When I was visiting my aunt and uncle last week, Uncle Bob got to talking about A. Powell Davies. You see, Uncle Bob grew up in All Souls Unitarian Church in Washington, D.C., and he was a member there when the legendary A. Powell Davies was minister. Uncle Bob remembers it was an exciting time to be a part of All Souls, with large numbers of newcomers joining the church during this time. And he remembers regularly seeing United States senators and representatives sitting in the congregation, attracted by Davies’s preaching.
One of the things that Uncle Bob said that grabbed my attention was that Davies had little to do with the general administration of the church;– there was an executive secretary who took care of that. Davies attended some of the key committee meetings, and of course he had a big say in the direction of the church, but mostly he served as a religious leader. (I said that I’d bet that he had at least twenty hours a week to prepare his sermons, and Uncle Bob said that was possible. I added that I’d never be up to Davies’s level as a preacher, but that if I had twenty hours to write a sermon, it would be a lot better than what I produce now, and Uncle Bob laughed and said he’d bet that it would make a difference.)
Uncle Bob is a retired business executive, and so I thought I’d ask him what he thought of John Carver’s “policy governance” model, which is now all the rage among larger Unitarian Universalist churches, and which promotes the idea of the minister as the CEO of the church. Uncle Bob listened politely, but it was obvious he didn’t think much of policy governance. Neither do I. We both agreed that the All-Souls-Powell-Davies model of having the minister as a religious leader, with an executive secretary (or executive director, or whatever you want to call the position) sounded pretty good to us.
Uncle Bob said something else that grabbed my attention. He said that Davies typically preached about current events. According to Uncle Bob, Davies would pick a current event, hash out the moral and ethical implications of what was going on, and end up with three or four ways forward. I may not have gotten this exactly right, but the point is that Davies really gave his congregation something to chew on each week. That’s what Uncle Bob said he really liked best about a sermon — he wants something that’s going to keep him pondering over the whole week — and that’s what Davies was able to do. And what Davies chose to talk about was not typically religious:– he talked about current events, not about the Bible (or if he were still alive, things like spiritual practices and Eastern religions).
The minster as CEO is just one possible permutation of executive leadership under the Carver model. Most UU churches are instituting executive teams (or a coordinating team, as we term it), which consist of the minister or ministers, and one, or usually more, lay leaders, and/or professional directors. The ministers have responsibility for typical ministerial things – religious leadership, pastoral care, religious education, fellowship, a broad leadership on social justice, etc. The lay leaders, or the professional staff person, will lead admin, development, budgeting, programming, stewardship, fellowship, etc. The ministers will become more directly involved in the administrative areas as they impact the religious mission of the church. That’s the way it should work on paper, at least, and it does seems to be working well.
One of great concerns going into PG was exactly the issue you indicated. We were blessed to have available an incredible team of volunteers with significant executive experience to their credits. Before PG, there was no place in our leadership structure for those talents to be used. Board trustee positions did not offer either the degree of responsibility or accontability – now accountability to the BOT iself – that the coordinating team has been given. PG has attracted these capable leaders into leadership positions in which their passions and creativity is let loose, in ways that they can really make a difference.
The BOT now focuses on establishing the vision and mission of the church, and setting the policies and approving the budgets to get us there, rather than spending, for example, an hour of a three hour meeting trying to decide if and how to buy a new automatic paper folder (as it once did.) Perhaps it just comes down to effective internal board management and leadership, but PG has given the board one model to do so, and it looks like its working.
2 cents from a former Policy Governance wonk.
Paul — Glad to know that policy governance has worked for your congregation. But I’m not sure that it has worked well for many congregations, and I’m still not convinced that it is the best model, or the only model. From an administrative point of view, the idea of an executive team seems unnecessarily complex except for a very large congregation.
I note with interest that many larger Jewish temples use the model of an executive director working with the senior rabbi. The executive director may have an MBA, as well as some seminary or other religious training. Thus the rabbi is freed to be a religious leader, instead of an administrator. As I understand it, this model is fairly widespread — and successful over a long time period — for synagogues. What you’re describing for your congregation’s policy governance model could be achieved more simply (and efficiently?) with the structure used by these synagogues. I’m not trying to talk you out of policy governance — it obviously works for your congregation — but I’m not convinced that yours is the best model for other congregations. What really worries me is what happens when your current senior minister departs — with the structure outlive the staff members, or is it really dependent on the staff members that you now have? — i.e., are you going to be able to find another senior minister with the right mix of skills? I just don’t think so, given how our seminaries train our ministers, and given the experience that most ministers gain on the job. I like the idea of an executive director with an MBA instead.