When our ministries claim to be transformational but toxicity exists on their staff, we need to take note

 

There is a disconnect in many ministries that claim to be about transformation. That disconnect is that their own internal staff cultures are often toxic, dysfunctional, and highly untransformed. It is a sickness that pervades even high-profile ministries that purport to be at the forefront of leadership and transformational ministries.

I recently worked with a very large multi-ethnic church, where I also did a culture audit. The audit revealed a deeply toxic culture within the staff which spilled over to the ministry of the church in general. The church claimed to be transformational, but in reality, its claim was wishful thinking as there was little staff health. Some staff who had left in recent years would not even step back onto the campus. 

The interesting thing was that when the culture audit findings were shared with the board, there seemed to be little concern, leading me to withdraw from my consulting with them. The church was in decline, as is often the case when there is toxicity among staff. In fact, almost every one of the 70 individuals I interviewed indicated that the congregation was on the downward side of the organizational life cycle. 

If our staff cultures are not healthy, we do not have the moral ground to claim that our ministry is about transformation. There are too many places where fear and intimidation, and lack of care for staff are the norm. It usually reflects the senior leader's lack of EQ or concern for those on their staff. It is often fueled by a leader's drive to succeed or their own insecurities. Whatever the cause, it is inexcusable and sad. And not consistent with the kind of cultures that reflect the culture of Jesus.

Healthy staff cultures are marked by these kinds of characteristics.

• All are treated with dignity
• Grace is extended in all situations - even when tough issues are being dealt with
• Truth is spoken in grace
• People are developed, empowered and valued
• Candid discussion is valued
• People are in their "lane" or sweet spot
• Men and women are treated equally
• There is a high value in helping people become all they can be
• Leaders serve their staff to help them be successful
• There is clarity of roles and people are given the tools to do their jobs
• Teamwork is highly valued
• Relationships are collegial 
• Opinions are valued
• Staff find their roles fulfilling because they understand the mission they are contributing to
• There is high trust
• Fairness is practiced in all situations
• Appreciation is regularly expressed

How does your staff culture measure up, and where could you do better? Transformation starts at home, in our own ministries. As ministry leaders, our commitment to transformation starts with our own staff. Where there is transformation on staff, it will spill over into the congregation and the opposite is also true. 

Questions to ask your staff - and yourself

 

There is a wealth of information at the fingertips of leaders if they would take the time to ask their staff key questions. They know things you don't know and they can help your organization get better - much better if you and your leaders will take the time to ask key questions - and listen to the answers. Those questions can lead into rich dialogue, suggestions, ideas and insights that can literally change your organization. Here are some of the questions that I ask.

What is your happiness faction on a scale of 1-10 in your job. Follow up and pay close attention: What would make it higher?

If you could change three things about this organization, what would they be?

Are their things that you could be doing that you are not?

Are their any individuals in the organization who you believe are not positioned properly or who create significant issues for others?

What are the things that bring you joy and fill you?

What are the things the deplete you?

Tell me what a perfect day looks like for you?

If you were a consultant to this organization, what suggestions would you make and why?

How would you define the culture of our organization? Follow up: What would you like to change about our culture? Follow up: What are the best pieces of our culture? What are the worst pieces of our culture? Are their any pieces of our culture that you would define as toxic and unhealthy?

Is there something that you have always wanted to talk to a leader about but never had a chance? 

What would be the perfect role for you? How does that role compare to what you do currently? 

If a ministry: What do you think the spiritual temperature of our organization is? What would you recommend to see the spiritual temperature higher? 

What is your greatest joy in working here?

What is your greatest frustration in working here?

If you were advising me, what would you want me to know?

Do you believe that we are a highly empowered organization where people have the freedom to act without permission, or highly controlled where you need to ask permission before acting?

Do we have a culture where we can have honest and gracious conversation or are their issues that we cannot broach?

How innovative and entrepreneurial so you think this organization is? Give examples.

Five attitudes that need to be addressed with staff for a healthy culture

The culture of your staff will determine the health of your organization. Culture eats everything else for breakfast. Poor culture creates poor everything else. Healthy culture creates healthy organizations, relationships, and outcomes.

