Beware of Bias

5 Common Biases in Staff Search

As a church consultant, I’ve had the privilege of coaching a growing number of search teams tasked with discovering their next pastor or staff member. Typically, these groups include the most respected individuals of their respective congregations, known for their spiritual maturity and wisdom.  I love witnessing their love for the Lord as they seek to discern God’s good and perfect will for their congregations.

My role as a coach often includes one or more of the following: articulating and affirming a solid biblical and theological foundation for the task, managing expectations, resourcing the team with excellent tools, proactively searching for and vetting quality candidates—plus keeping my eyes and ears open for biases which may prevent the group from discerning God’s good and perfect will for their congregations.

Here are five of the most common biases, the first of which is Status-Quo Bias.  

1. Status Quo

Status quo bias is evident when people resist change because they prefer things to stay the same. Most real decisions have a status quo alternative and, by and large, individuals disproportionately stick with the status quo. Talk to a group of pastors and you’ll hear an endless string of stories about relatively small changes (like moving the location of the piano in the sanctuary) that resulted in major controversy.

I have observed, however, that search teams are not as change-adverse as the rest of the congregation. They welcome change (within reason) and often want to bring in a “change agent” when the congregation and its leaders, by and large, expect a candidate who supports the status-quo. That is a recipe for disaster. Even when a congregation affirms the need for a change agent and encourages the search team to search for such a person, shortly after the person is on the scene, congregants start complaining, encouraging leaders to show him or her the door.

Search teams are also often tempted by what I refer to as the “pendulum swing,” the desire for a successor who is the polar opposite of his or her predecessor. In a strange way, this swing allows the status quo, or what “has been,” to inordinately influence the decision-making process. Going into a search with the mindset of seeking a completely different pastor can blind the team to excellent candidates that fall between the two extremes.

2. Group Think

The second bias is Group Think. Groups tend to unify, as individual members choose to conform with the group, rather than stand against it. Individuals tend to minimize conflict and reach consensus rather than doing the more difficult work of making critical evaluations of alternatives.

Two realties encourage group think. The first is confusion between unity and uniformity. As the apostle teaches, we embrace unity with diversity: unity in faith and, in this case, diversity in viewpoint. Uniformity hinders the decision-making process because it silences the refining presence of diverse views.  

The second reality is an insistence on a unanimous vote. This decision often follows confusion between unity and uniformity. It also naively allows one person to supersede the convictions of the majority. One of the best placements I was ever part of followed a search team vote of five to four to forward a candidate’s name to the church. One of the most disappointing, followed a unanimous vote. In other words, I have not witnessed a correlation between the nature of the vote and the quality of the decision. 

3. Risk Aversion

The third bias is Risk Aversion. Groups prefer the option which appears to be less risky. This bias is most evident when a search team prefers to call “one of their own,” even when another candidate, an “outsider,” was more qualified. They assume that a person from their people group poses less risk to the culture of the congregation than a person who comes from outside of their people group. 

I have observed risk aversion as search team members review the resumes of candidates. They come to that task with a preferred list of attributes. Consequently, the often look more favorably upon candidates from their denomination or from a particular school or with a specific level of experience. In the process, the overlook excellent candidates from places and positions with which they are unfamiliar.  

4. Ambiguity Aversion

Fourth, Ambiguity Aversion. Groups prefer certainty over uncertainty, what is known over what is not known. This explains why some groups choose to offer a call to their “Interim pastor” or the “Associate Pastor,” even though neither one meets the preferred competencies for their next pastor. They would rather call the person they know, with his or her warts and wrinkles, rather than a person they do not know. This is why many congregations (and denominations) do not allow a church to call its “Interim Pastor.” 

5. System Justification

Fifth, System Justification. Groups prefer the traditional option because “we have always done it this way.” This bias sustains a tendency to seek out, pay attention to, and remember information that confirms the system. It can discourage the team from seeking outside counsel, like that provided by a pastor-search firm. It can also discourage the team from utilizing more modern techniques and tools, like psychological assessments, which provide valuable information for both the candidate and the search team. 

The role of a search team is discern God’s good and perfect will for their congregations. In the process, they hope to discover the person God has been preparing to fill their pastoral or staff vacancy. Invariably, team members come to their task with humility and dedication, bathing their meetings in prayer. Working subtly against them are biases which, left unattended, distort the vision, hearing, and thinking of the team. 

The lesson here is simple: Beware of Biases. Don’t let them blind you to God’s good and perfect will for your congregation.