PASTORAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CANADIAN RESEARCH AND FAITH-INFUSED BEST PRACTICES

PASTORAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CANADIAN RESEARCH AND FAITH-INFUSED BEST PRACTICES HEATHER CARD, DOCTOR OF PRACTICAL THEOLOGY STUDENT, MCMASTER DIVINITY COLLEGE Many evangelical churches in Canada have a process for evaluating the performance of the senior pastor. When executed well, pastoral performance reviews provide affirming and encouraging feedback while constructively identifying areas for growth and improvement. Poorly executed performance reviews can lead to strained relationships, ineffective ministry, termination of employment, and abandonment of vocation and call to ministry. This article highlights recent Canadian research conducted with pastors and board members about the pastoral performance review process and offers theological principles to inform that process. Background The research in this article 1 focused on Canadian evangelical faith traditions where the local church board provided performance evaluations for the lead/ senior pastor. The survey explored the type of performance evaluation process used, if/how church board members used theological principles to inform their pastoral evaluation process, what theological principles participants felt should be used in the pastoral evaluation process, and what made the evaluation process a positive or negative experience. Participants were also asked to indicate how satisfied they were with their current evaluation process. The study population included 185 pastors and 105 board members, which is adequate to draw statistically significant conclusions with a 95 percent confidence interval. In this study, the title of pastor was used to represent a variety of different terminologies, including minister, clergy, and priest. Similarly, this survey used the term church board or church board member, which encompasses various roles, such as deacons, council members, elders, overseers, wardens, and so on. Survey participants were required to be actively serving in their respective roles. Approximately 34 percent of the survey population came from denominations who have invested significant effort in training their pastors and boards in a healthy pastoral performance evaluation process. As a result, this may indicate a positive survey bias compared to the general population. Survey Results The following section provides an overview of the key results of the survey. A complete summary of the survey results may be downloaded at www.cccc.org/pastoral_ performance_review_survey. Survey responses indicated that church boards rely heavily on the resources of their denominations. The pastor provides a key linkage point for resource transfer and, in some cases, initiation and facilitation of the performance review process. In addition, general business and management experiences of board members have the potential to significantly influence whether

positively or negatively the performance review process. What Criteria is Used to Determine How Well the Pastor is Performing? The responses to this question described both the method used to conduct the performance review and as well as specific criteria used in the actual evaluation. Surprisingly, 24 percent of board members indicated that they did not know what criteria were being used to evaluate the pastor, even though they were part of the team responsible for conducting the performance review. The most common methods mentioned for conducting the performance review were collecting broader input from congregation and staff, conducting a survey, or using a 360 performance review tool. The most common criteria used to evaluate the pastor involved using the job description of the pastor (30 percent) and considering how well mission, vision, or goals were being achieved (21 percent). There was also a significant number of participants who placed a strong emphasis on preaching and teaching (15 percent); leadership and administration (14 percent); pastoral care activities such as counselling and visitation (11 percent); and character and spirituality (11 percent). There was scant reference (2 percent) to the nature and quality of the relationship between the pastor and the board. Is the Board Well Equipped Theologically to Provide a Pastoral Performance Review? Only 55 percent of pastors responding to this survey agreed that their board was well equipped theologically to provide their performance review. In contrast to the pastors opinion, 71 percent of board members agreed that their board was well equipped theologically to provide a pastoral performance review. This represents a significant perception gap and indicates that there is more work to be done in this area. TABLE 1 WHAT THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE USED IN THE PASTORAL EVALUATION PROCESS? What Theological Principles Should be Used in the Pastoral Performance Review Process? In this question, many respondents focused on the criteria used to evaluate the pastor as opposed to the actual process of the evaluation. A summary of these results is shown in Table 1. Pastors gave particular emphasis (40 percent) to the importance of scripturebased, Christ-like