Small Group Pastor, Division or Zone / Sectional Leaders, Coaches, Small Group Leaders, Apprentices, and Hosts—does this hierarchy of servant leadership sound familiar to you? The application of corporate-like pyramidal organizational models to developing small group ministries in the Church is pervasive. In theory, this is done to create a skeletal structure that will support a growing body of small groups that will help the church grow exponentially. Scriptural support for this approach is tied to Exodus 18.
In Exodus 18:17-23, we see Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, intervening and offering wisdom to help Moses administrate his judiciary responsibilities by setting up a leadership infrastructure that grouped people into manageable units so everyone's needs would be cared for. Some small group experts refer to this as the 'Jethro principle'. One of the goals of applying the 'Jethro principle' to the church today is to raise up other 'pastors' within the body so the senior pastor can concentrate on the most important affairs of the church.
This all sounds good and makes sense. The only problem is it does not seem to work for most churches. First of all, it is important to understand that when we employ the 'Jethro principle' in developing a small group ministry, it is an application of scripture. One among many that can be made to help us organize and lead people. In the case of launching a church-wide small group ministry, I think Jethro's advice is too corporate, too much, or too soon for most churches.
For example, looking at Moses' situation, you will see that he was attempting to mediate disputes for a population totaling well over 2 million people (Ex. 12:37b; Num. 1:44-46). Clearly, this is not the kind of situation pastors are dealing with. In fact, a little over 95% of churches in the United States number less than 200 people. Fewer than 90 adults gather together on a typical weekend with the average church in America. That's our reality.
I have found the 'Jethro principle' tends to work better in large churches wanting to implement a small group ministry. Particularly mega churches where divisional leaders (and even coaches) can be hired onto church staff, effectively adding paid small group pastors.
In other words, Jethro's advice works better in the reverse order of how church leaders are being advised to apply it today, which reflects the situation Jethro was speaking to with Moses more closely. This wisdom appears to help large organizations work better, but it does not necessary help small organizations grow larger or work more efficiently. When applying Jethro's advice to smaller churches, tiers of leadership "above" small group leaders tend to get frustrated because it seems not everyone has bought into the system and / or they fade for lack of purpose.
Globalization is impacting the marketplace and the Church in many ways and there is a shift taking place in the business world today that I think the Church can learn from. They are moving toward structures that are more collegial versus pyramidal. Pyramidal organizational models have a corporate nature about them and emphasis (either unintentionally or deliberately) is placed on accountability within the organization. This does not fit very well with the relationally-driven communal nature of the Church.
More and more businesses today are composed of teams versus individuals (molecular vs. cellular) and the organizational model increasingly favored by leaders is one that is more collegial. Pyramidal organizations are authority-based and designed to maintain control by demanding accountability to policies and procedures from subordinates. They are hierarchical in nature with directives flowing from the top-down or center-out.
Collegial organizations are team-based and designed to encourage shared and equal participation of all its members. Authority is shared more along with the responsibilities. It is less rigid and more fluid. Collegial organizations are relational in nature where information is free-flowing and skills are applied to the task at hand in a synergistic fashion.
Jethro's advice was right for Moses in his situation, but it is questionable if its application to small groups in the vast majority of American churches today is the best model to look to for guidance.
In the late nineties, new versions of small group coaching strategies arrived on the scene such as peer-coaching and coaching triads. These were and still are attempts at making a pyramidal model more collegial. Moreover, I believe they are also a response to small group leaders who really only want a "coach" when there is a problem at hand. Otherwise, they would just assume to continue doing what they are doing without having to go to another meeting each month, fill out a weekly / monthly report on how their group is doing, or have their coach visit their group to ensure everything is functioning in the way they have been advised.
In fact, trying to enforce the rigor of a pyramidal structure in a culture that is becoming increasingly collegial can be down-right frustrating!
I have worked with multiple teams of coaches in the past…top-notch leaders who had a horrible time with 'compliance' from their small group leaders. At the time, I thought the small group leaders needed time to get use to a 'new system' and in my more frustrated moments I believed the lot of them were in rebellion. Fortunately, after a few years it became apparent it was the strategy, not the leaders, that needed adjustment.
And now, be prepared, I am going to make a statement that may be a controversial one: The vast majority of small group leaders do not need a "coach"!
