Who are you listening to?

I had a fascinating conversation recently with a senior executive of a well known company. Like many sales organizations, there is a headquarters staff of 300 but the sales are generated by sales teams around the country. Of those in the main office, there are only three individuals who have had experience in the field: working with customers; selling product and seeing the projects they sell completed.

My friend, in his position has regular access with the president who is making daily decisions and in his and the sales staff's view these decisions are out of touch with customers and the realities of the business. Why? Because the president listens to those in the main office but not to those who have regular contact with the customers. In the process he is pricing the product out of the market resulting in declining sales. He is frustrated along with the large sales force. 

His experience can be replicated in organizations, churches and ministries everywhere: leaders who are listening to the wrong people resulting in a myopic leadership paradigm.

The problem? To lead well we must listen to people at all levels of an organization, know their challenges and issues as well as talking regularly with the constituency they serve. When leaders listen primarily to other senior leaders without listening to those at other levels of the organization they do not get the information they need  to make helpful and wise decisions. 

Peter Drucker was a writer and consultant on management who knew an extraordinary amount of information on a wide variety of businesses. How did he get that information? Each morning he would call line managers in various industries to find out what was actually going on. He didn't call the senior executives, but those who dealt with the nuts and bolts of the business. They knew things that the senior staff often did not know. 

In my work with churches and non-profits I watch senior leaders talk to each other but not to those who make the ministry or non-profit what it is - those at all levels of the organization who have a closer relationship with the realities, challenges and views of the constituency, therefore, hurting their ability to make the best decisions. 

If you lead, ask yourself the question: Who am I listening to? Am I listening primarily to senior leaders or am I spending significant time listening to those at other levels of the organization along with constituents who can give me a much more unvarnished view of reality?

The best leaders know where they will get their best information and are disciplined in making the time to listen to all levels of the organization (along with constituents). They know that good decisions depend on good information. Who are you listening to? Are they the right people?

Creating cultures of excellence
AddingtonConsulting.org

Quick results verses long term sustainability in ministry

We are a people in a hurry.

We want results (and we should) but we want them now and often rather than ensuring that we do something well and sustainable, we opt for what we think will be the quick solution which usually fails in the long term.

We run ministry campaigns but can neglect the harder ongoing training in stewardship and generosity. We want people in groups but don't provide a long term sustainable model that keeps them there or grows their leaders. We want growth and put great energy into appealing services but don't close the back door through meaningful engagement of those who come - and thus many leave. We desire to train new leaders and design programs but don't mentor them through the process and give them opportunities to lead and grow and receive feedback.

Why do we so often neglect long term sustainability in our ministry efforts? Sustainability takes a lot more time and we want results now. Sustainability means that we know what we are going after, are committed to doing it well, have done our homework, thought through the issues, have someone who will lead the effort and are willing to start small and let it grow. In the short run it produces less but in the long run it produces exponentially more than going after quick results.

Take groups as an example. Almost every church values groups but most struggle to make it happen. They run programs to get them going and then they fizzle out and a few years later they try another tact. Yet there are churches (even very large churches) that have up to 75% of their adults in groups on a regular basis. In the first instance, the desire for quick results circumvents long term success. In the second instance, leaders have done their homework, built a sustainable model and are dogged in pursuing it for long term sustainability and success.

The next time you tackle a ministry initiative, ask this question: Am I going after quick results or do I have a paradigm for long term sustainability?

Helping individuals and organizations go to the next level of effectiveness.
AddingtonConsulting.org

How are you doing as a leader or how is your leader doing?

How is your leader doing as a leader? If you are a team member, here is a way of figuring that out. If you are a leader, here is a reminder of what is really important.

Does your leader bring great clarity to what the organization or team is about and how it will get there? That is job one of a leader. Clarity gives direction while ambiguity brings confusion.

Does your leader empower you to accomplish what you are tasked with through your gifts and wiring and without micromanagement? Empowerment values people while disempowerment devalues people.

Does your leader meet with you monthly as a mentor coach in order to remove barriers, help you move the ball forward and understand what you are doing? In doing so, does he/she provide you with honest and helpful feedback?

Does your leader keep his or her commitments and promises on a consistent basis? Good leaders don't ask their team to do what they do not do themselves.

Does your leader lead through their team or treat their team as ancillary to their "real" work? Do you feel that their number one job is to help the team be successful or that they are more concerned about their own work? Good leaders lead through their team.

Does your leader keep the team focused on results rather than activity? Are measurable results a focus of your leader? Do they help you strategize for achieving those results or is evaluation a secondary issue?

