Traits to look for in a leader

Leaders have many different kinds of wiring and lead with varied styles. I celebrate those differences. When hiring or promoting, I care much about how a person leads, but I care even more about what lies behind their leadership. There are certain traits that I look for in leaders, which are, for the most part, personal traits that spill over into how they lead.

A Missional heart
Our leadership is not about ourselves but about Jesus and what He wants to accomplish on this earth. A kingdom heart understands that we are not building something for ourselves but for Him. Whether our assignment is in a ministry, a non-profit, or a business enterprise, this is true. What we do needs to contribute to the good of society and the welfare of others so the focus is not on us but on those we exist to serve. Jim Collins called these kinds of leaders Level Five Leaders. They are other-focused rather than on themselves.

Humble
Humble leaders can focus on others and the mission because they are not building a kingdom for themselves. Humble leaders can live and lead with personal transparency and have a "nothing to prove and nothing to lose" attitude. They are open and non-defensive when challenged. Humility is critical because it allows us to focus on others and a mission rather than on ourselves.

Intentional
There are two ways to live: intentionally or accidentally. The best leaders understand how they are wired and what they have been called to do and not do. They organize their lives around the most important rather than simply responding to life. Everything about their priorities and time management is intentional and focused. They understand that the most essential checks they write are not financial but "time checks," and that time is the one thing they cannot get back or replace. Thus, they choose carefully and use their time wisely. They understand that saying "no" often allows them to say "yes" to the right things. 

Clarity
Clarity is required for intentional living. Clarity about how God has gifted and wired us, our leadership priorities, and organizational clarity all contribute to the ability to be deeply intentional. With clarity, we can understand what is essential and what is a distraction. With clarity, we can say no, so we can say a larger yes. With clarity, we can live in our strengths rather than run in lanes we were not designed for.

Accountable
Those who lead others and expect them to be accountable must be accountable themselves. To lead, one must be willing to follow! Lack of accountability is about hubris, while accountability is about humility and a healthy commitment to health. This includes responsibility for results. They live with a great deal of self-awareness and self-accountability. 

Reflective
The best leaders are deeply reflective people about themselves, others, the organization, methodology, and life. They are thinkers rather than simply doers. Their actions result from thinking and reflection rather than merely responding to events around them. They are thinking, reflective practitioners. This means that they build into their day and week periods of reflection, perhaps journaling but certainly deep thought, where they constantly align their activities with their purpose and life mission. 

Inquisitive
The best leaders are deeply inquisitive, always asking questions, probing people in their organization and others, and desirous of learning and growing. They ask "why" often and don't assume that conventional wisdom is always wisdom. They assume that conventional wisdom is conventional but frequently not wisdom. They ask questions that others don't ask, even when it makes them or others uncomfortable. They intentionally seek feedback from those who only sometimes agree with them in their desire for the best answers. 

Team focused
Healthy organizations are formed around teams that work synergistically under good leadership and are accountable for results. Thus, leaders must be willing to work with and through teams rather than independently. As they lift up team members, they delegate opportunity and authority for team members to excel and flourish. 

Generous
Leaders give themselves away to help others succeed and ensure the organization achieves its objectives. They are servants to those they lead and understand that they succeed as others succeed. Thus, they mentor, coach, and help others grow with a generous spirit. They see those they lead as a trust rather than an irritant. They are generous in giving opportunities away, encouragement, time with staff, and praise for work well done.

Healthy EQ
Unhealthy EQ is the greatest killer of leadership, creating relational chaos in its wake. No matter how brilliant an individual is, they should not end up in a leadership role if they have EQ issues.  Healthy EQ, on the other hand, builds healthy relationships, which leads to healthy collaboration and the building of healthy teams.

Leadership coaching, governance/board training, staff/culture audits, change management, conflict management, establishing clarity, creating healthy cultures, leadership, and organizational consulting. tjaddington@gmail.com

Dysfunctional church systems: Beware of closed rather than open cultures

I spoke recently with a ministry leader who resigned from his church staff position (a large church) because of the dysfunctional culture he sensed. Having left the "system," he now realizes that it was a great deal more dysfunctional than he thought, and he is so glad to be out of it. 

When we are in a dysfunctional or toxic "closed" system, we may sense that not all is right, but it is when we get out that we realize how dysfunctional it was. This applies to staff systems as well as whole congregations where there is significant dishealth. Such dysfunction can be part of the historic DNA of the church, a dysfunctional board, a dysfunctional leader, or a "church boss" who wields unhealthy power and has a personal agenda.

What are some of the signs of a closed and dysfunctional ministry system?

One: There is tremendous pressure for people to think similarly and not to have independent voices. In closed systems, independent opinions that go against the "group think" are a threat and are not valued. Independent thinkers in ministries are often labeled as troublemakers or spiritually immature. Indeed, it is not safe to disagree significantly.

The truth is that breakthroughs occur when independent thinking, asking good questions and suggesting new ways of doing things are present. These are the building blocks of growth and vibrancy; holding them in check will bring decay and decline.

Two: Questions about the status quo are seen as disloyalty. This is especially true for senior leaders who are insecure and do not like their paradigms or opinions to be questioned. As long as one keeps the party line, one is "in." If you ask hard questions, you are marginalized.

