What time wasters do you want to rethink for the coming year?

Time is perhaps the most precious commodity any of us have. Money comes and goes but time just goes. For those of us who are "mission driven" in our lives and desire to maximize our impact with the gifts God has given, how we invest our time takes on eternal meaning. 

It is worth remembering that every engagement we agree to requires us to write a "time check." We may think it doesn't cost us anything but actually it does because that time cannot be regained. So it is worth asking the question, "Are there activities, people or habits that wasted my time this year and which I can reclaim for better purposes in the coming year?"

I have realized, for instance that it is very easy to get caught up scrolling through X, instagram, facebook videos and the like. While my technology can save me time and give me access to a great deal of information quickly, that same technology can easily rob me of time if I am not careful. We easily get into habits that are frankly time wasters rather than quality time investments. 

There are also people in our lives who on reflection, are not great investments as well. Kacey Muscgraves recently wrote a song called Deeper Well. She sings...

"Took a long time, but I learned

There's two kinds of people, one is a giver

And one's always tryin' to take

All they can take

So I'm sayin' goodbye to the people

That I feel are real good at wastin' my time

No regrets, baby, I just think that maybe

You go your way and I'll go mine

It's been a real good time

But you got dark energy, somethin' I can't unsee

And I've got to take care of myself

I found a deeper well"

Kacey got it right. There are often people in our lives who carry more negative energy than positive, who rob us of our time, our joy and our purpose and whom it would be better to let go of. We have choices about friendships and who we spend time with. Since time is so precious we ought to choose well. Our time with any individual is an investment. 

Years ago, I listened to a colleague talk about the diminishing time he had left. I was a lot younger, in my forties and he was in his seventies. His comment made me think as he talked about things he would like to do but "the runway is getting a lot shorter." At 68 I also realize that the runway is getting shorter. But at any age, we should never take time for granted. 

This is the time of the year that I ask myself the question, "What should I do differently next year?" Evaluating how I spend my time is one of those important considerations. Some things are just more important than others including God, my marriage, family, close friends, and in my case, writing and coaching others. If I can be smarter about how I invest my limited time, I can accomplish more of greater value!

So here is my challenge. What changes do you want to make in the coming year to redeem the time you have? I will reflect futher on this but this is a good place to start. Think through your habits, the people you spend time with, the things you are involved in and the dreams you have. Are you making the right time investments and could you make better investments? Write down what you discover and think about how you can redeem your time in the best way possible.

Six steps that church boards can take to address issues that threaten the health of their church.

It happens way too often, especially in the not-for-profit arena and especially on church boards. Obvious issues within the ministry are ignored, minimized or allowed to fester because the board is unwilling to confront a senior leader, or a powerful individual in the church who is creating issues or a staff culture that is toxic. 

It is not that the issue is hard to see. In fact, in many cases, congregants see the issue clearly and in many cases leave the church. Yet on the board, there is reluctance to even name and discuss the issue. It is a classic case of burying one's head in the sand and pretending that the issue is not there or will go away by itself. If we ignore it, maybe it will dissapear. In fact, what usually happens is that the issue gets worse, not better. 

The negligence of church boards is at the root of many toxic church cultures. They did not create the toxicity but knowing that it it there they have done nothing to deal with it.

This week I spoke with an individual who had a concern around some issues in his church that could literally blow the church apart. He is on the board but the board does not want to deal with the issues. I asked if there were congregants who were aware of the situation and he said yes. So it is an "open secret" I said and he said yes. It is also the kind of issue that if it became more public could create a great deal of legitimate concern. Yet the board is dragging its feet and has not made it a priority. As I listened I thought to myself, "This is not going to end well."

In another church I am familiar with, there has been a great deal of toxicity on the staff - the result of a senior pastor who can be described as narcisistic, abusive toward staff, prone to outbursts of anger and attack, causing both elders to resign as well as key staff. Even though the board was fully appraised of the issues, it took them over two years to deal with the toxic pastor and they have never sought to make things right with the individuals the pastor hurt, alienated, had their reputations damaged by him even as he polished his own reputation with spin and subtrafuge. 

