Seven signs of a closed and dysfunctional ministry system to be wary of

 

I spoke recently with a ministry leader who had resigned from his church staff position (a large church) because of the dysfunctional culture that he sensed. Having left the "system," he now realizes that it was a great deal more dysfunctional than he thought, and he is so glad to be out of it. When we are in a "closed" system that is dysfunctional or toxic, we may sense that not all is right, but it is when we get out that we realize how dysfunctional it was. This applies to staff systems as well as whole congregations where there is significant dishealth. Such dysfunction can be part of the historic DNA of the church, a dysfunctional board, a dysfunctional leader, or a "church boss" who wields unhealthy power and has a personal agenda.

These same dynamics play out on church boards!

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

One: There is great pressure for people to think in similar ways and not to have independent voices. In closed systems, independent opinions that go against the "group think" are a threat and are not valued. Often, independent thinkers in ministries are either labeled as troublemakers or spiritually immature. Certainly, it is not safe to disagree significantly.

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

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

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

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

Six: In closed systems, those who leave are marginalized and become non-entities. People in the system don't talk to those who left the system and are seen as disloyal. It is no different than a dysfunctional family (family system theory), where there is a high level of pressure to ensure that people conform, and when they don't, they are left outside by themselves.

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

If any of these characteristics are true of your staff or the ministry, you are to consider the possibility that you are caught in a closed and dysfunctional system. None of this has anything to do with a healthy church, staff, or board. Nor the love of Jesus. It is simply an unhealthy and dysfunctional family system played out in a congregation. And it happens all too frequently. Once out, people recognize how toxic it was. 

How to kill the passion of your staff

 Why do some ministry staff have a high and contagious level of passion for what they do, and others have low and noncontagious levels of passion?

Indeed, some of it concerns how individuals are wired personally. But, much of it has to do with the ministry environment in which they work - for environments and culture will either fuel or kill passion in those who work in them.

Passion killers are those things that will diminish rather than fuel ministry passion.

There is the passion killer of ambiguous missional purpose. Organizations that do not have a compelling reason for existence that everyone understands and shares will diminish rather than fuel passion for ministry. General ministry purpose yields general ministry efforts with general ministry results. A lack of focus and clear definition of what we are all about will generate little passion. No wonder such a high percentage of churches exist without much excitement or energy around them.

There is the passion killer of control and micromanagement. Good people want to be developed, empowered, and released rather than controlled or micromanaged. Control diminishes passion by devaluing people and saying, "I can't trust you to do your job by yourself." It disempowers, discourages, and diminishes enthusiasm for one's work over time. Leaders who control or micromanage, by definition, kill passion.

There is the passion killer of poor leadership. Leaders set the pace for the missional focus, health, level of energy and commitment, and the synergistic working of a team. Passion begins to diminish when leaders don't provide that kind of directional leadership and cohesion. Poor leadership yields poor followership, and teams rarely rise above their leader's passion, commitment, and example. For passion to remain high, it must start with the team leader.

There is the passion killer of living with the status quo rather than being willing to take a risk for ministry leverage. Organizations that will not take a risk diminish the passion of those who long to do something different to get greater ministry results. When the answer is "no," we don't do that here; passion leads to discouragement! Trying new things always fuels passion, while living safely does not. Safety over innovation kills passion!

There is the passion killer of unresolved conflict and lack of team cohesion. Teams, congregations, and organizations often live with high levels of negative stuff that is not resolved. Everyone knows it is present, but no one dares to face and fix it. Over time, that diminishes the passion of good people whose desire to see something happen for Christ is discouraged by the dis health they are surrounded by.

Then there is the passion killer of leaders who are coasting toward the end of their ministry life, who don't really know where to go anymore but are determined to hang on till the end, leaving staff without direction or real purpose. This is a real problem among pastors who have lost their ability to lead but don't know what to do next and simply hang on. They may be great people, but they are no longer leading, and their lack of leadership diminishes passion among those they should be leading.

