Should a church be run like a business?

Often when I work with church boards to clean up crazy making governance systems someone will be concerned that we are moving to run the church like a business. How does one answer that question when we know that a church is not a business?

The first part of the answer goes to the job description of elders (or the senior leadership board of a church). Unlike a business, their job is laid out in Scripture: Ensuring that the congregation is taught well, cared for, released into ministry, protected, and led in healthy directions. And, they have a ministry of prayer for the church (often not practiced much as they are so busy doing management stuff). So, the focus of their work is very different than is the bottom line of a business - adequate profits.

The second part of the answer is that the reason business organizes itself in efficient ways is to maximize their effectiveness and minimize the waste of time and energy. This ought to be true of church boards as well. Any governance system that helps us do what we do better for the sake of the mission of the church makes sense. The simple principle is that how we do what we do matters and our way of doing board work should serve what we are trying to get done.

Think of the issues faced by many church boards:

• Inability to make decisions in a timely manner.
• Long board meetings
• Revisiting decisions multiple times
• Lack of clarity on what is staff responsibility and board responsibility
• Not enough time to prayer and thinking as time is eaten up by administrative issues
• Preponderance of day to day management issues robbing the board of time to think about the future
• Lack of clarity as to where the church should be going
• Board members who hold up the process or violate board practices
• Lack of clarity on what the board is supposed to be doing
• Inability to move through agendas in a timely manner

All of these kinds of things are time and energy wasters which ultimately hurt the ability of the leadership to lead well and which ultimately hurts the ministry of the church. So, how well a board manages itself, creates systems for its work has a direct impact on the ministry effectiveness or lack of it for the entire congregation.

Thus my answer to the question to should we run a church like a business is no and yes. The no is that the job of elders is different than business leaders. The yes is that the governance systems may well look like those in a business because they are simply good practices that help you achieve what you want to achieve. Those good practices actually help you do what God has called you to do as leaders well. 

When business is not led well they go out of business. When churches are not led well they plateau and go into decline. How we lead matters in both business and ministry settings. We change our leadership practices in churches in order to maximize our ministry effectiveness. What we do in ministry is very different than in business. How we do it may look very much like how we do it in business.

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.

Symptoms of organizational non-alignment and signs of healthy alignment

The level of alignment within an organization is a direct indicator of its health, clarity and ultimately its ability to deliver on its mission. Thus it is worthwhile to consider symptoms of non-alignment as well as signs of healthy alignment. Think about the organization you lead or serve with as you consider these.

Symptoms of organizational non-alignment:

• There is little or no coordination of efforts between teams or ministries and often they do not know or care what others are doing.
• There is competition for resources and jockeying for position within the ministry and people guard their turf.
•  A common vocabulary is lacking.
• Active cooperation between teams and their leaders is rare or nonexistent.
• Members of various teams or divisions do their own thing without a cohesive ministry plan that everyone adheres to.
• Critical spirits and mistrust are common.

Signs of healthy alignment

• There is a common missional vocabulary that you hear from everyone in the organization.
• A great deal of interaction occurs between ministry leaders and team members as they pursue common goals, coordinate their efforts and actively support one another.
• Lone rangers (teams or leaders) don't exist and when they do occur, they are quickly brought into alignment and relationship with the whole.
• Rather than politics and turf guarding there is dialogue around issues and a concern for the health of the whole. 
• Teams and members speak well of one another in a highly collegial atmosphere.
• There is a high level of trust within the organization as a whole.
• Teams cooperate with one another, support one another and actively work together toward common objectives.

There is no doubt that alignment or the lack of it has a direct impact on the organizations culture and their ability to deliver on their mission. Which of these symptoms or signs describe the culture you work in?

The value of outside input into our ministries

This week I spent four days with key staff and an outside consultant probing areas of necessary growth and development for our organization. As one who does a fair amount of consulting I know the value of an outside voice that asks good questions, challenges the status quo and can help a ministry team think outside their usual parameters. They also bring the dimension of knowledge of what others are doing.


Too often in ministry we isolate ourselves out of fear (what if others discover what I don't know) or out of hubris (we don't need outside help). In either case we and our ministry loses. Humility and a commitment to learn is the attitude of healthy leaders and  they welcome the voices of others who can challenge prevailing thinking, ask the hard why questions, clarify issues that are not truly clear and help develop new ways of thinking, new tools for success and in doing so bring new insights to the table.


