In a complex world, keep it simple - and clear

"Keep it simple. It's that simple!"

Or is it? Let's think this through. Here is what I know. Life is complex. Organizations are complex and complexity can be confusing. The job of a leader is to simplify complexity. Unless complexity is simplified, understanding will be foggy and foggy understanding leads to confusion.

The most difficult job for leaders is to cut through the confusion and the noise to bring clarity to situations they face. Why is it difficult? It means that leaders need to take the time to fully understand a situation they face, ask the right questions and be clear about the potential solutions.

How does an organizational leader simplify? They bring clarity to issues the organization faces. Clarity is the key to simplicity. Simplicity is the key to common understanding.

I have long been an advocate that leaders  must bring clarity to the mission of an organization - Why they exist, to the guiding principles that guide an organization - how they do what they do, to the culture of the organziation - what is acceptable and what is not and to the central focus - what we need to do day in and day out. 

Ironically, that clarity brings a level of simplicity to everyday decisions in the organization. It clarifies our focus, our behaviors, our day to day work and the culture we are committed to. You say, that sounds simple. The hard part is getting to that simplicity and that clarity because you must make choices and define focus and behaviors. But once done, you have a clear, simple message on important issues for all of your staff. 

When there is not such clarity that can be expressed in easy to understand - simple - ways, people make up their own clarity and soon you have multiple versions of clarity running around making for complexity and ultimately confusion. This is way too common in the business, non-profit and church world.

When that clarity does not exist in simple language, it means leaders have not done their most important work. 

How do you know if you have clarity? If you were to ask members of your staff about mission, guiding principles, focus and culture would you receive clear common answers? Could they explain these with a level of simplicity? Does the organization live by the commitments they have made? If not, those commitments were not simple enough, communicated clearly enough or they were words on paper and not commitments in reality.

Simplicity is not possible without clarity. Clarity is not possible without hard work to get it clear and communicate it with simplicity. When both are present you have the best possibility of an aligned organization. 

Make things clear and keep them simple.

Poor Organizational Culture Kills Innovation and long term sustainability

There is a direct correlation between a healthy culture and the organization's ability to innovate, remain sustainable in an ever-changing marketplace environment, and continue to be profitable. If nothing else grabs our attention around culture, this one should.

Innovation is the lifeblood of any enterprise. It is the ability to find new ways to accomplish your mission. This includes identifying cost savings, developing new products or solutions, forming internal and external partnerships, addressing the threats and opportunities presented by new technologies (such as AI), and leveraging the expertise and abilities of your staff to stay ahead of competitors in your market. 

This will not happen if the culture is not healthy. An unhealthy culture kills the environment that stimulates innovation, sustainability, and ultimately profitability. The damage may not be immediately apparent, but an unhealthy culture slowly erodes an organization's ability to adapt as needed and remain profitable in the long term. What are some of the barriers to innovation? While it may take time, the lack of innovation due to an unhealthy culture will catch up and hurt the organization.

I had conducted a culture audit in an organization with a very controlling leader. This leader was slow to listen, quick to criticize and demean others, arrogant in his abilities, and blind to his shadow side. I knew all of this because I had interviewed all of his present and recently departed staff. And now, I was in a room with all his staff to debrief them on my work with the organization. In the middle of the room sat the number two organizational leader, who was not supposed to be present, so I could have a candid conversation with the staff - all this arranged by the board. 

You could cut the air with a knife. No one was going to say anything with the "enforcer" in the room. I already had his agreement that he would not be present, so I respectfully asked him to leave so that I could interact with the staff. He made no effort to move. There was a tense exchange between myself and him before he relectantly stood up to go.

An organization that desperately needed new ideas would not receive them due to the insecurity and micromanagement of its leaders. Where fear rules the day, innovation that is needed takes a back seat and rarely happens.

When fear rules the day, innovation takes a back seat and rarely happens. The problem is that innovation is tied directly to the sustainability of the business, which is tied directly to its profitability. When you styfle innocation, you put sustainability and profitability at risk. And if you think it does not matter, your environment can change almost overnight, putting your organizaiton at risk.

Here are some of the barriers to innovation which directly impacts sustainability and profitability.

Lack of organizational clarity. If we don't know what we are about and what our focus is, we cannot get better because we are unable to focus on the most important.

Micromanagenent of staff. This sends a message to staff that they are unable to make key decisions (or even small decisions) without permission and oversight from above. In this environment, few staff members will take the initiative to share innovative ideas.

