3055 Goldilocks and the Three Boards: Governance for Growth

Speaker: Rev. Stefan Jonasson

Sponsor: UUA Staff

Prepared for UUA.org by: Jone Johnson Lewis, Reporter; Margy Levine Young, Editor

Download the handout: Beyond the Organizational Chart
Download the handout: The Marks of an Effective Board

The Rev. Stefan Jonasson, Coordinator of Services for Large Congregations at the UUA, spoke on the governance of churches of all sizes, not just large congregations. "The land of fairy tales is a great place to talk about governance," he proclaimed, as he told the story of the Three Boards – one big, one medium, one little – and how they put on their respective tables the porridge of policy and programs to serve their congregations. The porridge was too hot to eat, Jonasson added, so they, like many boards when it gets too hot, went for a walk. At that point, Goldilocks, a new leader, came calling.

He described how Goldilocks observed the three rooms, each with one or more tables, each with chairs, each with bowls of "work." Hungry, like a good new leader, for board work, she explored these rooms.

The metaphors highlighted how the large church has the smallest board, one more focused on vision, mission, ends, policies, and executive limitations. The middle-sized church has a table for a board and one for a council, with the board focused on vision, mission, exploration of ends, and consideration of policies, while the council is focused on calendaring, coordinating and communicating. The small church has the largest table, with the board focused on vision and mission, calendar and coordinating, "Aunt Martha's hospital stay," and the Sunday program – so many "bowls" it's hard to know where to begin. (Jonasson defined the small church as one in which the people in attendance on Sunday – adults at worship, children and teachers in Sunday School – are 200 or less; the middle size church with 201-400, and the large church more than 400.)

Unlike the story of Goldilocks and the three bears, the story of Goldilocks and the three boards doesn't have such a neat ending, where one of the bowls and one of the chairs is "just right." Instead, Jonasson said, the size of the church is important to selecting the governance structure.

A policy-based approach is appropriate in the large churches – and is the only practical route. He differentiated this from the policy governance model "with the trademark symbol" promoted by John Carver; Jonasson doesn't share with Carver the idea that this is the only good board model for all organizations. In smaller congregations, the board and decisions are more relational, and policy governance models "may be toxic."

"Religious communities may be the messiest, most complex, or to put it positively, the most organic, of all human organizations," Jonasson said. Good boundaries, like good fences, make good neighbors – but he is suspicious of models that are rigid, that don't have "enough gates for the length of the fence."

In the smallest congregations (under 50 in attendance on Sundays), the board isn't a board at all – they're the volunteer staff. The real governing body is the congregation itself. And, that's okay. The small congregation rarely needs to be in governance mode.

Once staff arrives, the board starts to do real board work, though it's still a jumble of staff, governance, and program work – and this doesn't need to be "fixed." If a model like Carver's is adopted, "there's no staff left" to do the work. Such congregations need to become okay with the messiness, and reinforce relational structure for governance.

The middle-sized church, with multiple staff members, requires a board that begins to focus and specialize. The work of coordination, calendaring, and excess communication needs to be delegated to a council, which is not part of governance. The board can also become its own long-range planning committee. The minister, not a board member, should chair the program council, Jonasson recommended. The council relates primarily to the staff, not to the board.

As the church becomes larger, the need for the council disappears, as its functions become staff work. The board functions in the larger churches are, in order of priority: vision, policy, stewardship, sponsorship, advocacy, and consultancy. The board holds in trust the assets of the community – including the moral assets, the primary values. Board members should also model generosity and commitment: they should be among the most generous in financial support and time.

The smaller churches, Jonasson added, should stop feeling shamed at having different governance models than large churches do; the size of the church is a major factor in the governance model that works.

Jonasson closed with points from Max du Pree's book, Called to Serve: Creating and Nurturing the Effective Volunteer Board, about the marks of an effective board, whatever its size.

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100