A consultant can be a fellow pastor or ministry leader that you respect and who has obvious expertise. It can be someone who you pay for their services. In my case, it is someone who normally consults for large businesses  in lean manufacturing and lean management who is helping us with what we call a Ministry Excellence initiative. We pay the going rate for his services and have over the past two years of relationship benefited immensely.


Humble leaders and organizations are committed to continuous learning, regular evaluation, ministry results, clarity of purpose, healthy teams and culture - all for the sake of seeing a maximum return on mission for Jesus and the mission He has called us to. 


To those who have never had an outside voice speak into your ministry I would say, overcome your fear or pride and try it. You will be surprised by the insights you gain and the ideas that are generated. All of us get stuck in our own ruts, habits, and assumptions. An outside voice can help you find new paths.

It's easier to plan than to execute

One of the challenges with many Christian ministry staff is the propensity to plan, plan and plan. Why? Because it is easier to plan than it is to execute. It is safer too! 

As long as one is planning nothing can go wrong! Also not much happens!

We tend to want to plan processes perfectly. It is a nice idea but it is impossible. What one does need to know is where one is going and what is going to be done to get there in the next one to three years.

If a plan cannot be explained on one sheet of paper (OK maybe a large sheet) it is too complex. Remember: ministry is complex; complexity is confusing; it is our job to clarify complexity. 

We need a plan but simple beats complex every time. Once we have a plan what we really need is a large measure of disciplined execution. 

Most ministries should do less planning and more execution - of a simple, understandable, reasonable plan.

Ever wonder why those long range planning exercises gather dust? They are too complex so they don't get done. Simple and workable is far easier to execute than complex. 

Can you put your organization's vision on ten power point slides with how you are going to achieve it? Try it. It will help you simplify your clarity. And it will help you get to action.

Leadership self evaluation

As a leader I have high expectations of those who work in our organization. These include integrity, being focused on our common mission, creating a healthy atmosphere for our staff to flourish and then small things like returning emails and phone calls. In fact, we have a short document called "expectations of a leader" that spell these out.


From time to time I need to evaluate myself to ensure that I am living by the same standards I expect of others. It is all too easy for leaders to develop a sense of entitlement that the rules do not apply to them. And we know that others will not generally call us on it - we are their leader. It doesn't mean they don't notice, however! 


Not only do staff notice but it directly impacts the opinion they have of their leader, either creating great trust and respect or cynicism and disrespect. It is easy for leaders to miss this point because no one is calling them on their failure to live up to the leadership expectations. 


Here is an interesting scenario. It is possible for a leader to be well respected outside his/her staff because they accomplish good things but have far less respect within their staff because those who know them the best don't see them living out staff expectations. The real test of our leadership is whether those who know us the best respect us because we keep the common commitments well. We live what we expect from others. 


From time to time I directly ask those who report to me if there are things I do or don't do that negatively impact them - or that they wish I would do differently. If there are areas where I am falling behind I want to know about it so that I can rectify my shortcomings. 


All of us have shortcomings but wise leaders ensure that they are living out what they expect of others. It is a matter of leadership!

Leadership challenge 101: managing our schedules

Managing our schedules so that they don't manage us is one of the most critical challenges every leader faces. Not only are leaders action oriented (we do stuff) but we face significant pressures from others for our time to say nothing of the many outside opportunities that come along. We find ourselves pulled and pressed and sometimes, don't have time for the most important things, or time at all!

If we are not careful, our schedules will manage us and it won't be pretty. If we can learn to manage our schedules life is a lot more productive. Leadership 101 is learning to schedule by priority in order to achieve the results we desire rather than to live accidentally. If you are a leader and struggle with your schedule you are in good company. We all do and learning to manage it better is key to maximizing our influence.

Managing our schedules starts with personal clarity about what we are called to do. There are people around us who have many ideas for what we could or should be doing (all good) but choices must be made and they need to be made on the basis of what we know is important for us. This presupposes that we have done the work of understanding who God made us to be, what He wants us to do and what is most important in our leadership role.

I know, for instance that I have four main responsibilities in my role. Having defined those, I am able to ensure that these key areas are not pushed aside by other activities and that they get scheduled first. 

Here are some practical pointers for managing one's schedule.

1. Identify what is important for you to do and what things others can and should do. As a rule, don't do what others can do.

2. Schedule ahead and ensure that the priorities for your work get scheduled first. Put in what is critical for you and then back-fill with other less important things.