Lack of a culture where honest dialogue is encouraged. This kind of culture is absent from many organizations. I champion a concept called Robust Dialogue, where any issue can be put on the table with the exception of a hidden agenda or a personal attack. Insecure leaders won’t allow this. They don’t like to be challenged, are threatened when suggestions are made that they take exception to, tell people what to do rather than engage them in dialogue, and silence anything they don’t want to hear.

Organizational structures that hinder change and innovation due to multiple layers of sign-off and the need to obtain permission from multiple groups.  Our very organizational structure can discourage innovation and change, making it difficult for new ideas to be tried. Bureaucracy is often designed to control rather than unleash ideas. We are frequently so scared of failing at something that we put in place multiple layers to ensure we don’t fail – and in the process, we end up not trying new methods or strategies.

Cultures where it is not OK to fail. If you cannot fail at something, you are not trying very much. Fear of failure is the wrong fear. What we need to fear is not failing at a few things, but rather finding strategies that will get us to where we want to go. Without failure, there is no innovation; without innovation, there is no sustainability or profitability. Healthy organizations don’t punish failure. They learn from it and go back and try again. They understand that failure is an integral part of the innovation and forward movement process.

Cultures where key information is not shared with the staff. Some leaders are secretive and don’t share key information except with those they choose to. It is often a form of control because the one who has the information has power. However, to improve, innovate, and address issues that impact the business, the lack of information becomes a barrier to new ideas and candid conversations.

Cultures characterized by politics, silos, and turf wars (to quote Mr. Lencioni). Why does this hurt innovation? Most innovations require the cooperation, participation, and energy of multiple teams. Where such collaboration is absent, it is difficult to champion new ideas. If people and divisions are competing rather than cooperating, it is difficult to get everyone on the same page.

Cultures where a senior leader changes course often creating instability. If staff don’t know where the organization is going because the direction changes whenever the senior leader has a new idea, change is often seen through a cynical lens. A healthy culture requires a clear, long-term vision, along with values and practices that support it. It is in this environment that new ideas flourish because you are clear on the ultimate objective of your work and your commitment to be as effective as possible.

Cultures where people are not treated with respect and dignity. We share our ideas when we know we are respected and know that our views will be taken seriously. Ideas are shared when there is trust, and trust is formed through relationships, dialogue, and a healthy culture.

Cultures where staff are not actively encouraged to bring their ideas to the table. Staff bring their ideas to the table when they are encouraged to do so and when they work in a trusting environment. Where that is not true, it is too risky to go out on a limb with new ideas.

All of this illustrates the absolute necessity of a healthy organizational culture if you desire innovation to flourish and achieve true sustainability and profitability. These will not happen unless the cultural barriers are removed and replaced by healthier practices.

 

How wide reading can change your life

I started collecting books at the age of 15 when I took over my grandparents' attic and turned it into my study/library. My collection was modest then, but it has grown considerably over the years, and now comprises about 3,000 books and counting. I am fortunate to have them all in one special space, complete with a fireplace, where I can read. Many friends frequent the sitting area in the library, where we discuss life together.

The common question when they see the books is, "Have you read them all?" Taking a line from Winston Churchill, my answer is "Some twice." While they think that means yes, I have read them all, it is not what I said. There is nothing better than discovering a book you've never read to dive into. I have plenty of those!

I am a fan of wide reading, and I will explain why. The collection is segmented into the following broad categories: Biography, history, war, theology, psychology, literature, leadership, Christian Living, commentaries, espionage and spycraft,  current events, and other miscellaneous treasures. 

I am a great fan of wide reading. By doing so, we discover worldviews other than our own, we start to understand that many people have bits of truth for us to absorb, our curiosity grows, and we open our minds to new ideas. It also helps us connect disparate dots and exposes us to other cultures in a new way. 

Too often, we read narrowly and remain in our own little bubble without realizing that there is a bigger world to be discovered. Even for  those of faith, reading beyond those who think just like us exposes us to possibilities that may be worth considering. At least they often are for me. In today's divided world, where we read tweets on X from our favorites and not from others, we frequently miss the nuances of life. 

I liken this to connecting the dots in life. History teaches us valuable lessons about countries and civilizations - how they emerge and how they fall. We can learn from history. Biographies reveal the greatness and frailty of even the most important historical figures. We all have feet of clay. How power and influence are wielded can be both a learning point for us and a warning. 

People often comment on the number of biographies I have of Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Mao, Roosevelt, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Lincoln. These were fascinating individuals who changed the course of history, for better or worse. 

