Best Practices in Catholic Church Ministry Performance Management

Best Practices in Catholic Church Ministry Performance Management

Best Practices in Catholic Church Ministry Performance Management Edited by Charles E. Zech

LEXINGTON BOOKS A division of ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

Published by Lexington Books A division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 http://www.lexingtonbooks.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright © 2010 by Lexington Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Best practices in Catholic Church ministry performance management / edited by Charles E. Zech. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7391-4523-4 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-7391-4525-8 (electronic) 1. Church personnel management. 2. Catholic Church—Clergy—Rating of. 3. Lay ministry—Catholic Church—Evaluation. 4. Catholic Church—Government. I. Zech, Charles E., 1947BX1803.B47 2010 254'.02--dc22 2010014361

 ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America

Contents

1 Introduction

1

Charles E. Zech, Ph.D.

2 Framework of Accountability in the Church

7

Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl, S.T.D.

Part One: Performance Evaluation of Laity

3 Human Resource Guidelines for Developing a Performance 4 5 6

Management System Daniel Koys, Ph.D. The Evolution of Employment Practices Regarding Lay Parish Ministry David DeLambo, Ph.D. Using Standards in Lay Ecclesial Ministry Professional Development Christopher Anderson Performance Management in a Family Business? Zeni Fox, Ph.D.

Part Two: Performance Evaluation of Clergy 7 Performance Management of Catholic Clergy: “Best Practice” or New Iconoclasm? Rev. John Beal, J.C.D. 8 Importance of Performance Evaluation of Seminarians and Priests for Effective Parish Ministry Sr. Katarina Schuth, O.S.F., Ph.D. v

19

29

39 45

57

71

vi

Contents

9 Clergy Performance Management: An Organizational 10 11 12

Psychology Perspective Lisa R. Berlinger, Ph.D. Performance Management and Ongoing Formation of Priests James H. Alphen Neither Fish Nor Fowl: Performance Evaluation of Deacons Deacon Justin Green, Ph.D. Summary and Conclusion Charles E. Zech, Ph.D.

Index About the Contributors

83 91 105 117 121 123

•

1•

Best Practices in Catholic Church Ministry Performance Management: Introduction Charles E. Zech, Ph.D.

“T

he Church is not a business.” So those of us who conduct research and teach about Church managerial practices are regularly reminded. The appropriate response is, “Yes, the Church is not a business. But it does have a stewardship responsibility to ensure that all of its resources are used as effectively as possible to carry out God’s work on earth.” Among other things, this involves managing both its financial and human resource assets in an efficient manner. In the case of financial assets, stewardship takes the form of financial transparency and accountability at all levels. In the case of human resource assets, good stewardship involves assisting those engaged in ministry (whether clerical or lay, paid or volunteer) to achieve their greatest potential through the various components of performance management. Church leaders at all levels seem to have gotten the message that financial accountability and transparency are important. More effort is being put into properly involving Church members in financial decision making through structures such as Diocesan Finance Councils and Parish Finance Councils. More and more dioceses and parishes are making a better effort to provide parishioners with annual financial reports that are understandable, meaningful, and accessible. While as a Church we still haven’t progressed as far as many would like in our financial accountability and transparency, at least the need is recognized in most quarters. The same cannot be said about developing our human resource assets through performance management techniques. For a variety of reasons, the Church has lagged well behind other organizations, including other nonprofits, in its willingness to even address this critical issue. This book is intended to be a first step towards rectifying that deficiency. It tackles the tricky questions relating to the performance management of lay 1

2

Charles E. Zech

Church workers (both paid and volunteer) and clergy (priests and deacons). Performance management is multi-faceted, ranging from issues about hiring, job descriptions, performance criteria, performance appraisal, formation, and firing procedures. As much as we might wish it were not so, the church as a charitable organization is subject to the same civil law employment regulations as companies in the private sector. At the same time, there is support for the performance management of Church ministers (including clergy) in both Canon Law and in Church tradition. It has been said, “If you want to introduce something controversial like performance management to the Church leadership, begin your statement with the phrase, ‘As the Church has always done . . . ,’ and you will receive immediate acceptance.” The question might be asked as to why the notion of performance management, especially the performance appraisal piece, has not been embraced by Church leaders. Among the reasons identified by chapter authors in this book are: • The lack of training in performance management techniques in both our seminaries and our lay ministry programs • At the parish level, the close personal relationship between those doing the performance appraisal (e.g., a pastor or staff member) and those staff members being appraised, who might well be parishioners themselves and have many supportive friends in the parish • The view that performance management is a secular, materialistic concept at odds with the Church’s core values • The abstract nature of many outcomes, such as “a change in peoples’ minds and hearts,” which are frequently either unobservable or unmeasurable • Recognition that often ministry is performed (as frequently is the case of pastors, permanent deacons, or parish life coordinators) in a setting where their activities cannot be routinely monitored by their evaluator(s) • A reluctance or inability to distinguish “who one is” (e.g., an ordained priest) from “what one does” (e.g., manage a complex organization like a parish) • The view that an honest performance assessment, which might contain some negative comments, is somehow “un-Christian” Nevertheless, the times demand that performance management be taken seriously at all levels of Church life. Most of the discussion in the chapters that follow relate to the issue of how best to go about doing it.

Introduction

3

THE DESIGN OF THIS BOOK Following this introductory chapter is a chapter by Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington. In his chapter, Archbishop Wuerl emphasizes the importance of accountability in a hierarchical church, and reflects on how mechanisms for accountability in the Church are determined by the unique nature and mission of the Church. This, of course, is the crux of the performance management issue: in the spirit of good stewardship, how do we ensure accountability among those engaged in a ministry while observing the special nature of what it means to be Church? There exist aspects of the Church, in her identity and mission, that form the context or framework for any specific mechanisms of accountability and against which those mechanisms themselves must be measured. At the same time, all members are called to accountability through three related but distinct activities: communication, consultation, and collaboration. Following Archbishop Wuerl’s chapter the book is divided into two parts. The first part considers performance management issues with regards to the laity, and the second part examines factors affecting the performance management of clergy. Daniel Koys, a business school professor, leads off the first part with a chapter that provides critical background to the discussion. Koys presents a review of the elements contained in a three-step performance management system: define, evaluate/communicate, and improve/reward. The chapter demonstrates how these “best practices” in performance management as employed in the business sector can be adapted to fit the unique circumstances of the faith-based sector. In another chapter intended to provide needed background and context, David DeLambo summarizes some findings from his landmark studies of parish ministry. The chapter presents background information on the current practices at the parish level with regards to performance management issues such as job descriptions, job contracts, performance appraisals, and personnel policies and employee handbooks, and highlights the rather informal nature of these practices at the parish level. In a third chapter meant to introduce the issues, Christopher Anderson traces the history of the establishment of standards and competencies (which are at the heart of performance management) for lay ecclesial ministers. Developed by four groups representing various ministries performed by lay ecclesial ministers, and approved by the USCCB, five standards were identified, and they serve as the headings for 33 competencies. The strength of this effort lies in the fact that these certification standards emanate solely from Catholic institutions, unlike other professional certifications which come from either

