Abrupt decisions and non-decisions

Both abrupt and non-decisions are dangerous. 

Abrupt decisions are those where we make a quick decision without thinking through the consequences or taking into account the advice of others. I see it play out all too often and it always saddens me because even if it is the right decision in the end it often circumvents process with others that would have been helpful.

In my own organization I see it play out where a decision to resign, for instance is announced and  no one in the organization had any clue it is coming. I have to wonder why there was not conversation with anyone when someone has been deeply invested in ministry for a long time. It is possible that if there were issues that could be resolved they could have been. It also feels like a violation of trust when it happens. It certainly sends a message that those they have been in relationship with don't count or matter. 

Then there are those who take forever to make decisions that are critical in nature. This is as unhealthy as abrupt decisions in my view as there is not an ability to take the prompting of God, the counsel of others and the information one has to choose one way or the other. This is a fatal flaw for leaders from whom decisions are needed. This is often the case with church boards who ignore issues for too long because they don't want to make a decision.  By the time a decision has been made it is too late. 

Wise individuals seek counsel, prayer and look at the information realistically and then make a decision. Both abrupt and non-decisions are unwise, and often do not reflect good judgement or wisdom.

Posted from San Diego

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.

When making decisions are you thinking five years ahead?

All leaders make decisions on a regular basis. Often, however we are thinking of the present as we do so - which is legitimate. But, every decision made now has implications for the future which is why we should apply the five year test: "How will our current decision affect us five years from now?" In other words, good decisions are not only made for the present but must take into consideration the future as well.

Let me give an illustration from the world of missions. A mission agency decides that to make significant inroads in a majority world country it will start paying pastors what seems like an insignificant amount of money per month (say $150). They jubilantly watch all kinds of individuals sign up, start churches and they think, "Wow, a small investment for a great return." Yet five years later it has now become a burden to the agency as they can no longer sustain what they once thought was a strategic decision and they have discovered that these churches only reproduce themselves when there is another $1,800 to invest.  Had the decision been made with an eye to the future it might have been evident what the unintended consequences are. 

Many decisions have long term consequences so a good question on major decisions is not simply, "What is the impact now" but also "what will be the impact five years from now." 

This is just as powerful a practice in our own personal lives. Decisions about time with family have long term consequences as do financial decisions and any number of other personal decisions. Wise individuals take the long view of life rather than simply living in the moment. The long view requires more discipline but in the end it is far more productive and rewarding.

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 discount on orders of ten or more.

Roger Goodell and why doing the right thing at the right time matters

A picture of Roger Goodell's press conference regarding Ray Rice

I have to admit that growing up in Hong Kong in the sixties did not translate into being a huge football fan. However, I have been watching this story with interest both from a leadership point of view on Roger Goodell's part and from a domestic violence point of view.

Roger Goodell is trying to keep his job after badly handling Ray Rice's abuse of his then fiancee. In July Goodell suspended running back Ray Rice for two games for knocking her out with a punch in an elevator. Then, when people responded in anger he announced a domestic violence policy punishment of six games and then banned Rice indefinitely. 

Unfortunately there have been many instances of domestic abuse in the NFL and the response from the league has been less than consistent. Goodell's handling of the Rice Affair, however, revealed both a failure of leadership and a terrible insensitivity toward one of society's largest problems, domestic abuse.

On the leadership side, one generally gets one chance to get it right in a crisis like Goodell faced. That is why wise leaders don't do what Goodell did and make a decision by themselves. They consult others. Further they think about who is impacted by their decision. It would seem that Goodell chose the economics of football over the hundreds of thousands of victims of domestic abuse who saw his two game suspension to be a farce. To make matters worse he compounded his leadership failure by a second and then third change of mind. He failed at a critical juncture of his leadership and probably should not keep his job.