There is also the passion killer of leaders who are more about building their own success and legacy than working as a team. These leaders may have narcissistic tendencies, and it is all about them. Their narcissism diminishes passion in others quickly as team members realize they are simply being used rather than part of a cohesive, unified ministry team. It is about the leader and not about the mission. Some very large organizations and churches suffer from this passion killer.

There is the passion killer of politics and turf wars. Politics kills passion because the energy of turf wars takes away from team spirit and common direction and pits groups against one another. It also fuels cynicism as good people wonder why their leaders put up with such silliness. 

Organizational culture and its leadership will either fuel or diminish passion. I would love to hear from readers about passion killers they have observed in their ministries.

Are you leading from positional authority or influence?

 

We are trained to believe that positional authority is necessary if we are going to have influence. In fact, we usually believe that influence and positional authority are one and the same or must both be present in order to be successful in ministry (or other venues).

I beg to differ. I have written previously that the best influence is from our lives and not from our position. If we believe that positional authority and influence are one and the same, what do we do with someone like Barnabas, whose influence made Paul what he became - and who probably had little or no positional authority. Or think of the average lay individual who has a huge influence on many people without any positional influence. 

Certainly, in missions, influence is far more important than authority. In fact, in most ministry situations, our position allows us to possibly tell others what to do (often not a good way to do leadership), but non-staff or those around us don't particularly care about our position. What they do care about is whether we have the heart to help and serve them. Furthermore, people don't listen carefully to those they don't respect, and respect comes from the quality of our lives rather than the position we hold.

Relying for influence on our positional authority is a big mistake because we can be badly mistaken that our position gave us influence when, in fact, it may or may not. Influence comes from healthy spiritual, relational, and emotional intelligence. It also comes from a kingdom heart that desires to serve others more than it desires to serve ourselves. 

It is the way of Jesus, who had no worldly positional power. Nor did it seem to bother him. His self-image was not wrapped up in position but rather gave up his position to have influence with those who deserved none of it (Philippians 2). 

It is easy to chase the wrong prize in life. Chasing positional authority for its sake is not a worthy prize. Investing our lives to bring influence for Jesus is the ultimate worthy endeavor. 

I often ask people who was the most important person in the New Testament outside of the Gospels. The answer is almost always Paul. Personally, I wonder if it is Barnabas who came alongside Paul when no one else would, loved him, believed him, and invested in him. It was all about influence, and it produced (in God's Spirit and providence) the greatest leader in the early church - at least in the spread of Christianity and the clarity of theology.

This ought to be a great encouragement to all who don't have positional authority in their lives and ministries. The good news is that our influence is far more important than our position, and we can have influence from any place God has put us. In many churches, for instance, the people of greatest influence have no authority. Rather, they are people who speak wisely, serve others, and model what a Christian ought to be. 

We may possess positional authority, but our greatest contribution will inevitably come from our influence. Some have both, but if all you have is positional authority, it is not enough and not a worthy prize. 

Don't irritate your staff with helicopter management

In my many years of consulting with organizations, one of the prevalent complaints of staff is the helicopter management of senior leaders. First, staff are responsible for something and work hard to figure it out. Then, a senior leader "helicopters" in to adjust or redo the plan.

I often ask staff how this management style makes them feel when they describe this to me. Their answer is almost always the same: They think that they are not trusted, their work devalued, and the energy they put into the work they had completed. It is one of the most disrespectful things a leader can do to their staff, who feel marginalized and unappreciated. Of course, this does not mean the leader meant to send those messages, but their actions do just that. Every time leaders do this, they lose major coinage with their staff. 

What are the reasons that this happens? 

• Often there needed to be more adequate conversation and dialogue before the project was assigned, leaving staff unaware of the leader's true intentions.
• Many leaders simply think they know best and believe it is their responsibility to make the calls.
• Often, leaders are moving way too fast to pay proper attention to what is happening leaving them with little time for dialogue, so they helicopter down, make their pronouncements, and then helicopter off again. Their touchdowns can leave chaos in their wake, and they are unaware of how their actions impact their staff.
• Many leaders think that things should be done one way: Their way. So when a different way is tried, they feel that they need to intervene. 