The truth is very few coaches really 'coach' in the way they are encouraged to in small group literature. Much of the time blame is placed on the busyness of contemporary lifestyles or small group leaders who are too independent for their own good. However, I think much of the problem has to do with applying a pyramidal organizational model (the 'Jethro principle') to something that most of the time does not require it.
Most small group leaders prefer to be left alone if things are working well. Truth be told: If I were a small group leader, I would rather not have to deal with additional responsibilities tied to the relationship with my coach if I really did not need to. I use to refer to this as "safety net coaching." That is, a small group leader likes to know their coach is there, but doesn't really like to 'use' them unless they absolutely must.
It was hard for me to accept this at first because I have a high value for 'interconnectivity' among leaders. (I still do, by the way, and have found other ways to nurture this that I will elaborate on later in this article.) One of the problems is I was trying to foster collegial style interdependency among leaders while burdening them with pyramidal style tasks. My leadership development strategy was running against the grain of the very structure I had built.
When small group leaders do not have a felt-need for coaching, any communication strategy you try to implement between coaches and small group leaders will likely be an up-hill battle for compliance.
I tried reports, meetings between coaches and small group leaders, regular leadership community / training events, group visitation, etc. I had very good explanations for doing all of these things. If any small group leader were to ask me "why," I could reel off at least three sound reasons. It did not matter. As much as I wanted them to value these things, they did not want it and, as painful as it is for me to admit this, many did not really need it.
I still do skill training and resource my leaders. I still encourage communication and recommend periodic meetings together. But now I find myself, and consequently those around me, doing much less, much more simply.
I remember introducing a 330-page small group leader's manual to a fresh crop of small group leaders eagerly waiting to be trained in 1997. I actually had to develop a glossary of terms so people could follow along with the training and abide by the procedures of our new system. Terms and concepts such as group birthing, apprentices, open chair, covenants, etc.—were all new to them, and to us as well.
I was proud, but they were shell-shocked. I am sure dust is still collecting on manuals that have somehow managed to survive long enough to still see daylight.
We did everything by the book. We crossed our "t's" and dotted our "i's", but it just did not work. It was not long before leaders were waving the white flag and declaring "meeting overload!" Something was not working. It is not that we did not have enough willing people to work with. We trained over 100 leaders for 10-weeks straight through the summer and brought in well-known small group consultants. Everyone was on board with the new system and we rolled out over 60 groups at a church of 1,700.
We began with a lot of energy, a lot of resources, regular training events, and an action plan that covered the next year. Six-months into it, we found ourselves having to do an overhaul on our very well-structured, but way too complex system. People began wondering what they had gotten themselves into…and so did we.
It seems like we made every mistake that could have been made that first year. The second year we found ourselves scaling back and simplifying. The third year, we found ourselves jettisoning our small group training materials, relearning small groups, and restructuring our leadership. It was far more than us "contextualizing the material to our church." Something was amiss and that was very discouraging for us all.
After the protracted pain of that three-year experience of development and demolition, along with many other steep learning curve seasons, two strategies have evolved that will help emerging small group ministries or coaching teams which may feel ineffective and even impotent:
- Utilize a combination of approaches for recruiting and training leaders so new groups can start strong and stay strong.
- Redefine the job description for coaches so their role as "coach" becomes tertiary to their responsibilities as a member of the 'coaching team'.
There are many ways a church can approach launching a church-wide small group ministry, but there are two that seem to be most popular: Pre-launch training (preparation of small group leaders and coaches prior to the formation and launch of groups) and the hosting strategy (spontaneous selection of the leadership base that introduces post-launch training).
My recommendation for churches wanting to launch a new church-wide small group ministry is a combination of both approaches. Engage in pre-launch training at the beginning and then 'branch' new groups off of your existing small group ministry utilizing the hosting strategy in creative ways. In other words, introduce a hosting strategy AFTER you have invested in the initial wave of small group leaders and coaches. Laying a proper foundation with your first group of leaders pays off in the long-run.
Providing training on the front-end has multiple benefits. It…
- Establishes the core leadership group (builds cohesion on the front end)
- Communicates the vision and values of your church (sows your DNA into a group of leaders who will become the core of your small group ministry after the first couple years)
- Produces small group leaders who tend to be more self-guided (not a bad thing!)
