Leaders: the culture of your team or organization cannot be delegated

Every organization, every church, has a culture and the health of that culture is the responsibility of the senior leaders. If it is a healthy culture it is probably because leaders intentionally created it. If it is unhealthy it is probably because leadership has not made it a priority.

Sadly, many leaders do not understand how important the culture of the organization is and the impact it has on their staff and on the mission of the organization. The health of the culture impacts the joy of staff, the cooperation of staff members, longevity, loyalty and the effectiveness in accomplishing the mission. 

Great dreams and vision can be subverted by unhealthy cultures. Leaders who do not intentionally create a healthy culture and one that supports their mission ultimately fail the leadership task. In the many consults I have done with churches, non-profits and for-profits there is a significant divide between those with healthy cultures and those with dysfunctional cultures. As an outsider asking questions, staff are very forthcoming with their experience and observations regarding the organization's culture. 

When the culture is generally healthy, it is because leaders paid attention to it on a regular basis and their own behaviors reflected  that culture. When unhealthy, leaders often deflect the reasons to others, often to staff, forgetting that culture is one of those things that cannot be delegated by leaders to others. 

Where there is a healthy culture, staff love to come to work, will give more than they need to and are passionate about accomplishing the mission together. Where the culture is unhealthy the opposite occurs.

If you are a leader, are you paying attention to the culture you are creating? If the answer is yes, can you describe the culture you are want to see in your organization? Would the staff agree with your assessment and have you or a neutral party asked them? 

Cultural audits are not hard to do and will tell you a great deal.

Pesident Trump's leadership style could be his undoing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When loyalty becomes a threat to an organization

We all want loyal staff, particularly to the mission of the organization we lead or are a part of. However, that very important element can become a problem when leaders choose staff members primarily on the basis of loyalty to them.

Recently I had a first-hand glimpse into an organization that does great work. But there was one key staff member who caused me puzzlement. He had poor interpersonal skills, did not empower others below him, made snap decisions, and created major consternation for about half of the staff who served at his direction. Don't get me wrong, he was a great individual but was in a spot that everyone seemed to know was not designed for him.

As I asked around about this individual and a few others the consistent answer I received was this: The leader of the organization values personal loyalty above all other qualities. And by this they meant loyalty first to him. Thus he would choose leaders based on their personal connection with him regardless of that individuals qualifications for their role. In doing so, he inadvertently disempowered those who had to work for these loyal but miscast staff members.

That loyalty also fostered a "yes person" culture as these staffers tended to not challenge the thoughts of the leader as loyalty to them was taken as agreement. Thus the concept of robust dialogue was not fostered at the top of the organization and subsequently throughout the organization.

What fascinated me was that this was a healthy organization overall, and the challenges it had internally almost always went back to one of these leaders who was chosen for their loyalty. Not because they were not good people but because they were in the wrong spot for their gifts and had been chosen for the wrong reasons - loyalty to the leader regardless of their qualifications for the role.

Competence for one's role needs to come first, along with loyalty to the mission and respect for leadership. But when personal loyalty or a long-term relationship with the senior leader is the primary qualification for leadership in the organization, this loyalty factor becomes a threat to the organization as a whole.

At Addington Consulting,

We Simplify Complexity

Speak Candidly

Help You Find a Way Through

tjaddington@gmail.com

Letter of apology to two staff members who where unfairly let go from a group of present and former elders. Worth reading

I was fascinated by a letter of apology from current and former elders at Mars Hill Church to two members of their staff who were put on trial some years ago, found guilty without due process and publicly humiliated them by their communication to the entire church which included "rejection and disassociation" from the church and members of the church. Now, members of the board at that time and new members are calling their actions sinful and asking the forgiveness of these two former staff members. As I read their letter it raised some issues for me.

First, when you shut down legitimate discussion in an organization and take dissenting viewpoints as "sinful" or "disloyal" or "causing division" and shut those voices down with threats, intimidation or termination we create a toxic workplace where candid dialogue is not allowed. Ironically, the issues that these two men were raising, were the very issues that allowed the church to get into trouble and eventually led to the downfall of the church.

As the elders wrote to them, "you each had every right as an elder to openly express your strong concerns about the bylaws and to influence our thinking so that we might have made the most informed decision possible. You also had good reason to contact the church’s attorney about those bylaws. These were not sinful acts of mistrust on your part, but reasonable acts of due diligence. We needed to learn from you at that time and we should have trusted you and respected your spiritual authority as elders of the church to educate us about potential problems with those bylaws. Instead, we silenced your voices through our complicity in your terminations and our decisions to remove Paul as an elder and keep Bent on probation instead of examining the issues more closely."

Any leader that tries to shut down discussion by intimidation is a toxic leader and it is their toxicity that needs to be addressed rather than legitimate discussion over legitimate issues. In our organization we allow "Robust Discussion" on any issue with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas. If your organization practices any kind of intimidation for candid discussion, take heed. Often it is the senior leader who leads the charge because they are threatened by voices that disagree with them.