Does your leader foster a collegial atmosphere where team members work in concert with one another or are your team members isolated and siloed?

Is your leader open to honest feedback and suggestions or do you find them to be closed or defensive? Are there issues that are off limits for the team to discuss with their leader knowing that those issues are too sensitive to discuss?

If you had a choice today, would you sign up to work for the leader you work for? If yes why? If no why?

TJ Addington of Addington Consulting has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com

Creating cultures of organizational excellence

Investing in direct reports is a critical factor of a leader's success

Leaders have conversations all the time. It is what they do but not all conversations are equally important. Some conversations are far more important than others.

I am a firm believer that the most important conversations a leader has on an ongoing basis is with members of their team. These may be monthly meetings or as needed when issues arise. These are not random conversations but revolve around some carefully considered thoughts that are customized for each direct report.

The purpose of these conversations is to ensure alignment, think together regarding strategy, ensure results, and encourage the personal growth of senior team members. All four of these topics are critical for senior team members to pay attention to and the one who can ensure that is their supervisor/leader. This is also the way that a leader develops alignment through regular interaction with their key staff.

In order for these conversations to be meaningful a leader must become an exegete of their direct reports. What are their strengths? Where do they need to grow? What critical skill sets are they missing? What areas of their performance need to be reevaluated? And then, most importantly, how can I open a conversation about one or more of these issues to help my team member grow and develop? And, how can I convey my desire to help the team member grow in the areas where growth is needed?

This underscores the necessity of actively cultivating relationships with those we supervise. Relationship builds trust which in turn allows a supervisor to raise issues without being met with significant pushback or defensiveness. Over time such conversations become part of the fabric of the relationship and the leadership culture a supervisor brings to their team. The more we invest in our reports, the better our team will be.

Core issues every leader needs to pay attention to

Almost all leaders struggle with some core issues related to their leadership. Maturing in our leadership role requires us to resolve these core issues and manage them – if we cannot fully deal with them.

The first is the need to be loved and accepted. This is a universal need of course, but leaders who need to be loved and accepted by those they lead set themselves up to fail. Good leadership is about calling others to something higher than themselves. That will mean creating discontent in the status quo which will inevitably mean that leaders will not always be popular or loved. In addition, a need to be loved by those we lead makes it difficult to push into areas of needed growth by our subordinates. Fear of being unpopular will keep me from pushing into difficult subjects and difficult issues.

Remember, there are many ways to fulfill our need for love and acceptance: God, spouse, family, friends, and even our dog. But for a leader, while being loved by those we lead is a perk it is not always going to happen. Counterintuitively, respect comes to a leader when they have been willing to call the organization to a higher purpose, often against the grain of the status quo.

A second and critical issue all leaders must deal with is to train our minds and emotions to not take issues personally. We need to see issues as separate from us and allow free discussion regarding those issues without taking it personally. In fact, the warning signal that we are taking it personally is that we become defensive – which means that we have made the issue about us and thus feel a need to defend our position. Once we have made the issue about us, if we don’t get our way, we lose and none of us like to lose.

What usually loses when we make issues personal is the mission we are going after. If we can learn that the mission is not about us and to depersonalize differences of ideas and strategies, we will be able to invite the best of people’s thinking and remain free from defensiveness. Any time we are feeling defensive we have allowed the issue to be about us rather than the mission.

And then there is the issue of pride: thinking that my views are the best and my answers better than those of others. The problem with pride is that it becomes a filter through which we see life and leadership and the filter is faulty. It keeps us from hearing the truth when others share it, fools us into thinking that we are right when we are not and prevents our own growth and development.

Wise leaders, therefore cultivate trusted relationships where they can get honest feedback, cultivate an open atmosphere on their team where all ideas can be put on the table and cultivate introspection to ensure that they are developing humility over pride.

All three of these core issues for leaders need to be paid attention to all the time. Being able to manage them brings freedom, growth and allows us to lead from a healthier place.

Pesident Trump's leadership style could be his undoing.

I have watched with some bemusement the internal leadership dynamics of the Trump presidency and White House. Not his politics - the country voted for that. But his leadership style. In fact, I suspect that it is his personal leadership style that will prove to be the most serious challenge in his presidency. 

As a reader of biographies including many of world leaders, I am well aware that their personal quirks, often combined with very smart minds make them the leaders that they are or were. Those who know me know that I read everything I can on Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, whose leadership style combined with their personal idiosyncrasies made them the leaders that they were. Or, equally, Abraham Lincoln whose team of rivals made his presidency what it was through a tumultuous time in our history. That being said, I have some observations to make about the leadership style of President Trump that I believe could be his undoing. These issues go to the heart of great leadership.