3. Leave some margin so that the unexpected does not completely blow up your plans.

4. Talk to a trusted colleague about your schedule and allow them to weigh in on what is truly important and what is nice but ancillary. My wife can be irritatingly correct about some things I say yes to which she knows are not the highest priorities and which will steal my margin.

5. Evaluate your schedule monthly to ensure that the big rocks are being accomplished and not being pushed out by the sand and pebbles.

6. Get comfortable about saying no to nice opportunities that should not have your name on them. 

7. Think grey about opportunities until you need to commit to them. Doing so gives you the opportunity to think and pray them through without committing prematurely.

8. Always schedule in think time so that you are doing the leadership work of thinking for your team or organization. No one else will do your thinking for you. It is part of  what leaders do.

9. If you are consistently behind or missing obligations it is a sign that one needs to rethink the schedule and commitments. If it is important it should get done - on time (speaking to myself here).

10. Develop rhythms. Doing key work consistently develops habits that allow you to work efficiently.  

What characterizes great ministry organizations?

All of us desire to be part of a great organization. Who wants mediocre or average? A great organization can be a small local church, a large ministry or anything in between. But they are characterized by five key elements.

First, they have great clarity about what they are about and they focus on that clarity with a lazer like focus. Great organizations are not scattered but highly focused. That focus allows them to go after specific results and know when they have achieved their goals. Everyone in the organization is aligned around that focus and those goals. Great organizations are not distracted by all the things they could be doing but focused on the few things they must be doing.

Second, great organizations treat their staff well. They hire the best, compensate the best they can and empower staff to use their gifts and energies to achieve the goals without micromanaging. Staff morale is a significant marker of the health of any organization. 

No matter how strategic a ministry is, or how driven to meet their goals, if they do not treat staff well, develop them and have a high retention rate, one cannot claim to be a great organization. Staff culture and health is a major indicator of the true health of the organization. 

I recently stayed in a hotel in Kenya where I interacted with many staff. I asked all of them how they liked working for their organization and to a person they told me how happy they were with the General Manager and the empowered atmosphere he had created. At the end of two weeks I knew that this was a great organization just from watching and interacting with the staff. Staff culture reveals the true DNA of any organization.

Third, great organizations are team led and driven. The strongest organizations have strong leaders and strong teams. Teams provide far more synergy, energy and creativity than any one leader. Further, if that leader was to be hit by the proverbial "bus" there are others who can step in and continue on. Any organization that is dependent on one key leader is unlikely to be a great organization. The creation and deployment of teams is indicative of a collegial and empowered atmosphere.

Fourth, great organizations are always developing the next generation of leaders. I believe that the test of our leadership is not simply what happens when we are leading but what happens after we leave. Did we leave the organization stronger then when we came? Did we leave behind the next generation of leaders who could take the ministry to the next level? A culture of leadership development is a sign of a great organization. In making this a priority we are committing to the long term health of the organization rather than simply short term success.

Fifth, great organizations are led by humble, intentional leaders. This applies not only to the top leadership role but all the leadership roles within the ministry. Humble leaders create a culture of dependence on God and collegial work, knowing that life is not about them. Humble leaders create opportunities for others and develop others. Humble leaders are open and approachable. Humble leaders serve others rather than use others. Pride is incompatible with Christian leadership.

Core ministries, ancillary ministries and focus

I recently had a conversation with a ministry where I asked what was truly "core" and "central" to what they did? They looked at me with confusion and said "everything."  So I went at it a different way and asked, "If you had half of the money you now have, what ministries would stay and which would go?" Their answer to that question got them on the road to identifying what was truly core and central and what was in fact ancillary.


Scarce resources are often the thing that force us to make the choice between core and ancillary. When you have to choose you have to make decisions as to what is truly central and what is not.


Here is the truth. For most ministries, there are core and ancillary sub ministries. Knowing the difference is critical because the majority of your time, energy and budget should be focused on the core, not the ancillary. Furthermore, you need to know what is core and central and what is nice but non-essential.


One of Steve Job's upsides as a leader is that when he returned to Apple for the second time, he helped them focus on a few core products and shed what was ancillary. He knew that the organization could not deliver excellence over a broad number of products. He ruthlessly shut down what was not central and they focused on the few products that have made Apple a very wealthy company today.


Ministries pick up all sorts of ancillary activities like a duster picks up dust. New stuff sticks all the time, often diminishing the core ministries as energy and focus is spread ever thinner. Disciplined organizations are very clear about what is core and central and they resist the temptation to add new and novel ministries that might be good for someone but are not core for them. 


