Policy based confusion. . .

Policy based governance and, in particular, the version developed by John Carver, has taken hold across the boardrooms of America and, it should be noted, in churches as well.  Designed to address governing boards that err on the side of micromanaging executives while neglecting their particular duties, we see the evidence of this all across congregations, districts, and agencies of the Synod. Its ten core principles include:

1. Ownership: The board is the legitimate voice and agent of the organization’s owners.  All owners are stakeholders but not all stakeholders are owners.  Go figure.

2. Position of the Board: The board is fully accountable to the owners for the success of the organization.

3. Board Holism: The authority of the board is collective with individual members having no independent authority.

4. Ends Policies: The board defines everything in terms of the outcomes expected.  The concern is ends or strategic priorities and secondary to the means.

5. Board Means Policies: Such policies are the way the ends are to be achieved through the governance process and delegation policies.

6. Executive Limitations: The board governs through policies and the means policies are limits on the employees/CEO/staff (they shall not fail to...).  It is negatively stated.

7. Policy Sizes: Policies are framed in the broadest possible terms with specifics defined only as necessary; these are exhaustive in the limitations the board places on the corporate staff.

8. Clarity and Coherence of Delegation: Authority is delegated unambiguously with the broadest possible freedom given to the CEO/corporate staff to accomplish the ends the board has defined.

9. Any Reasonable Interpretation: The CEO/corporate staff are allowed any reasonable interpretation of board policy.

10. Monitoring: The board monitors and evaluates performance, comparing actual results (success or failure) against the Ends and Executive Limitations stated by the board. 

Policy Governance is a precision governing system that conditions success with following the model without variation.  In Policy Governance, all the above pieces are required for Policy Governance to be effective. Only when all are brought to bear on the organization can there be owner accountability. 

In typical adaptation for church usage, the senior pastor functions as the CEO or the pastor who is elected or appointed for other levels of church governance.  Elders/board members in the congregation are policy makers and monitors of compliance.  Congregations hold their leaders accountable through policies rather than the direct exercise of authority. 

Such is the entrepreneurial model of both governance and the pastoral office at work.  Sometimes it seems to work okay, perhaps even well.  There are, however, things that tend to happen as a result of policy based governance.  One thing is that it confuses spiritual responsibility and authority with physical responsibility and authority for property.  When this happens, it is not unusual for the spiritual to become second to the physical ends or indicators of success.  

The other big problem is that it tends to make lay leadership weak (on the congregational side) and to make for limited input to the governance of the organization except to set ends and make policies.  Even worse, it tends to elevate weak leaders and infuriate strong lay leaders.  

Finally, it tends to turn even the corporate leaders (in this case, the pastor acting as CEO) to comparing statistical results with ends envisioned without really leading at all.  The focus is on doing what the Board has directed and the evaluation is based on fulfilling the ends directed by the board through the policies it has established.   What happens if they are not the real ends or the policies are simply bad policies?  In this way, the governance tends to muddy things up and encourage mediocre leaders.  What happens when a pastor’s primary accountability is measured by whether or not he follows the policies the board has established and achieves the organization outcomes the board has defined but that comes at the cost of the values, doctrine, and confessional integrity of that organization?  What about the faithful proclamation of the Word and the faithful administration of the Sacraments?  

There was a time when we probably had too many boards acting independently of each other and too many committees with overlapping responsibilities.  Maybe there was a time when we functioned rather disjointedly and probably somewhat inefficiently.  But have we over corrected --  effectively throwing the baby out with the bath water all in the name of shorter meetings, transparency, clear expectations, and defined objectives?  Fewer people in governance in an church organization and those few people with less responsibility except to define outcomes and establish policies can be a recipe for disaster.  Furthermore, when everyone is concerned with the physical side of things and no one is paying attention to the spiritual, the Church is definitely in trouble.  And, I am afraid, we are already there.  It is less a problem of pastors wanting to take over what rightfully belongs to the laity than it is nobody wanting do what they are supposed to do.  It also has the problem of judging everything in the church by the wrong set of values and defining success in every way except that which God would judge faithful.