Negative voices are empowered because they talk with one another

Why can a few negative voices make such a difference in an organization? It is really quite simple. People with negativity find each other, talk to one another and create bonds with each other around their unhappiness. Of course others are left out of the conversation but the negative voices reinforce themselves and it feels like they represent the majority. Usually they do not.

These alliances often create significant dysfunction. For instance, a negative staff member of an organization finds a receptive ear with a board member (going around the leader) and they start back channel discussions around their concerns. All of a sudden this board member has "information" (tainted as it may be) but none of the other board members are in on the conversation or can bring balance. The leader is also in an unfair place as he/she does not know where the negativity is coming from.

These alliances reflect poor EQ. We should be able to disagree with one another and stay connected rather than needing to connect over what we don't like. Relationships built on common enemies or "concerns" are not true relationships. They are simply alliances built around an issue. And when the issue is a negative one, the relationship gets it fuel from the negativity, never a healthy fuel.

What is interesting is that those involved often lose their ability to truly see reality. They assume that there are far more people who are in agreement with them than is actually the case. That is because negativity is reinforced by talking to others who agree with their position. Often in church conflicts this is the case. People will tell me that the vast majority of folks agree with them when in reality it is actually a few. But negativity feeds their reality until they don't see accurately.

When I hear common negative language or mistrust I assume that there are folks allied around a common issue. I do not assume that it reflects the majority opinion even though it is loud. These are times when it is important that those who don't agree speak up and not stay silent. Silence contributes to the negativity. Being self defined can change the equation. Don't get caught up with others where the relationship or common interest is a negative one. It is rarely healthy or productive.

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.

Communication silos and integration

It is not uncommon for a leader to have many one on one conversations with members of his/her staff but not to inform others of the contents of those conversations so that they are the only ones who have all the information. FDR was famous for this tactic. What it does is to give the leader the power of information but to leave staff in the dark. It is disempowering to staff and actually a dysfunctional way to lead (FDR notwithstanding).

Whenever any of us have conversations with other staff whether we are the leader or a staff member there must be a question asked at the end of the conversation. Who else needs to know about what we talked about? Often our conversations have implications for others and it is our responsibility to let them know of ideas being considered or decisions made or contemplated - if it will impact them.

Because information is power and because healthy leaders share rather than hoard power, we need to ensure that those who need to know are in on the conversation even if not physically present. Few things silo organizations or individuals more than siloed conversations and decisions. Not everyone needs to know everything but we need to be sensitive to what they do need to know. 

In a flat world this is everyone's responsibility, not simply the leader. I am responsible for sharing the information I have that others need. They have the same responsibility. Don't allow siloed conversations when they have implications for others. Share what you need to share. It builds trust, keeps everyone in the loop and removes unnecessary silos.

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.

Truthful disclosure in ministry settings

One of the hallmarks of Jesus was his commitment to truth. It was not a hard truth for it was almost always delivered with grace (Pharisees excepted on occasion) but it was truth. Falsehood is one of those things listed in the Proverbs as detested by God.

Yet, ministries are notorious for delivering half truths, non-truths and outright falsehoods when dealing with issues that are unpleasant. This breeds predictable and appropriate cynicism among those who know the full story and is at worst no different than the spin control we see all the time from governments and at best is disingenuous. 

I am not suggesting that in every situation we disclose all that we know or could disclose. That is neither necessary nor appropriate in many cases. I am arguing that what we communicate must be true and accurate and that if someone knew all the facts they would be satisfied that what we communicated was not misleading. It is a matter of integrity, of truth and of the character of God who is the father of truth as opposed to Satan who is the father of lies.

This applies to situations where we might be tempted to spiritualize as a method of spin. Here we blame God for the situation we find ourselves in rather than taking responsibility for our own actions. I remember a time when an organization I was a part of lost a great deal of money through poor decisions and the leader talked about God wanting us to become more dependent on Him. I suspect that God actually wanted better management practices and I didn't buy the line. 

When we choose not to tell the truth we are also communicating that God's people cannot handle the truth. The truth is that we learn how to handle difficult situations by wrestling with them, not by avoiding them. It may not be a pleasant conversation but it should never be an untrue conversation.

I have elsewhere shared some principles for those instances when we need to have difficult conversations with our staff or congregations. One of the things that should separate us from the rest of the world is that we are people who worship the God of truth whose character is true and therefore our words must also be true and righteous and straight. Falsehoods are lies and lies do not come from God. Make sure that your words are always truthful even if you are not sharing all the truth you know.

Communicating in a matrix world - it is everyone's responsibility

Communication builds trust and trust minimizes conflict because information is power. The issue of how an organization designs systems where the right information gets to the right people at the right time so that good decisions can be made and everyone know what they need to know is complex. When it comes to information, everyone has an opinion and expectations are hard to meet. Some common complaints I hear are:

We don't get enough information.
We get too much information.
I don't know everything that is happening.
You did not solicit my opinion or input before you made the organizational decision.
My leaders don't tell me what is going on at their level.
Leaders can cascade information down through the organization but how do I send information back up to them?

