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.