Church culture trumps everything!

I had an interesting conversation with a pastor recently who said to me, "Church culture trumps everything including Scripture and my preaching." He pastors a church that has been around for many years and his comment reflects the truth that the longer a church is in existence, the stronger its culture - for good or bad.

Most church cultures are not intentional but rather the influence of its founders, pastors, history, power dynamics, and a host of other factors. The culture usually includes some deeply held values (not the ones written down) that dictate how it operates. In one church I attended, for instance, one of the deeply held values and practices was not to resolve conflict but rather to ignore issues and hope they went away. It was part of the culture and didn't work out too well!

Church cultures can be exegeted and understood. In my book, High Impact Church Boards I suggest a number of questions to explore that can help you understand your congregation's genetic code.

• What do you know about the founding of your church? How do you think the motives and attitudes present in the church's founding - positive or negative - affect the church today?
• What was the philosophy of those who started your congregation? Is it the same today, or has there been a significant shift in mission, vision, or ministry philosophy? How did this shift happen?
• How do people in the church navigate disagreements? Would you give your congregation high or low marks for handling conflict? Do you see patterns here?
• Are you aware of any significant unresolved issues within your congregation? What are they, and why do you think they have not been resolved?
• How would you evaluate the unity of your leadership board? Does your board have a history of unity and love, even when faced with differences, or is there a history of conflict and broken relationships?
• If your congregation faced significant periods of conflict in the past, what do you know about these periods? Is it possible to see trends in either the causes or how the conflict was handled?
• When you consider leadership, now or historically, who has the major influence? Does the church board allow any individual (elected leaders or nonelected persons of influence) veto power over decisions made by the board or congregation? How has the power and influence structure of the church changed over the years?
• Think about the major changes the congregation has made, whether related to ministry philosophy, location, ministries or staff. Does the congregation respond to suggested changes easily, with great resistance - or somewhere in between?
• Are there any subjects, people or situations related to the ministry of your church that are off-limits for discussion? If so, why do you think these "elephants in the room" cannot be named? (High Impact Church Boards, pp. 81-82).

Once one understands the dynamics that made the church what it is in terms of culture, it is possible to craft a preferred culture that is intentional, rather than accidental. Every organization has a culture. The question is whether it was intentionally designed or "just is" as an aggregate of many factors in the past. If you are a church leader, are you able to define the culture of your church and the influences behind that culture? 

Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the companion book, Leading From the Sandbox describe a paradigm for designing an intentional, healthy, God honoring church or organizational culture and how to make it a reality. While existing cultures are deeply embedded, as my pastor friend suggested, it is possible to change and modify church cultures with intentionality in the process. Not only is it possible but necessary if the church is going to be everything God designed it to be.

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?

Keystone habits that can change organizational culture

Eight years ago when I assumed leadership of ReachGlobal, the international mission of the EFCA I made two decisions that would radically impact the culture of the mission. The first was that we were going to place a very major focus on health: healthy staff, healthy teams and healthy leaders. The second was that we were going to develop, empower and release healthy national leaders wherever we worked.


While I knew that these two decisions were the right decisions for ReachGlobal I did not know how foundational they would be for the organizational culture long term.  I am currently reading Charles Duhigg's groundbreaking book on The Power of Habit: Why we do what we do in Life and Business, where Duhigg defines these kinds of decisions as Keystone habits which while seemingly insignificant in themselves (who would argue with healthy individuals, teams and leaders?) have a lasting and long impact on the organization's culture.


The focus on health forced us to re-evalutate our screening processes for potential missionaries and we actually shut the process down for six months to rebuild it from the ground up. It allowed us to deal with some staff who were disruptive to others.


It also spawned a new way of mentoring and coaching, team training, supervisor training and a redefinition of what leadership in the organization was about. That one directional decision touched everything we did and how we did it. My book "Leading From the Sandbox" defines our approach to leadership and teams all in line with that one directional decision.


The focus on developing, empowering and releasing healthy national workers wherever we worked shifted the focus from what we as missionaries could do to how we could help others do what they could do better than us. Again, that seemingly small keystone habit changed our whole approach to mission strategy.