When people ask me what I am reading at the moment, I am faced with a dilemma, as there are usually around 30 books in various stages of progress around the house. Depending on my mood, I will pick up a book to read. 

I often liken a book to a mentor. We all need multiple mentors, and a good book leaves us with some truth or insight that we didn't have before reading it. I don't have 3000 books. I have 3000 mentors. 

I do mess with my books by underlining as I read. After all, it is about comprehension and underlining the important helps me to remember.  Of course, being me, I do it with a fountain pen with yellow ink! Ahh, yes, the fountain pens are a subject for another day, but an important one. 

From time to time, I outsource certain books, but the core of the collection remains. If book collecting is an addiction, it beats many other addictions one could have. And it benefits us.

If you are a reader, keep on. If you are not, try to become one. It can change your life. 

Learning to say no more often

Many of us say yes to invitations, obligations, and favors too easily. In doing so, we rob ourselves of the time, energy, and opportunity to do far more important things. 

Why do we do it? Often, because we are well-meaning, it is hard for us to say no. We like to be liked, and our willingness to say yes may make us popular with the one who asked. We want to be needed, and the request validates our importance. We like to have influence, and this is an opportunity to be influential. 

Unlike many commodities, time is the one thing that you cannot get back. Money comes and goes, but time simply goes. Every time we say yes to an obligation, we write a "time check." It serves as a time check for both the event we've committed to and the time required for our preparation. The obligation may seem small, but when you add this obligation to many others it starts to add up.

How does one be more discerning in determining what to say yes to? Several suggestions:

One: Practice not saying yes immediately. Instead, say, Thanks for that invitation. Let me take a look at my schedule. That answer allows you to think about the invitation and determine whether you want to make the time investment.

Before responding, consider the time you would be obligated to spend and whether this obligation interferes with more important activities, such as time with your spouse, family, close friends, hobbies, rest, or ongoing education. It is easy to say yes, but there is a tradeoff for every yes you give. Does the tradeoff make sense, or is it a distraction from more important priorities in your life? Many people have a plan for your life, but your inner compass on what is most vital for you can only be made by you. 

Remember that your calendar tells the story of your priorities, and often, our priorities are not well thought out when it comes to how we spend our time. We should be as careful about how we spend our time as we are about how we spend our money. Or more so because you cannot recover time.

Three: Practice the art of saying no more often. A no can be a positive thing - a gift to you. It gives you time to pursue those most important relationships, priorities, and goals that you have. It saves us from the trap of being overcommitted, over tired, and frustrated by our lack of time for the things and relationships that are most important to us.

Every time you say no for a good reason, you give yourself a gift. And the opportunity to invest your time in things that are close to your heart.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

How self definition can impact your leadership

A key component of healthy individuals is that they are self-defined. I define a self-defined individual as one who understands who they are, is comfortable with who they are, and can clearly articulate their own positions in a way that does not force others to agree and does not demonize those who disagree. 

It is the ability to say, "This is what I think (and why), now tell me how you see it." In doing this, you have made your position clear along with the rationale and have opened the door for honest conversation that can hopefully lead to a better or shared understanding. And if not, you have made your position clear, so there is no misunderstanding.

Because a self-defined individual is secure in their own skin, they can encourage dialogue even with those who might strenuously disagree with them. Some people are unable to do this. They can state their position, but cannot stay connected relationally with those who disagree with them - thus, the conversation is over without resolution.

The ability to have a position and stay connected with those who disagree is a key component of healthy relationships. It is usually in ongoing dialogue that one comes to mutually acceptable conclusions, as long as we are dealing with people who have a level of EQ health. Discussions with those who lack EQ often go nowhere. Thus, our ability to understand the EQ of those we are dealing with becomes a factor in how we deal with them.

Self definition requires leaders to think well before they state a position. But their flexibility and invitatin for dialoge also leaves the doow open for further discussion and in some cases a moification of their views. This is why a non-defensive attitude is so critical. For instance, if staff know that they can honestly push back without repercussions and know they will also be heard, it is often possible to come to a more refined position that works for everyone.

Self-definition is a powerful leadership tool because it goes to the values, convictions, attitudes, and actions that a leader has, and the more consistent these are, the more security those who work for them have. They know what to expect. They know that the principles and convictions are what drive you as a leader, and they know that these are not going to change.

The self-definition of a leader becomes a secure foundation for those who work for them. They know that the key values and principles will not change, giving them security to model the same. They also know that they will get the same version of the leader today as they did in the meeting yesterday. They don't need to wonder which version they will get.