Here are some important questions to be able to answer with your ministry team:
1. What is central and core to what we do and what is ancillary?
2. Do the central and core ministries get the energy, focus and resources they should get?
3. Are there ancillary ministries that are diminishing our attention to the core ministries?
4. Do we need to refocus around our core ministries and shed what is ancillary?

Cheap can be costlier than you think

One of my frustrations in working with ministry organizations is their propensity to choose cheap over whatever it takes to do a job well. It is as if cheap is close to God's heart and anything else is extravagance and a waste of money. 

There is another guide that is neither cheap or extravagant. It merely asks the question, "What will it cost to solve this problem so that our needs are met well and we have stability in this area?" Doing it the cheapest way will usually neither meet needs or give stability. Paying more than we need to may be cutting edge but is often beyond what we need. 

Take a ministry that has struggled with technology for years. A solution would not be expensive as they are small but the lack of stability, connectedness and right software has cost them dearly in lost productivity and staff frustration! That lost productivity is far more expensive than if they had spent the money necessary to maintain a stable system. The difference is that the cost of an unstable system is hidden and can easily be overlooked.

Cheap also translates over to how we often do staffing in ministry. In our desire to save money we frequently hire at the lowest possible salary level and often (not always) get what we are willing to pay for in terms of experience and professionalism. What if we reversed that trend by paying competitive rates, hiring the very best and staffing lean? We would get a higher caliber of help, with greater capacity and need fewer people. Instead, when we hire at the lowest wage level possible we often end up needing more people.

Cheap is often far more costly than people realize. The shadow side of cheap is that it can get you the wrong people, solutions that don't work and hidden expenses that you cannot quantify but are surely there. And since when is cheap some kind of Biblical value? 

Instead of cheap, ask this question: "What will it cost to solve this problem so that our needs are met well and we have stability in this area?"

Ends, means and everything in between

I don't meet many leaders who at the end of the day don't claim that they want the best results for the organization or team they lead. To the best of their ability, their motivations are reasonable (who of us knows all of our real motivations?). However, I do meet leaders whose means of achieving their desired ends do not meet the ethical standards that we would want in the ministry world.

As leaders, we spend considerable time thinking about where we want to lead our organizations. Wise leaders spend an equal amount of time thinking through how they get to those goals and that their means are as noble as their goals. If we sacrifice the means for the ends we have sacrificed our credibility and often our personal ethics. Or, we skate the ethical edge.

The challenge for leaders in this are several.

First, leaders are focused on the end goals. If the end goals are right and healthy all is good. That focus, however, can manifest itself in impatience to get where we want to go quickly and quickly often means cutting corners. Those corners may be the violation of people - using them instead of serving them, or ethics or finances or any number of ways we can get to where we want to go. Getting to the right place is only one half of the equation. Getting there in a healthy manner is the other half. 

Second, leaders are usually pragmatic. In itself this is a good thing and a mark of a leader.  There are enough visionary leaders who don't know how to get from point A to point B to point C. However, there are pragmatic decisions and strategies that are ethical and healthy and pragmatic decisions that work but which are not ethical or healthy. Pragmatism that violates ethical standards, violates people or is simply unwise is unhealthy and will undermine the moral authority of leaders.

Third, leaders are often impatient. On one hand this can be healthy because without healthy impatience, nothing important is likely to get done. Inertia is ubiquitous since people like the predictable and comfortable while leaders should bring a sense of urgency to their organization. On the other hand, impatience can cause leaders to push faster and harder than the organization can reasonably move. Under pressure, people start using other people or choose to look away from questionable decisions or strategies under the guise of achieving our ends and getting there quickly.

The best leaders monitor carefully the ends they pursue and the means that the organization uses to meet those ends. Both are equally important and both require a great deal of thought and diligence. No ends, however noble, are worthy of means that do not meet the same noble and ethical standards.

Here are some questions leaders should ask all the time regarding the means to their ends:
1. Am I using people or serving and leading people? 
2. Is there anything we do that skirts ethical boundaries or could look to others like we are?
3. Do we always tell the truth no matter what?
4. If we had to open our financial books to Jesus, would He be OK with what he sees? Would those around us?
5. Do we have an open and candid atmosphere where others can ask questions, question decisions or share concerns?
6. Do I as a leader have any twinges of conscience regarding how we do what we do? 
7. Do I have a hard time explaining my strategies or decisions to others and having them understand and accept them?
8. Am I OK if someone questions me on an ethical, financial or staff matters?

