Firing people is an art and not a science

Have you ever had to let someone go in ministry? How did it go? Messy? Painful? Lots of cleanup? I have had my share of situations over the past years when I had to let staff go and I have learned that no matter how hard you try to make it a win/win or at least a reasonable transition that it is still an art and not a science. If it were science it would be a lot easier but as an art, every situation is different and each one unique.

Because it is so difficult, the truth is that we often put off what we know is in the best interests of the ministry and what we know is inevitable far longer than we should. The result is that we lose ground and in many cases adversely impact other team members because we didn't have the courage to face and deal with reality.

Which raises another important consideration. When things are not working well between a staff member and the organization, chances are high that the staff member actually knows it and in some cases is also unhappy in their role. Unfortunately for each who actually knows that the fit is not right there are numerous others who are oblivious to that reality.

Which leads from science to art. Here are some of the questions I ask when the fit is not right.

• Is there another role in the organization that would fit this individual?
• Have I kindly but truthfully told this individual that there is a problem and that they are not living up to expectations? If not how do I enter into a dialogue that will help them understand what is not working?
• Is there a way I can encourage the individual to look for a new job so that they go to something rather than from something?
• When there is a mutual parting of the ways, can we agree on what is said from both parties?
• If severance is being paid to encourage someone to leave, do I have a clause that ties that severance to what the party is allowed to say about the ministry they are leaving?
• Will a termination stand the scrutiny of a lawsuit if one is brought?
• What constituencies need to be paid attention to because of the termination? Do you have a plan before you pull the trigger?
• Have I thought through the unintended consequences and tried to minimize the fallout of my decision?
• Have I sought wise counsel about my decision and process?
• Who needs to be informed and in what order?
• How long will the individual be allowed to stay in the office on once an announcement is made? (The shorter the time the better).

Managing problematic firings or resignations

How does one message the resignation of a staff member when they have chosen to resign because they are not on the same page as the leader or organization - or have been asked to resign for the same reason or for reasons of effectiveness?

All of us who have supervised for a while have probably handled these situations in ways that we wish we could have done differently. But our dumb tax is what helps us figure out what not to do in the future.

There is no perfect way of handling situations like this but here are some things to think about.

We are often tempted to try to paint the resignation in a rosier fashion than is warranted, both to save face for the ministry and the one who is leaving. It is good to be gracious always in our communication. However, if it is well known that there has been either conflict or a problem, messaging the leaving in a rosy fashion can come across as disingenuous to those who know better. In that case it is better to be factual - than to write something that is not true.

Resignations can be problematic both for the ministry and for the one leaving. The first thing I do in these cases is to have a candid discussion with the one leaving as to the implications of how both sides handle the transition. In a ministry, how we handle transitions comes down to not hurting the work God is doing even if we feel we have been ill treated. For a staff member in a church to seek to divide the church in their anger is to hurt the bride of Christ, not a wise thing to do regardless of how we view the circumstances.

The discussion should start with the question, "What will honor God as we walk through the transition?" I have watched staff member handle themselves with great honor and others who have handled themselves with amazing dishonor. How we handle these situations is really a reflection of our character. To the extent that we can control the situation we want to honor God in the process.

If there is bad blood it is wise to sit down with the one leaving and talk about the implications of what both sides say. If you plan to give a severance package it is always a wise thing to tie that severance package to an agreement as to what each side is going to communicate. There is no place for trashing one another in the process and the employer has some pull in that they can tie a severance package to a legally binding agreement as is done in business all the time.

Where there is a belligerent attitude on the part of the one departing, it is fair to say to them that you intend to be gracious in your response - but that if they choose to trash the ministry on the way out that you reserve the right to be more forthcoming in response if necessary to the questions that will come from those whom the employee has communicated with. That gives them an incentive to be circumspect in what they say.

It behooves the ministry to be as generous as they can be when there is a problematic resignation. Whether we like it or not, people have a constituency and their constituency will often take up their offense. You do not need to be apologetic for doing the right thing but one does want to be able to show grace and care in the process.

This also goes to helping the individual, where appropriate, with finding another job through an outside service. Again, a generous spirit is far better than a stingy one, even if one thinks that the staff member does not deserve it.

Often a staff member will ask for several months so that they can find another job. If the resignation is problematic this is not a good idea because the awkwardness of the situation will inevitably affect the rest of the staff. It is better to agree to paying them for a period of time but ask them to spend their time looking for another job and not continuing on in their current role in the process. I have tried it. It rarely works.

It goes without saying that you want to ensure that you do not open yourself up to legal liability in this process. Consult an HR professional to ensure that you are within the law in what you do and what you say and that you have adequately documented what you need to document.

In churches there is often a belief that the congregation needs to know everything. Not only is that a foolish thing to do but it is very easy to open yourself up to legal liability by disclosing certain information.

