Do you have guerrilla warfare in your organization?

Guerrilla warfare is unconventional and hard to anticipate and contain as it operates in the shadows but pops into the light from time to time. The same is true of passive-aggressive behavior within organizations. It is a way of quietly subverting something or someone in the shadows and behind the scenes while portraying an attitude of cooperation. This is why I have elsewhere called the behavior a form of dishonesty. It portrays one thing and actually does another.

Passive aggressive behavior can take many forms. It can include delaying tactics on things that others need to be done, not communicating key pieces of information that others need, being supportive in person and unsupportive behind the scenes with others, ignoring standard processes, not keeping promises, and other behaviors that are meant to prick or hurt an individual or a group that they don't like or have a bone to pick with. But, it is done in the shadows where it is hard for others to hold them accountable.

I once was the target of such an individual who delayed their response, didn't tell me they needed additional information to fulfill their obligation, and used less than gracious wording in their communications so that it sent a message but was not overtly over the line. The individual obviously meant to send me a message through their actions, and I got it loud and clear. It was subtle but effective. I had no desire to further work with that individual and instead dealt with their supervisor and not them (they don't work for me).

Why does this matter? It matters for two reasons. First, passive-aggressive individuals tell you through their behavior that they are not truly with you. In other words, you have someone who says they are on the team, but in reality, they are not. Their heart is not there, or they have a bone to pick with leadership, but either way, they are not truly on your team. You have an obvious lack of alignment.

Second, if you consider the behaviors above, they hurt the work of whatever team they are on by putting, as it were, sludge in the works. Their lack of active cooperation inevitably gets in the way of what the team or organization is trying to do. It hurts the team and the organization.

How do you deal with passive-aggressive individuals? In my experience, the first thing to do is to address the unacceptable behaviors when they occur. If there is a pattern of those behaviors, keep track of them, and with a passive-aggressive individual, there will be a pattern. At some point, the pattern of behavior can be addressed.

Because this is guerrilla warfare that operates from the shadows. in some cases, you simply allow the individual enough rope to hang themselves since ongoing behaviors like this will eventually irritate enough people that you can act on them. You cannot go to motives but hold people accountable for their behaviors.

If you suspect you have passive-aggressive behaviors in your organization, keep an eye on it, as it could hurt you, your team, or the organization itself. 

A counterintuitive way to gauge the health of your church or organization

 

In my years of consulting with both churches and non-profit organizations, I have come to the conclusion that the single greatest indicator of the organization's health is the health and culture of the staff. When the culture of the staff is healthy, the rest of the organization is usually healthy. When there is dysfunction at the staff level, that is likely to be mirrored in the congregation. 

When I have been asked for help to solve issues in a local church, I first interview all staff. What I learn there is usually the key indicator of why there are issues within the church. Some of the typical dysfunctions at the staff level (when the staff culture is not healthy) include the following. 

• Leaders who are threatened by others, must have their own way and create an atmosphere where candid conversation is not safe or invited.
• Leaders who operate out of ego and pride and don't build a collegial atmosphere where everyone's contribution is valued.
• Leaders who micromanage their staff, leave staff feeling unappreciated and unempowered.
• Gossip and subtle power groups on staff.
• A lack of cooperation between staff and departments.
• Politics, silos, and turf wars, to quote Lencioni.
• A fundamental lack of trust.
• A lack of missional alignment where various leaders or staff travel in their own direction.
• A lack of clarity around the direction and vision of the church.
• A culture where the feeding and development of staff is lacking.
• The inability or unwillingness to deal with staff who are no longer effective in their roles.
• A culture that is agenda-driven rather than Jesus-driven.

Leaders and staff often portray a façade of health to the congregation or constituents, but the dysfunction at the staff level will eventually catch up in subtle or not-so-subtle ways. It follows that the first step in ensuring that a church is healthy is to focus on the internal staff dynamics and relationships. Until there is health in the staff, there will not be health in the overall organization.

How does one determine where the issues are on staff? Where there are significant issues, one of the best ways to surface those issues is to conduct a staff audit using an outside, experienced consultant where open-ended questions can be used to surface issues and where trends and issues can surface. Coming out of those interviews, a plan of action can be constructed to bring greater health to the team. One is not looking for individual, one-off issues here but for general trends and attitudes. 