I would encourage all those who lead to read Duhigg's book. But I would also encourage leaders to think carefully about what key habits should define your ministry culture and realize that you can intentionally change or redefine your culture for the better by a few key directional decisions. That is, if you have the resolve to see them through. 


What I have learned is that it does not take many decisions to actually redefine one's culture. It usually takes one or two that you believe in fully and have the resolve to stick to no matter what. 


People understand that you are actually serious and that it is not the flavor of the month when you make hard decisions that are in alignment with those directional decisions (keystone habits) you have resolved to live out. In the early days of my leadership and still today I tell staff "Do not question my resolve" to see these things become reality.


All organizations have a culture that is either intentionally created or accidental. Intentional is far better than accidental. In fact, there may well be habits in an organization that are unhealthy and which should be replaced by new habits. Understanding what is and what should be is part of the job of a leader.

A connected world with siloed ministries: Why?

We live in a connected world. More so than ever before and it is growing rapidly. But churches, denominations, mission agencies and other ministries are still disconnected, siloed and living in their own small universe. Why?


Talk to any business leader and they will tell you about alliances with other businesses across international borders. Talk to non-profits and they will describe the interconnected nature of what they do. Why? Because they realize that they can do more through strategic alliances and connections than they can alone. It is a very connected world.


Then talk to most denominational officials, local church pastors and mission agencies and they look at you with puzzled eyes when you ask them about their strategic alliances with others - or cooperative efforts. And they (we) work for the Lord of the universe whose Kingdom needs no competition but huge cooperation. Once again, the church and missions are decades behind the rest of society and poorer because of it.


The day of ministry brand loyalty to the exclusion of other brands should be over. The day of ministry brand cooperation needs to start. It is a connected world and those connections can make all of us healthier and more fruitful. 


As in business alliances, this does not mean one loses their identity and certainly one chooses with whom they want to be connected but they do so for a higher kingdom purpose and are willing to set aside the lesser things that divide us for the greater purpose that unites us - the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the expansion of His Church and Kingdom.


In the old world, connection was hard and often impossible. That was in the pre-globalized black and white world. In the new world the whole world is connected - with the exception of most ministries. Yet today it is not only easy but necessary. No church or denomination can reach a whole city. We need connection. No mission can reach a city, region or country. We need connection. 


How connected is your ministry - beyond itself: With other ministries in common ministry pursuits? How connected is your mission with other missions in common mission pursuits? 


The advances of connection in today's world are a great gift to the church if the church will take advantage of it. The petty differences that divide many of us should be set aside for the sake of the Gospel and the advance of His Kingdom. Our own egos and ambitions need to be set aside for the sake of Jesus's name and reputation and Gospel.


I have 2600 friends on Facebook from all over the world (the introverts strategy of being an extrovert). When will ministries connect that way in a connected world? It is worth thinking about and praying about. 

It's not my job! Sometimes it is

There are many things in the organization I serve that are not my job - very many! 

Empowered ministry organizations don't get in the way of others or disempower them by doing what they should be doing unless there is a very good reason. That includes allowing others to make decisions you would not make and to learn from mistakes they might make. Much of what we learn in life is through our own "dumb tax."

Having said that, it is easy to so focus on what is our job that we neglect what is all of our jobs.

It is all of our jobs to see that what we do is integrated into the whole. My job does not live in isolation from others but must be part of a whole. That means that I have to think of the whole picture even as I concentrate on what I am responsible for.

It is all of our jobs to care about what is best for the ministry as a whole. What is best for me and my division is never the question. What is best for the ministry as a whole is always the question and my decisions must be made in light of the whole.

It is all of our jobs to be in alignment with one overall mission. I don't have my own mission but am a part of a common mission. Too often ministries are made up of sub ministries with their own mission leaving the overall mission hostage to multiple missions without an overall focus.

It is all of our jobs to do what we need to do to see the ministry succeed. If my part of the ministry flourishes but the ministry itself does not, I have not been successful. It is when the ministry flourishes that we are together successful. 

It is all of our jobs to engage in the kind of dialogue that will help the ministry get to where it needs to go. I cannot hunker down and stay silent on issues that impact the ministry. I am responsible along with other leaders to see the whole, care about the whole and discuss those issues that impact the whole.

