"Heavy metal rock star is Lutheran seminarian." That grabs your attention, doesn't it?
On January 19, 2012, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a feature about David Ellefson, a founding member of the "thrash metal" rock band Megadeth, who is now a student in the Specific Ministry Program at Concordia Seminary. Ellefson, who is 47 and lives in Scottsdale, Arizona, is an active member of Shepherd of the Desert Lutheran Church, where, with his pastor's encouragement, he started a new music ministry called MEGA Life. Now Ellefson is preparing for ministry through a program at Concordia that allows him to take courses mostly online.
Why should I care about this? I'm not interested in heavy metal music, but I am interested in how seminaries communicate. And from what I can see, this unlikely story has been a winner for the school.
Is there a lesson here for other schools? I can think of one: Encourage your public relations people, if you have them, to think beyond your normal denominational newspapers and religious magazines. Feed local newspapers and TV stations human-interest stories about notable on-campus visitors and people at the seminary who are making a difference beyond the school's walls. Cultivate good relationships with the media by taking calls immediately, setting up interviews, and providing photos. Be sure that the board chair (or another board member) has been designated as the official spokesperson in the president's absence, just in case a crisis demands an authoritative voice.
Once in a while, befriending the media may pay off. Now everyone knows that Concordia Seminary in St. Louis has a rock star among its student body -- which is confounding stereotypes about both Lutherans and rock stars. As Ellefson told Canadian news agency QMI,
"You let, for lack of a better term, God's spirit pass through you. People will see that. If they want to inquire, they know where to go. If someone ain't asking, you don't need to be telling. But if they start asking, that's an opportunity to share what your life was like. The testimony-based approach comes from a place where it's genuine."
If there's one thing that we can all agree on, it's that board members need to give, get, or get off the board. Right?
Maybe not, says governance researcher Bill Ryan. "Nonprofits do require funding, and governing does require nonprofit board members to think about funding," he says. "But all too often, this germ of truth mutates into a giant, fast-growing myth that ends up choking good governance to death."
This quotation is from a six-year-old article that caught my eye when it was reprinted recently in The Nonprofit Quarterly. It's short -- you can read the whole thing in about two minutes. But it's a healthy reminder that the first responsibility of the board is governance, not fundraising.
The recent death of long-time Penn State football coach Joe Paterno spurred an outpouring of public grief that has, temporarily, overshadowed the tragic and tawdry circumstances of his firing last fall.
Just four days before his death, the New York Times published an article about the university's controversial decision to fire Paterno without warning, via a phone call. The article is based on an extensive interview with board members who wanted to set the record straight and defend their decision.
To me, the most significant part of the interview is the trustees' description of how they were caught unaware by the scandal. They were not informed of the serious charges against former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky until the media broke the story. The university president papered over its importance. And when the board wrote a press release to express sympathy with the victims, the president altered its wording before releasing it to the media.
The article is a fascinating look at a scandal from the board's perspective. It's worth reading in full, but also worth remembering that it's a work of image-shaping. "The board decided to share its story because it grew weary of hearing criticism," explains the article, "which included calls from alumni who started a group known as Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship in an effort to replace the current board members."
Read the article here (New York Times login required) or here (reprinted in the Boston Globe; no login required).
About the image: Clockwise from top left, Joel N. Myers, Paul V. Suhey, Kenneth C. Frazier, Mark H. Dambly, Anne Riley and Ira M. Lubert during interviews of members of Penn State University's board of trustees. Photo by Matt Rainey for The New York Times.
If strategic planning is on the horizon for your organization, you'll want to take a look at the latest issue of Great Boards where contributing editor Barry Bader lists 10 edgy questions that can help clarify a board's thinking about the future. The article is written for governance leaders within hospitals and health care systems, but it's not much of a stretch to apply Bader's advice in your setting.
Don't be put off by Bader's choice of the adjective "edgy" in the article's title. As he explains, "Edgy questions aren't disloyal, they reflect the ultimate loyalty -- that commitment to the mission and mutual trust are so strong that leaders can challenge themselves and never accept the status quo as the only alternative."
You'll want to click on over to Great Boards for the full text. In the meantime, here are the questions, without Bader's commentary.
Now for the questions
As a first step toward clarifying the board's vision and testing the organization's progress, ask: "How will we know when we've succeeded and how we can measure our progress along the way?"