There are some principles that if understood and practiced would help address these and similar concerns.

In today's flat world, communications is from the top down, the bottom up and horizontal all at once.

While there must be intentional organizational communication, the day of leaders simply telling the organization what it needs to know is long gone. I receive up to 100 emails per day, from people throughout our organization, from national ministry partners, from donors and pastors on any number of issues. And, I reply to every one of them or I ensure that the one who can address the issue they have raised replies to them.

One of the great blessings of our day is the access to information from many sources and the ability for most to quickly communicate throughout the organization to share insights, express opinions, offer solutions or share challenges. This works both ways. In the traditional top-down organizational structure, employees knew primarily what their leaders wanted to tell them. And, leaders knew primarily what their reports chose to pass back to them. No longer: I can solicit or receive unsolicited information from anywhere in the organization and so can anyone else in the organization.

In today's flat world, it is the responsibility of every team member to share information that needs to be shared with whom it needs to be shared and to solicit needed information in order to make healthy decisions.

Here is a paradigm shift. In the old paradigm, it was primarily the job of leaders to communicate pertinent information throughout the organization. In the flat world, it is the job of everyone to share relevant information that they possess to those who need to know it regardless of where they fit in the organization.

And, it is the responsibility of each of us to solicit information we need (if we don't have it) from those who do have it to make the best-possible decisions. Rather than allowing a culture of blame to exist (you didn't tell me), we need to create cultures of proactive communication in which people at all levels of the organization are responsible to others at all levels of the organization. This is empowering for those who practice it because anyone, at any level of the organization has the ability to influence the direction of the organization if they are willing to share what they know or solicit information they need to have to do their job well.

Flat organizations that are intentionally healthy create an egalitarian communications culture where everyone has the responsibility and freedom to communicate with those who need information they have and to solicit information they need. At the same time they retain organizational structure and accountability and the support for decisions by the right people at the right level of the organization. The central theme here is that every one of us has responsibility to communicate relevant information, not just some of us.

Not everyone needs to know everything

Small organizations are like families. In families, everyone kind of knows what everyone is kind of doing. It happens naturally through family relationships, shared meals and relational proximity. As organizations grow, this changes because of the complexities of ministries, relationships, the number of personnel and the need for everyone to focus on their particular areas of responsibility.

For those who were in the organization when it was small, this is a tough transition because where they always used to be in the know, they no longer are. This is a painful transition for staff members in growing churches.

Historically, the organization I lead has called itself a family. And, back in the '60s when the denomination was small and the mission family was small, it felt like family. Today, it is not a family but an organization because you cannot be 'family' with 550 personnel scattered across 40 countries of the world (Except by Facebook). Thus, like a church that has grown out of the family state (at about 150 people), we have as well but the expectation is still there by some (who remember the old days) to think we are family.

A family knows what is going on with all its members, a clan does not. When people say to me, "I don't know everything that is happening anymore," I reply, "neither do I." The truth is that I need to know certain things, but not a lot of things. I expect members of the organization to share significant breakthroughs or issues, and always their concerns. But much of what happens I don't know. I am trusting good people to do the right thing. Anyone who expects to know everything, or even most things in a growing organization, will be disappointed by their unrealistic expectation.

In a flat organization everyone has responsibility for communication:
To communicate concerns to appropriate people.
To communicate with appropriate parties after decisions are made.
To solicit information that is needed for making wise decisions from any level of the organization.
To alert leadership of barriers, concerns and opportunities.
To be as transparent as possible on any issues that are raised.
To recognize that no one will know everything.
To take personal responsibility for getting information they need rather than complaining that they did not get it.

When sensitive information needs to be communicated to a congregation

From time to time, church leaders need to share sensitive information to their congregation regarding sinful behavior of a leader or congregant. While hopefully a rare event, when it does become necessary the question is always how much do we divulge and for what purpose do we reveal it. There is no one answer that fits every situation but asking the following questions about what one proposes to share can help frame the communication. 

Is what we are sharing true? We may well not share all that we know but are we being truthful in our communication rather than trying to cover something up?

If the full story were revealed would our congregation be satisfied that what we told them was truthful?

Is the information already circulating? To the extent that information is already known, it may be wise to be more candid than less.

Do we have a redemptive purpose in mind even as we share bad news?

What is likely to come out regarding this situation? How much we share is sometimes a factor of how much information is likely to become public. The more it is likely to become public the more we may need to share.

How does our communication impact others involved if there are any? If there are victims, does our communication violate them in any way? Are they aware and OK with what we intend to share?