You see a trend here? There are some things that are our jobs. There are many things that are all of our jobs. You may want to have a conversation with your teams as to what is everyone's job.

The single greatest ministry accelerator: It is not what you think!

The single greatest ministry accelerator is overlooked by many leaders. It is not a great strategy. It is not working harder or doing more. It is not having the right people (although that is important). It is not a charismatic leader (and does not require one). It does not require money. 

It is clarity! 

Many leaders miss this and expend a lot of energy in the wrong places. Getting to clarity is the single greatest accelerator of ministry there is. But it requires time, careful thought and constant reinforcement. It is actually the most important thing a leader does - or fails to do.

Lack of clarity leaves personnel to their own devices to figure out what is important, and different individuals will come up with different answers leaving the organization without a focused, aligned ministry. General focus yields general results with general accountability and general effectiveness.

Without maximum clarity, an organization will never have integration or alignment (around what?), will not attract the best people who want to know what they are giving their lives to, will not know when they have achieved success (what results are we seeking?) and leaders will not know how to intentionally lead their teams (toward what?) or have a clear means of making key directional decisions.

It is not necessarily an easy task to achieve clarity but getting there is the single most powerful accelerator to ministry results and organizational alignment. While a leader must take responsibility for helping the organization get to clarity, it is essential that the key stakeholders (boards and key leaders depending on the structure of the organization) take part in the process and are in complete agreement.

Without clarity one cannot lead well. With clarity, your leadership becomes much easier because there is focus and common direction for you, your team and the organization. Maximum clarity changes the leadership and organizational equation in a huge way.

The four areas were maximum clarity are crucial are these:

Clarity on mission: what we ultimately are committed to accomplishing.

Clarity on guiding principles: how we are committed to working.

Clarity on the central ministry focus: what we need to do every day - and do it well to accomplish our mission.

Clarity on the culture of the organization: An intentionally created culture that makes it possible to accomplish your mission.

If you have not gotten to clarity you may want to look at chapters 2,3, and 4 of Leading From the Sandbox. There is a path laid out there that can help you.

Seven Habits that kill a great staff even in a good church

This is a great article for those of you who have staff. Short, to the point and right on. Even good churches can disempower their staff. Written by Artie Davis at artieDavis.com
http://artiedavis.com/2012/07/17/7-habits-that-kill-a-great-staff/

Hidden agendas and passive aggressive behavior

Have you ever worked with someone who is passive aggressive? Probably all of us have. What lies behind this behavior are hidden agendas - a desire to get somewhere on some issue that is kept hidden rather than stated up front. What is unhealthy about the behavior is not the agenda itself - all of us have them, but the fact that an individual is not willing to be honest about their agenda with others.


Hidden agendas and passive aggressive behavior are actually a form of dishonesty that destroys trust. It is dishonest in that the actual agenda of an individual is unstated and hidden. Therefore it is not possible for others to address it. Either they must guess at the agenda or they figure it out from behaviors but it is still difficult to put on the table because it is unstated. 


In our organization we have a principle called Robust Dialogue where any issue can be put on the table with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas. The reason there cannot be hidden agendas is that you cannot have honest dialogue when they are present. What you actually have is a surface dialogue with other issues underlying the conversation that remain unstated.


Hidden agendas are often a way of trying to outmaneuver or undermine another individual without stating it. When this happens on church boards or teams it creates an underlying conflict in the group which may or may not be recognized but it is surely felt. 


I was once called by a pastor who had a former leader in his church pushing him to take a sabbatical. He and the board were thinking that maybe it was a good idea. After asking a few questions it became clear that this individual had a history of undermining the senior pastor. 


In dialogue it became clear that he most likely had a hidden agenda in his suggestion - getting the senior pastor out of town so that he could undermine his leadership. He clearly had an agenda that he was not stating and that was therefore dishonest. Rather than stating his issues up front he was maneuvering from behind. 


This is why healthy organizations make it clear that in their culture they will not tolerate hidden agendas and call people on it when they exhibit passive aggressive behavior or there is indication that there is an agenda behind the stated agenda. We are too lax in allowing behaviors that are toxic and unhealthy. Rather we ought to set a standard and then hold people to them. It may be something you need to talk with your organization, board or team about.