Reveal untapped or underexploited strategic choices by asking: "If we only had _____, we'd be much better off at achieving _____."
Frame strategic choices from the constituent's perspective by asking "should we?" rather than "can we?"
Ask about aims, not tactics. In other words, the board should focus on anticipated outputs over operational strategies.
Test the mission fit of your vision and strategies by taking a stakeholder's perspective.
Challenge the organization's capacity for change by asking: "Do our plans so far lay out realistic aims?"
Explore the implications of "life in the gap" between the first and second curve payment and delivery systems. Since reduced earnings may be a product of proposed change, how much patience will be required by stakeholders in getting from here to there?
Challenge pivotal assumptions with constructive skepticism: "What makes us believe that _____ will occur now when it hasn't before?"
Spur innovation by looking beyond current business and program models.
Challenge the board's capacity to lead transformative change.
Some board members may squirm the first go-round with edgy questions, but a little discomfort in the present almost always leads to better plans for the future. Boards that limit their discussions to easy topics and bland discussions do not serve an organization well. Edgy questions are among the most powerful tools in the governance toolbox. So let the questions flow.
Leaders of theological schools take risks in the name of fulfilling their missions. New initiatives require much planning and praying, and sometimes it's difficult for a board members to speak up with doubts about a proposed initiative, especially if the plan is gaining momentum, or if a key stakeholder has voiced support.
Then, after the decision is made, everyone seems to remember that they were in favor of it -- even if the decision turns out to have negative consequences.
How can seminary leaders address this dynamic? Daniel Kahneman, who won the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics, suggests a technique called the premortem. The term comes from his colleague Gary Klein. A premortem is a thought exercise with a practical purpose. The time for a premortem is before an organization makes a significant decision.
During a premortem, people who have been part of the planning meet and imagine that the decision has already been made and that plans went spectacularly wrong. Each participant spends 10 minutes writing a history of the disaster. The scenarios are discussed and kept. "The main virtue of the premortem" Kahneman writes, "is that it legitimizes doubts" (Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011, p. 265).
Theological schools want to make good decisions. The premortem may be a technique that your school can use to unleash creativity and improve the quality of decisions.
MEDICAL SCHOOLS UPDATE DOCTORS' SKILL SET Students must prove competency in key skills for 21st-century hospitals
Most of us would be shocked to read that med schools had not kept up with the times. But the Christian Century ran a similar headline this fall -- only it was about seminaries that are just now updating their curricula to meet the demands of the 21st century. Just imagine if other professional schools -- in medicine, engineering, or business -- were similarly slow in adapting.
Of course, many theological schools are taking seriously the task of catching up and training students for ministry as it is known and needed today. The Christian Century article focuses largely on Andover Newton Theological School, which is requiring competency in areas like "high tech communications and interfaith collaboration." Another example is The New Media Project at Union Theological Seminary, which is studying "how religious leaders become technologically savvy about technology." On the West Coast, George Fox Evangelical Seminary is offering a a D.Min. in emerging culture (with one concentration in "semiotics and future studies.") And other schools are also getting up to date, motivated by either vision or necessity.
What's the role of a governing board in leaning into the future? Board members who are outsiders to theological education may feel uncomfortable addressing academic affairs or questioning the chief academic officer's report. But sometimes it's the voices from outside the academy that are needed to help a school think creatively about its role and its future.
On the other hand, board members who have a deep understanding of theological education, perhaps as a graduate of the institution, are those who can honestly answer "why we do things the way we do them." These board members are valuable, since they offer continuity and guard the institutional memory.
Good governance requires boards to be futuristic while also respecting the past. It requires boards to think hard -- and maybe swallow hard -- and do things that are sometimes uncomfortable. But what's the alternative? Doing nothing, following old patterns of leadership, governance, and education, and ensuring that a school is prepared for the 20th century, which is already gone.
The Alban Institute recently posted a must-read essay about congregational leadership titled "When the Mission Changes." In it, author Dan Hotchkiss reflects on the critical times in a congregation's history where the mission of the community needs radical reconsideration. This involves more than reworking the verbiage in the mission statement, he says. "[W]hat if times change so much that the original mission starts to look like a mistake?"
Can a theological school find itself in a similar position? Of course. And more than a few schools are already taking the radical steps of rethinking and redefining their missions for the 21st century. For example:
The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology changed its name this fall from Mars Hill Graduate School, partly to distinguish itself from a church with a similar name but dissimilar theological positions. But in the major rebranding process, the school has focused its identity on progressive evangelicalism and zeroed in on what it does best: theology and psychology.