On the subject of domestic abuse. What Goodell did reflects the deep insensitivity of many toward how men treat women in our world. Abuse is never, never OK and yet here it is treated as a trivial matter by a leader of one of the most well known sports leagues in America. How can that be in 2014? With a slap on the hand life (read football) was to go on as normal. Fortunately society said "no!" and forced him to change his mind. Even then he didn't get it and society said "no" again. No one gets a pass when they mistreat their spouse! People put pressure on sponsors who responded with pulling their promotions and finally forcing the league to take notice.

Goodell did not even get his press conference right, arriving fifteen minutes late and poorly trying to explain his actions. Leaders need to do the right thing at the right time and in cases like this you get one chance to get it right. 

My new book, Deep Influence: Unseen Practices That Will Revolutionize Your Leadership, is now available for pre-order on Amazon.

Your best leadership decision can backfire if....

Making the right decision as a leader is always our goal. But in some ways the decision itself is the easy part. The hard part is running a process that will make the decision a win rather than a liability. Many great decisions run aground because of poor process.

Process involves a number of key pieces, any of which if not addressed can cause your direction to backfire.

• Have I consulted all the key stakeholders who will be impacted by the decision that is being made?
• Have I developed a guiding coalition of people who can and will support the decision and help explain and commend it to other?
• Have I considered the unintended consequences of the direction that is being considered?
• Have I carefully laid out a process of communication, explanation, dialogue and the sequence of who needs to be told when?

Many leaders suffer from impatience to get something done and in their strategic bent make great decisions that end up badly because they did not run good process. Remember that by the time we have come to a conclusion we have processed the issues but those who will be impacted have not. We need to run process twice as leaders: Once in our own thinking and then again to help others get their hands around it as well. 

Good ideas gone awry usually do so because of poor process. And once they go awry they are harder to do the second time because of the poor taste left in the wake of bad process.

Just because something sounds spiritual does not mean that it is or that it is wise

I am always amused or bemused by folks who parse Scripture so closely to come up with non-negotiables that sound deeply spiritual but are in fact deeply counter productive.

Take a church board I have been watching recently where every decision must be made unanimously because that is what God would want. Really? First off, the New Testament calls to unity have nothing to do with how boards make decisions. Second, even the leaders in the New Testament did not always agree. Third, such a practice means that one individual can hold up an entire board and church because unanimity is required.

However spiritual it sounds, it makes for dysfunctional boards and decision making. And in practice, the board I have been watching has made some terrible decisions and has been unable to get its act together precisely because everything must be unanimous. What you end up with are decisions at the lowest denominator that can be negotiated or a board with a few dominant voices with the rest being “yes” people. It is actually one of the most unhealthy ways to make decisions because it puts tremendous pressure on those who might disagree to come to agreement. After all unless they do, there is no way forward.

Or take the practice where all pastors must be on the board because they are elders. It sounds spiritual but in practice it makes it nearly impossible for the senior leader to exercise leadership and authority over his staff - who by virtue of being board members - are also his bosses.  Periodically I receive calls from senior pastors who wonder how to get at issues with a staff member who is also a member of his board. Good question! This practice also confuses management (what staff do) with governance (what boards do). This spiritual sounding practice almost never works in the long run.

Then there are those churches who have a policy that they will never borrow money because of a rigid reading of one verse in the New Testament that does not speak to that issue clearly anyway. For some reason it is OK to borrow money to purchase a house but not build a church. Now a congregation may choose to build debt free but that is a choice not a requirement dictated by Scripture.

The next time you hear something that sounds spiritual but which causes complications ask yourself the question: Is it really a biblical mandate or it is someone’s personal preference that they have couched in spiritual language and with Biblical texts that do not in fact require a certain practice. Usually it has to do with someone wanting their own way and exercising control. The opposite of what is truly spiritual which is a willingness to abide by the decisions of the group.

Getting the facts before we make assumptions

I am constantly amazed and saddened at how often believers rupture relationships with other believers because they have made assumptions - often deeply faulty - about motives or actions. In the process, people are hurt, God's reputation is compromised, His mission is thwarted and ultimately the evil one wins which is just what he wants to do. If the evil one can sow seeds of doubt and destruction between fellow believers he will - and he does. How we respond to those seeds of doubt and relational destruction is our choice and it often has eternal consequences.