Here are some of the questions I use in doing a culture audit of the staff.  Depending on the answer, I will often probe further. This is a confidential conversation where individual answers are protected.

• What do you love about working here?
• Describe for me the culture of the staff?
• Are there things that frustrate you?
• Are you using your gifts to the greatest potential?
• Organizations can be permission granting, where staff are empowered within boundaries, or permission withholding, where one can only act with permission. Is your organization more permission granting or permission withholding?
• Do you have good clarity around your responsibilities, and do you have the tools you need to accomplish your work?
• How does your supervisor interact with you, and how would you characterize the relationship?
• What are the three greatest strengths of the staff culture?
• What are the three greatest weaknesses of the staff culture?
• Is there anyone on staff who you think is in the wrong place?
• If you were in my place as the consultant, what would you recommend to increase the health of the staff?

These kinds of conversations surface issues that are often known but have not been acted on. It gives you a roadmap to address areas of dysfunction and increase the relative health of staff. The bottom line is that when staff is not healthy, the organization is not healthy because the dishealth will eventually catch up and impact the organization as a whole.

The lesson is that if you want to know and grow the health of your organization, start with the health of the staff.

Reinvigorating and reimagining your organization

All organizations whether for profit or non profit go through predictable stages of growth. Someone had a vision in the beginning but at some point that vision is reached and unless care is taken the organization starts to stagnate in the status quo and the impetus for forward movement starts to stall out.

But this need not be the case if senior leaders are constantly thinking about the way forward. In fact it is the job of leaders to constantly ruffle the waters of comfortability without sinking the ship. Without this commitment to keep searching the horizons leaders themselves can become the barrier to forward movement in their organization. And this applies to leaders at all levels of an organization.

The way to counter stagnation is for leaders to reinvision every five years or so. In our fast moving world opportunities change and thus organizations need to learn to be nimble to meet those opportunities without compromising the values and mission of the organization.

The central questions are these:

• What do we want our organization to look like five years from now?
• What new opportunities do we have to fulfill our mission as we look at the changed environment around us?
• What changes do we need to make if we are going to meet those opportunities?
• Is there anything we are doing that is no longer mission critical and should be dropped so that we can focus on issues that have raised to greater importance?
• If we were starting the organization today what would we do differently? And then align to the answer to that question.
• Do we have the right people in the right seats to meet the opportunities of today? If not, how do you use your talent to maximize your impact?

Thinking through these issues is hard work but it is the work that the most innovative organizations do on a regular basis. It is worth the work because the return on mission increases significantly.

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

Ministries are either built to last or built to fail - think about Mars Hill

It was fascinating but not surprising news this week that one of the famous ministries of our day is dissolving with the resignation of its founder, Mark Driscoll. Come New Year's day, 2015 the Mars Hill Church of Seattle will cease to exist although some of their satellite locations may choose to become independent churches.

There are some lessons to be learned from this. The first is that it is always perilous to build a ministry around one individual rather than a team that is in Jim Collin's terms "Built to Last." Any ministry dependent on one individual faces a crisis if that individual dies or leaves. Such ministries often revolve around a single leader because that leader is fundamentally unwilling to delegate responsibility and authority to others. In my view, no local church should be organized this way and when it is it often reflects a narcissistic leader who needs to control. Clearly there was not a healthy culture at Mars Hill which almost always reflects the DNA of its leader.

Well built ministries have leadership teams not a single leader and they are designed to function well even if the senior leader for some reason leaves that ministry. That structure reflects a greater concern for the mission and the ministry while structures built around an individual reflect a greater concern for the wishes and control of that individual. The first is reflective of a kingdom mindset and the second of a egotistical mindset (with a few exceptions). All ministries built around one individual are fragile entities!

My second observation is that Mars Hill lacked what every good church should have and that is local leadership that is empowered to hold its senior leader accountable and to rein in problematic behavior. Certainly in a church that size there are many highly qualified leaders, yet in the main the board of overseers was from the outside with neither the ongoing context or the ability to shepherd the pastor, let alone ensure that the church was healthy. 