Lexington Theological Seminary and Meadville Lombard Theological School, among other schools, have been revising curriculum, faculty, administration, and more to focus on contextual education -- online education combined with practical ministry and periodic on-campus intensive classes. In doing so, they've put aside not only the traditional residential educational model, but the commuter student model too.
The most recent edition of Colloquy, the periodical from the Association of Theological Schools, focuses on Christian seminaries that have embraced multifaith education, in one way or another, as core parts of their institutional mission in a religiously diverse world.
When a school is reconsidering its mission, what does it throw away and what does it keep? The business classic Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, may offer some guidance. The authors write about the need for organizations to preserve the core while embarking on revitalization. An organization must be willing to change everything about itself to adapt to the times, they say -- except for its core beliefs and commitments. They give some great examples of core commitments and non-core practices:
Walmart's core commitment is to "exceed customer expectations." Front-door greeters are a non-core practice.
Boeing is devoted to "innovation in aviation," but building jumbo jets is a non-core practice.
Nordstrom is famously committed to customer service above all else; piano players in the lobby are a non-core practice.
So in thinking about your theolgical school, what are the core, non-negotiable values on which your school is built? Why does it exist? Is its core purpose to provide accredited degrees, or to educate students (whoever and wherever they may be)? Is it to produce theological scholarship for the academic guilds? Or to pass along religious knowledge to a new generation?
The current climate is begging seminaries to rethink the ways they deliver on their core commitments. But seminary leaders and their boards must be clear and creative about what those commitments are. For some schools, it may be the only way to survive.
Virtually every board with which I've consulted -- and believe me, that's a lot of boards -- is proud to count a lawyer or two (sometimes more) among its membership. In these litigious times, there's tremendous benefit in having legal eagles at the board table.
But is board service as good for attorneys-turned-board-members as it is for the organizations they serve? It all depends, says Dan Pennington, a blogger for Slaw, Canada's online legal magazine.
Board work, although wonderfully rewarding, is also remarkably risky and especially so for "directors with specialized knowledge and expertise, such as lawyers, who are held to a higher standard of care."
Pennington has jotted down a list of questions for attorneys to ask before signing on for a term of service with a nonprofit board. Bracket out the couple of queries that are specific to persons with a law degree [editor's note: see items in italics below], and this is a great list for any and all board recruits.
How well do I know this organization? Does it engage in activities that have an especially high risk of attracting legal liability?
What are my motivations for joining this board -- business, personal, community service, etc.?
Will I be able to devote my time and energy to ensure that I fully meet my obligations in this role?
Do I understand the risks and responsibilities that come with directorship? Am I aware of the statutory and common law liabilities that I may be exposed to?
Does my firm have a policy regarding its lawyers serving on the boards of charities and not-for-profits?
Is the charity or not-for-profit organization a client of my firm? If so, does my firm have a policy regarding its lawyers serving on the boards of charities and not-for-profits that are clients of the firm?
Will the charity or not-for-profit organization agree to indemnify me for liability arising out of my role as director?
Does the charity or not-for-profit organization maintain directors and officers (D&O) insurance to protect me from personal liability arising out of my role as director?
If so, what are the details of this D&O insurance? What policy terms, conditions and exclusions are likely to apply? What are the limits of liability per claim and in the aggregate?
Is there an outside director liability (ODL) insurance policy in place that may respond to claims against me arising out of my directorship? If not, should I purchase such insurance, whether from the Canadian Bar Insurance Association (CBIA) or through my insurance broker?
Is there any other insurance in place or optional coverage that may be purchased that may cover my activities as director? Have I consulted my insurance broker?
I join Pennington in commending these questions to anyone considering an invitation to board service -- with or without a law degree. And don't let the faith-based nature of an organization lull you into complacency. It's wise to look at the risks before leaping into doing good.
Questions: Does worry about personal liability take the joy out of board work for you? Is "God with you" adequate coverage for the board or should faith-based nonprofits provide D&O insurance?
In Trust member schools have just elected four members of the In Trust board of directors. Almost 70 percent of member schools voted, electing one new member of the board and re-electing three continuing members.