Have we vetted our statement with an attorney? We live in a litigious society. Be smart in one's communication.

If there is a threat to others posed by the situation (someone who has abused children, for instance) have we taken adequate steps to protect the congregation?

Have we given guidelines for how the congregation is to deal with the information we have provided?

See also: Transparency in the church: 12 Principles for dealing with Bad News in the Church

The weight of a leaders words

The two boys God gave me were highly sensitive growing up to the words and reactions of their parents. I remember one time giving one of them my "look" and he responded "Don't yell at me!" Actually I had not said anything but I had communicated with my body language and he had felt the message! 

Leaders are not parents to those they lead but like parents, their words have extra weight than the words of others.

Leaders often do not appreciate how their words can hurt, wound, lift up or encourage those in their organization. Because they are leaders their words have extra weight which means that what they say and how they say it impacts people deeply, positively or negatively in significant ways. Their words carry more weight because people don't want to let them down and staff feel it deeply when words spoken carelessly come their way.

This means that leaders have a higher responsibility than others to filter and control their words (yes emails) and reactions so that they do not negatively impact others or send messages they don't want to send. 

Leaders should remember:

• Words of affirmation are huge.
• Careless passing words that construe disappointment or cynical can hurt.
• You can say a lot with body language. Be aware and careful.
• Measure your responses to control your emotions so that your emotions don't get in the way of the message.
• Think before one speaks: both about the message and the way it is delivered.
• If you are going to say hard things because you must, think carefully about how you do it and focus on behaviors rather than on motives. 
• Your words carry extra weight so use them carefully!

You heard what? Communicating well

I am often amazed at what people "hear" compared to what I thought we "said." It is a challenge in any organization (the church being one of the most complex) to communicate in a way that people actually understand what we are trying to communicate. It is not that people don't listen. It is that there are many messages competing for people's attention and the more complex the organization the more attention there needs to be to what and how we communicate.

Organizational trust is very much tied into good communication. When people understand where their leaders are taking them and what is important to the organization trust grows. When they do not, trust diminishes.

The first and most important job of any leader is to clarify for the organization who it is, where it is going and how they are going to get there. Indeed, one of the greatest frustrations of congregations and ministry organizations is the absence of clarity on these critical issues. Congregations and ministries become restless and unhappy in the absence of clarity. They are less concerned about what the direction is than they are about knowing the direction.

Good leaders ask several questions regarding communication on a regular basis.

One: They ask, "What do people need to know?"

People need to know with clarity the mission of the organization, the non-negotiable guiding principles, the culture you desire to create and the central ministry focus (what you do day in and day out to accomplish your mission). They also need to know any key directional changes that you are making (surprises are not welcome). And they need to know where you as a leader want to take the ministry.

Two: They ask "How do I communicate simply and clearly?"

Here is the rule: The more simply and clearly I can communicate what I communicate the better it will be heard. Leaders think carefully before they communicate so that their message is most likely to be heard and understood. Simple and clear communication wins every time. Complex messages will not be understood or are often misunderstood.

That is why I lead from a sandbox where the four sides of the sandbox represent the four most important things those in our organization need to know and live out (The book, Leading From the Sandbox explains the paradigm). Everyone can remember the four sides of our sandbox and if they do, they remember the four most important things for our organization.

This raises a second issue. When leaders do not communicate simply and clearly and when they do not communicate the same thing over and over, clarity is lost to confusion. Good leaders communicate the same key messages over and over and over with the same vocabulary so that the very vocabulary used becomes the vocabulary or short hand of the organization. Ambiguity fosters confusion. Simple clarity fosters understanding.

The greatest leaders are those who can communicate complexity with simplicity! It is a skill that can be learned but it takes the discipline of figuring out how to communicate the complexity of your ministry with simplicity. And then stick to it.

Three: they ask: "How can I know if they understood what we said?"

This is a very important question. Good leaders never simply assume that everyone understood what was communicated. Often people hear the message but make their own assumptions about what it means in the framework of how they view the organization. Especially, when leaders are bringing change they need to ensure that people really understand.

There is a simple way to ascertain the level of understanding. Good leaders find forums to dialogue with various staff teams on a regular basis where they again communicate with simple clarity those things the organization needs to know. Then they engage in dialogue, asking questions, answering questions, talking through the implications of what has been communicated.

Through dialogue leaders are able to understand where they are not being understood and therefore hone their message for greater clarity. They are able to clarify what is not clear and they pick up on areas where their people are having a difficult time grasping concepts or ideas.

Through extensive dialogue like this all over the world, I have a fairly good grasp on which issues in our sandbox are well understood and which are fuzzy. That gives me valuable information on where I need to continue to clarify and help simplify complexity.