Second, there are thousands of church leaders who owe an apology to staff members that they have treated unfairly, badly and without due process. I was saddened by friends of ours who were fired from their pastoral position without any due process or even conversation around the reasons for the decision. I suspect the senior leader was threatened and led the charge. He had stated he did not want them there. Then when the same was done to him by the elders he wined about what had happened to him. They had simply done to him what he had done to others.

There are many deeply wounded staff who have been unfairly treated by their senior leader and boards have allowed it to happen. If you are guilty of this, please don't ignore the pain you caused, the lack of due diligence you allowed or the actions you were a party to. Make things right. Jesus will one day hold us accountable for how we have treated those entrusted to us. One friend who read this letter from Mars Hill wept because of the pain they had experienced and wished someone would reach out and make it right. Sadly it probably will not happen.

Take a few moments and read this letter of apology 

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 discount on orders of ten or more.

Healthy staff cultures

In my work with churches and Christian organizations I see more unhealthy than healthy staff cultures. I would love to reverse that order. It is truly a gift to work in a healthy environment and can be a curse to work in an unhealthy one. Here are some of the components of a truly healthy staff culture.

1. A leader who is open, humble, non-defensive and collaborative.

2. An environment where robust dialogue is welcomed and encouraged along with unity once decisions have been made.

3. Having the right people in the right seats.

4. High EQ (Emotional Intelligence) among staff members and leaders.

5. Clarity of direction as to where the organization is headed.

6. Having clarity in one's role and the necessary tools to accomplish one's job.

7. A collegial open atmosphere from the leader on down.

8. The ability to speak into things that impact one's job.

9. Candid, honest dialogue and conversation in an atmosphere of respect.

10. High in both empowerment and accountability.

My new book, Deep Influence: Unseen Practices That Will Revolutionize Your Leadership, is now available for pre-order on Amazon.

Gag orders in the church. It is responsible for much toxic staff culture.

It is not unusual for me to hear about gag orders by senior leaders or their Executive pastors, effectively telling elders that they cannot talk to church staff and staff that they cannot talk to elders. Usually it is in the name of policy governance which states that the elders have one employee, and that is the senior leader who can manage his staff as he pleases. This is both a misreading of policy governance, an unwise thing to do and often reflects the personal insecurity of the leader.

First lets clear up the policy governance issue. Under this board management tool, what is clear is that elders cannot tell staff what to do. That is the prerogative of the senior leader. They cannot manage staff. And it is also true that staff should not go around their leader to the elders as an end run to get what they want. 

What it does not say is that elders and staff should not talk. In fact I think it foolish for a leadership board to not know the temperature of the staff. Consider this: if staff cannot talk to the board in any fashion, what do they do when they have problems that are not getting solved by their leader? 

My experience is that such gag orders are usually a sign of insecurity on the part of leaders more than anything else. This was part of the massive dysfunction Mark Driscoll created at Mars Hill Church where there were major dysfunctions on staff but staff were not permitted to talk to others about it. In a large church I did crisis management in a long string of staff had been mistreated. The board suspected but had not inquired because they were not supposed to talk to staff.

Healthy organizations are not afraid of conversation around whatever issues they face. Healthy leaders are not afraid of alternate opinions or push-back. We have intentionally created an open culture in ReachGlobal where all issues can be put on the table with the exception of hidden agendas or robust dialogue. We welcome the conversation even if it challenges our current thinking. 

I am always deeply wary of what is actually going on when gag orders appear rather than the invitation to open dialogue.

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.

Your organization has a mission but has it created a culture that will support that mission?

Most organizations are clear on their mission - a good thing. What many organizations don't understand, however, is that unless you have a culture that supports the mission it is unlikely that you will fulfill it the way you desire to. In other words, an inadequately designed organizational culture can sabotage your ability to achieve your mission.

Many churches, for instance are committed to introducing people to Christ and helping them grow in Him - a good way to understand the Great Commission. However, if the culture does not reflect the Great Commandment - Loving God with all our heart and loving our neighbors as ourselves. What attracts people to Christ? The grace and love of Jesus as expressed through His people. No matter how much a church might want to see people come to Him, unless they have a culture that reflects Him, it will rarely happen. The culture sabotages the mission!

The mission of New Life Church in Stockholm Sweden is to Impact our world with Hope. That will not happen unless they have a culture of Hope - which they have defined in this way: Hope in the transforming power of the Gospel; Hope that we can be transformed; Hope that others can be transformed; and Hope that our world can be transformed.  With a constant emphasis on this culture of hope New Life Church cannot help but be a place of hope and impact their world with hope. Their culture is designed to support their mission.

Many businesses have mission statements that reflect a commitment to their customers but do not have an intentionally created culture that reflects that commitment. Without a culture designed to put the customer first, those mission statements mean little to nothing. It is easy to write a mission statement. It is much harder to create a culture that supports the mission.

