Staff Management
Performance Management of Church Staff
By Ken Godevenos, MBA, CCP, CHRP

In industry, the topic of performance management scares most company managers. Many avoid it like the plague-and when they can’t, they often carry it out so poorly, it might as well be left undone. When we move to the arena of churches, a great number have never even considered the topic of performance management, yet it’s the one program that can single-handedly contribute more to the success of an organization, company or church than any other. Here’s how you can overcome the approach-avoidance struggle most churches face with respect to performance management.

Historically, employees punched a clock when they arrived at work and punched out again at the end of the day. In between, they performed the duties they were supposed to under the careful eye of a supervisor. Over the years, things started to change and boards of directors became interested in promoting as much productivity as possible from the workforce in order to increase profits or share price. While there were always good employees, so-so employees and poor employees, supervisors were suddenly being encouraged to get the most out of each one, regardless. Upon closer examination, they were detecting differences in how well employees in similar jobs performed their work, yet there was no systematic way to measure those differences.

Around the same time, employers realized that employees stopped exhibiting the kind of loyalty their parents showed before them. When good employees started leaving companies, management had to rethink how to keep them. They introduced salary ranges for jobs rather than single, fixed rates. New employees could start at the lower end of the range and over time, based on the results of performance measurements that indicated they were performing the whole job satisfactorily or better (popularly referred to as "walking on water"), they could move up to the full job rate and beyond. This full rate might sometimes be in the middle of the salary range; other times, at the maximum end.

In order to manage this fluctuation effectively, however, a system was required by which to determine whether movement was necessary and if so, how much. While performance appraisals may have been conducted earlier, companies now had to quantify the results and tie them in with increases in compensation, or what became known as "performance pay.”

Suffice it to say that performance "appraisal" eventually became performance "management.” Organizations realized that with all this data about their employees, they had a responsibility to not only reward those that were head and shoulders above the rest, but also to take corrective action concerning those that didn’t measure up. This realization was also partially a response to increased government regulations on what employers could and could not do, as well as increased labor union involvement, which made it more difficult for employers to simply let poor-performing employees go.

Traditional performance management measurement systems are still used today, but less often. Basically, these treat all work the same by evaluating similar, general characteristics of “work”-attendance, attitude, punctuality, customer responsiveness, creativity, accuracy, effectiveness and problem solving are some common ones. In some cases, employees are then assigned an overall performance score from, say, 1 to 5-five usually being "excellent.” Over time, measures were assigned weights, and they could all be assigned the same value or different values. Employees were scored on each measure, the raw scores were weighted and again, an overall performance score was determined.

More recently, organizations realized that one size does not fit all jobs when it comes to performance management. In fact, while the generic characteristics of work apply to most jobs, they don’t really guarantee success. For example, when punching the clock was discarded, so was the requirement that an employee be at their workstation on time, all the time. In fact, work was now being done "offsite"-as my daughter's voice message from her IBM office often tells me.

In recent years, organizations have turned to what they call "competencies" to measure performance. By definition, competencies are specific behaviors that increase the likelihood of success in a particular job once they’re mastered and demonstrated by an incumbent.

To simplify this concept, I’ll use an example. A consulting firm was originally asked to determine what makes some incumbents in a particular job very successful and others very unsuccessful. The consultants interviewed both the top performers and those who weren’t doing so well according to the management’s perception. They discovered that the top performers were actually carrying out certain behaviors that the poorer ones were not. These behaviors then became the "competencies" for that job classification. All incumbents were then asked to acquire and demonstrate those behaviors to improve both individual and work unit success.

Struck with their own genius, the consultants then proceeded to do the same for other job classifications. Eventually, they developed a database of competencies for a wide variety of jobs. Then another consultant came along and discovered that no matter what you call any one type of competency, they all boil down to between 40 and 50 generic competencies. This list includes but is not limited to:

• relationship building
• negotiating
• being a team player
• maintaining a customer focus
• thoroughness
• accuracy
• learning ability
• forecasting or visioning skills
• goal setting
• planning or strategizing
• coordinating or scheduling
• revenue or expense management
• organization building
• cultural awareness
• business sense
• policy development or interpretation
• time or priority management
• a sense of anticipation
• crisis management skills
• perseverance
• taking responsibility
• the ability to delegate
• employee development
• decision-making ability
• innovation or creativity
• initiative

What remains is for an organization to identify or select the appropriate "competencies" for the various jobs in their employ, then assess and manage how well an incumbent acquires and demonstrates these competencies.

Out of the entire database, the employer (or in this case, the church) first decides how many competencies will be assigned to each job-usually no more than 15. In fact, these 15 are often broken into a number (five, for example) that are common to all jobs in the church. These are referred to as the "core competencies.” Then the balance is either completely job-specific or, for large enough organizations, a combination of department- and job-specific.

