Every year there is a small miracle that takes place in every cathedral across the land. Perhaps the word miracle is a little strong, but the event is still remarkable and deserves to be noted and commemorated. At the end of the school summer term, the most experienced four or five boys/girls who have led the treble or top line in the choir leave for new schools or because their voices change. At one stroke up to a third of the senior children in the choir, those with the most experience of solo work and leading all the other children, disappear. What happens then is that a new more junior group emerges to take their place. The ‘miracle’ is in the fact that within a few weeks these younger members of the choir have overcome their lack of experience and their habit of depending on the more senior children, to fill the shoes of those who used to be at the top of the choir. They invariably, as we say,’ rise to the occasion.’ Certainly, by Christmas the choir is back to strength and to the standard it had achieved under its old leaders.
It remains to be seen whether the cathedral choirs of Britain will be able to rise to recover quickly after the considerable blow to their functioning caused by the corona-virus. No doubt cathedrals all over the country are dealing with this crisis in different ways. Perhaps the recovery time will be a bit prolonged but we can still trust that the younger choir children will still find their place of responsibility within their choirs in spite of the disrupting pause they have experienced. Right across society, in institutions of all kinds, the juniors and underlings are all the time learning to adapt and respond to the new demands and responsibilities that come with time. Most people seem to be able to meet the challenge of promotion. The Church is no exception to this process, one which places the young and inexperienced in new places where they are expected to become mature and confident. Callow young curates with little confidence turn into competent vicars over a period of time. Some vicars manage a further transition to become archdeacons, deans or even bishops. The potential for these higher promotions is not of course given to everyone. The Church has found ways to spot and nurture the talent required for such posts so that the Church can provide for itself individuals who can lead and inspire within the institution those set below them.
Unfortunately, the theory, that competent inspirers and managers for the Church can always be found by promoting the underlings, does not always work in practice. While most probationers become competent choristers in choirs, the same is not necessarily true within the Church. There are potential pitfalls in the assumption that this will happen smoothly, particularly as in the Church at any rate, the choice of candidates is shrinking in number. Also, to take another example, if a particular member of the clergy has a severe personality disorder which no one has picked up during his/her training, the individual will not function well where they are and certainly never be able to fulfil a new wider role satisfactorily. He/she may receive promotion as a way of moving them out of a situation where they have created a great deal of unhappiness. In popular parlance this is known as throwing a dead cat over the wall. There are numerous examples of bishops writing letters of recommendation to other bishops so as to be relieved of a problem clergyman. It is here that we need to bring in the idea of the ‘Peter Principle’.
For those who do not know of the Peter Principle, it is an idea familiar in business settings. It states that everyone rises to the level of their incompetence. Another way of saying this is to point out the way that those who fulfil a role within an organisation satisfactorily will be eligible for promotion until they arrive at a rank where they are out of their depth and cannot perform competently. The organisation will thus theoretically be brought to a virtual standstill because everyone has been overpromoted and cannot do the tasks that are required of them. People will mutter Peter Principle whenever they observe individuals who flounder with their job descriptions. While it is sometimes said in a jokey fashion, there is potentially a serious case of unhappiness when you see someone who was an excellent assistant struggling to manage a department without any gift or calling to organise other people’s work.
How does the Peter Principle apply to the Church? The vast majority of clergy never achieve or seek any sort of formal promotion. Most achieve a level of competence necessary to do the job of parish priest adequately. Chief of these tasks are the ability to preach, teach and to care. What normally happens is that they manage the bulk of the expectations made of them but then they find certain areas where they are indeed incompetent. The real problem arises when they have no insight into their inability to do certain things. For example, the politics of church life, locally and nationally can be hard to negotiate. Conflict resolution skills and psychological insight are needed in many places but few clergy are equipped in these areas. Another area of incompetency is in the theological arena. A strong evangelical or Anglo-Catholic training may have prepared well someone for churches of those traditions but elsewhere adherence to one of these traditions may be experienced as something harsh and inflexible. The ‘incompetence’ here is seen in the inability to have the flexibility to understand how different traditions work for people. Clergy may also find themselves incompetent in dealing with attack. A determinedly difficult parishioner, now armed with the possibility of making a CDM against a member of the clergy they dislike, can cause sleepless nights and even a breakdown in their victim.