The board knew but chose to do nothing for two years while staff were being hurt and the bodies on the side of the road proliferated. Even when key staff appealed to the board there was absolute silence - no response. In one case a staff member recorded her last meeting with the pastor who berated her causing her to walk out of the meeting and out of the church never to return. Even when the recording became known, there was no interest on the part of the board to listen to it. When she wrote a painful letter to the board about her experience, there was no response. Not even a call to the former staff member. 

As I read the New Testament I see that boards (elders) have six responsibilities Biblically. First to ensure that the congregation is taught well. Second, to keep the spiritual temperature of the church high. Third, to ensure that the congregation is led well and missionally, Fourth to protect the flock from the wolves of aggregious unrepentant sin, division and heresy. Fifth, to ensure that the flock is cared for. And, sixth, to ensure that people are developed, empowered and released into meaningful ministry. Certainly, the kinds of behaviors I have enumerated here violate number two, three, and five. My book, High Impact Church Boards enumerates these responsibilities. 

Too many boards are wrapped up in doing all the wrong things. Policies and procedures while ignoring toxic behaviors, conflict, people who are being abused and hurt, leaders who are not leading, and the absence of spiritual ferver in the church.

I am convinced that many boards are utterly untaught in the Biblical responsibilities of elders (regardless of the name of the senior leadership group in your polity). The result is a great deal of damage to the church as unadressed issues continue to grow until they blow up and in some cases destroy the church altogether. It is as if these boards have never had a serious discussion about the clear passages in the New Testament that speak to their role. There is no excuse for this. It is Biblical ignorance of the highest order. 

There are many very public examples of large churches who chose to ignore known issues until the issues literally blew the church up with broken bodies left all over the map.

I believe that boards ought to have a standing agreement that when there are credible issues that arise within their church that they will do these six things.

One, they will have a full discussion so that whatever the issues are they have been verbalized and everyone is aware of the situation.

Two, they ask the question as to what follow up is needed and who will be responsible for that follow up. This includes regular updates to the board until the issues are resolved. That follow up should include candid converstation with those who may know something or asking uncomfortable questions that will help them understand the truth.

Three, they ask the question as to their responsibility as church leaders in this situation. They put their responsibility front and center rather than evading their own responsibility. They measure their responsibility against the six responsibilities of leaders enumerated above from the Scriptures. 

Four, they commit to doing the right thing even when it is hard, inconvenient or uncomfortable. It takes courage to be a church leader and if one is unwilling to do the above, they should not serve in leadership.

Five, where the board cannot decide what to do they agree that they will seek outside counsel from individuals who are wise, who are not personally impacted and who can give unbiased counsel. 

Six, they will not leave known issues unadressed. Period. 

Any board that is unwilling to take these six steps ought to reconsider their leadership in light of their Biblical mandate. 

The greatest waste in any organization

The greatest waste in any organization is waste that no organization needs to pay but does regularly and the cost is high! What is it? It is wasted time, talent and energy of staff who are underutilized and whose time is wasted by supervisors. Let me explain!

I often do culture audits in organizations. One of my standard questions is this: Are you being used to your maximum potential, given your abilities and gifts? In almost every case, the answer is "No!" My follow up question is this: "Has your supervisor ever asked you that question?" Again, the answer is almost always no.

So here you have employees who want to use their gifts to the fullest and know they are not and employers who are choosing to leave that unused talent on the table. Who loses? The organization for sure which could see greater return on their investment along with staff who are unfulfilled. 

When I was in organizational leadership I would regularly ask my own assistant, "Is there anything I am doing that you could do for me?" And, "If you were running this office, what would you encourage me to do differently?" Those two simple questions allowed me to offload tremendous amounts of work over the years to competent and top flight administrators who could often accomplish tasks far faster than I could. This freed up precious time that I could use for other purposes. A win win for me and for the organization.