Ministry promises

Organizations make promises. We make them when we hire. We make them when we talk about our organization. We make them when we communicate to our donors. We make them when we talk to our staff. We make them in our policies. If we preach, we make them in our messages. 


Staff members hear those promises whether they are implicit or explicit and they respect us when we keep them and grow cynical when we don't. Above all they expect us to be serious about the promises we make. As they should.


When we say "People are our most valuable asset" but don't develop them, empower them or treat them with dignity and respect our actions do not live up to our promises. If we talk about integrity but leaders do not display it in decisions they make we don't live up to our promises.


One of my deepest fears when we bring new staff into our organization is that they will find themselves in a situation where what we promise in our "sandbox" will not be what they find. In fact, at our recent bi annual leadership team meeting we spent the whole week discussing where we were in living out the promises and commitments of our sandbox (mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture). It was a "check/adjust" to ensure that we deliver on our promises.


Staff do not expect perfection but they do expect that we are consistent in keeping our promises to the best of our ability and where there are gaps working to close them. They need to know that we are serious about becoming who we say we aspire to be.


A simple way to know how well we are doing is to have honest dialogue with staff about how they perceive we are doing. Of course this means that we are able to receive that feedback with appreciation rather than defensiveness. Staff can give a perspective that leaders often do not see.


Think about the promises you or your organization makes implicitly or explicitly and evaluate how you are doing. The good thing is that there is always room for improvement.

Paradigm shifts and the job of leaders

Paradigm shifts are very hard for most people to grasp. It is not that they are necessarily resistant, lack intelligence or don't want better results. The truth is that we see through a lens that is familiar and the unfamiliar is hard to grasp, especially if it requires us to think differently. The challenge is that the familiar will often not take us into the future. The world changes, and as it does the familiar often becomes our enemy, not our friend.


Interestingly, when change around us is rapid, we often cling to the familiar because it provides us with stability when in reality the familiar is destined to keep us from meeting new opportunities in our changing world. Think General Motors or Kodak. While they clung to the familiar the world changed and they were caught unable to catch up. The familiar was their nemesis.


For example, in the world of missions, the familiar is particularly dangerous as many of the traditional models will not carry water in the future. There are major shifts needed if mission agencies are going to meet the needs of a color world. Local churches must also make shifts in how they view missions strategy. In both cases, the familiar is the nemesis of future success.


This does not mean that what we did in the past did not serve us well in the past. It does mean that ministries need to ask the question of what will best serve them in the future. The future will never look like the past so it is reasonable that much of our methodology in the future will be different than in the past. That means a change in the way we think about what we do and how we do it. It is true in business and ministry. 


The challenge is that we are so used to the familiar that we often do not even question our methodologies. In fact, we often don't even think it is necessary to ask questions about our methodologies which is the real danger. And sometimes, those who do ask the questions are seen as irritants because they are messing with the familiar.


Leaders have the responsibility to take the time to consider where ministries need to go to meet the challenges of the future. That takes time, reflection and a lot of questions. No one else will do it for them. Then, they need to help their staff understand the needs of the future and press into needed changes in paradigms that will help them get there. This takes great courage because it requires us to give up the familiar for the unfamiliar.


Helping staff transition to new paradigms is a necessary, time consuming and dialogue rich discipline. Leaders who do not have the courage to position their ministry for success in the future leave their organization in a deeply vulnerable position. Here is what I know. The future is not like the past so we need to ask what old paradigms need to go and what new paradigms need to be embraced. And then, how do we help our staff and organization embrace new ways of thinking.

The greatest compliment and greatest joy

I received the greatest compliment I could get today. It is not that I am a great leader or lead a perfect organization. But as a leader it is what I love to hear. One of our staff just completed his first hard year on the field in missions and told me how much he love being part of our organization. 


What it told me is that we had succeeded in helping him get into his sweet spot. He told me he worked for the greatest leader in the world (not me - his team leader) and that in spite of the challenges, he was so grateful to be part of our organization.


People are the greatest asset we have in ministry. When we treat them well, when we position them right, when we empower them significantly and when we make it possible for them to have significant impact, we create an environment that is designed to help people reach their full potential.


Leaders do a lot of things. One of the most important things they do is to create an environment where staff can flourish. When they flourish we flourish. When they don't we don't.  When they win we win.