We often think there is not much we can do about staff culture, but that is not true. In fact, leaders control the culture of their staff through the training they do, the messages they convey, the example they set, and the honesty of their interactions. You can train your staff toward health, and you can remove staff who will not cooperate as their dishealth spoils the health of the rest of the team. That act in itself sends a very clear message about one's commitment to health.

Five attitudes need to be addressed with staff if you want a healthy culture.

One: Cynicism

Cynicism is deadly to a healthy culture because cynics stand outside the team and throw grenades into the team with snide comments that question the motives, direction, and decisions of others without contributing anything productive to the conversation. 

Cynics stand outside the circle and criticize those inside the circle. How do you counter it? You call it out and declare cynicism to be an anti-value because it does not build but detracts from what the team is trying to do. It is OK to say, "Look, we believe in robust dialogue, but we won't put up with cynical attitudes." The former is constructive, while the latter is destructive. Call it for what it is and declare it illegal on your team.

Two: Lack of buy-in 

These characters also stand outside the circle and refuse to give their wholehearted energy to what the organization is trying to do. Essentially, they withhold key parts of their energy, emotion, and heart from the organization's mission. I often tell staff, "If you cannot serve here with a happy heart and a clear conscience, you must find another place to serve." It's that simple. Those who withhold themselves from fully embracing the mission and vision of the your ministry don't belong there. Say it, have a conversation, but don't allow it to go unaddressed. It is a spirit that kills.

Three: Those who always see the downside

It is good to know the unintended consequences of what one does. It is good to plan for various eventualities. Still, those who always go to the downside and the negative literally rob the rest of the team of joy, possibility, mission, and enthusiasm. 

If you want a healthy culture, you must help those who would throw cold water on new ideas that it is unacceptable behavior.  Innovation, risk, and new paradigms are the coinage of healthy organizations, and they require staff who see possibilities rather than all the negatives in a new idea. There is always a reason not to try something, which keeps organizations from moving forward. Can you help those who always see the downside to see the possibilities? Sometimes. But, if not, they don't belong on a healthy team because they won't produce healthy culture.

Four: Complainers

There is a difference between those who offer constructive observations and those who merely complain. Constructive criticisms are observations that come with a potential solution, while complaints offer no solutions and are simply shots at someone or something. Constructive criticisms are vital to a healthy organization, but complaints as an attitude are deadly to organizational health. Here is a principle to consider. Unless you have a solution, don't come with a complaint. 

Five: Idealists

This one may surprise you. After all, don't you want idealists on your team? It depends! Some idealists exhibit traits of the first four of these attitudes because the team does not meet their expectations. As such, they can resort to cynicism, and complaints, reserve their full buy in and focus on the downside. In good organizations, there are always gaps between what we want to be and who we are. An idealist who won't live with the reality of those gaps actually becomes a liability to your culture. That is what to look out for. Idealists who help you get where you want to go are great. Those focusing on the "gap" will not contribute to a healthy culture.

What keeps leaders from confronting these five attitudes? Fear! We ought to be direct, honest, and clear about the culture we are building and the kinds of people we need on the team to build it. And to be willing to say. "If you don't want to fit our culture, you are in the wrong place. We will help you succeed only if you want to be here and contribute fully to health." It's that simple.

This simple practice will boost the morale of your staff significantly

It is not unusual for me to conduct staff audits in churches, non-profits or businesses. One of the most common complaints is also one of the easiest to solve: Leadership does not listen to us! Now think about that. It takes no money or resources to listen and dialogue. It does not affect your bottom line or your budget. But it does have a huge impact on morale.

Both listening or not listening to staff has a magnifying effect on morale. When leaders do not make this a regular practice, even small things become magnified because that small irritation is compounded by the perception that leaders don't care. What might be a minor issue becomes a larger issue when leaders don't listen. That is further compounded by the fact that in the absence of listening, staff talk to one another and the gossip circuit further magnifies whatever it is that created an issue in the first place.

