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!)