Types of Feedback/Review

There are (at least) three different types of feedback or review that involve a pastor.  It is important to understand the nature and purpose of each:

1. Overall Ministry Review
   This is a comprehensive review of the church and its ministries.  The strengths and weaknesses of each ministry is evaluated and areas for improvement are discussed.  The pastor has some responsibility for these outcomes as a leader, but he is not personally responsible for the success of the church.  This review should be seen as a performance review of the entire team of leaders and co-workers, and they should ask “How can we (not just the pastor) improve our ministry.”  In the English Ministry at my church, we periodically use our Core Values Statement as a tool for evaluating our ministries.
2. Pastoral Performance Review
   This is a performance review similar to the “annual review” that a company does of its employees.  Not all churches do a performance review, but if it is done it should be based on a clearly written job description.  The focus is on whether or not the pastor adequately performed the tasks for which he was hired.  The performance review should be initiated and directed by whoever is responsible for supervising the pastor’s ministry. Many churches feel that this type of process is too “secular” to use with pastors.
3. Pastoral Feedback Process
   This is a way for pastors to receive honest feedback about their life and ministry in order to promote further growth.  It is for the personal benefit of the pastor and is not used as a factor in the contract renewal decision.  Unlike the performance review, this process is initiated and directed by the pastor.

It is imported to distinguish between these three different processes, because each one has a distinct purpose.  On this point, an excellent article on this topic had this to say:

The difference between administrative and personal-growth reviews can be summarized using two basic questions: “Who owns the data?” and “Who controls the process?” If the answer to both questions is “Someone other than the pastor,” it is an administrative evaluation, and the group that evaluates needs to know that the pastor is not going to learn much. What pastors learn from administrative evaluations is how to protect themselves from humiliation in the presence of key congregational leaders.

If the process is not properly designed, or combines elements from these different types of reviews or feedback, then it is likely that it will not provide helpful results.

The Feedback Form

I searched for useful feedback forms on line and could only find a few, so I set out to design my own form.  I collected questions from two forms that seemed useful, and then added questions of my own from two sources.  First, I added questions regarding the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), because this is a good description of the character of a mature Christian.  This would be inappropriate in a performance review, but very useful in a feedback process.  Second, I added some questions based on the biblical qualifications for elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).  These were included because in Scripture the usual term for the spiritual leader of a church is “elder,” and the terms “pastor,” “elder,” and “overseer” are used interchangeably.  Interestingly, only one qualification is performance oriented.  The rest have to do with character.

Download my  Pastoral Feedback Form (click to view it, or right click and select “Save link as” to download the file) If you use it, please give me your feedback so that I can improve the form.

Whom should you ask to fill out the form?  I suggest that you select a few people who know you well, are familiar with your ministry, and can be objective.  You should not choose those who are very critical towards you nor those who might have a tendency to idolize you (as tempting as that might be).  What you want is honest feedback from those who care about you and want to help you to grow.  I also suggest choosing people of a variety of ages and backgrounds and both genders.

Do you agree with what I have written above?  What are your own experiences?  Post a comment below and join in the discussion.

ShareThis

The largest part of the book is a narrative or “fable” describing the experiences of the CEO of a hypothetical tech company and his top executives.  Through their experiences, we learn why most leaders look at meetings as a boring and ineffective, and what can be done to solve both problems.  The central points which the story is intended to teach are summarized in part two of the book, The Model.

Probably the most important part of the book, and the concept that was most helpful to me, is the idea that it is not effective to have generic meetings that attempt to accomplish too many different types of tasks.  The author recommends four different types of meeting, each with a specific purpose:

1. The Daily Check-in

This is a 5 minute meeting that  takes place standing up.  Everyone quickly outlines what they are up to that day.  Any items that need discussion should be saved for the Weekly Tactical.

2. The Weekly Tactical

A meeting of 45-90 minutes that begins with a quick report by each participant of their 2 or 3 top priorities for the week.  Based on those items, an agenda is drawn up for a tactical discussion on issues of immediate concern.  Topics that require a discussion of strategy are saved for the Monthly Strategic

3. The Monthly Strategic

In this meeting, leaders wrestle with a small number of critical issues that will affect the organization in a fundamental way.  If there are weighty topics to be discussed, this meeting might need to be fairly long. This is probably the most important meeting that a leadership team ever has.