A vicar who shows competence and comes through the stresses of the post reasonably intact, may be offered promotion. Promotion to a residentary canonry or an archdeacon’s role may be considered an honour. In practice these posts may not be all that rosy and the candidate may simply be having to go through the experience of finding news areas of incompetency in a fresh context. There are just so many variables in these posts. Clergy training cannot be expected to prepare the individual for some of the contradictory and conflicting expectations involved in these more exalted roles. Negotiating the petty jealousies of a cathedral close, for example, is reputedly appallingly difficult. To take other examples. An archdeacon is required to act in some quasi-legal ways for the Church. They are also the ones that gives to parishes the news that a vicarage is to be sold off or a parish church closed. Most archdeacons have served as parish priests, so they are sensitive to the real pain of parishioners. It cannot be easy having to represent the institution when you are required to act against the perceived interests of a group of lay people. These are the ones who have given so much to their churches locally.
It is when we get to the top of the ‘food-chain’, the House of Bishops, we really begin to discover how difficult it is to remain competent. A bishop may have been chosen, for example, for his/her proven competence as a parish priest of a large London Church. Does this really prepare him/her for the tasks of managing/defending/serving an institution, possibly creaking with unresolved power issues going back decades? The CDM discussions have drawn attention to the contradictory expectations laid on a bishop to be both a pastor and a prosecutor to the same person. The IICSA hearings gave us some insight into the way that decisions were taken at Lambeth during George Carey’s time. One thing we learned was that the officers in Lambeth seemed to be reluctant ever to draw in expertise from outside. A small group of top advisers felt that they could advise the Archbishop to make crucial decisions about Peter Ball. Is this reluctance to consult outside the small group of advisers still the current philosophy? Lambeth/Church House seems to be in desperate need of sound legal advice to find its way through the current quagmire of core groups and suspensions of senior figures that are filling its in-tray. Real questions are being asked connected with the competence of the Church at the national level to conduct its own affairs unaided.
The word incompetence, when brought into the Peter Principle, is being used in a fairly light-hearted way. To be incompetent is not necessarily a serious matter. It only becomes such when an institution has no means of correcting the terrible mistakes that incompetent individuals are liable to make. Incompetence whether caused by ignorance, conceit or malevolence, is a particularly important matter when the individual refuses to admit to it and own up to it. The Church of England needs help at the highest level but seems reluctant to ask for it.
Perhaps I may be allowed an interjection about the other National Church which does not have a system of promotion. The Church of Scotland from whom the Queen receives her ministry when in that land.
Church ordinations are to the presbuterate after the New Testament Presbyter or Elder (the words are interchangeably used in the NT). Ordination is either to the teaching Eldership (the Ministry of Word and Sacrament) or to the Ruling Eldership (the spiritual oversight of the people).
The spiritual oversight of the congregation lies with the Kirk Session which consists of Minister who usually chairs and Elders.
Above the congregation lies the Presbytery which consists of a minister and elder from each of the constituent congregations. Retired ministers, Chaplains, or other non-parish based ministers may also be members but additional elders must be added so that there is always a parity of ministers and elders.
The General Assembly is the supreme court of the Church and is made up of Presbytery representation with about a quarter of each Presbytery being represented on the General Assembly. Presbyteries and General assemblies are chaired by Moderators who are elected by the constituent members of Presbytery and General Assembly thus every year a new person takes over as Chair.
The Church acknowledges that the weakness of this form of Church Polity is that there are no figures who can speak directly for the Church they can only point to Church decisions through General Assembly and perhaps to Chairs of particular Committees set up by General Assembly. However one thing is maintained and that is the parity of ministers, moderators only being Primus inter Pares, “first among equals”.