Again, an HR professional can keep you from making a misstep here. I strongly advise that any communication that is made is run by either an attorney or HR professional in today's litigious environment. I have actually seen staff members who are leaving, whether forced or not, bring their attorneys to church business meetings to see what is or is not being said.

Finally, leaders should be wise but not intimidated by a staff member that is intent on hurting the ministry on the way out. That behavior is actually proof that you have made the right decision.

What we aim for is a process that honors the ministry, the individual leaving and the people of God.

Running process

"We need to run a process" is a common phrase in our organization. Whether we are considering hiring, transitioning an individual to a new role, putting someone in leadership or believe that we need to transition an individual out of the organization, running a process is a non-negotiable part of the equation.

It is one thing to believe that you are making the right decision in any of these cases. It is another thing to know for sure, to understand the upsides and downsides, to know what training and coaching will be needed with a new hire or a transition, or in the case of helping someone transition out of the organization that we have done due process and have a plan for how to proceed. With new hires it is understanding the wiring and experience of the individual to ensure that they are placed in the right spot.

Many organizations do not pay enough attention to the process. Mainly because it is because it is time intensive and hard work. 

How well we run these processes is a measure of how much we value people in our organization. People matter. They are the most important asset we have. Proper process is what we owe our people because the consequences of how we deploy them impacts them directly as well as the organization.

Process is an investment in our people, our organization and mission. It is some of the most important work we do.

Deal with it!

It is an all too common scenario when consulting with churches or ministries. They have a problem with a staff member who does not belong or a member of the church who is behaving in ways that hurt the body and a leader says to me, "We should have dealt with this a long time ago." Had they done so they probably would not need someone to come in and help them with the fallout!


What happens when we put off dealing with issues? They don't go away - they simply become more difficult to deal with in the future. Take a staff member who does not fit the team. Whenever you deal with the situation there is fallout because all staff have a constituency. Don't deal with it when you should and that constituency just becomes stronger and the fallout worse when one is forced to finally deal with the inevitable. If that staff member is undermining the senior leader (yes it happens when people have their own agenda) the longer one waits the weaker the senior leader becomes.


Often leaders (pastors, elders, ministry leaders) put off dealing with the hard issues because they don't want to endure the pain that accompanies the addressing of the issue. Rather than settle for the short term pain that is followed by a far healthier culture they prolong their pain by not taking the action they know they should take. Their fear of the pain actually causes the ministry longer and deeper pain than if they had addressed the issue earlier. Sometimes to the chagrin of their successor, they simply leave the problem in place and force someone else to deal with it. Welcome to your new job :).


In the name of grace (and I am a great believer in grace) and conflict avoidance we often prolong the pain to an organization even when we know in our gut that no matter what we do, nothing is going to change. By choosing avoidance we put anchors on the ministry that keep dragging along the bottom, slowing everything down while we are trying to catch the wind and sail.  I have known pastors and leaders that could not let a staff member go even though they know in their heart of hearts that that member is hurting the rest of the team. I know leaders who would not deal with church thugs even though those individuals created chaos in the congregation. Avoidance does not work. It creates greater problems and pain and the longer one waits to address the problem the more difficult it is to do so.


The only good solution is to deal with it. Be smart and wise but deal with it.

Redemptive responses to problematic staff

In spite of our best efforts to hire well, there are times when a staff member's behavior or interactions with others cause problems on a team. Often it is not a matter of competency but of not being aware of how their words, attitudes or actions negatively impact those around them. Or, they may have a personal ministry agenda that is dear to them but which does not fit with the rest of the team or the overall ministry. Sometimes it is an issue of a wonderful staff member who fit the ministry when the ministry was smaller but as the ministry grew their ability to keep up has lagged and their competency in a small ministry has become a liability in a larger ministry. This is not only an issue for the leader who may be frustrated but it can also become an issue for other members of the team who are also impacted.

Being redemptive wherever we can be is consistent with the character and example of Christ. Healthy ministries will do all they can to resolve the disconnects before they simply fire someone or let them go. A redemptive response can take several routes.

First, honest dialogue with the staff member in question is key. Often in ministries, we are not upfront with issues that are present because we want to be graceful. But in not engaging in honest, candid dialogue the staff member is left with a frustrated leader and team without necessarily knowing how their behavior or work is negatively impacting others. Speaking the truth in love in a dialogue form where there is give and take and the opportunity to clarify gives the staff member valuable information on the issues. This should include bottom line concerns of their supervisor along with behaviors or issues that need to change.

If the issue is one of competency in their present role there should be exploration of other posssible roles that are in "the lane" and "gifting" of the staff member. When staff are in the wrong lane they are frustrated and frustrate others. Often the issue can be resolved by getting them into a lane more in line with God's gifting and their wiring.