Leaders who lack self-definition and are unpredictable are challenging to work for because there is no accurate compass for others to follow. This is the case with leaders whose idea of the day becomes their mantra until the next thought pops up. Unpredictable leaders are difficult, if not impossible, to follow. 

Being self-defined also means that we can separate ourselves from the issues of others and not fall into the trap of enmeshment or triangulation in relationships. We take responsibility for the problems we have with others and seek to help them resolve their issues, but we can separate ourselves from those problems and not become drawn into them.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

How many friends do you have who have no agenda except to be your friend?

We all need deep friendships. People who love us, who want the best for us, who encourage us, and whose friendship is mutual. In a discussion about friendships this evening, one of those I was talking to said, "I sat down and tried to make a list of all my friends who didn't have an agenda for me, and I came up with two names." This individual knows many people, but he has come to realize that most of them have some sort of agenda in their friendships.

This is not unusual, but it is sad. 

Now, agendas by themselves are not bad. Whether in business or ministry, we often find ourselves aligning with people and colleagues who share our values or have something to contribute to our work. This is normal, and it is right and can be very helpful. We all need others who can contribute to our work and whom we can, in turn, add value to. It is multiple relationships and synergies that allow leaders to get critical work done. 

But that leaves an essential question for each of us as individuals. Those with an agenda may be friendly, but do they count as true friends?

What makes a true friend? A true friend cares deeply about us. One who will tell us the truth when we need to hear it. One who will challenge our thinking with their own and one who will come alongside us when we are hurting or in trouble. In other words, they love us for who we are, overlook our quirks (which we all have), and will help us become a better version of ourselves through their interactions with us.

These are friendships without agenda except to be a friend. In these relationships, there is deep trust, a willingness to speak encouraging words, and even hard words, where we know there is no ulterior motive except to be a blessing to us. In their company, we can be ourselves, share our deepest thoughts, and know we are safe in their presence. 

Take a moment and make a mental or written list of those kinds of friendships in your life. And then think about your friendships with others. Who are you friends with like that? Do you have an agenda in those friendships apart from just being a friend? 

Life is filled with agendas. Where do we have friendships without an agenda? If you were to crash and burn from issues in your life, who would be there for you because they are simply good friends? It is in the hard times that we find out who our true friends are. That has certainly been true for me. 

A great example of this was The Inklings, a literary group at Oxford where a group of writers, including C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, developed a genuine bond that lasted for almost 40 years and shaped iconic works such as The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Chronicles of Narnia. They met regularly at a local pub and gave one another support, encouragement, and constructive criticism for their writings. They were people of differing temperaments and had disagreements, and were a source of significant mutual influence with one another. 

It is worth considering the true nature of your friendships. Why do they exist? What is their purpose? Do they have an agenda? And would they be there if life came apart? And who are you that kind of friend for? 

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

In any church conflict it is important to find the core issue and the common source

If you are a leader whose church is in conflict, there are two issues it is helpful to understand. First, what is the actual reason for the conflict, and second, who is at the center of the conflict? 

Understanding the true nature of the conflict is often difficult because the presenting issues are often not the real issues. If one tries to solve the presenting issues without understanding what the actual issues are, there will not be a resolution, because even if you solve the presenting issues, the core issue remains untouched.

I am convinced that most church conflict has nothing to do with the surface or presenting issues and everything to do with power and control issues that lie behind the surface issues. This has to do with decision-making power in the church and control of the church. It is an agenda to force a certain decision or direction hidden behind other presenting issues. Often it is cloaked in spiritual language such as the "good of the church," but at its core, it is about power and control.

How does one know if they are working with the presenting issue or a deeper control issue? One of the key markers is whether those who are complaining and making noise are open to rational discussion and compromise, or if they insist on getting their way. If it is the latter, you are most likely dealing with a power issue, and unless you cede to their demands, the conflict will not stop. If you do cave to their demands, you have allowed power brokers with an agenda to win the day and that is always unhealthy in the church.

Often in church conflict it feels like everyone is involved because loud voices prevail. The truth of the matter is that power games in the church are rarely widespread, but like power games everywhere, can be traced back to an individual or a small group of individuals. I call these the voice behind the voices. Power games in the church are never a general group but always have an individual or a small group of individuals behind them and there is usually one central figure. They usually stay in the background and feed discontent, but the common voice one hears from others is an indicator that this is not random conflict but has a leader or leaders behind it. Common language and common attitudes are clear indicators.