Before relationships are irretrievably disrupted there are some questions we need to ask.

One, do I have my facts right? How often do we hear something about someone else that is derogatory. Wise individuals know that second hand information is often faulty information. They also know that there are two or more sides to every story. Before we draw our own conclusions we ought to consider the real possibility that there is more to the situation than what we know and either hold our own counsel or if necessary verify the information we have received before drawing conclusions. 

In many cases we don't even rely on second hand information but our own assumptions regarding an action or situation and have never simply picked up the phone for a conversation with the one we are making assumptions about. Not only is it foolish to do so but it is deeply unfair to the one who is the target of our negative perceptions who may be and often is fully innocent of the assumptions we have made.

Two, is there another explanation for what I have heard, seen or observed? Over the years I have discovered that most of the time when I have chosen to draw negative conclusions about a person or situation I discover that my assumptions about motives or actions were not correct and that there was a reasonable explanation for what had taken place that made sense - when I asked. Each time I am stung by the realization of how quickly it is for us to jump to the wrong conclusion - perhaps the result of our own sinful nature and our tendency to see the worst in others rather than the best.

Three, have I talked with the individual myself to discover whether there is a way to resolve the issue at hand? It is amazing what honest conversation, dialogue and questions can resolve that otherwise would have been left on the scrapheap of severed relationships. It is often helpful to involve a neutral third party who can help those who have taken sides hear one another and to clarify issues, assumptions, actions and possible solutions. A simple conversation can quickly solve many badly made assumptions.

I recently heard of a situation where a group was talking about an individual who they seemed unanimously unhappy with. Not one of them, however, had made the effort to talk to the one they were talking about. Thus they were left with their own assumptions which may or may not have been correct but one conversation could have given them some good information.

Four, have I contributed in any way to the relationship that has gone south? Often, we choose not to resolve issues because it means that we ourselves must admit that we bear responsibility. It is far easier to save face and paint the picture that we have been aggrieved than to admit to ourselves and others that we also have been wrong. That takes Godly humility and honesty.

Paul makes it clear that there is a battle being fought out of our sight: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12). 

I am convinced that one of the foremost strategies of the evil one is to cause relational ruptures between His people in order to hurt Kingdom advancement. There may be times when such ruptures are unavoidable (we live in a fallen world) but I don't want to be an unwitting pawn in Satan's hands because I have not been shrewd about his tactics and asked the right questions.

What we know, think we know and don't know

Most of us believe we know more than we actually do – which is a dangerous position to be in. In fact, the greater our ability the greater the risk that we confuse what we know with what we think we know and minimize what we don’t know.

Jim, ranks as one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. Yet, he rarely makes a key decision without bouncing it off of a few key advisers who are in a position to tell him exactly what they think – some from outside of the organization he leads. With all of his skills as a leader, Jim wants to make the right call, not simply the call he thinks is right. In his use of a few key advisers in whom he has great trust he minimizes the risk of a bad call. It also demonstrates great humility and EQ.

There is a massive third category: what we truly don’t know! Here is one of the key distinctive between leaders with good EQ and real humility: those with it acknowledge on numerous occasions that they don’t have the answer and seek wisdom from those who might while those without it pretend or believe they have the answer and pay for that foolishness dearly.

I know many leaders who believe that they must have the answer and that their internal compass is always right. Thus, not only do they not solicit feedback or wisdom from others (with the exception of those who would agree with them) but they consistently get themselves into trouble with others because they went it alone (of course it is never their issue). It rarely occurs to these leaders that they don’t actually know what they ought to do. The result is that in a universe of possible solutions on any one topic, they are stuck in the small prison of what they actually know – or think they know.