One: The best leaders are crystal clear on their message. 

Clarity is one of the fundamental secrets of good leadership. Clarity means that one has thought through their position and will articulate that position with simplicity. When Roosevelt insisted that the only way that World War Two would end was with unconditional surrender of the Axis powers he clarified the endgame and made all other options of negotiated surrender superfluous.

When President Trump contradicts himself in his messaging he confuses the people around him, makes them look like chumps (especially when he has send them out to defend a prior position) and opens himself up for unnecessary attack. And frankly, it looks amateurish and foolish. Further, it undermines his credibility with other leaders in the world who wonder which Trump they should believe. Continually surprising your own staff will alienate them and eventually erode their trust in their leader.

Two. The best leaders ensure that there is a common narrative that is true, defensible and clear so that the team is on the same page. This is the responsibility of a leader and of his communications team. They need to talk, they need to agree on the message and not be in a position where one or the other is going to contradict their messaging. Clearly this has not been happening in the White House and Sean Spicer and staff have been left out to dry numerous times by the president they are trying hard to serve.

While Saturday Night Live has pilloried Sean Spicer nicely, at the core of Sean's challenge is a leader who loves to sow confusion at the expense of his staff. Sean became ineffective, I would argue, because of the individual he was working for and his dysfunctional leadership style. If I were Sean I would be bitter at how my leader had treated me.

Three. The best leaders support their staff in public and air their issues in private. Whatever one thinks of Jeff Sessions, he is currently being undermined directly and publically by the one who appointed him to his leadership role. Good leaders do not undermine their own staff! This week President Trump called Sessions a "beleaguered A G." Of course if he is beleaguered it is the President who has created the situation for Sessions. This is not only highly unprofessional but it is also disrespectful, counter productive and demonstrated that the "boss does not have the staff's back." 

I suspect that Sessions will choose to leave his role and I also predict that some others will choose to leave early because of their growing conviction that if this could happen to one of their team members it could just as easily happen to them. Of course, the President has also undermined others with whom he disagrees, which leads me to the next issue. 

Four, the best leaders respect differences of opinion and actively solicit alternate points of view. The reason that Lincoln's Team of Rivals worked as well as it did was that he wanted differing points of view, respected them and insisted that his team worked together. This was also true of FDR whose team members did not always like one another but who chose to work together through the issues of the depression and the war. 

This is not President Trump's modus operandi. Consider his ill advised early morning tweets. Almost all of them blast people or institutions that differ from his point of view including his own staff when he chooses (including other world leaders like the President of China, the leadership of Germany or the Mayor of London). While I believe there is huge bias in the news media against the president and all things conservative, I have come to the conclusion that "fake news" includes not only bias but anything that the President disagrees with. His issue with Sessions that has become so public is not with "fake news" but his unwillingness to allow Sessions to make a decision to recuse himself from the Russia inquiry. Ironically, Sessions is actively carrying out the President's policies even as the President undermines his authority and position.

Five. The best leaders take the blame in failure and give away the credit in success. One is hard pressed to find many evidences of this from President Trump. Failure, as a rule, is pinned on others, including members of his own staff and party while success seems to always come back to him. 

I suspect that many great leaders are narcissists and it appears that the President fits that description pretty well. Yet at the core of great leadership is a leader who has gathered a first rate team around him or her and it is because of the team (working synergistically together toward common objectives under good leadership) that the best things happen. That is why the best leaders give the majority of the credit for success to their team. And, since the "buck stops at the President's desk" he/she shields the team from responsibility for failure - at least in public. 

Does any of this matter? It actually does! Consider:

• The best staff will not agree to serve and may not stay when these leadership dysfunctions continue to exist. Sure there will always be people who want positions in the government but the best people may well stay away given what they see.
• These leadership dysfunctions are real downers for the staff that is working overtime to please their boss. It is demoralizing and it is leadership by fear and intimidation. In the long run it is not a healthy leadership paradigm.
• At some point trust between the leader and staff begins to erode when this leadership style is present. I have to suspect that other good leaders on the President's team are watching the issues with Jeff Sessions with great unease. 
• Senior staff do not need the chaos created by a boss who changes his story or contradicts what they have said in good faith. How, for instance, does Mr. Tillerson lead the State Department when President Trump tweets messages contradictory to what Mr. Tillerson has said or creates situations that Mr. Tillerson must clean up with other world leaders. 
• Thinking people around the world including many world leaders are watching Mr. Trump's leadership style with consternation. What should they believe? And why does it seem that he is more critical of his friends around the world than America's enemies (Russia?). 
• If senior staff come to the conclusion that the President does not listen to them they may well ask "Why then am I here?" And leave. 
• Most important of all, there are real issues that face our nation that are largely being ignored because of (I would argue) the leadership style of the President. Yes the media goes after Mr. Trump relentlessly but his style and some of the people around him feed the media beast with reason to be suspicious (unreported meetings, inaccurate or incomplete information). Whatever the organization, when there is dysfunctional leadership at the top the staff of the organization and most importantly the agenda of the organization is sabotaged. 