Breakthroughs in ministry occur when hard questions are asked. The status quo will not lead you to the future; it will tether you to the present and the past. 

Three: Candid dialogue is not allowed. Usually, the senior leader sets the tone here. In closed systems, candid dialogue is a threat rather than a valued part of the culture. Such dialogue will inevitably challenge the standard line.

A measure of an organization's health or dishealth is how candid the dialogue can be. In closed systems, people know that there are subjects they cannot touch and places they cannot go. There are elephants in the room that everyone knows are there, but you cannot name them—often even in the board room. There is quiet intimidation to leave specific topics alone, and those crossing the line quickly realize they have entered the forbidden territory. 

Four: Senior leaders often protect themselves from accountability or questions in closed systems. They hide behind a spiritual veil that sounds good but keeps people from getting too close. They surround themselves with people who will agree with them, and those who don't usually don't stay, either because they know how dysfunctional it is or because they are marginalized or let go. 

It always amazes me that dysfunctional senior leaders are not asked more penetrating questions by the people around them or the boards to which they are accountable. Why is this? They are masters at making themselves look good, and others take the blame. They spin and posture, and because of the first three descriptors above, they are not held accountable, and tough questions are asked. The board and leader are both caught in a cycle of codependency.

Five: When independent voices appear, or someone steps out of the prevailing culture, tremendous pressure is put on them to get in line and conform to standard opinions. It is a family system thing, and any threat to the prevailing culture brings pressure for conformity. This is why independent thinkers often live in dysfunctional staff situations and congregations. They see the system for what it is and know it is unhealthy.

Those who think for themselves and speak candidly are usually pressured to get in line or marginalized if they don't. Often these individuals will simply leave because they see how unhealthy the system is and choose not to participate. 

Six: The most telling moment for those who leave such systems is how free they feel once they are out of it. Even though they knew it was not healthy, they realized how unhealthy it was once they were out. Those who leave are also a threat to those who stay, who, at some level, feel that those leaving are not loyal. They have violated the family system. 

What keeps people in systems like this? The irony is that while we may be uncomfortable and know something is off, to step out of such a system is to be labeled as disloyal or no longer "faithful." Those are hard things to live with, especially when they come from long-time friends or acquaintances. It feels ugly and unsafe, and you start to question whether it is true or not. 

In reality, these systems are simply large codependency environments where people get trapped in dysfunctional relationships and a dysfunctional system. Often you don't see that clearly until you are outside the system. If there were one descriptor of these systems it is the word control. Each of the descriptors above is about control. Freedom it is not! If you feel controlled or if any of these characteristics are true of your staff or your ministry, consider the possibility that you are caught in a closed, codependent, and dysfunctional system.

Indicators that a leader is leading from a place of insecurity and even fear

We often do not realize it when our leader is leading from a posture of fear, but some symptoms give it away. It is dysfunctional, and it feels bad, but we often do not understand what is going on. Here are some common symptoms of a leader leading from fear. 

They demand loyalty to themselves rather than to the mission of the organization. Leaders who lack self-confidence require their staff to be loyal to them—usually meaning that their staff agree with their views—rather than loyal to the organization and its mission. They are intimidated by independent voices who speak their minds, and if they perceive that loyalty as they define it is not present, they often marginalize those voices. Loyalty means you cannot disagree with the leader or challenge their thinking.

Those loyal to them are perceived as "their people," while those they don't perceive to be loyal are not. The irony is that loyal people tell their leader the truth as they see it. Those who only tell a leader what they know the leader wants to hear are not, in fact, loyal but sycophants. 

They try to keep people from talking to others about issues they feel strongly about. When pastors, for instance, tell staff that they cannot talk to board members or board members to staff or staff to congregants, it is a sign of fear rather than confidence. Whenever leaders seek to limit the conversation of others (beyond appropriate channels) they are operating out of fear rather than health. 

Prohibiting or discouraging open conversation is usually a precursor to an unraveling of leadership. When I see this trait I know that the leadership will unravel. It is only a matter of time. 

They display an underlying anger that erupts in inappropriate language, statements, requirements, or rules. People who live with fear or insecurity often try to control the environment around them with threats, anger, strong statements that intimidate them, or rules that are meant to keep their staff in line. When it does not feel good, it probably is not good. When it feels intimidating or coming from a place of fear, it probably is. When it does not feel healthy it probably is not healthy.

I have seen staff torn apart by the amygdala hijacks of an insecure leader where the leader goes into angry rants against the staff member who they perceive to have crossed a line with irrational words and anger that are meant to force the staff member back into line through intimidation, fear and the belittling of their character. Because this usually happens in private and because others know they cannot challenge the leader there is often no recourse for the staff member who has been violated.

Those who disagree are let go or marginalized, and the reasons for departures, voluntary or involuntary, are disguised. Truth is usually a victim of insecurity and fear. There is an inordinate desire to control the message and spin the reasons for departures to protect the insecure leader responsible for the staff member's departure. How is the truth disguised? by an alternative narrative determined by the leader—spin, if you will—rather than the truth of the situation. 

This is often the reason departing staff members are pressured into signing NDAs. The goal is to prevent the individual from speaking the truth from their point of view. NDAs are a sign of leadership insecurity and fear and usually mean that something leaders do not want disclosed does not reflect well on them. Ironically, the organization letting the staff member go often does not feel an equal responsibility to speak truthfully.

