Organizational Behaviour 101

While I was getting my engineering degree, I took a series of management courses which included two on organizational behaviour. The theories didn’t seem to have any real world application for me until I was promoted into a management position at work and took on leadership responsibilities at my church. I was pleasantly surprised to see that some of theories were actually quite helpful in understanding how people in organizations behave in different circumstances. By knowing how they behave, we can take steps to ensure their behaviour is optimal for different tasks.

One of the most beneficial things I learned was how the size of a group impacts the average person’s contribution to the group activity. Generally speaking, the larger the group size, the less contribution we can expect from the average individual.

In very small groups, one on one or maybe three people total, the average person will engage in meaningful dialogue especially with people they have a relationship with. In a work context, this happens when a salesman takes a purchasing manager out for lunch or a supervisor meets with an employee to discuss their annual performance review. As long as there is mutual trust, people will speak up and share what’s on their mind. In a church context, we see this in relational evangelism or discipleship – activities that usually take place one on one with people in close relationship.

In small groups of 6 to 12, people are still quite willing to interact but they will typically not share as much as they would if they were with just one close friend. Groups of this size are used in business settings to form work teams, management boards, or marketing focus groups. Most professional group facilitators suggest the optimal size for a “team” is 7 or 8, with a maximum of 12. Most churches use small groups for Bible studies and/or pastoral care, knowing that people are willing to be active in small group discussions. Small groups are also used in educational settings. My Certified Management Accounting training used small groups extensively. After listening to the instructor present a certain topic, we would break into groups of 8 to discuss what we had learned and how we could apply that to our own workplace. Most of our learning occurred in the small group setting, not the large classroom. Marketing people use “focus” groups to obtain feedback on new products or services. Keeping the group small ensures people will be open to sharing their honest opinions with the facilitator.

Large groups of 15 or more are used when feedback or group interaction is not the primary objective. Often, a business will call all employees together to disseminate information such as a quarterly report. The purpose is to ensure everyone receives the same message, and are aware of corporate objectives. While there may be a brief question and answer period at these meetings, in most cases there are few questions asked. In a church setting, we use large groups to deliver the message during Sunday morning worship. Most of the time, the group does not respond with questions or comments.

Breaking into small groups is a relatively recent development for most churches. Historically, churches used large groups (full congregations) almost exclusively for preaching, teaching, and conducting business. Large groups are fine for preaching and to some extent teaching, but they may not be the best way to conduct business.

Typically, when a church was contemplating a change, they would call a congregational meeting. The topic would be presented and then a time of discussion would occur. When that discussion was over, a vote would be taken. The thought was that by giving everyone an equal opportunity to speak, everyone could be heard. But organizational behaviour tells us this isn’t the case. The average person will not voice their opinion at a large group meeting. The ones who do are usually the ones who are very passionate about the topic, or they have a personality type that allows them to feel comfortable speaking in a group setting (you can probably name those people based on previous meeting attendance). So what happens is that we hear comments from a vocal minority, and this minority can change the opinion of the silent majority and affect the outcome of a decision. Suppose you came to a congregational meeting supporting a proposed change, but only 5 people spoke up at the meeting and 4 of them were against the change. You might start to doubt your own opinion and assume the majority (4 out 5) people are against the change. You might even change the way you were going to vote. But this might not be reality – the majority might actually support the change but they didn’t speak up because they don’t feel able to do so in a large group setting.

Presenting the issue in smaller groups will allow more people to voice their opinion or ask questions. While it is more work to arrange the additional meetings, the information gathered from these small groups is invaluable. When our church presented the proposed name change to the congregation by using small groups, I was amazed on the amount of feedback we received. In every group, everyone contributed. Many of these people have never said anything at prior congregational meetings, and likely wouldn’t have spoken up if we had used just a single congregational meeting. While we still need to have a full congregational meeting to conduct the actual vote (see my post about quorums), the smaller group meetings before the congregational meeting allows more people the opportunity to contribute to the decision making process.

This makes perfect sense to me, but I’d love hear your thoughts about this. Feel free to leave a comment here, or email me, or phone me.

Jac

Just what exactly is a Deacon anyway?

