I had just begun my term as rabbi of Congregation Shirat Hayam in Swampscott, Mass. On my third day on the job, I visited a macher (influential benefactor) of the congregation — a successful businessman and a professor at Harvard Business School.  

When the consolidation of Temple Israel and Temple Beth El created Shirat Hayam in 2005, its first rabbi was a very charismatic leader who brought extraordinary innovation, energy and growth to the congregation. Even before the macher and I greeted one another, he asked, “What’s your vision?”

Conducting a listening campaign didn’t impress him. Nevertheless, over the next six months I held numerous house meetings, connecting with 199 congregants. I listened to and recorded their hopes and dreams for Shirat Hayam. Combining their comments with my passions and insights, I presented a vision for the congregation at a town meeting. 

The congregation’s response: Great! Go for it.

Some initiatives succeeded, like our high-functioning chesed (caring) committee. Others failed to launch, like the adult learning initiative that we called Torah University. What I quickly came to realize was that given how our synagogue was staffed and managed, any new initiative that I might propose would fall entirely on my shoulders. I didn’t have a budget or the time to support the implementation of these new projects. 

At the beginning of my third year, at a board member’s insistence, the congregation engaged a consultant to create and implement a strategic plan. Working with our consultant, Dennis Friedman, saved my rabbinate.

Friedman’s approach to strategic planning is different than what I’d come to expect. There are no congregational town halls, no surveys, no focus groups. Instead, the team responsible for implementing the plan makes the plan. In our case, the team consisted of both professional staff and lay leaders. Through a series of exercises and conversations, we: 

1) created a vision statement of three to four sentences; 

2) established key performance indicators (up to five) to measure our progress towards the vision (or “mission,” in Friedman’s parlance); and 

3) identified no more than eight things we needed to do better (“critical goal categories”) to achieve our mission goals. 

When we finished the process, the entirety of the strategic plan fit on less than half a page. We were expected to memorize it and to internalize it. The plan would last for three years, at which point we would assess whether we succeeded or failed. The creation of any subsequent plan would be informed by how we did in executing the previous strategic plan. 

There were a number of things that I appreciated about Friedman’s methodology:  

1. The focus was on implementation. After the creation of the initial plan, we established interim SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistically high, trackable) goals. These were the incremental steps within our critical goal categories that detail the work for which we were responsible. They filled the bottom half of the page. Friedman then met with the strategic planning team every two months to review, assess, and discuss our progress.  

2. The strategic plan aligned the professional team and the lay leadership. Prior to the plan (and without an executive director on our staff), professionals worked in their silos. Because of the horizontal leadership structure, no one was authorized to hold others — professional staff or lay leaders — accountable. Individuals did what they wanted to do. The lay leadership, professional team and I became energized not only by the accountability structures the plan put into place, but also by the sense that the team was taking our congregation to the next level of effectiveness and impact

3. This approach has allowed us to identify fundamental issues such as our dues model, organizational chart, and communications that might, otherwise, have gone unaddressed, because they seemed too daunting and no one wanted the responsibility.

With the strategic plan in place, we’ve had several successes. 

1. We reduced our annual “endowment” draw from over 10% of our reserve fund to 1%.

2. We implemented a voluntary dues model, and since then membership has grown 30%.

3. We have doubled the number of young children (age 0 – 7) in our congregation over the past two years.

4. We revised our by-laws to make spouses of another faith tradition or background full members with the right to serve on the board of directors; and with broad congregational support, we announced that our cantor will perform intermarriages.

5. We revitalized our bulletin, created a new website and implemented a new customer relationship management system (CRM).

6. We created and staffed an executive director position.

7. We implemented a succession plan for congregational president.

8. We launched a legacy giving campaign.

9. We greatly expanded our volunteer teams.

Some characteristics of Shirat Hayam may have contributed to Friedman’s success with our congregation. First of all, after the consolidation that created Shirat Hayam, congregants who remained members were those open to innovation and change. Secondly, our spiritual and worship identity had been established over the prior decade. Additionally, key ritual issues — the use of instruments on Shabbat, a renewal Shacharit service in the main sanctuary and ending the service with a rock band playing a medley of Jewish music — had already been resolved. In short, the congregation was already energized by our style of worship and expected the leadership to make the operational changes necessary for our success.

Furthermore, the vision statement we developed was not a radical innovation but a reflection of what we were already becoming, and in this sense, we already had the benefit of implicit congregational buy-in. At the same time, it crystallized where we were going and critically identified two key areas — spiritual fulfillment and youth education — which we felt could differentiate Shirat Hayam from other synagogues and Jewish institutions. This allowed us to make decisions regarding programming and resource allocation.

Friedman’s methodology could easily have been applied toward transformative congregational change, but that was not what we chose to do. Our initial goals were more modest: We wanted our congregation to function more effectively. We sought to continue to maximize the value from the consolidation and transformative changes in the early years of Shirat Hayam. The strategic planning process helped us identify and agree on clear objectives. Our consultant then held us accountable to those objectives. We developed an action plan for each of our objectives and then we held each other accountable.  

At the end of the day, what really matters is not whether one has a strategic plan but whether one achieves the plan. Using Friedman’s approach, we are now energized to tackle big challenges with confidence and work collaboratively as a leadership team of professionals and laity, constantly moving closer to providing the most fulfilling spiritual experience and leaving people feeling welcome, connected and enriched. 

Rabbi Michael Ragozin has led Congregation Shirat Hayam in Swampscott, Mass., since 2015.  He previously led a congregation in Leesburg, Va. Prior to becoming a rabbi, he was a baker (from age 9-14), taught algebra through Teach for America and worked in technology. Rabbi Ragozin is an alumnus of the Clergy Leadership Incubator (CLI), a two-year fellowship for rabbis on visionary leadership, directed by Rabbi Sid Schwarz.