4

Charles E. Zech

government or secular organizations. Anderson goes on to provide examples of how these standards can be applied in practice. Zeni Fox covers many of the critical issues in the performance management of laity with her aptly titled chapter, “Performance Management in a Family Business?” Her data suggests that lay ecclesial ministers would welcome the affirmation and professionalism that performance management would include. At the same time, she acknowledges that the “strongly relational pattern” inherent in parish hiring and firing decisions presents a challenge to the development and implementation of an effective performance management system. She doesn’t believe that a strict business model of performance management would fit the reality of parish ministry. Nevertheless, she recognizes that there is much that can be learned from the business model. At the same time there is also much that can be learned from more typical Church approaches, such as discernment, spirituality, and interpersonal ways of holding one another accountable. Part two of this book is concerned with an even thornier issue, the performance management of clergy. In the first chapter of this part, Fr. John Beal appropriately begins by examining the issue of the performance management of clergy from the perspective of the Code of Canon Law. Although the Code does not explicitly call for ongoing performance appraisals, it does suggest the need for some kind of regular assessment of pastoral performance to allow for warnings and corrective action that could avert the need for removal. Thus, it provides a canonical warrant for the introduction of some sort of system of performance management for pastors and other ecclesiastical office holders. Fr. Beal also discusses the tradition of the performance management of clergy emanating from the Council of Trent. To insure that truly qualified candidates would be appointed as pastors, Trent required that candidates for vacant parishes were to be examined by the bishop and a board of examiners about their theological competence, pastoral prudence, and other qualities suitable for the direction of the vacant parish. When all of the candidates had been examined, the bishop and the board of examiners voted on their suitability. Only those judged competent could lawfully be appointed to the parish. In the following chapter, Sr. Katarina Schuth compares and contrasts the high degree of performance appraisal that seminarians are subject to with the fact that for the most part performance appraisal is limited to the early years of ordination and if it happens at all, it is much less comprehensive. Her research has revealed that priests who do undertake various forms of self-evaluation are usually satisfied, or even delighted, by the outcome of the process. Rather than resulting in criticism, they learn of the general approval of parishioners. In her chapter, Lisa Berlinger points out that a performance appraisal is a developmental tool, and therefore should not be used to determine punish-

Introduction

5

ment, discipline, removal, termination, incarceration, or institutionalization. Instead, its purpose it to facilitate learning. Major transgressions should be handled outside of the appraisal system, and the bishops have their own systems for handling problems with clergy. The primary purpose of a performance appraisal for clergy is for the development of the priest. This means the purpose is not so the organization can have a form in its file or keep up its system. The chapter concludes with some specific suggestions about how to conduct the performance appraisal of a priest. These include discussions on the timing of the process, learning to give and receive feedback, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation, all presented within the context of the performance appraisal of a priest. In a chapter similar in intent to Christopher Anderson’s earlier chapter on standards and competencies for lay ecclesial ministers, James Alphen articulates a conceptual framework to facilitate alignment of priests’ performance with the purpose of their ministry. The project implements the recommendations contained in the USCCB’s 2001 document, The Basic Plan for the Ongoing Formation of Priests. The framework is based on competency modeling, a contemporary management practice used in business, education, and other sectors. Its purpose is to help learners achieve desired performance by identifying the constituent knowledge, skills, and attitudes of behavioral outcomes that reflect the desired performance. It experiments with the application of a generally accepted performance management practice in a specific performance setting, formation for priests and presbyterates. This chapter introduces the conceptual framework to date by analyzing twelve cells representing the interfaces of the three presbyteral munera and the four dimensions of formation. The performance management of the emerging clergy model of permanent deacon is very topical. Deacon Justin Green considers the performance appraisal of deacons from a variety of perspectives: deacons as clergy; deacons as quasi-staff; deacons as volunteers; the multi-site, extra-ecclesial role of deacons; and deacons as professionals. He concludes that the best fit for developing a performance management system for permanent deacons is one based on a model of deacons as professionals. The final chapter of the book considers a series of recommendations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Basic Plan for the Ongoing Formation of Priests. Washington D.C.: 2001.

•

2•

Framework of Accountability in the Church Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl, S.T.D.

I

n this chapter, I want to discuss the idea of accountability in a hierarchical Church and how what is assumed of Church leadership, i.e., that it is properly carrying out its responsibility, is verifiable in an affirming and credible manner. In the remaining chapters of this book, there will be discussions on best practices regarding lay ecclesial ministers and the clergy. Each of these topics has its own specific focus as a part of a much larger picture. What I would like to do in this chapter is to reflect with you on how any mechanism for accountability in the Church will be determined by the unique nature and mission of the Church. Thus, I will highlight the aspects of the Church, in her identity and mission, that form the context or framework for any specific mechanisms of accountability and against which those mechanisms themselves must be measured. While it is important to manage effectively and responsibly the many institutional aspects of the Church and her ministry, we can only do this fruitfully with a clear understanding of how different the Church is from any other reality we experience, even though the Church in her spiritual and pastoral ministry relies on the organizational and managerial skills and expertise required to carry out her work in a structured manner. The discussion about accountability in a divinely established hierarchical Church takes us into an area that is distinct from—even though in some of its manifestations it might be related to—the question of specific, practical, managerial or fiscal controls that might be put in place to ensure the proper oversight of the many institutional aspects of Church life and ministry. In this chapter, I want to focus first on the larger issue of the accountability of pastors of souls and how such unique responsibility can be both exercised and verified. 7

8

Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl

SUPPOSITIONS There are a number of “givens,” facts, in our discussion because we are dealing with a divinely established and structured reality. At the same time, there is a need to integrate these “givens” into the vicissitudes of the human condition and the circumstances of our day. Bishops and pastors have a leadership and oversight role that is theirs by ordination. Our discussion recognizes the sacred ordering of the Church and focuses more directly on how those in holy orders can best exercise their responsibility. To understand governance in the Catholic Church, we have to go back to its origin, its divine institution and its purpose. Fully aware of the perennial importance of the truth he was revealing to us, Jesus established his Church. In Matthew’s Gospel, after Peter’s dramatic profession of faith, Jesus foretold his intention to establish a Church that would endure until the end of time. “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt. 16:18). After his Resurrection and before his ascension in glory, Jesus fulfills his promise with the mandate to Peter and the Apostles: “Feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:17). The Church—the Body of Christ, the People of God—is structured, visible, and identifiable. The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until his kingdom is fully achieved. He willfully chose the Twelve, with Peter as their head, as the foundation stones of “the new Jerusalem” (Mt. 19:28). The Apostles and other disciples share in Jesus’ mission and his power precisely to lead and serve his new body so that, together, through works of faith and love, the kingdom of God might become manifest in the world. In his apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis, our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, calls us to reflect on the Church as the great sacrament of Christ’s presence. Jesus intended to remain with us in a new, yet visible, manner. In imitation of his own Incarnation in which the divine and human came together, Jesus would continue in his Church in which the spiritual and temporal would be present. In establishing his Church, Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism to bring about a new creation of all of the faithful who form his new body. Thus, we look to the faithful laywomen and laymen to see the vitality and mission of the Church unfold in the world around us. As the Second Vatican Council in its document on the apostolate of the laity taught us, the task of the laity is the evangelization and sanctification of the temporal order. The same vision is evident in the dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium.