Leaders communicate well when they are clear, when they simplify complexity, when they consistently communicate the same simple messages and when they dialogue with their people to ascertain what the level of understanding is. And, they never take communication for granted. It will either help them or hurt them in what they are seeking to do.

I will empower you but you need to keep me informed

I am a deep believer in the need for leaders to empower other good people rather than to micromanage, control or insist that things be done my way. It is only through giving opportunity away that we are able to sustain growth and see the organization realize its full potential. Leaders who don't empower others are doomed to plateau their ministry at some point. And to disempower other staff who could be doing a great deal more.

There is, however, a reciprocal responsibility to those leaders who empower and give responsibility: staff have an obligation to always keep their leader informed of things he/she need to know. In giving opportunity away, leaders take a risk: if things are not handled well it can come back to hurt the organization. Yet one cannot grow a scaleable ministry or business without empowering others. 

The responsibility of leaders is to build the right team and empower that team. The responsibility of that team is to keep the leader informed of things that the leader needs to know. No leader likes surprises, or to find out from others that something went south.  Sometimes things will go south, that is life but the first one to know should be the leader of the team or organization.

Wise leaders empower other good people. Wise staff keep their leader informed when there are issues. It is a relationship of mutual trust and support. 

Communication is everyone's job

Communication is one of those things that is an ongoing challenge for every organization. We will never get it perfect and will never satisfy everyone's needs. Yet we cannot ignore it because good communication promotes trust while poor communication promotes mistrust.

A common compliant in larger churches or organizations that have seen significant growth is: "I don't know everything anymore." My response in my own organization is "I don't either." Further, I want to know what I need to know, not everything there is to know. That is a crucial difference.

In the black and white, preglobalized, pre-email world, communication was by necessity top down. Leaders would determine what people needed to know and they would - with different degrees of success - disseminate it down through the organization. By doing so, we trained staff that what they needed to know they would hear from their leaders. In addition, it was assumed that what we needed leaders to know would be shared back up the organizational ladder.

In an era of meetings, letters and expensive travel, it made sense. But it was cumbersome at best and often, information did not get to where it needed to go.

Globalization, with its technology changes everything. When my son was in college and doing a report on marketing, he simply found the contact information to the head of marketing at Best Buy and went directly to his source! In fact, for the under thirty generation today, there is an expectation that they can find out whatever they want to find out and share whatever they want to share. Blogs, email, twitter, Facebook  have supplanted the hierarchical view of communications for them. As a student, anyone who wanted to know what Jon thought of his professors could simply read his blog.

In this new world the rules of communication have changed even though not everyone has understood that. Here are the new rules:

One: If I need information I will go out and get it.

Two: If I have information others need I will communicate that information to those who need to know.

Three: Information flow is not inhibited or determined by hierarchical structures - the information world is flat.

Four: I won't and don't need to know everything - but do need to know those things that pertain to my work.

Five: Relationships still matter. Face to face discussion - even via video is better than email.

Six: Everyone is responsible for information flow up, down and sideways today.

In many ways, Microsoft invented a flat organization and has been a huge key to their success. GM never discovered a flat organization which is why they went through bankruptcy.

Finally, the best organizations not only promote and encourage the open flow of information and ideas but are "democratic in their attitude." New ideas, push back or criticism don't bother them. What bothers them is when people are not honest because in the milieu of ideas the best ideas come from mutual collaboration.

They are amazingly powerful things, words are

They are amazingly powerful things, words are, especially for often being invisible, coming only from our mouths, invisible messages transmitted from one to another. Yet they have the power to build up and to tear down, encourage and discourage, empower and disempower, express ideas and destroy people. Every invisible word we speak has an immediate impact on those who hear.  They are amazingly powerful things, words are.

I am a purveyor of words: speaking, blogs, books and dialogue. I play with them, carefully consider them and use them as a craftsman uses his or her tools. They are my tools and powerful tools, words are. Finding a new word to convey the right meaning is like striking a vein of gold so powerful those words can be. Putting them in sequence for the right effect is like arranging the books on my study shelves because arrangement matters.

Our words reveal the temperature of our hearts for what is inside tumbles out, sometimes unwittingly and with later regret. “Did I say that? That way? I hurt you! I cannot believe I said that!” Our words the invisible revealer of the invisible us. Once unleashed, never to be recalled. We can only use other words to minimize the damage but those terrible words, ever invisible live on in the hearts of those who were wounded by them.  Our words have betrayed us, or revealed us and the ugly remnants of our sinful humanity. They are amazingly powerful things, words are.

Being invisible and coming so easily we pay too little attention to our words. Jesus told us to consider our words. James warned us of the power for good or for evil they contain. Proverbs speaks often of words and their impact for good and evil. Paul wrote of words that should not be spoken and words that should be spoken. Because they are amazingly powerful things, words are.