There is a culture of fear among staff. Anytime fear becomes the culture and people are not allowed to talk with one another or others, it is a sign of an insecure leader. No secure leader creates an environment of fear or intimidation. None. Where there is fear among the staff in general, there is a dysfunctional and usually fearful leader. 

Candid feedback to the leader is not allowed or appreciated. Only insecure or fearful leaders create an environment where candid and honest feedback is limited, controlled, or not allowed/appreciated. It says more about the leader than it does about the staff. It comes from fear and insecurity rather than security and freedom. 

I have been with executive teams who speak candidly together about issues when the leader is not present. When the leader is present, there is not a peep about those same issues. Why? They know that the leader does not appreciate or invite candid feedback, so the issues become elephants in the room that cannot be discussed in his/her presence. This is a classic sign of insecurity and fear.

A leader's board and senior staff must toe the line of the leader. Some years ago, our organization made a decision that irritated a senior pastor within the denomination. He forced his board (through intimidation) to agree with him and to withhold all support for our organization in the face of irrefutable evidence that we had reasons for our decision. But no pushback was allowed, and he forced his board to go along with him. When a board or senior staff must toe the line of the leader, it is usually a sign of control, fear and insecurity.

Boards are often caught up in leaders' insecurity and fear, so they don't ask hard questions or seek clarification about situations that should be clarified. 

My question is why such behaviors are not seen for what they are in the ministry arena and why staff and boards allow this behavior? It demonstrates naivete on the part of boards and usually fear on the part of staff who are put in an impossible situation. Don't be fooled, and don't get sucked into a dysfunctional leader's stuff. It is poison, and it is foolishness. Too many board members get sucked into the dysfunction.

When you should not write new policies

In my experience, organizations often have too many policies and policies that reflect a general distrust of staff. It is always interesting to read the policies of organizations I am helping because they usually give me insight into their past problems (solved, of course, by a new policy) and the general level of trust and empowerment in the organization, which is often low.

Here is something to remember. Policies reflect an organization's culture but do not necessarily create culture. People create culture, and policies reflect whatever culture is created. While policies are obligatory for any organization, how and why they are written sends a message to staff.

Policies should keep your organization legal, fair, safe, and clear on important issues. They are the non-negotiables that keep your organization in safe waters. They reflect the principles by which a healthy organization operates to keep it legal and fair with clarity. Policies are necessary to clarify expectations for everyone. However, not all policies are helpful, and they tend to proliferate if one is not careful. 

Here are some reasons not to write new policies.

One: Someone has done something dumb (It happens)! The answer is not to write a new policy but to deal with the individual who has crossed a line. It is unfair to other staff to establish policies based on one individual's bad choices. No policy can keep people from doing dumb things. Deal with the individual rather than write a new policy. The reason we often write policies when someone crosses a line is that we are not willing to have a difficult conversation with the one involved. And rather than a difficult conversation, we end up disempowering all staff. 

Two: You want to deal with an issue of organizational culture. Organizational culture is usually a matter of leadership rather than of policy. I can create a culture that avoids gossip, but I cannot write a policy to do the same. Some issues are issues of leadership and modeling rather than of policy. 

Three: You need to control what people do and do not do. If we need to control people, we are either poor leaders or have hired the wrong staff. Mostly, it is the former rather than the latter. The longer a policy manual, the more there is usually a desire to control rather than empower. And, in general, the longer a policy manual, the less empowerment an organization gives its staff. 

How do you clarify issues with staff other than writing new policies? Create a dialogue on the issues so they filter down through the organization. This honors your staff. Only write a new policy when necessary. 

Always remember that policies reflect how leaders see their staff. They reflect the culture of leadership within the organization.  It might be instructive for all of us who lead to have an outsider read our policies and give us feedback as to what they see. In one church I consulted with, I suggested that their policies reflected a great distrust of support staff. Reading them through that lens, they agreed with me. They had used policies to do all three of the above-named issues rather than simply spell out their non-negotiables and commitments. 

Policies can reflect a high degree of empowerment and trust of staff. More often, they reflect mistrust and the need to control. Leaders expect staff to trust them but often do not reciprocate with trust to their staff. 

Secretive leaders and the psychology behind a lack of transparency

When working with organizations in crisis, I sometimes encounter what I call the "secretive leader syndrome." This is a leader who is reluctant to tell others, often including staff and boards, what they are thinking. Or, they let on some of their thinking but not enough for others to fully understand them or their plans.

This creates a great deal of uncertainty on the part of staff, who need to mesh their own plans and thinking with that of their leader. For those who work for a secretive leader it is a most frustrating experience. In fact, it usually ends badly for the leader or their staff because a lack of transparency leads to conflict. If I don't know what is in the mind of my leader, I will either have to beg for forgiveness when I get it wrong or lead with caution in case I cross an invisible line I cannot see. It is one of the most discourteous behaviors a supervisor can exhibit.

What is the psychology behind a lack of transparency in a leader's thinking? First, consider that information is power! If I have information others don't have I  have power that they don't have and frankly some leaders want that power. It also allows a leader to share information selectively with those they deem worthy of having it and withhold it from those they don't. If it sounds like a mind game, it pretty much is.

