In the last post, I began to tell you about how the LST Board initially organized itself for transitioning from the Founding Executive Directors (Sherrylee and me) to a new Executive Director. You will remember that the board organized itself into two work groups: a Search Group to identify the new Director and a Transition Group to negotiate the Woodwards continued relationship to the ministry after our transition. (We avoided the word retirement from the beginning because we knew we did not want to walk away completely from LST, nor could we really afford to.)
The Search Committee began almost immediately to work through a list of potential candidates, contacting them, asking them if they would consider the position. Most of the candidates were happy where they were or the timing was not right. They were honored to be considered, but practically, could not pursue the position any further. About six months into the search process, the committee was very close to making a final recommendation to the board with a potential transition as close as 6-8 weeks later.
The Transition Committee, on the other hand, for a variety of good reasons had not yet met! Nor did they have yet all the information they needed from Sherrylee and me in order to fulfill their mandate. One thing had become clear to the Transition committee, however, and that was that the Woodwards needed to continue drawing their salary for at least another year and maybe longer in order to make their long-term financial planning work.
When the Transition committee and the Search committee talked to each other, they discovered that their timetables did not come close to matching up. The Search committee was ready to move to transition, but that was impossible with the needs that the Transition committee was presenting. Some members of the Search committee felt like their work was at risk of being voided and discarded; some members of the Transition committee felt unfairly judged for doing what they were supposed to do.
For the first time in the long history of LST, there was potential tension between board members. To make matters worse, one of the four “objective” board members resigned at this critical moment for non-related issues.
In an attempt to clear the air, the whole board convened a special session. With prayer, great transparency, and a generous spirit of cooperation, all the issues were laid out. Ultimately the board decided at this meeting to make all the necessary decisions involving dates and compensation that affected the Woodwards, feeling like with those set in concrete, the search for their replacement could continue on firmer footing. One board member strongly opposed this solution, abstaining from the final vote, which was otherwise unanimous. Predictably, this board member resigned immediately following this meeting, feeling out of step with the other board members.
Now the LST Board consisted of five members, only two of which were not directly involved in the transition process—clearly an untenable situation for the Board. In our next regular meeting—approximately one month after the special meeting—the Board decided to call a “time-out” and to search for new board members. Six very strong candidates were identified, all people who had been involved with LST and loved the ministry.
Surprisingly, all six of these candidates accepted nomination to the Board of Directors and were installed at the next meeting. Now we were eleven—with lots of fresh eyes to look at the transition process that one could describe best as frustratingly stalled.
Bringing in great new board members may be the best decision the LST board has ever made! One item dominated the agenda at their first meeting and that was the transition. The history of the current stalemate was rolled out, their questions answered, and nothing held back.
At the end of the day, the new board decided to stop the process—completely—so that the old board members could take a breather from the load they had been carrying, but also allowing the new board time to initiate a newer and better process. Six months later, the search began again–new committees, new eyes, new timetable–and here we are, less than a year later, with an Executive Director-elect, stepping into his new role as the unanimous choice of the board of directors, on July 1.
Two people are better off than one, for they can help each other succeed. If one person falls, the other can reach out and help. But someone who falls alone is in real trouble. Ecclesiastes 4:9 (NLT)
Almost three years ago, Sherrylee and I gave the LST board of directors our two-year notice as we had agreed to do many years ago. The LST Board of Directors wisely had been discussing the eventual transition from the Founders (Sherrylee and me) to a Successor probably for at least five years before we gave notice. In fact, the “Succession Plan” as it was always called in those earlier board meetings is what eventually drove us to the first Strategic Plan in 2013. Afterwards, Sherrylee and I knew what we were supposed to do to start the transition process.
Many Founders can be found in the Bible. Maybe not the 501(c)(3) variety, but Founders they were, so there must be something to learn from them about Founders.
Just to show how difficult it is to transition from Founders to Successors, let’s be very honest and answer the questions that I said every Founder was thinking when the question of succession is raised:
Founders, charter members, church planters, entrepreneurs—all of these terms probably describe the same kinds of people—and all of them create unique and real challenges when it comes time for the BIG TRANSITION.
Mark's Blog 