diminishing, are we in danger of losing something that has no substitute? Can discipleship and spirituality thrive with corporate worship attendance on the decline?  And if average weekend attendance isn’t the best health indicator in the large church, what is? 

Photo Credit: theqspeaks at flickr.com

What is Staff?

The question seems almost too obvious, doesn’t it? When asked this question, most church leaders respond that the staff of the church is the group of people that the church employs.  And this response is more or less accurate. However, many congregations have volunteers who effectively serve as staff members of the church and don’t get paid; volunteers who devote significant, dedicated and predictable hours in service to the congregation, and do not expect or accept compensation for what they do. Churches also employ some very part time employees who are only minimally tied to the missional outcomes of the congregation (e.g. a part time landscape worker) who don’t really function as members of the staff team.

So what is staff, and what role does it play in the large church? Dictionary.com provides this definition of staff.  Staff (noun): a group of persons, as employees, charged with carrying out the work of an establishment, or executing some undertaking on its behalf.   Many church leaders assume this rather secular definition with regard to their staff teams. The staff is here to engage in ministry on our behalf. The problem with this definition is that the staff team of a congregation does not undertake the work of ministry in place of the congregation; it exists to organize and orchestrate the laity in pursuit of the congregation’s mission. When a staff team and its leaders confuse the difference between the work of the laity and the work that is theirs to do, the congregation loses missional impact. A staff team of 25 cannot accomplish what a congregation of 800 can accomplish within a community. The staff team works in service to the mission, and works on behalf of the congregation, but does not carry out the work of the congregation. The work of the congregation always belongs to the laity.

Some congregations become very fearful about the staff team taking away work that legitimately belongs to the laity. A definition of staff that may work its way into the psyche of these congregations is more along the lines of the military definition of staff. “A body of officers without command authority, appointed to assist a commanding officer; or, the parts of any army concerned with administrative matters, planning, etc. rather than with actual participation in combat.”  If we eliminate the references to army and combat, we actually have a pretty good working definition of how some congregations view their staff teams. The staff is here to administer and execute the ministry that the boards and committees of the church craft for them to do. This definition of staff often keeps staff out of critical planning and decision making conversations, ultimately limiting their ministry impact and sidelining them in strategic direction setting.

How, then, should we be thinking about staff in the large congregation? Once a congregation passes the 400 threshold in weekend worship attendance, the orientation of the congregation around the staff team begins to shift. Below the 400 mark, the energy center of the congregation is the governing board. The staff works under the guidance of the governing body. Laity is central to the organization and execution of ministry in the small to medium sized congregation. In the attendance zone between 400 and 800 the staff team becomes more centrally positioned as the energy zone of congregational life. The governing board still maintains responsibility for the strategic direction of the congregation and the oversight of the head of staff, but the staff team becomes the central organizing force through which ministry ideas are conceived and executed. This shift oftentimes causes confusion among lay leadership, who report feeling sidelined by the staff. If the staff team is the organizing center of the congregation, what is the role of laity?

Consider this working definition of staff as an alternative to both the secular and military definitions. The staff of a congregation exists to organize the human, financial and capital resources of the congregation, in pursuit of the congregation’s mission. Staff are those individuals, paid and unpaid, who commit to working regularly scheduled hours, and agree to be subject to the performance management/supervisory system of the congregation. This definition provides for the existence of volunteer staff that are willing to work without pay, but are willing to subject themselves to the accountability systems of a staff team (i.e. job description, performance evaluations, supervisory relationships, and participation in staff team meetings). It also helps to distinguish between staff members who are committed to the missional outcomes of the congregation and those part time contract employees for whom there are no missional expectations. (I would argue that these employees are not technically staff). Furthermore, this definition empowers members of the staff to participate freely and fully in the decision making and strategic direction setting of the congregation, provided that their participation serves the congregation’s mission and strategic direction.

Which of these definitions is most closely aligned with how your congregation views its staff? Is it time to revisit and overhaul the congregations expectations about why the staff exists?

Photo Credit: mattneighbour

A Worthy Performance Goal

This post is for those of you who attended, “Stepping Up to Staffing and Supervision” last week in Atlanta.  Here is my promised description, with examples, of an effective performance goal. (See what happens when you articulate your expectations, set measurable objectives and establish time frames?  People actually step up to meet those expectations . Smile.)

Performance Goals focus a staff member on the priorities of the congregation. They are outcome statements. They provide the staff member with direction about how to channel their energy, encouraging the staff member to grow their area of work in defined and targeted ways over the next six-twelve month period, in accordance with the overall strategy of the congregation.

Goals should NOT be written to encourage employees to step up to meeting basic expectations about their daily performance. If an employee is not meeting basic expectations of performance, you need to address that by clarifying the core competencies and essential functions of the role, and by providing ongoing feedback about how the individual is performing against those expectations. Goals are meant to provide purpose, direction and alignment; beyond the basic daily expectations of the job.

 To be effective, performance goals must be SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time bound.

Specific:  Goals must be concrete and easily understood. They must tell precisely what the staff member is expected to accomplish.

Measurable:  Goals must measurable or observable (on some level) so that there is clarity about whether the staff member has been successful or not in reaching the goals. Measurable and observable aren’t necessarily the same thing as quantifiable; be creative in the measures that you define.

Attainable:  Goals must not be too difficult or too easy. If the goal is too challenging, the staff member may become frustrated. A goal that is too easy won’t prompt any changes in behavior. Seek to formulate goals that will stretch the staff member, but have a reasonable chance of being accomplished with consistent effort.  

Relevant: The goals of each staff team member must be relevant to the boundaries of the role they occupy. Think about what you are trying to accomplish (e.g. a 15% increase in attendance) and then figure out what part of that goal rightfully belongs to the person for whom the goal is being written.

Time bound: Goals must be bound by specific time parameters and deadlines for completion.

Finally, make certain that your goal passes the “so what” test.  A reasonable person reading the goal should understand why the goal has inherent worth and how it will advance the mission of the congregation.

Some Examples:

• Enrollment in adult religious education programs will increase by 5% between 1/10 and 1/11.
• A campus wide signage system will be designed, procured and installed by 8/31/10.
• Small group curriculum for a church wide initiative on Discipleship will be developed or purchased, approved by the teaching pastors and elders, and ready for use by all small groups in September of 2011.
• Five new adult leaders will be recruited, trained, equipped and assigned to work with our high school youth, in small group settings, by September of 2011.
• Congregation members will be surveyed in July of 2011 about their personal practices in bible study, prayer and worship. The results of this survey will be used to benchmark membership practices in anticipation of a year- long emphasis on deepening the spirituality of the congregation.
• An RFP process will be completed so that a capital campaign consultant is selected and ready to lead a capital campaign beginning in the spring of 2011.

 How many goals should be written for each staff member? Two to three performance goals are plenty. Remember that the performance goals help to sharpen focus and energy, and align the organization. A staff member is expected to fulfill all of the essential functions of the position, satisfy all of the defined core competencies and accomplish all of the performance goals. Two or three goals are plenty to keep the average staff member highly engaged, motivated and challenged.