Four problematic leadership lessons from the life of Richard Nixon

I just finished reading a fascinating new biography of one of the most complex leaders of our century - Richard Nixon. (Being Nixon: A man divided). Not only was he a "man divided" between who he wanted to be and who he was, but he could never bring his divided self into alignment, and that was his ultimate downfall. It reminded me of many leaders who have imploded for the very same reasons. 

There are some lessons to be learned from the Nixon story for any in leadership.

First, he was essentially a man without true close friendships, and that left him without people who were willing to tell him the truth. It is a fatal flaw. Three weeks before he resigned, George Bush, the senior, wrote a perceptive letter to his four sons in which he said this about Nixon. "He has enormous hang-ups. He is unable to get close to people. It's almost as if he's afraid to be reamed in some way - people who respect him and want to be his friends get only so close - and then it is clear - no more (p. 520)." The first time Nixon shook Haldeman's hand was the day Haldeman resigned! In addition, if you listen to the Nixon tapes, it is clear that those around him, with very few exceptions, did not tell him the truth but what he wanted to hear. 

Leaders who don't forge close friendships with others eventually get themselves into trouble. Nixon's presidency was called the "imperial presidency." Leaders can become "imperial leaders" when they shut out other people.

Second, Nixon "resisted self-analysis." He told Frank Gannon that "I've never believed that any individual can analyze themselves (p. 529). In some senses, this is a true statement which is why deep and meaningful friendships are so important. But at the same time, this lack of self-analysis kept him from learning the hard lessons that suffering and setbacks can bring. Rather than learn from them, he plunged headlong into even greater leadership stupidity, lies, and scheming. "Nixon's tragedy was that he did not gain wisdom, at least about himself, from suffering - certainly, not until it was too late to save his presidency (p. 530)."  

Third, Nixon, when he was in a reflective mood, and especially when facing adversity, would know who he wanted to be but was unable to translate that view of himself into reality. At the end of his first year in office, he wrote one of a series of lists about who he wanted to be: "Excitement - joy in the job - sharing, lift the spirit of people, Pithy, Brevity, Statesmanship, Honesty, Candor, Consideration for subordinates, Concern for people, Vitality and so on (p. 245)." Yet these were the opposite of who he usually was, as evidenced by the Nixon Tapes, and he was not able to integrate his desired self into his real self. 

This is why leaders get into trouble. They focus so much on their leadership and too little on their personal lives, which directly impacts their leadership. The very things that brought this brilliant leader down were issues that emanated from his inner life, where he was unable to tame the demons that haunted him.

Fourth, Nixon was deeply insecure, and that insecurity drove him to resist close friendships, hear or deliver bad news, and caused him to divide people into those who were on his side and those who were not. With Nixon and other leaders I have met, people were either friends or enemies.

Insecurity is one of the most vicious enemies of good leadership. It is why I have chosen to live by the value that I have nothing to prove and nothing to lose, and nothing to hide. When we are putting our energy into proving our worth, proving we are right, and guarding our pride, we say and do things that are destructive. Ultimately insecurity is about our own pride and lack of humility.

What struck me about this book is that any of us are vulnerable to these four leadership issues. It is also why I believe that the inner life of a leader is of so much importance. It is our inner lives that make or break our leadership. Whatever is inside is what flows into our leadership decisions, attitudes, thinking, and values. 

I do not take anything away from what Nixon accomplished, but ultimately his accomplishments are overshadowed by his untamed demons.

At Addington Consulting,

We Simplify Complexity

Speak Candidly

Help You Find a Way Through

tjaddington@gmail.com

High accountability and low control are keys to ministry success

It is interesting to me that we often get a key value wrong in ministry. In most organizations, there is an ethos of high control and low accountability when in reality, the opposite should be true. People don't like to be controlled! At the same time, they should be accountable, but we often don't hold one another to that, especially in ministry situations. High accountability and low control are keys to ministry success!