A second prodigious waste of time are ill prepared meetings where people come in late, where the facilitator is unprepared and as a result the staff are unengaged, paying more attention to their phones than to the object of the meeting. It is estimated that half of all meeting time in the United States is wasted. 

I once worked for an organizational leader who was habitually late to his meeting, came unprepared or simply did not show up. Repeatedly! I remember one time after my schedule was eradicated by his behavior, I left the building, went to the local Panera Bread and contemplated quitting right then. It was not too long after that I did resign. Aside from the total lack of respect shown, the wasted time and therefor opportunity was huge. And this was a large organization. 

No meeting should be held that does not start and end on time, has a clear agenda, agreements on how the meeting will be conducted and the attention of those present. If leaders give opportunity for the meeting to wander it will. If they model discipline and good planning they send a message to others about these values. We cannot ask of others what we ourselves do not model.

These examples show a lack of respect for staff, as well as the organization as a whole. But they also illustrate the waste that we can allow to rob our organizations of time, talent and job satisfaction. 

If you are a leader, regularly ask staff members if they are being utilized to the fullest and if you get a "no" work with them and their supervisor to change that equation. And on meetings, set a new standard if it needs to be set for disciplined and time effective meetings. These are important culture statements in any organization.

Leadership malpractice

Leaders face many temptations, which, if not guarded against, will hurt their leadership. Here are ten that I often think of and that are often not given adequate attention.

One: Starting to coast on past development in the middle and later years. When leaders don't stay sharp and don't have an intentional development plan, they hurt themselves and the team they lead. Intentionality must be ramped up in the middle and later years if we stay in the game. Not having a growth plan is leadership malpractice, especially for those in senior positions. Their lack of growth and development harms everyone under them. Leaders should only be allowed to operate with an annual development plan.

Two: We become set in our paradigms and lose the necessary flexibility all leaders need. The world changes quickly, and we need to continue to understand those changes and stay flexible in our approaches to maintain our ability to remain relevant. We should become more flexible as the years go by and realize the limitations of our knowledge, wisdom, and contributions to others. 

Three: Becoming less receptive to the ideas and feedback from others because we feel we have the knowledge base we need. When we stop listening to others, asking questions, and inviting input, we become less and less effective. No one has the complete knowledge base they need. Instead, we are deeply dependent on the expertise and skill of others as our leadership platform grows. When we become unwilling to hear candid feedback or ideas that are not ours, we are in a danger zone, and it is only a matter of time until our behaviors find us out.

Four: Getting into a rut by staying too long in our role. This does not necessarily mean we need to change jobs, but it does mean that we constantly need to look for new challenges that cause us to think, grow, and learn new things. This is why number one is so significant. One way to stay out of the inevitable rut is to develop intentionally. Those who wait too long in a single role experience a diminishment of thinking skills, strategy, and creativity as they stop using these necessary leadership functions. 

Five: Allowing our time with Jesus to become professional (related only to our work) rather than personal and intimate (related to our heart and life). It is an easy trap to fall into and one that we must constantly fight if we are going to allow Jesus to continuously transform our lives. This is a dangerous place for those who profess faith in Christ or work in ministry. Our relationship with God is only as current as the last time we spent with Him. Neglect of the spiritual is dangerous for those in any leadership position, especially those in professional ministry.

Six: Taking too little time for reflection and thinking. Leadership means responsibility, and it is easy for our activities to crowd out the reflection we need. When we are young, we run on energy to a great extent. As we mature, we need a lot of wisdom, but wisdom comes from having the time to think and reflect. The best leaders allocate more rather than less time to reflection and feeling as the years pass. This is the most challenging work a leader does because the pressure is always to be doing something when we should be doing a more excellent reflection and thinking that can lead to significant leadership breakthroughs. No one will do a leader's thinking for them.

Seven: Taking our staff for granted rather than realizing they are one of our highest priorities. No matter how good our team is, unless we are building into them, encouraging them, and helping them grow, we lose critical influence with them and the organization. Leaders either grow their subordinates or stagnate the organization by not doing so. The development and encouragement of staff are the quickest ways to significantly increase the organization's impact. It is literally a multiplication metric.