Humble and healthy leaders do not assume they know the right course of action or that they can figure it out by themselves. In fact, they are by nature curious, always asking questions, desirous of knowing what others are doing and approach issues with an open mind that invites the best thinking to the table. They do not doubt their ability to get to where they need to go in the end but they are humble enough to realize that in the world of possible solutions, they know only a few and if there is a “game changing” solution they want to know about it.

For this reason, humble leaders rarely make quick decisions but “think grey” and solicit the opinions and ideas of the best people they know – in the area where they need to make a call. Often, they bring multiple voices together at once to think through an issue.

In the process they learn a lot – one of the reasons they are truly good leaders and they develop a cadre of highly competent people who they add to their circle of friends that they can call on in the future. Ironically, their history of making good calls my seem brilliant but if you peel back the process you realize that they did not make them in a vacuum but through their willingness to engage other bright people in the process and admit that they did not have the solutions themselves.

In contrast, prideful leaders – those who cannot admit their need for the wisdom of others either copy someone else’s solution (it may have no context in their case) or trust their limited wisdom never realizing how small their world of knowledge actually is!

One such leader that I know, believes that leadership is all about “making the directional call” and ensuring that everyone knows that they are in charge, in control and “the leader.” He actively resists the input of others and rarely solicits input. He lives with the allusion that he is a great leader when in fact, his ability to lead is seriously impeded by his pride and lack of openness to the feedback and wisdom of others. People around him are not fooled by his lack of wisdom - only he is. 

What we don’t know is a powerful stimulus to living with a spirit of humility. The more we understand what we don’t know the more open we are to soliciting the input and wisdom of others. And the more we learn from other bright people, the better our own leadership and decision making. Wisdom does not come to the insecure and prideful but to the secure and humble.

Growing our wisdom one decision at a time

There is much written in Scripture about wisdom. We all want it, all believe we have it and certainly don't like the alternative - being a fool. The thing about wisdom is that like a tree it grows slowly, one ring at a time, one layer at a time, one decision at a time and it is the accumulative layers of right thinking and right decisions and right priorities and right behaviors that build true wisdom.

Wisdom starts with "The Fear of the Lord." There is a lot wrapped up in that simple statement but fundamentally it is the acknowledgement that God's ways for our lives are the right ways even though we are constantly challenged by our selfish hearts, the media and our society that there are "better" ways than His ways. Or to put it another way, His ways are great, as long as they don't get in the way of My ways! When they do, well, lets say it is negotiable.

Those who grow little rings of wisdom have made the decision that His ways are indeed the right ways and they consciously and intentionally align their lives to be in sync with his ways. Wisdom, then is not just how we think, it is directly connected to the life choices we make and our obedience to God. It is not just about wise decisions, but about wise living.

Wisdom is also about what we choose not to do. Proverbs is a book that contrasts two types of people. The wise and the fool! Fools choose certain paths and the wise other paths. For instance, fools do not listen to other wise people. Fools, act on their own without consulting God or others. Fools are not discerning about their advisers or actions. It is an interesting exercise to look at the ways of the fool and the ways of the wise. Avoiding the practices of the former and committing to the practices of the latter are the way of wisdom.

Wisdom then is also about discernment: the discernment to avoid certain behaviors, decisions, actions and people, and the discernment to choose certain behaviors, decisions, actions and people. Fools lack discernment while the wise specialize in discernment.

Wise people are not born that way. They have chosen to grow it one decision, one action, one behavior and one discerning choice at a time until the cumulative effect is to default to a wise and Godly choice over a foolish and selfish choice. Like the rings of a tree, it is one season at a time that eventually shows its unique and faithful character, ring after ring after ring.

It does not happen by accident! It is a choice we make. Each time we have a choice.

Core ministries, ancillary ministries and focus

I recently had a conversation with a ministry where I asked what was truly "core" and "central" to what they did? They looked at me with confusion and said "everything."  So I went at it a different way and asked, "If you had half of the money you now have, what ministries would stay and which would go?" Their answer to that question got them on the road to identifying what was truly core and central and what was in fact ancillary.