How do you determine who is at the core of the conflict? Listen to the language, have a lot of conversations, ask a lot of questions, and eventually you connect the dots toward a common source. Unless you understand the real issue and can deal with the common source, one has no chance of mitigating the conflict.

We are often naive in the church regarding conflict. We too easily believe presenting issues, not wanting to believe that power politics might be present in our congregation. In addition, we are too slow in dealing with the true source of the conflict because we are dealing with people who hide behind spiritual language. None of that, however, changes the damage that they are doing to the church. Power politics in the church destroys unity, hurts leadership and people with agendas hurt the body. The proof that you are dealing with power politics is when you get to the core group and they will not live under the authority of the pastor or elders. Those who don't respond to appropriate authority are playing power politics. 

The ultimate power play is simply to call for the resignation of the pastor and the board. Here is where motives are nakedly plain. I was the pastor of a church where this once happened and church chairman in another church where it happened. In both cases, the real issues had been revealed, and the core parties had been exposed. Their last stand was to try to force the leadership out of office. When they lost their bid, they left the church, clearly unwilling to live under authority. When someone pulls a power play in the church and walks when they lose it is an indication this was about power and control in most instances.

The bottom line? As Jesus said, be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Don't be fooled! Be smart. Be wise. Be prayerful. Act carefully.

It is often helpful to get outside counsel from someone who can give objective feedback and who does not have a stake in the outcome. That is often a threat to the dissenters who are counting on their influence to win the day, and now there is a new level of accountability.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

Six non-negotiable principles for a successful outcome in church conflict

After many years of working with churches that find themselves in conflictual situations, I have concluded that there are six non-negotiable principles for a successful outcome.

First, an outside facilitator is usually necessary. The nature of conflict is that people take sides, making it very difficult for anyone within to play the role of a neutral mediator. In fact, the larger the conflict, the more critical it is that the individual you bring in is trusted by both sides to have the best interests of the church at heart. The sooner you bring someone in when it is clear that the situation is dangerous, the better.

An outside facilitator must come with a neutral stance and be willing to genuinely listen to all sides, with the desire to find the truth. When I have played this role, I made it clear to the board as a precondition that I would listen attentively, gather information, and share my conclusions with the congregation without seeking board approval for that report first. If they were unwilling to agree to this, I would not help them because factions often exist on the board level as well and I had to be impartial in my findings and recommendations.

The board and the congregation still had to decide whether they would accept my recommendations but I needed the ability to share what I learned openly and honestly. The rest was up to them - and I was of course willing to help them with the next steps.

I cannot overemphasize that a neutral outside individual or individuals can be critical in church conflict resolution. When I held that role, I had to convey some difficult messages to various groups within the church, and I needed to do so honestly, fairly, and without worrying about how people would react. When reporting back to the congregation, I would always ask them how candid they wanted me to be. They would say very candid and I would respond, "I will do that but understand that I will likely make all of you unhappy with something I say." Getting their permission to speak freely and warning them that my findings and recommendations might not be pleasing to them gave me the freedom to speak openly and gave them a heads up that it might not always be to their liking.

Here is the thing. Spin does not work in conflict. Only truth works - hard as it might be to hear.

Second, the issues that are fueling the conflict need to be brought into the light. Conflict thrives in the shadows, in gossip, in cliques, in assumptions, and behind the scenes. Bringing all the competing agendas, attitudes, and positions into the light and allowing all members of the congregation to understand what is being said, what is happening, and what the issues are takes the mystique out of the situation, allowing everyone to respond from a position of knowledge. It also removes the power of those who have an agenda but have not been willing to make it public, instead exerting pressure from behind the scenes. Getting everything on the table allows all stakeholders to understand what is happening and to have a voice in resolving the issues. Ironically, those who are most vociferous in their opinions often exaggerate their support when, in fact, if all facts were known, the majority would not agree. Bringing the issues, actions, and words out of the shadows is key to successful resolution.

Third. Reconciliation is always preferable to disunity. This is actually a hard concept for many who have taken a position in church conflict. First, our natural tendency is to take a hard line, and once we have told others about our own line in the sand, it is humbling to change our position. Second, the longer the conflict persists, the more we tend to view members of the opposing side as evil, dishonest, and disingenuous, with bad motives. Once we demonize people, it becomes difficult to envision reconciliation as a possibility. 

Not being willing to consider reconciliation is to make a mockery of God's reconciliation with us and His call for us to be reconcilers. Speaking of church conflict, this is what Paul had to say to the Corinthians. "I appeal to you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Corinthians 1:10)." 