I love creating an environment where people can be their best. It is one of the top responsibilities of leaders. What we do is not about us but about how we serve those who work for us. The most important service is creating an environment where people flourish.


I cannot take the credit because we have a great team. But I know that we are on the right track when those who make up our wonderful staff are deeply fulfilled. That makes my heart happy.

Increase collaboration and innovation by eliminating unnecessary silos

Recently I had a great day moderating a discussion with a ministry about how to increase collaboration and innovation. They had been a highly compartmentalized (think silos) ministry where it was almost impossible to cross departmental lines to work synergistically. 


The irony is that when one got the right people around the table ideas flowed quickly for a full day. And, individuals who had not been able to collaborate freely in the past actually had skills that complemented one another. They are in the process of removing the roadblocks that had kept them siloed and are very excited about the prospects.


In a world that ought to be flat it is unfortunate that there are still many organizations which do not encourage, or even mandate synergistic collaboration regardless of the department they reside in. There may well be good reasons for different departments but there is no good reason for a paradigm that prevents or does not encourage collaboration across those departmental lines.


Here is the rule. The more compartmentalized an organization is the less synergistic collaboration they will have and the less innovation they will experience. Neither are preferred outcomes.


This is especially important today in a day when financial resources are less available meaning that effeciencies are more critical. Those effeciencies are often found in finding ways to maximize the intellectual capital of the organization, regardless of where it resides.


Another factor is that departments and people get into ruts in their thinking. When you bring in new talent from the outside (another department) you bring in someone who can look at problems and options with new eyes. 


Innovation and solutions are always better when done with the best intellectual talent possible. But that means collaboration and every organization either affirms and encourages it or does not. Hint: when leaders model it, others often follow suit.

Three questions regarding your mission

Every good organization has a mission statement. In a really good organization everyone knows the mission statement. It's like a law of the Medes and Persians, you have to have one so we all do. I have helped many organizations develop theirs. So here are three questions regarding the mission statement of your ministry.


First, do you believe in your mission statement? I mean passionately believe that what your mission states is what your organization is called to do. 


Second, how would you honestly evaluate how your ministry is doing in fulfilling that mission? My observation is that there are often massive disconnects between many mission statements and real results. I realize that mission statements are by definition long view statements but nonetheless, what grade would you honestly give the organization you are a part of for results on that mission? Often, the organization is not even configured to actually fulfill the mission except in very general or tangential ways. 


Third, what would it take in organizational realignment to actually deliver well on your mission? Think of a mission as a big arrow pointing in a specific direction. Then think about every part of your organization or ministry and ask whether all the subsidiary arrows are pointed in the same direction as the mission or whether there are many arrows pointed in other directions - doing nice things but not directly contributing to the big arrow.


Now let me go back to question one. Many organizations that have a mission are not really passionate about that mission even when they say they are. How do I know? They are not willing to align all parts of the organization so that all the arrows go in the same direction as the mission. That is when you know the organization - and leadership is passionate. Multi directional arrows are not about mission alignment or fulfillment. 


Missions are meaningless unless the whole organization is truly aligned around that mission. 

Empowered Structures

We pay far too little attention to the structures that we have in our churches and organizations for decision making. No matter how good our organizational clarity and  how competent our leaders and people, when the structures that one must negotiate to make decisions - or to organize staff - or work with a board get clunky, they hold up ministry, waste precious time and energy and demotivate otherwise good leaders.


Eventually, unfriendly structures can actually kill a ministry or company as GM found out prior to filing bankruptcy. I have watched churches that were shining lights at one time go into slow decline because their staff and governance structures were not brought into alignment with new realities. 


Let's consider staff structures. One church I am watching from a distance has a considerably large staff which has never been unified around common goals or direction. Led by fairly competent individuals, they have simply done their own ministries for decades. The end result is a staff with zero alignment, turf wars, confusion over who is responsible for what, lack of a common voice and when the church got into crisis, chaos. And this is a church that many would recognize by name in our country. 


Yesterday I did a church consultation in Europe and staff were begging for greater clarity about reporting relationships, who was setting direction and how to achieve alignment. The lack of these things in a growing and effective ministry is causing frustration for staff who in the process feel under appreciated and unempowered.