It was 1992 and we had been members of a small church in Regina for about a year. I was asked by one of the Elders if I would be interested in serving as a Deacon. After prayerful consideration, I agreed and was shortly elected to serve as a Deacon. I shared this event with a co-worker who first congratulated me but followed that up with the question, “Just what exactly is a Deacon anyway?”

The answer to that question varies depending on church denomination but there are also variances between churches of the same denomination. For some, the Deacons are the people who pray before the offering, pass the plate, then count the funds after the service. In other churches, the Deacons administer the “benevolent” fund – money set aside by the church to attend to financial needs of members or the community such as buying food for people out of work. Some Deacons have a defined ministry with singles and the elderly to ensure they are visited regularly and that someone is looking after their physical needs. In one church I attended, the Deacons were essentially “Elders-in-training”, and before serving as an Elder, you needed to serve a term as a Deacon and “shadow” one of the Elders as they made visits, prayed for people, and attending monthly council meetings.

In our goal to make sure our new Constitution is based on Biblical principles, I think it’s good to see what the New Testament says about Deacons. In Acts 6:1-6, we see the early church leaders receiving some complaints regarding the distribution of food to the widows. Recognizing that food distribution was something that many people could do (not just the leaders), the Twelve asked the disciples to pick seven people to take on this responsibility so it would not be neglected and would not distract the leaders from their other duties. While they are not referred to as “Deacons” in this passage, it is generally understood that this event is the origin of the office of Deacon within the church.

In other sections of the New Testament, we do find a few specific references to Deacons such as Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:1-10. But that’s pretty much all we know about Deacons. Perhaps this limited amount of information is what has lead to such a wide spectrum of duties for Deacons in different churches. There are few nuggets of wisdom we can glean from these passages to help guide us.

In Acts 6, the Deacons were tasked with a specific purpose – looking after the distribution of food to the widows. The church did not add to the number of Elders (leaders), they appointed people who had the proper gifts and character to look after a clearly defined task. We learn more about the requirements for being a Deacon in 1 Timothy, and in several ways they are similar to the requirements for Elders. But Deacons are not Elders (overseers). They are addressed separately in Philippians 1:1 which suggests to me they were distinct roles in the early church, and that the Deacons were not in positions of leadership. This role was reserved for the Elders or “overseers”. Yet since they are specifically addressed along with the "overseers", it suggests that the Elders and Deacons worked closely together and relied upon each other to carry out their respective duties.

So what does a Deacon do in today’s church? Distributing food to widows could be on their duty list, but the local church is in the best position to determine what a Deacon should do. From the New Testament, I think there are two things to keep in mind. First, Deacons are not “overseers” so their role needs to be distinct from the Elders and not be considered as “leaders” in the church. Second, the role of Deacons should be clearly defined and specific, so that when selecting Deacons the church can be sure the appropriate people are selected. I think we can extend this second point a bit further – the role of a Deacon could be specific to an individual. To clarify this even further, I think a church could have many Deacons and each of their roles would be specific to each individual depending on their gifts. There would not be a “one size fits all” job description for Deacons. The church would appoint Deacons when a specific need arose and when there was someone who could fill that role. It might even be a temporary appointment until the need is no longer there.

In our revised Constitution, you will see we have re-introduced the office of Deacons (since we haven’t had any Deacons for several years). You should note that Deacons are not included in the section on Church Government since their role is not one of leadership. You should also note that there is no specified term length for Deacons (and they are not appointed for life as is the case with Elders). This allows the greatest flexibility for the church to appoint Deacons when they are needed, for specific tasks, and until such time as they are no longer needed.

A very real consequence of this flexibility is that we might not always have Deacons in our church. In fact, our members should not expect to see the appointment of Deacons as soon as this new Constitution has been adopted. The appointment of Deacons will happen only if two conditions occur – the Elders identify something they are currently doing that is not a leadership role which could be done by someone else, and there is someone in the congregation who is capable and willing to take on that specific role. We might not have Deacons anytime soon, or we could have several in a short time period. Stay tuned to see where the Spirit leads us in this matter.

As always, I welcome your comments and questions.

Jac

Elders and the Board

In my post about quorums, I mentioned that I have found we often govern our churches by conforming to the way the world operates, rather than follow a Biblical model. I want to continue that thought as we look at the role of Elders and the Board.