The newly elected board member:
Rebekah Burch Basinger Elected to the board class of 2015
Chair of the Board of Directors, MOPS International (Mothers of Preschoolers)
Member of the Board, U.S. Foundation of the Theological College of Zimbabwe
Rebekah Burch Basinger is an In Trust Governance Mentor and developed many of the In Trust assessment tools for boards. She previously served on the In Trust board from 1995 to 2003.
She has been an independent consultant for board development and fundraising for more than 15 years and has served on the boards of numerous organizations, including MAP International (Medical Assistance Programs) and the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. She is currently helping develop a master's program in higher education administration at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania.
A former interim editor of In Trust magazine, Basinger remains a regular contributor. She is also author of a chapter in Revolution in Generosity: Transforming Stewards to Be Rich Toward God (Moody, 2008) and lead author of "The President's Role in Institutional Advancement," a chapter in the Handbook for Seminary Presidents published by the Association of Theological Schools. She and Thomas Jeavons are also coauthors of Growing Givers' Hearts: Treating Fundraising as Ministry (Jossey-Bass, 2001).
Basinger received a B.A. in English from Trinity College (Deerfield, Illinois), a master's in English from Wichita State University, and a doctorate in educational leadership and policy studies from Temple University. She is a member of The Grantham Church (Brethren in Christ) in Grantham, Pennsylvania.
The re-elected board members:
Howard J. Claussen Elected to the board class of 2015
Retired Director of Mergers and Acquisitions, Corporate Plans Department, DuPont Company, Wilmington, Delaware
Member of the Board of Regents, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana
Howard J. Claussen was employed by DuPont for 39 years in various technical, manufacturing, marketing, and management functions, including mergers and acquisitions, before retiring in 1994. A member of the board of directors of Valparaiso University for 18 years, Claussen served at times on the executive, administration and finance, facilities and campus planning, and public relations and marketing committees.
Claussen and his wife, Dorcas, have four children and 13 grandchildren. He is a member of Concordia Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) in Wilmington, Delaware.
In 2010, Claussen was elected to fill an In Trust board vacancy. This year he was a candidate for a full term.
Carol E. Lytch Elected to the board class of 2015
President, Lancaster Theological Seminary
Former Assistant Executive Director, Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada
In 2011, Carol E. Lytch was named president of Lancaster Theological Seminary, a United Church of Christ-affiliated school in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
From 2006 to 2011, she was assistant executive director of the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. An ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), Lytch is a graduate of Mount Holyoke College and Princeton Theological Seminary. She earned her Ph.D. at Emory University, where her research focused on the faith development of high-school youth.
Lytch was first elected to the board in 2005 to fill a vacancy. This year she was a candidate for a second full term.
Brian C. Stiller Elected to the board class of 2015
Global Ambassador, World Evangelical Alliance
President Emeritus, Tyndale University College & Seminary, Toronto, Ontario
A former national president of Youth for Christ in Canada, Brian C. Stiller served as president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada from 1983 until 1997. He founded the national magazine Faith Today and also hosted a weekly television program, Crosscurrents.
In 1995, Stiller was named president of Tyndale University College & Seminary. After his retirement as president in 2009, he was appointed to lead the school's fundraising foundation, the Tyndale Foundation, where he led a campaign that raised $52 million for the purchase of a new campus.
This year, Stiller was named global ambassador for the World Evangelical Alliance, an organization of 128 national evangelical alliances and 104 associate member organizations and global networks.
Stiller and his wife, Lily, have two adult children and five grandchildren. An ordained minister in the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, he attends Cedarview Community Church in Newmarket, Ontario.
In 2010, Stiller was elected to fill an In Trust board vacancy. This year was a candidate for a full term.
How do you allocate scarce resources to achieve your mission? How can you develop competencies to meet new market opportunities? How do you plan based on strategic assessments and insights and not just wishful thinking?
This webinar is designed especially for presidents and board leaders, who can take part either together (gathered around a single computer) or separately (each participant online at home). The presenters are Robert Landrebe and Randy Thomann, both of whom have served as executive vice presidents of large institutions.
In Trust's short primer on theological school governance, available as a PDF at www.intrust.org/WiseStewards, was released earlier this year. Anyone can view and print it, whether or not they are part of an In Trust member school.
"Wise Stewards: The Roles and Responsibilities of Boards in Theological Education" outlines the essential components of governance in theological schools. It addresses board members in various settings -- governing boards of freestanding seminaries, advisory groups that oversee university-related theological schools, and boards assisting church authorities.