The test of a leader's humility and openness

Both in my consulting role and my organizational leadership role I work with team leaders and their direct reports. One of the things I am always looking for is how honest, candid, direct and transparent team members can be with their leader. It is a barometer of several things: the health of the senior leader; the health of the team and the health of the organization as a whole.

How is this a barometer of the leader? Let's be candid. The only reason that certain issues cannot be discussed with freedom with a leader, whether in a group setting or one on one is that the leader's insecurities prevent it. To the extent that I as a leader am unwilling to hear candid feedback from others on any topic, the gaps in my own emotional intelligence are showing. Obviously I have something to lose by discussing the issue or have something to prove by being right on the issue. 

Leaders set the culture of openness or lack of it for their team. In our organization we have a stated goal that there are no elephants that cannot be named (elephants are issues that people are afraid to bring up). Once named it is not an elephant anymore but simply an issue to be discussed and resolved. We also operate by a motto of "nothing to prove and nothing to lose." If I have nothing to prove or lose I am free to hear whatever my team wants to discuss without needing to be defensive or right.

How is the the barometer of the health of a team? Very simply, when a team cannot engage in robust dialogue where any issue can be put on the table with the exception of personal attacks and hidden agendas, it cannot maximize its effectiveness. This is because it is often the topics that are off limits are the very topics that must be resolved if the ministry is going to be all that it can be. Every issue that cannot be discussed is an issue that will hold the ministry back in some area. 

I suggest that teams operate by a team covenant which spells out how they operate with one another, the ability to be candid and define the culture by which they will operate. Healthy teams deliver healthy ministry.

It should be obvious by now how this is a barometer of an organization as a whole: Healthy organizations are open, candid and humble organizations who are always looking to improve their return on mission and invite their staff to help figure that out. Closed organizations are fearful organizations. Open organizations are free and therefore invite the best from their staff in ideas, dialogue, feedback, innovation and synergy.

How well are you doing in the area of humility and openness. Can you talk about it as a team?

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.

Transformational Leadership

There is much discussion around the issue of transformation today, as there should be. One thing that we often overlook is that ministries are  often deeply in need of transformation and renewal as well and it is the job of leaders to see that happen. I call this transformational leadership.

Transformational leadership in the Christian ministry arena is the deliberate creation of healthy, empowered, Spirit led, collegial and effective ministries. It is the opposite of managing the status quo. Instead, the transformational leader sees his or her job as bringing transformation to all areas of the  organization where malaise, bureaucracy, lack of Spiritual sensitivity, unempowement, lack of missional clarity or alignment and focused results has crept in. This is not a one time thing but an ongoing concern. Organizational renewal is always ongoing.

It is organizational change designed to breath life, spiritual vitality, missional clarity and focused results into it. The transformational leader applies the principles of spiritual transformation into an entire ministry organization. On the individual side they create a culture where spiritual transformation is encouraged and on the organizational side they create a culture where spiritual vitality and missional clarity can flourish.

All good leaders are change agents toward healthy organizational structures, cultures and ethos where individuals can flourish and be all that they were made  to be. Because organizations slide toward institutionalism and comfortable, leaders are constantly ensuring that they stay missional and focused. When a leader ceases to be a transformational leader they cease to be effective.

Transformational leadership starts with leaders who make transformation in their own lives a priority. One cannot take others where one has not been themselves. They are then deliberate in creating the healthiest environment within the ministry or team that they lead. 

Are you a leader or a transformational leader and what does that look like for you and your organization? Where is your organization in need of renewal?

Organizational pride and humility

Pride is not only an issue for individuals but for organizations as well. Ministries can be prideful or humble and while it is not always seen on the inside, it is usually evident from the outside.


Take a church, for instance, that experienced great success in its past. It was well known and looked up to. Years later when it has passed its prime the leaders and congregation still think of themselves as "that" church that had once been - proud of who they are when in fact they are long past that era and in serious need of change and renovation. What keeps them from that change? Pride!


