(Many leaders feel a governing board is a necessary evil to be endured. David Allan Hubbard feels differently. He views the board as a primary field for ministry, a resource to be celebrated and creatively tapped.
At Fuller Theological Seminary, he recruited and developed a board of trustees frequently acknowledged as one of the finest in the world.
His insights, though developed in the fires of an educational institution, are applicable to pastors and church leaders. Many of the pressures and tensions are the same.
Hubbard was appointed president of Fuller Theological Seminary in 1963, when he was thirty-five years old, and served until his retirement in July 1993. Under his administration the seminary in Pasadena, California, grew from an average enrollment of 302 from 42 denominations and 12 countries to a current enrollment of 2,678 from 108 denominations and 68 countries. The faculty grew from 21 to 71, and the annual operating budget from $668,077 to $22,082,000.
In June 1993, days before Hubbard’s retirement, Douglas Rumford, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Fresno, California, sat down at Hubbard’s home in Santa Barbara for an interview with Hubbard and Samuel Reeves. Reeves has served on Fuller’s board of trustees since 1973 and as chairman of the board since 1989. He is president of Dunavant Enterprises, Inc., the largest cotton merchandising firm in the world.
DOES REPORTING TO A BOARD DISTRACT YOU FROM YOUR “REAL MINISTRY”?
David Hubbard: I’ve never been too frustrated by board structures. They come with the territory, and I believe in them deeply. The pastor enables the board to be a good board, and the board then enables the congregation to minister effectively.
Good organizations spread power. When the power is spread, the board sees itself at the bottom of the pyramid, not the top.
Rather than thinking the pastor is at the top with the board beneath, or the board at the top with the pastor beneath, we see the mission at the top of the pyramid with the rest of the organization next, supported by the board.
WHAT’S THE PURPOSE OF A BOARD?
Hubbard: For one thing, they’re required by law for organizations. If a corporation owns property or pays employees, a board is responsible for the adherence to the rules and regulations of each state.
Beyond that accountability, the board represents the organization to the community, giving it credibility and a sense of integrity. A board brings support, vision, and something many people don’t think about–continuity. Leaders change at some point, and the board is responsible for succession.
The board is the group committed to the continuity of the organization’s ministry.
WHY HAVE YOU INVESTED SO MUCH IN YOUR BOARD?
Hubbard: Showing honor and deference to the board is one way we enhance the dignity of an institution. An institution that does not treat board members well is like a family that doesn’t honor its parents. To the extent that board members are manipulated or finessed, to the extent a leader makes end runs around them or doesn’t take their will and wishes seriously, to that extent the dignity of the institution is compromised. Board members lose motivation, and the staff’s accountability to the trustees gets compromised.
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LEADER AND THE BOARD?
Hubbard: Members of the board must be able to say no to the leader. The leader must respect their authority enough that if the board says no, he or she will make one of two choices: resign or say yes to the ,board’s will. You cannot have a board whose authority you defy.
HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT SELECTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE?
Hubbard: Look for people who already believe in your organization. Never use the board as a way of getting people’s interest. I’ve tried that before, and it just doesn’t work. It backfires because it doesn’t have integrity. You look for loyalty, for someone who has already started to give, for somebody who is already on the way.
Second, you want to know how a person uses power. People who want the board position because it will give them power differ from people who want the board position because it gives them the opportunity to serve and grow. So you try to find out how someone behaves when they “lose.” Everybody on the board loses at some time or another. At that stage, if they pick up their marbles and leave, they aren’t good board members. Knowing how to lose gracefully and maintain their loyalty when their peers have out-voted them is an essential element of their Christian maturity.
HOW DO YOU DISCOVER THESE THINGS ABOUT A PERSON BEFORE THEY’RE IN THE FIRES OF BOARD CONFLICT?
Hubbard: By being in their homes, talking to them, talking to people who know them. By visiting their place of business, seeing how they treat the staff. By seeing whether they are process persons or Lone Rangers.
Lone Rangers may be wonderful contributors to an organization, but they don’t always make good board members. They are accustomed to making suggestions that others implement. People who have worked more in corporate or educational life are used to negotiating. Surgeons don’t negotiate much! (Laughter) Although many medical people have made fine board members.
But persons who work where they largely have full authority need to be checked out to make sure they know when they lead and when they don’t lead. That requires knowing them well.
