5 marks of a good consultant

It is normal for a business, non-profit or ministry to need a consultant from time to time. However, there is often a built in bias against "another" consultant based on prior (less than satisfying) experiences. In addition, there may be staff who resist bringing in an outsider due to their own insecurities and fear of change. Often they will say, "We have our own staff who can figure this out." The truth is that their staff might be able to help another organization figure it out but we are often blind to issues within our own organization. 

Finally, the right consultant can say things that if articulated by staff could create conflict within the organization. However, as a neutral outsider who has not have a "dog in the fight" the consultant can ask questions, press into issues and even suggest alternatives that would not be heard from someone on the inside. In addition, a consultant can comment on staff members who may no longer fit the role that they are in.

The challenge of course is to find the "right" consultant who will help the organization address the gaps that may be keeping it from reaching its full potential. They have the ability to understand the moving parts (like the Rubik cube) and get the right pieces in place for  a solution. I believe that the marks of the best consultant are as follows:

1. They have a successful track record to helping organizations understand the issues they are facing and to articulate those issues with simplicity and clarity. The way to find that out of course is to talk to other organizations they have worked with. Good consultants don't complicate issues that may already be complicated but are able to synthesize and simplify issues that need to be addressed. Remember that the core issues may not be the ones that convinced you an outside consultant was necessary as presenting issues are not always the real issues but rather manifestations of something more fundamental.

2. They have the ability to be independent in their thinking. This is especially important as staff will frequently lobby consultants to take their position or their solution. The best consultants gather data from as many individuals as they can, examine the issues and while empathizing with those they talk to keep an open mind until they are able to identify the real issues and make recommendations to the organization.

In one situation where I was asked to deal with a difficult conflictual situation within a congregation, one of the elders asked a prior client if I could be objective. Then answer was, "Oh, he will be objective but you might not like his objectivity." The elder was willing to trust me based on prior work I had done and while I did not deliver the solution he would have wanted he told me some time later that he would have made the same recommendations if he were in my shoes.

A good consultant is willing to speak truth to those in leadership with diplomacy but full candor. This requires not only objectivity but courage as some may not like the candor.

3. They don't come in assuming that the presenting issues are the real or core issues that need to be addressed. Frequently, presenting issues merely mask deeper and more important issues with staff, leaders, organizational structures or strategy. The best consultants don't assume that what is presented on the front end will be the core issues they address but wait to understand how the interconnected parts fit together.

4. They will walk with the organization to solve the problems they identify. It is one thing to say "Here are your problems." It is another to say "Here are your problems and these are my suggestions for resolving them." The best consultants say, "Here are your problems from my perspective (with the data to back up their observations), these are the solutions I would recommend and I am here to help you implement those solutions." 

The ability to help an organization implement solutions is critical because often the "outside voice" of one who has no role in the organization is necessary to resolve the issues and help the organization move on. This is a coaching, truth telling and diplomatic role (especially when it is necessary to make some personnel changes) that give those in authority the data and insight they need in order to walk through the necessary change process. Even seasoned leaders often need coaching in the change process. 

5. They have healthy Emotional Intelligence. Why is this so important? It is because resolving issues always involves some kind of change and change impacts people and people must be persuaded that a certain course of action is in their best interest. This is often the toughest part for a consultant. I have always maintained that understanding the issues is about 10% of the challenge while the other 90% is helping to manage the change process because people are involved at every point. All of that takes good relational and emotional intelligence to understand others and help persuade them that making these changes will allow them be more successful as an organization. 

All of these marks can be ascertained by dialogue with a potential consultant as well as talking to those they have served in the past. This is a unique skill set that sets the best consultants apart from the rest. 

Five questions that can help you deal with almost any issue

My good friend Edmund Chan, former pastor, ministry leader and a coach and mentor to many recently shared these five questions with the senior staff of ReachGlobal. They are brilliant! Take and issue and apply them to the five questions and see where you end up.