I once worked with a leader like this, and even though we were supposedly co-leaders, I would wake up to all kinds of surprises on a daily basis. In addition, he was not transparent with me and would tell one individual one thing and another a different thing. It was crazy making.

Second, if I as the leader have all access to information and others don't I can play people or departments against one another. FDR famously did this in his leadership style, and while he achieved great things, it was at the expense of the relationships of his senior leaders who were told what he wanted them to know (and different leaders were told different things). Only he had access to all the information and, therefore, the keys to the kingdom. Others had to figure it out themselves, often at the expense of conflict with others. There is certainly an element of manipulation here.

Third, secrecy allows a leader to keep staff on edge as they present "surprises" in terms of decisions that staff have no context for. Again, this smacks of selfish and problematic behavior. Never would they want their staff to surprise them—ever—but they have no compulsion to surprise their staff. They are the leaders, after all. This also means that they have different standards for themselves than for others. 

This behavior is unfair, deeply dysfunctional, unempowering, and foolish. It usually masks a leader's deep insecurity. It is a form of control that allows the leader to keep the initiative and ensure that others don't have it. What is amazing to me is that boards allow this kind of behavior to take place.

This is a leader who does not want candid conversation regarding their ideas or thinking. That is why they keep it close to the vest and dole it out to those they choose, leaving others in the dark. In doing so, they limit any pushback they might receive, which is a manipulative means of getting their way.

There are things a leader does not share for valid reasons, but secretive leaders create problems for those around them - whatever their motivation. No healthy leader withholds critical information from their staff and/or board. If they do, it eventually comes back to bite them or the organization.

Non-transparent leaders create dysfunctional and often chaotic organizations. Eventually good people figure it out and move on. You cannot participate in real decision-making or strategy with a secretive leader, and that eventually leaves the organization vulnerable because other voices and minds are no longer at the table. Even if they are still in the organization. 

Hijacked Churches

It was a well-known church, nationally and globally, and the new pastor had plans for what the ministry would look like under his tenure. He was into bringing change—and fast. One Sunday, he announced that the choir was going to be disbanded—which was a big announcement in a church that loved its choir and orchestra. He said he would be down in the front of the church on Monday morning if anyone wanted to speak to him about it.

Monday morning came. There was a line from the front of the church to the entrance and then around the entire city block that the church was situated on. That should have been a clue to the new pastor, but no—he had his plans, and in the aftermath, hundreds left the church. I called him and suggested he was moving too fast without due process and listening to the congregation. He was unconcerned and was willing to have the very people who made the ministry possible through their financial support leave so he could accomplish his vision for the church. 

His argument with me was that the church needed change. He was most likely right. However, his approach was unwise and deeply wounded the congregation and, ultimately, himself. I suggested to him that you must build for the future while honoring the past. These two values must be held in tension together. 

He hijacked the church, and it did not go well for the church or for him. He left after only a few years. Unfortunately, this is not a unique story. 

I believe that leaders are called to lead at specific times in a church's history and that their unique abilities and vision are critical to the next chapter of a congregation's success. However, I have also watched with concern a phenomenon of new leaders coming into a church and essentially hijacking it for their own purposes. What are the signs of a church hijack?

One. There is a criticism of the past as if nothing good came out of it. The new leader/pastor talks about the future and implicitly or explicitly denigrates the past. This forgets that those who gave their energy, money, and talent in the past made the church what it is today and provided the platform for a new leader to build on the past. Every leader stands on the shoulders of those who led in the past unless they start something new. And the people who are there when they come are God's flock.

Two. The new leader does not ask and take into account the vision and dreams of the leadership or congregation but rather inserts their dreams as the vision for the future. When we come into a new church as a new leader, we do not come into a vacuum. We come into a congregation with a history and a vision, whether vague or focused. It is critical that we take that vision into account and not simply impose our own vision as if the past does not exist.

Three. Being willing to see many people leave so that a new leader can achieve their dreams. I have watched new pastors see hundreds of people leave the church because they have imposed their agenda on it without being concerned about the views and concerns of those who leave. It is as if they are willing to sacrifice the past to achieve their vision of the future. As a change agent, I fully understand that some people leave when a new leader or vision comes, but when significant people leave, it is more about the agenda of the new leader than a shared vision for the church.

Four. Marginalizing current staff. Again, there is no question that a new leader needs to build their own team. However, when it comes at the expense of qualified and good staff who have served well, it probably indicates that the new leader is anxious to get rid of the past and put their own stamp on the future. It is often a sign of their insecurity rather than security.

Five. Imposing a new vision that is unnecessarily a break from the past. Good leaders don't move faster than their constituency can follow, and they honor and value those who are there. Sometimes, it takes time to get where we want to go. Jesus never marginalized people other than the Pharisees in the pursuit of His mission. 

Six. Not listening to the concerns of the current constituency. This is one of the key indicators of a leader hijacking a ministry for their own purposes. When there is no concern for the vision, concerns, ideas, and issues raised by those who have come before, there is an arrogant rather than humble attitude of leadership. It usually results in divided, wounded, and conflicted congregations because of the agenda of a new leader who does not choose to take into account what has come before them.

