Measurements, Metrics and Rubrics - What's the Difference?

I was about twelve years old when I saved up money from my paper route to buy a speedometer for my bicycle. Unfortunately much of what I measured since then has been rather inconsequential. However some things are well worth measuring. In working with mission organizations and churches, I am constantly challenging them to measure what is being accomplished so they can know how to better invest their resources.

When referring to measuring things, there are two terms which are used interchangeably: measurements and metrics. A third term which is used less often but can be just as important is rubric. In the interests of full disclosure you need to know that I have never taken a stats course nor do I consider myself any kind of expert. So only read this if you fumble around with these terms in the same way I have.

Suppose your job performance was evaluated by your supervisor and you were given a 4. That would be a measurement. And while that measurement is very important, the number itself is virtually meaningless. First of all you don't know if you were being measured on a scale of 1 to 10 or 1 to 5. The scale is the metric. Stated differently, 60 kilometers per hour provides you with a measurement and a metric. Knowing that you are “doing 60”, can be a real problem if you don't know what the metric is. Driving 60 miles per hour in a 60 kilometer per hour zone may result in a speeding ticket. Conversely knowing that the speed limit is in kilometers per hour (a metric) is not helpful if you don't know how fast (a measurement) you are going. As such, both a measurement and a metric are vital.

Now let's go back to that job performance where you received a 4 out of 5. What we still don’t know is specifically what was being evaluated. For the sake of illustration let's look at the evaluation being based on your punctuality. Your supervisor has given you a 4 out of 5 without clearly defining why she has landed on that particular number. So what you need is a rubric; a chart that spells out what qualifies you for a 5 or a 4 etc. You would receive a 5 out of 5 if you had never been late within the evaluation period. If you were late once by five minutes, you could not receive a 5. A 4 out of 5 might mean that you were late only one time and the one time you were late was not by more than fifteen minutes.

In summary you know what was measured, the standard of measurement (the metric) and how the measurement was arrived at (the rubric).

So what does this have to do with anything?

Any ministry needs to effectively evaluate the accomplishment of Ends. It wants to be able to describe what an effective ministry would look like. In Policy Governance vernacular it does that by describing it Ends (what is the benefit, who are the beneficiaries and what would be an acceptable cost). Then it needs to measure the effective accomplishment of its Ends by developing metrics and in some cases a rubric.

If your ministry is worth doing, the results are worth being measured.

A Policy Governance® Fable

Once upon a time, long long ago a boy named Ted Hull created a recipe for Ted’s Temptingly Tantalizing Tomato Turnover.  So delighted was he by what he had made that he decided to register the name and trademark his recipe. This way no one could modify his delightful dessert and still call it Ted’s Temptingly Tantalizing Tomato Turnover, while still having the recipe available to the general public. The ingredients and directions were posted on walls throughout the village, shared by friends until it eventually became famous around the world.

By and by, some who fancied themselves as chefs sought to improve upon the recipe. This was done by leaving some ingredients out and using less of others. Some people actually went so far as to replace the tomatoes with blueberries.  Sadly some of those same chefs, even those who replaced the tomatoes with blueberries, continued to call the boy’s legally registered recipe “Ted’s Tempting Tantalizing Tomato Turnover”. 

Once upon a time long ago - like over thirty years ago - a man named John Carver created a governance model and called it Policy Governance^®.  He put together the ingredients and the instructions for how the ingredients needed to be mixed. The ingredients and directions were posted on pages of the internet and it became famous around the world.

By and by, some who fancied themselves as governance experts sought to improve upon the model. This was done primarily by leaving out some ingredients and using less of others. While this is the prerogative of the self-proclaimed experts, sadly they continued to call what they concocted Policy Governance^®.

Ted’s Temptingly Tantalizing Tomato Turnover and Policy Governance^® have at least one thing (and arguably only one thing) in common: they are both owned by someone. While there are people who believe the product can be improved upon, they have no right to make those improvements and call it by the same name.

In the interests of full disclosure let me tell you that Ted Hull is as familiar with a kitchen as a seven year old is with the cockpit of a Boeing 777. So please do not send for the recipe. It is so secret that even he doesn’t know what’s in it.

However Ted is familiar with organizations that are using Policy Governance^® but leave out some of the ingredients. He talked to a pastor recently who said that his church had introduced Policy Governance^®. When he asked the pastor if the board was monitoring compliance to the policies, the pastor told Ted that he was “self-monitoring”.  Ted doesn’t know what other ingredients were substituted or left out, but in our allegory the pastor essentially replaced the tomatoes with blueberries and continued to call it Ted’s Temptingly Tantalizing Tomato Turnover.

