On a recent consult with leaders from a local church one of the common refrains was that there were a lot of elephants in the room. Elephants are those issues that everyone knows are present but nobody feels free to name. It is also an indication that there is not enough safety or trust in the group to put the elephant (an unresolved but significant issue) on the table.
Every organization has issues that are problematic. The problem with elephants is that they are issues that cannot be discussed without repercussions from some corner. In other words, the presence of elephants is indicative of a culture that both avoids conflict (we don't want to talk about it) and which lacks the necessary trust to have a discussion around an issue without threat of personal repercussions. Elephants then, by definition, because they cannot be named and discussed are indicators of a dysfunctional group or team.
We discussed the result of conflict avoidance in a recent post - sick churches, both because unresolved conflict does not go away but because the inability to deal with conflict indicates leaders who do not have have the courage to lead. Unattended issues fester and become tumors that hurt the body.
What groups do not understand about elephants, however, is that they are really opportunities to become a better organization or team. Dealt with, they are not negatives but opportunities to deal with an issue that has gone untreated and which if solved will better the team and organization. In other words, wherever you uncover an elephant you uncover an opportunity to get better, become healthier and build greater trust.
One of the elephants for this group was that while they "wanted to grow" they didn't want their church "family" to change so they actually resisted allowing new people into the family dynamics or relationships of the church. Thus, like many churches they were plateaued and actually in decline. Nobody wanted to talk about the dynamic that held them hostage because it was uncomfortable and involved something they had to own. But once on the table for discussion they had an opportunity to face their own dysfunction and think about changes they needed to make so that new people coming in would want to stay. Their significant problem was actually a huge opportunity if faced and handled well.
The reluctance to name elephants or issues is that we know someone will be offended. In our organization we talk about robust dialogue where any issue can be put on the table with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas. We can be honest but we cannot get personal. The issue is the issue, it is not a person. We also work very hard to create safe environments where we can discuss issues without people feeling unsafe.
It is a matter of perspective. Elephants are problems but problems, rather than being negative are actually opportunities to grow and get better. I am always interested in finding ways to grow and get better as an organization so I welcome the uncovering of problems or elephants or any issue that if resolved in a positive way makes us a better, healthier, more effective organization.
The key is to create a safe environment where we can put the issues on the table and keep them as issues that we all have a stake in resolving with the commitment that there will never be recrimination for naming them. This obviously requires a senior leader and other leaders who are not defensive but who model and invite transparency and open dialogue. After all it is not about us but about the mission that Jesus has given us.
Showing posts with label decision making. Show all posts
Showing posts with label decision making. Show all posts
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Leaders and critical thinking
One of the unique roles leaders play for their team or organization is the discipline of critical thinking: Where are we going? How will we get there? What are we going after? What spells success? Do I have the right people? Are they situated in the right "lane"? Is there absolute clarity around our mission? What are the priorities for this coming year? Who will take over if I am taken out of the picture? Are we maximizing our spiritual influence? and the list could go on.
Taking the time to reflect on the most important questions that help a ministry flourish is one of the key jobs of a leader. Because it is a hidden practice (it is not up front) and because it is not a physical activity, it is often lost in the busyness of all the other things leaders must do. Yet this basic discipline is the most critical thing a leader should be doing on an ongoing basis.
If a leader does not pay attention to this area of their leadership role, someone else in the organization who thinks deeply often will. They will be the ones asking the right questions and trying to help the team define clarity and success. Ironically, people will gravitate to and often follow the individual who can help the organization think critically whether they have the title of leader or not. While many do not have the skill for critical thinking (they are primarily doers), most desire to have clarity about what they are about, where they are going and how they will get there.
As the leader of an organization, I actually build into my schedule, thinking and writing days or weeks. They are intentionally kept clear for the discipline of thinking, and then clarifying through writing. I also have some key members of my staff who are great critical thinkers and regularly we will call a meeting in a room full of white boards to tackle a significant issue. In fact, the majority of my meetings are designed to do problem solving, get to clarity on an important issue, rethink how we are doing what we do and maximize our impact.
The discipline of critical thinking extends to hires that we make as well. There are few decisions that are more critical than the people one hires. They will either help drive the ministry forward or keep it back. The higher the level the hire, the more true this is. Thus, investing significant time in evaluating, dialoguing with, listening to and thinking through the strengths and weaknesses they bring to the ministry is crucial.
There are consequences to every decision we make. Part of critical thinking is to ask the question: What are the unintended consequences of the decision we are considering. All decisions have consequences, it is the unintended consequences that we need to identify because they can compromise the very thing we are trying to accomplish. Knowing them becomes part of the critical thinking equation.
In a complex world, critical thinking is often a group activity. While I do a great deal of thinking about organizational issues alone, I never pull the trigger on a major decision without involving my key ministry colleagues. The power of combined thinking and wisdom is far higher than the wisdom of any one of us by ourselves. This is also why I often call meetings of key individuals to together tackle an important issue.
This requires a spirit of humility and collaboration on the part of leaders. Lone ranger leaders, no matter how great their critical thinking skills are will not maximize their organization's potential by themselves. We need other critical thinkers around us as well as their buy in - and if we together are part of the solution, we will all buy into that solution.
Good thinkers are also people who seek the wisdom of colleagues from other ministries to find out what they are experiencing, how they are tackling like problems and what "dumb tax" they have paid that you should avoid. If ministry leaders talked more often and with greater candor we would together raise the bar for all of our ministries.
Critical thinking is a hallmark of leaders who stay in front of those they are leading, always asking the right (and hard) questions, and always looking for better solutions to maximize the spiritual influence of their organization. It is also the route to innovation!
Taking the time to reflect on the most important questions that help a ministry flourish is one of the key jobs of a leader. Because it is a hidden practice (it is not up front) and because it is not a physical activity, it is often lost in the busyness of all the other things leaders must do. Yet this basic discipline is the most critical thing a leader should be doing on an ongoing basis.
If a leader does not pay attention to this area of their leadership role, someone else in the organization who thinks deeply often will. They will be the ones asking the right questions and trying to help the team define clarity and success. Ironically, people will gravitate to and often follow the individual who can help the organization think critically whether they have the title of leader or not. While many do not have the skill for critical thinking (they are primarily doers), most desire to have clarity about what they are about, where they are going and how they will get there.
