Compensation Guidelines and Market Data
Follow Up to the discussion on compensation guidelines and the need for market/reality data.
I have worked in the non-profit community in a number of positions since1971. During that time I have been presented with numerous compensation guidelines, usually prepared by funding or oversight organizations. I have always welcomed those, but I have never considered them the only element that ought to be considered in determining/negotiating compensation. Knowing the market place and what the reality of compensation is has always been another element of the analysis.
Entering into the discussion it is important to determine what the market place is. In the case of filling positions for the Oregon Synod and its member congregations the compensation guidelines have assumed the market place is the State of Oregon, while it is well known that many positions are filled from outside the Synod’s geographical boundaries. The greater the market place, generally the greater the compensation. It should also be noted that the market place will vary by position. To fill the position of pastor we may look beyond our boundaries, while to fill the position of staff clerical positions we might only recruit from a small area, reasonable commuting distance for example. Thus, the guidelines should be understood to be nothing more than guidelines and not mandates.
It was common in my experience in renegotiating compensation with a manager to compensate higher than what the market place suggested it would bear because I was concerned that I would lose a good manager to another market place that provided greater compensation, and this might be higher than the guidelines as well. There were some reservations expressed in our council discussion about the distribution of market data with the suggestion that such data would drive compensation down and below guidelines. I believe the opposite is more often the case.
I would think that we would be eager to study and track market data, or what might be called reality data, if for no other reason to see what impact the issuance of guidelines might have created. Or at the onset, to see just how far we have to go. It may be useful in setting our goals. Without setting goals we may never progress and achieve what we set out to do.
- MarcTKane's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Upcoming group events
There are no upcoming events.
Poll
- Login or register to post comments
- Older polls
Recent members
|
|
centralportland | |
|
|
justinfarrell | |
|
|
Marilyn Halvor | |
 |
Gary Schulstad | |
 |
office at calvary |
- 1 of 4
- ››
Marc, I reiterate my response
Marc,
I reiterate my response to your request for “market data” during our meeting last week. While I understand your thoughts about how this information might be helpful, and even more, I am encouraged that you would personally use the information in the way that you described, I still disagree that this would be helpful information for our synod staff to provide for call committees. Strictly from the stand point of employing and retaining good, qualified, and well-loved staff, your though process is right on. However, call committees in churches have more things to consider and, I would say, see things quite differently than you have suggested. I am quite certain that most clergy (specifically ELCA clergy) would agree that this is not helpful data for a call committee to receive from their synod office. But to put my assertion to the test, I encourage you to talk to a few of the clergy around your area just to see.
Considering the tasks that are being asked of our synod staff at this time, I would ask that you at least do that amount of work before adding this to their list of things to do. If after visiting with a few other clergy, hopefully from some diversity of settings, you still feel that this needs doing, then ask them. And I am sure that we can continue talking about this as a council if need be.
Pastor Jeff
Another clergy thought
My initial response to this idea is also overwhelmingly negative. I haven't sorted out all the reasons why yet, but here's one: in my own annual salary negotiation process, I have my hands and my brain and my heart full trying to stay affordable to a small and struggling congregation while not completely discounting the value of what I do (which on some days I would like to do for free, though on other days you couldn't pay me enough ...). One of the things that I have done is to waive health care coverage and buy into my husband's plan. I did that with some trepidation, knowing that for the sake of the congregation's ability to call the next pastor it's not a great idea for the congregation to get out of the habit of covering health insurance. Anyway, all this is difficult enough without the fear that in doing that, or in asking for no increase in tough years, I am dragging the whole market down.
Salary concerns
Pastors salaries are an interesting issue for me. It is hard to know what a pastor is "worth" because pastors don't produce a product or even a measurable service - sort of by definition. Congregations may flourish or flounder, and pastors are part of the mix, but there are so many factors that affect congregational health.
So, my experience is that healthy, whole, congregations want to pay their pastors well, respectful of their gifts, and they support them with solid evaluation processes, consultation, continuing education, etc. Frail congregations begin to feel financial limitations and, not knowing what else to do, often turn to their pastor's salary package, regretfully trimming it back or holding it flat as family and household costs increase. Pastors, like Mary, love their communities, understand the restrictions, and being genuinely nice and caring people allow themselves by default to become "major givers" in the congregtion, way out of proportion with those freely choosing what they do or don't give financially. This is unjust and generally doesn't end well in the long run.
More seriously frail congregtions often become anxious and really just don't know what to do. When a pastor's salary is the lion's share of an otherwise very small budget what are you suppose to do? Well, that is indeed the question. I think the answer is not with pastor's salaries, but with other factors of size and congregational well being. Granted congregations will trim back other expenses before, regretfully, starting to whittle away at fair compensaion for secretaries or pastors, but they often get there eventually.
At what point does a congregation lose its capacity for vital ministry? Congregations need to deal with this question honestly and courageously. What we need to deal with although at the same time is, "Is having a professionaly trained, full time pastor and building the only viable model for a faith community?" Clearly the answer is "No." But do we have the courage to explore other models?
compenstion guidelines
I appreciate everyone's comments on this sensitive subject. It seems to me (or, as Pr. James Aalgaard beautifully puts it: "I sometimes think") that justice in this instance is a combination of local conditions and baselines of the sort that our guidelines try to provide. The concern I've had for some time, first expressed with fear and trepidation at a synod assembly years ago chaired by Bishop Swanson concerning a 'slam dunk" resolution to approve and adopt the guidelines committee's work (no offense, Jeff) was and is that we may be implicitly mandating, and doing collateral damage, especially to fragile congregations who already have enough pain and guilt to deal with. Perhaps the guidelines could be adjusted for congregational size rather than/in addition to years since graduation from seminary? Somehow reflect actual parish ministry experience and talent? Or make more explicit references to "tentmakers" in these increasingly part-time call times we live in? Or cross -reference to similar guidelines of denominations we're in full communion with (to the extent those exist) in lieu of or in addtion to Mark's market-based comparative data suggestions? As I tried to express at our last Synod Council meeting, I'm on both sides of this fence, and, like Mary, live with the tension of the competing, plausible viewpoints. Perhaps the future may be with more diaconal ministers (where/how are those people accessed for call?) and/or something as old-fashioned as circuit (cluster) riding clergy? I understand that Luther Sem is now developing a version of PLTS's TEEM program, designed to train commited lay members to return and serve their local worshiping communities - a wonderful example of the priesthood of all believers applied to our time. But not every "wannabe" pastor is suited to that special calling, and I think we should be especially careful about institutionalizing isolation/inbreeding. So, where to go from here? In other words, the compensation issues seem inherently linked to the candidacy and call issues, as far as I can tell.
Not sure this helps the discusion focus, but my two cents worth.
Bruce A.