4.2 The Shifting Nature of Authority
4.2.4 Resisting Traditional Authority
Even though the organizations in this study hardly qualify as traditional
organizations, they are still very much subject to the isomorphic pressures of their field.
As discussed in chapter one, it is precisely this pressure to institutionalize that the people in these organizations are resisting. There are two distinct strategies employed in the congregations I studied which help them to resist the concentration of authority that
surrounds official positions in traditional organizations. First, there is a conscious attempt made to eliminate feedback loops between leadership staff and the rest of the congregation. This lack of knowledge means that leadership staff are structurally prohibited from controlling activities. This strategy is particularly common in larger organizations. The second strategy involves keeping the organization as flat as possible.
Removing the structural barriers between the leadership staff and the congregants allows for personal relationships to act as an effective check on power concentration. This strategy is most effective in smaller organizations.
Eliminate Feedback Loops
A feedback loop is the process whereby organizational goals are continually reassessed in light of new information generated by organizational activities in order to maintain equilibrium and reduce complexity (Robinson 2007). These are normally used as mechanisms of control which ensure that knowledge is disseminated throughout an organization, particularly upward, as only the most senior officials typically have the power to both reassess organizational goals and surveil other employees. The most effective feedback loops are built into the official policies and procedures of the
organization. In the congregations I visited, however, there was often an explicit attempt made to eliminate these loops structurally. The fact that these loops are eliminated from the structure of the organization is important. If individuals were simply avoiding or ignoring established feedback loops then these actions would be individual acts of disobedience rather than coordinated efforts of organizational resistance.
The major complication in the structural elimination of feedback loops is that
many Emerging Churches are still run by their founding pastors. At some point, a conscious decision must be made by the pastor and the congregation to pursue an organizational structure which effectively disempowers the pastor in particular spheres.
The pastors that I spoke with endorsed such a structure on the grounds that the
congregation would be worse off if they had to be informed of all or even most of what was going on at any given time. The pastor at Crossroads was very explicit about linking institutional control with knowledge. When I asked him if he knew about most of the things that go on at Crossroads he laughed and said
No, I’m sure, in fact, that more goes on that I don’t know about than I do know about. I have no need or desire to know most things. Stuff just works better that way. The problem with traditional churches is that they kill innovation by controlling everything.
At first glance, this is not dissimilar from one would find in a large bureaucracy. Those at the top of an organizational hierarchy rarely know everything that is going on in an organization. The difference, however, is in access. Control in organizations is not always exercised directly. Often, the threat of surveillance is enough to ensure that only particular kinds of activities occur (Foucault 1977; McKinlay and Starkey 1998; Reed 1996, 1999). Feedback loops which are not exercised thus still retain a certain measure of power to control and “kill innovation.” In large, bureaucratic organizations, people in positions of power have structural access to feedback loops even if they are not being utilized. If someone should decide that he/she should be informed about activity in a particular area of the organization, the organizational resources exist to start such a process. In the congregations I visited, however, there was an attempt to eliminate the infrastructure necessary for a feedback loop to exist (e.g., chain of command, regular reporting schedule, standardized information format). This structure mitigates against
isomorphism by helping to ensure that individual decisions do not lead to the eventual adoption of standardized organizational practices.
The flow of information in the congregations in this study was almost always limited to specific projects. In other words, only those people involved with a particular undertaking would be in on the cycle of information. Exceptions were made for
decisions and activities which affected the entire congregation (e.g., moving from one building to another, hiring a new pastor). Thus, not informing leadership staff of a particular project or action is not viewed as an act of insubordination or resistance.
Typically, there is not even a standard channel or procedure for a group to inform the pastor or leadership staff of an activity. There is simply no committee or meeting which handles such items. This lack of structural mechanisms for keeping the pastor and leadership staff informed of all or at least most of the congregational activities stands in stark contrast to my respondents’ experiences at other churches.
Many of my respondents reported that in their previous, more traditional church experiences, the congregational activities were organized from the top down, developed by the leadership staff. The only way to exercise any control or authority within the organization was to work oneself onto a committee, and even then, the pastor often had the final say. Jessica explained that she really likes Calvary precisely because of the ability to be involved according to her desires and skills. Her previous church
experiences were similar to Calvary in this respect and she prefers the shifting authority structure.
Yeah, it’s really great because I mean…traditionally it is just this one guy like running the while thing or he’s got his committee or whatever. I’m not happy being a pew sitter. And you know it’s at so many large churches you have to earn your time. You have to go through all the special 101, 201, 301. All the classes. I
had been in the vineyard for 15 years and he was still trying to get me to go through all those again, and I was like I’ve been a Christian since I was four. I probably know more than you and could teach you under the table but you want me to take all these courses, and I just think that sucks.
There is, of course, always the significant issue of when and how church resources get dedicated to an event or program and I deal with these in more depth below. For now, however, it is important to recognize the importance of open participation for my
respondents. The idea that Jessica expressed of a church led primarily by one “guy” was common among my participants. Several reported that a pastor at one of their previous churches was viewed as the CEO of the congregation, a designation which was off- putting to my respondents. In the first church Tony attended after college “the pastor was really upfront about telling me and everyone else that he saw himself as the CEO of the church, and the moment those words came out of his mouth I couldn’t believe it.”
Accordingly, authority in these congregations increased as one moved up the
organizational ladder, producing a paternalistic relationship between the church staff and the congregation which many of my respondents viewed as unhealthy.
