Let's hope this article is never needed; that yours is the center that never has to deal with a staffing conflict. Unfortunately however, even in Christian ministry there can be challenges in this area.

Here's a hypothetical situation: Jane is the Client Services Director at the AAA Pregnancy Help Center and she is frustrated with Shirley, the Executive Director. Shirley gave Jane the role of scheduling volunteers, and Jane doesn't like it.

Jane talks to Shirley, but Shirley is clear: This duty falls under the "other responsibilities as designated by the Executive Director" clause, and while Shirley listens, her decision is final.

Jane takes a next step, calling Bob the board member, who goes to her church. "It's just totally unfair," she tells Bob. "I don't have the time to do this." Bob offers to talk to Shirley and work to find a solution.

Bob, like most of us, wants to help. At the next board meeting he relays the conversation to Shirley in front of the board, offering to pitch in and assist in finding a solution. Bob is surprised when Shirley seems cool to the prospect of his help.

This happens — more than we might expect. Unknowingly, Bob has undermined Shirley's authority as the ministry's one key employee. By offering to "pitch in," he is — in effect — second-guessing Shirley's executive decision. Instead, his best move would be three-fold:

1. Let Jane know that the board has entrusted Shirley with these decisions; that the board's role is to give the Executive Director a set of goals and objectives and that how to carry out those objectives is primarily up to her. In short, it is not the board's role to determine every task of each staff member.
2. Communicate to Jane that she needs to tell Shirley of her conversation with Bob. If Jane says she will do so, Bob should later follow-up briefly with both Jane and Shirley to make sure all are on the same page. If Jane is reticent to share the conversation, Bob should tell Jane he will talk to Shirley. Again, this is only to make sure all is in the open, not to give counsel. Bob should also work with Shirley to share this situation with the entire board. If Jane later confronts another board member then, there are no surprises.
3. Bob and the board — as a whole — can communicate with Shirley, letting her know of its confidence in her and her decisions; reiterating that she has the authority to deal with the situation as she sees fit.

These three steps place the conflict back in the office of the executive director and keeps a board member — or the entire board — from micromanaging. In addition, it supports the concept that the board speaks as one — so that individual board members are not burdened with conflicts among staff. Finally, Bob's three-fold decision supports the ministry's key employee and conveys confidence.

If this is not resolved, Jane may resign (or Shirley may fire her). On the flip side, perhaps the board may later find Shirley to be a poor personnel manager. Regardless of the result however, a board that understands its role — and that of the executive director — finds smoother sailing for the ministry, even in times of turbulence.