In Ephesians 4:1-6 Paul writes, "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Having said that, it may not be possible to reconcile and stay together. Sometimes it means that we part ways and speak well of one another.

Fourth, ground rules need to be established. One of the most incendiary fuels in all conflict is the absence of ground rules - what is acceptable and what is not. For a list of the ground rules that I recommend, see my blog, Negotiating church conflict in a healthy manner. Or, if you want to keep it very simple, look back at the passage in Ephesians 4:1-6, where he says to be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. When you think about it, these characteristics are almost always lacking during conflict. What gets in our way? Pride, wanting to get our own way, anger, and our emotions.

Five, you may not convince everyone. There are people who don't want to reconcile. There are people whose pride exceeds their humility, and they have no desire to seek a win-win solution. 

In working with churches in conflict, I don't do very much to try to convince the unconvincible, even if they have the loudest voices. 

I am seeking individuals who are committed to peace and reason and are willing to collaborate in promoting unity within the church. This does not mean that the issues that have caused disunity are swept under the rug. To the contrary, as principle two states, they are all on the table, and those that need to be addressed are addressed. To do that successfully, however, it requires men and women of peace and reason, whose personal agendas do not cloud their emotions.

Who is most likely to leave in a church conflict? Those who have taken a hard stand and cannot or will not compromise that stand. Frankly, it is good for them to leave because they will simply contribute to ongoing conflict if they are not willing to come together with the rest of the congregation.

Sixth: It is a process. Church conflict does not start overnight, and it does not get settled overnight. In some cases, it may take a year to bring the church back to health. The benefits of doing so far outweigh the trauma of either a church split (which damages churches for years to come), a power play by a faction in the church (which causes huge trauma to a church and a significant lack of trust), or not dealing with it at all, which dooms the church to later issues.

What is needed for a healthy process is a willingness of the congregation to work together, recognizing that how they handle their differences will either enhance or diminish the reputation of Jesus. If his reputation is at stake—and it is—I will do all I can to enhance it.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

Ten principles for handling conflict in the church

One of the observations I have made in working with churches that are experiencing conflict is that we generally don't do it very well. Conflict itself is not inherently bad, provided it involves differing ideas on how to accomplish our mission. The issue is always how we handle the conflict or our differences. It is poor handling of differences that gets us in trouble, not the differences themselves, which are merely differing perspectives on what should be done. That being said, here are some principles that can help us negotiate conflict or differences in a healthy manner.

One: Disagreement and expressing that disagreement is not wrong. Some are afraid to share their opinions because they have been told that to do so is gossip. It is not. All of us have the right to share our views in the church, provided we do so in a healthy manner. It is unhealthy to try to shut down discussion in the church. It is OK to talk. It's OK to express our views. It is OK to differ with others.

Two: Gossip is sin. Gossip is "idle talk or rumor, especially about personal or private affairs of others" (Wikipedia). Gossip differs from sharing our opinion, as it concerns the motivations or actions of others and is generally destructive in nature. Scriptures are clear that gossip is wrong. Gossip includes questioning the motives of others, passing along third-party information as fact, and denigrating others. Disagreement or stating our views is not gossip; it is simply expressing what we think.

Three. Robust dialogue is healthy. Robust dialogue means that we can discuss any issue, except for personal attacks or hidden agendas. There are differing views within congregations on a variety of issues. It is good to talk about those things, but to do so without personal attacks, hidden agendas, or language that inflames rather than informs. Healthy leaders invite healthy dialogue and listen to those who speak.

Four: Unity in diversity is critical. Unity within the body of Christ is a high value in Scripture. Congregations are made up of different views, opinions, social and ethnic backgrounds, but it is the Holy Spirit that binds us together as one. Each of us has the same Holy Spirit in his or her heart , and that spirit is a spirit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. If we live in His Spirit, we can have differences and still remain united as one body. As Paul put it in Ephesians 4:3, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."

Five: Being able to disagree and stay in relationship is good Emotional Intelligence and demonstrates the work of the Holy Spirit. Each of us has preferences and opinions on many things in the church. What we want to be able to do is state those positions while remaining in fellowship and friendship with those who hold differing positions. This is not always easy, but it is Biblical.

Six: By extension, marginalizing or demonizing those who disagree with us is bad Emotional Intelligence and does not reflect the Holy Spirit. It is one thing to disagree with someone. It is another to believe that they are bad people because they think differently and to allow our differences to shatter our relationships, trust, or to see them as evil. This does not reflect the will of the Holy Spirit.

