STAFFING & A History of FTE (full-time staff equivalents) and How Many Staff Members Do You Need? #Staffing/MembershipRatios

By Susan Beaumont, Ministry Matters Magazine, 6/29/13.

… Faith Communities Today (Fact 2008, 2010) is a study out of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, that looked at, among other things, how 3,000 congregations allocated their budgets. Researchers discovered that the average U.S. Protestant congregation allocates 45 percent of its total operating budget to payroll-related costs. Mainline churches spend considerably more (49 percent) on payroll-related expenses than either the Evangelical Protestant (31 percent) or the Catholic/Orthodox communities (41 percent)

… A Leadership Network study (which focused on staffing costs in larger congregations) found that the following factors were related to staff costs:

• Whether the church is growing. Staffing costs are leaner for churches whose attendance is growing, perhaps because growing churches have not “caught up” with emergent staffing needs.
• The dominant age group of the congregation. Staffing costs are leaner, but only slightly, for churches where the average person’s age in the congregation is lower.
• The year in which the church was founded. The younger the church, the leaner the staffing costs.
• The location of the church. Staffing costs are lower for residential and new suburban locations and slightly higher for older suburb and downtown churches.
• Race. Staffing costs are leanest for predominantly African American churches and highest for Anglo European churches.
• Use of paid part-time staff. Staffing costs have no relationship to the percentage of paid part-time staff in relation to full-time staff, until a congregation employs three or more paid part-timers for each full-time staff.
• Economic level of the congregation. Staffing costs are leanest for churches whose internal constituency is described as poor and highest for churches with an internal constituency described as wealthy.

Staffing/Membership Ratios

Perhaps the longest standing rule of thumb about staffing structures is the ratio of program staff to average worship attendance. In 1965 Martin Anderson wrote one of the first books to address staffing models in the larger church, Multiple Ministries. He recommended a staffing ratio of 1 pastor for every 500 members (1:500) . Looking back on that number, it is hard to believe that congregations ever functioned with such lean staff teams, but in fact they did. Remember that this book was written during a time when worship attendance and membership were more closely aligned, when membership meant different things than it does today, when volunteerism in the church worked differently, and when church programming was more homogenous and standardized than it is today. No church today would ever dream of targeting a 1:500 staffing ratio and expect to meet the needs of its congregants.

In 1980 Lyle Schaller wrote The Multiple Staff and the Larger Church in which he introduced average worship attendance as a more reliable indicator of staffing needs. Schaller proposed a ratio of 1:100 as a guideline for the typical ratio of full-time paid professional staff positions in mainline Protestant congregations. In 2000 Gary McIntosh wrote Staff Your Church for Growth and suggested that a 1:150 paid professional staff ratio was a more realistic and affordable guideline. Both Schaller and McIntosh focused on the combination of professional clergy leaders and professional program staff leaders. Their ratios did not include administrative or support staff. Both assumed that the staffing ratio remained constant across size ranges.

So, given these conflicting guidelines, what is the most effective way to think about the size of the staff team relative to the active membership base of the congregation? The same 2010 Leadership Network Study that looked at the characteristics of a lean staff team created an alternative way of thinking about staff size relative to attendance. Rather than thinking solely about program or clergy staff in relationship to attendance, the Leadership Network study looked at the ratio of all full-time staff equivalents (FTEs) to attendance. Furthermore the study looked at how that ratio changed as the percent of budget devoted to staffing expense increased and decreased. Here is what they found.

Staff Costs as a Percent of Budget              Ratio of Staff to Attendees

10-19%                                                1:108

20-29%                                                1:91

30-39%                                                1:73

40-49%                                                1:73

50-59%                                                1:70

60-69%                                                1:59

The conclusion here is obvious. If you spend more of your budget on staff, then you have more staff per attendee than other congregations do. The results also suggest that churches with higher staffing budgets don’t necessarily pay their staff better; they just hire more staff. The ratios are helpful benchmarks as to how many staff congregations employ. Given that the average congregation spends between 48 and 50 percent of its operating budget on payroll, we can assume the average congregation employs one full-time equivalent staff member for every 70 to 73 people in average weekend worship attendance.

