Dysfunctional church systems: Beware of closed rather than open cultures

I spoke recently with a ministry leader who resigned from his church staff position (a large church) because of the dysfunctional culture he sensed. Having left the "system," he now realizes that it was a great deal more dysfunctional than he thought, and he is so glad to be out of it. 

When we are in a dysfunctional or toxic "closed" system, we may sense that not all is right, but it is when we get out that we realize how dysfunctional it was. This applies to staff systems as well as whole congregations where there is significant dishealth. Such dysfunction can be part of the historic DNA of the church, a dysfunctional board, a dysfunctional leader, or a "church boss" who wields unhealthy power and has a personal agenda.

What are some of the signs of a closed and dysfunctional ministry system?

One: There is tremendous pressure for people to think similarly and not to have independent voices. In closed systems, independent opinions that go against the "group think" are a threat and are not valued. Independent thinkers in ministries are often labeled as troublemakers or spiritually immature. Indeed, it is not safe to disagree significantly.

The truth is that breakthroughs occur when independent thinking, asking good questions and suggesting new ways of doing things are present. These are the building blocks of growth and vibrancy; holding them in check will bring decay and decline.

Two: Questions about the status quo are seen as disloyalty. This is especially true for senior leaders who are insecure and do not like their paradigms or opinions to be questioned. As long as one keeps the party line, one is "in." If you ask hard questions, you are marginalized.

Breakthroughs in ministry occur when hard questions are asked. The status quo will not lead you to the future; it will tether you to the present and the past. 

Three: Candid dialogue is not allowed. Usually, the senior leader sets the tone here. In closed systems, candid dialogue is a threat rather than a valued part of the culture. Such dialogue will inevitably challenge the standard line.

A measure of an organization's health or dishealth is how candid the dialogue can be. In closed systems, people know that there are subjects they cannot touch and places they cannot go. There are elephants in the room that everyone knows are there, but you cannot name them—often even in the board room. There is quiet intimidation to leave specific topics alone, and those crossing the line quickly realize they have entered the forbidden territory. 

Four: Senior leaders often protect themselves from accountability or questions in closed systems. They hide behind a spiritual veil that sounds good but keeps people from getting too close. They surround themselves with people who will agree with them, and those who don't usually don't stay, either because they know how dysfunctional it is or because they are marginalized or let go. 

It always amazes me that dysfunctional senior leaders are not asked more penetrating questions by the people around them or the boards to which they are accountable. Why is this? They are masters at making themselves look good, and others take the blame. They spin and posture, and because of the first three descriptors above, they are not held accountable, and tough questions are asked. The board and leader are both caught in a cycle of codependency.

Five: When independent voices appear, or someone steps out of the prevailing culture, tremendous pressure is put on them to get in line and conform to standard opinions. It is a family system thing, and any threat to the prevailing culture brings pressure for conformity. This is why independent thinkers often live in dysfunctional staff situations and congregations. They see the system for what it is and know it is unhealthy.

Those who think for themselves and speak candidly are usually pressured to get in line or marginalized if they don't. Often these individuals will simply leave because they see how unhealthy the system is and choose not to participate. 

Six: The most telling moment for those who leave such systems is how free they feel once they are out of it. Even though they knew it was not healthy, they realized how unhealthy it was once they were out. Those who leave are also a threat to those who stay, who, at some level, feel that those leaving are not loyal. They have violated the family system. 

What keeps people in systems like this? The irony is that while we may be uncomfortable and know something is off, to step out of such a system is to be labeled as disloyal or no longer "faithful." Those are hard things to live with, especially when they come from long-time friends or acquaintances. It feels ugly and unsafe, and you start to question whether it is true or not. 

In reality, these systems are simply large codependency environments where people get trapped in dysfunctional relationships and a dysfunctional system. Often you don't see that clearly until you are outside the system. If there were one descriptor of these systems it is the word control. Each of the descriptors above is about control. Freedom it is not! If you feel controlled or if any of these characteristics are true of your staff or your ministry, consider the possibility that you are caught in a closed, codependent, and dysfunctional system.

Overcoming the need to control so your staff can flourish

 

Many leaders need to understand the power of moving from high control and a hierarchical structure to a light touch where staff feels empowered rather than controlled. 

Before you say to yourself, "I release staff rather than control them," you might want to check with your staff because, in most cases where leaders believe they empower and release staff, their staff says just the opposite. In fact, when I do culture audits of staff and report back to the senior leader, he/she is almost always surprised when they hear that their team perceives the culture as controlling rather than empowering. 

If you want to find out what the staff thinks, consider asking your team to answer the following three questions: 

"Would you describe the staff culture as controlling - where you need permission to do something, or empowered where you have the freedom to do what you need to do to accomplish your job? Why? How does it make you feel?"

This is a standard question I ask in staff audits, and the responses are revealing and often discouraging, as the majority of staff often report that it is a controlling culture. 

The third question, "How does it make you feel?" is essential. I will often hear responses like:

• "The organization hired me for my ability and expertise, but I cannot do anything without permission. I wish they would trust me rather than to doubt me."
• "I am seriously considering looking for a different job because my expertise and gifts are not being used here. If I don't do something the way my boss would, I hear about it and often have to back up and do it his/her way."
• "I cannot even spend small amounts of money without permission. That holds things up and is frankly demeaning. If I screw up, OK, tell me, but give me what I need to do the job without asking permission."
• "In our organization, decisions need to be made at least twice. First, by me and my team then I have to go through the same stuff with my supervisor, who feels free to override what our team has worked on. You feel disempowered and wonder why you put all the time and effort into a plan when you are often told to do things differently."

Because I often guide organizations through culture change, I also see the fantastic transformation when staff is released from control, trusted to make good decisions, and don't have to ask permission for most of what they do. That transformation is nothing less than impressive - and transformational to the culture.

I hear staff saying, "I cannot believe it. I don't need to ask permission anymore." "I feel much more valued and trusted than I did before." "I feel like I have been let out of my cage, and my self-confidence has increased exponentially." "My happiness factor in my job has gone way up, and I'm not looking to move anymore." "I am waiting to see if our freedom will last or our leaders will try to control us again."

This is all about moving from a permission-withholding organization where you cannot act without permission to a permission-granting organization with the freedom to work within established boundaries.

There is another significant advantage to a permission-granting culture. In a permission-withholding culture, staff doesn't have to take ownership of their work. After all, their supervisor is the one who allows, disallows, or modifies their work. If it doesn't work, that is the supervisor's issue since the staff followed his/her directives.

But when you move to a permission-granting culture. Staff develops the plan to achieve the objectives, and therefore, they must take responsibility for the success or failure of the effort. There is far more corporate buy-in and ownership in permission-granting cultures than in a permission-withholding culture. Which do you want for your organization?

Here is the great irony. We control staff so that everything goes smoothly. In the process, we disempower staff and create low morale, which translates into less ownership - the exact opposite of what we need and want from staff. When we release control of staff (within established boundaries), they flourish, are engaged, and take ownership, which is what we need and want. 

Those who control loose! Those who empower win!