Structurally isolating leadership staff from the knowledge and production of many of the organized events and activities of the congregation effectively allows for more congregational freedom. Congregants feel as though they have the latitude to engage in and produce activities that are important to them. Jeremy illustrates precisely how important this freedom is for his continued attendance at Incarnate Word. “I really felt like more of a valued source [than at my old church]…It was amazing because it was like they really accepted every gift. So it was just really cool. Now I’ve been here for over five years.” During my time in the field I witnessed multiple events that were organized and run entirely by the congregants, often without the knowledge of the pastor or
leadership staff. These activities included everything from weekly meals to discuss the sermon message to movie marathons at the church building.
Flatten the Organizational Structure
The second strategy I observed was the implementation of a flat organizational structure. Flat organizations consist of relatively few levels between regular employees or members and leadership staff. One of the key characteristics of such an organizational structure, as opposed to a “tall” bureaucracy is that many more people have access to upper management. In the organizations I investigated, this characteristic, combined with the elimination of feedback loops discussed earlier, turns the position of the pastor into a resource available for the community rather than a CEO or manager. As I will show below, my respondents indicated that they felt they had direct access to the church leadership without the fear of surveillance that normally is associated with such a relationship.
Initially touted as a way to bring the benefits of small scale bureaucracies to large organizations, researchers have long noted the use of the flat organizational structure as a means of accomplishing a variety of tasks from improving organizational communication to increasing organizational flexibility and innovation to improving equality (Carzo Jr.
and Yanouzas 1969; Martin 1990; Travica 1998). Additionally, a flat organizational structure can be effectively employed as part of a system which checks the concentration of authority (Carzo Jr. and Yanouzas 1969; Worthy 1950). Giving a supervisor oversight over more than he/she can effectively manage can result in a structural decoupling of practical power from the manager. The impossibility of directly supervising everyone in
an organization means that individuals must make decisions on their own, with little oversight. The danger with such a situation, especially in large organizations, is that this structure leaves far too many openings for informal pockets of power concentration to form. However, my research indicates that it is possible for accountability to be achieved through personal relationships in religious organizations where there are minimal barriers between staff and congregants when a flat organizational structure is utilized along with other strategies to mitigate against the formation of unaccountable power cabals.
For their part, the congregants I interviewed recognized that this kind of
organizational structure is a foundational element of their community which makes their current church experience unique from their past experiences. The ability to talk directly with the pastor was very important to my participants for a couple of reasons. Jessica remarked that the hierarchical structure and resulting inaccessibility of the leadership staff was one of her main frustrations at the mainline churches she had attended prior to coming to Calvary.
You know it really goes hand in hand with a lot of problems that I had with the institutional church to be honest with you…Try to schedule time with the average Senior pastor of even a small church. Like this pastor in that small town Colorado church we went to where there were like 200 people who went to this church and you could not schedule time with him. Most pastors wouldn’t even give you a call back.
She went on to praise how accessible Jeff, the pastor at Calvary is saying, “I can talk to him anytime, twenty four-seven. We talk all the time.” This extreme accessibility, apart from acting to attract people like Jessica also works as a guard against both real and potential abuses of authority24. A few days after interviewing Jessica, I sat down with
24 An abuse of authority in a resistant organization inevitably looks different than an
another member from Calvary, Cody, and asked him about the organizational structure at the church.
You know that’s one of the really great things about Calvary. I mean we have personal accountability groups, but we don’t even need them. I see everybody all throughout the week. I see Jeff two or three times a week and we always discuss church stuff. Like with me moving and us looking for new space, that’s something I need to talk with Jeff about next time I see him.
There are two things that are important about Cody’s comments. First, the casual nature with which he says he needs to discuss the future of the church with the pastor indicates how truly accessible Jeff is. He is not only physically available, but also clearly open for discussing congregational issues. This echoes Jessica’s comments above. Second, it is clear that this accessibility is only able to happen because of the well established personal relationship between Jeff and Jessica and Cody. Cody has been involved with Calvary for a number of years, but holds no official position with the church, and the same is true of Jessica. These relationships are able to check the potential abuse of authority by not allowing the opportunity for Justin to make a decision without congregational input. The flat organizational structure removes the need for Justin to seek outside opinions from the congregation, because he is going to be involved in discussions about congregational issues whether he seeks them or not. This is, of course, unlike more hierarchical organizations where the leaders might have to explicitly go out and seek opinions from those further down the organizational ladder. The strong personal relationships that develop in flatter organizations act to preempt, to some extent, the build-up of authority that might otherwise occur due to isomorphic forces.
traditional organizational authority (e.g., pastor) which does not adequately take into account the voices, experiences and desires of the group is considered an abuse. The response of the group will determine what counts as “adequate.”
Again, flat organizational structures are not without their problems. The kind of relationship that Cody and Jessica describe as having with Jeff can lead to the formation of a closed group with no formal way of addressing their power or authority. Each person that I interviewed both formally and informally at Calvary confirmed that this is not how the congregation is run and that Jeff is accessible to everyone, but this in an of itself certainly does not prove that anything structural is prohibiting power concentration from arising. The fact that a traditional authority structure has not been implemented might be simply due to a whim of Jeff’s personality. While this is substantively
important, it is not the theoretically significant insight here. The theoretical contribution to understanding how resistant organizations can avoid traditional authority structures comes when we understand the utilization of the flat organization in combination with elimination of feedback loops. In chapter 5, I discuss how changing the role of the pastor into a congregational resource as opposed to a manager is implemented in these
organizations. No doubt there are other useful processes for avoiding static authority structures which have yet to be uncovered due to a lack of research, but for now it is important to note that the full utility of the strategies presented here is only realized when they are combined.