As the leader of an organization, I actually build into my schedule, thinking and writing days or weeks. They are intentionally kept clear for the discipline of thinking, and then clarifying through writing. I also have some key members of my staff who are great critical thinkers and regularly we will call a meeting in a room full of white boards to tackle a significant issue. In fact, the majority of my meetings are designed to do problem solving, get to clarity on an important issue, rethink how we are doing what we do and maximize our impact.
The discipline of critical thinking extends to hires that we make as well. There are few decisions that are more critical than the people one hires. They will either help drive the ministry forward or keep it back. The higher the level the hire, the more true this is. Thus, investing significant time in evaluating, dialoguing with, listening to and thinking through the strengths and weaknesses they bring to the ministry is crucial.
There are consequences to every decision we make. Part of critical thinking is to ask the question: What are the unintended consequences of the decision we are considering. All decisions have consequences, it is the unintended consequences that we need to identify because they can compromise the very thing we are trying to accomplish. Knowing them becomes part of the critical thinking equation.
In a complex world, critical thinking is often a group activity. While I do a great deal of thinking about organizational issues alone, I never pull the trigger on a major decision without involving my key ministry colleagues. The power of combined thinking and wisdom is far higher than the wisdom of any one of us by ourselves. This is also why I often call meetings of key individuals to together tackle an important issue.
This requires a spirit of humility and collaboration on the part of leaders. Lone ranger leaders, no matter how great their critical thinking skills are will not maximize their organization's potential by themselves. We need other critical thinkers around us as well as their buy in - and if we together are part of the solution, we will all buy into that solution.
Good thinkers are also people who seek the wisdom of colleagues from other ministries to find out what they are experiencing, how they are tackling like problems and what "dumb tax" they have paid that you should avoid. If ministry leaders talked more often and with greater candor we would together raise the bar for all of our ministries.
Critical thinking is a hallmark of leaders who stay in front of those they are leading, always asking the right (and hard) questions, and always looking for better solutions to maximize the spiritual influence of their organization. It is also the route to innovation!
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Our Inner Compass and Decision Making
Each of us has an inner compass which is made up of our convictions, accumulated experiences, skill set and of course, the voice of the Holy Spirit. Wise individuals learn to pay attention to that inner compass and not to move forward on something where there is not inner peace. It is an intangible voice but one that should never be ignored.
It is not unusual for leaders to be pushed for decisions that others would like them to make. It is easy to accede to that pressure even when there is a "gut check" that says, "don't do it." We ought to be very cautious about moving forward when there is a "heart check" that exists in our spirit. My experience is that when I have ignored that "check in my spirit" I have been sorry later.
Another area where we need to heed our "inner discernment" is with people when positioning them within our organization. They or their advocates may push for a certain job or position when one's inner compass has yellow or red flags. Until those flags have been resolved it is unwise to make a move, regardless of the pressure.
Even our own job factors into our inner compass. There come times in our lives when our spirit is telling us that it is time to move on, do something different or move in a different direction. The best thing we can do is to take that prompting seriously and make it a matter of consideration and prayer.
Sometimes this prompting comes from our own experience and the wisdom we have gained over the years. That bank of experience and wisdom should be taken seriously. Other times, it is the Holy Spirit that is prompting us in one direction or another. Learning to discern the voice of the Holy Spirit is one of the greatest gifts we could give ourselves. He knows things we don't know and is our "counselor."
Heeding our inner compass, whether our own bank of experience or the promptings of the Holy Spirit does not come on the fly. They require one to be reflective, to think about decisions long enough to be comfortable with the direction one is going and to be prayerful in that reflection. That is why wise individuals are deeply reflective and refuse to make decisions before they are ready to or to simply allow others to make decisions for them.
Reflection, prayer, time and past experience have a way of giving us great wisdom if we will slow down to make those considerations a priority. It can save us from lots of "dumb tax" and future regrets.
It is not unusual for leaders to be pushed for decisions that others would like them to make. It is easy to accede to that pressure even when there is a "gut check" that says, "don't do it." We ought to be very cautious about moving forward when there is a "heart check" that exists in our spirit. My experience is that when I have ignored that "check in my spirit" I have been sorry later.
Another area where we need to heed our "inner discernment" is with people when positioning them within our organization. They or their advocates may push for a certain job or position when one's inner compass has yellow or red flags. Until those flags have been resolved it is unwise to make a move, regardless of the pressure.
Even our own job factors into our inner compass. There come times in our lives when our spirit is telling us that it is time to move on, do something different or move in a different direction. The best thing we can do is to take that prompting seriously and make it a matter of consideration and prayer.
Sometimes this prompting comes from our own experience and the wisdom we have gained over the years. That bank of experience and wisdom should be taken seriously. Other times, it is the Holy Spirit that is prompting us in one direction or another. Learning to discern the voice of the Holy Spirit is one of the greatest gifts we could give ourselves. He knows things we don't know and is our "counselor."
Heeding our inner compass, whether our own bank of experience or the promptings of the Holy Spirit does not come on the fly. They require one to be reflective, to think about decisions long enough to be comfortable with the direction one is going and to be prayerful in that reflection. That is why wise individuals are deeply reflective and refuse to make decisions before they are ready to or to simply allow others to make decisions for them.
Reflection, prayer, time and past experience have a way of giving us great wisdom if we will slow down to make those considerations a priority. It can save us from lots of "dumb tax" and future regrets.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Critical Decisions
Many would be leaders relish the fact that they make fast decisions. They believe that quick and decisive decision making is the mark of a leader. It might be for a general in war time but apart from those situations that require immediate action, the best decisions are not made fast. In fact, the more significant the decision, the slower it should be made. Here are some components of good decision making.
When making critical decisions, good leaders think grey for a period of time. Grey thinking is thinking through options, listening to opinions and evaluating consequences without forming a conclusion until one needs to. It is the discipline of not forming a conclusion until one must in order to provide the time to gather information, listen to council and understand the implications. When thinking grey, leaders are not lobbying for a position with others, rather they are listening and evaluating.
Good leaders don't make critical decisions alone. The bring the best minds to the table to talk through options and come to a common conclusion. This may mean several or even many rounds of discussion until there is consensus that it is time to move forward and there is agreement on the direction. This runs counter to the "Captain and Commander" version of leadership where like the captain in the film, the leader makes unilateral decisions. The fact is that great leaders keep themselves and their organizations out of trouble by collaboration on critical decisions.