The document begins with an outline of the context of theological education today:
A shifting religious landscape
Student uncertainty
An epidemic of personal debt
A more diverse, more tech-savvy faculty
The high cost of an expanded curriculum
Enhanced public scrutiny
A need for new financial models
Next, six sections outline the chief elements of wise governance. Taken as a whole, the document can serve as a guide for assessing both formal mandates and informal practices. It also clarifies the relationships among boards, presidents, other administrators, faculty, and other constituents.
"Wise Stewards" is designed for board education, and discussion questions follow each of the six essentials -- questions that can be revised to fit an institution's unique circumstances.
Presidents, board leaders, and others may find "Wise Stewards" useful for orienting new members or committee chairs, or for reviewing and repositioning the board's work. It may also be used to prepare for accreditation reviews, helping to identify strengths and weaknesses in governance.
The highlights are five videos, each 90 seconds long, on various fundraising topics:
The trustee's role in fundraising
What to look for in a feasability study
Building trust with donors
Creating a millennial donor strategy
Women and philanthropy
Each video is accompanied by a PDF "tip sheet" that could be distributed in a board packet. And it might be appropriate to show one the videos themselves in a board meeting -- for example, to kick off a discussion of an upcoming capital campaign.
The videos are appealingly simple, and they raise the questions that boards and administrators must address if they are planning a major fundraising initiative.
The very venue of this discussion hints at just one of the significant changes we've experienced in recent decades. More than two dozen contributors from all over the country offer their insights online, without attending a conference -- neither asking for travel money nor (I presume) receiving any compensation for their insights.
What is the future of seminary education? Thankfully, the contributors are wise enough to avoid giving the question a definitive answer. As Daniel O. Aleshire says an interview, "There is no one common story for all theological education." It's worth remembering.
Does the changing landscape require seminaries to remake themselves in looser, more theologically inclusive ways? Maybe not. In one essay, "Less Doctrinaire?" D. Jeffrey Bingham of Dallas Theological Seminary warns about the temptation toward theological pragmatism. He encourages seminaries to preserve their doctrinal commitments while giving renewed "attention to curricular initiatives, methodologies of delivery, and strategic plans."
Theological schools are not the only institutions sensing big changes afoot. In my industry, which is publishing, there's a frantic sense that someone is playing musical chairs with our livelihood. E-books and the online retail revolution are making traditional business models obsolete. While some publishers race around the room, desperately hoping to have a chair when the music stops, others have plopped down, trusting that as long as they're in a seat, it won't get yanked.
Earlier this year, Margaret Atwood delivered a talk on "The Publishing Pie: An Author's View." In half an hour, she summarized the history of publishing and its various evolutions, reminding her listeners that the original impetus for publishing (the transmittal of creative work to a desiring public) has changed very little throughout all the convoluted history of the publishing business.
As I have read through these articles on the Patheos website, I've thought again about Atwood's insight. What is the original impetus for theological education? Theologically informed leaders. Spiritually mature Christians. Faithful priests, ministers, missionaries, and lay people. Knowledgeable and creative scholars.
There's still a demand for all of these people. As the seminary business model continues to change, we should remember that there's no single future for all theological education.
Update on Monday, November 14, 2011: Be sure to read Rebekah Burch Basinger's blog post on the Penn State crisis. Rebekah makes many excellent points about what the university board should have been doing all along. Crisis management is important, but avoiding crises is even better.
**********
Original post on Friday, November 11, 2011: It's not often that a governing board in higher education makes the national news. Even as the horrific story out of Penn State is still developing, nearly every news report is referring to the decisions of the university's board of trustees.
As of yesterday, the board had fired president Graham Spanier, two other executives, and coach Joe Paterno, the embodiment of the school's ethos, brand, and spirit. According to the grand jury report, all had known about the sexual abuse that had been occurring on campus over the course of several years.
The board's swift decision led to a complex mix of outpouring and outrage -- even a small student riot broke out after the announcement Wednesday night. The Philadelphia Inquirer wondered why university officials did not seem to have a crisis communication plan already in place, even when the grand jury had been investigating top administrators.
The university will most certainly move past this episode, and probably be stronger because of it, but the course ahead will be rocky.