When leaders hijack a church, they leave a trail of wounded bodies and hearts behind them. Because it is God's church, many leave or suffer quietly, but it does not excuse those who deliver that pain or lack of sensitivity. It is very sad when it happens and often results in deeply wounded congregations. I have a very hard time reconciling this behavior with the values of Jesus and how he treated people - His flock. It also seems to violate the advice Peter gave to under-shepherds in 1 Peter 5.  The question is whether it is ultimately more about them than about Jesus and His flock. Ministry platforms can and are used for personal agendas all the time. Unfortunately!

Eight kinds of people who should not serve on a church board

Not everyone is qualified to serve on a church board, and choosing the wrong people condemns the board to dishealth and frustration for years to come. Putting someone on a board is easy and hard to remove. So, who should not serve on a church board?

Those who have a personal agenda for the church. Jesus designed church leadership as a plurality of leaders, not an individual leader. That, by necessity, means that we intend to seek God's face together regarding the direction of the church. Rather than a personal agenda, we are committed to a corporate agenda based on seeking God's will. Those with individual agendas will sabotage that corporate pursuit of God's will.

Those who cannot submit to group decisions. The humility to seek God's will as a group and then submit to that direction is a natural extension of the comments above. Regardless of their reasoning, people who need their own way are not qualified to serve in church leadership. Divided boards ultimately create divided congregations.

Those who are black and white and inflexible. Group leadership requires flexibility in the opinions of others and the ultimate decisions of a group. Those who draw fine lines on issues and cannot be flexible will find it difficult, if not impossible, to serve well in a group setting. This includes legalists who draw fine distinctions in lifestyle and fine points of theology where there is legitimate room for disagreement.

Those who cannot deal with conflict. High, high mercy types are better off serving on care teams than leadership boards, as every key ministry decision has the potential to make someone unhappy. That requires that one has the ability to negotiate conflict and even live with the fact that not everyone is happy. It is hard to do if one is extremely high on the mercy scale and does not want to make anyone unhappy.

Those who cannot think conceptually. Some people can only deal with details and love to drill down to the details of anything under discussion. Leaders, however, are responsible for a higher level of discussion and leadership requiring conceptual thinking. Concrete thinkers will always find it hard to do the needed higher-level thinking of a leadership board. 

Those who have a history of conflict or relational dysfunction. Healthy boards are built on healthy relationships. Anyone with a history of creating conflict or relational issues should not be put on a leadership board where healthy relationships with God and one another are the coinage of leadership. Leadership is always about helping people become what God wants them to become. It is hard to do if one has a history of conflict and relational dysfunction.

Those who like power. Unfortunately, Power brokers are a fact in many congregations and are always a sign of dishealth. Power brokers are people with a personal agenda that is of higher value to them than a board's corporate decision-making process. Power brokers create factions for their side, which creates division in the board and church. They are dangerous people in any church.

Those who don't truly pursue God fully. Church leadership is about Jesus and where He wants to lead a church. That requires a higher degree of followership to the one on whose behalf one leads and a deep sensitivity to His direction and will. That is only possible with individuals who pursue Him. In defining the character qualities of those who should serve in leadership, the New Testament naturally rules out those whose spiritual life is not healthy or mature.

Nine ways that pastors can inadvertently create conflict in the church

Senior leaders are fully capable of creating unnecessary conflict in their churches. There is enough opportunity for conflict in the church without pastors contributing to it. Here are some ways that pastors contribute to conflict and, therefore, ways we can avoid doing so.

One: Being defensive with staff and boards. Defensiveness shuts down discussion, which inevitably creates conflict as real issues cannot be openly discussed and resolved. When pastors are insecure and, therefore, not open to robust dialogue, conflict becomes inevitable. The more open we are the less opportunity there is for conflict to germinate. 

Two: Making unilateral decisions without the input of stakeholders. Nobody likes surprises - not boards, not staff, or congregations. When pastors do not engage stakeholders, whoever they are, they create the seeds of conflict. Key decisions need to be processed with those who are impacted.

Three: Being inflexible. We may be clear about where we want to go, but flexibility is usually necessary to get there. Often, we cannot get everything we desire at once. Wise leaders are flexible in how they get to where they are going so that those they lead will actually go with them.

Four: Not running process. This is related to the above. All change requires a process to help those we lead go with us. When leaders make decisions that surprise stakeholders and do not run an adequate process to explain their rationale for change, conflict inevitably occurs. Often, we are too impatient to go where we want to go rather than take the time to run a process, and it results in conflict.

Five: We are not clear on where we are going and how we are going to get there. Ambiguity over direction and strategy creates insecurity and questions among those we lead. Clarity over both is critical to a healthy congregation. Often, when these are absent, dysfunction results.

Six: Marginalizing those who disagree with us. This is always a sign of poor EQ and insecurity, but it is not uncommon among senior pastors. We too often equate loyalty with agreeing with us, and when someone disagrees, there is a tendency to see them as bad or disloyal or even "agents of the evil one." Disagreement is not bad, but our response to it can be. When we marginalize those who disagree with us, we naturally create conflict because we now have those who are "in" and those who are "out."

Seven: Using the pulpit to take shots at our detractors. All pastors have detractors—it is the nature of the job. But when we start using the pulpit (which is a powerful platform), we naturally create an us-and-them mentality. The pulpit is for the untainted truth of God from Scripture, not a platform for us to take shots at our detractors. They deserve our love and maybe our candid thoughts, but not from the pulpit.