One of the key reasons for collaboration in is that there is likely to be push back from someone who does not agree with the direction. A leader does not want to be hanging out alone when that happens. He/she wants to have a guiding coalition of those who have been involved, agree with the direction and will help communicate and defend it.
Good leaders seek to understand the positive and negative consequences of critical decisions. They think through who will be affected, who is likely to push back and why, what questions will be asked, and especially what the unintended consequences will be. This is why thinking grey and collaboration are so important. Greater clarity comes over time as these issues are considered.
Good leaders make critical decisions a matter of prayer. God has information we don't have and He may choose to speak into our thinking - generally He does if asked.
Good leaders seek to come to the greatest clarity possible on why a certain decision has been made and how it will be communicated so that there is the best understanding and the greatest buy in - even if the decision has negative consequences for some which often they do. Lack of clarity creates confusion and confusion around a critical decision is deadly. Clarity comes best in collaboration as various people look at both the decision and the proposed communication through their particular lens. Quick decisions are far more likely to create questions and confusion than taking the time to do due diligence.
Because decisions impact people, good leaders think through the process of communicating that decision. This often means talking to those impacted before communicating to the organization as a whole. Process can be as important as the decision itself because a poorly thought through process is likely to create either confusion or push back from those who don't like the decision and divert the conversation to the process rather than the decision itself.
A key part of thinking through communication is to anticipate questions and reactions and seek to address them up front to the extent that this is possible. Included are not just the intellectual questions people may have but the emotions that the decision may elicit. Critical decisions are as much about managing emotions as they are about information.
Finally, good leaders create venues for dialogue and discussion in the aftermath of critical decisions. The best written explanations cannot substitute for face to face discussion with those who desire it. Remember that what you have been processing for some time may come as a surprise and shock to those who hear it for the first time. They need the same processing as you did only they must process after the fact.
Critical decisions impact people and good leaders care deeply about the people they lead. Thus they pay the time and attention to major decisions that will impact the organization and its staff.
When making critical decisions, good leaders think grey for a period of time. Grey thinking is thinking through options, listening to opinions and evaluating consequences without forming a conclusion until one needs to. It is the discipline of not forming a conclusion until one must in order to provide the time to gather information, listen to council and understand the implications. When thinking grey, leaders are not lobbying for a position with others, rather they are listening and evaluating.
Good leaders don't make critical decisions alone. The bring the best minds to the table to talk through options and come to a common conclusion. This may mean several or even many rounds of discussion until there is consensus that it is time to move forward and there is agreement on the direction. This runs counter to the "Captain and Commander" version of leadership where like the captain in the film, the leader makes unilateral decisions. The fact is that great leaders keep themselves and their organizations out of trouble by collaboration on critical decisions.
One of the key reasons for collaboration in is that there is likely to be push back from someone who does not agree with the direction. A leader does not want to be hanging out alone when that happens. He/she wants to have a guiding coalition of those who have been involved, agree with the direction and will help communicate and defend it.
Good leaders seek to understand the positive and negative consequences of critical decisions. They think through who will be affected, who is likely to push back and why, what questions will be asked, and especially what the unintended consequences will be. This is why thinking grey and collaboration are so important. Greater clarity comes over time as these issues are considered.
Good leaders make critical decisions a matter of prayer. God has information we don't have and He may choose to speak into our thinking - generally He does if asked.
Good leaders seek to come to the greatest clarity possible on why a certain decision has been made and how it will be communicated so that there is the best understanding and the greatest buy in - even if the decision has negative consequences for some which often they do. Lack of clarity creates confusion and confusion around a critical decision is deadly. Clarity comes best in collaboration as various people look at both the decision and the proposed communication through their particular lens. Quick decisions are far more likely to create questions and confusion than taking the time to do due diligence.
Because decisions impact people, good leaders think through the process of communicating that decision. This often means talking to those impacted before communicating to the organization as a whole. Process can be as important as the decision itself because a poorly thought through process is likely to create either confusion or push back from those who don't like the decision and divert the conversation to the process rather than the decision itself.
A key part of thinking through communication is to anticipate questions and reactions and seek to address them up front to the extent that this is possible. Included are not just the intellectual questions people may have but the emotions that the decision may elicit. Critical decisions are as much about managing emotions as they are about information.
Finally, good leaders create venues for dialogue and discussion in the aftermath of critical decisions. The best written explanations cannot substitute for face to face discussion with those who desire it. Remember that what you have been processing for some time may come as a surprise and shock to those who hear it for the first time. They need the same processing as you did only they must process after the fact.
Critical decisions impact people and good leaders care deeply about the people they lead. Thus they pay the time and attention to major decisions that will impact the organization and its staff.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Spin control
We hear it every day on the news channels. The government, businesses or individuals who have something to explain engaging in spin control. At its best, spin control is designed to get your facts out in as favorable a light as possible, knowing that others will spin your story in highly unsavory ways. At its worst, and perhaps all too common, spin control is used to rewrite the actual facts when they are not in our favor which amounts to dishonesty and lying. It is one of the reasons that many are rather cynical when listening to people who are obviously "spinning" reality to try to convince us of an alternative reality.
It is sad that many churches and ministry organizations do the same thing when confronted with situations that they need to explain and the simple facts of the situation will make them look bad. It is sad because truth is one of the fundamental characteristics of God's character and deceit or lying is one of God's all time "hates" (see Proverbs).
I am not suggesting that all facts about all situations must be shared. What I am suggesting is that what is shared must be consistent with the truth and would stand up to scrutiny if all the relevant parties were present. Church leaders who are not as candid as they ought to be - either because it will make them look bad - or because they don't want to deal with the fall out find that their spin goes out of control when people start to realize that they have not been given the full story - or even a truthful story. Even when done in the spirit of "we need to protect the congregation" it does not work - and that is often an excuse not to be truthful.
I know of a recent situation where allegations of sexual abuse in a mission agency's past came to light. Rather than bringing it into the open, the board simply fired the chief executive (who had nothing to do with that era of mission history). He became the scapegoat and the agency tried to hide the facts of the past. The latter will not work.
I know of a pastor who recently left his pastorate over deep conflict with his board but the situation was spun all ways to Sunday rather than simply acknowledging what many in the congregation already know - leaving the board with even less trust than they had before.