1. Why is it so important?

2. If it is so important why is it so neglected?

3. What is it all about?

4. What makes it so difficult?

5. How can it best be accomplished?

(Written from Oakdale, MN)

We do solutions, not complaints, blame or excuses

In any organization or team there is plenty one can complain about. People and life and circumstances are not perfect which is why there are no perfect organizations. Unfortunately there are always those who enjoy complaining about what goes wrong or what could be better and those who cover their own issues with excuses.

My mantra is that "we do solutions, not complaints or excuses."

Actually, finding deficiencies is a good, not bad thing, as it allows us to get better. However, what one does with those deficiencies is the key.

If I complain, I am putting the onus of the issue on others which may make me feel good (it is not my issue) because it is someone else's issue to solve. That of course puts the one we perceive as responsible on the defensive with gets us no-where except into the realm of bad feelings.

If I cover up my own deficiencies with excuses, I am also usually blaming others because I have to find someone or something to excuse the fact that I did not deliver on something. Someone or something got in the way of my being able to deliver so it is not my fault. Again we enter the real of blaming others.

Both complaining and excusing are off limits in a healthy organization or team. What is encouraged is to find places where we need to do better and then work to find solutions. Solutions are not about blame, criticism or complaints but about solving problems. And problem solving is a positive exercise while the previous tactics are negative exercises.

Which do you allow in your organization? Complaints, excuses and blame or solutions?

Discerning the voice behind the voices

Consider a common scenario. You are a ministry leader and you are receiving significant push back from one or more individuals either personally or you are hearing common themes being discussed with others which find their way back to you secondhand (the passive aggressive way to deal with conflict).

As a rule there are two things I want to know. First, who is pushing back and second, who is the voice behind the voices when there are common themes being raised.

When there are rumblings in your ministry and people tell you that there are discontented folks the first question is "who are they?" In fact, I will generally not have a conversation with people who tell me there is discontent in the ranks unless they will tell me who is involved. 

Why? Because there are people who I know that are continually discontented with where we are going, who have attitudes that are critical and cynical and who I know are not really on the team. The fact that they are sources of discontent neither surprises me nor am I going to spend time and energy trying to change their attitudes. On the other hand if the source of discontent is a healthy staff member I am going to press into that to see what can be done to resolve the issue.

There is another scenario that is all too common: you start to hear common themes in a common language which tells one that there is a voice behind the voices who is spreading discontent. The best passive aggressive people are smart. They will not tell you upfront what their issues are but they will tell others who are prone to becoming enmeshed with them emotionally and who will take on their crusade. They are like arsonists who light fires with others behind the scenes but when you show up they are never there to take responsibility. Rather, they use others to carry their water while they remain hidden in the shadows.

Here is what you want to understand in this situation. Those who are loud voices may not be the ones who are instigating the critical spirits. Common language, common complaints, and common attitudes usually indicate that there is a common source. Thus to deal with the situation you must find the common source. 

Here is where Christians are often naive. We believe that God's people will act with integrity when in fact they often don't. Jesus told us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Often when asked by church leaders about scenarios like this I will do some probing and it is not difficult to figure out who the common source is. Once that is determined it is possible to develop a strategy to deal with him or her.

Remember: common language, common complaints and common attitudes usually indicate that there is a common source. Figure out who the voice is behind the voices and you have a shot at dealing with the snake in the grass.

Dialogue is the key to understanding

As an author and writer, written words are the tools of my trade - but not in all cases. Organizational leadership can be helped with clear written words. But true understanding of the implications of what is written usually only comes through dialogue - frequent dialogue.

People learn differently. For many, their primary learning method is not reading but hearing. But the most powerful way to learn is that of dialogue together because it is in the give and take of perceptions, ideas, levels of understanding that the best understanding takes place. In addition, one can see the others face, expressions and hear their intonation. Face to face is always better and face to face with mutual dialogue is the best.

Many leaders forget this. They think that because a memo was sent or an all employee email popped in everyone's inbox that people "got it." In fact, they may have "gotten" something very different than what was meant, even by good communicators. In fact they got the memo. They may not have heard what we said. Or understood the implications.