It is easy to allow our words to become useless items frittered away on topics that are base and in ways that are harsh – other people the likely target of our spiritual poverty. They are precious things, words are, because of their power. To loose them carelessly is to squander opportunity and to diminish the wonderful gift they can be. For our words can shape entire lives or diminish the same so powerful they are and so long they live invisible yet remembered.

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable to you O Lord. For each of us will give an account for every invisible word we spoke. They are amazingly powerful things, words are.

“Father, help me craft words that heal, reflect your character, bring your love, and soothe the wounds of life today. May I use words for your purposes today and not mine. Even better, give me your words to speak for your words are pure and holy and loving and true. They are words of life from a heart of love. May I be a purveyor of your words today.”

Persuasion or pushing: Know the difference

Have you ever met someone whose persuasive gifts left you feeling deflated, disempowered, demeaned or coerced after a conversation where they were trying to convince you to agree with them or a course of action they wanted to take? Consider this: that feeling is not simply the feeling of being outgunned by a persuasive leader. Rather, they crossed a line from persuasion to pushing you into submission. That is why you left the conversation feeling demeaned or manipulated.

In my younger years, I could be guilty of this at times, having been a debater in High School who did quite well in that arena. It worked not so well in my marriage and with others however!

The art of persuasion is an important one for a leader, especially those who choose to lead out of influence rather than from positional power. Persuasion, however, should never be manipulative. It is the ability to move people's thinking their way by making a strong and reasoned case for what they suggesting. It never seeks to force the other party to see things their way.

Persuasion crosses a line from healthy to pushy when the force of the argument starts to feel manipulative and coercing to the other party. Now it is not persuasion by reasoned thinking but by force of personality. And when we feel violated by a leader in a conversation it is usually because they have crossed that line and we don't feel we have a way to maneuver within the conversation.. Healthy leaders never try to force others to agree.

What can one do when confronted with a force of personality that starts to feel manipulative or coercive? If you are on the receiving end consider these kinds of approaches.

"Jim, I am feeling like the only OK response is to agree with you. Do I have the option of disagreeing on this matter?"

"Susan, I am feeling like you are pushing very hard for me to agree with you. Is there a reason you feel so strongly on this?"

"John, it feels like you have put me in a corner where I must agree with you. I am not on the same page on this issue so can you give me some space to make an independent decision?"

"Bill I am feeling pressured by you on this and it does not feel good."

By asking the questions or making the statements, the goal is to help the other party understand how you are feeling about the conversation and bring down the level of pressure. You may also discover the reasons that the other party feels so strongly on the issue. Either way, it usually reopens the conversation on a different tenor which is a good thing.

Ministry promises

Organizations make promises. We make them when we hire. We make them when we talk about our organization. We make them when we communicate to our donors. We make them when we talk to our staff. We make them in our policies. If we preach, we make them in our messages. 


Staff members hear those promises whether they are implicit or explicit and they respect us when we keep them and grow cynical when we don't. Above all they expect us to be serious about the promises we make. As they should.


When we say "People are our most valuable asset" but don't develop them, empower them or treat them with dignity and respect our actions do not live up to our promises. If we talk about integrity but leaders do not display it in decisions they make we don't live up to our promises.


One of my deepest fears when we bring new staff into our organization is that they will find themselves in a situation where what we promise in our "sandbox" will not be what they find. In fact, at our recent bi annual leadership team meeting we spent the whole week discussing where we were in living out the promises and commitments of our sandbox (mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture). It was a "check/adjust" to ensure that we deliver on our promises.


Staff do not expect perfection but they do expect that we are consistent in keeping our promises to the best of our ability and where there are gaps working to close them. They need to know that we are serious about becoming who we say we aspire to be.


A simple way to know how well we are doing is to have honest dialogue with staff about how they perceive we are doing. Of course this means that we are able to receive that feedback with appreciation rather than defensiveness. Staff can give a perspective that leaders often do not see.


Think about the promises you or your organization makes implicitly or explicitly and evaluate how you are doing. The good thing is that there is always room for improvement.

Helping people learn: Don't tell, ask

Questions are powerful tools in helping others grow. And often underutilized. We are prone to tell others something rather than ask them something. In telling them something we give them valuable information. In asking them questions so that they come to a conclusion themselves we help them to think for themselves, the skill that will help them make good decisions themselves.


We used to do this with our kids at the dinner table. The questions would result in free flow discussions on many topics and both our sons are today deeply inquisitive of life and good thinkers. Sometimes they turned the table on us and asked why we had certain rules, making us think about the why behind the what.


I was talking to a young leader recently about question asking and he made the comment that no one has taught him how to use that skill. I encouraged him that everyone can learn the skill with practice. I also told him that one had to be OK with a bit of silence after asking a question. Be patient and eventually the other party will answer.