Scarce resources are often the thing that force us to make the choice between core and ancillary. When you have to choose you have to make decisions as to what is truly central and what is not.


Here is the truth. For most ministries, there are core and ancillary sub ministries. Knowing the difference is critical because the majority of your time, energy and budget should be focused on the core, not the ancillary. Furthermore, you need to know what is core and central and what is nice but non-essential.


One of Steve Job's upsides as a leader is that when he returned to Apple for the second time, he helped them focus on a few core products and shed what was ancillary. He knew that the organization could not deliver excellence over a broad number of products. He ruthlessly shut down what was not central and they focused on the few products that have made Apple a very wealthy company today.


Ministries pick up all sorts of ancillary activities like a duster picks up dust. New stuff sticks all the time, often diminishing the core ministries as energy and focus is spread ever thinner. Disciplined organizations are very clear about what is core and central and they resist the temptation to add new and novel ministries that might be good for someone but are not core for them. 


Here are some important questions to be able to answer with your ministry team:
1. What is central and core to what we do and what is ancillary?
2. Do the central and core ministries get the energy, focus and resources they should get?
3. Are there ancillary ministries that are diminishing our attention to the core ministries?
4. Do we need to refocus around our core ministries and shed what is ancillary?

"I knew I should have said something!"

I have heard that statement numerous times from staff or board leaders about a decision that was made that they knew was not a good idea but did not speak up. It only takes one individual who is willing to show up to stop a train that looks like it is gathering steam - toward a train wreck.


Especially is ministry there is a tendency toward optimistic thinking. That things will work out or we just need to have faith. But faith and optimism in foolish or reckless decisions is not faith but folly. 


Whenever we have a "check in our spirit" we ought to pay attention to it. That "check" or "doubt" may well be the Holy Spirit, or plain wisdom, saying, "Don't go there." "Speak up even if you lose the day." Never ignore the whisper of doubt when making an important decision.


We have a lot of group think on staffs and church and ministry boards. It is an unfortunate thing. The very reason that God designed church leadership as a "plurality of leaders" is that no one individual has the wisdom or gifts to lead alone. But group think circumvents that design by the group simply acting as one individual. Plurality in leadership only works well when each individual is willing, able and courageous enough to speak their minds and even to go against the flow when necessary.


This is not about being the "gadfly." It is about being an independent thinker who is able to speak honestly, candidly and truthfully even when that means raising uncomfortable questions that others don't want to raise. Often, if one individual has doubts, others do as well and the one who is courageous enough to speak gives others permission to speak as well.


One of the marks of good emotional intelligence (EQ) is the ability to be self defining. That is, to be able to state one own's opinion with conviction and clarity even if it is a lone voice. 


There are ministry leaders who exert a great deal of pressure for their boards or staff to go along with them. Healthy leaders and staff are respectful but independent thinkers who hopefully won't wish after the fact that they should have said something. 

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.

When all options are bad options

Let me pose an interesting dilemma. There are times that we face situations in our ministries where a crisis has occurred, or a decision must be made and all available options seem to be bad options. 

Here is an example: There is a financial crisis that must be fixed but the pain of fixing it is going to be painful because there are no good options. Any and all decisions on the table are hard decisions that will bring some kind of pain. Or you have a personnel decision that needs to be dealt with but there seems to be no upside in the choices you have in dealing with it. There are times when the only choices we have are bad choices.

I have seen a variety of responses to situations where all the options are bad options. One response is for leaders to not act at all because they want a good option and they see none. Humanly speaking this is understandable as none of us want to deal with the fallout of bad options. Of course, this simply delays the inevitable and the options rarely get better by waiting. 

The exception is with personnel issues where waiting can be a viable option if behaviors known to a few become evident to many by giving the issue time thus minimizing the fallout when a decision is made. However, this is not ignoring the issue but choosing to wait on the issue - a strategic difference.