Eight: Dividing the board from the staff. I call this "leadership default." Pastors never play their board against their staff, for it inevitably creates an "us/them" mentality and distrust between two groups that must work in coordination with one another. The senior team the pastor is on is always his board, and it is his responsibility to create partnership rather than tension between his staff and his board.

Nine: Using the church for one's own agenda rather than for a corporate agenda that is agreed to by staff and board. Churches can be a platform for our personal agendas in leadership, or they can be a platform for God's agenda, which is agreed to by leadership, staff, and, ultimately, the congregation. When we use it for our own agenda without the agreement of others who make up our leadership team and the congregation as a whole (remember the priesthood of believers) we will inevitably create conflict.

As leaders, we often criticize those who create conflict in the local church. We need to remember that we can do the same—and often do if we are not careful. 

Counterintuitive practices of great leaders: Leading beyond the ordinary

There are several practices of wise leaders that are counterintuitive to how people usually think and act. However, these counterintuitive practices can help you build incredibly strong, resilient, and loyal teams. 

First is the practice of holding staff with an open hand. We breed resentment when we hold on to staff and make it difficult for them to move on or explore other opportunities. On the other hand, if we always tell them that we want the absolute best for them, whether with our team or on another, you breed loyalty. Those who are willing to let go find that people actually stay longer!

Second, developing staff to their maximum potential, even though it may mean they eventually leave your organization because you have developed them beyond your ability to challenge them. This willingness to develop others comes from a conviction that leadership is a trust, and a major part of that trust is building capacity into others - not to benefit you specifically but to help others use their God-given gifts to their fullest potential. This is an unselfish view of leadership development that benefits your staff, your organization, and others that your staff may end up serving.

Third, giving leadership opportunities away to qualified individuals rather than keeping them to yourself. This is counterintuitive because leadership opportunity also equals power and authority in the minds of many. Most leaders tend to guard rather than share leadership opportunities. It is counterintuitive to lift others up as we are often naturally selfish. Doing so, however, extends our own influence as we allow others to lead. 

Fourth, encourage people to speak their minds even when disagreeing with your ideas or thinking. The ability of others to engage in robust dialogue where any issue can be discussed, with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas, actually brings the best thoughts to the table. Leaders must overcome their insecurities to encourage robust dialogue, but they get the best from their people when they do. Letting others speak their minds even when they contradict our ideas is powerful and counterintuitive.

Fifth, encourage staff to accomplish their jobs in their own way (not how we would do it) within specified boundaries. Empowerment means letting go and unleashing others to use their creativity and gifts in their own way. It is hard for leaders to let go, but when they do, they get the best out of their staff—if they choose them wisely. Micromanagement breeds resentment, while empowerment breeds great loyalty.

One of my convictions is that conventional wisdom is always conventional but not always wisdom. The best leaders think differently than conventional leaders, and their counterintuitive practices reflect nonconventional thinking. 

What does it say about Christianity in this country when you cannot even have a conversation about helping pastors deal with political polarization in their churches because the conversation is too polarizing

This says much about the state of Christianity in America. In a column by Julie Roys, it was reported that "The Presbyterian Church in America canceled an announced panel on helping pastors deal with polarization - saying the topic was too divisive."

I have felt for some time that we have elevated politics above Jesus and the Gospel in this country. And when you cannot even have a conversation about politics to help pastors deal with the deep divisions among God's people in their own churches, it says a great deal about the state of Christianity in our nation at this juncture.

First, such a conversation should be centered on Jesus and a theology of trust in God for our nation's deepest needs. This is no longer the case in many churches or segments of evangelicalism today. Rather than a deep trust in God, our deepest trust is in a political system and getting the right president (as you define that), the right Supreme Court Justices, the right Speaker of the House, or what have you. 

This is an upside-down theology that bears little resemblance to any teaching about politics in the New Testament or the Old. At a very young age, I learned the verses in Proverbs that say, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight" (Proverbs 3:5-6).

When you cannot even have a conversation about politics, it is clear that something is amiss among God's people. This is not—at its base—a conversation about the two parties (although some make it so). It is a theological conversation about where our trust is, and that is a fundamental principle of the Christian faith. Evidently, we cannot even agree on this core principle. 

Scripture defines idolatry as any person, entity, or security that takes a higher place than God in our lives. This situation points to idolatry among God's people, and the idol here is politics—or perhaps a political savior. No subject should keep us from having a conversation as Christians, and when there is one, it points to a deeper issue that we cannot discuss in a way that keeps Jesus and the Gospel at the center. That is telling, and that is a problem.

A Christian worldview should allow us to have deep conversations about the place of Jesus and the teaching of Scripture in all parts of our lives. It seems that we don't have a worldview that allows that anymore. Politics has trumped Jesus and theology. They are now subject to the election outcome, not above politics, as Scripture teaches. 

I am reminded of Psalm 2 where the Psalmist speaks of the rulers of the nations who take their stand against God. "The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill" (Psalm 2:4-6). 

God is not subject to our politics. He is sovereign over all. But I guess we are unable to talk about that today. Probably because many of us don't actually believe it. 

I don't recognize much of what passes for evangelicalism today. This is one example, but I challenge people to consider what this means from a theological perspective. Politics has become an idol, a source of division among God's people, and a source of security it was never meant to be and never can be. Those are all theological issues.