Take a moment to consider the mission of your ministry or business. I assume you believe in the mission. Have you intentionally created a culture within the organization that is designed to support that mission? Could you describe that culture and could your staff and people define it? If not, this needs to become a priority. Attention to your culture can significantly help you live out your mission. It is an investment worth making.

Crafting the culture of your organization

It is perhaps one of the most important jobs of a leader: crafting the culture of their organization. Whether in ministry or business, when the culture is healthy and life giving one attracts and retains the best staff and they will weather all kinds of challenges together. The corollary is that where the corporate culture is unhealthy it breeds all kinds of dysfunctional relationships, politics, lack of cooperation, turf wars and general discontent.

Leaders often pay far too little attention to culture in their desire to deliver on the bottom line but it is a big mistake. A life giving culture is one of the most important keys to ministry or business success. 

Think of all the time and energy that it expended dealing with dysfunctional relationships, politics, lack of cooperation and turf wars. Eliminate those life taking dynamics from the workplace and all kinds of great things can be accomplished. In fact, in healthy cultures these kinds of behaviors are not permitted and are anti values for the whole staff.

How does one craft a life giving culture? First leaders model what they desire from their staff. People will hear what one says but they will pay attention to what they experience with their leader. Culture always starts with leaders who either live out life giving or life taking behaviors.

Second, leaders clarify the values, guiding principles or behaviors that they expect to be lived out in the organization. Many leaders don't realize how much influence they have in this regard. If that clarity is lived out by the senior leader and his/her staff, others will start to get the picture and move in that direction.

Third, leaders make it clear that there are behaviors that are not allowed and back it up with action when necessary. When we allow dysfunctional behaviors to exist it sends a message that we are not really serious about the values we espouse.

Here are some of the cultural pieces we have been intentional about creating in ReachGlobal.

• Health: Healthy individuals, healthy teams and healthy leaders. This includes emotional, relational, spiritual and skill health.
• Robust dialogue: Any issue can be put on the table with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas.
• Graciousness: How we communicate matters and we respect one another.
• Autopsy without blame: Bad things will happen and when they do we will seek to learn from it without assigning blame.
• Whatever it takes: We will do whatever it takes to get the job done and are flexible on strategy but not on our philosophical underpinnings.
• Team: We work together well.
• Trust: We trust one another and deal with it when that trust is violated.
• Promises: We keep them.
• Development: We develop and grow people in our desire to see them reach their full potential.
• Accountability: We deal with situations where behaviors do not match our desired culture.

What culture are you creating? Is it intentional or accidental?

Organizational culture. Are you satisfied with the default culture or have you created a preferred culture?

Every organization has a culture. In the vast majority of cases that culture is simply a default culture because leaders have not created a preferred culture.

Organizational culture is the combination of its people's attitudes, practices, relationships, leadership style and values. Think about the implications of those five areas. When healthy they reflect a good place to work but when unhealthy it can be toxic. Culture matters a lot.

Default cultures are highly problematic because they simply reflect the aggregate character and practices of those in it - good and bad. They reflect the habits of the organization. The problem is that while there may be many good things about the people and organization, there are also unaddressed habits that hurt the organization whether in attitudes, practices, relationships, leadership style or values.

Transformational leaders do not settle for a default culture. They intentionally create a culture that reflects the health they want to see. Organizational health is after all the key to organizational success in the long run. It is also the key to retaining and attracting the best people. By far, the culture a leader creates is an indication of their true leadership commitments.

My book, Leading From the Sandbox can help you think through how you create an intentional culture rather than settling for the default culture. Choose transformation over accidental when it comes to culture.

Organizational cultures that support the mission

We often just don't think about it. Every organization has a stated mission or purpose but many do not have an internal organizational culture that is designed to support that mission. It is, perhaps, why we don't deliver on our purpose as well as we could be.

For instance, the mission statement of ReachGlobal - the mission I give leadership to - is to glorify God by multiplying healthy churches among all people. The key words there are multiplication and health. Both of those commitments require an internal culture of multiplication as well as a culture of health. It is not possible to see healthy churches multiplied without healthy personnel and it is not possible to actually multiply unless it is an intentional part of the culture since addition rather than multiplication is the default setting of most people.

Church leaders talk a lot about unity and love but if those kinds of values are not lived out by boards and staff it will likely not be lived out in the congregation either. Not only that but when the internal culture of an organization does not match its stated purposes it creates legitimate questions in the minds of many as to whether its leadership is truly serious about their stated purposes. 

I often speak with organizational staff about the lack of empowerment in their ministry. The senior leader talks the empowerment talk but the organizational culture does not empower - usually because the senior leader does not. It is an obvious case of cultures that don't match commitments and it is deeply frustrating to those affected.

Organizational culture matters a great deal. Often our cultures are accidental cultures as there has not been intentionality in their creation. The best cultures are clearly articulated, highly intentional and seriously lived out by leadership and staff.