HOW WOULD YOU COUNSEL A NOMINATING COMMITTEE THAT’S BEING PRESSURED TO NOMINATE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN IN THE CHURCH TWENTY YEARS BUT DOESN’T MEET THESE STANDARDS?
Hubbard: The question is, will he or she be a good elder? If the answer is no, then it’s incumbent upon the staff and the lay leadership to find other roles for those people that honor their seniority.
Many of those who would not make good board members would make good consultants. Staff members can have breakfast with Charlie Jones, saying, “This is what we’re thinking. You have been here a long time; you have a sense for the history of the church. What would be your counsel? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals What should we watch out for?” You can use those people without putting them in the situation where they have to negotiate, compromise, and fit in with a group.
A board has to see itself as a team. It doesn’t have to agree on everything, but it has to trust the decision-making process.
WHAT PRIMARY ROLES DO YOU SEE BOARD MEMBERS SERVING?
Hubbard: Good trusteeship carries a lot more with it than just being at the meetings.
First, when they vote, board members are governors. The right group makes basic decisions in a proper manner. Decisions are not ad-libbed or adhocked. This keeps the process tidy, orderly-and legal!
Second, board members are consultants. Each board member will have areas of expertise and special experience. The consulting role will often be exercised outside the board meeting.
Because of his profession and aptitude, Sam Reeves is the most important financial consultant we have at Fuller. But he doesn’t talk a lot about that at board meetings. Occasionally he will give a rundown on what he thinks is going on in the economy, but he helps us most over the phone with the key financial players. The same is true with our board members who are lawyers, developers, business managers, professional educators.
The third role is ambassador, which means representing us. Board members represent us with a constituency, with a particular group that they are close to. They help interpret what the institution is doing. They defend it when it is under pressure. They bring feedback on how it is perceived.
The fourth role is sponsor. They give of themselves and encourage others to give. We say to those we recruit, “We expect you to give proportionate to your means and to assign a high priority to our institution.”
To get a board to work well is labor intensive. You could put all this in a job description, but it may never get off the page unless the leader takes the initiative. Most trustees of churches are busy and hesitant to impose themselves. But they are waiting to be asked.
WHY DO SOME BOARD MEMBERS LOSE INTEREST IN THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES?
Hubbard: Good people don’t want to be part of an organization where they are not asked to contribute or their contribution is not recognized. Volunteers need to be drawn into the center of the organization. Every organization needs a strong center, but people will only be drawn into the center if the demand is made and if they are supported in the fulfillment of that demand. They will serve wonderfully if they are challenged and helped.
Henrietta Mears said, “Never let a volunteer fail.”
SAM, HOW HAVE YOU SEEN DAVID HONOR THE TRUSTEES?
Sam Reeves: First, he is well-prepared and helps us be prepared. David and I talk about the agenda in advance, and then there will be a first draft working paper.
Second, he honors us by making the meetings stimulating. It’s important to provide stimulation over and above the business so the people who attend are built up. I get letter after letter from board members who feel this is true of our board meetings. The staff, the president, and the administration value the time of the people.
HOW DO YOU MAKE BOARD MEETINGS STIMULATING?
Reeves: As a chair person, I want several things to happen at every meeting. First, there should be accomplishment. We need to serve the ministry by making effective decisions and getting business done in a timely fashion.
Second, we affirm and recognize each person. I want every person at every board meeting to share something with us.
Third, we emphasize joyful fellowship, and we consistently point to Christ.
Hubbard: We want to make a board meeting an event. Sam wants us to experience community as we share ourselves and taste the joy of life together.
The payoff for board members comes at a couple of places. One is that they grow personally. This happens, among other ways, by bringing in experts who talk about something that will help board members grow.
The other payoff is joy. We want each member to say that it has been good to be with these people. We can have that joy even when dealing with tough situations because Christ is present. A spirit of love, honesty, and integrity while handling issues can feed joy even when the news itself is not as bright as we would like it to be.
WHAT IS THE MISSING INGREDIENT IN MOST CHURCH BOARD MEETINGS?
Hubbard: Planning is often lacking. A board meeting has to be structured to enable people to contribute. Getting the board members’ contribution is the most important single goal.
Find issues to which they can contribute, wrestling with problems, possibilities, and ideas. Do some “blue sky” thinking so board members feel they have done more than come, listen, and vote. When the meeting ends, people need to know the ministry is different because they made the effort to be there.