Seven: Taking on the offense of others is foolish and wrong. My best friend has an issue with someone in the church, so out of friendship, I take up their offense and allow their issue to become my issue. This is foolish and wrong because I have allowed my friend to alienate me from others when I have no personal reason to do so. Nor can I resolve an issue that is not my issue. It happens in families and congregations, and it contributes to greater conflict.

Eight: The church is the Bride of Christ, and therefore, we must display the attitude of Christ toward one another even when we differ from one another. The church is unlike any other organization, for it is the Bride of Jesus and His chosen instrument for reaching the world. We of all people need to be His people in good times and in hard times. Paul writes in Philippians 2:4, "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." 

Nine: Forgiveness is often needed when we have conflict. We need not apologize for having differing views and perspectives but we do need to apologize when our words, attitudes or actions get the best of us and we say or do things that are not pleasing to God. I have often had to apologize in times of conflict. God is pleased when we keep short accounts and forgive those who need forgiveness and seek forgiveness when we need it.

Ten: Pray diligently! When we focus on ourselves we want to be right and win. When we focus on God we start to see those who differ with us in a different light and desire God to win. In prayer, our hearts are often softened and changed, our humility is increased and our desire for a Godly solution is heightened.

There will be conflict this side of heaven. Lets do all we can to handle it well.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

Six things a church board should not do when there is church conflict

One of the most difficult jobs of a church leadership board is to deal with differences of opinion within the congregation, especially when the issues are significant, sides are being taken by parishioners , and there may even be the possibility of a church split (whether that means many people leaving or the church literally splitting). 

Boards often respond to such situations just as a person does when attacked - with a defensive posture. Usually, it includes a circling of the wagons where there is a great deal of secrecy, the labeling of people who may disagree with their position as dissidents, an attempt to shut down discussion of the issues, and even intimidation through threats of "church discipline." In other words, just as each of us operates under challenging circumstances with either good or bad EQ, there is a corporate board EQ that responds either in healthy or unhealthy ways to church related issues. 

Ironically, while boards can point the finger at what they may justifiably (or not) label as behaviors of congregants as sinful or divisive, they can be equally guilty of the same behaviors. Of course, they can use the "authority" card, even when their behavior is not healthy.

I have several suggestions for boards who find themselves in this position.

One. Do not shut down legitimate discussion. Whenever we try to muzzle people, we are operating out of fear rather than from a position of health. Whenever there cannot be a free discussion of differences, while staying connected with one another, we are operating from fear. Healthy leaders both invite candid dialogue and strive for win-win solutions rather than win-lose outcomes. They are non-defensive, open, listen carefully, and work toward solutions that preserve the unity of the church. When boards circle the wagons, free dialogue is over.

Two: Do not marginalize people who disagree with you. This is a common behavior when one feels under attack. Rarely is this about whether those who disagree with us are sinful or righteous, but rather that we disagree on process or solutions. Often, division comes when one side or another takes a position that disenfranchises the other, rather than looking for ways to address the concerns of both sides. 

Three: Don't do it alone. When issues become magnified and positions become staked in the ground, you often need an outside facilitator who can help moderate a discussion. A skilled outside facilitator does not have an agenda and therefore can speak to both sides and help them come together. Resisting an outside voice is usually an indicator that we want our way rather than a win/win solution. 

Four: Realize that the more you spin the issues and try to manage people who disagree with you the more dysfunctional the debate will become. People don't like to be manipulated, and many boards that go on the defensive do just that with spiritual language, board "authority", and actions that put people in a corner. The more a board tries to "manage" the debate rather than allowing it to occur, the more dysfunctional the debate will become. Ironically, it is in trying to shut down discussion that the issues become even more problematic. When people don't feel heard, they will try all the harder to be heard. 

Five: Remember that you can split the church (the bride) simply by making it clear that "if you don't agree, you should leave." Many will not fight a board and pastor but feel forced out nonetheless. When people start redirecting their giving, for instance, it is usually done because they feel there is no other way to send a message to leaders about the direction of the church. Leaders who fail to recognize such signs are either in denial or foolish. I am always amazed by leaders (including pastors) who are willing to see large numbers of people leave who don't agree with them. They may get their way, but the conflict will never truly end, as those who leave will continue to have relationships back at the church they left. 

Six: You cannot move forward by marginalizing a segment of the church. Leaders need to honor the past as they build for the future. Being willing to sacrifice the past for the future is neither Biblical nor unifying. Yet it happens all too often. Ephesians 4:3ff is a good place to start in terms of how we see the folks in our congregations: 

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

Boards and other leaders who feel defensive need to live out the theology of unity. It takes wisdom and humility, but it is possible. And don't discount the possibility that the critics may see something you don't see. 