A second response is to face the bad options realistically and choose the best of the bad options. This is often true in financial situations or where a staff member has caused a situation that is going to be painful to address no matter what. 

I recently moderated such a situation internationally where there was not going to be an outcome that was going to be good for either party because of past decisions that others had made. While closure was needed, it was going to be a closure that both parties had to swallow hard to accept. This is often the case in church conflict situations as well where the conflict has become so complicated and contentious that in the short term all that will be experienced is pain. 

There is good news however. If leaders will wisely choose a course of action knowing they have no good current options, and knowing that there will be short term pain, there can be long term gains simply because they were willing to do the hard work of tackling the issue in spite of the pain in the process. Choosing the best of bad options today can lead to closure and health down the line. 

At times, leadership is nothing more than choosing between bad and painful options. But being willing to make the choice for the sake of a healthier future.

Four key church board documents

Church boards have too many documents. Many of them are of no real use because they are written and filed but there are some basic documents that every church board should have. These documents guide the work of the board in significant ways. I would suggest four.


1. Your picture/document that reflects your clarity. As laid out in my book, Leading From The Sandbox, if you cannot explain your ministry philosophy, commitments and desired ends on one piece of paper, in one picture it is too complicated. Whether you use a sandbox, vision frame, ministry table or some other metaphor, this one picture should be able to tell anyone who asks what is truly important to your ministry and it becomes the picture/paradigm/language for explaining who you are to others.


2. Your board covenant that regulates your relationships. Board covenants are a one page document that spell out the relational commitments of board members to one another. Congregations rarely rise above the spiritual and relational commitments of board members so clarifying those commitments and living them out is key to a healthy board and therefore to a healthy church.


3. Your board policies that reflect how you operate as a board. Good boards have thought through the process they use to operate as a board. No healthy group operates without a set of implicit or explicit rules or principles for how they work together. Healthy boards have well written policies that reflect good governance principles, including how decisions are made and what even constitutes board work. These policies lay out the way you operate as a board, is the training manual for new board members and allows you to deal with rogue members should they arise.


4. Your annual ministry plan that reflects where you are going. Whether developed by staff, board or a combination of both, no congregation should be operating without an annual ministry plan which spells out where you are going. That plan then becomes the basis of a ministry assessment annually. It is your directional road map.


Boards should keep their work simple but they do need a set of core documents. These four explain your ministry, regulate your board relationships, board work and church direction.

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.

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?

Empowered Structures

We pay far too little attention to the structures that we have in our churches and organizations for decision making. No matter how good our organizational clarity and  how competent our leaders and people, when the structures that one must negotiate to make decisions - or to organize staff - or work with a board get clunky, they hold up ministry, waste precious time and energy and demotivate otherwise good leaders.


Eventually, unfriendly structures can actually kill a ministry or company as GM found out prior to filing bankruptcy. I have watched churches that were shining lights at one time go into slow decline because their staff and governance structures were not brought into alignment with new realities. 


Let's consider staff structures. One church I am watching from a distance has a considerably large staff which has never been unified around common goals or direction. Led by fairly competent individuals, they have simply done their own ministries for decades. The end result is a staff with zero alignment, turf wars, confusion over who is responsible for what, lack of a common voice and when the church got into crisis, chaos. And this is a church that many would recognize by name in our country. 


Yesterday I did a church consultation in Europe and staff were begging for greater clarity about reporting relationships, who was setting direction and how to achieve alignment. The lack of these things in a growing and effective ministry is causing frustration for staff who in the process feel under appreciated and unempowered.


Structures at the leadership level are no less important. Here is the question: How easy is it for you as a leader to make timely ministry decisions and how many groups do you need to go to in order to do so? When the decision making process becomes frustrating you know it is time to tune up the process. This involves getting your board structure in sync, eliminating additional boards or committees that you need to negotiate with and simplifying your governance system. For those of you who have ever been through the Chicago area with its toll roads, it is moving from toll booths to easy pass. 


Staff and ministry structures matter because their either impede or help effective ministry. If you have issues with either one, take the time to address it. The positive impact of doing so will be significant.