Something to remember is that both  insiders and outsiders can read the culture of your organization. They can tell if it is intentional or accidental. They can also read whether it healthy or unhealthy and finally whether it supports your stated purposes. Often their commitment to the organization is directly influenced by what they  observe.

Dealing with organizational elephants

Elephants are interesting things. They are big! They are obvious! They are loud. Everyone knows when they are around. Which is why "elephants in the room" issues that are big, obvious and loud are so tragically ignored by a staff or a board. Everyone knows they are around but everyone pretends they are not there. And no one is ever fooled!

Here are some real life elephants that I am aware of right now in various places:

A staff member in a church obviously does not fit and is dragging the rest of the staff down but no one talks about it or does anything about it.


• A board member creates regular conflict on the board to the consternation of others but no one is willing to address it.


• A pastor has systematically alienated a long series of individuals but the board will not talk about it.


• A team leader never wants to hear anything critical of his leadership so everyone tip toes around sensitive issues but everyone knows the score.


• A member of a congregation leaves relational havoc in their wake but because of their influence, no one will address the issue.

The thing about elephants in the room is that they are obvious but remain unnamed, unresolved, even unspoken. It is frankly one of the sins of humanity that we allow known problems to exist without seeking to resolve them. And that starts with an acknowledgement that they are there.

OK, there is a reason that elephants remain unnamed. The main reason is that there is not permission in the group to engage in real, honest dialogue. The unspoken rule is, "don't go there" or "if you go there the rest of us will be silent" which leaves any brave soul hanging out in the cold - very alone.
There is one description for such a situation: cowardice! And it happens all the time in many situations. And, it is wrong.

There is a very important descriptor of Jesus given by the Apostle John in John 1:14. It says that Jesus came full of grace and truth.

As one reads the gospels it is evident that Jesus was always willing to put his finger on the truth, but he did it with grace. The woman at the well was an adulterer and Jesus got at that truth but He did it with grace. Jesus did not shirk the truth - indeed He spoke it always - but he treated people with grace.

This is the example that needs to guide us when we name the elephants in the room which good and courageous people do. Once it is named it is no longer an elephant - it is now an issue to be discussed and resolved. Done only with truth it can be harsh. Done only with grace it probably won't happen but done with grace and truth it can be powerful.

I have resolved that I will not live with elephants in the room because life is too short and I am not willing to compromise opportunity and effectiveness for the sake of sweeping issues under the rug. If I cannot name the elephants where they exist or if those on my team cannot do the same, I am in the wrong place or on the wrong board. 

 I have actually left teams and boards where that was not possible. But I have also resolved to deal with them with equal measures of grace and truth. Truth to name the issue and grace to seek to resolve the issue. If I cannot address the issue with both grace and truth I wait until my heart is right so that I can.

I was once in a contentious meeting where individuals said their were many elephants in the room. I asked them to name them, and they did. Here is the interesting thing. Once expressed, they were no longer elephants but issues to be discussed and resolved to the best of our ability.

None of us do this perfectly but I have tried very hard to adopt an attitude of "Nothing to prove, nothing to lose" and in that spirit encourage all of my staff to dialogue openly with any issue that is on their heart - as long as it is done with grace and without a hidden agenda. 

All leaders struggle with the risk of doing that. I do. But it is a great blessing to be free of the need to be right, or perfect, or have all the answers, or to pretend that the elephants are not there. Sometimes they are and I want to be courageous to hear them and when necessary to name them. Do we have that courage?

With grace and with truth.

Creating intentional waves

Organizations, teams and groups crave equilibrium - predictability. Especially in Christian contexts there is also an aversion to strong disagreement or "conflict." The phrase "don't rock the boat" reflects most people's aversion to surprises or major change. We are more comfortable on calm seas then in the waves.

In fact, so comfortable are many organizations with the status quo that they are willing to drift into decline and even oblivion rather than create waves. We watched General Motors do that in recent times. They lived in a fairy tale world while the world around them changed dramatically but with its change adverse culture no one was willing to create some waves, wake people up, help them smell the coffee and realize that it was not 1960 anymore!

Churches, mission organizations, and Christian ministries often do the same thing. And many are living like General Motors did.

Without a crisis major change does not occur in an organization. Yet without major change, organizations become obsolete. This is why wise leaders regularly create a crisis - they intentionally create waves that cause discomfort to the system because without shocking the system the system always returns to its comfortable equilibrium.

Waves are not bad and leaders often need to create waves and even some anxiety if they are going to convince others that change is needed. Over a decade ago, we intentionally created a crisis in our denominational office to convince our staff that either we needed to change - to become a premier service organization for our churches - or we would become unnecessary and obsolete. It was not a comfortable time for our staff but it had the desired result of helping us change our culture.