The magnifying impact of listening or not listening works the other way as well. What staff want to know is that their leaders are aware of issues that exist, that leadership cares about their opinion and that they are willing to ask for feedback on a regular basis. Listening means I care. It also means I value your input and I respect you. It means that I have time for you. Even if you cannot solve the issues that are shared with you (some are easier than others) the fact that you cared enough to listen changes the attitude of staff. They know that you care! Often, leaders can resolve an issue which creates a great deal of good will. Not only did you listen but you did something about it.

There is one cost to listening - but it is a wise investment: Your time as a leader. A common complaint about leaders is that they live in a bubble, spending their time with other leaders and oblivious to what is happening at lower staff levels. I know this to be true from interviewing hundreds of staff members over the years. This is often a valid complaint. It is often the case that leadership teams are in fact oblivious to issues because they are not talking to people that they would not normally encounter in their leadership suites.

What does listening look like? First it means that leaders do management by walking around. Don't stay in the leadership suites. Go where your staff are and ask them what their concerns are. Ask what their happiness factor is and what would make it higher. Ask what they would change in your culture if they had the chance. As you listen, follow up with questions of clarification. Because you are a leader you will be treated with some deference. So you will have to work harder at pulling candid answers out of those you talk to.

Do the same thing in small groups. Let them know that you want candid feedback and ask questions that are designed to elicit thoughtful responses. Take a small group to lunch without their supervisors so they don't feel constrained in their responses. Take notes and dialogue. Thank them for their input and let them know that you will be thinking about their comments and suggestions. If there is low hanging fruit that you can respond to in the short term, do so and they will know that you heard them. And remember, you are listening, not talking!

Most leaders overestimate how much time they spend listening to staff. Keep a record and become disciplined regarding this discipline and you will be amazed at the benefits to the organization. And, you will learn a whole lot that you didn't know before.

The culture of your church staff directly impacts the culture of your congregation

How healthy is your church?

One of the leading indicators of that question's answer is the health of your staff culture. The culture of your staff is generally a microcosm of congregational culture, and whether good or bad, will ripple on the rest of the congregation. When I work with congregations who are struggling with significant issues, one of the first things I do is to get a handle on the culture of the staff. It will tell me a great deal.

The best way to understand the staff culture is to do a staff audit. These are 30 to 60-minute individual conversations with all staff with a carefully chosen series of open-ended questions - usually conducted by an independent third party that staff will feel free to open up with. Having completed many of these, I have learned that staff are willing to share honestly about the joys and challenges of working in their environment. The results of such an audit help senior leaders understand where they are doing well and where they could do better.

In this process, you can learn how empowered or controlled staff feel, whether they have what they need to do their jobs, whether there is alignment throughout the team regarding ministry direction if there is clarity around who the church is and where it is going if they are coached intentionally or left to their own devices if there is a collegial or competitive spirit and even the general happiness of staff in their work.

Here are some observations.

• Where staff are not empowered, volunteers in the congregation are not empowered either.
• Where there is openness among the team and the freedom to talk and share honest opinions and ideas, there is generally an open atmosphere in the congregation where people feel free to tell their stories without fear of censure. The opposite is also true. 
• A happy staff usually indicates a happy congregation.
• Leaders who control staff members often try to control people and ministries across the church.
• Where leaders allow unresolved issues to fester on staff, they also tend to allow the same in the congregation. 
• Leaders who don't shepherd and care for their staff often do not do so with the rest of the congregation.
• When there is a culture of grace on the team, you usually find that same culture within the congregation.

Much of staff culture reflects the commitments of the senior leader. The best leaders pay careful attention to the culture they create on their staff, knowing that what they build there will become the culture of the congregation as a whole. Self-absorbed or controlling leaders are more concerned about themselves and the church's image than they are about the health of their staff. The result can be a ministry that looks great on the outside with a significant lack of health on the inside. Many congregations fit that bill. This is true of some of the largest congregations in the country.

Staff turnover reflects dysfunction within the staff environment and its leadership. Healthy churches have low staff turnover and, interestingly, greater retention in the congregation. Where turnover is high, someone needs to pay attention and ask why. There are always reasons. 

The lesson: As it goes on staff, it goes to the congregation. Pay attention to your staff culture. That culture will ripple on the rest of the community in good ways and bad. Problems within the staff culture may also indicate problems in the congregation. Your culture is your brand.