In the New Testament, when the disciples would leave a town to move on to the next one, they instructed new churches to appoint Elders to be overseers (see Titus 1:5-9). In several sections of the New Testament, we can find the qualities that we should look for in an Elder. But nowhere can we find a reference to how long an Elder can serve. And yet, every church I have a belonged to has specified term lengths for Elders, typically 3 to 5 years. And each of these churches struggles to find enough people to fill those vacancies as they arise when those terms end. Where did this concept of “term length” come from? Look no further than our local government. City councils and most organizations with boards have fixed term lengths of 3 or 4 years. For municipal government, having an election every 4 years ensures the people elected to council continue to represent the people who elected them. For organizations with boards, turnover of board members is seen as a good thing so that new members can bring new and fresh ideas to the organization. But we are not a government and not a business.

When Jesus called the disciples, they continued to be disciples until they died. It was a lifetime appointment. If Elders are called to be overseers in their church, why should we impose an earthly restriction upon them such as a term length? Does something happen to them every 3 years that affects their ability to carry out their calling? I don’t think so. Once we have selected our Elders (using the criteria presented to us in the New Testament), we should allow our Elders to serve as our overseers as long as they are able, and as long as they remain true to their calling. We need to pray for them, encourage them, hold them accountable, and submit to their authority. We also need to be on the lookout for members who have the gifts that would make them good candidates for becoming Elders, and make sure we give them the mentoring and instruction needed to become Elders. At the same time, we should not expect everyone needs to “take their turn” as an Elder. I was once a member of church that had this rule in place and it led to disastrous results as inappropriate people we put into positions where they did not want to be and did not have the proper giftedness. So you will see in our new Constitution, we explicitly state that “appointment as an Elder is a life-long appointment”.

Related to the role of Elders is the creation of the church Board. As I mentioned in my quorum post, there are some things we need to have in place from a legal standpoint to be a church in our society. Designating a Board is one of these requirements. By definition, a Board has the ultimate authority over an organization and is ultimately responsible for the organization. Another way to put this is that the Board “oversees” the running of the organization. There is no reference to church boards in the Bible, but there are references to “overseers” – in these contexts they refer to the Elders. Many churches create boards (often called councils) by bringing together all the people who exercise leadership in the church. Some appoint members at large to sit as their boards (often with limited term lengths) to provide independent oversight. But what is the Biblical model? It seems pretty obvious to me. If the Board is the body that “oversees” the church, and Elders are the “overseers”, then it seems pretty logical that the Elders should be the board.

In our new Constitution, we specify that the “non-vocational” Elders will function as the Board of Directors. The Pastoral staff (hired by the church) are also Elders who must have the same qualities as the rest of Elders, and they share the oversight responsibilities with the other Elders. Since they have accepted a call to be Pastors and earn their living in this role, we refer to them as “vocational” Elders. We exclude the vocational Elders from serving as a Board member to eliminate any potential conflict of interest (real or perceived) that could arise, such as decisions related to pay and benefits or termination.

While the Elders serve as the Board of Directors, they do not make decisions in a vacuum. There is frequent communication with other ministry leaders and congregation members, through regular meetings and informal conversations. They review the feedback they receive as part of the process they use to discern God’s leading for the church. But their ultimate accountability is to Jesus Christ as the head of the church, not to the church members. This means that sometimes, they will need to make decisions and exercise their leadership responsibilities in ways that may not be popular with all the church members. This is a challenge for both the Elders and church members. In these circumstances, the Elders need to make sure they follow Biblical principles and seek God’s guidance, and church members need to trust their Elders. The members need to test the decisions of the Elders against Scripture, but if the decision is in line with Scripture, they need to accept the leading of their Elders and move forward even if they have other reasons for disagreement. As I said, this is a challenge for everyone and one we all need to approach with love, patience, and the common goal of obedience to God.

As with my other post, I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Feel free to contact me in whatever way you are most comfortable.

Jac

Do we have a quorum?

Maybe you’ve heard this question asked at a congregational meeting. So what is a quorum? Basically having a quorum means that there are sufficient members present to conduct an official meeting. The minimum number required for a quorum is predefined and usually expressed as a percentage (eg 50% of voting members). If a quorum is not met, the meeting is “unofficial” and no motions can be passed.

