Our church's elders have a pretty good safeguard against unwanted persons slipping into our leadership team during the annual elections. Of course the elders had to approve all candidates for church office, but we also followed the convention of allowing any one elder among the twelve to veto the name of any candidate he "had a problem with," even if that problem was unsubstantiated or described as "just a bad feeling."
On the surface the practice seemed reasonable enough. After all, we had a fine, tight group of men with a good chemistry. We didn't want anyone coming in who might disturb that fragile balance or who might not be a team player. We were all painfully aware of churches where a poorly chosen elder or staff person had kept things in a continual uproar. So, we thought it was best to be safe. But safe leadership isn't good leadership.
Read more at CT Leadership Journal