When senior leaders exert too much pressure on staff

Many senior leaders are highly driven. Maybe most. They tend to see life from 35,000 feet and all the things that need to get done. And, they are often impatient. They want to see results, fix things, explore new opportunities, reinvent old strategies, ensure results, fix disconnects and who knows what else. Are you tired yet? Some years ago my senior team said, "TJ, we are not starting anything new this year!" They had their hands full.

There are predictable results when senior leaders push too hard on too many things. 

Cynicism. Because you cannot do everything at once, leaders who are always pushing for more and for better eventually wear their subordinates out until each new proposal is met with a certain level of skepticism, even cynicism. Better a few important initiatives than many minor ones. More does not equal better. Usually it equals mediocrity. Usually, leaders who push and push also change their minds often leaving staff who have worked on an initiative frustrated when they must change directions mid stream.

Discouragement. There is nothing better than celebrating success. But when many initiatives are on the plate, success is elusive since most will not get accomplished. Or accomplished well. This is discouraging to staff who are working hard to accomplish the mission of the organization. 

Lack of focus. None of us can focus on more than a few important issues at a time. When leaders make unrealistic demands on many fronts, staff don't know where to put their energies and the priority of the senior leader my change quickly. Staff are left to guess as to which initiative is the priority leading to a lack of focus throughout the organization.

Commitments that don't get kept. When pushed hard, many staff will make commitments that they don't want to make and cannot keep. It is the only way to relieve the pressure of the senior leader, however, so they do it. Many of these will not be met because they were unrealistic to start with. This then sets up a cycle of blame for promises not kept which in this case is the fault of the leader rather than the staff member.

If senior leaders will allow their senior team to have a voice in what issues are tackled when there will be a far more realistic view of what can and cannot get done and by when. When leaders exert too much pressure they hurt themselves, the organization and the staff. 

Pesident Trump's leadership style could be his undoing.

I have watched with some bemusement the internal leadership dynamics of the Trump presidency and White House. Not his politics - the country voted for that. But his leadership style. In fact, I suspect that it is his personal leadership style that will prove to be the most serious challenge in his presidency. 

As a reader of biographies including many of world leaders, I am well aware that their personal quirks, often combined with very smart minds make them the leaders that they are or were. Those who know me know that I read everything I can on Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, whose leadership style combined with their personal idiosyncrasies made them the leaders that they were. Or, equally, Abraham Lincoln whose team of rivals made his presidency what it was through a tumultuous time in our history. That being said, I have some observations to make about the leadership style of President Trump that I believe could be his undoing. These issues go to the heart of great leadership.

One: The best leaders are crystal clear on their message. 

Clarity is one of the fundamental secrets of good leadership. Clarity means that one has thought through their position and will articulate that position with simplicity. When Roosevelt insisted that the only way that World War Two would end was with unconditional surrender of the Axis powers he clarified the endgame and made all other options of negotiated surrender superfluous.

When President Trump contradicts himself in his messaging he confuses the people around him, makes them look like chumps (especially when he has send them out to defend a prior position) and opens himself up for unnecessary attack. And frankly, it looks amateurish and foolish. Further, it undermines his credibility with other leaders in the world who wonder which Trump they should believe. Continually surprising your own staff will alienate them and eventually erode their trust in their leader.

Two. The best leaders ensure that there is a common narrative that is true, defensible and clear so that the team is on the same page. This is the responsibility of a leader and of his communications team. They need to talk, they need to agree on the message and not be in a position where one or the other is going to contradict their messaging. Clearly this has not been happening in the White House and Sean Spicer and staff have been left out to dry numerous times by the president they are trying hard to serve.

While Saturday Night Live has pilloried Sean Spicer nicely, at the core of Sean's challenge is a leader who loves to sow confusion at the expense of his staff. Sean became ineffective, I would argue, because of the individual he was working for and his dysfunctional leadership style. If I were Sean I would be bitter at how my leader had treated me.

Three. The best leaders support their staff in public and air their issues in private. Whatever one thinks of Jeff Sessions, he is currently being undermined directly and publically by the one who appointed him to his leadership role. Good leaders do not undermine their own staff! This week President Trump called Sessions a "beleaguered A G." Of course if he is beleaguered it is the President who has created the situation for Sessions. This is not only highly unprofessional but it is also disrespectful, counter productive and demonstrated that the "boss does not have the staff's back." 

