Competencies & Performance

"The best predictor of future performance is past performance."

The above was our mantra for the Performance-Based Interviewing project at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Jobs at VA were described in terms of duties and responsibilities, the competencies required to perform the duties and exercise the responsibilities were identified, and interview questions were developed to assess whether candidates possessed the required competencies.

In Hire With Your Head: Using Performance-Based Hiring to Build Great Teams, Lou Adler suggests a more direct approach: figure out what you want done and ask the candidates to describe or demonstrate the capacity to do it.

In one way, this is a very old idea. When I entered the workforce as a typist, I took a typing test. (AKA keyboarding for the post-typewriter generations. :-) )

The idea of performance testing gets much more complicated when dealing with duties and responsibilities that are more difficult to demonstrate in an interview. Adler gives the example of an interview for a position involving the development of marketing plans. The interviewer and interviewee outlined a plan during the interview. The interviewee was hired and used that outline to complete and implement the plan.

If we try to apply this concept to the MFC (Ministerial Fellowshipping Committee) interview, we can see that the first challenge is deciding what we want ministers to do. The tasks of healthcare chaplaincy, community organizing, and parish ministry overlap, but are far from identical.

The second challenge is evaluation. During an interview, you can demonstrate skill outlining a marketing plan or delivering a 10-minute sermon. Neither assures is that you will be successful at implementing a marketing plan or regularly leading worship that inspires a congregation/community.

That these challenges are daunting should not be discouraging. The reflection and dialogue required to address them will be strengthen and deepen our religion.

Academic, Formational, and/or Professional?

I've been researching ministerial formation and examining. The access and assistance offered by a great university library and its staff are hard to beat. (Yes, dear reader, I proudly confess to being a library nerd.)

Only a few journal articles speak directly to ministerial examining. One of the most intriguing is "Beyond Wish Lists for Pastoral Leadership: Assessing Clergy Behavior and Congressional Outcomes to Guide Seminary Curriculum" by John Dreibelbis and David Gortner (the latter is a professor here in Berkeley at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific) in Theological Education, Volume 40, Supplement (2005): 25-49.

Dreibelbis and Gortner are persuaded of the need for "competency-oriented models of [theological] education in which competencies are identified as actions rooted in knowledge, character, and skill contributing to positive outcomes in congregational contexts--the ultimate testing grounds (italics in original) of theological disciplines." They go on to note that the two educational models usually found in theological education are academic and formational. They believe that a professional model must be added if seminarians are to develop the knowledges, skills, and abilities they will need as ministers.

There is a wealth of information in this journal article. For today, I just wish to point out that the Episcopal priests who were surveyed for it generally reported the most confidence in their ability to perform sacramental and preaching job activities and the least confidence in community outreach, lay leadership development, and organizational leadership job activities.

Looking at the 10 knowledge-based versus the 5 performance-based Competencies for UU Ministry affirm a mismatch in ministerial formation. Many a candidate for UU ministry has spent hours memorizing information that they may never use again while slighting important skill development. Those who participated in the Excellence in Ministry conference and members of the MFC recognize that the time has come for a review of the examining and formational processes.

What do you think?

Step 2, Part 2: Further Research

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"
US poet (1819 - 1892)

OK, OK, I'm not going to claim I contain multitudes. However, I am learning that writing a blog means at the least that I sometimes repeat myself (and probably sometimes contradict myself as well).

One of the challenges in the next step of the research is distinguishing the basic competencies expected of all UU ministers and the competencies (or the levels of attainment of competencies) for different types of ministry. (Currently, the three broad categories are parish, religious education, and community. Each of these categories could have subcategories, such as medical chaplaincies, prison chaplaincies, adult education.) For example, chaplains may rarely preach and may not have or need the expertise in this competency parish ministers develop. Conversely, some parish ministers may rarely provide counseling and may not have nor need the expertise that chaplains develop.

There is merit in having the assessment for preliminary fellowship be for ministry in general. It allows the newly fellowshipped to explore different opportunities in ministry without seeking the MFC's approval for every change. Conversely, it allows the MFC to set foundational qualification for all UU ministry.

Yet, examining need not be an either/or proposition. The MFC could continue to examine candidates for ministry in general while directing or weighting some of the questions to be more specific ministry or ministries for which the candidate is preparing. I suspect that it may already be doing so.

While I have been focusing on competencies and interviewing in this blog, a thorough soup-to-nuts review would include the entire process of ministerial formation and development. The magnitude of this task is another argument for the development of a research team. Maybe the team members will be the multitudes to which Whitman was referring.

Step 2: Conducting Research for the MFC, Part I

My many years in planning have taught me that my crystal ball is often cloudy. When it comes to research, it can even be stormy. Research will go where it will. What follows is intended to be neither comprehensive nor definitive.

"Research" is too large a topic to be covered in a single post. So this is Part I.

The best place to start is assembling the research team. It should include individuals with expertise in examining, ministers successful in different types of ministry, and interested stakeholders.

The team would start by collecting information from the MFC and others about the history of the MFC and its current practices. It would then conduct a literature search and look for "best practices" in examining in other denominations/religions and in related occupations. Focus groups also are likely to be helpful.

One of the challenges facing the research team will be obtaining consensus about just what is expected of UU ministers. For example, for years there has been much discussion about UU growth (or the lack thereof). People have argued about whether this means growth in numbers of congregants, social justice, spiritual depth, or some other parameter. How important is "growth" and what is meant by it?

To put this search for consensus and clarity in the broadest perspective, what do the UUA and its member congregations hope to accomplish in the foreseeable future and how will they examine for ministry so as to support those objectives? This links examining to workforce planning and workforce planning to strategic planning.

Beginning Again at the Beginning: A Research Team

This morning someone pointed out to me that it's hard to find my recommendations for the MFC on this blog. That observation is accurate. I have been dancing around the subject, collecting my thoughts, while I sought a better understanding of where the MFC was in its process. I will use the label "Recommendations for the MFC" to make it easier to locate posts on this subject.

Now I am ready to make more specific and systematic recommendations. Once I get them all together, I will submit them to the MFC. In the meantime, I would love your feedback.

Each year when the MFC visits Berkeley, it has an informal get-together on Holy Hill. At this year's gathering, it was quite evident how hard the volunteers who make up the MFC work reviewing tons of paperwork and attending meetings. Redesigning an examining process is a major undertaking. Any recommendations for the MFC should account for these facts.

My first recommendation is that the MFC charter a research team. Ideally this team should include as a consultant or a member a psychometrician (a psychologist who specializes in tests and measurements). It should also include UU and non-UU ministers and laity. A process like this always benefits from a multiplicity of perspectives.

The first task of the team would be to review the existing competencies and to collect information about ministerial competencies. Excellent sources for such information are ministers who are well respected by their colleagues and by those whom they serve.