The conciliar nature of governance found its way out of the Scottish Reformation which would not have a State Monarch as a ruler or head over the Church. Monarchs of course tended not to find this conducive as James Vl & l declared to his Lords and Bishops, “….if once you were out and they in place I know what would become of my supremacy. No bishop, no king“. At the Hampton conference he said with some feeling, “’A Scottish presbytery,’ (‘somewhat stirred’ as the report tells us), ‘as well agreeth with a monarchy as God with the Devil . . . Jack and Tom and Will and Dick shall meet and at their pleasures censure me!” Episcopacy in the Church of England was as much to do with this Monarchical control of power as anything else and preferment and promotion became endemic to the system of rule within Parish and Diocese.
However, having said all this I do not concur with the old Scottish dictum “Here’s tae us, wha’s like us, gie few, an’ they’re a’ deid”. The Old Kirk is as much in need of revival as the Church of England which I am happy to worship in now.
Many thanks for this. There is also the perennial question of the tyranny of the presbyter/minister being replaced by the tyranny of the elder. I have seen several parishes in Scotland in distress because of an extremely truculent gang of elders who on occasion may be at daggers drawn with each other. Incompetence may therefore be diffused rather than orientated towards a particular individual.
I note that as part of the Radical Action Plan lately approved by GA, there will be a consolidation in the number of kirk sessions (mainly through a dramatic number of closures), whilst the number of presbyteries will be reduced from 46 to 12! This is to take account of the fact that the Church of Scotland is 50% smaller than it was in 2000, and is losing 4% of its membership per annum.
Agree entirely Froghole, the influence of elders especially working together can be baleful. In Presbyteries there can also be unspoken segments who, to put it mildly, do not act in each other’s favour.
That there is no ecclesiastical preferment was the reason for throwing this into the pot but that there is no flooding of blessings from heaven as a result shows that our weakness lies elsewhere.
The amalgamation of presbyteries on the big is beautiful theme has yet to prove its use in a Church which has gone from 7.5% of the population in 2013 to to 6% by 2018. Whistling in the dark comes to mind. We may be chalk and cheese on the Church polity issue but we are on parallel lines on the downward slope in our respective nations.
I’m not comfortable at all with the CofE’s caste system. If you don’t “promote” people, you won’t have the problem. Differing job rôles should be viewed simply as different gifts and skills, not superior. And yes, Leslie, be temporary, like Rural Deans, but with no honorary canonry attached. Maybe Cathedral Canons should be called vicars, too, so that it doesn’t sound like a superior post. I’ve witnessed clergy breaking their necks to get in their rightful places in a procession, especially if there are Readers involved. Wouldn’t do to get mixed up!
Oh, and, Stephen, Archdeacons aren’t always “he”! They?
Several of Lawrence Peter’s and Raymond Hull’s 1969 observations (which owe much to Thorstein Veblen and Northcote Parkinson) strike me as being especially pertinent. They establish the principle of mediocrity as the default of any bureaucracy. Those who are likely to flourish (i.e., survive) will be everyone but the super-incompetent or the super-competent. The former leave because they are utterly useless; the latter leave because they are a threat to the mediocre. Here, I am reminded of the lyrics of Frank Loesser, inspired by Shepherd Mead and Stephen Potter (‘How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying’ (1961)):
“One man may be incompetent,
Another not make sense.
A third may be a downright waste of company expense.
They need a brother’s leadership,
So please don’t do them in.
Remember mediocrity is not a mortal sin.”
(also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhUcvFP_Tas, with Rudy Vallee, Robert Morse, Robert Q. Jones, etc.).
