How organizations can inadvertently compromise the quality of their service

 

Almost every organization I have worked with would  say that they are committed to quality work internally and quality services externally but often the reality does not live up to the goal. This is particularly true among non-profits but it is not only resident there. Often it is the result of several overlooked factors that inadvertently compromise the quality of their work.

One of the first things that comes to mind is that of poor hiring methods. When we hire without doing do diligence to the qualifications of the applicant or the skill fit we often end up paying a steep price later. There is an adage that says "hire slow and fire fast" and it has great merit to it. Many organizations don't realize the bottom line impact poor hires have on them. First, unqualified individuals do not make the organization look good. Second, it takes more unqualified individuals to get the job done than one highly qualified individual. Thus there is both a financial and service quality variable in our hiring practices.

In addition when we choose to compensate below the fair market value of a job we drastically reduce the number of qualified candidates who will consider working for us. Here is the irony.  We end up hiring more individuals to do a job than we need because we got what we were willing to pay for. So in an attempt to save money in salaries we actually spend more money than we needed to. This is particularly true with churches and Christian non-profits but it can be found in the for profit sector as well.

Another common mistake is to pay too little attention to the Emotional Intelligence (EQ) of those we hire. Even highly competent individuals can hurt the organization if they exhibit poor EQ. They can hurt others on the team internally and create issues with customers externally. Considerable attention ought to be given to the issue of an individual's EQ in the hiring process as well as in ongoing education in this area. For more on Emotional Intelligence see "Signs of good and bad EQ."

Finally, in the desire to save money, some organizations do not provide the necessary tools to staff to get their job done efficiently. This can be training, technology and software or the necessary ongoing mentoring. It is unfortunate that the investment already made in these staff is lost when they either choose to leave or cannot fulfill their job with excellence because of the neglect of their supervisor.

None of these actions are meant to hurt the quality of an organizations work but all do so inadvertently. My philosophy has always been to hire slow and well, pay competitively, give staff the tools they need and have as few staff as necessary. You can do that with the right staff.

The Pipeline Principle in promotions or hiring

The key question leaders must ask when they either hire someone in at a leadership level or promote an individual to a leadership level is simple: Can they do it?

The issue is not whether they were successful in their last position but in promoting them to a new position there is often a different set of values involved and different skills needed. While past performance is a guide to future success, in this case it is not always true.

In fact, most leaders have experienced situations where they hired from the outside or promoted from within and it did not work. While there are several reasons why this can be the case, it is often an issue of ignoring the leadership pipeline.

If you think of every level of leadership in an organization as a bend in a pipe you get the picture. At each bend, new skills are necessary and new priorities must be paid attention to. Let me illustrate.

Self Leadership. At the ground level of an organization, individuals need to understand and live out self leadership. When I started a role in a certain organization I was the assistant to the President - a one person role with an assistant. My main task was to lead myself and ensure that I fulfilled my task. There was not much else I needed to pay attention to.

Self Leadership and a small number of reports. When I found myself with some reports I now had to pay attention to others, help them be successful and continue to fulfill my previous role. Now I was continuing my old role but also helping others be successful in theirs.

Team Leader. At this juncture I was leading a large team. The emphasis was no longer on what I could do as an individual producer but now I needed to act as an organization leader. My success was now through the success of the team. I had to think we, not me. I had to strategize with others rather than calling the plays myself. I had to ensure that the whole team was aligned with its mission and the mission of the organization. In other words the values and focus of my work changed as did the skills needed.

Leader of Teams. Again, things changed. Now it was necessary to focus on the leaders of other teams, ensure they were working in synergy with one another, were aligned with the organization and that each team was healthy and staff happy. I was not leading a team as I had done previously but was leading leaders of teams. Also, I had to think of the organization as a whole, not my slice of the organization. I had to mentor others to do what I used to do when I led a team. Again the values, skills and focus was much different than previously.

Senior Leader. Now the ultimate responsibility for a large organization was on my shoulders. I had to pay attention to stakeholders inside and outside of the organization. The issues of alignment and missional focus along with ensuring the values were always kept central become very important. And, I had to focus on fewer things but the most important things.