- Allows for more time to strategize for grouping people resulting in greater retention
- Conveys a high value for small groups to the church at large because of the church's investment of time, energy, and resources to make them successful
- Makes new small group leadership feel more secure because a support system (i.e. having a small group pastor / director, coaches, and resources) has been pre-planned and put in place
- Launches an initial wave of leaders who can mentor emerging leaders through "just-in-time training."
The second strategy of redefining the job description for coaches can be introduced to a new or existing small group ministry. Rationale for doing this is based on the observation that most small group leaders do not really want somebody 'coaching' them in their small group leadership. Therefore, I have shifted emphasis away from this. Instead, I refer to my coaching team as the "architects of community" at the church where I serve. I call them my 'think-tank' when it comes to strategizing how we are to respond to the ways the Holy Spirit is leading us to grow biblical community each quarter throughout the year.
I submit strategies and new concepts and they provide honest feedback (vice-versa). I invite them into conducting training and creating resources. Recently, because our small group ministry has grown large enough to be able to make this shift (and when a small group ministry does—I recommend considering this approach), we established affinity-based small group leadership teams. In other words, all the couples groups have the same coach, all the social groups have the same coach, etc.
Two benefits that come from this are: 1) A coach can focus on a particular area and bring resources and 'coaching' that can be more helpful to their specific area and 2) Small group leaders are likely to have more overlap in their experiences since they generally are leading the same "type" of group. Therefore, there can be increased mutual support and shared ideas among leaders who make up the same small group leadership team.
In fact, our coaches host gatherings where they bring their leaders together in a casual environment two to three times a year in order to exchange ideas and experiences with each other as well as get caught up on direction and opportunities. There are no problems getting leaders to attend these very rich and productive events. One of the assignments I have given to the coaching team this next year is for each to come up with a mid-level community-building event specific to the affinity group they coach.
Inviting the coaches into the brainstorming phase and strategizing (not just executing tasks) for the small group ministry and designing new ways of communicating, grouping people, hosting events, etc.—has been empowering for them. If I had strictly assigned them the role of coaching, did it by the book, and lavished them with encouragement—my coaching team would probably be half of what it is now. That goes for their impact on the small group ministry and its leadership. As it is, the coaching team is growing as our small group ministry continues to diversify and expand.
What this looks like for me practically is a monthly meeting with my coaching team (excluding July and December) right after our last Sunday morning service. The church provides lunch on the front end and I usually include the following elements in our two hour meeting time:
- How are YOU doing? (Keep it light and personal. Do this during lunch.)
- Schedule the next meeting together. (Don't leave this till the end.)
- How are the small group leaders under your care doing? (Allow them to be as general or specific as they would like.)
- What is working well with our small group ministry? What needs refinement? (Encourage the coaches to be the eyes and ears of your church's community life. Bring a word of encouragement from the senior pastor.)
- Plan a community-building event for the upcoming quarter. Strategize new ways of connecting people and how to launch new types of groups.
- Assign coaches to conduct web research on what is working with other like-minded churches. (Give them specific projects like developing helpful resources you can email out to your small group leadership community.)
- Pray together for the growth of biblical community in the church!
The key is to empower your coaches by inviting them into the process of developing the community life of the whole church. Encourage 'both-and' thinking: Church AND community; using small groups AND large group gatherings (weekend services, classes, events) to encourage connection and warm up the relational climate of your church.
In summary, the primary responsibility of the coaching team I work with is to strategically create and host friendship-building gatherings that will be effective in attracting non-church goers and mixing them with the church goers we are encouraging to 'connect'. The secondary responsibility is to work with the new groups we are branching off of our existing small group ministry; these are the leaders who have more of a felt-need for coaching. The third priority of the coach is to be a coach (i.e. an 'encouraging friend') to the small group leaders under their care.
(I keep the title "coach" for the sake of small group leaders, especially new ones who come in through the hosting strategy.)
It is this third priority that is oftentimes presented as THE job description of the coach. I would agree if the demand is there and the coaches are fulfilling the purpose set out for them. If that is true…wonderful! But I suspect for most churches, the pastor or director overseeing the coaches wants meaningful ministry engagement for them and coaches are wanting for purpose. If that is your experience, consider introducing the first two primary responsibilities.