For current leaders to make the decision they have made indicates clearly that they had few good options which is a reflection of the damage Mark did in the past several years, the lack of a structure that was built to last and of a strong leadership team that should have been able to weather the storm. And in case you think this is piling it on, think of the hundreds of staff and thousands of congregants for whom the church was their livelihood or place of worship and you start to understand the enormity of the corporate pain that must be present this week at the news that your church will disappear in two months. Not because there was a planned transition but because the leadership of the organization was so poor there were no good options left.

I also hope, thirdly that all of us in ministry take heed of the lessons of this sorry tale. Our character as leaders counts. Our words, attitudes, decisions and treatment of people matter a lot. I am amazed at how many people responded to Mark's behavior as OK (after all we are all human). Yet the Scriptures are clear that those in Christian leadership bear a far higher level of responsibility for their behaviors and character than others. It is one thing to have a bad day - we all have them. It is another to have a pattern of behaviors that violate Scriptural guidelines and not be called on it. To give Mark a pass because he built a large organization misses the point that success (defined by the world's definition) is never an excuse for not living up to the calling we have in Christian leadership. 

Taken together, the decision this week goes to a failure of leadership by Mark and leaders, a failure to build a healthy organization and a willingness to overlook important issues because people came in large numbers and gave generously. The speed at which it came apart in the end is indicative of deep fissures and a poor foundation. 

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.

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.

Independent contractors and organizational members

There are two kinds of potential employees and you probably have both in your organization if you are of any size: those who think of themselves as independent contractors and those who choose to be organizational members. The first group is problematic while the second group is healthier.

Independent contractors are those who are part of your ministry but who are far more committed to what they want to do than to contribute to the overall success of the organization. For an independent contractor, your ministry, be it a mission, a church or other ministry is simply a platform for them to do their thing in their way and in light of their priorities. So while they may be employees or staff and receive their paycheck from your organization their loyalty is not to the organization and its mission but to their thing and their mission. They actually hurt your organization rather than help it.

What this means is that they have no desire or intention to align themselves with the organization itself but use the organization for their purposes. It brings with it significant lack of alignment, an independent spirit that does not play well on a team, continual push back when asked to abide by organizational values and commitments and often a passive aggressive attitude that pays lip service to the organization but in reality plays to their own priorities.

Contrast this with staff who understand that they are part of an organization and want to contribute to the mission and ethos of the organization. They play well together, abide by organizational commitments, understand that they are not solo players and deeply desire to contribute to the whole. Thus they play well on the team and exhibit a humble spirit of service and contribution to the whole.

In my experience, independent contractors do not belong in a healthy organization because they will not contribute to the whole. Those who understand that they are part of the whole and want to contribute to the whole are highly valued by an organization. If you are struggling with a staff member who does not seem to be aligned ask yourself if you are dealing with an independent contractor rather than an organizational member. That distinction is often the source of frustration that you are feeling.

One caveat. You cannot ask staff to be part of an organization when there is not clarity as to what the organization is about. Where there is a lack of organizational clarity you will have independent contractors because they have to make up their own clarity. When the organization has clarity, you can build a unified, aligned team of organizational members.

Seven questions every ministry ought to ask themselves

Do we think too small?
Most ministries do. They are so used to what is that they don't ask what could be. In addition, they often ignore the fact that if they changed how they did what they did that they could see exponentially larger ministry results. Ministry results are not dependent on our size or budget but on strategies of multiplication rather than addition. Changing how we think can directly impact our results.

Do we underestimate the power of the Gospel?
Too many of us do. The simple Gospel message has the power to change hearts and lives and communities through the work of the Holy Spirit. It is so simple that we often think we need to make it more sophisticated. There is nothing sophisticated about the Gospel. It is the power of God to change lives and bring salvation (Romans 1:16).

Do we think too narrowly?
Paradigms can be limiting factors for all of us. For many years the organization I lead said it was a church planting mission - pretty much exclusively. When we opened ourselves up to a holistic ministry focus of Gospel transformation and holistic ministries we saw our impact dramatically increase. We had been thinking too narrowly. 