Framework of Accountability in the Church

9

All of us through the gift of baptism are configured to Christ as part of his body—the Church. In the Eucharist we participate in the mystery of Christ’s death and Resurrection in a way that we share in this great saving action. The Church of Christ, spread throughout the entire world, is manifest in her many particular churches entrusted to the care of a successor to the Apostles and always in communion with our Holy Father, Universal Shepherd of the Church and successor to Peter. As the ordination rite teaches us, the work of the bishop who has the overall responsibility and oversight of a diocesan Church is carried out in intimate collaboration with his brother priests and, in a particular manner, with the pastors with whom the bishop shares the responsibility for teaching, sanctifying, and leading the flock entrusted to his care. Deacons are configured to Christ the Servant. Priests and bishops are configured to Christ the Head. The Second Vatican Council chose, in a particular way, to speak of the Church as the “People of God” (Lumen Gentium, 9-17). The Church is not an abstraction. It is certainly not merely a group of bishops or priests in important positions, nor is it a group of individuals who determine what they will believe and how the Church will be constituted. The Body of Christ is made up of all the members of the family of faith who are blessed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit and are united as one body around the Apostles and their successors—with Christ as its head. The Church does not hover formlessly over the cities and communities of people. Nor does it exist solely in the hearts of people. Rather, it is reflected in the lives and activities of the faithful as they carry out their God-given mission with their God-given abilities to transform the temporal order and bring it into God’s kingdom. At the service of the Church are the hierarchy and the apostolic tradition which guarantee that the saving revelation of Jesus Christ continues to be proclaimed, celebrated and lived in every successive generation.

GOVERNANCE When we speak about structure, governance, and accountability, what must be presumed is the “obedience of faith” that the Second Vatican Council speaks about in its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum (DV, 5). In other words, we must assume as our starting point that which Christ has revealed, established and ordained, and also entrusted to a continuous living body in which the power of the Spirit, transforming grace and the gifts of God are constantly at work. Otherwise, we might be tempted to reduce the question of accountability to one of organization, popular approval, or even poll

10

Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl

taking to determine the content of the apostolic proclamation, or the horizons of our Catholic ministry. Our frame of reference for all means of accountability is the vision of the Catholic Church communicated by Christ, articulated in the Scriptures and passed on in a 2,000-year unbroken, living tradition. Yet, we also recognize that the fullness of this vision has not always been realized in individual members. It is the nature of an incarnational Church that the divine is mediated through the human. Christ promised that his Holy Spirit would be with his Church until the end of time to preserve it in all truth. He never assured us that every believer, including priests and bishops, would be sinless or even good managers. But he did guarantee that his teaching would not be adulterated, falsified, or lost. It is a wondrous gift passed on in earthen vessels. How ministry can be exercised in a highly complex, technological, modern world is one thing; that it be done and in continuity with the apostolic understanding of that ministry is another. Both are related, but the latter is foundational to the former. Thus, no matter how we envision best practices, we do so realizing that the Church in which these best practices develop and are realized is already a uniquely structured reality that will bring its own determinants to what can ultimately be recognized as a “best practice.” Our task as we ask how best we might serve the Church is one we approach with great reverence, mindful that what we deal with ultimately is mystery, Incarnation, grace, and redemption.

ACCOUNTABILITY Given the divinely established and sacramentally articulated structure of the Church to guarantee that the teaching and ministry of Jesus continue in our time, how do we ensure a level of accountability? Or, put another way, how do we provide for the leadership of the Church a mechanism to be accountable together with the whole body? This, I believe, is an important issue of our day—and not necessarily driven by current events alone. It is healthy for the whole body to know that members and leaders alike are accountable to Christ and his Gospel. What we must insist upon is both accountability and, at the same time, respect for the distinct and unique nature of the Church. There is a temptation for some to make the Church into an American democratic organization as if we, the members, had supreme authority over the body. Our starting point is different. We begin with the faith community and recognize that there already is a foundation of truth for the consensus out of which we act. We do not vote or take a headcount to determine what we

Framework of Accountability in the Church

11

should believe or how the Church should be structured. But we are called to see that the whole Church is faithful to its identity, message, and mission. This responsibility extends to a verifiable oversight of the way in which we deal with the array of means at the service of ministry. These are sometimes referred to as the Church’s temporalities. But it also includes the right relations among and treatment of Church personnel. Pope Benedict XVI in his first encyclical, God Is Love, reminds us of the three-fold essential work of the Church: to proclaim the Gospel, to celebrate the sacred mysteries, and to provide a ministry of charity. These three activities—reflected in the educational, pastoral, and charitable works, structures and institutions of the Church—require appropriate, adequate professional direction and oversight. In fact, today the very effectiveness of the structures, institutions, and programs of the Church can be facilitated and, to some extent, measured by their governing policies and guidelines, as well as by the mechanisms that provide for the implementation of these various directives. When we address accountability in the Church, we must be careful not to use a political model for a reality that transcends human political institutions. When we consider accountability in the Church, we are speaking of a real and valuable principle, but one that must be exercised within the reality of the spiritual gift that Christ established in his Church. Everyone in the Church is called to accountability before the faith—the Creed—of the Church. No one is above the Creed. The Church teaches with divine authority in matters of faith and morals. We are all called out of the received teaching to respond with an adherence that transcends our own particular preference, appreciation, or even understanding. At a practical level, all members—lay and clerical, baptized and ordained—are called to accountability operative in an openness found in three distinct but related activities: communication, consultation, and collaboration. Whatever our responsibility, we must exercise it with an openness that takes the form of shared information (communication), reporting on the discharge of our duties, and accepting critique of our actions (consultation), as we strive to work together for the spread of the Gospel (collaboration). Today no organization, ecclesiastical, political, economic, academic, or other can function well without adequate and extensive communications. This can take the form of sharing information, first of all among those in leadership positions, then between leadership and those they serve, and finally between the body and the rest of the wider community. So often we assume that what we know is also known and appreciated in like manner by others. Our starting point should include actively sharing significant information.

