Inviting your board or staff to become disrupters rather than engage in group think

 

Organizations love to live in the comfortable because the uncomfortable creates anxiety and questions that are not easily answered. This is the major reason that board members, for instance, love smooth and friendly meetings. It is why they keep hard questions to a minimum, don't tend to ask them, and live with the hope that all is okay rather than dealing with known issues. 

It is also why many leadership groups do the same thing. They do not invite disruptive questions or observations, especially if it would make the senior leader uncomfortable. This is the nature of organizations and the pressure to keep people comfortable rather than challenging what is. Those who ask disruptive questions are often marginalized or put in their place by other group members. 

How, for instance, did the Willow Creek Church or Harvest Bible Church dysfunction go on for so long, and how did the boards and staff disregard what was so apparent to those on the outside looking in? In both cases (and in multiple other cases), the desire to live in the comfort zone precluded candid discussion about what was actually going on, and in both cases, a lot was going on. In retrospect, it seems incredible that no group member called the question. Still, it is testimony to the intense pressures to ignore what is inconvenient or potentially disruptive and the power of groupthink.

There is a much healthier alternative, but it takes leaders who possess self-confidence, courage, and nothing to prove, nothing to lose attitude. It is an open invitation to engage in robust dialogue where any issue (read that again) can be put on the table except for a hidden agenda or a personal attack. 

Robust dialogue is an invitation to explore new ideas, ask disruptive questions, speak candidly without reprisal, and do so for the organization's good. It is a rare commodity in most churches and organizations. The result is that issues don't get addressed in a timely manner, those who speak candidly are diminished, and the return on mission is compromised. Unfortunately, it is a rare organization that values disruptive questions, ideas, or observations.

When I led a large international organization, I only put someone on the senior leadership team who I thought would be willing to challenge, disagree with, or take issue with me. I wanted an organization that didn't settle for comfort at the expense of being everything we could be. It made a big difference. 

Any leadership group: a board or executive team is wise to ask the question: Do we value disrupters, or do we love comfort? Have a candid conversation around that issue and see what you learn together. 

See also

What leaders and board members don't know and why

Curiosity and hard questions create discomfort but are the path to becoming better

In many organizations, those who ask the best questions become the object of criticism while the questions remain unanswered

Unspoken Discussions on church boards and work teams

Church boards and work teams are notorious for their unspoken discussions! Those unspoken discussions are the issues that are present, that people know they are present, but that either individual board members or the board itself do not dare to discuss as a board. These are elephants in the room - often critical issues for the church that require being named and dealt with, but the board's culture mitigates against it.

Many individuals do not like conflict; their definition of conflict is anything that might cause individual or group discomfort. So, there is subtle pressure put on board or team members to be friendly and not rock the boat by naming issues that are out there and need discussion. (The same dynamics can be had on almost any team.) You know that you have breached a topic that makes people uncomfortable when you put an issue on the table, and there is either silence or someone jumps in to quickly deflect the problem from the discussion.

I recently read an article about Patrick Lencioni suggesting that major financial institutions have been in trouble lately because of the prevailing culture on company governance boards to not deal with issues that would make others uncomfortable. So, the culture of nice sabotages a culture of truth and effectiveness.

Pastors, leaders, board members, or team members who choose not to speak in the face of real unspoken issues do a disservice to their organization. The irony is that everyone generally knows there are unspoken issues - they just don't want the discomfort of naming them. The hope is that they will just go away!

How we speak to the issues is essential. If I approach an unspoken issue and put it on the table, it will be best received if there is not a personal vendetta and my words are not meant to hurt. I don't have a hidden personal agenda; I want the best for the organization; I communicate in a way that invites rather than disinvites dialogue; I say it in love; and I acknowledge that the issue may make others uncomfortable.

The funny thing about "elephants" is that once they are named, they are no longer elephants. I once worked with a group around a whiteboard and asked them to name every elephant they felt existed in their organization. We filled the whiteboard (a bad thing), but once up there, we could talk about all of them (a good thing). Once named, an elephant is simply another issue that we are allowed to talk about. Unnamed, it is one of the unspoken discussions we know we need to have but need more courage to discuss.

Every board, team, and organization is better off with a high level of candor and trust, which mitigates the candor turning into anger or cynicism.

If you are brave, I would suggest that you ask your team or your board in a relaxed atmosphere to brainstorm on any unspoken board discussions you need to have, on any elephants that need to be named, whiteboard them, and then develop a plan to talk through them one by one.

Unspoken discussions are not discussions, just frustrations, and they often hide real issues that unresolved will hurt the organization.