As the governing body of a public institution, Penn State's board of trustees is bound by rules and regulations that private boards are not expected to follow, and it includes political appointees and ex officio members who have little connection with the university. Yet from the perspective of good governance, the board seems to be making difficult but necessary choices. In crisis mode, the board is managing its communication well, even when the former president did not. Its decisions have been clear and timely; they will probably preserve the future of the institution.
Private boards have much to learn from this case study, and we will be paying attention to see how the Penn State board continues to manage this situation. Your theological school will likely not have to address such a high-profile situation, but there are important lessons to learn here about decisive action when the situation calls for it, and clear communication for the good of the institution.
Are you on Facebook? Click here to visit our page! And once you're there, be sure to click the "like" button.
Once you "like" In Trust, you'll find that that posts from In Trust occasionally appear in your own Facebook feed. All our posts are about governance issues or other topics releveant to seminaries, theological schools, and other forms of theological and biblical education.
Remember, you can also comment on anything or even post whatever interests you to In Trust's wall.
A popular website called Episcopal Cafe recently ran a strongly worded article by George Clifford called "A Word on Our Seminaries: Consolidate!" Clifford notes that the Episcopalians' current network, with 11 seminaries only loosely affiliated with the national church body, has significant down sides. For one thing, he says, 11 schools are too many for a shrinking church. Moreover, the individual seminaries receive no dedicated funding from the denomination, and hence many students go into significant debt paying substantial tuition.
Clifford proposes a radical solution: Force nearly all the Episcopal seminaries to turn over their assets to the national denominational body (or else disfellowship them). Then liquidate them. Use the assets to support one or two seminaries and provide free tuition for ordination-track students while charging tuition to lay-ministry students.
I don't think that this plan is actually feasible -- primarily because few schools would turn over their assets to the national church, and few bishops would punish those recalcitrant holdout schools by refusing to send students their way.
But even if the schools could be forced to turn over their assets, thus enabling the national church to liquidate them and pool the assets to the benefit of one or two lucky schools, I have serious doubts about whether this is the best way forward.
Nevertheless, I welcome the discussion. Not just the Episcopalians, but every denomination -- perhaps every individual school -- needs to have a discussion about consolidation. I think there is much that may be gained when schools cooperate. Undoubtedly, there is also much that may be lost.
Earlier this fall, more than 600 governance leaders from across the continent descended on Atlanta for a two-day confab on the newest thinking and practices in nonprofit governance. The folks at BoardSource describe their annual Leadership Forum as the "only national conference focused on the impact of nonprofit boards and the unique role they play in advancing the public good."
I would have loved to take part in the assembly in Atlanta, but it didn't fit my schedule (or my budget). So now I'm tapping into the next best thing, the Leadership Forum website.
BoardSource is working hard to ensure that no board -- or board junkie -- is left behind. I encourage you to click on over to the Leadership Forum 2011 Wrap-Up where you'll find a wealth of great resources for encouraging enhanced board performance.
TWO TO CONSIDER
If you have time for nothing else, take ten minutes to view the video below. This beautifully produced piece could be just the discussion starter you've sought for your next board meeting. (Did I mention that it's free for the download?)
Or check out the following questions about board governance to which BoardSource invited four big names in the business to give a response.
What's the most important thing a nonprofit board can do to ensure that its governing toward the future?
What governance words or phrases are most overused?
Aside from integration of technology, has there been a shift in how boards govern over the last 10-20 years?
What quality do you most admire in a nonprofit board member?
For fun, jot down your thoughts on each query before reading what the experts had to say. I'm betting you'll be pleasantly surprised at your own board smarts.
If I've over-estimated your governance IQ, no problem. You've now identified ideas for board education. And you've located a treasure trove of governance wisdom to help you on the way. So start tapping.
Of the questions listed here, which is most critical to your board at this time? What other question(s) about board governance is kicking around in your mind?
If you could look into a crystal ball at the future of theological education, what would you see?
The editors at Patheos.com have been wondering the same thing, and so they've assembled essays from an impressive list of seminary presidents, deans, professors, and other interested parties on the topic "The Future of Seminary Education" (or, more specifically, "Does the Seminary Have a Future?").