High accountability speaks to the value that the quality of our work matters. In ministry circles, there is often the thought that all that matters is that I am faithful. I disagree! We also need to be thoughtful, strategic and focused and have a plan that makes sense. That is where high accountability comes in. We often forget that we are engaged in matters that impact people for eternity and that matters a lot.

But, the second half of this value is that we need to release people to do what they need to do in a healthy way, meaning that we are not going to control them. How I do things is how I do them. How you do things is consistent with how God wired you. We are not the same, and you may well have a better way of accomplishing your tasks than I would. Thus we need to exercise low control and allow people to do what they need to do in a way that works for them. Obviously, this means that they are keeping the values of the organization in mind as well.

As you think about how you supervise, ask yourself whether you exercise low control coupled with high accountability. It makes a great difference, and we often get the two turned around.

At Addington Consulting,

We Simplify Complexity

Speak Candidly

Help You Find a Way Through

tjaddington@gmail.com

Six issues to avoid for those in professional ministry

Professional ministry can be a place of great joy and great frustration. It is the frustrating part that can often cause us angst. My own observation is that there are six issues that those in professional ministry need to guard against.

Cynicism: Let's face it, lots of people are not going to get with the program. I remember people who attended the church I pastored who came once in a while but it seemed that God never touched their lives. At least it didn't seem that way to me. It is easy to become cynical but those folks have always been out there. As have the hard times in ministry when the arrows come from the pew and not from the pagans. There are times when we just need to fight cynicism off because it is not what God wants for us and it won't allow us to minister well. Jesus is our judge and He wants us to be faithful.

Anger: It is a close second to cynicism. It is easy to become angry: power politics in the church, how long it takes to get something done, feeling under appreciated, and any number of things. Anger is often about us instead of other people. Things didn't move on my timetable or in my way. It pops up in unexpected places but when it does, it is time to take stock of myself rather than of others. 

Self-focus: The two issues above are really about allowing ourselves to focus on ourselves rather than on those we are called to minister to. No one said ministry was easy, in fact no one should go into ministry who has something better to do. It is hard, and it becomes harder when our focus is on ourselves. There is plenty to complain about but only when our focus is in the wrong place. Read Paul's list of issues he faced. Yet he did not focus on himself but the mission God gave him. It changed the picture for him.

Professional Spirituality: This is about allowing our work for God to take precedence over our relationship with God. It is easy to do and most of us in ministry have done it. But it is a trap because Jesus wants us, not just our work for him. There is no substitute for our own personal time with Jesus and for our own followership. Just because we may know more than others (and it is often not true) it does not translate into a deeper relationship with Him unless we are deeply intentional about it.

Misidentity: This follows from the last. It is allowing our identity to be formed by our work rather than our relationship with the living God. It is also why many Christian professionals are quick to take offence when people disagree with them. They have not separated their identity in Jesus with the work that they do. 

Arrogance: It can come from knowing too much, having the wrong identity and a professional spirituality. No one in ministry should be arrogant but a lot seem to be. The way to guard against arrogance is to be focused on others and to guard our own hearts against its insidious grip. Other focus, accountability with people who know us and will tell us the truth and an identity in Jesus are all keys to remaining humble.

Posted from Oakdale, MN

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Without this quality you cannot lead well

There is a quality that every leader who is going to lead over the long haul must have. That quality is resilience. Websters defines resilience this way: "The ability to become strong, healthy, or successful again after something bad happens." I would define leadership resilience as the ability to deal with hard situations and difficult people without becoming overly emotional, angry, or cynical. It is also the ability to live with a soft heart but very thick skin and not to be discouraged by the inevitable challenges and personal attacks that leadership brings.

Leaders who lack resilience:

• Become easily discouraged
• Feel threatened and deflated when attacked
• Become emotional when things don't go their way
• Can become subject to depression and moodiness
• Are often fearful
• Can easily overact to situations that seem out of their control
• Crack under pressure

I am an avid reader of biographies and would suggest that individuals like Winston Churchill, FDR, Ronald Reagan, or Margaret Thatcher were individuals who personified resilience. Each of these was able to overcome regular difficulties, keep their cool, and continue to lead. In the New Testament, Paul certainly has this trait.

The test of leadership is not what happens when all is well but when all is hell. That is when the mettle of our souls and resolve is tested and where our resilience or lack of it becomes critical. When I hear leaders complain and feel sorry for themselves and express significant emotions, anger, and frustration, I often wonder if they have the resilience to lead well. 