Leadership coaching, governance/board training, staff/culture audits, management, conflict management, establishing clarity, creating healthy cultures, leadership, and organizational consulting. tjaddington@gmail.com

The one thing that is often missing on governance boards is courage

Having worked with various boards for decades, I have concluded that courage is the most missing element on boards. Without courage, boards do not confront realities that threaten the organization, dysfunctional and toxic cultures, leaders who lead poorly, church bullies who sow division in congregations, and substandard results. 

Rather than courage, boards are more often driven by fear: fear of challenging a leader, fear of calling out toxicity, fear of addressing substandard results, fear of candid conversation, and fear of naming the elephants in the room that everyone knows are present. They also fear losing what they perceive to be a good reputation and fear of conflict. 

When boards ignore apparent issues in the organization they represent, they are often preserving an image rather than solving organizational problems. Think about that. Image control is a higher priority than solving the real issues in the organization. Ultimately, that is about the board members who want to be seen as leading a healthy organization, so their genuine concern is not the organization's health but their own reputation.

In fact, what often happens is that there is a lonely individual on the board who dares to speak candidly. Those individuals are more often than not marginalized and ignored because they are rocking the boat by asking hard questions and speaking candidly.

Here is the thing: Board members usually know these issues exist. They do, But rather than discussing it, they ignore the issues because they are afraid to talk about and deal with them out of fear! Or to preserve the "peace" and avoid conflict. Or, as noted above, try to preserve their own reputation. All of these are selfish and self serving reasons not to address known issues. And self-serving is the exact opposite of what those who govern are to be about, which is the welfare, health, direction, and success of the organization they lead.

In a book by that title, Edwin Friedham calls this phenomenon A Failure of Nerve. He is right, and it is endemic on boards. 

In my many years of working with boards, I have often been called in by a board to address problems they had known were present but had ignored. In many cases, with the help of a third party, they finally dared to deal with long-standing issues. In some cases, even with the help of a third party who pointed out the obvious to them, they still refused to deal with the issue—out of fear! 

In the selection process for board members, it is not enough to have good or smart people. They must also be willing to speak candidly, challenge the status quo, look honestly at what is going on in the organization, and deal with those things that must be dealt with. They need to be people of courage, along with wisdom and discernment.

Here is an exercise that can help your board get to issues that are being ignored. Have them read this article along with the prior two blogs and then ask these questions with the responses written on a whiteboard:

• What issues have we been afraid to talk about?
• What do we know or suspect may not be right in the organization we represent that needs discussion and maybe remedial action?
• What have we been afraid to talk to the organization's leader about?
• What are the fears that have kept us from discussing these issues?
• What process can we agree to that will allow us to speak candidly about the issues we have identified?

You may need to do this in an executive session since these are issues that you have been afraid to talk about in the presence of the organization's leader. 

Do you have the courage to have a simple conversation like this? It could be a step toward a healthier board, healthier board members, and healthier organizations. Are you willing to have that kind of conversation? If not, you should step off the board you serve on.

Leadership coaching, governance/board training, staff/culture audits, change management, conflict management, establishing clarity, creating healthy cultures, leadership, and organizational consulting. tjaddington@gmail.com

I wasted my time trying to help too many organizations that didn't really want to change.

It took me way too long to realize that, in too many cases, I was wasting my time trying to help organizations that said they wanted help but, in reality, did not. I don't intend to do that again.

Typically, I will get a call from an individual with an organization who says, "We need help." Often, I will meet with them and explain our process at The Addington Method, and they will say we need this really badly. 

But I have learned that in many cases, they didn't want help in the end. Let me explain and unpack the five questions I now ask before agreeing to help an organization.

One: Do you genuinely want candid feedback?

Almost everyone will say yes, but you quickly discover that the yes only applies to things they want to hear and not to the difficult things they need to hear. The problem is that we only grow when we are willing to listen to things we don't particularly want to hear. That is true in my life, and I suspect it is yours. We are human, and our egos don't like to be bruised, but until we are willing to choose humility over ego, we stay in the ruts that we are in. 

The only way forward is to be willing to accept candid feedback. No leader gets better without it. Those who resist it are wasting your time. They want to do something other than the hard stuff to grow. 

Two: Are you willing to listen to your staff?

In my work, I often conduct Culture Audits. These are one-hour conversations with open-ended questions designed to discover what is happening beneath the organization's surface. It is not unusual that when the results are shared, the people who asked for your help decide that the results—from their own staff—are inaccurate. Mainly because they are inconvenient.

Boards and leaders who do not take the feedback from their staff seriously are doomed to mediocrity. The irony is that in not wanting to accept that input or trying to make it disappear, the staff all know the truth anyway. They see it and live it every day. In addition, if leaders and boards are willing to listen, they can rectify the issues that staff raise and ultimately make the organization healthier and happier. 

When leaders or boards ignore staff feedback, they do so out of their insecurities and egos. A posture of humility and openness to staff experience is one of the greatest gifts leaders and boards can bring. 

If one is unwilling to listen to one's staff and their feedback, one does not really want help.

Three: How much do you want better organizational culture and health?

This is hard work. It demands introspection and a setting aside of our egos to achieve a better and healthier place. If one is only willing to do the easy part but not address the hard issues, one is not ready for this challenge. In order to achieve a better culture, you must deeply want to get there because the route there will be challenging.