What is the answer? It is to understand what altitude one should be flying at and staying at that altitude, allowing others to fly at their altitude and do their work. There can always be discussion and dialogue, but those at lower altitudes often know much better the issues they are dealing with. I discuss this issue of altitude in my book Leading From The Sandbox. Understanding the proper altitude leaders should be flying is one of the critical components of healthy leadership.

Remember that every leader's actions have ripple effects on their staff. The more senior the leader, the more ripples there are. At times one must pivot quickly, and that is appreciated by staff. However, when senior leaders regularly dip down to 5,000 feet when they ought to be flying at 30,000 feet, they need to appreciate the impact on staff. Find your altitude, take the time to dialogue with staff, so you know where they are and what they are doing, and honor them as colleagues by not changing their plans on a whim.

Confusing, outdated, unclear and vague church governance systems

Many churches are long overdue to change their governance systems, but I am still surprised to read many church constitutions that make real leadership very difficult. Church leaders who would never structure their business the way their church structures leadership are seemingly OK with the fact that it is almost impossible to do any kind of leadership within their governance system.

Yes, churches are not businesses. They are far more important that a business because eternal lives are at stake. Yet we continue to hamper leadership that would help the church to be more effective. Here are some common governance issues that congregations still allow to hamper their leadership.

Keep the leadership from controlling the budget

In what other arena would you find a system where those who are charged with the direction and effectiveness of the ministry (elder, Deacons or whatever the group is called in your polity), must go to another board (often trustees) to designate funds toward ministry initiatives. One board is charged with the effectiveness of the church ministry and its direction and the other board holds the dollars to carry it out hostage.

Such systems are absolute foolishness from a leadership perspective, yet they continue to exist. Every decision the first board makes must then be negotiated and made by a second board when it involves funds. And a board that is not vested with the direction of the ministry can determine whether they release the funds or not. In the best scenario this is a waste of time and energy. In the worst scenario, it sets up conflict between the two boards.

Multiple boards and multiple authorities

When you give a group the designation of “board” you give them implied authority. So, when you have multiple boards such as elders, deacons and trustees you have multiple groups with implied authority. Of course, this raises the question as to who is ultimately responsible for church leadership. When no one is in charge, everyone is in charge!

It is these kinds of structures that cause the best leaders to stay out of church leadership. They cannot lead and when they do, it is a very frustrating experience. And because no one desires to give up their power it is hard to change. In both scenarios, the power issue keeps people from making needed changes. We would not admit it, but it is true! And again, key decisions must be negotiated with multiple groups.

Confusing, overlapping and vague authority

Reading many church constitutions is a laborious activity because they are often full of confusing, overlapping and vague authority that makes it impossible to interpret who is responsible for what. Good governance documents should be simple, clear and designate lines of authority with precision. When this is not the case, the authors (well intentioned I am sure) set the congregation up for conflict and endless discussion.

If it is not simple, clear and delineate clear lines of authority it is a poor governance document and should be revised. Yet we resist revision because “you cannot change the bylaws.” Actually, you can since the bylaws serve the mission of the church rather than the church serving the bylaws. And you should.

What many don’t realize is that these kinds of poor governance structures keep leaders from leading and the church from moving forward. If you like the status quo this is a great strategy. If you care that the church is effective it is a terrible strategy. Often it takes the courage and diplomacy of a true leader to help others realize that their structures need to change if they want to be effective.

Let’s call poor governance systems for what they are and revise them for the sake of the gospel. 

Willow Creek and governance lessons: A watershed moment

The inevitable resignation of the entire board of Willow Creek Community church today along with that of the two senior pastors is a watershed moment for church governance - and its failure. There are many lessons to be learned about what good and poor governance look like when it comes to the church. The leadership failures at Willow will become textbook fodder on governance for years to come.

One: Boards exist to protect the church as a whole and not one individual. 
For several years as allegations have swirled around their senior leader the board tried to protect him even though many credible individuals came forward either who had been abused by him or knew of abuses. Yet the board chose to try to protect their senior leader rather than to uncover the truth of the claims even to the point of suggesting that the victims were lying and calling their character into question. 