Resilient ministry leaders usually have the following characteristics:

• They have thick skin and have learned how to weather personal attacks
• They take the long view and know that the irritations of the moment will pass
• Their self-worth is not wrapped up in their leadership role, and realize that leaders are often targets
• Their focus is on the mission of the organization rather than on themselves 
• They have learned to see the tough times as leadership challenges 
• They are generally optimists and communicate hope to their teammates
• They have a good team around them
• They have a high view of God's sovereignty and therefore are able to trust Him
• They have learned that anxiety is wasted energy and manage it well

Resilience can be learned and should grow over time as we recognize that the crises of the moment do pass, life does go on, the world does not fall apart, and the worst possible case does not usually come to be. It has much to do with our perspective on God, life, and ourselves. The more we focus on ourselves, the less resilient we will be. The more we focus on the mission and on God, the more resilience we will have.

At Addington Consulting,

We Simplify Complexity

Speak Candidly

Help You Find a Way Through

tjaddington@gmail.com

The critical role that deep friendships play in the lives of healthy leaders

One of the key indicators of a leader's success is the depth of the friendships they have.  While not always true, one of the observations I have made in dealing with healthy leaders is that they have a set of deep friendships. On the other hand, many leaders who burnout or flameout do not have those deep friendships. 

I think there is a correlation here and it centers around a leader's willingness to be transparent and truly authentic with other trusted individuals. Those who resist authenticity often resist deep friendships because those relationships are based on authenticity and a willingness to reveal the true us. This is why putting leaders (any leader) on a pedestal is dangerous. Pedestals keep others at a distance and allow a leader to live without true authenticity. 

It is in the context of deep friendships that we allow others to see all of us because we also know that they love us and our shadow side (we all have one) will not deter their love. In fact, the more authentic we are with others, the more respect we gain. Those friendships are also critical in our own spiritual journey because it allows others to speak into our lives on issues that we might otherwise ignore. And all of us have issues we want to ignore.

The authenticity of deep relationships invites counsel, insight, a shared spiritual journey and ultimately the accountability that comes from having friends who love us and will tell us the truth. Those who are afraid of this tend to keep others at a distance while those who value this intentionally develop deep friendships. 

Deep friendships are an anchor in our lives to honesty, growth, the accountability that comes from relationship and the truth about ourselves. Healthy leaders know that they vulnerable due to their leadership position and the fact that their staff will not always tell them the truth. In addition, success can go to our head and it often does. Key friendships are anchors to reality that every leader needs.

Posted from Oakdale, MN

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

A YouTube video that illustrates much church leadership

TJ Addington of Addington Consulting has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com.

When leaders stop learning they also stop leading

Leaders often inadvertently stop leading even though they think they are leading. After all they have the title and the responsibility. And authority. But, Leadership is not about those three things. It is helping the ministry move forward in clarity toward a defined goal and meet the new challenges of the day. 

None of that happens without the leader continually growing personally and professionally all the time. When leaders stop learning and growing they also stop leading. 

Consider:

The environment around us changes continuously and unless we respond to those changes we quickly become irrelevant in our methodology. Our theology does not change but our methods of ministry need to. Not only does our environment change but the needs of an organization change at different seasons and phases of growth. Moving through those times of transition takes new thinking and new skills that if not learned plateau the ministry.

In addition, those who report to us take their cues from us. If leaders are not always pushing forward to learn new things others probably will not either. So stagnation at the top leads to stagnation throughout the organization. This leads to the best people leaving (staff or in the church congregants) and over time it leads to decline. 

What keeps leaders from growing? Often our busyness keeps us from focusing on what is most important. Thus we can live with the illusion we are leading (we are doing things) but we are not actually helping the ministry move forward but are rather managing the status quo.

I believe another reason is often laziness. It is easier to manage the status quo than to figure out what comes next and how to get there. 

Finally, pride can keep us from seeking help from others. But none of us grow without the help of others. Often leaders need help to grow but do not ask or take the initiative. Pride makes us believe we are better than we are. Humility leads us to seek growth as we realize how much we don't know. 

Pride, laziness and busyness all conspire to keep us from learning new things. If we are going to go the distance it is a lifelong process with great intentionality and purpose. Pursue growth and the organization will grow. When we don't we actually stop leading.