Planning starts with the pastor and the chair of the board (or whoever the appropriate lay leader is in that congregation) sitting down together and figuring out the three or four most important things to accomplish at that meeting. If they plan accordingly, the board meetings are not laundry lists of activities, nor are they times for reading report after report. Anything that can be mailed out and read in advance ought to be handled that way. Board members should not have to sit through a meeting having reports read to them.
Reeves: David emphasizes, “No surprises!” We don’t manipulate the results, but nothing is more frustrating than having people caught off guard and being pressured to make a decision before they’ve had a chance to process all the factors.
At a recent meeting, an issue arose that should not yet have gotten to the board but since our board has become more sensitive and aware of process, the person who probably was the most affirmative of the motion immediately moved to table it. That got me, the chairman, off the hook. It also relieved those having trouble with it. That person’s understanding and action enabled us to get the issue back into the process.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BOARD MEMBERS DON’T HOLD TO THEIR ISSUES WITH WHITE KNUCKLES. IS THAT ALWAYS THE CASE?
Hubbard: With the issue just mentioned, one board member voted no on the action to table because he wanted to register his concern for the urgency of the issue. In such cases I try to make immediate contact with that person after the meeting. If somebody has been wounded by a board decision, it is important to get to them as soon as possible to see how they’re doing. Don’t avoid them. I often go and hug that person after the meeting or at the next break.
HOW DO YOU KEEP MEETINGS ON TRACK?
Hubbard: Use a timed agenda. The standard criticism of church meetings is that they’re too long. They are too long because nobody weighs the relative value of the various issues and suggests the amount of time each item is worth. Otherwise Parkinson’s Law takes over: the amount of discussion becomes inversely proportionate to the importance of the issue. We take an hour on the color of the wastebasket and just ten minutes on something crucial for the ministry of the church.
Reeves: A timed agenda can also prevent a few individuals from dominating the discussions.
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE CHAIR PERSON OR MODERATOR?
Hubbard: The chair keeps the meeting focused. Time is wasted when the focus gets blurry. If that happens, the chair needs to say, “Let’s focus on this issue. Here’s what’s before us as I see it.”
Another responsibility of the chair person is to test the support of an idea. If people can register their support, then you can promptly end the discussion and move on to the next component.
But the chair has to read the climate and be sure all sides are heard from. The chair needs to watch body language. The chair may say, “It looks to me like most of you are with this proposal, but I’m not sure what I am reading from you (to particular member). Do you want to share with the group what you are feeling?”
Good chairing makes time productive and still gives people a chance to express their convictions.
HOW DO YOU MINIMIZE CONFLICT?
Reeves: Allow enough time. When people feel rushed, they get anxious and don’t think or communicate as clearly.
Hubbard: Sometimes you need to take a break. Try to talk to people during the break to help them clarify the issues. Sometimes we will ask a person to write out their concerns so we can address them specifically.
But if it gets too hot, break off and give a little space. Often people will get together and work differences out by themselves. Or the person will cool down and apologize after the break. Just allowing a little space with good people usually bleeds the bad feelings off.
Years ago when we were choosing an architect, one trustee was a strong advocate for a world-class architect, but another trustee criticized this architect’s work. This made the one trustee so angry he left the meeting and walked around the block.
When he came back, he asked to speak to the board. He said he was learning that we have these tensions because we care so much. Rather than seeing the tensions as bad behavior, we can see them as the expression of personal investment. To care too much and to lose a little control over your tongue may be healthier than having people who could care less about how things go.
WHEN HAVE YOU BEEN FRUSTRATED BY HAVING TO WORK THROUGH THE BOARD STRUCTURES?
Hubbard: Before the 1980 election, Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority were getting a lot of attention from the press. I told the executive committee that I wanted to distinguish between where I was and where we were as a seminary in relation to the emphases that Dr. Falwell was putting forth.
Some board members felt more closely drawn to the Moral Majority approach than I did. Frankly, they thought I was in left field, and I felt they didn’t fully understand the situation. I was pained over that and somewhat depressed for a while because I had thought we were closer in our viewpoints. Yet it was probably my fault. I had not done as good a job mentoring the trustees as I thought.
I had been surprised, hurt, and angry, but out of that tension, I decided to act constructively and began to write the drafts of what became our Mission Beyond the Mission Statement. We spent almost three years discussing what Fuller cared about beyond the training of evangelical leadership in our three main areas (theology, psychology, and missions)
We were able to build consensus around that document. It has helped us know what our margins are, what range of opinions we can tolerate. Along with our mission statement and statement of faith, it has given us another screening device to test whether faculty members and trustees will fit.