12

Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl

Along with the sharing of information should be an openness to hear from others, particularly those involved and affected by our actions. Consultation involves some process for feedback. At its best, consultation includes a serious evaluation of all valid and credible points of view on the issue. Out of a sharing of information and the serious weighing of the variety of points of view should come a commitment to collaboration. This is particularly true when the responsible authority arrives at a decision. Acceptance of the decision of legitimate authority should be manifest in a commitment to its collaborative implementation. Such active collaboration, even in difficult decisions, more readily follows on an active prior consultation rooted in shared information. The structures to do this already exist. If our goal is to establish as a working principle within the Church a level of openness or transparency, let us look at what we already have and see how it should be used to achieve the outcome. If our purpose is to encourage an attitude of accountability and a climate of collaboration, should we not begin with those structures that are already a part of the fabric of the Church and that respect her identity and mission? On the diocesan level, canon law already requires that there be a priest or presbyteral council and a finance council. Wisdom also urges the existence of a pastoral council made up primarily of lay people. On the parish level, there should be both a pastoral/parish council and finance council. These structures provide mechanisms for the regular and routine participation of both the clergy and the faithful in the oversight or verification of the leadership ministry. What do these advisory and participatory institutions bring to the Church and to the issue of accountability? The first thing they provide is a forum for the sharing of information. Communication of information is the beginning of that level of consultation that produces effective collaboration. In this model, the presbyteral council and the diocesan pastoral council are utilized to tap the expertise of the clergy and laity of the diocese in formulating policy and seeing that it is carried out. The authority of the bishop remains intact since the final judgment remains his. Yet, his accountability to the Church is highlighted through the process of communication and consultation. This process and approach presumes the absolute unique magisterial role of the bishop in matters of faith and morals. At the same time, it engages the bishop on the diocesan level and the pastor on the parish level with the expertise and experience of all of those who make up the Body of Christ. Most of the faithful assume and, I believe, rightly so that their priests and bishops are doing a good job, that they are responsible to Christ, to his

Framework of Accountability in the Church

13

teaching and to his Church. By sharing more information with the faithful entrusted to our spiritual care, we complement what is assumed by what is now verifiable. When all the members of the body assume their proper and responsible roles in the Church, ecclesial communion is strengthened. There is a sense in which solidarity is nothing less than the practical expression of the Church’s communion or unity. Communion in and with the Church obliges its members, even in practical decisions, to support the legitimate exercise of a bishop’s responsibility. Solidarity, which is the practical manifestation of spiritual communion, requires such support. Otherwise, the unity of the Church becomes a theoretical consideration and the role of the bishop, who has the responsibility of unifying, is diminished. In our discussion so far, we have kept our focus on the Church as manifest at the diocesan level by a bishop and in the local parish under the care of a pastor. Another whole area of accountability involves Catholic educational institutions, universities, colleges, and others, as well as Catholic health care institutions and Catholic social service agencies. All of these expressions of the Church are also called to accountability as they carry out their mission in the name of the Church. The very nature of a Catholic institution, which is part of a larger community of faith, makes it incumbent upon that institution to work out of a lived and concrete communion with its diocesan bishop whose task is to oversee all ministry in the local Church. Institutions that are recognized as Catholic and that exercise their ministry and activities as a part of the Church are not independent from the Church. As members of the Catholic community, they must live and act within the structure of this community. That means working in solidarity with the bishops. How these institutional expressions of the Catholic faith are held accountable to the unifying and authenticating ministry of the pastors of the Church is another question for another national gathering. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services as well as The Application of Ex Corde Ecclesia for the United States are examples of ways today in which clearly articulated avenues of accountability are being developed through mutual consultation and collaboration, and against which institutional identity can be measured and verified. For the bishop or pastor accountability understood as the transparency of the exercise of authority does not mean giving up decision-making authority. It does, however, mean that such apostolic authority is exercised in the context of an informed and consulted local Church. The challenge of accountability in the Church in the United States today calls for bishops not to abdicate our responsibility, but to share information.

14

Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl

This effort leads us to consult with clergy and laity alike to see what consensus there is in practical matters of policy and pastoral practice. Out of this level of communication and consultation, even when the pastors of the Church have to make difficult choices, should come fruitful collaboration.

THE FUTURE This manner of communication, consultation and collaboration will present opportunities not only for diocesan bishops and pastors to demonstrate accountability, but also it will challenge the many educational, health care and social service entities that are recognized as Catholic to do the same. Such accountability would involve not only best practices in performance management, but also, and more significantly, areas of Catholic institutional identity.

CONCLUSION We have so much of which to be proud. There is no institution that does as much each day as does the Catholic Church to provide spiritual, pastoral, educational, medical, social service, and human care to people both within and outside our faith community. We can be enormously proud of this fact as we can of the realization that the Catholic Church does this because of our deep conviction that this is the work of Christ. The future should be marked by such openness and sense of stewardship that we can comfortably recognize that while our roles are diverse and each of us have different tasks, we are all linked together and all ultimately responsible before God and one another. Making this clear and having the structures to do this only strengthens our own sense of accountability, therefore, our credibility, and, ultimately, the future of our ministry together.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pope Benedict XVI. Deus Caritas Est, God Is Love. January 2006. ———. Sacramentum Caritatis, The Sacrament of Charity. February 2007. Second Vatican Council. Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. November 1964. ———. Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. November 1965.

Framework of Accountability in the Church

15

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. Issued by National Conference of Catholic Bishops/U.S. Catholic Conference, 2001. ———. The Application of Ex Corde Ecclesiae for the United States. Issued by National Conference of Catholic Bishops/U.S. Catholic Conference, 2001.

I PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LAITY

•

3•

Human Resource Guidelines for Developing a Performance Management System Daniel Koys, Ph.D.

I

n chapter 2 of this book, Archbishop Donald Wuerl discussed the importance of accountability in the Church.1 This chapter encourages accountability among lay ecclesial ministers by proposing a three-step performance management system: define, evaluate/communicate, and improve/reward. I suggest three guidelines for defining performance: know what drives the performance of lay ministers, choose useful performance criteria, and determine the level of performance expected. My five guidelines for evaluating and communicating are use an appropriate method, use appropriate evaluator(s), accept role conflict, avoid evaluation errors, and give useful feedback. I propose four guidelines to improve and reward people: work on weaknesses discovered, terminate when necessary, decide if you should integrate the system into a pay philosophy, and reward good performance.