Determining how large of a staff team that you need depends upon your mission and your context. No benchmark can answer the question for you. It should never be your objective to match the averages quoted in this article. However, these averages can be used as a starting point for good dialogue between you and your leaders. Do you lie inside or outside of the normative parameters outlined here? In what ways does the unique nature of your mission and your context require something outside of the norm?

Read more at … https://www.ministrymatters.com/all/entry/4094/how-many-staff-do-you-need

#OD723 #FTE

NEW IDEAS & 7 Lessons for Avoiding A Church Split When You Introduce a New Idea

by Bob Whitesel D.Min., Ph.D., 2009.

For 20+ years I have studied how to successfully employ intervention events (i.e. introducing “new ideas” such as new programs, new pastor, etc. to intervene in a church’s decline).  Below are my top 7 tips for successfully doing so.

These insights are needed today, because a growing literature in church management and group exit suggests that without an understanding of some of the following lessons, most attempts to introduce an intervention event will not start the church on a new life-cycle, but rather split it into two smaller groups of which neither will survive.

However, seven (7) lessons are introduced (below) to make the change agent aware that before she or he creates an intervention event, they must also be prepared to study and manage the process that follows that intervention.

Lesson 1: Usually, intervention events will produce a church exit. Arn (2009) is correct that life-cycles play an important role in managing organization behavior. Management researchers Dyke and Starke (1999:810-811) concur with Arn that new life-cycles can be fostered by, in Arn’s words, “beginning something new … an intervention event” (2009:9). However, group studies literature warns that introducing an intervention event, with proper knowledge of the six-stage process model involved, will in all likelihood produce a group exit (Dyke and Starke, 1996, 1999).

Lesson 2: Usually, intervention events produce a group exit, because intervention events usually polarize the church into competing groups. Pondy (1967) discovered that introducing an idea which conflicts with a organization’s status quo, usually produces enough conflict for opposing sub-groups to form. Dyke and Starke label one group (the group proposing change) “change proponents” and the resistant group the “status quo” (1999:805-806)

Lesson 3: Most people aren’t polarized from each other, until an intervention event. Dyke and Starke concur with Pondy’s conclusion that “felt conflict follows manifest conflict” (1967). This means that most people won’t get upset until after they witness some visible or “manifest” intervention (e.g. see Arn’s list of “intervention events,” 2009:9) over which they disagree with others.[1] Thus, when an interventionist (Schaller 1997) uncritically introduces or supports an intervention, a visible (i.e. manifest) conflict event often ensues which then gets previously non-conflicted people riled up. The intervention event creates such deep internal felt conflict in individuals, that the result is a deep-seated conflict that usually spins out of control (Dyke and Starke 1996). Some may wonder if the conflict that results from intervention events is unavoidable, but Dyke and Starke have demonstrated that it is not (ibid). This leads us to the lesson 4.

Lesson 4: If the reaction to the intervention event is not managed, the change proponents will leave as a group, create a new organization that will compete with the mother congregation, and usually both groups will die. Dyke and Starke (1996:159-174) discovered that typically such intervention events propel Pondy’s sub-group into a trajectory that leads to a “spin-off” or “unplanned birth” of a competitive organization. Lau and Murnigham (1998) observe that the ensuing “we-they” competition creates two unstable organizations. Case study research has supported the grounded theory of Lau and Murningham, and Dyke and Starke (Whitesel 2004, 2009:151-169). An ecclesial organization will usually not have sufficient economy of scale to survive this exit behavior, especially if the sub-group that exits the organization is comprised of change proponents (as it usually is, according to Dyke and Starke 1999:810-811).

Lesson 5: To manage the results of an Intervention Event, ecclesial leaders must understand the “Process Model for Group Exit and Retention.” If an ecclesial leader wishes to retain her or his change proponents, an intervention event should not be undertaken without a preparation to manage the ensuing process model of group exit (an organizational model has been put forth by Dyke and Starke, 1999; and a simpler model has been put forth by Whitesel 2007, 2009:151-169, 177).