Next, weights may be assigned to each of the competencies-a certain amount for each core competency and each other competency-all totaling 100%. Each incumbent is then told which competencies will be assessed at his or her next performance assessment. This way, the employee can focus on acquiring and demonstrating these behaviors.

At assessment time, input might come from the supervisor alone, or from any number of other staff members who have regular contact with the incumbent. Raw scores might range from 1-indicating that a particular competency has not been acquired or is not demonstrated at all-to 5, when competency is perceived to be demonstrated all the time. One alternative to this approach is to develop five different "level" definitions of each competency. These might range from "entry level” (unacceptable) to "emerging", "competent", "above average" or "exceptional-sometimes referred to as “guru” status.

Raw scores are then amassed, averaged out and “weighted” according to competency, determining the incumbent’s overall performance score. This score may be used simply to assist the incumbent progress and develop over the next performance period, or as more and more organizations are doing, it could help determine the increase within his or her salary range. Understandably, churches do not often find this concept easy to accept. It’s important that churches use an objective, openly communicated and consistently applied process to determine differences in compensation.

Actual movement in one's salary range is determined by what is known as a "performance pay matrix.” This matrix shows percentage increases (upward movement within a salary range) based on a combination of the incumbent’s current position in this range and how well he or she has performed in the last performance period, as assessed by competencies. (All of this is different from actual range structure increases or changes due to cost of living and so on.)

Whenever measurement of performance is gauged, some employees will do extremely well, others satisfactory and the rest not so well. This is inherent in the measuring concept, so church staff is clearly not immune.

Poor performers can’t be ignored under this system. They require additional coaching and a development plan for improvement. The frequency of performance feedback must be increased for poor performers; annual reviews will prove totally inadequate. In fact, all employees require input more regularly than once a year, but poor employees need it even more often.

Hopefully, with extra attention and assistance, these employees turn can performance around. But if not, a decision need to be made: move them into another position or to let them go. Using the data from several performance assessments, coupled with the fact that additional assistance didn’t help, churches can terminate employment objectively and defensively.

You’ll notice that we identified “goal setting” as a competency but not “goal achievement.” Most organizations go on to reward the latter as part of another program, commonly known as a Bonus or Annual Incentive Plan. For reasons most church leaders understand, this kind of program isn’t likely to sit well with all the church’s stakeholders. (If your church has been able to do it, please let me know.)

Instead, churches that want to consider goal achievement when rewarding their staff could develop their performance management program to contain two components-competencies and results-and then assign a percentage of the final score to each. For example, 60% overall could be based on competencies and 40% on results (or vice versa depending on what aspect your church values more and how far along it is in introducing these types of programs).

Getting Started

For starters, I suggest studying up on performance management. The reference sections of a local library, business or bookstore are all good places to begin. Next, determine whether or not you would like to pursue some or all of the concepts discussed in this column. Keep in mind that the key purpose for any such program is increased staff effectiveness in accomplishing the things that matter for the church and for God. Rewarding and retaining your high performers should be a secondary motivation.

Once you’re past the "this-is-a-nice-thing-to-do" stage, determine whether or not you have enough information and expertise to pursue performance management on your own or if additional assistance will be necessary. Assistance might come from members of your congregation that are business leaders or even Human Resources or compensation consultants. If no such people are available, you may wish to seek the aid of a church consultant, although some non-profits have also hired standard management consultants. If you choose the former, make sure he or she is well versed in employee performance management systems.

Remember that no program will be perfect in its first or even second year. Don’t be afraid to change the program after you’ve reviewed it carefully and need arises. It-like each of us-is an evolving work of art.

Performance management plans deliver many benefits. One of the most important of these is that every employee receives meaningful input about his or her progress and development in the areas most critical for job success. And the church benefits too since the program forces all employees to focus on behaviors that bring about desired results. Even the congregation benefits from a more effective team of pastors and support staff, thus more effective ministries. Everybody wins with retention of good employees, especially if efforts are rewarded with compensation. And employees who are not meeting their competencies can be identified more easily and either receive greater assistance and training or be redirected to other work internally or externally.

Next month, Staff Management looks at ways you can motivate staff to excel. In this sense, the church-by its nature-needs methods that are different than the ones industry uses.

Ken Godevenos has over 26 years of experience in the Human Resources field and has served on and/or chaired several church boards. Godevenos is an independent Human Resources and Church Consultant, a trained National Church Development coach and a member of the National Advisory Council of The Leadership Center -- Willow Creek Association Canada. Reach him by phone at (416) 449-7282, by fax at (416) 449-2922 or by e-mail at kgod@accordconsulting.com. Visit the Accord Resolution Services Web site at www.accordconsulting.com. With permission, comments and questions submitted by readers may be included in future columns of Staff Management.