Why are we afraid of truth? Again, not everything needs to be said but people are not stupid and truth, no matter how hard builds trust while lack of transparency kills trust. Organizations that engage in dishonest spin find that they get caught in that spin for years rather than just being honest, taking the lumps and moving on. Even secular consultants will tell you to get whatever is going to get out on the table quickly, apologize where necessary, share your next steps and start to move on and rebuild trust. It is always the best way.
Covering up has to do with our pride. Transparency has to do with humility.
It is sad that many churches and ministry organizations do the same thing when confronted with situations that they need to explain and the simple facts of the situation will make them look bad. It is sad because truth is one of the fundamental characteristics of God's character and deceit or lying is one of God's all time "hates" (see Proverbs).
I am not suggesting that all facts about all situations must be shared. What I am suggesting is that what is shared must be consistent with the truth and would stand up to scrutiny if all the relevant parties were present. Church leaders who are not as candid as they ought to be - either because it will make them look bad - or because they don't want to deal with the fall out find that their spin goes out of control when people start to realize that they have not been given the full story - or even a truthful story. Even when done in the spirit of "we need to protect the congregation" it does not work - and that is often an excuse not to be truthful.
I know of a recent situation where allegations of sexual abuse in a mission agency's past came to light. Rather than bringing it into the open, the board simply fired the chief executive (who had nothing to do with that era of mission history). He became the scapegoat and the agency tried to hide the facts of the past. The latter will not work.
I know of a pastor who recently left his pastorate over deep conflict with his board but the situation was spun all ways to Sunday rather than simply acknowledging what many in the congregation already know - leaving the board with even less trust than they had before.
Why are we afraid of truth? Again, not everything needs to be said but people are not stupid and truth, no matter how hard builds trust while lack of transparency kills trust. Organizations that engage in dishonest spin find that they get caught in that spin for years rather than just being honest, taking the lumps and moving on. Even secular consultants will tell you to get whatever is going to get out on the table quickly, apologize where necessary, share your next steps and start to move on and rebuild trust. It is always the best way.
Covering up has to do with our pride. Transparency has to do with humility.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
When should a church change their governance system?
Tomorrow afternoon I do another consult with a church leadership team on significantly modifying their governance system. I have at least one conversation with church leaders every week over the frustration governance systems that are out of sync with the current size and needs of the church. So what are the classic signs that it is time to look at how you do governance?
1. There is frustration by staff on how long it takes to make ministry decisions or changes. Here is the funny thing. Many board members do not realize how frustrated their staff are on the decision making process. After all, they check in for a board meeting once or twice a week while staff are chomping at the bit to move things forward. Several weeks ago in a dialogue with a board one of the board members gave me the classic line, "Our system works great." I looked over at the senior pastor and asked, "Do you see it that way?" He shook his head NO!
When decisions cannot be made in a timely fashion by the right people it is time to rethink your leadership/governance system.
2. There is confusion about who is responsible for what. This is a common problem as churches grow. Is this a staff responsibility or board responsibility? Where there is confusion there is also room for conflict and misunderstandings. How often do staff make decisions only to be second guessed by a board member who was not in on the decision? That means that the decision has to be rehashed after the fact because there was not clarity up front on who had the authority to make it.
Confusion over who is responsible for what creates conflict and misunderstanding and it is a sign you need to rethink your governance.
3. You have long interminable board meetings. One board I spoke with recently, told me that they had two board meetings a month that went from seven PM to midnight or after. I would have been stunned except it is all too common. No church board should have to meet for more than two hours twice a month on a regular basis!
Long board meetings are a sure sign of a broken decision making system.
4. Permission must be obtained from multiple groups before a decision can be made. Any time a leadership board has to get permission, funding or assent from another committee or board in the church, you are operating on a redundant system that has toll booths built into the decision making process. It is a waste of time, talent and energy.
Toll booths rather than easy pass is a sign you need to revisit your governance.
5. The board has a hard time making decisions. How many boards revisit the same issues over and over again either because they didn't make a clear decision or because they didn't make any decision. It is no wonder that good leaders often decline to serve on the board.
Revisiting previously made decisions over and over is a sign of a broken governance system.
6. The board does management rather than providing leadership. How many times do we need to say that staff manage the ministry while boards set the overall parameters of the ministry. Yet most boards spend most of their time dealing with management minutia that someone else could be doing. In doing so, they have abdicated their more important leadership role of ensuring that the church is maximizing its ministry impact.
Management by committee (board) is a sure sign of a dysfunctional governance system.
If any of these six markers characterize your board, pay attention and consider re evaluating your governance and leadership systems.
1. There is frustration by staff on how long it takes to make ministry decisions or changes. Here is the funny thing. Many board members do not realize how frustrated their staff are on the decision making process. After all, they check in for a board meeting once or twice a week while staff are chomping at the bit to move things forward. Several weeks ago in a dialogue with a board one of the board members gave me the classic line, "Our system works great." I looked over at the senior pastor and asked, "Do you see it that way?" He shook his head NO!
When decisions cannot be made in a timely fashion by the right people it is time to rethink your leadership/governance system.
2. There is confusion about who is responsible for what. This is a common problem as churches grow. Is this a staff responsibility or board responsibility? Where there is confusion there is also room for conflict and misunderstandings. How often do staff make decisions only to be second guessed by a board member who was not in on the decision? That means that the decision has to be rehashed after the fact because there was not clarity up front on who had the authority to make it.
Confusion over who is responsible for what creates conflict and misunderstanding and it is a sign you need to rethink your governance.
3. You have long interminable board meetings. One board I spoke with recently, told me that they had two board meetings a month that went from seven PM to midnight or after. I would have been stunned except it is all too common. No church board should have to meet for more than two hours twice a month on a regular basis!
Long board meetings are a sure sign of a broken decision making system.
4. Permission must be obtained from multiple groups before a decision can be made. Any time a leadership board has to get permission, funding or assent from another committee or board in the church, you are operating on a redundant system that has toll booths built into the decision making process. It is a waste of time, talent and energy.
Toll booths rather than easy pass is a sign you need to revisit your governance.
5. The board has a hard time making decisions. How many boards revisit the same issues over and over again either because they didn't make a clear decision or because they didn't make any decision. It is no wonder that good leaders often decline to serve on the board.
Revisiting previously made decisions over and over is a sign of a broken governance system.