Lesson 6: At Trigger 2, go slow … build consensus … and succeed. Church leaders that keep their congregations unified and thwart group exit, undertake two (2) of the “trigger events” differently (Dyke and Starke 1999: 811-815). Trigger 1 (a legitimating event) occurs when change proponents bring a new idea to a leader, and the leader enthusiastically “blesses” or “inadvertently legitimates” the new idea. Dyke and Starke found that if the leader does so, change proponents will run too fast with the new idea. While the status quo will be initially tolerant, they will later resent the fact that they were not consulted. The result is a church split (and group exit). Instead, leaders that kept their church unified went slow … built consensus … and succeeded. When new ideas were brought to a church leader, the uniting leader slowed down the change proponents, encouraged them to go through proper channels (creating compromise and consensus), and even had them dialogue with people who the church leader knew would be suspicious, apprehensive and/or contrary.

Lesson 7: At Trigger 4 the effective leader plans for conflict, uses conflict-resolution skills and emphasizes the power of unity. Dyke and Starke found that even when Trigger 2 was handled correctly, conflict will still occur. However, the unifying leader plans for conflict, and when it arises, he or she brings the different sides together to stress that they can do more together than apart. Therefore, instead of a “polarizing event” on the route to group exit, Trigger 4 becomes a “harmonizing event” on the route to group retention and “dissonant harmony” (Dyke and Starke1999:811-815). Thus, a uniting leader plans for conflict, learns conflict resolution skills, and is adept at inspiring a church to see it can do more together, than apart.

If a leader wishes to assist the church in embarking upon a new lifecycle which Arn laudably suggests (rather than fostering more typical group exit behavior) then he or she should familiarize themselves with the process model of group exit (Dyke and Starke 1999:813, Whitesel 2003:177).

[1] This initial repression may be due to Christians typically eschewing conflict (Whitesel 2003:85-93).

Citations:

Charles Arn, “Where is Your Church in Its Missional Lifecycle?” (Marion, Ind.: Indiana Wesleyan University, 2009).

Bruno Dyke and Frederick A. Starke, “The Formation of Breakaway Organizations: Observations and a Process Model,” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (Ithaca, NY: Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, 1999), 792-822.

Bruno Dyke and Frederick A. Starke, “Upheavals in Congregations: The Causes and Outcomes of Splits,” Review of Religious Research 38 (NY: Religious Research Association, 1996), 159-174.

Louis R. Pondy, “Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models,” Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (Ithaca, NY: Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, 1999), 296-320

Dora Lau and J. Keith Murnigham, “Demographic Diversity and Faultlines: The Compositional Dynamics of Organizational Groups,” Academy of Management Review 23, 325-340)

Lyle Schaller, The Interventionist (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997).

Bob Whitesel, Staying Power: Why People Leave the Church Over Change and What You Can Do About It (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004).

Bob Whitesel, Preparing for Change Reaction: How to Introduce Change in Your Church (Indianapolis: The Wesleyan Publishing House, 2008).

 

CHURCH SIZE & An Exercise That Shows How Leadership Styles Must Change as a Church Grows

by Bob Whitesel, D.Min., Ph.D., 9/18/15.

Here is an exercise I conduct with my students, which makes a good exercise for judicatory leaders and pastors’ meetings.  It helps leaders see how leadership styles must change as the organization grows.

Remember, if you don’t change your leadership style, your style will usually stunt the growth of the organization (and decline it back to the smaller size that matches your leadership style).

First, let’s look at some popular size designations for churches (CLICK TO ENLARGE the attached comparison from Whitesel, 2000, p. 29).  I like to use Lyle Schaller’s designations (1981, pp. 17-63).  But, I also appreciate Gary McIntosh’s emphasis various designations for church size (1999, pp. 17-19).

This exercise only requires four to eight sentences.

Each person adds a few lines about effective leadership traits, abilities and/or skills (Northouse, 2009, pp. 1-3) for one or two size ranges.  For the size(s) you choose, participants will give us a couple lines about leadership characteristics that will keep the church at this size, and a few lines about leadership characteristics that can grow it out of this size.

The following are the size ranges of Sunday morning attendance.  Just cut and paste the ranges (in your postings if you are a student) and add your insights.

Fellowship size (40 or less, relational base):
> Keep at this size by ….
> Grow out of this size by ….