Eight: Allowing ourselves to become disengaged from the leadership work we do. This may reflect deficits in some of the issues above, but disengagement and autopilot always threaten good leadership. When we stop paying attention to our leadership tasks, it is usually because we are paying attention to lesser things and priorities in our lives. We have lost our way as leaders when we allow the less important to get in the way of the truly important. You cannot coast and lead well at the same time.

Nine: Not developing outside interests that can feed our lives. All of us need things that refresh us and delight us. Leadership is hard. Having other interests actually refreshes us for better leadership. Outside interests add richness to our lives and are indispensable to healthy leaders. For me, this is often reading one of the books stacked on my desk, photography, cooking, and, more recently, time in the gym. Doing less to achieve more and balancing life with multiple interests are keys to leadership success.

Ten: We should not allow our identity to be defined by our role in leadership rather than by our identity as healthy individuals. Leadership is a role we play, but it should not define who we are personally. We are people like everyone else and need to be comfortable outside our leadership role. It also helps us not take ourselves too seriously. Life is more than the role we play in our work. 

Organizational culture is often a matter of the small decisions we make not just the large ones

Too often, we overlook the fact that every decision we make that affects others in an organization says something about our culture. Here are two recent examples.

My wife and I were recently in a local TJ Maxx in Manchnessy Park, where my wife loves to hunt for bargains. We found a few but then stood in the checkout line for an interminable amount of time, waiting to pay. Ten people were in the line when I got to the sole cashier. The crazy thing was that the store manager was up in the front, fiddling with cleaning up some items and ignoring the growing line. 

What did this say about the store culture? It clearly said that regardless of the company's value statement, the customer did not come first at this store. The fact that the manager could ignore the customers sent a strong message to those of us who were in the line and the rest of the staff that there was no need to be customer-centric. After all, the leader of this store certainly was not. It was all I could do not to say something as I watched the manager ignore his customers.

My wife works for one of the upscale care facilities here in Rockford, IL. I often get a glimpse at their culture through the stories she brings home. The dining facility has been practicing making food available to the staff, who help the residents eat at no charge or a nominal charge. Every day, the leftovers are thrown away (yes, you heard that right), so if there is food left, the restaurant staff will gift it to the staff who have been helping. 

No longer. Now, it is forbidden to give or receive free food, and the price of food has gone up for staff. And they continue to throw the leftovers away. 

The residents who eat there are aware of the new rules and wonder why the administration would do this when the uneaten food is discarded. The staff are all wondering the same thing. But here is the thing. This decision sends a clear message to the staff that they are not valued by the management. The management obviously wants additional income - by charging the staff more - and the net result is that staff no longer buy the food and cannot receive leftovers at no charge. One staff member was reprimanded for accepting food in front of the diners (residents) and staff who were there. And, of course, the leftovers are thrown away daily!

Every organization should ask this question when making decisions that impact their constituency: "How does this decision or my action reflect the culture we want to build here?" Or, "What message are we sending when we make this decision?"

When the store manager ignores the growing line of customers who want to purchase his products, he sends a message about the store's culture. I don't intend to go back! It was such a blatant statement that I was not valued there that I took note and said I would take my business elsewhere. 

When my wife's employer forbade staff from giving food destined for the trash to employees and then hiked the official price they were to pay, what did that communicate to staff and residents? Both groups walked away with a message about the culture that I don't think the management intended to send, but they sent it because they did not think through the implications of their decision. Those implications were lost on the decision-makers rather than on their constituents. 

Every day, leaders in organizations make decisions that impact their constituents. Unfortunately, they often don't consider those decisions in terms of culture and the message they are sending. Our well-written statements are frequently not reflected in our decisions, and our constituents read our actions far more than they read our finely-tuned value statements. In fact, our written statements about culture and values are meaningless when our actions contradict what those statements actually say.

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.