HOW DID YOU INVOLVE OTHERS IN THE PROCESS OF DRAFTING THAT STATEMENT?
Hubbard: I drafted it first, but the statement went through ten drafts before it was published. What I do in such situations is include every idea that possibly can be included from board members, staff, and faculty members.
We as leaders don’t want to narrow the work of an institution to the shape and size of our vision. It is our task to be vision-sparkers, vision-gatherers, vision-organizers, vision-sorters. Every congregation, every board, if it’s any good at all, has more vision than can possibly be put to work. The leader’s responsibility is to bring out the best of that vision The vision is a corporate activity. In theological terms, the vision is an exercise in the communal life of the Body of Christ and the shared practice of the gifts of the Spirit.
HOW DO YOU COACH PEOPLE TO VIEW THE BOARD AS A MINISTRY RATHER THAN AN OBLIGATION?
Hubbard: Start by improving the spiritual and intellectual relationship among board members. If I were moving into a pastorate, I would make Bible study, personal sharing, and prayer times with the board a high priority. I would seek times when they could be weak, honest, and vulnerable with each other. I would try to model that.
You might have to start with three or four people within the group who are more open to that. Begin a weekly breakfast with that group to lay out your vision. Help them see the board, not as the way the church does its business, but as the model of the church in prayer, study, and service.
HAS THERE BEEN A TIME YOUR BOARD WAS UNABLE TO REACH CONSENSUS?
Hubbard: We’ve usually just waited a bit and then worked it out. I don’t think any major issue has ever been left hanging, but we did have difficulty resolving the inclusive-language issue.
A dozen people felt strongly about it and were articulate. At any given point we could have gotten the vote, but Sam and I have always felt there are some things more important than getting the vote. At some point you have to vote and get on with it, but you don’t want the vote to tear the place up.
This issue threatened to tear us up. We had many public discussions, and I had whole days of private discussion with some people. They weren’t just being mean or obstreperous or causing trouble; they were bleeding over it. On one occasion, Sam bought an airline ticket and spent hours with one trustee who was in terrible personal pain over this issue. Sam let him know he was loved and valued, and heard him out. This trustee’s view of God was at stake. He was waging a spiritual battle.
Reeves: That issue was on the front burner for at least two years. Eventually we did have to bring closure to it by taking a vote.
Hubbard: We had about four negative votes out of thirty people. But it cleared the air. Nobody has brought it up again; nobody has harked back to it as a time when we made a great mistake.
WHEN WE ARRIVED TODAY, YOUR WIFE SAID, “IT’S THE LITTLE THINGS ABOUT DAVID THAT HAVE HELPED HIM WORK SUCCESSFULLY WITH THE BOARD.” WHAT LITTLE THINGS HAVE MADE BIG THINGS POSSIBLE?
Hubbard: I try to know the board members well, to know about their families and businesses. I need to know them, their pain, what’s going on in their churches. I try to be there at their times of special need. And I need them to know where I am, what I’m struggling with, what I need to do. The little things come out of seeking to know each other well.
HOW CAN A PASTOR JUSTIFY SPENDING SO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY WITH A LIMITED GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH?
Hubbard: You pastor the board with an intensity you can’t possibly give even a tenth of the congregation. But that builds into the congregation a nurturing pattern that spreads and catches almost everybody.
If developing and nurturing leadership is important, then the important thing is not just that the board gets its work done. Pastors have an opportunity for personal influence on the members of that board unlike they may have on any other group in the church. What better place for nurturing leadership gifts? Pastors can push people forward, encouraging them to do what they didn’t think they could, enabling people to take steps toward maturity in Christ. They then are equipped so others will follow them in the steps of our Lord.
SO YOU CONSIDER RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE BOARD AS IMPORTANT AS THEIR VOTES.
Hubbard: I haven’t maintained as good a balance as I’d like. Most leaders are more agenda-driven than relationship-driven. If you win the issues but lose the people, you lose. If you succeed in getting buildings built or programs set up or money raised, but you leave a lot of wounded in the field, that’s not good. You have to keep moving toward the target, but you only reach that target if people believe in it and help you reach it. Everything we do that amounts to anything is done through and for people.
Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./LEADERSHIP Journal
lewin94mrw4L10905818
Copyright © 1994 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