Small size: (41-100, one big family):
> Keep at this size by ….
> Grow out of this size by ….

Middle size (101-175, maintains adequate ministries):
> Keep at this size by ….
> Grow out of this size by ….

Awkward (176-225, doesn’t recognize it is a “congregation of congregations,” Hunter 1979, p. 63):
> Keep at this size by ….
> Grow out of this size by ….

Large (226-450, functions as a congregation of congregations):
> Keep at this size by ….
> Grow out of this size by ….

Huge (451- 700, administration consumes most time):
> Keep at this size by ….
> Grow out of this size by ….

Mini-denominational (701+, a network of congregations, each with its own identity):
> Keep at this size by ….
> Grow out of this size by ….

That’s it.  Take a couple of these sizes and add a couple lines about leadership characteristics that will keep it in this size range, and then a few lines about leadership characteristics that will grow it out of this size.

Here is an example:

Small size: (41-100, one big family):
> Keep at this size by ….  Pastor makes all major decisions her or himself, creating a bottleneck of decision making.
> Grow out of this size by …. Pastor apprentices gifted laypeople in ministry, supports publically their decision making, but may offer confidential critique.
References

Hunter, G. G. III (1979). The contagious congregation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2009). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
McIntosh, G. L., (1999). One size doesn’t fit all: Brining out the best in any size church. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revel.
Whitesel, B., & Hunter, K. R. (2000). A house divided: Bridging the generational gaps in your church. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

CONSULTING & COACHING: A Book Review of Lyle Schaller’s “The Interventionist”

Commentary by Dr. Whitesel: “I select the most helpful book reviews from my students and publish them here.  These snippets of some of the best ideas and tools from the book will hopefully inspire you to read it. But at the very least these reviews can help you glean a few of the important tools/principles.”

Book: The Interventionist, Author: Lyle Schaller (1997) reviewed by John (Jack) Pladdys, 4/14/15.

What section of the book (pages and/or chapter) impacted you the most and why?

It is almost impossible to find one section of this book that impacted me the most. Schaller’s book reads like a manual for church consulting. I feel as though I have taken an entire 16-week course just by reading this book! However, if I was forced to pick one section, it would be Chapter 10: Evangelism or Intervention? (Although it is closely followed by chapters 4, 6, 7, and 9.)

The first story in chapter 10 captured my attention. As a relatively young pastor and a candidate looking for a position, my first reaction to the question, “How do we attract more young people?” is to offer a solution. Schaller reminds me that taking this plea literally and offering a suggestion will only lead to frustration. The problem is not trying to reach young people. The problems are a resistance to change and lack of agreement on priorities. By dealing only with issue, I fail to deal with the real problem. Schaller then goes on to discus three levels of change. He describes first level changes as doing what is currently happening, only better. If that does not work, then second level changes are a little more intense, but incremental. Third level changes are considered radical changes as they are a complete departure from the status quo.

What were the two most helpful tools, insights or practices that you gained and why?

1. Ask more questions. Early in the book, Schaller says, “More can be learned by asking questions than by giving answers” (p. 24). He goes on to support this thesis by helping the change agent develop a series of questions that will help the interventionist discover the problems that are keeping a congregation from growing. A change agent should ask a lot of questions. Schaller is so sure of this that he devotes an entire chapter to a list of 393 questions and says, “The questions presented in this chapter should not be viewed as a complete inventory” (p. 188)!
2. The discussion in Chapter 7: European or American? was extremely insightful for me. As part of a “made-in-America” denomination, I understand better why my denominational leaders do not talk about the reformers as much as the European denominations do. A joke I have with a friend of mine who is a Methodist pastor is that the Methodist must not see the Holy Spirit because they never talk about Him. He responds with, “Oh, we see Him. We just don’t bath in the Holy Spirit like you crazy C&MA guys.” The distinctions between European and American congregations will be very helpful with me as I attempt to acculturate people from other denominations into my congregation. It will also be very helpful when I am asked to consult with a congregation different than my own.

What will you change about yourself and your tactics as a result of this reading?

I will be slow to offer answers and quick to ask more questions. The goal of a change agent is to understand what needs to be changed and how. I cannot achieve that goal if I enter a situation with a ready-made solution.