DEFINE PERFORMANCE Know What Drives the Performance of the Lay Ministers In order to understand a performance management system, one must first understand the factors that affect job performance. The Human Resource Management literature widely acknowledges the formula below. The equation uses multiplication and not addition, meaning that if any of the three factors are zero, performance will be zero. So a performance management system must address all three: ability, effort, and support. That is, Performance ⫽ Ability ⫻ Effort ⫻ Support.2

19

20

Daniel Koys

A parish can influence the ability level of its lay ministers through its staffing and development practices. For example, research shows that intelligence and conscientiousness have significant positive correlations with performance on a wide variety of jobs,3 so those traits can be among those assessed when hiring lay ministers. Once on board, a performance management system can help develop their abilities. A performance management system also can influence the motivation of the lay ministers. Goal setting is a very effective motivational technique,4 so the system should include goals valued by the ministers. Research shows that tying pay to performance influences employee motivation and organizational performance.5 Although lay ministers may not value money as much as other employees, they can be motivated by pay just as other U.S. employees are. People are also motivated to avoid negative outcomes,6 so including a discipline process in the performance management system will help motivate the lay ministers. Performance levels are also influenced by the support ministers get from parishioners, fellow lay ministers, the pastor, and the diocese. Such support can come from a performance management system that is aimed at improving ability and motivation. Chose Useful Performance Criteria The second guideline for developing a performance management system is to choose useful performance criteria for the lay ministers. All of the important parts of the job must be included as performance criteria and no criteria should be chosen that are not part of the job.7 Research shows that 84 percent of lay ministers have position descriptions,8 so that is a good starting point for choosing the criteria. The ultimate performance criteria for lay ministers’ jobs is helping parishioners know, love, and serve God in this world so as to be happy with God in the next. Since those ultimate results do not lend themselves to an earthly performance management system, we may be able to use results such as the number of parishioners served, the knowledge gained in religious education programs, or staying within the budget. Many lay ministers’ jobs do not have results that can be validly measured, so the next most useful performance criteria are behaviors needed to produce results.9 For example, the behavioral criteria for a music minister might include choosing music for liturgies, directing the choir, and training cantors. The least useful performance criteria are related to personality characteristics because they are very hard to validly measure. For example, research shows that “good relational skills” is the most important factor pastors use to

Guidelines for Developing a Performance Management System

21

hire lay ministers.10 A “friendly” personality is not as useful as behaviors indicative of good relational skills.11 Determine the Level of Performance Expected Once we define the performance criteria, we must define the level of performance expected of the lay minister on each criterion. It is tempting to say that each minister should just perform at the highest level possible, but research shows that setting goals will be more motivating.12 The supervisor should set those goals if the culture of the parish emphasizes a top-down decisionmaking process. However, in many situations, it is better for the employee to be involved in setting the goals so as to encourage greater employee commitment to goal attainment. A great deal of research has shown that goals should have certain characteristics in order to be most motivating.13 Based on that research, the SMART acronym was developed to help people remember the characteristics of good goals: Specific, Measurable, Attainable (but challenging), Relevant and recorded, and Time frame.14 The above three guidelines help determine what has to be evaluated. The next five guidelines will help a parish decide how to evaluate its lay ministers.

EVALUATE AND COMMUNICATE Use an Appropriate Performance Appraisal Method There are many different performance appraisal methods available.15 To help parishes understand which methods are best, I will state what I think is the most important advantage and the most important disadvantage of each of eight different methods. There is no perfect method; the best method is the one that maximizes the advantages and minimizes the disadvantages for a particular parish. The first three methods require the evaluator to compare a person’s performance against expected performance levels. Graphic rating scales (for example, low quality work = 1 and high quality work = 5) have the advantage of being easy to use, but they have the disadvantage of being prone to certain errors (for example, leniency errors). Behavioral rating scales (for example, “gives well organized presentations”) have the advantage of being specific, but their specificity makes them hard to develop for more than one job. Checklists just require the evaluator to say “yes” or “no” to a particular performance dimension, but they have to be very long if they are to cover more than one job.

22

Daniel Koys

The next two methods require the evaluator to compare the person’s performance against the performance of others in similar jobs. The ranking method has the evaluator list all of the employees from best to worst. This gives a clear order, but it makes it look like the difference between each employee is the same. Forced distribution methods require the evaluator to place a small percentage of employees in the lowest performance category, a large percentage in the middle category, and a small percentage in the highest category. This is good for distributing merit pay increases, but it flies in the face of the Lake Wobegon effect (“all of the children in Lake Wobegon are above average”).16 The last three methods require the evaluator to write about the person. Critical incidents (for example, “was polite to an angry parishioner”) have the advantage of focusing on extremely good or extremely bad situations, but they have the disadvantage of keeping a little black book on each employee. The essay method just requires a write-up at the end of the performance period. Its inherent flexibility allows it to be applied to many different jobs, but it is dependent on the evaluator’s writing skills. The flexibility of Management by Objectives (MBO) allows the evaluator to write different objectives for each person, but different levels of difficulty make it hard to compare across objectives. Use Appropriate Evaluators The choice of evaluators is based on three factors: the knowledge of the potential evaluators, the parish’s decision-making process, and the ability of the potential evaluators to accept role conflict. That first factor is obvious; certain people should not be evaluators unless they have knowledge of the lay minister’s behaviors and/or results. If the decision-making process is more hierarchical, then it is appropriate for the supervisor to be the evaluator. If the decision-making process is more collegial, then the supervisor, peers, subordinates, and those served could be evaluators. A national study of lay people employed in parishes showed that most of them preferred to be evaluated by those they directly served.17 A good evaluator must also be able to accept the role conflict that is inherent in the performance appraisal process. That is the topic of the sixth guideline. Accept Role Conflict Most organizations want to use their performance appraisal process for two different purposes: to help make administrative decisions about employees (for

Guidelines for Developing a Performance Management System

23

example, staffing decisions) and to help develop employees. This is analogous to what literature has said about leaders for decades: some leaders are more task-oriented and some are more people-oriented. In a court of law, these two roles are played by different people—judges and counselors. However, in performance appraisal, the evaluators have to play both roles. If someone cannot accept this role conflict, he or she should not be an evaluator. Avoid Evaluation Errors There are several common errors that people make when they evaluate others. One set of errors results in a restriction of the evaluator’s range of judgments. Rather than using the entire performance period, some people restrict their judgments to first impressions (primacy error) or to recent impressions (recency error). Rather than using the full range of an evaluation scale, some people use only the scale’s high end (leniency error), some use only the scale’s low end (severity error), and some use only the middle of the scale (central tendency error). Another set of errors involves conscious or unconscious biases. Halo errors and horns errors occur when evaluators let their positive (or negative) judgments on one performance criterion bias their judgments on the other performance criteria. For example, halo error would occur if an evaluator let his judgment of a DRE’s knowledge of theology influence his judgment of her administrative skills. The similar to me error and the different from me error can occur because some people are biased towards doing the job one way, their way. Illegal discrimination occurs when a protected class characteristic (for example, race, sex, color, religion,18 national origin, age, or non-job-related disability) is used to make a judgment about an individual person. Since 5 to 20 percent of pastors say that gender and/or ethnicity are at least somewhat important in hiring a lay minister,19 care must be taken to avoid illegal discrimination. Give Useful Feedback The results of the evaluation must be communicated to the lay ministers.20 The most useful feedback focuses on behaviors and/or results that the employee has some control over. In communicating to employees, the evaluator should give specific reasons for positive and negative ratings. This can lead to a performance plan with specific objectives, as well as specific steps for any needed improvements. Some feedback will be less useful to employees. The evaluator should avoid surprising lay ministers with information they have never heard before.