One caveat. If the conflict arises because someone in the congregation seeks to dominate and is stirring the pot to leverage their position, and if gossip and untrue statements are being propagated, leaders must address this and, if necessary, call it out. Intentionally causing division to get one's way is different than legitimate questions or differences of views.  On the other hand, often when I have mediated church conflict, some people saw issues that needed to be addressed, but were instead labeled as troublemakers because the board was unwilling to deal with the problem. Don't go defensive. Have an honest discussion.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

When we take on the issues of others rather than keeping our own counsel

Some of the most challenging situations I faced as an organizational leader involved individuals who would call my office angry, unhappy, and irrational over issues they had no firsthand knowledge of. They had taken up someone else's problem and gone on a crusade.

The reason these are such difficult situations is this. First, because they don't have firsthand knowledge, one cannot have a rational conversation about what really happened. All they know is what they "heard" happened, and in the context of anger, hurt, and raw emotions. Thus, this is not a conversation about facts but perceived facts and emotional reactions. Conversations that cannot be focused on objective facts are usually conversations that cannot be resolved. 

Second, the conversations are crazy-making because those who take up others' offenses usually do not reveal that fact. It is clear from the conversation that there is an underlying issue (someone else's offense), but it is never stated, making it challenging to address. If I sense there is an underlying issue, I will often probe as to what it is and try to get to the heart of the matter. Dealing with side issues does not help one resolve the real underlying issues. Unless that is put on the table, there is no resolution.

Third, since these conversations are not about facts due to the absence of firsthand knowledge, they ultimately become about perceptions and anger. Perceptions of others are usually wrong, and anger cannot be resolved without dealing with facts. And facts cannot be established without those with firsthand knowledge present. 

Finally, these are no-win conversations because those who take up the offense of others have no way to move on because they cannot resolve "facts." So while the person whose offense they picked up moves on eventually, those who picked up the offense do not and cannot.

When there is conflict, the goal must always be to achieve reconciliation. The goal is to come to an understanding and achieve a level of peace. When I take up someone else's offence, however, I am doing just the opposite, enlarging the conflict rather than minimizing it: I cannot solve it for others; my own anger spills over to others; I have no objectivity in the situation, and because it is not my issue, I cannot find resolution. It is a no-win situation and does nothing to bring reconciliation or peace.

Picking up someone else's offense is foolish, demonstrates poor EQ, and causes relational havoc beyond what is necessary. It is one thing to seek to help resolve an issue in a healthy and productive manner. But once you take up another's offense, there is no good way out.  

One of the hallmarks of good emotional intelligence is that we can empathize with others without getting enmeshed in their issues. This does not mean that we do not care, provide counsel, and support. It does mean that we don't allow the problems of others to become "our" issues. 

A key to this is what I call "keeping my own counsel." Everyone has a perspective on issues, but they are not always accurate or fair. It is their perspective. This is especially true in relationships. I often hear negative things about others. In line with keeping my own counsel, I seek to listen and, when appropriate, ask questions, but ultimately I must make my own judgments based on my own personal experience rather than on the perspective of others. It is not wise, fair, or healthy for me to simply take the opinions of others when my experience does not line up with theirs or when I have no firsthand knowledge. 

In addition, I want to avoid enmeshment because I cannot solve other people's issues for them. I can encourage them to resolve their issues with whoever they have those issues. I can offer to mediate a meeting between them for resolution. But ultimately, I am responsible for my problems and not for theirs. All manner of relational chaos is caused when I take up the offense of others without firsthand knowledge and based on their information alone. 

Getting sucked into the issues of others takes a relational breakdown between two people and multiplies it among others, where they were never part of the original breakdown and have simply taken on the stuff of others rather than keeping their own counsel. This is often the stuff of organizational conflict and church splits. What was an issue between two parties becomes an issue between multiple parties, and what was a minor problem now becomes a significant issue. What was complicated now has become exceedingly complex. What might have been resolvable is now often not resolvable.

When we have issues with others, we always have the choice as to whether we draw others in and seek to influence their opinion of the one we have problems with, or whether we keep our own counsel, seek to resolve the situation, but not to influence the opinions of others. It is not my place to hurt the reputation of others, but to ensure that my own behavior is healthy. 

This is all about demonstrating wisdom in our relationships with others, living with healthy emotional intelligence, and being peace makers rather than stoking conflict.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.