Posted from Guatemala

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Managing anxiety in our leadership roles and saving us from ourselves

On a regular basis, leaders are confronted with situations that cause anxiety. How we learn (and it is learned) to handle that anxiety is one of the key factors in how well we will lead over the long haul. Those who don't handle anxiety well will sabotage their leadership either through emotional responses that are inappropriate or through inner turmoil that eats at their gut - and often both. It is one of the reasons some very bright people choose not to lead. When someone says, "It's not worth the hassle," what they are often saying is that "I don't have the tools to manage the anxiety that comes with leadership."

Anxiety is the uncertainty that comes from any number of situations leaders face. It can be conflict within the team that needs to be resolved, actions or words of a team member that we assume are disloyal to us, seemingly dumb things that someone may have done or situations we just don't know how to confront. I can think of a long list of people and situations that caused me anxiety as a leader, especially as a young leader. That anxiety, however, must be managed if we are to act with discernment and wisdom rather than with an emotional, angry or knee-jerk response.

How do we manage our emotions in these situations and save ourselves from ourselves? Here are some suggestions:

One: Don't act precipitously. Acting out of our initial response will usually exacerbate the situation rather than resolve it.

Two: Manage your anxiety - it is wasted energy. I often simply visualize a drawer in my mind where I place those things causing me anxiety and lock it until it is time to deal with the issue.

Three: Don't assume you have all the facts. This is why time is on your side. Often when acting out of emotion we are also acting out of factual ignorance. Getting the whole story often puts things into perspective.

Four: Don't assume ill motives. When we get all the facts we often discover that the motives of others were not poor whether what they did was wise or not.

Five: Consult with a trusted colleague to get a different perspective on the issue and ensure that you are taking a wise course to address it.

Six: Think through how you want to approach the issue with the individual(s) involved for the most positive outcome. This takes time. Don't address it until you have a plan for your approach.

Seven: Have a conversation with the individual(s) involved. A conversation is different than an attack. Often in talking the situation out we come to understanding and mutually agreeable solutions.

Eight: Consider what everyone can learn from the situation. In other words, assigning blame is often not as healthy as just seeing what lessons can be learned moving forward.

Nine: It goes without saying for Christian leaders that asking for God's wisdom in the situation is critical. 

Posted from Oakdale, MN

For more help in understanding emotions in leadership, my new book Deep Influence deals with this in greater depth.

5 ways reading makes you a better leader by Michael Hyatt

5 WAYS READING MAKES YOU A BETTER LEADER

The Science Behind Reading and Influence

Posted from Grand Rapids, MI

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Encouragement and leadership lessons from Winston Churchill for pastors

I am a huge fan of Winston Churchill and have read dozens of books on him. There a great number of leadership lessons that can be learned from his life, good and bad so I was captivated by the following article on the lessons of his life for ministry leaders. If you are a pastor (or any leader) this article will encourage you. From ChurchPastor.com.

5 Lessons Pastors Should Learn from Winston Churchill

Posted from Oakdale, MN

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Ten ways pastors and congregations irritate one another in serious ways

Pastors and congregations always have issues with one another, at least among certain individuals. Having worked extensively with both sets (including church leaders as congregants) I would suggest that the following set of five irritants for each party are worth thinking through. It might also make for a robust board/pastor discussion. These irritants may be real or perceptions but either way they are real to those who experience them.

Five ways pastors irritate congregants:
One: Defensiveness. Many congregants or church leaders feel that when they address concerns with their pastor that the response is not a healthy open dialogue but defensiveness as the pastor may take the concern as an attack or criticism of him rather than a suggestion or observation for the ministry. I have seen long term members leave their church (with sadness) because they did not feel as if their senior pastor took their concerns seriously, or even cared they were there. We all know that not all concerns can be addressed but defensiveness or lack of concern causes great irritation on the part of congregants.

Two: Personal agendas. Congregants and church leaders all have a vested stake in what happens in the ministry of the church. When they sense that their senior leader has his own agenda which they feel he is imposing on the congregation without process, feedback or buy in it is deeply discouraging. Yet it is not an uncommon issue, especially as new pastors come in with their dreams and hopes and philosophy without taking into account the dreams, hopes and history of the congregation.

Three: Dismissiveness of the past. New pastors (especially) often talk and act as if all things good started with their tenure and ignore or dismiss the prior history of the congregation. All of us who lead stand on the shoulders of others and it is irritating and discouraging for congregations to hear from their senior leader all of the faults of the church and how he is going to make the church what it needs to be. Of course churches need to change and sometimes it is radical change that is needed but wisdom places diplomacy and graciousness at the top of the list rather than criticizing the past. Ignoring history is always disempowering because it ignores the very individuals who made the church what it is today.