The responses include a substantive and wide-ranging interview with Daniel Aleshire as well as a "just the facts" reply from Barbara Wheeler, director of the Center for the Study of Theological Education at Auburn Seminary. Cynthia Briggs Kittredge reflects on the role of seminaries in post-Christian and more diverse environments.Philip Clayton and Tony Jones write more explicitly about seminary education for the post-institutional emergent church.Gary Peluso-Verdend and Mark D. Roberts both suggest that laity should be the ultimate focus of theological education.All together, the series is long on issues of content, context, structure, delivery, and mission.
But the essays are short on the future of seminary governance.
Like the institutions they serve, the governing boards of theological schools must continually be assessing the context in which they do their work.Not only should boards be concerned about the content of their work -- such as those issues raised by the Patheos series -- but that should be equally concerned about their own best practices, member recruitment, internal cultures, and ongoing education.
"Good governance" is not a concrete list of principles and practices that exist regardless of context. Good governance is a dynamic, flexible, and self-aware orientation to which a board commits into perpetuity.Just as seminaries change, so must the boards that govern them.
Earlier this month, Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, died after years of fighting pancreatic cancer. From obits and op-eds in print and online, to the walls of Post-It note memorials at Apple stores around the world, there has been a flood of ink and pixels commemorating the man and his legacy.
So I have to ask myself, does the life of Steve Jobs offer any lessons for those involved in leading theological schools? What is the takeaway for board governance?
Jobs was known for outside-the-box thinking, for an all-consuming fervor for "getting it right," and for not being afraid to take big risks. (The most unfortunate result of these traits might just be the nine months he spent seeking alternative treatments for cancer, delaying the treatments that might have saved his life.)
But I think the bullet point that might be most applicable to boards members is the commitment Steve Jobs had for the mission.
Jobs was ousted from Apple in 1986 by the company's board of directors. Apple eventually languished without him, and his return in 1996 ushered in what may be the company's most influential years. When asked in 2004 about this turnaround, Jobs mentioned two goals. "[O]ur primary goal here is to make the world's best PCs -- not to be the biggest or the richest. . . . We have a second goal, which is to always make a profit -- both to make some money but also so we can keep making those great products." (This quotation is from the October 12, 2004, issue of Business Week.) Jobs believed Apple lost its way when the leadership made money-making its number one goal.
Perhaps you're thinking, I wish theological education were as easy a sell as an iPod. It's not, and schools will always struggle with making enough money, but keeping the focus doggedly on the mission is essential. And I think that when a board knows its goals and keeps its collective eyes on those goals, the other stuff -- creative thinking, a passion to get it right, and taking risks -- will follow.
It's a hard sell, convincing board members to care about the annual fund -- or what many refer to as "that black hole." Yet sell we must, because board appreciation for and participation in an organization's annual giving program is essential to the success of the fund. And for most nonprofits, a successful annual fund effort is foundational to financial vitality.
Endowments are lovely. Capital campaigns are exciting. But when it comes to the long-term stability of the organization, there's no friend like our old friend, the annual fund.
Although staff usually lead the way in annual fund efforts, the influence of the board is felt at two levels -- in the policy actions of the full board and through the activities of individual members.
All together now
As the fiduciary of the organization, the board sets the course for the annual fund by:
Defining the parameters within which the fundraising program operates. Included here are issues such as how much of the organization's resources to allocate toward development activities, what fundraising methods are appropriate to the organization, and kinds of gifts the organization will receive.
Setting realistic goals. In determining the organization's fundraising potential, the board looks backward at the organization's fundraising track record. Next, the members look board-ward, assessing their own ability for generous giving. Finally, they look inward to determine if the development office is staffed and funded for success.
Monitoring progress toward the (realistic) goals that they've help set. The board and administration should also have mutually agreed upon contingencies in place. This requires that board members accept with the same grace both brutal truths and organizational triumphs.
Going solo
As informed and enthusiastic volunteers, individual board members support the annual effort by:
Giving generously and joyfully.
Opening doors to potential funders.
Talking up the organization wherever they go.
Saying thank you to annual fund donors.
Praying for the success of the annual fund.
It's time that board members see the annual fund for what it is: (1) The cornerstone and the key to success for all aspects of the organization's program (Henry Rosso). (2) The lifeblood of the development program (Michael Worth). (3) An old and cherished friend (me).
"Heavy metal rock star is Lutheran seminarian." That grabs your attention, doesn't it?
The Alban Institute recently posted a must-read essay about congregational leadership titled "
Rebekah Burch Basinger
Howard J. Claussen
Carol E. Lytch
Brian C. Stiller
In a recent blog post titled "
