synagogue leadership

[cellio]

This article on synagogue leadership is nominally aimed at synagogue presidents, but I find it has a lot of good advice for leaders in general -- and a fair bit of it applies to other volunteer-run organizations too. Thanks to cahwyguy for the pointer.

A few ramblings inspired by the article...

I recently ended a three-year term on my synagogue's board of trustees. There were certainly some stressful moments, and a couple times I thought of quitting because my way of doing things seemed to clash too much with theirs, but I decided I could do more good by sticking it out and, overall, it turned out to be a positive experience. I'm not at all interested in the executive track that ends at synagogue president, and I'm not going back to the board any time soon, but there are other ways to contribute. (In particular, I'm still a committee chair, and I have the sh'liach k'hilah program ahead of me.) Overall I'd say we're pretty functional, ahead of the curve.

(Aside: that board seat is directly responsible for my ~bi-weekly study sessions with my rabbi. For that alone it would have been worth it!)

One of the points that Rabbi Thal brings out, and I definitely saw this, is the question of when to let things die (so that other things can grow in their place). Few things have more ego-stake than pet projects and special-interest groups. The topic of a recent brotherhood discussion was something like "men: an endangered species" -- but what they really meant was men participating in brotherhoods. I wonder if they considered the possibility that men (and women!) no longer need gender-segregated organizations in order to be at all involved in their synagogues? I for one cannot see myself ever being part of the sisterhood; I define my participation by what I do, not who I am.

I'm glad that in the area of worship we are adapting and experimenting -- everything from new music to new opportunities for lay leadership in the informal minyan to adding mome special-interest events that seem to be going well (e.g. a monthly service aimed at families with small kids). Often change comes very slowly, but that's good -- because while you don't want to stagnate, you also don't want to be changing things out from under people. Gradual is best.

It can be challenging for larger congregations to remain cohesive. It's easy when everyone knows everyone else, but we don't have that. Even if everyone did come most weeks, rather than just on the high holy days, it would be hard to get to know everyone. There's always a tension between encouraging and supporting the subset who show up and reaching out to the rest. It's a hard balance to strike.

Comments

[cahwyguy.livejournal.com]

At one congregation I was at, many years ago, we had the notion of couples clubs. I think such things may actually be better than sister/brotherhood. I, for one, have never found the brotherhood organizations that attractive (but then again, I'm not into golf or sports—now if there was a brotherhood that had open gaming nights!)

[cellio]

We have a 20s/30s group that just started a couple years ago and is going strong. (I stopped being ellibigle last fall and had to drop out.) They do everything from Shabbat dinners to Chanukah parties to Purim wine tastings to outings at skating rinks and the theatre. More of the participants seem to be couples than singles, but there are singles too. I wonder how that idea can be generalized to, say, include the 40s. :-)

I find the idea of gender-segregated activities peculiar in an egalitarian congregation, and I find the fact that activities and responsibilities divide along stereotypical lines to be somewhat offensive. The men hold barbeques and have guest speakers on stock-market investing and the like; the women arrange baby-sitting and serve the cookies and tea at the onegs. It's getting better -- the sisterhood has gotten some non-fluffy speakers in the last few years, for instance -- but it still seems an awful lot like June Cleaver 30 years later. And there aren't many young people (say, under 50) involved in sisterhood and brotherhood; I think there's a correlation. But I don't want to reform the sisterhood; I want to see it die so we can do something better.

[cahwyguy.livejournal.com]

I understand what you are saying about sisterhood. The small sisterhood at my current congregation (the small one) has, as its active contingent mostly seniors (55+). I've seen teas, small meetings, fashion shows, white elephant sales... never relevant speakers.

As for "Brotherhood": well, the incoming RP chair (yea!) just sent me his newsletter article, and in it he expressed interest in starting a Men's Club. I've never been interested in either. I have 0% interest in sports or other traditional "mens" activities (well, except girl watching :-), but usually there aren't Men's Club events to do that :-)). I haven't yet decided if I am going to get involved with the Brotherhood at the congregation we're likely to join.

I do like the havurah model, and I think that can be very effective. We were never able to get them going at the small congregation—probably because it was already a havurah! The nucleus of folks coming over to the likely new congregation may form one—I think they are essential in large congregations.

[In fact, IMHO, the answer for our current congregation is to reconstitute itself as a havurah in some larger congregation. They they wouldn't have the infrastructure worries, and could focus on the social aspect they all want.]

[cellio]

[In fact, IMHO, the answer for our current congregation is to reconstitute itself as a havurah in some larger congregation. They they wouldn't have the infrastructure worries, and could focus on the social aspect they all want.]

That sounds like a good approach to me (she says, not knowing the people or the politics). Failing that, at the very least a congregation as small as yours should try to cut down on the number of independent subgroups. If you've only got 50 or 60 families to begin with, having a sisterhood, a brotherhood, a young families group, a seniors group, a 20s/30s group, and so on, each with its own activities, is risky. You fragment the congregation while risking critical mass in each area -- bad combination!