This is not a lesson in telling you how to bake or how to govern an organization. It is a reminder that when you change the ingredients and alter the directions of Policy Governance^® it isn’t Policy Governance^® anymore.

The Difference between Governance and Guardianship

When I first meet with the board of a church, I often start off by saying that I am going to talk about what I am not going to talk about. While governance is my area of experience and perceived expertise, I appreciate the importance of ensuring that the distinctives of a church are protected. The term I use for this aspect of church leadership is guardianship. 

Churches have some differences from other charities as I describe in A Guide to Governing Charities. While it is similar to a typical registered charity with an AGM and members voting on various motions etc., there are some basic theological and doctrinal beliefs that are woven into the fabric of that church. The guardians, gatekeepers or elders (using the biblical term) serve to watch out for those values that are not always focused on by the membership. This group of individuals who are not necessarily part of the governing board, guard the tenets of the faith. The church body will have previously decided to embrace these values which in turn should be formally accepted by each new member when they sign a statement of faith and are accepted into membership.

Are these elders who serve as guardians of the faith above the governing board of the church or the members of the church? Certainly not in a governing sense. The ultimate governing body of a registered charity is the board and that right to govern is granted by the membership. However in another sense, the elders, having been acknowledged and affirmed by the church, need to have the wisdom and courage to stand for the truths previously agreed upon by the church and stand against those who would seek to undermine those truths.

A church as a registered charity needs to balance the democratic right of members to identify the governing board while honouring the autocratic responsibility of elders to guard the values held by those same members.

Why Management Decisions Should Only Be Made By Management

More than one general manager of a sports franchise has stated "when I make decisions based on what the fans think, it's time for me to get out of my office and into the stands and become one of them".

Whether it is the member of a church, a director on the board of a Bible camp, or the parent of a student in a private school, at some point this individual will deem it their right to offer an opinion on a management decision and demand that their opinion be accepted. Pastors are hired to (among other things) make administrative decisions. Executive directors make program decisions for a Bible camp. School principals have expertise in the administration of the school. And we will readily acknowledge that expertise until that expertise does not align with our opinion.

People are entitled to their opinions. Church members can vote in a new board or join a new church. Corporate members can vote different directors onto a Bible camp board. Parents can lobby at the PTA or send their children to a different school. But when the decisions of the leader are made based on the response of a constituency, that is not the leader you want.

The rank-and-file can voice their dissatisfaction with a leader by voting in new directors at the next AGM. If the board of an organization functions using Policy Governance^®, the leader is responsible for every management decision; reporting only to the board so it can monitor compliance with the limitations which it has put in place.

Once the board, or worse yet the members, begin weighing in on management decisions, you will eventually (read soon) have utter chaos. Neither directors nor members should ever be allowed to weigh in on administrative decisions. If so, the leader would need to go to the board to get approval for every (and I mean every) decision. Directors would ostensibly have the right to determine who is hired, which volunteers are accepted, a camp menu, the pastors preaching series and the brand of toilet paper used. While some may suggest that deciding on the brand of toilet paper is ridiculous, those same people will not be able to identify at what point along the continuum of arbitrary input, the point of ridiculous was reached.

So let your board govern and your leader manage.

What Does "Charity" Really Mean?

Recently I had coffee with the Executive Director of the mission agency. In the course of our conversation my friend told me about a phone call he received from a potential donor.

“My wife and I just returned from a vacation in Honduras. While we were there we came across a situation in which a small group of believers was desperately in need of a church building. Five thousand dollars is all they need and I know your organization works in Honduras. So we would like to donate that sum to your ministry so you can send it to Honduras for their church building”.

It is not my intention in this blog to get involved in the legalities (or illegalities) of doing such a thing. Nor is my intention to elaborate on the subject of designated gifts. But let's just think about the whole idea of charity.

The term "charity" seems to have lost its true meaning. Under the Income Tax Act, a charitable gift is defined as a voluntary transfer of property without valuable consideration.  The donor must be transferring the gift to the charitable organization without expecting anything in return. Long before the complications of register charities, that was the intent of a charitable gift.

Somewhere along the way that notion has become blurred by the concept of “it's my money and when I give it I want to control where it goes and how it is spent." That perspective is very common and for the most part, legitimate. Could the potential donor unilaterally decide whether he wants to give $5000 toward a church building in Honduras? Of course, it's his money. But once he decides he is going to give a charitable donation, the playing field changes from "it's my money" to money which he has voluntarily transferred to a charitable organization.

So you can decide. If it is your money, control it as you please. If you want to donate to a charity then charity is…well…charity.