However, mediocrity has its limits. If the person who determines the competence for promotion of subordinates has reached his level of incompetence, then judgments are liable to be based on an attention to irrelevant details rather than the effective performance of those tasks which are the raison d’etre of the relevant organisation. Peter and Hull noted that spit and polish may win neither battles nor wars, but the strategy certainly merits promotion. Yet the corollary of this is that the applicable organisation may reach an “intolerable state of maturity” (p. 75), in which it is so riddled with mediocrity and incompetence that its own survival is imperilled.
Another striking phrase in the book is in the section ‘Peter’s Placebo’s, to wit that “an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance” (p. 165).
Also, that “Work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence” (p. 27). This occurs regardless of the depths to which morale may have sunk.
It seems to me that the Church exhibits all of these characteristics to a striking degree. Indeed, some of these traits may be exaggerated within the Church almost to the point of caricature because of the supposed charism associated with the priestly or episcopal office, which invests some of those possessed by it with an unusual degree of self-belief, and therefore a corresponding want of self-criticism. This is allied with their presumption that they are working with and for an organisation whose goals are, more or less, beyond reproach (even if there may be sporadic failings). This, in turn, engenders a certain absence of collective self-knowledge, certainly amongst hierarchs who are committed to the integrity of their assumed ex officio authority and who affirm that authority in an economy of mutual regard between hierarchs. A similar economy if mutual esteem may be found amongst the ‘made men’ of the mafia, or the ‘collective responsibility’ of cabinet ministers, for example.
There is also the Congregational model of church government, in which (in its most extreme forms) a Minister can bully their congregation into submission or a congregation can utterly hamstring (and/or withhold financial support for) their Minister. While there may be outside “authorities” to whom appeal can be made, these in many cases have little legal “clout” although, over time, both churches and ministers can get labelled as “troublesome”.
Without that legal framework, we had a Team Vicar who, during a vacancy, pushed a measure through the PCC that literally no one else wanted. She just kept repeating it, every time someone put the opposite view, until everyone fell silent, and then said, “Right, so that’s settled then”.
It’s refreshing to read this! There are some, perhaps even many in the world of churchianity who refuse to consider anything from the “secular” world of good common sense thinking. Even highly qualified/educated/experienced people (in other disciplines) from the outside world have a tendency to leave all that at the door when they enter through the church.
Froghole identifies the tendency amongst the clergy to consider themselves above examination, and I would also include the laity in the mass delusion. It’s a shared phantasy of reliable unimpeachability along the lines of Wilfred Bion’s “basic assumption: dependency” (1961) which gives a sense of safety and avoids the responsibility of action against catastrophic failure.
Of course the cost of incompetence however much we are reluctant to point it out in ourselves and others, is very high. As others here have repeatedly pointed out to blocked ears, numbers are falling fast.
Many of us have experienced first hand the misery of working above or outside our ability. There’s no shame in stepping outside the previously desired role and taking something more suited to our skills, preferences and energy levels. Many, including our families, will thank us.
Some hopeless leaders are blissfully unaware of their inability and we need a non toxic way of removing them.
Characteristic of rising up any hierarchy, is the huge variance in work type and mix with each ascent. Managing others is very different from “doing”.
Some people will just never get this. To many others the change in role demands comes as a bit of a shock. They do their best and eventually master much of what is required of them.
I may be wrong here, but I get the feeling some promoted to high office are very unprepared for the job, and dare I say it, deliberately so?
I did once know a Suffragan Bishop who did a terrific job during a vacancy, but when offered the Diocesan post said no. On the grounds that he was a good deputy.
Challenging thoughts here, my friends. I am not sure about incompetence. I think it’s more about dysfunctional organisation, as the posts on leadership structure show.
We meet a number of cruising couples on our travels where the ‘captain’ (usually the man) gets carried away with his authority, & shouts and bosses his (often less experienced) ‘crew’-. We avoid that by not having a captain. We’re 2 equal mates and we make all significant decisions together. We review together when it goes wrong so we’re always learning. We’re both incompetent and competent, luckily often at different things, so we work as a team, from our strengths where we can. We often mess up, but we see that as part of life and not about competence but how we blunder through what life gives us.