Organizations tuat are proud become organizations that stop learning, listening to others, and become stuck in whatever era it was that saw their greatest success. Humble organizations are the opposite. They know they have a lot to learn, know that times and circumstances change and are always looking for ways to learn and grow.


Pride is as destructive to ministry organizations as it is to individuals. It inflates importance and therefore decreases a humble attitude of learning,. It overvalues itself and undervalues others. In doing so it becomes insular and sees no need to cooperate with others. After all, it has a corner on the ministry market. 


And it is a dangerous place to be because that corner is an illusion and the moment we stop learning, cooperating and valuing others our own decline is set in motion. We may not know it for a number of years but it will set in. 


I want the organization I lead to be the best that it can be. But that best is predicated on being a humble, learning, cooperating, giving and servant organization. Pride destroys effectiveness while humility promotes it.

Unempowered, unhappy and undervalued staff

I have met my share of people in ministry positions recently who have been working for unempowering leaders, hierarchical structures, controlling leaders or who have been sidelined or unappreciated by the leadership structure above them. 

They feel like they are swimming upstream, their voice is not heard, that they cannot use their gifts to the fullest and while they love the ministry mandate of their organizations they feel like they no longer fit. It is a sad commentary on many ministry cultures. In many cases the controlling and unempowering culture causes great pain to those who are caught in its grip.

Whenever I have conversations with folks like this I think of the great waste of ministry potential, the frustration factor for good staff and the net loss to the kingdom. I cannot help think that God may hold leaders accountable for not fully releasing other ministry personnel for the sake of His kingdom.

What is more sad is that the leaders who cause this dysfunction don't even know they are doing it, or don't care. I have had leaders tell me how happy their staff are but when I ask some questions of those staff I find a radically different story. It is clear to me that the leader has assumed much and probed little. 

One of the trends I am watching is high quality staff who are leaving these dysfunctional cultures in their fifties as they realize that life is short and they want to be in a place where they can experience convergence between their gifts, God's call and an empowered ministry culture. 

The beneficiaries of those moves are ministries that value their staff, create empowered cultures, collegial teams, and value the gifts, voice and ideas of their ministry colleagues. For those who have been in the bondage of dysfunctional or unempowered ministries it is a breath of fresh air.

If you are a leader and value your staff, think about the culture you are creating. If you are a staff member in the wilderness of unempowered cultures, know that there are ministries that will release you to use all of your potential. Life is short and the opportunities are huge.

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.

Ministry pay scales

In my work with churches and Christian organizations I am often privy to their pay scales. And to be honest, they often bother me - specifically three observations.


1. There is far too great a differential between the senior staff and those who are in the next level down. Boards appropriately ensure that their senior staff are well paid in most cases. However, they are less careful to ensure that the rest of the pay scale is pulled up so that there is not an undue gap between the top and the next levels down.


I rarely quibble with the senior staff salaries I see. In my circles they are moderate and not extravagant. Often they do not reflect the scope of responsibility that these leaders have. But, the gap between their fair pay and the next levels down I often have a quarrel with. Which leads me to a second observation.


2. We often do not pay our lowest staff a fair wage but as little as we can legally pay. This includes building engineers, clerical, and administrative assistant level folks. My question is why? If our pay scales are appreciably lower than what the market pays why would we be OK with paying salaries that are not comparable with the market? If a pastor is worth his wages (and we can quote the scripture on that one) why are not others? 


I give honor to the many underpaid workers in Christian settings but I am sad that we of all people do not treat our staff with the dignity due them. Is this what we want to be known by? 


3. It amazes me but I still see differentials at times between what men are paid and women for the same or similar positions. As a society we have gotten beyond that in most good workplaces. We need to get beyond that in our ministry settings.


I have several suggestions.
First, look at the differential between your top paid staff and the next levels down and ask if it is fair and appropriate. 


Second, take some time to look at all salaried positions and ask if there are any that look odd to you - too high or too low.


Third, spend a few dollars or go to any number of free sites to get comparables for like positions in the marketplace to see where you sit.


Fourth, where adjustments should be made, come up with a plan to make them over a period of months or years and review your salary structure every three to four years.