Is our vision molded by caution or faith?
Caution is plague among ministries. We are so careful that we don't mess things up that we often don't step out in faith and try bold things. I am not talking foolish things but bold things. ReachGlobal is praying that God would allow it to impact one hundred million people with the Gospel and see 100 Acts 19 situations arise where the gospel penetrates a city or region, not just a neighborhood. That is a faith goal that forces us to not only live by faith but to boldly try strategies that will get us there. 

Is our expectation molded by pessimism or optimism?
Paul says in Ephesians 4:20 that "God is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us." Do we really believe that? I meet many people who have very modest expectations of what God can and will do. I choose optimism over pessimism every time because it is a out God and His power that actually works within us.

Do we underestimate God power in us?
Most believers do. We don't fully grasp His power working within us or believe that He can use ordinary people for extraordinary things. But God always works through ordinary people who understand His power and are ready to put their lives at His disposal and believe that He will infuse their efforts with His power.

Do we work too independently of others?
Most ministries do. Sometimes we are arrogant and think that we can do it alone, sometimes afraid to enter into strategic partnerships, sometimes our theological framework is too narrow to understand that the Gospel transcends our usually minor theological differences. Whatever the reason, until we value the Bride over our brand we will not see the ministry results that God envisions for our world.

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?

Are you an institution or a movement?

Is the church or ministry you are a part of more of an institution or a movement? Look at this excellent description of the difference between the two by H.R. Neibuhr.

There are essential differences between institutions and movements: the one is conservative the other progressive; the one is more or less passive, yielding to influence from the outside, the other is active influencing rather than being influenced; the one looks to the past, the other to the future…the one is anxious, the other is prepared to take risks; the one guards boundaries, the other crosses them.

By this definition most churches and ministries are more institutional than they are missional. Most start their ministry journey with  missional energy and vision but over time move to the institutional side of the continuum. Institutional is more comfortable, demands less of us, requires us to think less and does not demand that we change much. It is a nice place to be.

And a very dangerous place to be! The cost of institutional is that we lose our ability to flex to meet current ministry challenges. We become comfortable with what is rather than with what could be. We become oblivious to the threats to our existence. We allow comfort to subvert effectiveness. We live with the allusion that all is well while in fact it is not!

How do you know where your ministry falls? Ask the following questions from the quote above. Better yet have all your staff and board members answer the questions and then compare notes.

1. Would we be considered conservative or progressive in our ministry paradigms?
2. Do we yield more to influences from the outside or do we influence our direction actively?
3. Do we look more to the past or more to the future?
4. Are we risk takers or risk adverse?
5. Are we afraid to try new things or actively look for new opportunities to pursue?
6. Where would we peg ourselves on the institutional/movement continuum?
7. Are we satisfied with where we are? If not what do we need to do about it?

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?

Any ministry is only as strong as its weakest area

Ministries like any organization are a series of interconnected parts where each plays a role in the whole. Given the connections, it is also true that in many cases, the ministry is only as strong as its weakest area - a sobering thought.

The corollary truth is that when we choose to ignore areas of weakness we actually hold the whole ministry hostage to those areas of weakness. A church may have quality ministries but if their small group ministry is weak (where this is the relational glue of the church) the whole ministry is weak because the back door remains open. Thus, this area of weakness impacts the rest of the ministry.

Generally staff have an opinion on where the weaknesses lie in any ministry. For years, an area of weakness was the intake process for our mission. If you don't catch dishealth at the front gate you must deal with it later and others pay the price. While the organization knew this was true, there was not a culture that made it OK to talk about the issue and so it went on and on. I spoke recently with someone who attends a church where the music leader is incompetent, will not listen to others, and is frankly terrible up front. No one dares push the issue and the church remains small and will probably stay that way because of this area of obvious weakness.

Healthy organizations have an ethos where areas of weakness can be identified and addressed. It is not about blaming people as the issue usually comes down to processes. Either way, however, if an area of weakness is present and is impacting other areas as they usually do, there must be a way to address it. And to address it there must be a way to talk about it. If there is not the very culture of the organization conspires against reformation.

One weak link in a chain compromises the whole chain. That is why any ministry is only as strong as its weakest link.