Leaders create waves, sometimes small, other times large, to rock the boat, upset the equilibrium, get people's attention and force the organization to look at some issue differently. If someone had done that at General Motors years ago, they would not have found themselves in the spot they did. The same is true for many churches who are quietly drifting into irrelevancy oblivious to the fact.

When equilibrium is disturbed, people begin to talk about issues and solutions that they otherwise would not discuss. The REVEAL study done by Willowcreek Community Church on spiritual formation created a crisis in many churches as they realized that their assumptions about life change were in fact flawed. That has sparked huge conversation around how spiritual formation actually takes place and we will all be better for it.

As in the REVEAL study, leaders create waves by asking tough questions about the assumptions that often underlie our ministries. Those questions are uncomfortable and perhaps intimidating but they force the organization to think differently and to engage in significant dialogue. As our world changes at an ever more rapid pace, the need to create waves that spark discussion and new thinking becomes all the more important.

Some leaders are intimidated by the prospects of disequilibrium because they cannot control where the waves will lead. That is true! But with an organization full of good people, the likelihood is that the discussion and dialogue will create a pretty good solution.

In our mission, I intentionally created waves several years ago by suggesting that we wanted to be planting churches internationally that were healthy, indigenous, self-supporting, interdependent and reproducing - and that many of the churches we planted or groups we worked with were not committed to these things.

My white paper was taken by some to be unrealistic, by others to be a slam on what we had been doing and by others to be a threat to the status quo.

But it sparked a great deal of discussion (not all of it comfortable) and in the end we sharpened our understanding and goals for the kinds of churches we wanted to plant and the strategies we would use to accomplish it. But I had to be willing to create a crisis in order for the dialogue to take place - and take the risk of a period of uncertainty as that dialogue was going on.

In fact, when leaders are no longer willing to create waves (it can be uncomfortable for them as well) it is time for them to step aside.

Understanding your congregation's genetic code

Every congregation has a unique genetic code. It is a complex combination of how the church began, its history, philosophy of ministry, pastors and leaders who have served and are serving, make-up of the congregation ethnically, socially and economically, its record of conflict and results, and a host of other factors.


All of these factors combine to explain why a congregation is what it is and why it operates the way it does. Churches are immensely complex organisms and organizations. The better that leaders understand the genetic code of their church, the better they are able to capitalize on its strengths and deal with its weaknesses.

Here are a number of important questions to explore as you try to understand your congregation's genetic code:

-What do you know about the founding of your church? How do you think the motives and attitudes 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 philosophy the church has today, or has there been a significant shift in mission, vision or ministry philosophy? How did this shift happen?

-When there is conflict between people in the church, how do they handle their disagreements? Would you give your congregation high marks or low marks in the handling of conflict? Do you see patterns here?

-Are you aware of any significant unresolved issues within your congregation that lie beneath the surface? What are these issues, and why do you think they have not been resolved?

-How would you evaluate the unity of your board? Does your leadership 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 has faced significant periods of conflict in its past, what do you know about these periods? Is it possible to see trends in either the causes of these conflicts or how the conflict was handled?

-When you consider leadership, now or historically, who in your congregation has the major influence? Does the church board allow any individual (elected leaders or non-elected persons of influence) veto power over decisions of the board or the congregation? How has the power and influence structure of the church changed over the years?

-Think about major changes the congregation has made, whether related to ministry philosophy, location, ministries or staff members. 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.

Healthy characteristics of your congregation should be celebrated and affirmed regularly. We cannot do enough to affirm God's people, as He would, where they are living in His will.

Leaders should specialize in understanding the strengths of their congregations, both so they can affirm them and so they can leverage areas of strength into even greater ministry strength.

Seven indicators of a healthy organization

Leaders are always looking for the magic bullet to differentiate their organization from others and give themselves an edge. Often, they end up chasing the wrong things. In fact, the key to a great organization is pretty simple: they focus on health. This is the opposite of a toxic workplace which is unfortunately more common than we wish.

What are the signs of a healthy organization?

One: They have great clarity about what they are about. There is no ambiguity regarding their mission, their guiding principles, what they need to focus on and what they desire to accomplish. Because of this clarity, the whole organization is on the same page and are moving in the same direction.

Two: They have a candid and trusting culture where there are no elephants (issues that cannot be discussed) and where honest dialogue is valued and expected. Unhealthy organizations shut down candid and robust dialogue as a threat. Healthy organizations encourage and expect it knowing that the only way to better solutions is honesty. This can only happen in a culture of trust which is the ground from which such honest dialogue emerges.

Three: They empower people to make necessary decisions within well defined boundaries. Controlling organizations stifle creativity and are permission withholding cultures. Healthy organizations encourage creativity and empower people as permission granting cultures. Unhealthy organizations control people through rules while healthy organizations empower people through well defined clarity (one above). Healthy organizations trust their staff while unhealthy organizations control their staff.