We do not serve a cheap but a generous God. Let's be generous with our staff whom we say are the heart of our ministry!

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?"

Want the loyalty of your staff? Consider these things.

Recently I wrote a blog on "The issue of staff loyalty," which had more hits than any blog in two years. Mostly because the loyalty that many leaders ask for is neither healthy or true loyalty. 

Here is the question I want to pose? How do leaders develop true and healthy loyalty among their staff. The answer is deeply counter intuitive and the opposite of how many leaders seek to enforce loyalty. In fact, loyalty cannot be forced or enforced. But it can be nurtured and developed. It is done, however, in just the opposite way that unhealthy leaders seek to enforce it.

These are some of the qualities that build high loyalty among staff. They are practices of healthy leaders.

I want the very best for my staff and their development.I will help them become everything they can be and at the same time hold them with an open hand should it be time for them to leave and take on a larger challenge. When that day comes I will celebrate with them and help them make a healthy transition.

I will encourage them to be their own people, speak their own minds and engage with me and the team in robust dialogue as long as there are no personal attacks or hidden agendas. Every person at my leadership table is there for a reason and I want all their intellectual capital, ideas and thoughts. It is an open, candid, collegial atmosphere.

I will encourage disagreement and push back and will never marginalize anyone for doing so. Loyalty is not that you agree with me but that you want the very best for the organization and are willing to do whatever it takes to help us get there. Rather than trying to control thoughts (which never works), I will encourage candid discussion of the issues knowing that this is how we get to the best solution. I will always send the message, "I want your opinion."

I will keep my word and model integrity and honesty. The commitments, lifestyle and treatment of people by leaders breeds either cynicism or respect. There is no loyalty without well earned respect by leaders. Leaders model the behaviors and commitments that they require of staff.

I will stay connected with them so that they know I care about them and appreciate their work. Disconnected leaders send a message of lack of appreciation. I cannot be the best buddy of my staff (and that is not healthy) but I can stay connected, interested and engaged in what they are doing. This also means that I will give regular feedback on how they are doing and remove barriers they face so they can be as productive as possible.

I will compensate them fairly for the job they do. Taking advantage of people by not paying them well or fairly for their work breeds discontent with good reason. 

I will not micromanage but empower well within understood boundaries. Empowerment is one of the most powerful keys to loyalty because it sends a message of trust, competence and the desire to allow one to use all of their gifts and creativity to accomplish the outcomes of their job. Micromanagement is deeply disempowering.

I will provide maximum clarity on what our ministry is about and how we intend to get to success. Clarity is empowering and releasing because with clarity people know what direction to go and they are released to help us get there. 

I will lead from influence rather than positional authority except in those rare instances where positional authority must be used. Positional authority can be a means of control while leading from influence is a means of mentoring and empowerment. Wherever possible we want staff to make appropriate ministry decisions within the boundaries they have been given.

I will not make unilateral decisions that impact my staff without talking to them. People do not like surprises. And, senior leaders may well not have thought through all the unintended consequences of decisions made for the organization. Thus I will always consult my senior leaders prior to any major directional or policy move so that it is us making the decision, not me.

I will be candid and truthful about issues related to the organization. Staff have the right to know what challenges the organization is dealing with. Unless it is confidential, good leadership does not hide issues or spin them but shares them candidly and honestly.

I will encourage loyalty to God and to the mission of the organization rather than to me as the leader. Our mission is the strongest glue that holds us together. Loyalty to the leader is never as strong as loyalty to the mission. Leaders can disappoint and leave.   Leaders who demand loyalty are leading from a narcissistic place while leaders who encourage loyalty to the mission are leading out of servant leadership.

Ironically, leaders who don't demand loyalty but serve in ways illustrated above are leaders who have the loyalty of their staff. They did not ask for it but they earned it. In fact, good leaders don't even think about developing staff loyalty to them. They simply serve their staff well.

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.

Relational Intelligence

I believe there is a direct connection between the health of a church or organization and the relational intelligence of its constituency. I would argue, for instance, that churches with high levels of conflict have poor relational skills while congregations with little to no ongoing conflict have a higher level of relational intelligence. 

