Lately, it seems that a lot of congregations are asking questions about leadership and governance. In many congregations giving is flat or has declined to the extent that they are feeling forced to make painful staff reductions. In many more churches the available pool of lay leaders (volunteers) has simply shrunk as more members have taken on additional work and family responsibilities. Regardless of the drivers, many congregations are looking for new, more efficient structures that better utilize the available staff and lay leadership resources available to them. One of the key questions embedded in this issue is, "What is the most effective ratio of leaders to congregation members?" The question of "How many staff members should the congregation have?" is more easily answered, since for most congregations there are clear limits based on their financial resources. Much harder to answer is, "How many lay leaders does a congregation need to be effective in living out its mission and ministry?"

Over the years, I have encountered a variety of answers to the leadership ratio question. Several years ago I consulted with a small congregation that averaged about 25 people in attendance at Sunday worship. They were struggling with a lack of growth and with retaining members. In order to learn more about the situation, I asked for a list of all their leadership structures and positions. As I read through it I was unsure whether to laugh or to cry. This tiny congregation of 25 people had approximately 65 leadership positions. These included everything from Sunday school teachers to deacons to committee members and trustees. This calculates to 2.6 leaders per active member! Even excluding leadership roles like Sunday school teachers, worship leaders or children's workers, the leadership ratio would still likely feel out of balance to most people. I suddenly understood one of the reasons why the congregation wasn't growing. I suspect a lot of people aren't eager to join a congregation where you immediately are asked to take on one or two (or three!) leadership roles. It also helped to explain why they were losing members. Carrying all these leadership responsibilities quickly burned out their lay leaders.

While most congregations probably do not have this degree of imbalance in their leadership ratio, most probably do have a leadership ratio that is untenable. I commonly encounter congregations that are considerably smaller than they were when they last determined their leadership structures and roles. Even though the active congregation has shrunk, their leadership structures have not. It might make sense for a Baptist church to have 50 deacons if the active membership is 1,000. However, when average church attendance has dropped to 350 having 50 deacons is not only unnecessary, but a burden both in finding people to serve and in trying to conduct ministry efficiently.

Looking back, it almost seems as if congregations viewed the creation of lay leadership roles as a way to keep people busy or more engaged in congregational life. Fast forwarding to the present, the unintended consequence of this is that the limited amount of time and energy most lay people have for doing mission and ministry outside the church has been siphoned off. In other words, our ability to be missional outside the walls of the church is being hampered by governance structures that tie up much of our available human resources inside the church.

A recent study of megachurches may provide some insight for smaller churches as well for determining a more viable leadership ratio. Thumma, Travis and Bird (2005) found that megachurches (weekly attendance over 2,000), on average have a ratio of ten attendees to one staff or volunteer leader. For a smaller church with an average attendance of 350, that would mean 35 (combined) staff and lay leaders. No doubt some additional leadership roles might be needed in most churches particularly when it comes to teaching responsibilities or leading worship. Using the 10:1 ratio as a beginning point of reference might be a helpful starting point for rethinking this governance issue.

To remain viable and effective, congregations need to practice flexibility. This is true not just for programs and ministries, but for governance and leadership structures as well. The challenge has been and always will be one of stewardship. More than ever, congregations need to be wise stewards of the resources God has placed in their midst—especially the human ones.

Reference

Thumma, S., Travis, D., & Bird, W. (2005). Megachurches today 2005: Summary of research findings. Retrieved from: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/megachurches.html