I suspect that Sessions will choose to leave his role and I also predict that some others will choose to leave early because of their growing conviction that if this could happen to one of their team members it could just as easily happen to them. Of course, the President has also undermined others with whom he disagrees, which leads me to the next issue. 

Four, the best leaders respect differences of opinion and actively solicit alternate points of view. The reason that Lincoln's Team of Rivals worked as well as it did was that he wanted differing points of view, respected them and insisted that his team worked together. This was also true of FDR whose team members did not always like one another but who chose to work together through the issues of the depression and the war. 

This is not President Trump's modus operandi. Consider his ill advised early morning tweets. Almost all of them blast people or institutions that differ from his point of view including his own staff when he chooses (including other world leaders like the President of China, the leadership of Germany or the Mayor of London). While I believe there is huge bias in the news media against the president and all things conservative, I have come to the conclusion that "fake news" includes not only bias but anything that the President disagrees with. His issue with Sessions that has become so public is not with "fake news" but his unwillingness to allow Sessions to make a decision to recuse himself from the Russia inquiry. Ironically, Sessions is actively carrying out the President's policies even as the President undermines his authority and position.

Five. The best leaders take the blame in failure and give away the credit in success. One is hard pressed to find many evidences of this from President Trump. Failure, as a rule, is pinned on others, including members of his own staff and party while success seems to always come back to him. 

I suspect that many great leaders are narcissists and it appears that the President fits that description pretty well. Yet at the core of great leadership is a leader who has gathered a first rate team around him or her and it is because of the team (working synergistically together toward common objectives under good leadership) that the best things happen. That is why the best leaders give the majority of the credit for success to their team. And, since the "buck stops at the President's desk" he/she shields the team from responsibility for failure - at least in public. 

Does any of this matter? It actually does! Consider:

• The best staff will not agree to serve and may not stay when these leadership dysfunctions continue to exist. Sure there will always be people who want positions in the government but the best people may well stay away given what they see.
• These leadership dysfunctions are real downers for the staff that is working overtime to please their boss. It is demoralizing and it is leadership by fear and intimidation. In the long run it is not a healthy leadership paradigm.
• At some point trust between the leader and staff begins to erode when this leadership style is present. I have to suspect that other good leaders on the President's team are watching the issues with Jeff Sessions with great unease. 
• Senior staff do not need the chaos created by a boss who changes his story or contradicts what they have said in good faith. How, for instance, does Mr. Tillerson lead the State Department when President Trump tweets messages contradictory to what Mr. Tillerson has said or creates situations that Mr. Tillerson must clean up with other world leaders. 
• Thinking people around the world including many world leaders are watching Mr. Trump's leadership style with consternation. What should they believe? And why does it seem that he is more critical of his friends around the world than America's enemies (Russia?). 
• If senior staff come to the conclusion that the President does not listen to them they may well ask "Why then am I here?" And leave. 
• Most important of all, there are real issues that face our nation that are largely being ignored because of (I would argue) the leadership style of the President. Yes the media goes after Mr. Trump relentlessly but his style and some of the people around him feed the media beast with reason to be suspicious (unreported meetings, inaccurate or incomplete information). Whatever the organization, when there is dysfunctional leadership at the top the staff of the organization and most importantly the agenda of the organization is sabotaged. 

Why leaders have an obligation to deal with situations when there is not a good staff fit

Perhaps one of the hardest responsibilities of leaders of teams or organizations is to deal with situations where there is not a good fit between a staff member and his/her role. What makes it hard is that it requires candid conversation with the individual as well as the effort to find a role that is a better fit in your organization or in another. Many of us don't like to have those conversations. However, supervisors have a real obligation to deal with these situations for reasons I will delineate below.

First, to leave someone in a job fit that is not good is a disservice to the individual involved. Almost always a poor job fit also means the individual involved is not happy or fulfilled. At some level they probably know the fit is not right and while they may not want to confront it for reasons of job security we don't do them a favor by allowing them to stay in a place that does not fit them. As one leader said to me recently about a staff member who needed to move along, "She won't like it in the short run but a year from now she will thank me for doing it." We are stewards of others and as such we need to act when necessary.