Interestingly, leaders also learn through dialogue. They learn how best to communicate what they are trying to convey. They learn when what they are saying is not clear which changes how they communicate it the next time. And, they are challenged to an even sharper version of what they are sharing. They may even realize there are weak spots in their plans!

There is no substitute for leaders finding time to interact with their staff. People want to understand, not simply hear. Discussion and dialogue is the key. If you lead, how often do you dialogue?

Can we talk? Three key questions in relational disconnect

It is amazing what a conversation can do - especially when there is conflict, disagreement or a relationship gone wrong. Conflict and misunderstanding thrive on silence and assumptions. Conversation makes even those we demonize human and at least understanding is possible when two parties are talking. None, when they are not.

Now there are times when further discussion is counter-productive, especially when dealing with passive aggressive individuals or those you cannot trust to not use the conversation against you. So there are times when we choose silence over conversation - strategically.

But in most cases the way to resolution between parties is a conversation with some good clarifying questions, a lot of non defensive listening, and a candid statement of where we are coming from. Several questions are key:

How did we get here?
Do we both want to find a way forward?
What will it take to resolve this?

The first question clarifies the facts or the perception of the facts. It is not about blame but about the facts as we can understand them.

The second question is critical because it calls the question on whether both parties actually want to find a common solution. If no, then further discussion is fruitless. If yes, there is hope for a common solution. Asking the question has the potential to change the conversation from blame and acrimony to "OK this is where we are, legs figure out how to move forward because we both desire that. 

The third question is a collaborative one. It requires both parties to think together as to how they can resolve the issue at hand.

There is not always a way forward. There is not always a will for both parties to find a way forward. But without conversation you will never know.

The leadership stewardship of necessary but hard conversations

One of the most difficult things a team or organizational leader does is to say the hard things to individuals when behaviors, attitudes or performance are problematic. No one likes to have these conversations and if someone relishes them I question their qualifications for leadership. However, those hard conversations are one of the kindest things a leader can do for the individual involved and for the organization.

What is kind is not always easy but it is necessary. Pressing into the hard things is a great favor to the individual. First, because you have given them the courtesy of hearing what others around them are saying or thinking - which they may be oblivious to. Second, it opens up a dialogue regarding issues which if solved will make them better people and better staff. 

That dialogue may also reveal that the individual is not in their correct lane where they are likely to be successful. If that is the case, they probably know in their gut that they are in the wrong spot but don't know what to do about it. Helping them find their lane whether in your organization or another is the prelude to a happier existence.

If the hard conversation meets great resistance and defensiveness you know that you are dealing with an individual with EQ deficits which will manifest itself in other unhealthy ways and must either be resolved or will cause relational damage. In fact, how an individual responds to hard conversations is a very telling factor about their ability to become healthier. Your willingness to press in, however, is often the prelude to greater happiness and satisfaction on their part - if they choose to respond well.

It is also a huge favor to the team or organization. When there are behaviors, attitudes or performance that are problematic it impacts others in the organization. If we choose to avoid the issue (it is an uncomfortable conversation) we effectively disempower others who are impacted. This is why I call this an issue of leadership stewardship. As stewards of our staff or team we have a responsibility to create a healthy and empowering work environment

Often we wait too long to have necessary conversations out of our own issues and discomfort. When we put it off we forget that we are not doing either the individual or the organization a favor by doing so. 

"I knew I should have said something!"

I have heard that statement numerous times from staff or board leaders about a decision that was made that they knew was not a good idea but did not speak up. It only takes one individual who is willing to show up to stop a train that looks like it is gathering steam - toward a train wreck.


Especially is ministry there is a tendency toward optimistic thinking. That things will work out or we just need to have faith. But faith and optimism in foolish or reckless decisions is not faith but folly. 


Whenever we have a "check in our spirit" we ought to pay attention to it. That "check" or "doubt" may well be the Holy Spirit, or plain wisdom, saying, "Don't go there." "Speak up even if you lose the day." Never ignore the whisper of doubt when making an important decision.