4. The Quarterly Off-Site Review

This meeting is held to look at the big picture, and to review and assess strategy, leadership team members,  key personnel, and what is going on in the world around them.

This model might not fit every organization exactly, and church leaders will need to think about how to adapt these ideas to their ministries.  But I think that it has much to offer. I have often been frustrated by meetings in which we keep jumping back and forth between tactical and strategic discussions.  Some participants want to “get things done” while others want to talk about strategy before taking action. Having meetings with a clear focus as to the kind of discussion that we are trying to have seems like a very good idea.

One point that the book does not cover is who should be in the meeting.  The assumption seems to be that the same executive team attends all of these meetings.  But  I have gradually discovered that some people are more wired for tactical discussions and others for strategic discussions.  A board or other leadership group that has a primarily strategic focus should recruit people with a strategic orientation.  Sometimes it is better to have a smaller group of strategic thinkers work on strategy, and bring in some more tactical thinkers for the implementation phase.

I’d be interested in hearing the thoughts of others who have read this book, or your reactions to my summary above.

ShareThis

Benaiah chased a lion down into a pit. Then, despite the snow and slippery ground, he caught the lion and killed it. (2 Samuel 23:20)

What in the world was Benaiah thinking? Most sane people would run away from the lion, not chase it! Beginning from this passage, Mark Batterson in Catalyst explains we need more gutsy leaders who are not afraid to take on a challenge. (You can read the entire article here.)

He quotes Dorothy Sayers to describe how we have “tamed” Jesus:

To do them justice, the people who crucified Jesus did not do so because he was a bore. Quite the contrary; he was too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have declawed the lion of Judah and made him a housecat for pale priests and pious old ladies.

Although the article does not make this connection, I think that the “taming of Jesus” goes a long ways towards explaining why many churches have a difficult time attracting men. What real man wants to follow a passive, accommodating, wimpy savior? Yes, Jesus was humble and gentle, but He was also strong and bold, and did not hesitate to offend people or incur their wrath when it was necessary.

For more on this topic, see this post on The Metrosexual Jesus.

ShareThis

I have been thinking lately about my role as a pastor, and about what I should and should not be doing. A pastor wears many hats, and I have often mentally divided them into three categories:

1. Preaching and Teaching

This is one of the most important roles of a pastor. Elders (which includes pastors) are required to be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2). The Apostles were not pastors, but nevertheless they provided a good model by delegating other responsibilities so that they could focus on prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:1-6). Ministries included in this category would be preaching, teaching Sunday School, training co-workers, preparing teaching and training materials, and leading Bible studies.

2. Leadership and Administration

Pastors are also called to exercise leadership. The spiritual gift of leadership (”the one who leads” in Rom. 12:8) is a Greek word that means literally “at the head of.” It was used in ancient Greek literature to designate the helmsman who steered a ship. While the pastor should not be doing all of the detailed administration, there is still a significant amount of time that ends up being spent here. Activities in this category include strategic planning, establishment of policies and procedures, oversight and evaluation of staff (both paid and volunteer), and ministry evaluation

3. Pastoral Care

The Greek word “pastor” means literally “shepherd,” and this category includes all types of caring for the “sheep.” To many people, this is the most important ministry of a pastor. Activities in this category would include visitation, ministry to the sick and suffering, pastoral counseling, and follow up of new people.

Now the trick is to “juggle” all these hats. At times I feel that I could do a good job if I could focus on only one of these areas, and that I could do a passable job with two of them. But covering the bases in all three areas is often overwhelming. In a large church with multiple staff it is easier for the staff to specialize and not try to cover all three areas. But the average church in the U.S. has less than 100 members, so in most churches this is not an option. How is the pastor of a smaller church supposed to handle all these roles? I have some thoughts on the matter, but first I would like to see what you think. Please share your thoughts.

ShareThis