The Congregational Consulting Group, organized in 2014 by former consultants of the Alban Institute, is a network of independent consultants. We publish PERSPECTIVES for Congregational Leaders—thoughts on topics of interest to leaders of congregations and other purpose-driven organizations. — Dan Hotchkiss, editor
Dan Hotchkiss 
Most bylaws should say less than they do. They’re full of advice about how officers and other leaders ought to do their jobs. Some of this advice is good, some bad, but almost none of it belongs in bylaws. Bylaws are mostly about power. They should say how people get into positions of authority, which of them gets to decide what, and how leaders will be held accountable for what they do.
Everyone knows delegation is important, but most of the advice you hear about it is one-sided: “You’ve got to trust your people!” “The best ideas come from the bottom, not the top!” “Detailed job descriptions lay the groundwork for effective evaluation.” Each of these bits of advice captures part of the picture. But followed separately, each leads into its own morass of error. Effective delegators grant authority while also giving guidance and providing for accountability.
Board members, tired of repetitive requests for approval or permission, often say, “We should write some policies.” This impulse is correct: Policies can spare the board much tedium and help ensure consistent handling of like situations. But in practice, efforts to write policies often frustrate and disappoint. It’s a lot of work and does not always stop the flow of management questions coming to the board.
Fortunately, a board can create “Leakproof” policies. The key is to reverse one of the assumptions most boards bring to making policy: that authority must be dispensed timidly, a little bit at a time. A wise board flips this script and delegates full management authority, then sets limits and adds guidance until it is ready to let others make decisions away from the board table.
Most boards know they shouldn’t micromanage. Meddling boards irritate their staff and volunteers and stifle creativity. Boards lack the day-to-day involvement a good manager should have. Most board members know that, but still when people bring us questions, we give answers. We just can’t resist!
Organizations are famous for resisting change. Despite the best efforts of their leaders, who often want change more than anybody else, organizations, including congregations, reproduce this week what they did last week, this month what they did last month, and this year what they did the year before. That’s the rule. However, once in a great while an organization decides to do something truly different—and then actually does so.
Which raises two important questions: Why do organizations—or more generally, systems—resist change so strongly? And why do they sometimes change anyway?
The Nones are in the news and have been for a while. “Nones” are people who, when pollsters ask for their religion, say “None.” Nones used to be a tiny group, but now None is among the top three answers, alongside Roman Catholic and Evangelical Protestant. The rise of Nones reflect a cultural shift that can feel threatening, especially to Mainline Protestants, whose numbers have declined as Nones’ have risen. But for leaders who can listen sympathetically and respond flexibly, Nones may offer opportunities as well as threats.
Have you ever thought of trying congregational consulting? Lots of people think of this—and for most, the fancy passes. But if you have energy, the right experience, and strong speaking and writing skills, consulting could be a good sideline, or even a career, for you. I’d like to share some tips and principles that have helped make consulting work for me.