Learning to hear God's voice. Are you listening?

How does God speak to us through the Holy Spirit? There are probably many ways as we are each uniquely wired but often it is through "impressions" or "promptings" that come to us. Impressions or promptings are like watermarks on good paper. It is there if you look for it but not always obvious. It takes attention to see it.


Impressions are like that. They don't scream at us, they are just there. Often we don't pay too much attention but we should! It just might be the God of the universe talking back to us which is a big WOW! Some might call it intuition and certainly intuition fits the description. I will often mull and pray over an issue for a period of time and then one day it is like a light bulb goes on or an impression settles on me and I know I have an answer. Often, the Holy Spirit has provided me with counsel - divine counsel.


The descriptors that Jesus used to describe the person and the role of the Holy Spirit in John are helpful in this regard: "Advocate," "Spirit of truth," the one who will "teach us all things," the One who will "guide you into all the truth," who "will tell you what is yet to come," One who will "help you and be with you forever," (John 14-17).


Clearly the Holy Spirit communicates with those who are Christ followers. Why else would God have him take up actual residence in our bodies? Christ in us - through the Holy Spirit. He is after all our Counselor. The issue is not whether He communicates but whether we have trained ourselves to hear. 


When my wife, Mary Ann wants my attention her physical presence and voice let me know. (Even then, being of the male species, I might not actually hear. At least that is what she claims and which I take exception to). So, how much more attention on our part does it take to "hear" the Holy Spirit who rarely speaks with an audible voice but is a quiet presence in our hearts who wants to get our attention from time to time? When He gently messes with the neurons in my brain to impress something on me, do I hear?


Here is where our attention comes in. I have learned not to dismiss those impressions but to pay close attention to them. I have a suspicion that when I get to heaven and ask God why He didn't answer such and such a prayer He will show me all the ways He spoke back but my hearing was not very good. I want to sharpen my hearing to His promptings because if they are coming from the voice of God it is truly important for me to hear!


I realize we hear from God imperfectly just as my wife would report (incorrectly I might add) about her communications to me. Sometimes I do a better job than other times. But learning to be aware of the impressions or promptings of the Holy Spirit is a skill that can be cultivated and developed. 


Think about instances where you have had impressions or promptings that you know are from the Holy Spirit. Then do two things. Ask the Father to make you more sensitive to His "voice" in your life and then pay attention. He might just surprise you.


Remember, "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you (John 14:14-17). He is there. Are you listening?

Robust dialog: Creative conflict that raises the level of missional discourse

Over and over again I run into teams, organizations and groups that do not know how to have candid, honest, robust discussion. As a result there are many elephants in the room that cannot be discussed and which create an underlying mistrust within the group - that is what elephants do. 

Lets define robust dialogue. It is the ability to address any issue in the  team or organization as long as there are not hidden agendas or personal attacks. No personal attacks keeps the discussion at the strategic or organizational level. No hidden agendas means that we are upfront with why we are asking the question or pushing into an issue. Hidden agendas create mistrust while being honest and direct creates trust. 

Unfortunately there are plenty of people who agree with robust dialogue but who are operating with hidden agendas - behind the scenes maneuvering and politics hidden behind a facade of wanting to solve a problem or address an issue. In reality they have an agenda as to where the discussion ends up and they are maneuvering the end result toward their intended ends. This is neither fair nor helpful.

The very concept of robust dialogue where any issue can be put on the table as long as there are no hidden agendas or personal attacks is that it is in the strong discourse of different ideas and options that we actually get to solutions that are better than any of us would have come up with individually. But - there must be an ethos on the team, modeled by the leader that it is not only OK but it is valued to put issues on the table (graciously) that need to be addressed.

What prevents robust dialogue? First, leaders who are threatened by anything negative being said - and they perceive any potential criticism as negative. Frankly, that is poor leadership and I would never again work for a leader who was threatened by robust dialogue.

