The reality (as Gladwell and Ferris point out) is that the 80-20 principle isn't just a component of church life, but rather, it's actually a fundamental law of human interaction (the Pareto Principle, after an Italian economist). For Gladwell, 20% of people make things "tip"- that is, these are the movers, shakers, opinion makers. The rest of us are just following their lead on everything from what we buy to what we think. For Ferris, the principle means that 80% of your results actually stem from only 20% of your action.

There's both freedom in recognizing all of this as well as danger for someone in ministry here.

First, the freedom.

If my concern is truly for the spiritual health and well-being as well as growth of my whole community, the 80-20 rule says that I should focus on doing that which will yield the best results (duh) for the whole, or at least the most.  Back in ministry classes, we called that "picking the low hanging fruit" and where once upon a time, I saw that as incredibly mercenary, I'm now seeing it as just a fundamental rule of human interaction. The fact is, there are people who will serve and sacrifice to see a community grow and mature. They serve God by serving others. These are maybe 10-15% of folks (my numbers are anecdotal, based on observation not study). These folks just need some attention, appreciation and some general pastoring/discipleship. Otherwise, they are good to go. Then there are those who are not there yet, but are on their way. They are learners, hungry to know, hungry to grow, hungry to serve, but with a lot of rough edges. These folks will get there, but they need not only your attention and appreciation, but your coaching, teaching, discipleship as well. Give them that, and they'll flourish. These, again, are maybe 10-15% of the people in your community.

Then there are those folks who are just plain nice. They show up, they often give financially, but rarely give or connect personally. They are fun to hang out with, make few demands on you as a pastor, but really play little role in advancing the vision/mission of your community other than simply being present. These are anywhere from 50-60% or more of folks. 

Then there are those 10-15% of folks who are seriously needy. Some just spend a season there and need your help out of a bad place. And they should get it. But others have made this a part of their identity, and show little or no effort in doing what needs to be done to move towards health and growth. The complainers, hurt people who hurt people, spiritual and emotional hypochondriacs (you know, the guy or gal who perpetually makes the self-destructive decision, those happy to have your attention even if it comes as a response to their negative behavior, etc), those working out their authority issues... all will let their needs be known loudly and repeatedly. And should you fix one of their squeaky wheels, it just means another will quickly develop an urgent need for pastoral oil.

Here's the problem...
We pastors tend to spend all of our time with either the very nice or the very needy people. The very needy people because of the urgency of their calls to us (and the fact that we are in ministry to help people after all), and the very nice people because, well, they are so dang nice. They're low maintenance, tend to be somewhat recharging for us... but in the end, what happens is this: Between spending all our time with the 80% of very nice and very needy people, we end up with very little time for those who are actually doing 80% of the work in ministry in our community

We've been sitting at that 120 mark for roughly a year now. We continue to bump over it and then slide under it again. And more and more I'm realizing that a big part of the problem is ME. I'm the bottleneck, I'm the one who's been neglecting spending time and effort on those who do the most work of loving, shepherding and teaching in our community. All with the best of motives of course, but still...

For me, I'm finding great freedom in re-organizing how I do my people work. I'm coming to realize that for us to get to where I ultimately see us (one community spread out across the city, planting churches out of a base of 3-4 sites), we're going to need to not only grow past that 120 mark, but learn how to effectively develop and nurture leadership. The freedom has come, not in giving myself permission not to pastor/shepherd people, but in giving myself the freedom to refocus from spending 20% of my "people time" on leadership and 80% on very nice and very dependent people to focusing primarily on leadership, that is, spending 80% of my people time on those 20% who either do or will do (with a bit of investment) 80% of the work of ministry and 20% on the remaining 80% of people.

There's also freedom in the realization that really, 80% of the "results" I get in ministry come from 20% of my efforts. In other words, I'm doing a bunch of stuff that while yielding some results, in the bigger picture, don't yield much.

There's a lot I'm doing that I need  either to quit doing or give to someone else to do. Ferris' hypothesis is that with a little tweaking, one can earn 80% as much in 20% of the time. He proposes living a bit more cheaply/simply and "pocketing" the rest of the time with travel/vacations/side projects etc.

For the pastor, the idea isn't to work less (well, maybe for some it is- particularly those whose families have begun to have a hard time recognizing them), but rather to ask "What 20% of my effort yields most of my results?" and then "How can I restructure and reprioritize so as to spend most of my time doing that, and either stop doing or delegate the rest?"

Two dangers here. The first is that we would become completely mercenary with how we view people- and rather than seeing them as a shepherd does (occasionally leaving the ninety-nine for the one), we would view them as widgets who either produce or don't, and we would show them love and concern based solely on what they could do for us. May it never be. While I do need to reprioritize how I spend my time, and refer, delegate, etc. when people are in general need, even if I'm not personally moving to fill that need, I should make sure someone is. And occasionally, that someone is me. I think 20% of my people time needs to go to 80% of our folks, and since the very nice people don't need/want it, that leaves me with at least a couple spots on my dance card for some of those folks who always seem to need me and while not getting as much of me as they might want, nonetheless should still get something.

The other danger is that we'd see that vast number of people who are nice, but not really doing much in our church community as somehow spiritually immature or some kind of slacker. Now, that may be true in some cases. Maybe they really don't care much and are happy, in effect, to mooch spiritually off the hard work, sweat and sacrificial giving of others.

But I suspect that's not most people's issue.

What I'm coming to see is that many people are someone's 20%. That is, they may be in the 80% of folks in our community who don't make much happen, but that's probably not true in every area of their lives. Whether at work, in their extended family, in school or civic organizations, these folks are doing a lot that matters there. And that means they can't do it here.

I'm not sure what the solution is, or even if there is one. Maybe we encourage people to do seasons in their lives where they become more and then less involved. Maybe we  encourage people, rather than the usual church mode of ever-increasing involvement ("Something every night of the week!") to turn that around- get discipleship and training in missional living and then, as they grow, taper off involvement in church activities in favor of missional living in the larger community, with neighbors and non-Christian friends, seeking a good balance of time with people in the church who are Christ followers and time with people who aren't.

All in all, I'm still ardently set on organic ministry. I want to avoid doing the work of ministry that people should be doing for themselves, give them the freedom and responsibility to shape and form their community, and see more and more people live out their passions in advancing God's kingdom. I also still believe the staff-heavy, program-driven church is a failure and am happy to see churches like Willow Creek admit as much.

But somewhere between a laissez-faire, completely hands-off style of leadership and the visioneering, CEO, top-down style is a middle ground where the pastor is free to focus on developing leadership in a organic environment that encourages those 20% of folks who are ready, willing and able to work out their passions in terms of ministry, shape, guide and so own the ministry of the church. In this model, the pastor is a coach, who isn't calling all the plays, but who is, in a sense, recruiting the players- calling people to name their passions, encouraging them to live them out in and for the community, and resourcing them along the way.