leadership attributes of the pastor, while only 26 percent of board members mentioned this as important. Faithful, theologically-sound preaching and an emphasis on church mission and vision were each noted as important principles by one in five people. Those who did make reference to the process of evaluation most often mentioned speaking the truth in love (10 percent), encouraging the pastor (6 percent), and the relationality of the review process itself (5 percent). Relationality of the process received much less attention than evaluation criteria. Total Pastor Board Response Response Response Criteria Scripture-based, Christ-like character 35%* 40% 26% Preaching theologically sound 21% 22% 18% Encompasses mission, vision 18% 20% 13% Equipping the church* 14% 18% 5% Recognize pastoral gifting* 8% 11% 1% Pastoral care 8% 7% 8% Pastor s spiritual health, spiritual disciplines 7% 7% 7% Spirit-led 6% 6% 7% Don t know* 11% 5% 24% Process Speak the truth in love 10% 9% 11% Encourage, build up pastor 6% 5% 7% Relationality of review process 5% 4% 7% * Indicates that differences between the responses of pastors and board members were statistically significant. How Has Your Board Incorporated Theological Principles into the Evaluation Process? Survey participants were asked to provide examples of how the church board had incorporated theological principles into the pastoral evaluation process. Nearly 20 percent of all respondents were either not sure or did not know how the board incorporated theological principles into the pastoral evaluation process. A further 28 percent of pastors (compared with 10 percent of board members) said that their board had either not incorporated theological principles into the performance review process or had not intentionally incorporated them. One pastor s response highlights some of the frustration about the lack of theological integration into board practices. He said, We come from a church that often brags about its biblical base, yet so much decision making is done with a strong reticence to

look at Scripture, and [the board] bases most of its understanding and practice based on either past experience or personal feelings about something. Satisfaction with the Performance Evaluation Process One in five of those surveyed are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the pastoral performance evaluation process at their church. There is also another large group (17 percent) that has a neutral opinion, which indicates they could become dissatisfied (or even satisfied) based on the type of review process they experience in the future. It is also interesting to note that although 62 percent identify themselves in the satisfaction category, only one-third of those are very satisfied. The complete list of responses for this question is shown in Table 2. Considering the positive bias of this survey, these results indicate that there is quite a bit more work that can be done to improve the pastoral evaluation process in the Canadian evangelical church context. What Makes the Evaluation Process Positive or Negative? The final survey questions asked participants to speak from their own experiences and provide responses about what made the pastoral performance evaluation experience process positive or negative. A summary is shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Both pastors and boards reported that it was most important to have a process that was constructive, encouraging, and affirming while identifying areas for growth or improvement. Further, both groups noted the importance of focusing on the shared ministry of the church and providing the opportunity for collaborative, interactive dialogue with the pastor. In terms of what makes the performance review process negative, many respondents provided examples related to the process of the review. Nearly one in five respondents said that a poorly executed, unprofessional, or cumbersome review process would make the experience a negative one for them. There was also a considerable number of participants who mentioned that a system TABLE 2 HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCESS AT YOUR CHURCH? TABLE 3 WHAT MAKES THE EVALUATION PROCESS POSITIVE? Total Pastors Board Very dissatisfied 6% 6% 4% Dissatisfied 14% 14% 15% Neither dissatisfied or satisfied 17% 18% 15% Satisfied 42% 40% 46% Very satisfied 20% 20% 19% Prefer not to say 2% 1% 2% NET satisfied 62% 60% 64% NET dissatisfied 20% 21% 19% Constructive, notes areas for growth, improvement 26% Encouraging, affirming 21% Identify areas for improvement 18% Focus on shared ministry 16% Collaborative, interactive dialogue with pastor 16% Positive motivation (love, respect, trust, grace) 14% Identifies strengths 11% Feedback is honest 10% Encourage/identify growth areas 8% Evaluation is well-intentioned, fair, balanced 8% Feedback is regular, timely 8% Evaluation criteria is clear 7% Open, transparent 6% Good relationships between leadership and pastors 5% Clear process; process followed 5%