Relational intelligence, a part of EQ or emotional intelligence, is the ability to relate to others in healthy ways, keep personal boundaries intact, negotiate conflict or differences with others without breaking relationship, be self defined personally about what one believes even when others would disagree and not get pulled into emotional triangles or enmeshment with others. If you think about it, the lack of these skills are large contributors to conflict and relational dysfunction.

Consider personal boundaries. Any number of individuals or groups would like to pull you into their orbit, take up their cause, believe their version of events and rope you into their issues. Healthy personal boundaries recognizes this when they see it and wisely hold their own counsel rather than get pulled into other issues. One of the major reasons that conflict escalates is the lack of healthy personal boundaries.

Or consider self definition - the ability to speak one's mind with clarity even when others may disagree. When there is poor relational intelligence, rather than being self defined, individuals communicate what they think others want to hear (for reasons of acceptance). The problem is that they often cater to their audience and end up giving false impressions as to what they really believe and say one thing to one group and another to another group which causes all kinds of confusion.

One of the most critical areas of relational intelligence goes to how we handle people who disagree with us. All too often when people disagree, they are cut off from friendships, marginalized if they are staff, and labeled as disloyal and troublemakers. Think of how destructive, painful, unloving and emotionally immature this is. It is a sign of someone who is not only emotionally immature but self absorbed because the core of this behavior is totally narcissistic. Because someone has not treated me well, or disagreed with me, or taken issue with me, I can no longer trust them, don't want to relate to them and thus I will marginalize them. Notice that it is all about me.

Whole churches get embroiled in conflict when this lack of relational intelligence prevails because those who don't agree with us become the enemy and relationships are severed. Staffs become dysfunctional when senior leaders display this behavior because they are dividing their staff into two camps, the loyal and disloyal and loyalty is usually defined as "they agree with me."

Interestingly, the New Testament has a great deal to say about relationships - healthy and unhealthy and it is the healthy that define good relational intelligence. Groups with high relational intelligence can differ on major issues but remain connected, loving and committed to one another. That is not true when there is poor relational intelligence which by definition divides, escalates conflict and destroys relationships.

I tend to give those with poor relational intelligence a very wide berth because I don't want to be caught up in their relational chaos. 

We need to talk more candidly with our congregations about what God honoring relationships look like and what behaviors are destructive and decidedly not God honoring. We also need to be far more proactive in training ministry staff on issues of relational intelligence. Either we allow a relational culture that defines itself (usually negatively) or we define a God honoring relational culture and help people understand what contributes to health and what contributes to dis- health. 

Good relational intelligence:

• Does not get pulled into others issues
• Is self defined and keeps one's own counsel
• Resists triangulation and enmeshment with others
• Stays in relationship when others disagree with them
• Is not threatened by disagreement
• Forgives easily and seeks forgiveness quickly
• Does not divide people into friend and enemy camps
• Gets one's relational clues from Scripture and Jesus
• Thinks of the other's perspective as much as their own
• Tries to put themselves in the shoes of the other to understand their point of view
• Places love and grace for others above their own concerns
• Lives out 1 Corinthians 13
• Treats everyone with dignity

Would it not be great if our congregations and organizations had that kind of relational intelligence? The higher the relational intelligence of our organization the healthier it will be but the opposite is also true.

The critical importance of exit interviews

One of the most neglected disciplines in many churches and ministry organizations is that of doing exit interviews when staff leave. In fact, in some cases, I believe that some leaders don't want to do candid exit interviews because they know they have a problem with retaining staff and frankly don't want to address it. Yet, had they conducted candid and confidential exit interviews they would know how to address the issue.


What can exit interviews tell you? First, they may tell you why a staff member is actually leaving. Let's be honest. In many cases in ministry settings staff don't reveal the actual reason they are leaving out of concern for the organization or because they are under pressure not to rock the boat. If there is an underlying reason for their exit related to the culture of the ministry it is a good thing for you to know this.


Second, if there is a dysfunctional staff situation, and you see trends (see my blog, When the bodies pile up), the exit interviews give you information that can be used to address whatever dysfunction exists. That is, if you truly desire to do so. In some cases, in spite of problematic trends, leaders simply ignore the problem not wanting to deal with it. However, common stories when people leave do give you some helpful data to address underlying issues.