24

Daniel Koys

It is better to mention issues as they occur throughout the year and to summarize them at the end of the year. The evaluator should avoid giving feedback that focuses on attitudes and personality because they tend to evoke defensiveness. It is better to focus on behaviors.21 It is not useful for the supervisor to do all of the talking in the session. Employees should participate because research shows that this will increase their commitment to action.22

IMPROVE AND REWARD PERFORMANCE (SO WHAT?) Unless there are tangible consequences, the above guidelines will most likely turn performance appraisal into a paper exercise that does not help sustain good performance or correct poor performance. These last four guidelines answer the “so what?” question. Work on Any Weaknesses Discovered When weaknesses are discovered in the performance management process, the evaluator must not gloss over them in a mistaken effort to be a nice guy.23 Many employers have been sued for wrongful discharge when poorly performing employees were given inflated evaluations but were subsequently fired.24 Weaknesses are opportunities to improve the employee’s abilities. Those related to current duties and technical skills can be addressed through training, performance improvement plans, or informal mentoring. Weakness related to future needs and soft skills can be addressed through long-term employee development such as degree programs, job rotation, and project teams. If the weaknesses are severe, the pastor has to clearly inform the employee that the person’s job security is at stake if performance does not improve. A formal probation period can give the employee a chance to make specific improvements. Terminate When Necessary Termination is a big “so what” to most people. If performance improvements do not result from improvement plans and probationary periods, termination is necessary. There are at least two different ways to terminate employees in the United States: by following the common law doctrine of employment-at-will or by following the standards of just cause. If the lay ministers do not have an employment contract, the pastor may want to fire lay ministers as he sees fit. To support such an employment-

Guidelines for Developing a Performance Management System

25

at-will policy, certain procedures are needed. If the parish has an employee handbook, it should clearly state that both the lay minister and the pastor can terminate employment at any time for any reason. The pastor should not give any oral or written assurances to lay ministers that they will be fired only for just cause. Finally, the parish needs to keep appropriate documentation that will support any future decision to fire someone.25 If the pastor wishes to follow a policy of firing only for just cause, (or if the lay ministers’ contracts demand that he do so) he should follow the following standards that have evolved through union-management grievance and arbitration procedures:26 (1) warn the employee about the performance problem and its effect on job security, (2) be sure that the rules upon which the termination is based are reasonable, (3) investigate the situation before deciding to terminate the person, (4) conduct a fair investigation and don’t just justify a foregone conclusion, (5) have sufficient evidence that the infraction occurred, (6) apply rules and sanctions even handedly across employee groups and across time, and (7) be sure that the termination is a reasonable penalty, given the infraction. Decide If You Should Integrate the System into the Parish’s Pay Policy The parish has to decide how the performance appraisal results will affect the lay ministers’ pay. The Catholic Church has not had a history of tying pay to performance, so some parishes will decide to keep it that way. Other parishes may decide that pay is too big of a “so what?” to leave out of the performance management system. One way for a parish to make that decision is for it to develop a pay philosophy. To do so, it can specify the values and objectives underlying its pay system. For example, the Catholic university I work for defined these values as underlying its pay system: mission directed, fair, financially sustainable, externally competitive, and legally compliant. Those values lead to the development of four compensation objectives: to attract and retain good employees, to pay equitably based on job responsibilities, to reward individual contributions, and to administer the system effectively. If the parish takes the time to specify the values and objectives of its pay system, it will see how performance management does or does not fit into that system. Reward Good Performance The parish has to reward good performance in some way. If its pay philosophy is to reward individual performance with pay, the parish must decide between

26

Daniel Koys

merit increases (which raise the base pay) and bonuses (which do not raise the base pay). Since people in the United States have come to expect some type of base pay increase each year, a parish may decide upon a merit increase policy. To do that, the parish has to set a pay increase budget each year based on its ability to pay. If it is concerned about attraction and retention of good lay ministers, it will also want to consider the pay increases offered in the relevant labor market (usually similar parishes and possibly not-for-profit organizations). Let’s assume that other parishes are increasing pay by three percent of payroll, and let’s assume that the parish can afford to match that. The next step would be to assign three percent pay increases to the lay ministers who received the average performance appraisal rating. If the performance appraisal has three rating categories of (1) does not meet expectations, (2) meets expectations, and (3) exceeds expectations, we might expect that the average rating would be a 2. However, performance appraisal ratings suffer from the same malady that produces grade inflation (the Lake Wobegon effect),27 so the mathematical average may actually be closer to 3. If a parish does not want to use merit increases, it could use bonuses tied to some measure of individual or group performance. If it does not want to use pay as a reward, it will have to find other rewards to answer the “so what?” question or else the performance management system will just be a bureaucratic, paper-work exercise. For example, the pastor could give a nonmonetary recognition such as publicly praising the minister for dedication to excellence and commitment to service.

SUMMARY In summary, I have used research results from the field of Human Resource Management to propose a performance management system composed on three major steps. I embedded 12 guidelines to help parishes implement those steps: I)

II)

Define performance. A) Know what drives the performance of the parish’s lay ministers. B) Choose useful performance criteria. C) Determine the expected level of performance on each criterion. Conduct performance appraisals by evaluating and communicating to lay ministers. A) Use an appropriate appraisal method. B) Use appropriate evaluator(s).

Guidelines for Developing a Performance Management System

27

C)

III)

Accept the role conflict inherent in the performance appraisal process. D) Avoid evaluation errors. E) Give useful feedback. Improve and reward performance (the “so what?”). A) Work on any weaknesses discovered. B) As a last resort, terminate when necessary. C) Decide if you should integrate the system into the parish’s pay philosophy. D) Reward good performance.