that supports complainers and those with personal agendas would also result in a negative experience. Focusing on weakness, failing to approach the process positively with love, and allowing issues to build up were also among the issues commonly cited by both parties. Survey Conclusions The results of this research reinforced the hypothesis that there is significant potential for improvement in satisfaction levels. Only 60 percent of pastors surveyed are satisfied with the pastoral review process. This research also supports the idea that church leadership would benefit from increased, intentional theological reflection with respect to the pastoral performance review process only 55 percent of pastors agreed that their boards are well-equipped theologically to provide a performance review. In addition, a significant percentage of board members, 24 percent, were not sure or did not know how theological principles were incorporated into the pastoral performance review process. Furthermore, when theological reflection does occur, it is most often focused on the criteria related to the specific duties and character qualities that the pastor should exhibit. Much less emphasis is placed on the relationality of the review process, yet pastors and boards often referred to relationality as important when speaking about their positive and negative experiences with the pastoral evaluation process. Trinitarian Theological Principles for the Pastoral Performance Evaluation Process So, how can we improve the pastoral performance review process? The research shows that many pastors and board focus on the criteria used for evaluation; however, it is often poor relationships between the parties that causes difficulty in the process. Therefore, a key way to improve the process begins by improving board/pastor relationships. To find a biblical example, we need to look no further than the relationship of the Trinity described in John 17. Jesus specifically TABLE 4 WHAT MAKES THE EVALUATION PROCESS NEGATIVE? Review process poorly executed 18% Supports complainers with personal agendas 11% Focus on weakness without recognizing gifting 9% Failure to understand pastor role and ministry context 8% Failure to approach process positively 7% Avoiding issues, allowing things to build up 6% Pastor not open to feedback, lack of self-awareness 5% Evaluation not based on job description, agreed upon goals 5% Anonymous feedback 5% Broad characterization without specifics 4% No recognition of joint responsibility for results 4% No opportunity for dialogue 3% Review takes too long; time-consuming 3% Feedback not clear 3% prayed that the model of Trinitarian relationship that he enjoyed with the Father would be replicated in human relationships (John 17:20 22). The request for unity and oneness with the Father that Jesus makes in his prayer is for both the disciples gathered with Jesus ( these ) and for future believers ( those who will believe ). 2 The unity that Jesus requested through his prayer was something more than the disciples had experienced to-date and would be made possible by the Holy Spirit. 3 There is a whole stream of study called social trinitarian theology that seeks to describe relational principles that are evident among the persons of the Trinity. This theology provides three main relational principles that can inform human relationships: mutuality, egalitarian community, and participation. The concept of mutuality encompasses words like reciprocality, interdependence, mutual love, and unity. Throughout Scripture we observe that no one person of the Trinity dominates all the trinitarian works, but that each one plays a leading role at different times. Social trinitarian scholar, Jürgen Moltmann, notes that creation is seen as the work of the Father, atonement as the work of the Son, and sanctification as the work of the Spirit. 4 Though one person of the Trinity is showcased at different times, the other persons are not excluded all are present and participating together in unity and mutual love. Though much more could be said, this very brief exploration of social trinitarian theology provides key principles of mutuality, egalitarian community, and participation that have the capacity to transform the pastoral performance review process. Suggestions for the Pastoral Performance Review Process In the following section, I outline a general process that could be followed for the pastoral performance evaluation process in order to incorporate the trinitarian principles of mutuality, egalitarian community, and participation. 1. AGREEING ON EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROCESS The process of setting evaluation criteria should occur long before any formal