Questions are particularly important in helping others understand their own wiring, motivations, strengths and weaknesses. We may not even have the option of telling them these things but through questions and dialogue we can help them uncover their own makeup.


One reason that more leaders do not ask more questions and default to telling is that questions and dialogue take time. Telling is fast and easy. However, while telling is more efficient in the short run is is less effective in the long run since telling rarely helps the other party actually grow. It gives them information but does not build the skill of critical analysis - necessary for growth.


I just finished a week of dialogue with some bright leaders from around the world. Many shared the power of the week because it was based on questions and group dialogue rather than information imparting which they were used to. Several said they would be using the same method with those they oversaw or mentored.


Questions rather than telling also sends a powerful message that you care about the other party. You are implicitly saying to them that you value their perspective, that they have something to contribute to the question at hand and that it is worth exploring the issue together rather than you as the supervisor or leader simply telling them the answer. Telling communicates that you have the answer. Dialogue indicates that we can come up with the answer. There is a big difference.

Got a situation? Try being candid.

It is an interesting phenomenon. Leadership spin.  Communications or answers to questions that are designed to equivocate or put the best face on something when in reality everyone knows it is not an accurate picture. 


Why cannot leaders simply be candid? Sure there are times when one would not reveal everything because it would hurt others but why not try simple honesty. The irony is that people appreciate transparency and don't appreciate spin. They know and when we choose spin, we lose. 


I suppose we do it for image control but it does not work. We watch public figures spin embarrassing situations and dig deeper and deeper holes until they are forced to come clean. If they had simply been honest in the first place, people would have been forgiving. Image control is pride. Truth is humble. People get the difference between the two.


Scriptures have a lot to say about truth. When Christian leaders are not honest about a situation with their constituents it is not just spin but it is dishonest. And it breeds mistrust. Jesus was refreshingly candid. I have found that the more candid I am as a leader the more trust I get. 


Got a situation? Try being candid. It is what it is and trying to make it something else does not work in the long run. Transparency works a whole lot better than the alternative.

Email and conflict are a bad combination

Email and conflict are a bad combination. Nine times out of ten, email fuels conflict when it is present rather than defuses it. We write things we would not say in person and there is no opportunity for the one we are writing to too see our face, hear our tone or read our body language. Email and conflict are incompatible. It is the shadow side of technology! Somehow it is easier to judge motives and make assumptions when we are not face to face than when we are. 


I confess to being reactive at times on email in a way that I didn't like and was not helpful to the situation. I have a personal saying that I remind myself of often, KMS (Keep Mouth Shut) which has served me well. I add to that DHS (Don't Hit Send) when it comes to email in conflictual situations. I know from experience it will not help and will probably hurt. Like you I have paid dumb tax on this one.


When tempted to send an email in a conflictual situation my advice is  to first wait 24 hours before writing and then to have a trusted friend or colleague read it before hitting send. My best advice is to not engage in conflict via email at all but to send a short reply that says, "Thanks for sharing your concerns, lets find a time to talk by phone or in person." 


For some reason, we are all more reasonable in person than in email. And emails don't go away. In fact they are often passed on to others who we would not want them shared with. Don't put in writing what you don't want others to see. Emails escalate while face to face conversations with reasonable people generally deescalate.   


In conflict, DHS. Instead pick up the phone and talk. Things will go much better. 

Power and information

How candid leaders are with the sharing of information is a measure of their desire to empower or need to control. Information is power. Withholding information from those who either need it or desire it is a means of control while sharing it freely with those who should have access to it is a measure of our desire to empower others. The issue comes down to whether we desire retain power or empower.


What some leaders do not understand is that in withholding information they actually lose the trust of those they lead. Take a ministry that is in financial distress. The leader does not want to divulge the issues while the staff know the issues are there. By not being candid about the actual situation the leader loses the trust of those he/she leads because the staff suspect that the leader is hiding something. If the leader had simply been candid and honest the opposite reaction would occur: trust and a desire to help solve the dilemma. Information, even difficult information builds trust while withholding information undermines trust.


Leaders who control or withhold information are really saying, "I can't trust you with this information." And, that is exactly what their staff hears and that message undermines their ability to lead and leads to cynicism and mistrust on the part of those they lead. In an attempt to control, leaders actually lose the very thing they need the most with their staff, trust. 


Good information is the foundation of good dialogue and decision making. Secretive leaders therefore undermine the ability of other leaders to make informed decisions while candid leaders who share what they know readily are able to build collaborative teams that get to good solutions. 


I often ask staff in churches or ministries for certain statistics or information when working with them. When I hear them say, "We are never told that" or "We are not able to get that information" I know that there is a senior leader who is either controlling, secretive, or threatened by others knowing what they know. None of these are good signs of healthy leadership.