Four: Are you willing to invest the time it will take to get to cultural transformation?

Transforming one's culture is not a microwaveable process. Your DNA is imprinted with past habits, attitudes, and ways of doing what you do. Cultural transformation can take several years, but it is deeply worth it. However, it requires focus, honesty, introspection, a willingness to change, and a long-term commitment to healthier and better practices.

Leaders enamored by short-term, flavor-of-the-month ideas may need more time to be ready to help lead cultural transformation, which is long-term work that requires significant patience and resolve. This work takes time, focus, and resolve. In one recent case I was involved in, I told the board that it would require at least a one-year intensive plan to change the toxicity of their organization. In their wisdom, they said, "We want it done in 90 days with executive coaching. Submit a new proposal to reflect that. I chose to step out, knowing they were not serious and that it would not work.

Five: Will you invest appropriate finances to get the help you need?

Important work takes time and requires a financial investment. Too often, organizations are unwilling to get help and make the necessary investments. They think they can handle it. Of course, the very reason they are talking to a consultant is that they have not been able to handle it. Every organization funds what is most important to them. If they are unwilling to fund becoming better and solving real organizational issues, it means that this is not important to them.

If your organization is in need of change or a healthier culture, ask these five questions. You are not serious or ready to move forward until you can genuinely say yes to all five. This is the work we do at The Addington Method, but not until we are convinced an organization is truly serious.

Boards that ignore the obvious and allow toxic behaviors to flourish

The classic book on governance boards is "Boards That Make a Difference" by John Carver. I have encountered some boards that make a huge difference because of their careful governance. But what stands out for me after decades of consulting with boards is the number of boards that ignore the obvious, allow toxic behaviors to flourish in the organization they represent, and look the other way when leaders create toxic cultures and hurt multiple members of their staff with impunity.

A fundamental truth is that boards oversee organizations, and as the highest authority in the organization they oversee, they are ultimately responsible for its health and well-being—not because they manage the organization but because they oversee its leader.

But here is the dirty little secret of many boards. They don't hold the senior leader accountable for the health of the organization and frequently overlook and ignore what is actually taking place in the organization they represent. 

This begs the question of why? In one recent case where I conducted a Culture Audit of a staff of 70 individuals on the East Coast last year, the results painted a picture of massive toxicity. The transcripts of those interviews included 850 pages, and the findings were mind-blowing in their dysfunction. When I shared the results with the board heads nodded up and down in agreement as if to say, we suspected as much. Yet the board did almost nothing to address the toxicity but rather went into a protective mode to ensure that the institution involved looked good to the public rather than became good in its culture. 

The same can be said for many church boards that ignore massive toxicity generated by a senior leader whose narcissistic tendencies leave a pile of bodies on the side of the road for years, creating untold hurt and pain for numerous staff. Rather than holding the leader involved accountable, they often circle the wagons to "protect the wonderful ministry that is taking place." 

In both cases, staff are deeply hurt, but more importantly, their boards have empowered dysfunctional and toxic leaders to flourish at the expense of the staff they oversee. 

Let me make several observations. 

One: boards that make a difference are made up of people who have the courage to call out dysfunction and hold leaders accountable. In fact, the best boards empower leaders and hold them accountable for the health and productivity of the organization they lead. Leaders who are empowered but not held accountable are dangerous leaders who create toxic cultures.

Two: Healthy boards never substitute success at the expense of a healthy culture. Healthy cultures create healthy staff, and the opposite is equally true. Unhealthy leaders create unhealthy work and organizational cultures. For any organization, this is unacceptable. In the end, only healthy cultures can create long-term healthy results, and good board members know this and insist on it. 

Three: Healthy boards are not afraid of the truth. They want to know the true state of affairs in their organization and find ways to gauge its health or dishealth. Unhealthy boards are more concerned about the public image, while healthy boards are more concerned about the true state of affairs within the organization. Time after time, I have encountered boards that intentionally chose to ignore what was obvious to staff and others to protect a public image. 

Four: The whole premise of a healthy board is to empower healthy leaders, to hold leaders accountable for how they lead, and, if necessary, to take remedial action against leaders who consistently violate their leadership trust. Yet this fails to be the case all too often.

In one organization I worked with, two loved leaders had been summarily fired by their senior leader. In meeting with the board I discovered that six other leaders had been fired or chose to leave in the preceding several years. I asked if they had done an exit interview with those leaders, and they said no. So, I contacted each of them and heard a common story of abuse at the hands of a toxic leader. This board had failed in its duty to understand what was going on and to hold their leader accountable. In the end, both the board and the senior leader resigned. As they should have. 

The greatest failure I see with boards today is failing to define what is critically important for their organization and failing to hold their leaders accountable for moving the organization forward toward its preferred future in the context of a healthy culture. 

There is never any excuse for boards that ignore the obvious and allow toxic behaviors to flourish—not Ever! Yet it happens all the time, and those who get hurt are usually the organization's staff. This is inexcusable, wrong, and sad. The victims are the staff who have no recourse as their leader is often the one creating the toxicity and a board that willingly looks the other way because they are unwilling to confront it. 

There are way too many boards that don't make a difference, and that is a leadership failure.