evaluation takes place. Board members and pastors should participate together and actively engage in this first step because it provides focus for the work of the pastor and clarity about expectations. A review process that models trinitarian principles is collaborative and provides each party the opportunity for participation in decisions related to the evaluation criteria. In effective collaboration, no one party dominates, merely considering what is best for themselves. All parties should have an understanding of the entire work to be accomplished by the church and the particular work and accountability that has been given to the pastor. 2. SOLICITING AND CONSOLIDATING FEEDBACK Concerning feedback on performance, survey participants described different levels of involvement by people in the church. For some, the feedback came entirely from board members. For others, the group that provided feedback was expanded to church staff, key leaders, and selected members of the congregation. A few participants indicated that the entire congregation provided feedback at a congregational meeting. Within the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have a relationship that is so intertwined that communication between them is transparent, ongoing, and reciprocal. This communion is characterized by unity and mutual love for each other. In a perfect world, feedback would be ongoing; however, these principles can still apply to a formal, annual performance review. In human relationships, not everyone has the same ability and level of Christian maturity to give constructive feedback with this kind of loving spirit. This should be the goal, but it is not always possible. As a result, the board should take responsibility to select feedback participants carefully and vet the feedback before it is provided to the pastor. Feedback should be constructive, not destructive. It is also important to determine whether the people selected to participate in the evaluation process have a good understanding of what the pastor does in relation to what they are being requested to comment on. The pastor should have the opportunity to give input into the selection process. Ideally, the selection should include people who can give a fair, balanced view of the pastor s performance. The board can exercise leadership by providing training to survey participants, by ensuring that they understand the pastor s role themselves, and by providing feedback in a constructive, loving way. When synthesizing information from a wider group, the board should ensure that the information is clear and helpful for the pastor. 3. DEBRIEFING Debriefing is probably one of the most critical parts of the pastoral evaluation process and can be a very vulnerable time for the pastor. If executed poorly, the debriefing process may cause considerable damage to the board-pastor relationship. It is therefore critical that the board prepare well for this interaction and deliver the results in a way that reflects mutual love and respect. Many survey respondents delegated the responsibility of debriefing to the board chair or to a sub-committee of the board. Others conducted the debriefing process with the entire board. Some churches had committees separate from the board overseeing the entire evaluation process. The debriefing process should be a dialogue, not a one-sided affair. There should be opportunity for the pastor (and the board) to clarify information and perhaps provide additional information. Wherever possible, the consolidated and vetted feedback should be provided to the pastor in advance. The tone of communication should reflect the trinitarian principles of constructiveness, encouragement, and affirmation, motivated by love, respect, trust, and grace. In addition, adequate time should be set aside so that the process is not rushed, but given the care and attention it deserves. The board, or designated group, should approach this process humbly, as co-labourers in the ministry of the church. 4. REFLECTING ON FUTURE CHANGES REQUIRED Several churches in the study survey noted that they had undertaken a process of critical mission evaluation and had updated the job description of the pastor at the conclusion of the evaluation process. This process of ministry reflection is valuable because it focuses the board and the pastor on important priorities that are relevant to the mission of the church and its future. Ideally, the focus is on the whole mission of the church, not just the work of the pastor. This approach reinforces the trinitarian principles of inter-dependence and unity of mission. Conclusion The purpose of a pastoral performance evaluation is to gather information to determine whether or not the mission of the church is being accomplished. Evaluation looks at the past and considers what has worked well and what has not worked well. If executed with a spirit of unity, mutuality, reciprocity, interdependence, and participation, the evaluation process could be an encouragement to people involved in ministry, a catalyst for future growth, and a marvellous witness of the love of God between believers. Heather Card is the former COO at CCCC and is continuing her research in the area of ministry evaluation while pursuing a Doctor of Practical Theology degree at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. She is very grateful to all the CCCC members who participated in this research. Endnotes 1 Card, Heather. Trinitarian Principles for Church Boards and the Pastoral Performance Review. Master s thesis, McMaster Divinity College, 2016. 2 Köstenberger, Andreas J. John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004, p 498. 3 Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Revised. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, p 651. 4 Moltmann, Jürgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Translated by Margaret Kohl. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981, pp 97 98.