Related to this is the ability to have "real" information. Ministries are notorious for using hyperbole in talking about their ministry results. A pastor might say from the pulpit, "Eighty percent of our adults are in small groups" as he seeks to convince new people to join a group. When a staff member raises an eyebrow (knowing it is like 40%), the response is "that is our pastor's math." Not accurate or helpful information.


There is power in information. Power to control or empower. Which are you using it for?

Graciousness

The interactions of Jesus with people overflowed with graciousness, gentleness and love. The only exception was when He dealt with the Pharisees and hypocrites (often one and the same) where he appropriately rebuked their heart attitudes. But think of his interaction with the woman at the well, Mary and Martha, Nicodemus, the blind man Bartemaeus and the list could go on. People gravitated to Jesus because of His love, His unconditional acceptance and the grace which He exuded.

Contrast that with the way we often deal with one another in God's family. Hard words, unnecessary barbs, sharpness, putting others down or in their place, calling into question motives, anger, irritation, unforgiveness and words that once spoken or sent in an email cannot be taken back. There is a great deal of ungraciousness among God's people that is incompatible with the example of Jesus and the teaching of the New Testament.

Think about Paul's letter to the Ephesians on this subject. "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths but only what is helpful for building others up...Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other...Be imitators of God...and live a life of love...(Ephesians 4-5)." Or Romans: "Live in harmony with one another...live at peace with everyone...Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another...(Romans 12-13)."

There are times when we must have hard conversations but even in those they can be done with graciousness. Perhaps the hardest people to be gracious to are those we are closest to because it is easy to take them for granted - a spouse or colleague. The test of our graciousness is not those so much we don't know but those we do know and whose weaknesses we are well aware of.

I want to be known as a gracious leader, friend, husband and colleague. There are days when I fail miserably but my desire is to see people and treat people as Jesus did. This includes kindness and warm courtesy, tact, a merciful and compassionate nature, sympathy, and politeness. It is what my late uncle Warren had that caused us all to want to be around him. He was the definition of graciousness and it was a magnet to others.

Loving others is the foundation of graciousness toward them. Further, they are men and women made in the very image of God. Harsh attitudes don't come from God - loving attitudes do.

Triangulation and incestuous information channels

It is not unusual when dealing with dysfunctional organizations, boards or churches that there is a lot of inappropriate conversation taking place. In fact, where there is a lot of gossip, blind copying of emails clogging cyberspace, "confidential" information being shared inside and outside the organization with people who have no business knowing that information, you have a sign of an unhealthy and dysfunctional workplace or board (or wherever it is taking place).

While it is a strong term, I call this kind of dysfunctional communication "incestuous information" because the definition of incestuous is "inappropriately intimate or interconnected." Let me give you an example. In one organization I once knew, employees left disgruntled yet they continued to call others in the organization who kept them up to date with the latest developments (including a former COO). Further, when employees were unhappy with management some of them would call board members to vent (going around their own supervisor). There was gossip inside the organization, outside the organization and information being inappropriately shared at many different levels. Blind copies went places they have no place going and you never knew what information was being shared by whom. It was incestuous in its nature, caused all kinds of relational triangulation and frankly chaos as one tried to sort out what was true, what was not true, and who knew what. I know churches, boards and Christian organizations who fit into this mode. And the key factor is that they are dysfunctional.

Healthy organizations, boards and churches operate with a healthy and clear set of communication guidelines. First, they send confidential information only to the appropriate folks who have a need to know it and if there is a need to copy others it is a cc rather than a blind copy so all us upfront. Blind copies generally mean "this is a secret, don't let anyone know I told you" which can create later problems. At the same time CC's are not sent to those who are not involved as a way of pressuring the party being communicated with. Unnecessary or inappropriate CC's bring others into a conversation that they usually do not need to be involved in.

Second, they never violate their own chain of authority unless it has to do with a moral or ethical violation that causes them to go to a higher level.

Third, they speak well of the ministry they work with to others and don't reveal information that they know because they work there - unless it is available to the general public.

Fourth, they don't triangulate. They deal directly with those with whom they may have issues, not with those who cannot solve the issue and not with those who are not directly involved.

Fifth, they don't gossip or in any way denigrate others, including those they have issues with. Whatever needs to be spoken between two parties who have a dispute stays there and does not spill over to infect other innocent bystanders.

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that gossip is a heart and spiritual issue and he links gossip to other behaviors that are common but unhealthy and unspiritual. "I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder (speaking to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 12:20). Gossip is actually responsible for a great deal of quarreling, jealousy, anger, factions, slander (by its very nature) and disorder (chaos as above). Arrogance is part of the picture because when I engage in gossip I put myself in a place of judgement over others.

The bottom line is that how we communicate, who we communicate with, how we resolve issues, and whether or not we engage in inappropriate gossip and conversations matters a lot. If chaos and misunderstanding are the result it has gone bad. If order and understanding is the result it has gone well. It is a spiritual issue as well as an organizational issue.