Second. When there is not a good job fit, others are impacted! Other team members are always negatively impacted by an individual who is not a good fit for their job. To ignore the issue is to disempower the rest of the team. Saving ourselves the discomfort of a potentially difficult conversation leaves other staff having to deal with the poor fit of one of their colleagues. As stewards we cannot do that.

Third, our own leadership credibility is at stake when we ignore these issues. When leaders ignore known issues they lose credibility with their staff who are also aware of those issues. Staff have a right to expect their leaders to have the best interests of the team in mind and to act accordingly. If we ignore issues out of our own discomfort we lose credibility with our staff.

We must deal with these situations with care for the individual involved. But we cannot ignore it.

When loyalty becomes a threat to an organization

We all want loyal staff, particularly to the mission of the organization we lead or are a part of. However, that very important element can become a problem when leaders choose staff members primarily on the basis of loyalty to them.

Recently I had a first-hand glimpse into an organization that does great work. But there was one key staff member who caused me puzzlement. He had poor interpersonal skills, did not empower others below him, made snap decisions, and created major consternation for about half of the staff who served at his direction. Don't get me wrong, he was a great individual but was in a spot that everyone seemed to know was not designed for him.

As I asked around about this individual and a few others the consistent answer I received was this: The leader of the organization values personal loyalty above all other qualities. And by this they meant loyalty first to him. Thus he would choose leaders based on their personal connection with him regardless of that individuals qualifications for their role. In doing so, he inadvertently disempowered those who had to work for these loyal but miscast staff members.

That loyalty also fostered a "yes person" culture as these staffers tended to not challenge the thoughts of the leader as loyalty to them was taken as agreement. Thus the concept of robust dialogue was not fostered at the top of the organization and subsequently throughout the organization.

What fascinated me was that this was a healthy organization overall, and the challenges it had internally almost always went back to one of these leaders who was chosen for their loyalty. Not because they were not good people but because they were in the wrong spot for their gifts and had been chosen for the wrong reasons - loyalty to the leader regardless of their qualifications for the role.

Competence for one's role needs to come first, along with loyalty to the mission and respect for leadership. But when personal loyalty or a long-term relationship with the senior leader is the primary qualification for leadership in the organization, this loyalty factor becomes a threat to the organization as a whole.

At Addington Consulting,

We Simplify Complexity

Speak Candidly

Help You Find a Way Through

tjaddington@gmail.com

Transformational ministries with toxic staff cultures

There is a disconnect in many ministries that claim to be about transformation. That disconnect is that their own internal staff cultures are often toxic, dysfunctional and highly untransformed. It is a sickness that pervades even high profile ministries that purport to be on the forefront of leadership and transformational ministries.

If our staff cultures are not healthy we do not have the moral ground to claim that our ministry is about transformation. There are too many places where fear and intimidation and lack of care for staff is the norm. It usually reflects the senior leader's lack of EQ or concern for those on their staff. It is often fueled by a leader's drive to succeed or their own insecurities. Whatever the cause it is inexcusable and sad. And not consistent with the kind of cultures that reflect the culture of Jesus.

Healthy staff cultures are marked by these kind of characteristics.

• All are treated with dignity
• Grace is extended in all situations - even when tough issues are being dealt with
• Truth is spoken in grace
• People are developed, empowered and valued
• Candid discussion is valued
• People are in their "lane" or sweet spot
• Men and women are treated equally
• There is a high value in helping people become all they can be
• Leaders serve their staff to help them be successful
• There is clarity of roles and people are given the tools to do their jobs
• Teamwork is highly valued
• Relationships are collegial 
• Opinions are valued
• Staff find their roles fulfilling because they understand the mission they are contributing to
• There is high trust
• Fairness is practiced in all situations
• Appreciation is regularly expressed

How does your staff culture measure up and where could you do better? Transformation starts at home, in our own ministries. As ministry leaders our commitment to transformation starts with our own staff.

See also:
Signs you work in a toxic workplace

Signs you work in a healthy workplace


All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.