Think about this. At each bend:

• We must focus on new things
• Learn a new set of skills
• Give up work that we had done previously
• Fly at a higher altitude
• Give more responsibility away
• Take greater ownership of the organization as a whole
• Listen, collaborate, strategize and make decisions in a group setting

So why do some hires or promotions not work? First, it rarely works to promote someone from one bend to another in the leadership pipeline if they miss a bend between the two. Why? Because they didn't learn important skills and now they have been promoted two rungs above where they were and the necessary training and skills were not learned.

Second, if there is not adequate training and support to help an individual clearly identify what they should do and should not do at each bend, they will revert to what they did in the past, not realizing that what they did as a leader previously will not suffice in their new role. I had to learn these lessons the hard way because no one tipped me off, mentored me or gave guidance.

If you are hiring from the outside it is critical to ensure that an individual has experienced all of the bends in the pipeline below them even if in a different context. If hiring from within, no matter how brilliant someone is, it is unwise to skip a bend and hope it will work. Not only can it hurt the organization but it can hurt the individual.

For more information on leadership pipelines and helping leaders successfully make the transition, my book, Leading From the Sandbox can be of help. It will point you and the leader you are promoting in the right direction.

After you hire the real work begins

You have your addition and you breath a sigh of relief. But not too fast! Now, the real work begins. From day one, you want to ensure that your new team member understands the mission, values, preferred future and all the things you told them on your 'what they need to know' list. They have heard it from you, now you need to make sure that they 'get it' in terms of how they work on your team.

The more personal time you can spend on the front end, the faster they will get up to speed and develop what you want them to develop rather than trying to figure out the 'rules' by watching others.

Set aside regular times to just sit with them over the first six months to ask them what they are observing, what they are surprised about, what information they need to do their job, and how you can remove barriers for them. Ask them how they read the culture of your team and ministry. They are new - you might be surprised by what they observe as a new set of eyes coming in. Probe with questions so that you both learn and can know how well they are assimilating into the organization. Make personal introductions to those they need to know in the organization.

For your own purposes and so you can do a better job with the next hire, after six months ask them to tell you what they wish they had been told on the front end, what the most difficult part of the transition was and what was most helpful in the entire process. Jot down their feedback and incorporate it into your next hiring process.

(Written from Berlin, Germany)

Don't be stupid when hiring

When we are looking for staff we often do so with rose colored glasses. After all, we have a position and we find out that there is someone who fits "exactly" what we are looking for!

A word to the wise: Candidates never looked so good as when they are looking for a job and organizations never looked so good as when they are looking for staff! Which is a recipe for not doing due diligence and making stupid mistakes. Even many of the best have paid dumb tax on this one.

On occasion, when hires have gone really wrong I have asked those who did the hiring if they had actually talked to the former employers and inevitably the answer is no. Why? well the staff member did not list them as references or they were told not to talk to them. After all, whatever happened there was not relevant to the job they were being hired for. It is exceedingly nuts not to speak to former employers even if one chooses to hire in the face of a bad reference from them. Not to do so is to run a great risk of trouble that could be avoided if one had done so. 

Everyone has those who will be advocates for them. I am glad for that. But when hiring you want to know the unvarnished truth because you are going to get the unvarnished individual once you hire them for a job. Remember no one is as good looking as when they are looking for a job. So find out what you are getting after you offer them a job. And never neglect to talk to those they have worked for previously regardless of whether the candidate wants you too or not. While some may not give you much information the more guarded their response the more concerned one ought to be.

Also, never overlook character issues in the face of brilliance in some area. No matter how brilliant someone is (or appears to be), if there is a character flaw it will get them into trouble and therefore you as well. Once they work for you, whatever flaw that is will become a liability to you!

The more impressive someone looks the more diligence one needs to do to find out whether what you are seeing is healthy or not. Many of the most narcissistic leaders are the most impressive in presenting themselves. In fact, they are so blind to their own issues and so skilled at presenting themselves that those they are selling themselves to have no clue as to the dysfunction that is behind the mask. Make sure that what you see is what you are actually getting.

My own experience is that those we get into trouble with the most are those who present themselves the best. Real people are real when they present themselves. Those who sell themselves make me deeply cautious and the more I am sold the more skeptical I am. And the more exploring I do.