6. The board does management rather than providing leadership. How many times do we need to say that staff manage the ministry while boards set the overall parameters of the ministry. Yet most boards spend most of their time dealing with management minutia that someone else could be doing. In doing so, they have abdicated their more important leadership role of ensuring that the church is maximizing its ministry impact.
Management by committee (board) is a sure sign of a dysfunctional governance system.
If any of these six markers characterize your board, pay attention and consider re evaluating your governance and leadership systems.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Dialogue is fine, division isn't
Dialogue is a great tool for teams and organizations. Dialogue clarifies, brings new ideas, puts ideas and options on the table, allows for multiple viewpoints which frequently results in better outcomes.
Dialogue should always be encouraged! What should not be encouraged is division. Dialogue facilitates understanding while division draws lines. Dialogue encourages options while division says it must be my option. Dialogue brings all points of view while division says it must be my point of view.
Dialogue comes from a place of humility, knowing that we don't have all the answers and desiring the best solution. Division, on the other hand, comes from a place of pride which believes that my way is the right way - period. Dialogue brings others in along with their ideas while division puts others out along with their views.
As you think about the culture of your ministry, is it more about dialogue or division?
Dialogue should always be encouraged! What should not be encouraged is division. Dialogue facilitates understanding while division draws lines. Dialogue encourages options while division says it must be my option. Dialogue brings all points of view while division says it must be my point of view.
Dialogue comes from a place of humility, knowing that we don't have all the answers and desiring the best solution. Division, on the other hand, comes from a place of pride which believes that my way is the right way - period. Dialogue brings others in along with their ideas while division puts others out along with their views.
As you think about the culture of your ministry, is it more about dialogue or division?
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The Five Why Questions
A simple technique for getting to the bottom of problems is to ask the question "why?" – five times, to drill down to the heart of the matter. I learned this from Toyota motors and their problem solving strategy.
Here is an example. I am meeting with a church board of about fifteen hundred whose board meets twice a month from about seven to midnight – terribly long and inefficient meetings. I ask “why do you do this? I can’t imagine those meetings being very productive.” “Well we have a lot of stuff that we need to do” is the answer.
“Why do you as a board need to do all that stuff?” I ask. “Are there not staff or volunteers who can do much of it?” “Well, I guess we’re not that good at delegating and think we need to be on top of everything in the church” they answer.
“Why do you need to be on top of everything? Don’t you just need to be on top of the most important things” I ask? “Good question, they answer. We just assumed that we needed to know everything. As I think about it that is kind of impossible in a church our size is it not? I don’t think we do a very good job of differentiating between the small stuff and the big stuff.”
“Why is that?” I ask. “Hmmm,” one of them says. “We don’t really plan our meetings very well. We just have this list of stuff that we need to decide and then the meetings go on and on and on. Our agenda is sort of like a shopping list of stuff we talk about.”
“Why don’t you plan your meetings so that you cover the big rocks first and let the smaller rocks fall to someone else?” I ask. “We never really thought of that,” they answer. “But we like it.”
By drilling down with five “why?” questions we got to the heart of the issue. This board did not differentiate between key issues they needed to deal with and mundane issues that did not need their attention. And they made faulty assumptions about needing to know everything that went on in the church. Modifying this assumption and paying attention only to the big rocks along with a disciplined meeting structure could reduce their twice monthly meetings from five hours to two. So simple, but they had never taken the time to ask why they did what they did how they did it – in spite of the pain.
The next time you have a problem you would like to solve, try asking the question “Why?” five times, drilling down to the heart of the matter. You may be surprised at what you find.
Want to drill down further? Check out this link.
Want to drill down further? Check out this link.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Signs of a dysfunctional church board
It is an unfortunate truth that many church boards are dysfunctional. That lack of health makes board meetings difficult and leadership problematic. Here are some signs of a dysfunctional board.
Confidential discussions don’t stay in the board room. I recently met with a board over a particularly knotty problem they were dealing with (a personnel issue) and discovered that my comments had been passed on to the very one they were discussing. One of the most sacred rules for a board to operate is that confidential discussions are always kept in the board room. Once someone on your board starts to violate that sacred trust, the whole board is compromised because members will be unwilling to be candid because of the fact that their comments may become public domain. Board work 101 is confidentiality.
Issues are rehashed after they have been decided. When board members bring up issues that the board has already decided – wanting to rehash them – what they are really saying is “I don’t agree with the board’s decision and I am unwilling to agree to the board’s direction.” A key principle of board work is that board members must be willing to accept the decision of the board. If they cannot as a matter of conscience, they should leave the board. Needing to get one’s way (which is what this behavior is about) is destructive to healthy boards. Board members may say whatever they want inside the board room (with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas) but once a decision is made, they have the obligation to abide by it and support it publicly and privately.
Board meetings are conducted without a clear agenda. When there is not clarity over the agenda the board wanders and the loudest voices end up determining the discussion of the board – often bringing up matters that have more to do with personal agendas than church leadership issues. The board chair and the senior pastor should be crafting careful agendas around the big rocks of the ministry and then it is the boar chair’s job to ensure that the agenda is followed and rabbit trails are not followed.
Board members don’t police their own. Healthy boards have a board covenant of behavior – the rules by which they operate. They also are willing to deal with board members who violate the meeting commitments. This is not easy but it is necessary because it only takes one board member who violates accepted practices to kill the health of the board as a whole. I am constantly amazed at the behaviors that boards allow because they either have not clarified acceptable behavior or simply lack the courage to call board members on their behavior.
The Board does not have a clear and defined path for decision making. Many boards have a naive assumption that they all need to agree (unanimity) before a decision is made. What this actually does is to allow just one board member to hold the rest of the board hostage when they don’t agree. In other cases, the decision making process is simply “murky” and it is often not clear that a decision has been made that everyone needs to support. After adequate dialogue, boards need to make decisions by a majority vote, that decision needs to be recorded, everyone needs to be clear on the implications and must be willing to support it.
The board cannot make a tough decision that impacts the health of the church. There is often a naive assumption that it is possible to keep everyone in the church happy, to never ruffle the waters and to always assume that individuals in the congregation – even who display problematic behaviors – have the best interests of the church in mind. I have watched boards fail to deal with behaviors that are negatively impacting the church as whole in the name of “grace.” Paul did not counsel Timothy in the Pastoral Epistles to extend grace to everyone, especially those whose behavior caused division in the church! Actually he counseled just the opposite. There are times when boards need to make hard calls that not everyone will like or understand – for the health of the ministry they give leadership to. Not doing so when it is necessary is not grace but cowardice.