Four: They treat people with dignity. Great organizations are places people love to work because they value their staff and live that value in all relationships. Every organization says that their people are their most valuable asset but most organizations do not live out their stated value. Treating people with dignity means that staff are trusted, empowered, their opinions valued, failure is not fatal but a learning opportunity, and staff are regularly developed to maximize their potential. 

Five: They care about real results. Of course every organization says it cares about results but the truth is that in the ministry world very few actually have ways to measure results which means we are not truly serious! Healthy organizations have great clarity and are focused on living out that clarity for tangible results that they measure and evaluate. Healthy organizations can easily answer the question "How do you measure success?" Can yours?

Six: They constantly develop their staff. Toxic organizations use people while healthy organizations develop and grow people on a regular basis. They create a culture where emotional, relational, spiritual and skill health is both an expectation and something that is constantly growing. Healthy organizations are made up of healthy people so any focus on health must start with staff. 

Seven: They are humble. Humble organizations continue to grow because they know they have many areas where they can grow. Proud organizations actually hurt themselves by their pride. They think they have a corner on ministry and are superior to others. Great organizations take a humble posture with humble leaders and staff whose humility allows them to continually evaluate how they can do what they do better. Humility breeds a servant mentality while pride does not.

How does the organization you lead or are a part of compare to these seven indicators of health?

Markers of grace filled organizations

A culture of grace is something that we aspire to in the ministry world. The question is what does a grace filled organization look like? Some of the answers may surprise you.

Grace filled organizations treat their people well starting with clearly defined job descriptions, expectations and regular and clear feed back. You ask, what does that have to do with grace? Everything! Without these elements, staff do not know what their boundaries are or where they are empowered which creates frustration, can get them into inadvertent trouble and is really a culture of uncertainty. A culture of uncertainty cannot be a culture of grace.

When there are performance issues, grace filled organizations take the time to have candid discussion with staff to determine how to solve the issue. In many ministries, in the name of grace, such conversations don't happen because we don't want to create conflict. However, ignoring performance issues is not grace but a great disservice to a staff member. 

Once the issues have been identified, the question is "how can we help this individual succeed?" Maybe it is coaching. Maybe they are in the wrong lane and it is restructuring their role. It could even result in a job and organization change to get them into a place that is compatible with who they are. Facing up to issues with staff and handling them honestly is a marker of grace. Avoidance is not!

When something goes wrong, grace filled organizations don't ignore it but conduct an autopsy without blame. They want to identify, what went wrong, why it did so, and what could prevent it from going south in the future. The focus is to understand but not to cast blame. Sure someone is responsible but simply blaming people does not solve future issues. If there are candid discussions to be had one needs to have them but the goal is redemptive not punitive. I find many staff, especially who are new to our organization surprised by this philosophy. They are not used to it but deeply appreciate it.

Grace filled organizations go out of their way to be of help when staff members face critical issues in their lives. Staff are not means to an end but deeply important for who they are and people made in God's image and members of the team. This can mean any number of things, even breaking normal protocol. People matter and our commitment to fellow staff shows when they face a crisis. Is it an irritation to us or an opportunity to be Jesus to them? How we respond makes all the difference.

Finally, grace filled organizations treat everyone with respect. There are no little people in an organization characterized by grace. Our interactions are not determined by where someone is in the organizational chart. It is the whole team, no one member of the team that makes ministry possible. The measure of my respect of people is not how I treat those above me or beside me but how I treat and interact with those who are below me in the organizational  chart. 

Who are the keepers of organizational values?

All organizations and ministries have values, an ethos they are committed to and a culture that they are committed to upholding. Hopefully there is clarity in all of these areas. The question is, who is responsible for upholding those that ethos?

Every leader is responsible! Without exception. Every member of the organization is responsible! Without exception. Leaders, however, have a special responsibility to guard, uphold, champion, live out and champion what the organization believes in. We instinctively watch our leaders for clues as to how seriously they take the spoken and written promises of the organization. We are likely to follow their example no matter what is written or stated.

Anytime there is a fault line in upholding what the organization holds dear there is a direct threat to the ministry. People may give reasons and excuses for why they did not uphold the ethos but the fact that it was not kept is a threat to the ministry. This is why organizational leaders should never ignore violations to their ethos, culture or commitments. They may choose to respond publicly or privately but they always respond. They know what is at stake.

Staff members watch their leaders carefully. What they do is more important than what they say. What they model is what is followed. It only takes one leader who is out of alignment regardless of their place in the organization structure to disrupt the culture of an organization. One staff member, for instance on a church staff who is not living out the ethos, culture or values of that church compromises the health of the whole.

As I said in another blog, It only takes one individual to negatively impact the whole. That is why organizational alignment is so critical.

Healthy organizations intentionally live out their preferred culture and ethos. All leaders and teams work hard to stay in alignment. It is a critical factor in the health of all organizations and ministries. It is an issue worth talking about together: how well do we do it?