I would ask a candidate one other question: Is there anyone from your previous job that you need to resolve issues with - especially in ministry settings? If the answer is yes, it may be a clue that all is not well. I might even ask if I could talk to the individual for a reference to see what I hear. Until they are hired, you are in the drivers seat when it comes to references.

We like to think the best, especially when we need someone's skills. To put it bluntly: Don't be stupid when hiring. 

Pay now or pay more later

I recently had an interesting conversation with a leader from a church of about 500. Their senior pastor had left and they wanted outside counsel to help determine whether a recent staff hire would be suitable to serve as the next senior leader. Their desire is to become a regional church of several thousand - which they may have the potential to be.

I agreed to help them and laid out a suggested process which included some testing to determine the wiring of the potential new senior leader. It was about $2,000. After board discussion they decided they didn't want to spend the money on testing - it was too expensive. In turn, I suggested that I was not the right person to help them.

This board is making a classic mistake. They are hoping for the right fit but are unwilling to make the small investment to determine that fit. In trying to save a few dollars they put their future at risk because if the fit is not right it is very painful to undo.

There is a principle at play here in hiring. You either pay now to determine whether an individual is the right one for the spot you are hiring for - or you pay more later - in pain, frustration or severance. Which is wiser? As one who has had to deal with poor fits on a number of occasions I know how painful it is to move someone out of a position where they didn't fit.

Getting the right fit is hard enough. Complicating it by not doing due diligence when one can is foolish - but frequently done. I hope my friends get it right! On becoming a regional church of several thousand? Unlikely with that kind of thinking.

Issues to consider when hiring new staff

One of the top leadership tasks is to hire well. Every hire impacts the entire organization in a ripple fashion. Hire well and the organization becomes healthier and more effective. Hire poorly and the organization suffers. I am a fan of the concept, "hire slow, fire fast." Being slow on the hire allows you to avoid a lot of pain later.

When hiring:

Never negotiate the critical issues

Especially when hiring, it is a temptation to overlook character issues that may be present but are overshadowed by our view of a person's competency and what they might bring to our team. This is a fatal mistake for a leader in any organization, but especially in Christian ministry where the character of our staff goes to the heart of our credibility. If there is any question on the character issue, walk away!

There are others who have great Christian character but don't have the right competencies or EQ. I am always amazed when someone who does not have the competencies or EQ is recommended for a position with the statement, "Well, they are really nice Christians and they want to work for a Christian organization."

Be clear on the Key Result Areas for the job as well as the competencies needed to fulfill the job

Job descriptions are not enough when you are looking to hire. Job descriptions describe the activities that the position entails. What you really need to focus on are the results you need to see for the activities. For all positions there ought to be three to five clearly defined results that, if fulfilled will spell success (Key Result Areas).

Once you know the results that spell success for the position you can determine the core competencies that you need for the individual to be successful. The core competencies are the non-negotiable skills that an individual must possess to successfully fulfill the Key Result Areas. Many things are negotiable in the hiring process and will be determined by the wiring and gifting of the individual. What are not negotiable are the core competencies since without these, there is no chance for the prospective hire to be successful.

Understand the principle: pay now or pay more later

The longer I lead and the more people I hire, the more convinced I am of the wisdom of thorough testing before hiring (I've paid plenty of dumb tax for not doing it enough). The reason we don't do more testing and due diligence is that it costs money or we are in such a hurry to hire, or we choose to be optimistic and hope for the best.

Here is the reality. You either pay now and spend the time and money to ensure the competence of your potential hire, or you pay dearly later when you have to endure the pain of letting someone go - often after enduring months or years of performance issues.

If they will be playing at a senior level in the organization (including churches) it pays to put individuals through the same executive testing that any good secular organization would use. This will help measure capacity, leadership skills, conflict resolution skills and EQ. Untold pain and frustration would be avoided if we would take the long-term view and spend what we need to spend before we hire to ensure the best fit.