Dysfunctional boards create dysfunctional churches so the health of the board and the quality of their work matter – a lot.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Avoiding the impulsive trap
Wise leaders avoid the trap of acting impulsively – on the spur of the moment - out of emotion or anxiety. Rather, they train themselves to respond to people and situations with circumspection.
Think of the emails you have sent that you wish in retrospect you could take back. I’ve both sent my share and received my share where I ask the question, “What were they thinking when they sent that?” Words spoken, actions taken and emails sent cannot be taken back and those that are done impulsively are often those we wish we could take back.
Our own anxiety often plays into acting impulsively. When we are faced with a situation that makes us anxious, that anxiety pushes us to “fix the issue” quickly. A wiser course of action is to learn to control our anxiety, take time to think through the issue, seek wise counsel from others and wait until we can respond out of a thoughtful response in a measured rather than emotional manner. A good rule of thumb is that the higher our anxiety the more important it is to wait before responding.
In our anxiety to “fix” situations we often forget that time is our ally. Very few issues need to be confronted immediately. In fact, time provides perspective, gives us time to think and evaluate a wise response rather than an emotional response that has less wisdom but more emotion. Waiting takes discipline and self control and both are traits that good leaders nurture.
Anxiety over situations ought to be a signal that we need to wait, to think, to seek counsel if necessary but not to respond in the moment but out of circumspect thinking.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
When leaders receive pushback
As leaders we have limited time, energy and leadership capital. We also have agendas for our team or organization that we believe is helpful and directionally sound which is what leaders by definition do. But not all of those agendas are equally important and some will face significant pushback. Knowing when to yield, when to wait and when to press on is an important trait of a healthy leader.
Pushback from your team (or board) can mean a number of different things. It can mean that they are not ready for your proposal and you need to do additional work to explain or prepare them. It can mean that there is something in your proposal that they are cautious of – which is a good thing to pay attention to as a leader. It may mean that you have not done a good enough job of explaining the benefits of the proposed direction.
When pushback comes the first key is not to react or go on the defensive. Both reactivity and defensiveness send a message that we are closed to dialogue, questions or analysis. And it indicates that getting our way is personal which is the wrong message to send. In fact, welcoming questions, concerns or dialogue and acknowledging their legitimacy brings those who raise them into the proposal in a positive way.
Honest dialogue around the idea you have put on the table – without defensiveness – often leads to additional shaping of your proposal that not only strengthens it but leads to the ownership of others who now also have a stake in the idea. Remember, you have had time to process the idea – they have not. You have put your stamp on the proposal, allowing them to do the same brings mutual ownership.
If after dialogue there is still not mutual ownership or consensus, it is often wise to suggest that the group take more time at a later date to discuss it and simply give it time. Middle and late adaptors need time to process, think and reflect before feeling good about a major decision. Giving it time also indicates that you are not going to “run over them” to achieve your wishes but desire the team or board to be with you in it. Whenever we try to force people to agree we lose leadership coinage because they feel violated and disempowered. Sometimes we simply need to wait until there is better understanding. Waiting is far better than dying on the wrong hill.
Leaders who must get their own way are usually poor leaders who lose the confidence of those they lead. Leaders who respect others, honor process and people in decision making and foster open dialogue along with a willingness to be flexible are wise leaders. Most foolish of all are leaders who in the face of pushback or caution from their board or team simply do what they want to do anyway. Every time that happens they lose significant leadership capital
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Undiscerning church boards: A case study
I never cease to be amazed at how naive and undiscerning church boards can be. Here is a case study from several years ago.
The church has gone through a period of turbulent waters for a number of reasons and the senior pastor resigns. In the interim a staff member who loves nothing else better than to lead steps into the breach, is regular in the pulpit, and leads the staff. In addition, he puts his name in to become the next senior pastor and it is clear he desires the job. It is no secret that he wants the senior position. I will call this individual Bill.
When the search committee makes its decision, Bill is not chosen. Instead, it is Steve from outside. But when Steve comes, Bill is not asked to leave so Steve is working with the individual who wanted his job and believed should have his job on his staff.
Over the next several years, it is quickly apparent that Bill believes he is a better leader than Steve, passively resists his leadership - sometimes actively, is critical of Steve when they meet and tensions are present. Their philosophies of ministry are worlds apart, their style very different and Bill is often critical of how Steve leads.
Yet the leadership of the church does nothing about it. They like Bill and Bill feels "called to be at the church" and has a history at the church. Thus the board has set Steve up for an inevitable clash, for leadership pain, inability to build his own staff and a major lack of alignment on the staff. When it comes to how they would do things, Bill and Steve live on different planets.
When I met with Bill and Steve at Bill's request, I asked him who the better leader was and Bill told me in front of Steve that he was by far the better leader. I asked why he stayed at the church when he could not lead from the "first chair" and he said that the church needed his "prophetic voice" and would never leave. In other words, the church would not succeed without him and it was his prophetic voice that the church needed. I strongly suggested as an outside consultant that this arrangement would not work and that it was in fact doomed to fail. Bill came off as overly impressed with his own importance and the need of the church for his presence.
Over a period of months, as Steve pressed into this impossible situation, Bill decided that he should resign - reluctantly. He sent a letter of resignation to the elders and to my astonishment, several of the elders recommended that they should not accept the letter of resignation and that Steve should figure out how to work with Bill.
Never mind the lack of alignment, insubordination and the fact that Bill really wanted Steve's job. For some, Steve himself was the bad guy here who could not humble himself to work with Bill. In the meeting, he took a number of amazing shots for not making it work.
I was frankly stunned, sitting as an outsider listening to this conversation. Here was a group that had chosen Steve as their pastor over Bill and had then allowed Bill to stay so you had two competing leaders! Then when the inevitable tensions arose, Steve was the bad guy and should just "get along." If even Paul and Barnabas could not figure that out, how do we expect others to figure that out? I suggested that if they were that committed to Bill, they should have made him pastor rather than calling Steve, that they had set Steve up for this by keeping Bill on staff and that I had told Steve he should leave if the board did not support him on this.