The General Motors Syndrome. Why good people in good organizations resist needed change in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is needed

As an organizational leader and consultant I see the General Motors Syndrome played out in churches, ministry organizations, missions and denominations: Those inside the organization cannot see the need for change while those outside look in and wonder why in the world good people don't see what they see - the world has changed but they have not. 

Why, for instance, did the organizational structure and culture of General Motors not change until bankruptcy when Toyota, and others where light years ahead of them in efficiency and quality? Why do even large churches resist changing antiquated structures that hinder them and no longer work for them? Why do mission organizations who have seen their entire context change but continue to operate as if they were in the pre globalized world? Why do denominations struggle with changing structures that served them 50 or 100 years ago but no longer?

The why question is even more powerful when one realizes that there is almost always demonstrable evidence that change is needed. Even in the face of that evidence, change can be hard to come by and is met by resistance. So why do good people in good organizations resist needed changes in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is needed?

Let me suggest three key reasons.

One, organizations like families are systems that resist any changes to the status quo. It is why missional is often subverted by institutional. Institutional is comfortable while missional is a threat to the status quo of the system (organizational). In families, if one individual tries to pull away from the family system, the rest of the family applies pressure to bring them back in. That is why it is called a family "system." A perceived threat to the status quo can be met with fierce resistance that to others makes no sense but within the "system" it makes all the sense in the world. 

When I proposed major change in the mission I lead, the "system" worked to try to pressure the system back to where it had been previously which was known and comfortable. The organizational family system was threatened and wanted equilibrium again. This is why organizations find change so hard. The existing family system resists even change that outsiders think is a no brainer. 

Two: organizations, like individuals have an EQ quotient. A major part of individual EQ is the ability to know oneself, our strengths and weaknesses and how we are perceived by others. All of us have met people who lack that quality. Others see what they cannot see and to a certain extend that is true even for an individual of healthy EQ. 

Organizations are no different. What did the executives of GM think sitting up in their executive dining room surrounded by luxury as the world around them changed radically? Their corporate EQ was severely lacking. 

I once consulted with a church that had gone from 500 to 50 in a 2 million dollar facility and when I told them they were not healthy they asked what the evidence was! That is a corporate EQ issue. It is also why organizations need outside counsel when looking at significant change. Others can see what they no longer see. We become so entrenched in the system that we no longer see ourselves with any degree of objectivity. We have become the system! We no longer see objectively. 

Three, and this is less neutral than the first two. When Patrick Lencioni published his book Silos, Politics and Turf Wars they flew off the shelf, were avidly read, people saw themselves in the mirror and many of their organizations saw no change. Why? Because the politics, silos and turf wars were too strong to allow change. People do not easily give up their turf, even for good reasons. Turf and autonomy are power and they don't easily yield power. This is a spiritual issue while the first two issues are organizational system and EQ issues. 

Fifteen years ago, the team I served on, the senior team of the EFCA made a decision to give up a measure of our individual and departmental autonomy in order to get on the same page and serve the whole with greater effectiveness. There was blood on the floor in some of our initial meetings. We were tearing down silos, addressing the politics and declaring there was no more turf. Responsibility for our areas - yes. Turf - no. And our mission and the accomplishment of that mission had to take precedence over our "individual rights" and sometimes preferences.

It was a hard necessary change. So let me put it candidly. Without the humility to give something up for the sake of the whole, no organization goes to the next level. This applies to church boards where a member is guarding their sacred ministries or organizational structure, to team leaders who are more concerned about their ministry than the whole ministry, staff who are guarding their ministry portfolio or in the case of missions, individuals who want to be independent contractors rather than members of an organization and in alignment with the whole. 

This one is a heart issue. And it keeps many Christian organizations from moving forward in ways that would be far more effective and results driven.

Why do good people in good organizations resist change even in the face of incontrovertible evidence it is needed? Their organizational family system resists it, the corporate EQ of the organization may not be healthy enough to see it and people are unwilling to give up the politics, silos and turf wars. 

What does it take to see real change in change unfriendly environments. First, the family system must champion honest, candid, truthful dialogue without seeking to pressure people back into the fold. It takes courage to speak up and be a change agent when there is significant resistance to resist that change. And there will usually be loud voices in opposition.

Second it takes the willingness to face the "brutal facts" as they are, look in the mirror, listen to outside voices who do not have a vested interest and who can see with greater objectivity and be willing to count the cost of the status quo. If one waits until the organization has plateaued and gone into decline it is often too late to resurrect what could have been. Now is usually the time to face the facts rather than later. 

Third, it takes the humility to give up the parts of our autonomous nature that keep the organization from being all that it can be. It is pride and power and guard silos and turf. It is humility and missional commitment that break them down. Does it matter? It will on the day we give an account to the Lord of the church. Ironically, it often matters more to those we serve than to us who lead. They often see what we cannot see and when they do not see their leaders act, they often decide to invest their lives elsewhere. 