Never make a hiring decision by yourself

Ask those who know you best and who have good discernment to interview those you are thinking of hiring. Do multiple interviews and listen to the gut reaction of those you bring into the process. Include interviewers that are both male and female to see how both react. Be wary of hiring if others you trust express cautions. They are probably seeing something you don't see (or don't want to see).

Make the 'need to know' list

When you are adding someone to your team make two lists: what you need to know about the candidate and what they need to know about you. You need to know their wiring, background, competency, character, culture fit, work style, level they can play at, passions, values and whatever else is important to you.

They need to understand your leadership style, how you do team, expectations that you and the organization have, values, mission, preferred future of the organization, the culture of your ministry, what they can or cannot expect from you as the leader and other significant issues that define who you are as an organization. Be brutally transparent so that they know the upside and downside of your organization. If your honesty scares them away, they are the wrong hire.

Have potential hires interview those who know you best

Have the candidate meet with and interview several people you currently lead who know you well so that they understand how you are wired, how you lead and what they can expect from your. Often those around us can give a better explanation of who we are and how we lead than we can ourselves.

Questions to ask yourself in the process

-Does this person have high EQ?

-Can this person play at the level that other members of this team play at?

-Does this individual have a skill that will complement the team?

-Is this person a team player?

-Will they contribute to the whole rather than simply guard their turf?

-Do they fully embrace the mission and values of the organization?

-Do the other members of the team think they will fit well?

-Do they have the expertise needed for the ministry in which they will participate?

-Do they understand the implications of joining your team and what the expectations are for them as a team member?

-What level of leadership and management support will they need from you?

-If they will lead others, does their leadership style fit the leadership culture of the organization?

Meaningful reference checks for potential hires

Any of us who lead teams or organizations need to do reference checks from time to time as we bring on new staff. For most, one of the last steps is that of checking references but too often we don't take this step as seriously as we ought to. In fact, in two instances in recent years, two of my staff members were hired away by others without talking to those who could have given them candid feedback. In both of these cases, it was not a good fit for the other organization. Had they asked we could have saved them some pain as the issues were known to us.


In looking for references we ought to look for people who know the candidate well, works or has worked with them and who can give objective feedback rather than simply give their friend a thumbs up. The more one trusts the one giving feedback the more confidence one has in the information shared.


A word of caution when checking references for a potential hire. When one gets to the reference stage we are usually very much wanting the hire to go through. Thus we can be tempted to gloss over concerns we hear in our desire to fill the position. All of us, however, are made up of strengths, weaknesses, along with a dark side. Knowing the most about your potential hire, positive and negative will give you the best means to both evaluate the hire and to manage the individual once hired.


Asking the right questions in order to elicit the information you need is critical. Here are some of the questions that I have often used


I will share the position the potential hire will fill and then ask, "where do you see this as a fit and where might there not be a fit given what you have observed over the years?"


Would you hire or rehire this person?


Would you want to work for this person? Why?


How would you describe the strengths and weaknesses of this individual? What would you describe as their dark side?


How have you seen this individual negotiate conflict or differences of opinion?


How would you describe their leadership style? 


In group settings, what role do they play? Are they better working collaboratively with others or doing work by themselves?


What can you tell me about the health of this individuals family relationships?


What personal or professional growth have you seen in this individual in the past five years?


This individuals largest challenge in this role will be....?


Would you describe this individual as:
          Defensive or non defensive
          Open about themselves or closed
          Easily angered or almost never angered
          Optimistic or pessimistic
          Self aware or unaware
          Well liked or not well liked
          Disciplined or scattered
          Empathetic or unempathetic
          Collaborative or non-collaborative
          Authoritarian or collegial in relationships
          Patient or impatient
          Gracious or lacking grace
          Diplomatic or undiplomatic
          Flexible or non-flexible
          Controllers or empowerers


Are there any questions you think I should have asked but didn't?


Do you have any red flags that I should know of?


What is the strongest reason you think I should hire this individual for this role?
           

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.

One of the greatest hiring mistakes in ministry

Too often we don't think about it, ask if they can do it or put it in a job description. We have a need, create a position, fill it and never address the most important question.


Can this individual multiply themselves by raising up others to do what they do? It is the "develop, empower and release" commitment and ability of your staff. If they cannot do it, or don't do it or won't do it and are in ministry positions, your ministry is not scaled for growth and one either plateaus or must hire additional staff as one grows. 