NOTES 1. Donald Wuerl, “Structures of Accountability in the Church,” this volume. 2. Robert L. Mathis and John H. Jackson, Human Resource Management, 11th edition (Mason, OH: South-Western, 2006), 78–79. 3. The correlation between intelligence and job performance is .23 for unskilled jobs, .40 for semi-skilled jobs, and .58 for professional-managerial jobs. The correlation between conscientiousness and job performance is .31, according to F. L. Schmidt and J. E. Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings,” Psychological Bulletin 124 (1998), 262–274. 4. E. A. Locke and G. P. Latham, A Theory of Goal-Setting and Task Performance (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990). 5. R. E. Kopelman and L. Reinharth, “Research Results: The Effect of Merit-Pay Practices on White Collar Performance,” Compensation Review 14 (1982) 30–40. Also R. L. Heneman, Merit Pay: Linking Pay Increases to Performance Ratings (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992). 6. V. H. Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley, 1964). 7. Mathis and Jackson, Human Resource Management, 333. 8. David DeLambo, “The Evolution of Employment Practices Regarding Lay Parish Ministry,” this volume. 9. Mathis and Jackson, Human Resource Management, 332. 10. DeLambo, “Evolution of Employment Practices.” 11. Mike Svach, Director of Diocesan Personnel, Diocese of Joliet, IL, 2007, personal communication. 12. Locke and Latham, Goal-Setting and Task Performance. 13. Locke and Latham, Goal-Setting and Task Performance. 14. Laird W. Mealiea and Gary P. Latham, Skills for Managerial Success: Theory, Experience, and Practice (Chicago: Irwin, 1996) 356–365. 15. Mathis and Jackson, Human Resource Management, 343–351. 16. Garrison Keiler on NPR radio.

28

Daniel Koys

17. Zenobia Fox, “A Post-Vatican II Phenomenon: Lay Ministers: A Critical Three Dimensional Study,” unpublished dissertation, Fordham University, 1986, 204–205. 18. The courts grant exceptions to the prohibition of religious-based discrimination when it comes to religious organizations. 19. DeLambo, “Evolution of Employment Practices.” 20. Mathis and Jackson, Human Resource Management, 354–357. 21. Mike Svach, personal communication, 2007. 22. John Ivancevich, Peter Lorenzi, Steven Skinner, and Philip Crosby, Management Quality and Competitiveness (Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin, 1994), 529. 23. Mike Svach, personal communication, 2007. 24. Michael Orey, “Fear of Firing,” Business Week (April 23, 2007), 52–62. 25. Carrie Brodzinski, “Avoiding Wrongful Termination Suits,” National Underwriter, October 13, 2003, 38–39. 26. Mathis and Jackson, Human Resource Management, 499. See also Frank Elkouri, Edna Asper Elkouri, and Alan Miles Ruben, How Arbitration Works (Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs, 2003), 930–933. 27. Garrison Keiler on NPR radio.

•

4•

The Evolution of Employment Practices Regarding Lay Parish Ministry David DeLambo, Ph.D.

T

here is a degree to which parish ministry, and the relationships among its workers, will always be familial—with all the good and bad that such a relationship invokes. It is the nature of the church to be so. But with the changes in employment laws starting in the 1960s, the church as a charitable organization became subject to the same regulations as companies in the private sector and employment practices began to be more formal. Parishes started developing job descriptions, conducting performance appraisals, and establishing personnel policies and employee handbooks in response to these changes in civil law. Canon 1286 of the Revised Code of Canon Law (1983) requires those administering parishes to observe both principles taught by the church and the applicable civil law when dealing with employees. Granted, the modern parish operates more like a small, family-run business than the sophisticated for-profit company. Still practices once reserved for the large corporation are now somewhat common in the church. In what follows I will briefly explore the evolution of employment practices regarding lay parish ministry. The use of the term “evolution” related to employment practices implies trend data and that’s exactly what we have. This recent study of lay parish ministry is the third by the National Pastoral Life Center. The late Msgr. Philip J. Murnion and I conducted the previous two in 1990 and 1997. Since the 2005 study is largely a replication of the previous two, we have comparable data spanning a 15-year period. This is what makes this recent study so valuable. This exploration will primarily focus on parish human resource practices in 2005, weaving in findings from 1990 and 1997 when important differences exist. I’ll cover such issues as job descriptions,

29

30

David DeLambo

job contracts, recruiting methods, and position qualifications, to name a few. For those interested in exploring these issues in greater depth than what is presented here, I would recommend obtaining a copy of Lay Parish Ministers: A Study of Emerging Leadership published by the National Pastoral Life Center in November of 2005. To begin, let me define the population I’m referring to when I use the term lay parish minister. In each of our three studies we operationally defined a lay parish minister as a layperson or a vowed religious (considered “lay” by canon law) working at least 20 hours a week in a paid position as a member of a parish pastoral staff. We are looking at pastoral staff as distinct from support staff, maintenance staff, and parochial school staff. Parish life coordinator, director of religious education, pastoral associate, youth minister, music minister, and liturgist are but a few of the more common roles held by lay parish ministers.

RESEARCH METHODS As replication studies, the research methodology employed in 1990, 1997, and 2005 are nearly identical. All were conducted in two phases. Phase I was a national survey of Catholic parishes. Parishes were selected through stratified random sampling. First, dioceses were randomly selected in each of the USCCB regions of the country.1 In 1990 and 1997, a total of 43 dioceses were selected; in 2005, however, we chose to double that number to further insure that the dioceses selected represented the country. Next, a random sample of parishes from these dioceses was obtained from the Official Catholic Directory. In 2005, that process produced a list of 3,000 parishes in the 86 selected dioceses. Phase I questionnaires were sent to the pastors or parish life coordinators of these parishes. The purpose of Phase I was twofold: first, to gather basic information on the ever-changing context of parish ministry; second, to gather the specific names of laypersons, religious, and clergy serving these parishes. A staffing sheet was included in the center section of the parish survey, asking for names, job titles, and demographic information on all members of the pastoral staff working at least 20 hours in a typical week. Of the 3,000 parishes surveyed, 928 responded for a return rate of 31 percent. In Phase II questionnaires were sent to the pastors and lay ministers of parishes employing lay parish ministers. A total of 1,600 lay ministers and 600 pastors received questionnaires. Forty-seven percent of lay parish ministers and 56 percent of pastors returned surveys.

Employment Practices Regarding Lay Parish Ministry

31

FINDINGS Let us start our exploration of the data by looking at some basic human resource practices employed by parishes. • Job Descriptions: There is a trend toward putting ministry responsibilities in writing: 84 percent of ministers today have job descriptions, compared with 81 in 1997 and 74 percent in 1990. But standardized job descriptions are not the norm; the majority of those with job descriptions (58 percent) said they helped write it. By and large, parish job descriptions are uniquely crafted to fit the needs of the parish, the gifts of the broader staff, as well as the interests of the pastor and pastoral ministers. And they are fluid. As ministers come and go, the pastor and staff reconfigure their responsibilities according to their gifts and interests, picking up new roles and leaving old ones behind. This is not a practice unique to parish ministry, just indicative of it. • Job Contracts: Here is an interesting finding. Employment contracts are rare in general corporate life where employment-at-will is the norm. In non-profits, only one-third provide employment contracts to their top executives. Yet in the Church, almost six-in-ten lay ministers (57 percent) report working under an employment contract. Do we know for certain why this is the case? No. It may be that the practice is a carry-over from the experience of teachers in the Catholic school system where contracts are standard. The practice may also stem from the fact that women religious—who pioneered the field of lay parish ministry and were often required to work under contracts by their orders—set a precedent that became a norm. Some in ministry have hypothesized that a contract offers a pastor a non-confrontational way to end the employment of an underperforming minister by simply allowing the contract to expire without renewing it. From the employee perspective of the lay parish minister, a contract might be viewed as protection from termination without cause. But given the length of most contracts, which is one year, how much protection does it truly afford? Clearly, further research is needed on the motivations behind the use of employment contracts by parishes. • Performance Appraisals: It is common knowledge that most managers and employees find participating in formal performance appraisals painful. However they are useful in evaluating recruitment results (i.e., whether you hired the right person), determining training needs, identifying accomplishments, and determining professional