Five questions every good manager periodically asks their staff

The reality of leadership is that generally staff will often not tell us key things unless we ask. When we ask, however, we are likely to get a straight answer. Wise leaders ask these five questions periodically of their staff.

1. Is there anything that I do which causes problems for you or disempowers you? 

2. Is there anything that you wish I would do differently?

3. Do you need anything from me?

4. Are you fulfilled in your role and do you believe your gifts are being used to their fullest?

5. What is your happiness factor (1-10)? What would make it higher?

Five simple questions that can create healthy dialogue and significantly enhance your working relationship with staff.

12 ways leaders disempower those they lead

Here are twelve common ways that leaders can disempower those they lead. If you lead others, think about whether any of these apply to you. When leaders engage in these behaviors they lose the trust and confidence of those they lead. 

Don't delegate authority with responsibility
This is particularly disempowering when one is asked to do something but they do not have the authority to get it done. It is a no win situation for everyone involved and displays a lack of trust on the part of a supervisor.

Redoing what staff have done
Yes there are times when it is necessary to tweak what staff have done but a propensity to redo their work on a regular basis disempowers otherwise good staff. This includes situations where one is tasked to solve a problem and then the solution proposed is rejected.

Surprises that create consternation
None of us like surprises and when those surprises create extra work for staff it can be very discouraging. Especially if they could have been given a heads up earlier.

Dismissing ideas out of hand
Good leaders encourage innovation and new ideas. When they are dismissed out of hand, however, they send a strong signal that they are not wanted.

Declare rather than dialogue
None of us like to simply be told what to do. We desire a voice in a decision if it impacts us. In general, declarations disempower while dialogue empowers.

Take credit rather than giving it away
This is one of the most toxic things a leader can do when the credit really belongs to others on the team. It is a sign of narcissism and devalues those who made something happen.

Talk rather than listen
Anytime a leader speaks more than they listen one has a disempowering leader. They are not interested in what others have to say but what they have to tell. 

Don't give equal regard to men and women
Unfortunately this remains an issue in the Christian world. Unequal treatment of men and women is wrong and it disempowers women.

Lack of equal treatment and fairness
When leaders give preferential treatment to someone others take note of the disparity. It is a lack of fairness which disempowers others on the team.

Using the God card
Christian leaders who use the God card - "God told me to do this" - leave others with nowhere to go in dialogue, especially if they have questions of the wisdom of the decision. How do you argue with God?

Double standards
This especially applies to leaders who live and work one way but expect their team to live an work another way. Leaders cannot ask their staff to go where they are not willing to go.

Don't keep them challenged
I commonly find staff who are under challenged and under utilized but their leader has never even asked so they don't know. Not being challenged in one's role carries with it serious disempowerment.

The art of managing up and valuing those who do

I have an amazing staff and one of the things I appreciate about them the most is that they manage up well. In other words, they are skilled at managing me as their leader and it makes me a far better leader.

Every leader needs those who are willing to manage up. We need those who will help us think through different perspectives, consider different options, rethink old paradigms, and help influence direction. Leaders who are resistant to that are poor leaders. Those who welcome it are better leaders because of those who manage them from the side or from below.

I know that not all leaders are willing to listen to messages from below that they don't want to hear. One of the decisions I made long ago was that I would not work for someone who was not willing to listen to what I had to say - they did not need to agree with me but they did need to be willing to listen. 

I realize that we earn the right to speak and there are appropriate ways of speaking and a right time to speak, but all things being equal, those who will not listen to those who work for them are leaders I choose not to work for.

Why do I value those who manage up? First because they have perspectives that I don't have and see things I may not see. All of us suffer from a limited perspective! Second, because they care about the mission of the organization. If they didn't they would not make the effort. Third, because they generally have my best interests in mind - if they didn't they would not bother. 

The last point is one that leaders ought to consider carefully. Generally staff want their leaders to succeed because if they do, so does the team or organization. When leaders are missing something that they need to know (what staff are thinking for instance) it is a great favor to them to clue them in. 

One of the ways I have approached potentially unpopular feedback to those I have worked for is to say something like this: "I want to share some things I have been mulling on. I don't need you to answer me and how you deal with the information is up to you but I want you to know...." This way I have not put someone in a corner, have not told them what they ought to do about it (and that is not my responsibility) but have shared what I think or know for their benefit and consideration. 

I have always appreciated people who have done this with me. I want the information or feedback they have but I am not always able to share what I  know about a situation with them. Giving me the information without needing a response allows me to process and file it away and become a part of whatever course I take. 

It is when people have an agenda that they are pressing on me that such feedback becomes problematic. Managing up with an agenda that a leader do what they want them to do is going to backfire and is a fast route to diminished rather than greater influence.

Leaders who resist feedback from below or the side often get what they deserve as other staff leave them to their own devices knowing that their lack of knowledge will hurt them but also knowing that they don't want to hear. It generally does not work well for either the organization or the leader.