And it violates a basic Scriptural principle that those in full time ministry are primarily there to raise up others for ministry - Ephesians 4:12. 


The development of people is one of the highest responsibilities of every individual in full time ministry but it usually does not even show up on a job description. Nor, on annual reviews (where they are done). 


What would happen if 20% of your staff's time were spent in developing others? You would, over time, gain new staff, whether volunteer, or part time because you made the investment. 


Why do we wonder why we don't have enough volunteers for our ministries? Often it is because we didn't make the investment in them. We did not develop (mentor and train), empower (give real responsibility) and release (let them fly on their own).


When we make real investments in people, serious investments, the return is huge. It is what Jesus did with His disciples and what Paul did with the likes of Timothy and Titus. They multiplied themselves in real ways. 

Ethics in hiring staff

We often don't think of ethics when it comes to hiring staff but the truth is that there is a significant ethical dimension to hiring, for the organization doing the hiring, for the individual under consideration and for the individuals that the new hire will impact. Consider these issues:


One: From an organizational point of view, we obviously are looking for staff members who will help us accomplish our mission. One of our key responsibilities, however, is to be as candid, honest and forthcoming about the strengths and weaknesses of the organization. Unless the potential staff member knows the true state of the organization, they are not in a position to make a fair analysis of their potential fit. 


One way to facilitate this is to invite the individual to talk with as many key individuals in the organization as possible to receive candid and unvarnished feedback. When hiring individuals who will be working for me, for instance, I invite them to talk to others who also work for me so that they get the best picture of what they are getting into as possible. They will hear things that I would not even think to share because they are not on my radar screen. My bottom line is that I don't want a staffer to tell me he/she was surprised by something six months in. My ethical responsibility is to ensure that they get the best information possible.


Two: From the candidates point of view, I need to ensure that the job being offered is truly in the lane of the person under consideration. If I hire someone who does not fit the position, I have messed with their life. Yes, they have a responsibility to answer the question of fit as well but if I am hiring it is my job to do the best due diligence possible to mitigate against a bad fit which will hurt them and the organization should it not work out.


This means that I should be willing to make whatever time and financial investment is needed to ensure a good match. On the time front it includes dialogue and discussion the potential staff member and with references. On the financial side it may well mean testing to determine competencies, wiring and fit. While we may not get it right all the time, our commitment is to have done all that we can to get it right.


A key practice here is never to do the hiring by yourself. None of us have the insight necessary to see all the angles, upsides and downsides of a candidate. I involve as many people in the process as I need to in order to ensure the best evaluation. If one of my key staff members has a yellow or red flag, I pay great attention to that and am unlikely to hire until that flag has been resolved. The stakes are too high. In this process, one of the most important questions I am trying to answer is whether the candidate has good Emotional Intelligence (EQ) or not. The answer to that question will be one of the chief determiners of a successful hire. (For more information on EQ, see blogs with the EQ label).


Third, from the team's point of view I want to ensure that the potential hire will be a good fit on the team they will serve on. That means that I need to involve other members of the team in the decision. Every hire has an impact on the rest of the team. I have a responsibility to them to ensure that the hire will serve the team well rather than hurt it. Not to involve them is both foolish and potentially harmful. Never hire an individual that cannot work in a healthy team environment no matter what their brilliance or skills. To do so is to disempower and therefore hurt the rest of the team.


In the hiring process, a guiding principle is that we pay now or we pay more later. In other words, the cost of getting it wrong is high, in disruption to the staff member, disruption to the organization and the complicated process of letting someone go. One either does good due diligence on the front end or one ends up paying significant costs to sever the relationship. There is no upside to a bad fit for anyone.


It is a sign of carelessness with people when we do not take the hiring process seriously. Too much is at stake for the individual, organization and team. 

The one thing I look for in staff

There are naturally a number of things that we look for when hiring staff at any level of an organization - or when recruiting volunteers. Things like competency, Emotional Intelligence, fit with the culture of the organization and so on. But here is one non-negotiable for me which I will not compromise on: humility.