32

David DeLambo

growth opportunities for employees. In the case of parishes, using such a large number of job contracts, appraisals are also a potential means of evaluating whether a contract is being fulfilled. Therefore it is surprising that less than half of lay parish ministers (44 percent) receive an annual evaluation. However, use of performance appraisals is on the rise; only 37 percent of lay parish ministers received such evaluations in 1990. Do we know why so few ministers receive formal performance appraisals? No. One reason may be lack of experience and training on the part of pastors. Pastors generally do not themselves receive formal evaluations and most have not been trained to conduct them. They may see little value in performing a task they themselves have not experienced, benefited from, or been trained to perform. • Personnel Policies and Employee Handbooks: It appears that parishes see value in creating employee handbooks and establishing termination procedures. Two-thirds of ministers (68 percent) say their parish provides written personnel policies or employee handbooks; a similar number (64 percent) say their parish has a termination policy or procedure. We have no comparable data from earlier studies to determine if this is a growing trend, but the use of personnel policies and employee handbooks by parishes merits further attention. Let us turn our attention from the topic of employment practices to the topic of ministry recruitment. We asked Lay Pastoral Ministers how they first learned of their present ministry position. The results are presented here in table 4.1. Table 4.1. How You First Learned About Your Present Ministry Position: Those With and Without Previous Ministry Employment (2005) Category Informal Networks 67%

Formal Networks 22%

TOTAL

How you first learned about your present ministry position Contacted and asked to apply by the pastor Contacted and asked to apply by other parish staff Word of mouth Parish bulletin advertisement Diocesan newspaper/magazine advertisement Religious order network Diocesan personnel office Diocesan ministry placement network Internet posting National newspaper / magazine advertisement National ministry placement network Other

Percent 31 20 13 3 6 4 4 4 3 1 — 11 100%

Employment Practices Regarding Lay Parish Ministry

33

Notice that two-thirds of ministers first learned of their position through local, informal, and personal networks. They were contacted and asked to apply by the pastor or another staff member, they heard about the opening through the grape vine or read about the opening in the parish bulletin. Only 22 percent first learned of their present position through more formal means: • • • • • • •

Diocesan newspaper/magazine advertisement Religious order network Diocesan personnel office Diocesan ministry placement network Internet posting National newspaper / magazine advertisement National ministry placement network

Parenthetically, those in first paid ministry position (44 percent of the total) were more likely to have learned about their present position through local, “INFORMAL” networks (77 percent versus 59 percent); those with previous paid experience are three times more likely to have learned through “FORMAL” networks (33 percent versus 11 percent). Still, informal networks were the predominant way of learning about job openings among both groups. Now compare how lay ministers learned about their present positions with the way parishes recruit for these positions. Table 4.2 lists methods parishes use to recruit lay parish ministers. Here, too, informal networks dominate. As seen in table 4.2, the most commonly used method is “one-to-one” recruitment. Eighty-four percent use this method regularly or often. This is consistent with the above finding that the majority of lay ministers learn of their position through direct contact by pastors and staff. The parish bulletin, on the other hand, while widely used for recruitment (67 percent), is a less efficient means of communicating job openings, since only 3 percent of parish ministers learned of their current position through this method. A more efficient means of recruitment is advertisement in the diocesan newspaper: 40 percent of parishes use this method “regularly” or “often” and 7 percent of ministers first learn of their current position this way. Nevertheless, what stands out is the heavy reliance on local, informal, personal networks when searching for lay parish ministers. This is exemplified in the reported use of one-to-one recruiting methods among people they know, and the frequent use of the parish bulletin to advertise positions. There is other evidence as well. We found that the vast majority of lay parish ministers without previous paid ministry experience came to their current positions through volunteerism. Nearly three-quarters of those in their first paid assignment (74

19 24 6 5 7 3 2 2

One-to-one recruiting from people you know Advertisement in parish bulletin

Use of diocesan recruiting network or clearinghouse Advertisement in diocesan or other local papers Contact with religious orders Contact with colleges, universities, etc. Advertisement in national papers, publications Internet Use of national recruiting network or clearinghouse

Other

Informal Networks Above 50%

Formal Networks Below 50%

43 37

Method Used

% Use Regularly

Category

Table 4.2. Methods Used by Parishes to Recruit Lay Parish Ministers (2005)

12

48 40 27 21 14 13 8

84 67

% Use Regularly or Often

Employment Practices Regarding Lay Parish Ministry

35

percent) say they had previously been VOLUNTEERING at the parish that currently employs them, versus 37 percent of those for whom this was not their first paid position. Additionally, slightly more than three-quarters of those in their first paid ministry position say they were PARISHIONERS at the parish where they FIRST became a PAID lay minister versus 43 percent of those for whom this was not their first paid position. One might call this the “local dimension” of lay parish ministry—recruiting and hiring from within the parish. There are some benefits to hiring from within. Those volunteering come with: • • • •

pre-existing social networks—a valuable asset in getting things done; demonstrated commitment to ministry and to the parish; a pre-existing positive relationship with the pastor; and a record of success ministering in the parish (i.e., less risk).

Given that pastors frequently recruit via local, informal, and personal networks, the question arises: what do they look for in a lay parish minister? What do they value? What qualities and credentials do they think are most important? We asked pastors with lay parish ministers on staff to rate a series of considerations in terms of their importance when hiring a lay parish minister. The results are captured in table 4.3. Table 4.3. What Pastors Consider Important in Hiring (2005)

How important are these when hiring a lay parish minister? That That That That That That That That That That That That That That That That

the person has good relational skills the person is prayerful the person has experience in ministry the person has a similar ecclesiology the person has a degree in a ministry-related field the person is lay their salary won’t be the family’s primary income the person is a religious they can receive healthcare via their spouse the person is a parishioner the person is someone you know the person is married the person’s ethnic background matches parishioners the person is bi-lingual the person is female the person is male

% Very Important

% Very or Somewhat Important

68 51 32 36 18 11 9 18 8 12 5 2 6 6 1