You may also discover that your hiring processes are not robust enough if there is a trend of people who don't fit. Poor hiring practices lead to a higher attrition rate which is unfortunate for the staff member as well as the organization.


One thing to remember is that people may vent on their way out so their own experience can be colored by their issues. One problematic exit does not make a trend. Over time, however, if there are consistent themes around any issue of staff health or culture the exit interviews give you an opportunity to address it. 


As the leader of an organization, I take the feedback from staff who leave seriously. It gives us an opportunity to improve our culture and practices. I am given regular feedback from our personnel folks on trends that they pick up. Don't neglect your exit interviews. They are crucial to a healthy organization.

The issue of staff loyalty

"Are they loyal to me?" is the question that many leaders ask themselves about their staff. Sometimes in conflictual situations, a leader will either ask or demand loyalty of their staff. In negotiating through conflict I have often heard the charge, "he or she is not loyal to me as their leader," which usually means they don't belong in the organization anymore.

I believe, by the way that loyalty is a good thing and that healthy organizations and leaders have a great deal of loyalty. There is a difference, however between loyalty and subservience. 

When I hear this kind of thing I always ask the question, "What is your definition of loyalty?" Some of the more interesting and problematic responses I have received are "that he/she agree with me," or "that they do what I tell them to do and how I tell them to do it." For others it means, "never question my decisions (implicitly or explicitly)." I find these problematic definitions because they remove the autonomy of thinking from the staff member and insist that they allow their leader to think for them. That, by the way is how cults start. And how many dysfunctional staffs operate.

In my experience, the removal of staff on a charge that they are not loyal is usually more of a reflection on an insecure or narcissistic leader than it is on the conduct of the staff member. Unless one  can demonstrate that an individual's behavior is harmful to the organization, labeling someone as "disloyal" and marginalizing or firing them is a reflection of an unhealthy leader rather than an unhealthy staff member who may simply be thinking for himself/herself and expressing themselves honestly. Beware of leaders who have a pattern of dismissing or marginalizing people on the basis of a lack of loyalty.

There are gradations of loyalty. Our highest loyalty cannot truly be to any person but it is to God. Thus, if any individual, leader or not, asks us to violate a moral or ethical standard or skirt the truth our loyalty to God trumps our willingness to do as we have been asked even if out of "loyalty."

Our next highest level of loyalty is to the mission of the organization we work for. If I don't believe in the mission of my organization and cannot be loyal to that cause I am in the wrong spot. So while I work for the most empowering leader ever, I do not serve because of him but because of the cause of the organization. He makes it a joy to work for the organization and I might not be there under another leader.

So what about loyalty to our leaders? One dictionary defines loyalty as "Faithful to any leader, party, or cause, or to any person or thing conceived as deserving fidelity: a loyal friend."  Notice that it is couched in the term faithfulness and only to a person or cause that is "deserving of fidelity." In other words, loyalty cannot be demanded but it can be deserved and earned.

But take this one step further. What does faithfulness to a leader entail? It certainly means that we want the very best for them and for the organization they lead. Thus there will be times when we specifically do not agree with them if a decision they are making is going to hurt them or the organization. Loyalty by definition speaks up (respectfully) when one is concerned about and issue. It does not stay passively silent and supportive. Loyalty means that my leaders trusts me to be supportive of him/her and the organization, and not to do anything that would undermine it or them. 

In our organization, I would want these characteristics from our staff: Loyalty to the cause, respect for and cooperation with those who lead, and nothing that undermines either the mission or those who lead including cynicism and mistrust. Honesty and candidness in communication with the best of the organization always in mind. 

I also have a set of expectations for leaders toward those on their teams. Loyalty and respect go two ways.

Leaders who demand loyalty no matter what are merely looking for "yes" people who will do their bidding. Healthy leaders want to be respected but they want their staff to be honest, candid and to think for themselves - and speak up when needed. Unhealthy leaders categorize staff into two camps: those for me or against me - a dysfunctional definition of loyalty and disloyalty. Those who do this lose the support of healthy staff and build a staff of people who know that they cannot cross their leader.