Humble individuals are teachable. They treat others with respect. They are eager to learn from others and can play on a team well. They don't need their own way and don't fight stupid intramural battles. They care more about the accomplishment of the mission than their own ego. In fact, their own egos don't get in the way of finding the best solutions in a team setting. They are not looking for personal recognition but want a win for the organization. Their humility makes it possible for them to keep short accounts and to apologize when they are wrong or have offended others. They are not competing for attention but are easy to have on the team.

Those who lack humility are prideful. Pride causes us to want to one up others, to get our own way, to claim the accolades personally. It prevents us from apologizing and keeping short accounts and can kill team spirit because it is about us, not the team. Pride keeps us from learning from others or from receiving counsel or rebuke. It craves recognition, importance, authority and control.  It is slow to praise others and competes for that praise. It often treats others with carelessness and lack of consideration. True introspection is difficult as pride gets in the way of seeing what is really there.

Now think carefully about the implications and characteristics of a humble or prideful individual on your ministry team or more importantly in a leadership role. Think about the impact their natural behaviors have on those they work with and the outcome of the ministry. Think about the ease of supervising a humble individual compared to a proud individual. Finally, compare these two kinds of people against the character of Christ and one sees how critical a humble spirit is to all that we do in Christian ministry. 

When you choose staff, don't miss this test. Almost without exception when I have dealt with a serious staff issue, there is an element of pride that is involved and gets in the way of healthy resolution. There is a reason that humility is so close to God's heart. It is part of his character.

Applications and Invitations

Want a job? Fill out an application! Want to fill a key spot in your ministry? Consider making an invitation rather than an application. Here is the principle: while most jobs in middle management and below are filled by taking applications, the best people in upper management or leadership positions are invited into a conversation to see if there is a potential fit between the needs of the organization and themselves. 

The higher the position you are trying to fill (in a church or ministry organization) the less likely that the individual you want is going to fill out your application and apply for a job. This is where a high touch and personal approach is the most powerful. One identifies potential candidates and then invites them into a dialogue to see if there is interest, fit and synergy.

This is true in many pastoral searches. Search committees are overwhelmed with resumes when spots open up. Often, however, the chosen candidate never applied but was invited to a conversation that resulted in their coming. If you are looking for staff, who are you inviting into a conversation?

Because I lead a mission organization where key leaders are always needed, I initiate conversations on a regular basis with other leaders to ascertain their current satisfaction in their job. Often I find that they are looking for a larger platter with more responsibility. I file that information away and when an opportunity arises in ReachGlobal, I initiate another conversation. I see myself as recruiting all the time through the development of relationships and looking for common passions. But it all starts with an invitation to talk. 

The good, bad, and ugly when hiring

A classic mistake made by ministries (and indeed non-ministries) when hiring for key positions is to paint an overly rosy picture of their situation. After all, we are recruiting and we want to make a good impression on our potential hire.

BAD IDEA! 

In the first place, none of us like surprises and if our hire finds out that life is not what we painted it there is a measure of trust and confidence that is lost quickly when they see that reality differed from what we told them. This is a simple issue of integrity.

But there is more at stake! Recently I was in a conversation with a ministry leader and a potential senior leader. The ministry is one that has huge potential but there is very significant internal chaos at the moment with a lot of challenges. We laid out the scenario with great candor and I could see the potential leader salivating. His wiring is all about taking something that is broken and fixing it. The chaos was a challenge to him. Where many would see dysfunction (and it is surely there) he saw a job made for him and his skills. 

Another potential hire, when told the "good, bad and ugly," wanted to run for the hills and had he been hired, things would have gone from ugly to implosion. His wiring was very different and had he not heard an honest description he would have come, felt betrayed and most likely turned on the leader because his wiring is not to fix but to take something working well and make it a little better.

Whenever we paint a picture that is different from reality we hurt ourselves because the situation we have must match the wiring and gifting of the potential hire for a successful marriage. When we simply tell the truth we not only gain instant credibility but we have a much better chance of matching the situation with the right gifting.

Be candid when hiring.

I don't want to hire you if....