Four: The inability to disagree with people and still stay connected to them. Way too many senior leaders see people as either "for them" or "against them" based on whether they agree or disagree with one another. This reflects bad Emotional Intelligence and poor relational skills. Once this happens, many good people find that they are no longer listened to or even appreciated. It is painful for a faithful leader to be marginalized simply because he/she has disagreed with the senior leader who cannot live with that disagreement and stay connected relationally.

Five: Introducing changes too quickly and without proper process. Most people are change resistant which means that if change is needed (and it often is) a process must be run with those impacted by the change to bring them along, answer their questions and calm their concerns. Many senior leaders are highly deficient at the change process and the lack of process produces anger and disenchantment in the congregation. Pastors often then demonize those who they feel are resistant when the resistance was actually a result of their own lack of process in the changes they brought.

Five ways congregations irritate pastors
One: Pettiness. When working with churches in conflict I am always amazed at how petty many of the issues people want to talk about are. Choices a pastor and their spouse make in their lifestyles or the fact that they don't do what the last pastor or spouse did or something said in the pulpit - there is no end to the pettiness that some parishioners can have and are willing to make their opinions known, sometimes widely.

Two: Unwillingness to change in the face of evidence that it is deeply needed. Admittedly, this is often a matter of the skill of a senior leader to negotiate needed changes but there are plenty of congregations who have resisted change leading to three or four pastors facing the same issues in the church and leaving in discouragement. Congregations that resist needed changes will eventually die and it can be deeply frustrating to healthy leaders who are doing their best to bring health to the congregation.

Three: An inward focus rather than an outward focus. Healthy leaders will never settle for an internal focus when the community around them is absent a relationship with Jesus. Yet many churches are inward focused and see few people coming to faith in Christ. There may well be growth but in many instances it is simply transfer growth. Healthy leaders want both new life in Christ and life transformation. When they are kept from moving in this direction it is disempowering and frustrating and I have to believe to God as well.

Four: A divided board that is unwilling to police its own members. Hardly a week goes by that I don't get a call or an email from a pastor (or board member) about a dysfunctional board that will not police its members. What is left is often a divided board that literally accomplishes nothing of significance. It's mission has been hijacked by its ongoing dysfunctionality and the pastor is often a hostage to that stagnant leadership group. Pastors are dependent on a healthy board for healthy leadership and ministry. When boards won't police their own there is little a pastor can do.

Five: A stingy congregation or board. Pastoring a local church is one of the most difficult jobs on the planet. You have as many bosses as you have congregants, you have people who feel free to say the most inappropriate things, you must accept all who come, there are constant crises in the lives of people and you get to preach each or almost every Sunday. No pastor goes into ministry for the material benefits but congregations show their appreciation by being generous and their lack of appreciation by being stingy. I have seen many examples of both but the latter sends a powerful message of a lack of appreciation to their pastor.

A great response to this blog would be a candid conversation between a board and their pastor. Both might learn something of significance.

Posted from Phoenix, AZ

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

A fairly nutty article on Mars Hill Governance

After reading this three part series all I wanted to do was to ask, "How well did this work for you?"

Church Governance: Local Elders or Outside Board?ResultSource Part 3

Posted from Oakdale, MN

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Humble and collaborative church leadership

I just returned from Santiago Chile and saw firsthand a rare phenomenon. A senior church team that displays huge humility and collaboration. The senior leader is 67, another is 35, and another 49. Together they lead a church of 500+. Rarely have I seen a team that is as non-competitive, open to one another's counsel and opinions and the ability to work collaboratively for kingdom objectives. They are an example in a country that is full of authoritarian leadership and an example to many in our own country where hubris, power and a need to get our own way is all too common.

The senior leader has deeply empowered the other two. He knows his paradigms are different from theirs and is unfazed by it. He knows that transition must come and is unfazed by that. He is a great leader who cares more about the kingdom than his kingdom. The other two senior leaders have very different gifts and yet they are noncompetitive (even about who takes over if it is one of them), understand their own gifting and how much they need one another. Nor are they anxious to lose their senior leader although they know his role will change in the future. In addition their spouses have the same attitudes. 

It is a church that has a history of conflict as many do. Yet that is now absent in their close teamwork. Their example is infecting other churches in Santiago where such a model is rare. Yet it is the model that Jesus would endorse. 

One of my greatest joys is to meet and get to know leaders who display the mind and attitude of Jesus. I long for this to be the case in the church at large. I wish there were more of this in the United States. We have a lot to learn from others. Especially humble and collaborative leadership in the church.

Posted from Oakdale, MN

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.