Building Cultures of Expectation

Good leaders are people of hope and optimism: they are evangelists of hope to those they lead. In addition, they are always intentional in helping develop cultures of expectation within their team or organization for what God desires to do in and through them. 


Many in ministry have little expectation for what God is going to do in and through them. All you need to do is to listen to them pray: small prayers for small things - without passion and without belief that God will actually show up. Contrast that with those who pray for big things, expect big things and plan for big things.


Jesus himself told us to expect big things: "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples (John 15:7-8). Even more stunning is the statement to His disciples, "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name and I will do it" (John 14:12-14).


Not once in any of his Epistles was Paul pessimistic about what God was up to. His words are those of amazing expectation of what God was up to. "Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen (Ephesians 3:20-21)." I cannot read that without shivers going down my spine!


Because we live in a world full of problems and challenges, most people focus not on what God is up to but all the issues they face. Leaders are those who lift the eyes of others to our powerful Lord and remind them that God is always at work in amazing ways and that He wants to work through us.


Leaders encourage their people to be in the Scriptures regularly because focusing on Him and His word helps us to think like Him and to start claiming His amazing promises. Leaders encourage times of individual and corporate prayer focusing on the goodness, greatness and plans of God for our world. Prayer is time exposure to Jesus and we don't leave unchanged. Leaders also encourage their people to develop prayer teams who are together claiming God's promises for our work. I am privileged to have hundreds of people praying for me at any given time.


Finally, leaders lift up the purpose, power, passion and resolve of our Lord to reach this planet for Him on a constant business. God is always up to something wonderful. He is always providing fruit to those who seek his help. He is always working in improbable ways through improbable situations and improbable people. He is, after all the One whose glory will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea and the one before whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.


Leaders of ministries are the purveyors of the very hope that God lays out for us in Scripture and that Jesus demonstrated in the Gospels. They lift up the big and loving and powerful and "at work" God and call their people to join him in His amazing work. They build cultures of expectation that God is going to use our efforts in significant ways for His kingdom purposes. How are you doing as a purveyor of hope and one who is building a culture of expectation?

Truth and Love: Conversations that Matter

Those who lead often face situations where direct feedback to a member of their team is necessary. Or, you may be a pastor with someone sitting in your office who needs to be lovingly confronted for choices they have made that are hurting them or others and you will need to be direct. Or, a friend who you care enough to talk to about an issue in their life but it will mean a difficult conversation.

All of us have encountered folks who do this badly, coming across as judgmental, blunt or harsh. More often in our desire to avoid conflict we also tend to avoid direct conversations. But in doing so we actually do a disservice to those who need to hear something that will help them in their job, in their walk with God or some other area of life.

Jesus was a master of direct conversation that went to the heart of things in a true, loving, non-judgemental way. He combined truth (what needed to be said) with love (wanting the best for those he spoke to) and did so in a way that invited conversation (the woman at the well). Because of the loving way in which He communicated, his directness did not provoke anger - with the exception of the Pharisees who wanted nothing to do with truth. He did not speak in anger to seekers or followers, he did not beat around the bush and avoid the real issues and He did not avoid the hard topics. He cared about people too much to do anything but speak in truth and love.

My wife was for many years a nurse at a suburban high school. Her favorite kids were the "bad" kids who often called her their second mom. She would keep food for kids that came to school hungry, talk to kids about their sexual acting out or drug use or choices that were hurting them. Rarely did they take offence because they knew that she was in their court, loved them unconditionally and wanted the best for them. She was direct (truth) in a spirit of love (grace). This was a combination that the kids were not used to but loved.

Pastors who speak truth in love to those not living in alignment with Jesus are being a faithful shepherd. Friends who speak truth in love to one another are faithful friends. Supervisors who speak truth in love to those they lead are faithful and wise leaders. In each case, our willingness to be honest and direct has the opportunity to help another in a significant way.

Direct conversation is not playing the role of the Holy Spirit. What people do with the truth we speak into their lives is between them and God. It is being honest in a clear way. Avoiding necessary conversations is often dishonesty because it pretends that an issue we need to address is not there. Nor is avoidance loving when direct conversation is in the best interests of a friend, a congregant or a staff member.

Direct feedback is most often received well when it is delivered in an honest but non-judgemental way, when people know we have their best interests in mind, when it does not judge motives and when it invites conversation so that it is not perceived as an attack or delivered in anger.

For those who lead others, honest and direct conversation is critical so that their staff know what their leader believes and thinks. It invites honest dialogue and robust discussion. Avoidance does the opposite.

We could learn much from carefully thinking through how Jesus interacted with people as He had the wonderful balance between truth and love that we all desire. None of us doe this perfectly but all of us can learn to do it better. With the humility that we too need others to speak with honesty and directness into our lives.