Where the issue revolves around EQ (emotional intelligence) it sometimes takes an outside executive coach who can help the staff member understand how their behaviors negatively impact those around them. Lack of EQ is one of the most common causes of problematic behavior and if it can be resolved the issues will dissapear. This means that we are willing to make a financial and time investment to help a staff member get to greater health but that is a far cheaper (and more redemptive) proposition than simply firing them and starting over. I will do all I can to resolve issues with staff before letting them go. But if the issues cannot be resolved I will not prolong the pain for the organization.

Where issues of competency or EQ cannot be resolved, it is clear that a transition needs to be made and even then redemptive thinking asks the question, "How do we make a transition that honors the staff member and the organization?" Of course, that requires the active cooperation of the staff member to transition well and in ways that do not do harm to the ministry. I have always believed that how we leave a ministry is the real test of our character. If we honor it on the way out, God will bless. If we try to hurt it because of our anger, God will not. As a leader I cannot control the response of the staff member but I can seek a redemptive and smooth transition.

Any time we can bring health to an unhealthy staff situation we have a win. When we cannot, the win is transition. But in all cases we seek to do it as redemptively as possible.

The High Cost of Poor Emotional Intelligence

Consider these common scenarios:

A staff member resigns because of a poor fit with his/her organization or team and then on the way out plays the victim and seeks to damage the reputation of their supervisor or leader. The leader is left spending inordinate amounts of time putting out fires, clarifying “reality” and trying to undo the damage of the renegade staff member.

One of your staff has a tendency to get angry when things don’t go their way and in their anger make accusations, threats and ultimatums requiring you to constantly be in dialogue with them about their attitudes and responses which spill out over others and cause others pain. Everything seems to revolve around them, their issues, their pain, the injustices they feel and it takes a lot of your time cleaning up after them.

A member of your team seems to have a constant “edge” in their attitudes and interactions. You always have the sense that they are not really on your team. They display an arrogance that they could always do things better and while they are usually fairly gracious to you in person, you know that they are not as gracious with others when you are not there. You are left always wondering whether the team member is really on your team and you have a vague but real “gut feeling” that they are not to be trusted. You spend hours in dialogue and discussion when the “edge” becomes inappropriate but your staff member never seems to “get it” or take ownership for their attitudes.

You are a senior leader with a leader under you who “bonds” with his/her team through inappropriate emotional enmeshment. While they demand and receive loyalty from their team through their enmeshment, their loyalty to their team is far higher than their loyalty to your leadership, even though they serve under you. Together they develop an “us against the world” mentality and over time you realize that their team is not on your team. The team has effectively been high jacked by its leader – who should be in alignment with you. Ironically, while they demand that their team follows them, they cannot follow themselves.

What I am describing are high maintenance individuals who take an inordinate amount of time, cause one to be diverted from productive work while cleaning up their messes and negatively impact others in the organization. The bottom line is that they have poor emotional intelligence (EQ) and regardless of how competent they are, their poor EQ hurts the organization and is a drain on those who supervise them.

In my book, Leading From the Sandbox, I write that “Emotional Intelligence, often labeled EQ, is the ability to understand ourselves, know what drives us, accurately see how others perceive us, and understand how we relate to others. EQ also measures whether we have the relational skill to work with others while being “self-defining” and allowing others to speak into our lives. Good EQ includes openness to others’ opinions, lack of defensiveness, sensitivity to others, the ability to release others rather than control them, freedom for constructive and robust dialogue, and the willingness to abide by common decisions.”

“Signs of poor EQ include the inability to listen to others, defensiveness, unawareness of how we come across, lack of sensitivity to others’ feelings, an inability to deal constructively with conflict, a drive to control others, narcissism, and the need to have our own way.”

How do you handle folks who exhibit poor EQ and eat up your time and energy? This is the frustrating part because it is their poor EQ which prevents them from understanding their own issues or understanding your concerns. In fact, it can take some intense discussion around behaviors which are unacceptable and accountability for better behavior. It often means that a supervisor or leader must become more and more defining if behaviors don’t change.

There are people who never “get it” and in those cases one has to recognize that they probably will never “get it” and make a decision as to whether their behavior is acceptable in your organization. If it is not, don’t ignore it because their poor EQ impacts everyone around them, may well undermine you (depending on their behaviors) but certainly hurt the culture of your organization. You may need to “marginalize” them in a role that limits the damage they can make. Or, you may simply need to let them go for the sake of the health of your organization. What one should not do is ignore the issue. The cost of maintaining, dealing with and supervising people with poor EQ is high. I often wonder how much ministry is left on the table because of problematic individuals on our team. Remember that if they are impacting you, they are also impacting others. 