Structures at the leadership level are no less important. Here is the question: How easy is it for you as a leader to make timely ministry decisions and how many groups do you need to go to in order to do so? When the decision making process becomes frustrating you know it is time to tune up the process. This involves getting your board structure in sync, eliminating additional boards or committees that you need to negotiate with and simplifying your governance system. For those of you who have ever been through the Chicago area with its toll roads, it is moving from toll booths to easy pass. 


Staff and ministry structures matter because their either impede or help effective ministry. If you have issues with either one, take the time to address it. The positive impact of doing so will be significant.

Church board self assessment: Fifteen Questions

If you are a church board member, how would you rate the quality of your board's work? As one who consults with church boards I am encouraged by the concern of many board members to raise the bar when it comes to the leadership and governance of their board. For many boards there is still much to do and for all boards, honest self evaluation is a critical factor in leading at a higher level.

Here are some basic questions that can help a board rate its current work and look for areas where they can do better. What I suggest is that each board member answers these questions with one of three colors: Red, yellow or green. 

Red means that the board is not performing well at all in an area. Yellow means that improvements could be made. Green means that things are going well. Remember, you are looking for areas where you can improve so yellow and red are not bad colors in themselves. What you do with the yellows and reds is the critical question. Visual management is helpful so I would actually encourage you to use colors in answering these questions.

These fifteen questions should spark some good, candid and robust dialogue among board members. Be honest, listen to one another and ask the hard questions of yourselves so that you can go to the next level.

1. Our board meetings start and end on time and there is always a clearly defined agenda. Red/Yellow/Green

2. Our board is able to engage in robust dialogue around any issue as long as there are no personal attacks or hidden agendas. There are no elephants we cannot discuss. Red/Yellow/Green

3. We have a written board covenant that defines how we operate together and we keep that covenant. Red/Yellow/Green

4. We spend more time thinking about the future than we spend on current issues. Red/Yellow/Green

5. We delegate management to staff and stay focused on the big rocks of direction and health. Red/Yellow/Green

6. We insist that our staff operate with a clear annual ministry plan. Red/Yellow/Green

7. Our senior pastor has a clear annual plan which forms the basis of an annual review. Red/Yellow/Green

8. Our board itself has an annual plan in how they will grow in their leadership and governance. Red/Yellow/Green

9. Our board has a clear job description as to its responsibilities and role and all new board members are clearly trained in those responsibilities. Red/Yellow/Green

10. Our board has a clear picture of what they desire the church to become and has clearly articulated this vision to the congregation. Red/Yellow/Green

11. We candidly evaluates the health of the church based on that clearly articulated vision. Red/Yellow/Green

12. We do not ignore real issues that exist on staff or in the congregation because of conflict or issue avoidance. Red/Yellow/Green

13. The leadership structures of our church are designed to help leaders lead easily and make decisions quickly. Red/Yellow/Green

14. We regularly spend time in concerted prayer for the ministry and needs of the congregation. Red/Yellow/Green

15. We guard the gate of leadership so that we get the best leaders who are wired to lead and to keep the spiritual temperature of the church high. Red/Yellow/Green

With over thirty years of working with boards I am available to help your board be the best they can be. Whether remotely using technology or in person, together we can make substantial strides toward healthier and more missional board work.

As the author of High Impact Church Boards I have worked with thousands of board members to ensure that the right people end up on an organizations board, that the board is intentional in its work and that the culture of the leadership system is empowering rather than controlling. Cost is kept to a minimum by using technology like Go To Meeting, or I can join you in person for governance training or retreat.

I can be contacted at tjaddington@gmail.com or 612.868.0487. I look forward to talking to and working with those who desire to raise the level of their board's effectiveness. 

Is your ministry team a track team or basketball team?

Many ministry staffs operate as if they were a track team. In track, there are many different events and each event gives the team opportunity to make points for itself but by in large each individual operates alone: javelin, the mile, half mile - all the various events. At the end of the day they may win the prize but they won it by individual contribution primarily.

Contrast that with a basketball team where five individuals on the court must work as one. In fact those who try to work individually generally kill the effectiveness of the team. Seamlessly, they pass the ball, block, watch for open teammates who can take the ball and score. One of the joys of watching college or professional basketball is the amazing synergy and cooperation of the team.

Now think of the ministry team you play on. Do you look like a track team where everyone is doing their thing - good in itself but fairly unrelated to others, or a basketball team of synergistic, cooperative individuals who are playing the same game rather than separate games?

Most church staffs I meet are playing track. The great ones are playing basketball. The first you can do on your own. The second only with others. 

