When the Pastor Isn’t Trusted to Supervise

When boards and committees lose faith in the pastor’s supervisory ability, they often intervene in unhelpful ways. They forget or neglect their own oversight responsibility, which is the very thing that could make things right. Instead, they practice micromanagement, or they restrict the authority of the head of staff—practices which, in the end, harm the congregation.

Performance management of the staff team requires careful coordination among the pastor (head of staff), the personnel committee, and the governing board. Each has a distinct role to play: The pastor has supervisory responsibility. The personnel committee and governing board share oversight responsibility, which means they establish policy, name strategic priorities and outcomes, and hold the head of staff accountable for the performance of the staff team.

Why Trust Breaks Down

Many factors may contribute to a loss of confidence in the pastor’s supervisory skills. The pastor may be reluctant to manage the work of others, or prefer to be a colleague or friend to the staff rather than provide supervision.

Some pastors default to pastoral care in their employment relationships. They have difficulty balancing care with accountability. They need training in the art of supervision, and they need support in finding a supervisory style that feels authentic to who they are.

Pastors, like everyone else, make supervisory mistakes. If the pastor and appropriate lay leaders don’t process and learn from those mistakes, confidence in the pastor’s skill diminishes.

Sometimes lay leaders with corporate or non-profit management experience presume that their supervisory experience is better than the pastor’s, and fail to see that supervision in a congregation presents challenges they may not understand.

Finally, there are times when lack of trust has nothing to do with the current pastor. A previous pastor ran things with an iron fist that harmed staff members and the congregation. Or the previous pastor had a laissez-fare style that failed to advance the mission of the congregation.

 Mistaken Responses and Their Consequences

When trust in the pastor’s ability to supervise falters, laity typically respond in three unhelpful ways:

First, they restrict the authority of the pastor by requiring board or committee approval to hire, fire and discipline. When this happens, employees quickly learn that the pastor is a supervisor in name only and doesn’t have any real authority. This encourages triangulated relationships between board or committee members, the supervisor, and the employee.

Employees grow confused about who is really in charge. The energy that should go into working together goes into political maneuvering—employees working the system to get what they want instead of working together to advance the mission of the congregation.

A second mistaken approach is to micromanage the pastor. Laity insert themselves into supervisory conversations and grow hypervigilant about actions the supervisor is taking or not taking.

As this activity increases, the focus of pastor and staff becomes transactional, focusing on the molecular over the mission. The pastor and staff shift their focus to keeping the laity happy and out of their hair.

A final unhelpful approach is when lay leaders insert themselves as supervisors. They appoint board or committee chairs, or entire committees to supervise alongside or in place of the pastor.

Lay leaders cannot effectively supervise staff. They are not engaged in the daily life of the staff and can’t see the fullness of what the employee does. Committees can’t create clear performance expectations, because there are too many competing voices to deliver a clear set of expectations. Lay leader roles turn over too frequently to provide continuity in supervision. Finally, the head of staff doesn’t supervise the lay leader, which breaks down the overall chain of supervision.

How Should It Work?

Understanding the responsibilities of the pastor (head of staff), personnel committee and governing board is key to restoring trust in performance management.

The head of staff is responsible for ensuring that:

• Every member of the staff team has one clearly identified supervisor.
• All those who supervise others are trained to do so.
• Every member of the staff team has a current job description with clear performance expectations about the duties and tasks of the job, and clear expectations about the abilities, skills and behavioral competencies required to perform those duties.
• Every member of the team has performance goals linked to the congregation’s strategy.
• Every supervisor meets regularly one on one, in a scheduled meeting, with each employee:
  • Every one to two weeks for check-in, feedback, and prioritization of tasks.
  • Quarterly, for a goals review update.
  • Annually for a performance evaluation.

The responsibilities of the personnel committee include the following. If the congregation doesn’t have a personnel committee, these responsibilities belong to the governing board.

• Support supervisors in the development of supervisory skills, underwriting the cost of training and coaching support as needed.
• Propose employment policies to the governing board, overseeing the assembly of a well written, comprehensive employment policy handbook.
• Make policy recommendations regarding overall salary administration to the board, leaving decisions about individual staff member salaries to the head of staff.
• Serve as an advisory board to the head of staff on personnel-related issues, as requested.
• Oversee the overall annual performance review process, ensuring that the process is conducted in a timely manner and with integrity. The personnel committee is not responsible for writing or delivering performance reviews but may sit in on performance reviews to bear witness to the integrity of the process.
• Act as an arbitrator on staff team issues that involve potential policy violations, but only after those issues have been appropriately vetted through normal supervisory channels.
• Assist the governing board in preparing for its annual performance review of the senior clergy leader.
• Work with the head of staff and employees on the design of job descriptions, when asked to do so by the head of staff.
• Serve as a witness during disciplinary employment conversations, when requested to do so by the head of staff.

The oversight responsibilities of the governing board include:

• Authorize the job description of the head of staff.
• Authorize policies shaped by the personnel committee.
• Vest the head of staff with clear authority to supervise, making sure that authority is addressed consistently in all the policy documents of the congregation (bylaws, policy books, job descriptions, etc.)
• Name the outcomes and the strategic priorities of the congregation in a timely manner so that the head of staff can use those outcomes to manage the work of the staff team.
• Set the annual goals of the head of staff in accordance with those strategic priorities.
• Conduct an annual performance review of the head of staff, in conjunction with the board’s review of its own annual performance.

Faltering trust in the pastor as supervisor should invite a reevaluation of roles. Avoid the temptation of micromanagement. Instead, make sure that everyone is doing the work that is theirs to do, and let healthy oversight practices restore trust.