Then, even more astonishing to me, they made it clear that Bill could stay in the church and some think he should be allowed to lead a ministry there as a lay leader - in spite of the fact that Steve now has a volunteer leader who wanted his job, does not respect him as a leader and who I predict will undermine Steve in subtle or not so subtle ways. In my world, Bill would be thanked for his service and asked to find another church. But, no, preservation of the unity of the body means that he should stay and even be eligible to serve in a lay leadership role.
Jesus told us to be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Too many church boards lack basic wisdom in the name of "grace," and frankly violate other Scriptures by letting the fox into the hen house in the name of unity and grace. If these leaders are not careful they will lose a staff member but it will not be Bill. It will be Steve who they called but chose not to support and whose decisions in matters like these actually made it difficult for him to lead! And if Steve does eventually leave, they will get what their leadership deserved. They were not wise, did not support their pastor, did not make good decisions early on and did not think through the consequences of their decisions.
Wisdom is lacking in far too many board rooms of churches. In this case the word "foolish" from the book of Proverbs is far more applicable than the word "wisdom." Time will tell whether this board gets its act together. I pray they do.
The church has gone through a period of turbulent waters for a number of reasons and the senior pastor resigns. In the interim a staff member who loves nothing else better than to lead steps into the breach, is regular in the pulpit, and leads the staff. In addition, he puts his name in to become the next senior pastor and it is clear he desires the job. It is no secret that he wants the senior position. I will call this individual Bill.
When the search committee makes its decision, Bill is not chosen. Instead, it is Steve from outside. But when Steve comes, Bill is not asked to leave so Steve is working with the individual who wanted his job and believed should have his job on his staff.
Over the next several years, it is quickly apparent that Bill believes he is a better leader than Steve, passively resists his leadership - sometimes actively, is critical of Steve when they meet and tensions are present. Their philosophies of ministry are worlds apart, their style very different and Bill is often critical of how Steve leads.
Yet the leadership of the church does nothing about it. They like Bill and Bill feels "called to be at the church" and has a history at the church. Thus the board has set Steve up for an inevitable clash, for leadership pain, inability to build his own staff and a major lack of alignment on the staff. When it comes to how they would do things, Bill and Steve live on different planets.
When I met with Bill and Steve at Bill's request, I asked him who the better leader was and Bill told me in front of Steve that he was by far the better leader. I asked why he stayed at the church when he could not lead from the "first chair" and he said that the church needed his "prophetic voice" and would never leave. In other words, the church would not succeed without him and it was his prophetic voice that the church needed. I strongly suggested as an outside consultant that this arrangement would not work and that it was in fact doomed to fail. Bill came off as overly impressed with his own importance and the need of the church for his presence.
Over a period of months, as Steve pressed into this impossible situation, Bill decided that he should resign - reluctantly. He sent a letter of resignation to the elders and to my astonishment, several of the elders recommended that they should not accept the letter of resignation and that Steve should figure out how to work with Bill.
Never mind the lack of alignment, insubordination and the fact that Bill really wanted Steve's job. For some, Steve himself was the bad guy here who could not humble himself to work with Bill. In the meeting, he took a number of amazing shots for not making it work.
I was frankly stunned, sitting as an outsider listening to this conversation. Here was a group that had chosen Steve as their pastor over Bill and had then allowed Bill to stay so you had two competing leaders! Then when the inevitable tensions arose, Steve was the bad guy and should just "get along." If even Paul and Barnabas could not figure that out, how do we expect others to figure that out? I suggested that if they were that committed to Bill, they should have made him pastor rather than calling Steve, that they had set Steve up for this by keeping Bill on staff and that I had told Steve he should leave if the board did not support him on this.
Then, even more astonishing to me, they made it clear that Bill could stay in the church and some think he should be allowed to lead a ministry there as a lay leader - in spite of the fact that Steve now has a volunteer leader who wanted his job, does not respect him as a leader and who I predict will undermine Steve in subtle or not so subtle ways. In my world, Bill would be thanked for his service and asked to find another church. But, no, preservation of the unity of the body means that he should stay and even be eligible to serve in a lay leadership role.
Jesus told us to be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Too many church boards lack basic wisdom in the name of "grace," and frankly violate other Scriptures by letting the fox into the hen house in the name of unity and grace. If these leaders are not careful they will lose a staff member but it will not be Bill. It will be Steve who they called but chose not to support and whose decisions in matters like these actually made it difficult for him to lead! And if Steve does eventually leave, they will get what their leadership deserved. They were not wise, did not support their pastor, did not make good decisions early on and did not think through the consequences of their decisions.
Wisdom is lacking in far too many board rooms of churches. In this case the word "foolish" from the book of Proverbs is far more applicable than the word "wisdom." Time will tell whether this board gets its act together. I pray they do.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Proactive or Reactive Leadership
One of the ongoing frustrations of many church boards is the lack of progress they seem to make in endless meetings. In some cases, the issues they are dealing with are the same issues they dealt with last year – and the year before that. The reason often has to do with getting trapped into reactive leadership – which is not really leadership at all rather than proactive leadership.
While leaders must at times respond to issues, the heart of leadership is intentionally moving an organization or ministry toward a preferred future. This requires a board to deal with issues at hand but to focus on issues in the future. One way to do this is to agree to two board meetings each month, one for dealing with decisions and business and the other for prayer, discussion and thinking about the future – with no business allowed.
But what about those issues that seem to come up time and again? My experience is that many boards are negligent in actually making decisions with the result that issues are never really resolved and come circling back for another and another round of discussion. I recently met with a board facing this dilemma. Using a white board we listed the unresolved issues that seem to keep popping up. I then gave each member three post it notes with a one, two and three and asked them to put their “one” next to the most pressing issue, the “two” next to the second priority and the three next to their third priority.
Very quickly they had prioritized their most important issues. I then suggested that they tackled these one by one and make a decision on each. Clarifying issues with a decision, even if it is not the perfect decision is far better than not making a decision and allowing the wandering to continue.
One of the main responsibilities of a board chair is to ensure that the most important “big rocks” that will help the organization move forward are addressed before the minutia that probably does not belong on the agenda at all. In the final analysis, leaders choose through the agenda items they tackle what is truly important to them and whether they will be proactive in their leadership or merely reactive to issues that arise. The first will move the ministry forward while the second will merely guard the status quo. How is your board doing?
While leaders must at times respond to issues, the heart of leadership is intentionally moving an organization or ministry toward a preferred future. This requires a board to deal with issues at hand but to focus on issues in the future. One way to do this is to agree to two board meetings each month, one for dealing with decisions and business and the other for prayer, discussion and thinking about the future – with no business allowed.