Above all, be aware of the EQ issues when hiring. No matter how competent an individual, if they have poor EQ they will hurt you, your team and your organization. Compromising on this issue is one of the most common mistakes in hiring. Leading From the Sandbox can help you think through these issues if you are dealing with them on your team.

Difficult but Necessary Decisions

Perhaps the most difficult decisions that leaders make are those of personnel, both hiring and letting staff go. While some leaders are way too quick to pull the plug on situations that are not working, most of us wait way too long to take action when we need too, prolonging our pain, the pain of others and compromising the mission of the organization.

Our reasons for not addressing situations where the fit is not right, where there is not missional and philosophical alignment or where the job has outgrown the staff member are many. It can be conflict avoidance, hoping against hope that things will "work out," grace, or just fear of facing the pain of letting someone go. Usually, however, our "gut" has already told us that it will not work and since prior performance is the best predictor of future behavior, we have the knowledge we need - just not the resolve to solve the problem. I have been there like many of you.

There are three issues that we must consider when we face this kind of situation. First, if the fit is not right with the rest of the team, that lack of fit or alignment is like an anchor around the whole team, pulling it down and keeping it from moving forward. In other words, lack of fit hurts the team or organization as a whole and compromises its ability to move forward in health and vitality.

Second, where the issue is competence, the lack of competence of an individual to play at the level they need to play at hurts the reputation and perception of the organization. In one ministry that I consulted with, a program was started that had promise and made promises. Unfortunately, the individual running that program could never deliver on the promise and nearly everyone who used the program came away disillusioned. The program is still running in spite of the fact that every disillusioned customer hurts the reputation of the ministry as a whole. They would have been better off to cut their losses either by moving the staff member on, or shutting down a program which over promised and under delivered for more than a decade. I have made this mistake at times as well.

Thirdly, and this may be the hardest for us to accept is that when there is a lack of fit or the needs of the job have outgrown the competence of someone to fulfill it, we actually do a disservice to those who are involved by keeping them in that slot. Even when they do not understand that they are in the wrong spot (many who are don't), whenever someone is not in the right "lane" they will not be fulfilled and fruitful - two things we should want for every staff member.

How should we handle such situations? The one thing we should not do is to ignore the obvious or what we know in our "gut." Facing reality that the fit is not right or the competency is not present is one of the jobs of leaders - not a pleasant one but an important one. Not dealing with what they know to be true has a negative impact on the mission and organization they lead.

We all know that letting someone go must be done wisely, at the right time and in a defensible way. When a staff member does not have much of a constituency it is far easier. When they do, even though the fit is not right or competency not present it is more complicated and plan that takes into account unintended consequences becomes critical. What we cannot do as leaders is to do nothing because in that scenario we have neglected one of our key duties as a leader which is to ensure that the organization stays healthy and that barriers to our mission fulfillment are removed. At that point the issue is not if but how!

It only takes one!

I have recently written on the issues of alignment and healthy teams and boards. What are the implications of having a member of your team who is not in alignment? This can happen when a team member:

• Is not in agreement with the direction of the team or organization
• Does not pull their own weight in terms of productivity and results
• Have attitudes that are counterproductive to healthy team: cynicism, sarcasm, untrusting, etc.
• Does their own thing and are not committed to working as a productive team member
• Has Emotional Intelligence (EQ) issues that disrupt the health of the team
• Are not teachable or coachable

Here is the reality: it takes only one member of the team to pull down the rest of the team, and to take a huge emotional toll on the other team members and the team leader. And, to hurt the overall missional effectiveness of the organization.

Because ministries are about "grace" we often do not handle these situations, hoping they will resolve themselves or go away. They rarely do without intentional and direct intervention. Where we do not resolve we unfairly punish the rest of the team who must live with the unhealth of one member, and we hurt the missional effectiveness of the organization.

Here are some suggestions for dealing with this kind of situation:

1. Provide very direct feedback in person and followed up in writing indicating the problems and the necessary changes that are necessary if they are to continue to play a role on the team and in the ministry. Be direct, be honest and be defining.
2. Establish time parameters in which the issues must be resolved or they will be placed on a probationary status. If they need additional coaching during this time, provide it and always give honest direct feedback verbally and in writing.
3. If there is not adequate progress, place the individual on a probationary status (in writing - always document) with the understanding that if there is not appropriate resolution that they will not be able to continue on the team or with the organization.
4. Be willing to let them go and transition them out of the organization if they do not meet the requirements of the probationary period.

Your willingness as a leader to take appropriate steps in cases like this sends a powerful message to the rest of your team that you care about their health and the health of the organization. When one does not take these steps the opposite message is sent - and clearly read that we are an organization that does not take health seriously.

The emotional and energy toll that is paid for an unhealthy team member is higher than we realize until the issue has been resolved and we realize the price we paid. Ministry is tough enough. We make it easier when we deal with those individuals who pull the rest of the team down.