The concept of a quorum is not found anywhere in the Bible. It comes to us from government, created as ruling authorities changed from monarchy rule to assemblies of representatives. In its modern form, it is referred to in Robert’s Rule of Order, which is the handbook for running meetings. The typical number used for a quorum (and the default if none is stated - according to Roberts) is a simple majority or 50% plus one. This number is almost always achieved in government assemblies that are made up of people who are elected and often paid to attend meetings. Since these elected officials have been chosen by the people to represent their interests, they carry the needs of large groups of people with them when they attend meetings and the people expect them to attend duly called meetings so their voices can be heard and interests attended to. Attendance at city council meetings is nearly 100% all the time as council members are highly motivated to attend these meetings.

However, several handbooks recommend that a smaller number be used in situations when the assembly is made up of individual members. Individuals represent only their own interests and are not accountable to anyone else if they don’t attend a meeting. For example, many “condominium associations” have a quorum level of only 10%, and some have difficulty achieving that amount at their meetings. The caution for having a high number is that it could end up paralyzing the organization. If you are unable to achieve a quorum, you can’t pass any motions. If you consistently can’t pass motions, you can’t conduct business. The only way to change the percentage for a quorum is to have an official meeting, but if you can’t get a quorum to attend a meeting, you can’t change the quorum number. Do you see the danger here?

In small organizations, the percentage amounts can be misleading. For example, consider an organization with 33 members made up of primarily married couples. Each member is equivalent to 3% of the total membership and each married couple is 6%. Suppose two couples are away on vacation when a meeting is called – the available members has dropped by 12%. If you typically had 55% attendance at meetings and both these couples were regular attendees, the likelihood of achieving a 50% quorum just dropped significantly. The attendance would probably be 43% and the 50% quorum would not be met. Think about what this means – four people have the power to cancel a meeting, to prevent progress from being made. In this example, this was just a scheduling conflict but think about how easy it would be for two couples to essentially control when and if meetings occur.

Having a stated quorum percentage and ensuring you meet that amount at meetings has a very important role in maintaining our charitable status as a church. We need to be able to demonstrate to the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) that the funds we collect as a church are spent on appropriate expenses and given to missions and individuals in a manner that is approved by the church body, and not one or two individuals. This is why we present a budget to the congregation for approval that specifies our giving to missions and our projected operating expenses, and we then report on actual spending on these amounts at our annual meeting for approval.

But beyond this application, I personally don’t see the need for ensuring we have a quorum at our meetings. We are not a government, we are not a business. We are not led by a board of directors. We are an assembly of God’s people, and led by His Spirit. When we call our people together for a meeting to select a new Pastor or change our Mission, we pray for God to be present at that meeting and lead us to the decision He wants us to make. When we gather, we rely on God to bless that meeting and guide us as He sees fit. We should not use a worldly restriction such as a quorum percentage to dictate to us whether God will speak to His people. We need to open to the Spirit’s leading.

In my twenty years in leadership positions with various churches, I have found that too often we govern our churches by conforming to the way the world operates, rather than follow the model of governance found in the New Testament. While there are some things we must do from a legal standpoint, we need to keep going back to the Bible to ensure we are following God’s example, not the world’s example.

So getting back to quorums – since we need to have one, what is the right number for our church? Our existing constitution is at 50%. While we have achieved this number over the past several years, it has frequently been by a slim margin – sometimes only 3 people over that amount. This makes me very uncomfortable. I would not be surprised if at some point in the future, we don’t have enough attendees to make a quorum if we leave the number at 50%. I don’t like going around to everyone and reminding them they need to attend because last meeting we almost didn’t make a quorum – the motivation becomes simply making sure we have enough people in the seats to conduct business. I want people to attend because they want to attend, because they feel led to attend – not because of guilt or obligation. And if we call a meeting and only 40% attend, I’m confident that those 40% are the ones God wants at that meeting and we should proceed. Therefore, I would personally feel comfortable with a number as low as 10%. However, I recognize that many people will find this number too low, and I’m willing to accept 30%, which is what the Elders are proposing in the re-written constitution.

I’d love to hear your opinions on this matter, and encourage you to contact me in person, via email, phone call, or in the comments section of this blog.

Jac