But what about those issues that seem to come up time and again? My experience is that many boards are negligent in actually making decisions with the result that issues are never really resolved and come circling back for another and another round of discussion. I recently met with a board facing this dilemma. Using a white board we listed the unresolved issues that seem to keep popping up. I then gave each member three post it notes with a one, two and three and asked them to put their “one” next to the most pressing issue, the “two” next to the second priority and the three next to their third priority.
Very quickly they had prioritized their most important issues. I then suggested that they tackled these one by one and make a decision on each. Clarifying issues with a decision, even if it is not the perfect decision is far better than not making a decision and allowing the wandering to continue.
One of the main responsibilities of a board chair is to ensure that the most important “big rocks” that will help the organization move forward are addressed before the minutia that probably does not belong on the agenda at all. In the final analysis, leaders choose through the agenda items they tackle what is truly important to them and whether they will be proactive in their leadership or merely reactive to issues that arise. The first will move the ministry forward while the second will merely guard the status quo. How is your board doing?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Don't waste your life in meetings
Think about all the meetings you attend in the course of a week – a month – a year. Then consider this fact: It is estimated that half of all meeting time in the United States whether business or ministry is wasted time! Henry Ford once said that the problem with wasted time is that there is no waste left over on the factory floor that can be visibly seen. And time is the one commodity that none of us can get back so if indeed half of all meeting time is waste, I want to reclaim that time for more important things. Many of us have read the book “Death by Meeting” and we instinctively understand the title. That says it all.
Meeting productivity can be seen as a function of three key elements: How we behave in meetings; having a tight agenda with specified outcomes along with a good facilitator; and ensuring that there is timely execution on action items.
Meeting Behaviors
All of us have been guilty at one time or another of “checking out” of meetings. We check out because there is not a tight agenda – wandering meetings are boring – and because we know that there probably will not be timely execution on action items anyway. That is why all three elements need to be addressed together.
Here is a set of meeting behaviors that I observed in a recent organization I visited. It says a lot about how they view meetings:
We engage in robust dialogue. This means that we can discuss any issue without personal attack or hidden agenda.
Our meetings start and end on time.
Team members are responsible to attend as scheduled.
One person speaks at a time, while others actively listen.
Everyone actively participates.
All ideas are encouraged and considered.
The Meeting COMPASS (TM) has been completed and is followed.
We leave the room as we found it.
Action items are clearly defined and completed as assigned.
Cell phones and pagers are turned off and only used during breaks or when meeting is over.
This organization obviously has raised the bar on how they do meetings!
Meeting format
Notice that one of their commitments is to use Meeting COMPASS which is a way to format meetings for maximum effectiveness. Basically the meeting compass (a proprietary tool) ensures that before a meeting is held, the purpose is clear, the outcomes are specified, the agenda is set and necessary preparation is done. With that kind of a roadmap (anyone can do this), and a facilitator, the meeting is kept on track, the agenda is followed, people are prepared and outcomes are clear.
The facilitator then records all action items and decisions made. Action items include the action, the person responsible and the date the action must be completed. These are put into an excel spread sheet
Execution
This brings me to the third issue – timely execution. The first thing that happens at the next meeting is a review of action items from the previous meeting. Using the excel spread sheet listing those action items, each item gets a color: Red (action was not completed – ouch), yellow (action was not fully completed – hmm) or Green (action was completed – great). It only takes a few meetings for folks to get a Red or Yellow to figure out that you are committed to execution rather than just talk.
We are working to up the level of meeting excellence in our own organization and are learning from others who do it better. How are you doing in your meetings? I for one don’t want to waste time in unproductive meetings.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Interminable Board Meetings
It is why many choose not to serve on boards. It is why many boards cannot make decisions and live in deadlock. It is why one or two board members can hold the board hostage by never allowing a decision to be made. It is why many boards live by “resawing the sawdust” over and over again!
If the business you work for operated like many interminable boards, they would be out of business. It is, in fact, foolishness to allow a board to deliberate, deliberate, deliberate; never having the courage or discipline to simply make a decision and move on – with the agreement that everyone present will support that decision. Ironically, board meetings are often interminable over insignificant issues that should have taken ten minutes to decide and yet take the board into the wee hours of the morning.
It is also no uncommon with undisciplined boards to make a decision and then revisit that decision time and again because a board member does not agree or someone in the congregation disagreed (really?).
If you are suffering from interminable church board meetings I encourage you to adopt a set of principles that will allow your board to live with discipline and allow it to move along. The ministry of the church will not move any faster than the board can do its business – scary thought.
1. Use an agenda and put the most important issues on the agenda first.
2. Live within your time parameters.
3. After discussion take a vote and move on.
4. Through a board covenant ensure that all board members will support the decision made.
5. Have a written document that describes how your board does its business and abide by it.
6. Except in unusual cases, don’t revisit decisions made.
7. Never allow any board member to hold the board hostage by refusing to make a decision.
8. Delegate all those decisions that do not rise to the level of board discussion – many issues do not.
9. Empower your board chair to lead the meeting so that it moves through the agenda.
10. Get up and go home if the board goes over its allocated time – even if others choose to stay and resaw sawdust. You don’t need to.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Restlessness
Restlessness should not be ignored. It is a sign that some kind of transition is needed and it is often planted in our hearts by God so that we don't simply stay in our comfort zone but rather on the cutting edge of where He wants us to be. Those who ignore the restlessness often end up settling for the easy route in their latter years but not the route that would have yielded the most ministry impact.
Restlessnes does not necessarily mean it is time to leave (although it could) but it does meant that unless there is significant reformulation of what one is doing, the satisfaction and joy of work will be noticibly lesser than it should and could be. It is often a sign that we are not operating at our fullest capacity and that God wired us for more than we are currently doing.
Restlessness is a time to pray and explore new options for our ministries. It is also a time to find avenues of growth (boredome often means extra time on our hands) where we can grow and develop where we are as we wait for our next assignment. It is really a gift from God to get our attention that He has something more and better for us at this time of our lives and in the meantime, personal growth can prepare us for what comes next.
If you are restless, don't ignore it. Maybe it is just a stage of life. More likely, it is a divine nudge to either reformulate what you are doing or to consider a move where you can better play to all the strengths God gave you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)