You are not passionate about the work God has called our organization to accomplish! Really passionate! Motivated in your very bones to accomplish the task! Ministry is a calling and those who work for a ministry need to believe in that ministry with all their hearts. If they don’t they will not be motivated to give it 100%.

You are not self motivated and able to figure out where you need to go! I will mentor and coach but I will not tell you how to do what you need to do or motivate you to do it. That comes from inside of you and if it is not there you are in the wrong organization. Self motivation comes from being in one’s “lane” or “sweet spot.” Where motivation is lacking either the passion is not there or one is not in their lane. Both are necessary for long term success. My job is to encourage and envision you not to motivate you.

You are not emotionally healthy! Lack of relational, emotional or spiritual health will hurt those you work with and compromise otherwise healthy teams. I won’t compromise on the health no matter how brilliant you are. I care too much for the health of the organization, and the health of my team to bring someone on who might hurt it.

You are not team friendly and cannot work synergistically with others! I know that more is accomplished by healthy teams than lone rangers so I want those humble and relational enough to fit into a team rather than doing ministry by themselves. The ability to work with others within the organization is proof that one can work with others outside the organization – those we serve.

Think about who you will and will not hire and why. Don’t compromise on those values no matter how good someone might be. Too many ministries pay a dear price for not knowing what is non-negotiable when looking for personnel.This is especially true in missions where our (wrong) metric for success is the number of personnel one has rather than the right (healthy) personnel. 

What are your non-negotiables?

Understanding the wiring of your staff

Several long conversations with ministries recently - both church and other have reminded me of the importance of paying close attention to how individuals are wired before we place them in their jobs. In one case, significant mistrust had developed between a senior pastor and his board. Words like “mistrust” and “unqualified” “lack of communication” and “distant” were used and it was obvious that there was a significant gap between the work of the board and the expectations of the leader.



In our dialogue, however, it became very clear that the long standing frustrations had nothing to do with the integrity or qualifications of the leader. Rather, they had to do with how the leader was wired and gifted. In fact, we made two lists on the white board. List one was the list of all those things that the pastor did (or did not do) that caused frustration for the board. They were all organizational leadership issues.


We then made a long list of the leader’s strengths. They were almost all people related, things he did one on one and did very well. His areas of strength lie almost completely outside the organizational arena. They are strengths he uses one on one with people facing problems, in evangelism and in his preaching.


This took the conversation out of the real of “good or bad” “trust or mistrust” and put them into a category that revolved around current job fit. This could mean that this leader will be happier in another job. It could mean that the board needs to change his responsibilities so that he plays to his strengths. That is a process they need to run over the next months.


In our organization we actually have three steps in the hiring process. First, is this someone we want on the team: Do they have the emotional, relational, spiritual and skill healthy that we need? Once we say yes, we need to determine how they are uniquely wired by God. Are they individual producers or organizational leaders? How do they like to be led and how do they lead? We use the SIMA organizational tool for this analysis as well as long dialogue. Finally, we write the job description that is consistent with their gifting and wiring. The job description gets written last, not first.


People are hard wired by God in unique ways and that wiring is not going to change. We can grow in a number of areas but our wiring will not change. The leader above will never be a great organizational leader but he shines in his lane. The more we think along those lines, the better the fit, the lower the frustration and the more return on mission we will experience.

Developing a Book of Knowledge

Think back to a time when you came into a new organization - perhaps your current organization. How long did it take you to figure out what was really going on, understand what the culture was, or get up to speed on issues they were dealing with? The discovery process can be frustrating and disorienting.

There is a way to shorten the process for new folks who come into your organization. It is to develop a comprehensive "Book of Knowledge." A Book of Knowledge is a compilation of every key document, policy, powerpoint, key meeting minutes, videos, white papers and so on - going back at least five years. It is all those things that those who have been around for a while already know but what a new individual has no clue about.

With a Book of Knowledge for your organization or team, one of the first responsibilities of a new staff member is to take a week or so and simply immerse themselves in that information. Coming out of that homework they then have context to ask questions of their supervisor and dialogue in depth over issues that are key to their success in their new role.

Not only will they get up to speed faster but the frustrations of trying to understand their new organization will be significantly alleviated. Do you have a Book of Knowledge for your organization?