The Context
St. Peter's Brockley had grown for seven years and started planting new churches. On paper, everything pointed the right way: a committed team, real community respect, enthusiasm at every level. But the team felt stuck — workload was high, the same problems kept resurfacing, and there was no space to fix anything properly before the next thing landed. Team members were putting in an average of five additional voluntary hours a week just to keep up. Leadership commissioned an independent review to find out what was actually going on, before trying to fix it.
The Goal
Eleven one-to-one conversations, across every function — leadership, operations, worship, kids and families, outreach, finance, youth, production, dance. Each one covered what the person actually did day to day, how long it took, and what was getting in the way.
The patterns repeated early. A few conversations in, three things kept resurfacing: people quietly absorbing work outside their role rather than handing it to whoever was actually best placed for it; volunteers underperforming in ways that, on closer inspection, were nearly always a leadership gap rather than a volunteer one; and problems being managed rather than solved — patched enough to move on, never fixed for good.
Recognising the shape early didn't mean skipping the rest of the process. Every remaining conversation, and the data behind it, was used to test whether the pattern held everywhere or only in pockets. It held.
What we did
The organisation was still running on an early-stage model — the core team driving everything, the community invited to join rather than shape direction. That works at the start; it becomes a bottleneck as things grow.
Most people were leading others without a shared understanding of how — defaulting to instruction over preparation, which explained the volunteer performance issue: a leadership pattern, not a people problem.
The team was managing problems, not solving them — moving on rather than taking the time to fix things properly, so the same issues kept returning and wearing people down.
Each reinforced the others: an overstretched team had no time to solve anything properly, which meant leadership did too much, which left no room to involve the wider community, which put more pressure back on the team.
Three recommendations followed: restructure how decisions and ideas are made so the wider community shapes direction, not just joins it; agree a shared approach to leading others across the whole team; and pause new growth and planting until the foundations could hold the weight already on them.
What changed
Leadership got what a written report alone can't: direct, evidence-based advice on where the organisation actually was, delivered in conversation with the people who'd have to act on it. The hardest recommendation — pause growth — landed because it was grounded in evidence gathered across the whole organisation, not delivered as outside opinion. Imhotep continues to advise as the organisation works through the change, alongside the ongoing demands of serving a fast-growing, diverse community.
What we learned
The presenting problem is almost never the real one. Here, a handful of conversations was enough to see the shape of what was really going on — but seeing it fast didn't mean acting on a hunch. The rest of the process existed to check the pattern held everywhere, under real evidence, before recommending anything. Recognising quickly, then confirming rigorously — that combination is what made the recommendations something leadership could trust enough to act on, including the hardest one.
Recognise something here?
If this sounds like a situation you're dealing with, let's talk about it.