Second, elephants that everyone knows cannot be addressed because the group cannot handle talking about the issue. I was recently with a board that told me there were many elephants in the room that they have not been able to talk about for years and it was those elephants that were keeping them from moving forward. I asked what they were and we proceeded to name them. Once named, elephants are no longer elephants but issues that need to be resolved. Wherever elephants exist, there is not true robust dialogue.

Third, fear keeps some groups from engaging in honest dialogue. The fear is around what it might do to the dynamics of the group. Feeling good about one another and about the ministry takes precedence over honest evaluation of where things really are. Feeling comfortable trumps missional fulfillment. This is where many groups need to grow (up) and put mission before comfort and press into missional health and fulfillment.

Why is robust dialogue so important? Because it is in the conflict of ideas that we come to new solutions and ways of thinking. Those new solutions would never have emerged without the intellectual capital and clash of ideas. That is why ministries that invite and encourage robust dialogue are those who are on the cutting edge of change and effectiveness.

The decision making checklist

Decision making is an art based on good input and good thinking. In any critical decision the following checklist can be helpful to understand the risks and opportunities in the decision.


1. When does the decision need to be made? My philosophy is to wait until the decision needs to be made before pulling the trigger. The more time  I have to "think grey" the more of the implications I can discover.


2. Who will the decision impact? Decision makers often do not think carefully about who will be most impacted by the decision. Be sure you know exactly who will be affected and how?


3. What will the push back be? There is always push back to a critical decision - change is uncomfortable. Brainstorm about the push back you are likely to encounter so that your explanation can answer as many questions up front as possible.


4. What is the upside? Decisions are made because there is some advantage to them. Can you articulate clearly the positive impact that the decision will have for your organization?


5. What are the potential unintended consequences? To the best of your ability, identify the consequences of your decision and even what the unintended consequences might be.


6. Who needs to be consulted? The best decisions are made in consultation with others. Who can speak into your proposed action and bring greater clarity or even alternatives to the table?


7. What is the roll out process for informing people? Process is as important as the decision itself. One may have a brilliant idea but run a bad process leaving people with a bad taste in their mouth regarding the decision. Make sure you know how you are going to process people.


8. Should there be dialogue with the affected people? Once you have your ducks in a row and before the decision goes into affect, is there a forum to dialogue with impacted parties to answer questions and concerns in a non-defensive way.


9. If people have concerns, who should they contact? Make sure there is a place to go with ongoing concerns or questions.

Listening to our spouse

There have been a number of key decision points in my marriage where I have been ready to do something and Mary Ann expressed significant reservations. Those reservations kept me from moving ahead until we were both on the same page and were a great gift to me. In fact, I believe that spouses who don't carefully listen to one another on major decisions are not only foolish but potentially failing to listen to the Holy Spirit. I won't say that I was not sometimes irritated by her reluctance to agree with me but I will say she was invariably right and I would have paid dumb tax had I not listened.


Not listening is foolish because there are few people who know us better than our spouse! They know our strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, dark sides and all that makes up who we are. Furthermore, two people engaged in a decision is far better then one, especially when both have to live with the consequences. When I have an especially contentious issue at work or with an individual I will always talk it over with Mary Ann and will listen carefully to her counsel and usually my response is better for it.


But there is another factor that we often forget. As believers, we live with the gift of the Holy Spirit. The question is whether we are listening to the Holy Spirit in our busyness. My observation is that Mary Ann, like many women, are more reflective than many men and hear the whispers of the Spirit better than many men. Those whispers, however, are whispers from God who has our best interests in mind - always. Thus when our spouse indicates reservations it may just be that it is not them speaking but the Holy Spirit through them. 


All married couples face significant issues together. The simple practice of praying about these issues together, talking about them and listening carefully to one another on all of them can lead to better decisions, wiser actions and most of all the best shot at hearing the Holy Spirit in the process. We ignore the reflections of our spouse to our peril and may even miss the direction of the Holy Spirit in the process.