The search processes for diocesan bishops, rectors, and vicars are
broken. Little evidence exists, beyond anecdotes, to demonstrate that the
current processes efficaciously select clerics who succeed in their new posts regardless
of one’s definition of success. Indeed, numerous anecdotes suggest that the
processes result in calling unsuccessful leaders at least as often as the
processes result in calling successful leaders. Furthermore, the current
processes entail excessive and unnecessary delays and costs.
Significant improvements are easily identified and implemented.
First, eliminate the frequently intentional long interim periods in congregations
(parishes and missions) and dioceses. Accumulating research on the effects of long
interim periods between permanent congregational leaders generally shows that congregations
decline or at best subsist in a holding pattern until the new leader arrives.
The same is likely true for dioceses.
Other types of organizations generally avoid intentionally long interim
periods between top leaders, e.g., businesses, non-profits, and governments. In
The Episcopal Church (TEC) we already have no interim periods between Presiding
Bishops and in dioceses that select a coadjutor who will become the diocesan
bishop upon the retirement or departure of the current incumbent.
Second, dioceses and congregations should commence transition planning
immediately upon an incumbent announcing her/his departure. Some dioceses
already do this when the diocesan bishop calls for the election of a coadjutor.
A bishop, rector, or vicar who announces her/his upcoming departure becomes in
the eyes of many a lame duck. Members frequently adopt a wait and see attitude
to determine their level of support for new initiatives and sometimes for
existing programs. Visitors may opt to go elsewhere or, if they stay, similarly
hesitate to commit, uncertain of the congregation’s future tone and direction. Commencing
the search process as soon as possible minimizes this period of uncertainty.
A good leader inevitably shapes the organization s/he leads. Postponing
the start of the search process for a new leader until the current leader has
departed will not prevent controlling leaders from attempting to meddle in the
process. Instead, organizations should insist that current leaders and search
process participants maintain good boundaries.
The rationale that a trained interim can best assist a congregation or
diocese in resolving serious problems (entrenched conflict, abusive
relationships, etc.) is wrong. A newly called bishop, rector, or vicar may
already have the skills to assist the diocese or congregation in working
through its problems. Alternatively, the person may easily acquire those skills
by attending training for interims, seminary courses, receiving mentoring or
coaching, or through other means. An incumbent’s advantages compared to an
interim include the stability and length of tenure that s/he brings to the
diocese or congregation. Lastly, well-trained interims know that in spite of
their best efforts, resolving many of a diocese’s or congregation’s most
serious problems will require many years of consistent efforts by the new leader.
People too often see an interim as just temporary help.
Occasionally, a diocese or congregation will require an interim. For
example, an interim’s services are temporarily unavoidable when the incumbent
dies in office, departs unexpectedly, or is precipitously fired. I have served
as an interim in all three situations (one incumbent literally died in his office,
another had a stroke, and a third was abruptly dismissed after the congregation
discovered the married leader’s affair with a prominent choir member). Regardless
of an interim’s best efforts, the pain, distrust, and other problems caused by
the previous incumbent inevitably persist into the first few years of the next
incumbent’s tenure. Interims unfortunately have no magic tools with which to
make problems disappear.
Third, eliminate the preparation and distribution of diocesan and congregational
profiles. Most of the information in those profiles is now available online
from diocesan and congregational websites. Carefully perusing newsletters,
photos, and other information reveals who attends (race, age, gender, etc.),
what the congregation or diocese does in ministry and mission, and the
organization’s self-identity. Supplemental information not on the website
(e.g., not all dioceses and congregations have finances and membership
statistics available on their websites) can be added to the website or sent to
clergy who express an interest in applying for the position. Almost all of this
information conveniently exists in digital format.
Instead, diocesan and congregational search committees should focus their
efforts on preparing a short (optimally one page but no more than two pages)
statement of the organization’s expectations and goals for the next chapter in
their life and the gifts and skills they hope the next incumbent will have.
Fourth, dioceses and congregations should rely on the cadre of
professional headhunters that TEC already employs to winnow through potential
candidates expeditiously. These professional headhunters consist of diocesan
staff responsible for the deployment process and the staff of the Church
Deployment Office (CDO). The CDO, using its database, can identify clergy who
want to move and whose profile seems to fit what a congregation what in its
next leader. Diocesan deployment staff can supplement that list. Some dioceses,
at least part of the time, presently utilize this approach, providing
congregations the names of a handful of candidates that the deployment staff deem
represent the best match of clergy skills and personality with the
congregation’s aspirations, goals, and characteristics.
TEC’s Office of Pastoral Development in collaboration with the Presiding
Bishop (PB) and CDO can provide the same assistance for episcopal search
processes. The Office of Pastoral Development and PB know dioceses, their
contexts, and their current situations. The CDO using its database can easily
identify potential candidates whose self-identified qualities and
qualifications appear to meet a diocese’s expressed aspirations.
Selecting and forwarding several names to a congregation or diocese will
often require only a week instead of the months that congregations and dioceses
now typically expend winnowing through possible candidates. Search committees
after reviewing profiles/resumes and conducting phone interviews, as well as
any personal interviews, may reject all of the candidates. In that case, the
diocese or Office of Pastoral Development should use search committee feedback
to refine their selection process and then forward the search committee a fresh
set of candidate names and information.
Fifth and finally, teach the revised search process and transition
management to clergy and lay leaders in diocesan forums. Initially, the training
should emphasize changes to the process as well as how the changes will benefit
both clergy and the Church’s ministry and mission. Subsequent training sessions
can constructively focus on teaching dioceses, congregations, and clergy to
identify their gifts, skills, relevant personality characteristics, as well as
goals for the next chapter of their life. Training sessions can also teach
transition management, a skill that I had to acquire as a Navy chaplain who received
a new assignment every two to three years.
The changes to the search process outlined above obviously presume that
we Episcopalians trust those who work in the deployment process. This trust is
fundamental to Jesus’ command that we love one another. Demonstrating that we
trust one another will also improve our witness to the world and the efficiency
of clergy transitions, thus both saving money and enhancing organizational
effectiveness. Our current process, centered around trusting a well-meaning but
inexperienced search committee to weed through a stack of clergy profiles and resumes,
seems much less likely to discern God’s will than does a process constructed around
committed Christian leaders whose calling includes faithfully assisting other
clergy to hear and to answer God’s call.
I am not so naïve as to believe that all bishops, clergy, and church
employees are worthy of that trust. However, the preponderance of these
individuals has chosen to serve Christ by working for TEC. While they, you, and
I may assess clergy and job openings differently, I have rarely found a reason
to question their motives. In the twenty-first century, few persons choose to work
for the Church because it pays well, gives them significant power, or offers so
much prestige.
TEC, struggling for institutional survival, badly needs to reduce the
time and money expended in clergy transition processes. This requires a culture
of mutual trust and respect. Arguably, the most important step that TEC can
take to avoid perpetuating whatever culture of distrust now exists in its
transition processes is to deal boldly, appropriately, and openly with those
few persons who are untrustworthy. Ending distrust entails refusing to tolerate
unacceptable behavior, breaking unhealthy cycles of co-dependence, strongly encouraging
the mentally ill to seek treatment, etc. In other words, ending distrust means emulating
Jesus’ tough love to bring healing to the broken.
1 comment:
I was raised Methodist and my wife was raised Roman Catholic. In both churches, bishops and their staffs made clerical appointments to congregations. In both churches, clergy rotated every four to six years. The process worked reasonably well. There is a broader question behind George's, namely whether the starkly different model that an individual TEC congregation calls a priest to be its rector or vicar is sustainable.
Post a Comment