Robust dialog: Creative conflict that raises the level of missional discourse

Over and over again I run into teams, organizations and groups that do not know how to have candid, honest, robust discussion. As a result there are many elephants in the room that cannot be discussed and which create an underlying mistrust within the group - that is what elephants do. 

Lets define robust dialogue. It is the ability to address any issue in the  team or organization as long as there are not hidden agendas or personal attacks. No personal attacks keeps the discussion at the strategic or organizational level. No hidden agendas means that we are upfront with why we are asking the question or pushing into an issue. Hidden agendas create mistrust while being honest and direct creates trust. 

Unfortunately there are plenty of people who agree with robust dialogue but who are operating with hidden agendas - behind the scenes maneuvering and politics hidden behind a facade of wanting to solve a problem or address an issue. In reality they have an agenda as to where the discussion ends up and they are maneuvering the end result toward their intended ends. This is neither fair nor helpful.

The very concept of robust dialogue where any issue can be put on the table as long as there are no hidden agendas or personal attacks is that it is in the strong discourse of different ideas and options that we actually get to solutions that are better than any of us would have come up with individually. But - there must be an ethos on the team, modeled by the leader that it is not only OK but it is valued to put issues on the table (graciously) that need to be addressed.

What prevents robust dialogue? First, leaders who are threatened by anything negative being said - and they perceive any potential criticism as negative. Frankly, that is poor leadership and I would never again work for a leader who was threatened by robust dialogue.

Second, elephants that everyone knows cannot be addressed because the group cannot handle talking about the issue. I was recently with a board that told me there were many elephants in the room that they have not been able to talk about for years and it was those elephants that were keeping them from moving forward. I asked what they were and we proceeded to name them. Once named, elephants are no longer elephants but issues that need to be resolved. Wherever elephants exist, there is not true robust dialogue.

Third, fear keeps some groups from engaging in honest dialogue. The fear is around what it might do to the dynamics of the group. Feeling good about one another and about the ministry takes precedence over honest evaluation of where things really are. Feeling comfortable trumps missional fulfillment. This is where many groups need to grow (up) and put mission before comfort and press into missional health and fulfillment.

Why is robust dialogue so important? Because it is in the conflict of ideas that we come to new solutions and ways of thinking. Those new solutions would never have emerged without the intellectual capital and clash of ideas. That is why ministries that invite and encourage robust dialogue are those who are on the cutting edge of change and effectiveness.

Subjective and objective organizational clarity

One of the most frustrating paradigms for staff to work under is subjective clarity. This is organizational clarity that exists in the mind of a leader rather than clearly defined on paper clear with staff. With subjective clarity, in order to know what is acceptable or not, what directions to pursue or strategies that are "OK" one needs to talk to the leader. The organizational clarity is essentially what is acceptable to them but since it is not spelled out one either must ask permission or forgiveness after the fact (if they get it wrong).


Subjective clarity by definition means that one has a permission withholding culture in the organization. One cannot move forward without the permission of the leader since we cannot read his/her mind. If you get it wrong there is often the duplication of effort as you must go back to redo what was previously done, but this time in the way the leader desires. Subjective clarity is a moving target that disempowers staff, makes the leader a bottle neck in decisions, allows him/her to micromanage and frankly is the sign of either a poor or immature leader.


Objective clarity is clarity that is clearly defined for all staff, understood by staff and is the "measure" they go back to when thinking about what they do and how they do what they do. It is clarity around things like mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture with commonly held definitions of what they mean and how they are articulated. 


This takes the organizational clarity out of the subjective realm of the leader's mind and puts it in an objective form that all can go back to for direction, guidance and decision making. With objective clarity, one moves to a permission granting organization where staff can move forward without constantly consulting their leader because they know what the ground rules are. In addition, the how of what they do is largely left up to them as long as they achieve the mission of the organization.


There are many organizations who do not yet operate with objective clarity. This is especially true in the church where the senior pastor has whatever subjective clarity he has in his head and staff must go through him on all major initiatives. It works, to a point, but it is permission withholding and it disempowers staff. Getting to a commonly held clarity is a far better route to take and attracts much better long term staff. They know what the mission is and what the non negotiables are.


If you are in the subjective side, make the transition to the objective side. Subjective clarity is actually not clarity. It is simply the thinking of one person at the time they are asked. It is arbitrary and inconsistent. 


If you need more information on getting to clarity, Leading From the Sandbox, chapters two, three and four are focused on that topic.