I think I believe in inherent competency, like I do original righteousness rather than sin. We’re born hard-wired to learn and adapt and survive. If society doesn’t squash us in a hierarchy or a treadmill of unachievable expectations, if we work as teams that encourage and support learning and creativity, by nurturing co-operation and vulnerability, then I think we’re all competent. I don’t really think there is mediocrity. I think it’s bad systems that paralyse people.
Brene Brown talks about vulnerability being the birthplace of creativity etc. Of the importance of leaders who don’t think they have to have all the answers.
Personally I would get rid of all hierarchies and concentrate on cultural transformation that nurtured vulnerability and reflection and learning and doing together, according to our gifts but also with the belief we can all learn. And without the pressure to be perfect or get everything right, or be an all-singing all-dancing super hero.
Having said all that, right at this moment there are a few Bishops I would like to chuck into the lion’s pit.
I’m certainly convinced about the power and value of teamwork Jane, but have found little evidence of its use or awareness in the churches in my own experience. Before my own practical training in this by some ex-Marines I confess to some scepticism and certainly ignorance of it.
A good observation! I sometimes explore preferred team work roles (a la Belbin) with candidates for appointments. I usually agreed this beforehand with the chair of the appointment board on the grounds that leading a church not only involves teamwork, but with volunteers as well. This policy has led to one great appointment, and avoiding a couple of disasters on short lists. It was however illuminating that this approach earned me two public reprimands, one from a bishop, one a cathedral dean on the basis I “was being silly, because the Church of England doesn’t appoint team players; we weed them out before selection for ordination.” My prayers remain with our author and others here who are attempting to improve church leadership, but I fear the Geoffrey Howe explanation for his cabinet departure will apply.
WHOA! Gosh. What can I say?
Thank you John Waldsax. It’s painful to read this, but not surprising. Our assumptions based on what we know really works and could thus increase effectiveness, are rarely the same/shared by senior leadership.
Managing upwards is far more challenging than downwards.
Ultimately (poor) results will drive change, but the timescale is too slow.
This may be of interest: unfortunately the original lecture with which the writer is taking issue is behind a paywall: https://www.paulbeasleymurray.com/2015/05/28/dependence-upon-grace-god-not-be-confused-incompet/
Very disappointing. I have been teaching teamwork to ordinands and post-ordinands since the 1980s, but as you say it does depend on the culture of the Diocese – Bishop and DDO? – how much that is wanted or valued. I taught at Ridley for a while (Youth Ministry) and occasionally we did some joint teaching with the ordinands, when teamwork and managing volunteers often came up (as did safeguarding). All our youth work students had parish placements, and we certainly found that it was noticeable which vicars/ministers had some teamwork skills or even just basic concepts and which were one man (or woman) bands.
I think this fails ordinands as well as lay or junior colleagues. We know there is a lot of clergy stress, due to trying to be everything to everybody, which of course is impossible. Similarly there is significant youth worker burn out and mental health issues. I do think that many of the church’s problems are due to this impossible leadership model. Lay people can perpetuate this too. Our land base is in a rural Suffolk village, and people still complain sometimes about not seeing the vicar, expecting the vicar to do homes visits etc (who of course has 5 parishes to look after).
These are also precisely the ways of working that allow abusers to thrive. Hierarchical and powerful leadership, lack of team support and accountability, untenable boundaries (or no boundaries – ordinands used to get really cross with me when I said they couldn’t be ‘friends’ with their congregations, because of power dynamics)
While I cannot speak to dynamics within the CoE, the Episcopal Church rewards banality and incompetence at every level. The bishops who survive are the ones who duck every form of accountability. Indeed, Susan Goff, now ecclesiastical authority here in the Diocese of Virginia—the largest domestic diocese—refuses to even look at allegations of criminal conduct by clergy.
Truly, the church is broken, perhaps irreparably, when it cannot ensure its own integrity.