This is not unusual. I once did an intervention in a church fraught with conflict. There had been a string of resignations over a three year period of staff. When I asked the board why their staff members had resigned they said they didn't know. So I interviewed every one of them and it always came back to abuse by the senior pastor. When I reported my findings back to the board they hung their heads in shame. Of course they knew something but they had chosen to ignore the obvious, not ask the relevant questions and protect their pastor while painting the victims as the villains. Subsequently for this and other governance failures I recommended that the entire board resign which they did.

Boards exist to protect the health, financial stewardship and direction of the church. They are responsible to ensure that the congregation is taught, led well, protected, released into ministry and that the spiritual temperature is kept vital. They may not do it themselves but they ensure this happens. This did not happen at Willow. Actions show that through a several year period the board chose to protect their pastor over dealing with issues they knew to be present. It was a classic failure of governance which will damage the church for years and possibly threaten its existence in its present form.

Two: Boards that are intimidated and manipulated by their senior leader cannot govern - period.
Some churches have such strong leaders that it is almost impossible for a board to hold them accountable and the board ends up working for the senior leader rather than the senior leader being accountable to the board. Whenever this happens alarm bells need to sound because boards that are intimidated or manipulated by their senior leader cannot govern. Rather they end up serving the agenda of their senior organizational leader.

This is why executive sessions are vitally important for any board even if there are no significant issues to discuss. It provides a forum where sensitive issues can be put on the table and candid discussion can take place outside the influence of the senior leader who is accountable to them. Even if this is resisted by the senior leader it should happen on a regular basis because many boards will not bring up sensitive issues in the presence of their senior leader. 

Three. Individuals who cannot deal with conflict should not be put on a church board. 
With leadership there is always conflict. Issues within a church that must be dealt with, differences of opinion on boards and sometimes relationships with senior leaders. Where I used to live we called the conflict resistant culture "Minnesota nice." This is the tendency not to deal with conflict. There is a lot of "church nice" on leadership boards where we don't have courageous enough people to put issues on the table and insist that the board look honestly at them. If someone cannot deal with conflict they should not serve on a church board.

Many congregations suffer for years without good leadership or pastors without adequate accountability because of "church nice" boards. Who suffers? The congregation! 

This also has implications for who ought to serve as the chair of a board. It takes a strong and independent individual to serve well as a board chair. They must be able to graciously police the board, interact with the senior leader, keep the board on track and in cases such as what happened at Willow Creek, lead the board in critical conversations. When this does not happen board chairpersons need to be challenged and/or replaced.

Four. When serious issues occur the board must find the truth and speak the truth regardless of the consequences.
Christian organizations generally have a poor track record of transparency around such issues as financial impropriety, sexual abuse, leadership abuse and issues that might impact their reputation. Unfortunately, when organizations try to hide issues it causes more damage then when they admit and deal with issues. 

Outsiders looking in on the actions of the board at Willow Creek have wondered about their actions during this period especially in the face of very credible individuals who have come forward with their story. Why did they not deal with issues that many others saw? The answer is simple: they were trying to protect their leader and the reputation of the church rather than trying to find the truth if it hurt either of these. In the process they destroyed their leadership (hence their resignation), hurt the church beyond what the senior pastor is responsible for and set the church up for trauma for years to come. Their "independent outside investigation" was not designed to find the truth but to protect their interests. 

Five: Church boards must understand their role as a governance board.
I have to conclude that the board at Willow did not understand their role as a governance board. But they are in good company as many church boards do not. If they did, the story would have played out much differently than it did. They did not safeguard the health of the church. They did not protect the flock (or the abused). They did not listen to credible voices. They allowed their leader to manipulate them and the process. They protected the guilty rather than the hurt. They did not truly seek truth but sought to protect. In the end they caused more damage than they did to resolve their issues.

All of this to suggest that this episode ought to be a wake up call for the evangelical church regarding what good governance looks like. For the sake of the church - the Bride of Jesus.