We have a lot of group think on staffs and church and ministry boards. It is an unfortunate thing. The very reason that God designed church leadership as a "plurality of leaders" is that no one individual has the wisdom or gifts to lead alone. But group think circumvents that design by the group simply acting as one individual. Plurality in leadership only works well when each individual is willing, able and courageous enough to speak their minds and even to go against the flow when necessary.


This is not about being the "gadfly." It is about being an independent thinker who is able to speak honestly, candidly and truthfully even when that means raising uncomfortable questions that others don't want to raise. Often, if one individual has doubts, others do as well and the one who is courageous enough to speak gives others permission to speak as well.


One of the marks of good emotional intelligence (EQ) is the ability to be self defining. That is, to be able to state one own's opinion with conviction and clarity even if it is a lone voice. 


There are ministry leaders who exert a great deal of pressure for their boards or staff to go along with them. Healthy leaders and staff are respectful but independent thinkers who hopefully won't wish after the fact that they should have said something. 

Leadership fear and faith

Is there one key issue you know that you need to address in your organization that you have put off because of fear? The fear may be of dealing with the consequences, explaining to someone that they are not a good fit or needing to make a major shift that you know has unknowns attached to it.

Leadership fear that paralyzes action you know must be taken is not uncommon. You are in good company - but also dangerous company. Leaders suffer from it. Boards suffer from it. Fear is normal but not acting because of it is leadership default.

Inability to address necessary issues can increase with our longevity as leaders. The longer we have been in a position the more we have to lose if we rock the boat. So it is easy to look the other way or even to figure our successor will take care of it. If you inherited such issues from your predecessor you know how well that works!

Often our inability to act comes from confusing the issue we need to address with the question of how we should do it. These are two very different questions. The first question is what do we need to do and once we are clear on that the second is how do we do it. 

If you have an issue, don't ignore it but make a conscious decision as to what you need to do. Then, start thinking through the strategy for how you can best address it with as little fallout as possible.

Remember that doing the right thing honors God, is what we are called to do in our leadership roles and is critical to the health and missionality of the ministry. I have been amazed at how God has gone before me when I have done the right thing even if it was the hard thing. 

Being willing to address those issues we know we should address is not only a matter of courage but of faith. Do we believe that God honors leaders who do what is best? Do we trust him for the wisdom to do it in a way that is prudent? Do we believe that if He is prompting us to act that He will act on our behalf as well?

Most of us know when we need to act on something. The question is whether our faith or fear will win out. As Paul said, if God has given one the gift of leadership, lead!

When all options are bad options

Let me pose an interesting dilemma. There are times that we face situations in our ministries where a crisis has occurred, or a decision must be made and all available options seem to be bad options. 

Here is an example: There is a financial crisis that must be fixed but the pain of fixing it is going to be painful because there are no good options. Any and all decisions on the table are hard decisions that will bring some kind of pain. Or you have a personnel decision that needs to be dealt with but there seems to be no upside in the choices you have in dealing with it. There are times when the only choices we have are bad choices.

I have seen a variety of responses to situations where all the options are bad options. One response is for leaders to not act at all because they want a good option and they see none. Humanly speaking this is understandable as none of us want to deal with the fallout of bad options. Of course, this simply delays the inevitable and the options rarely get better by waiting. 

The exception is with personnel issues where waiting can be a viable option if behaviors known to a few become evident to many by giving the issue time thus minimizing the fallout when a decision is made. However, this is not ignoring the issue but choosing to wait on the issue - a strategic difference.

A second response is to face the bad options realistically and choose the best of the bad options. This is often true in financial situations or where a staff member has caused a situation that is going to be painful to address no matter what. 

I recently moderated such a situation internationally where there was not going to be an outcome that was going to be good for either party because of past decisions that others had made. While closure was needed, it was going to be a closure that both parties had to swallow hard to accept. This is often the case in church conflict situations as well where the conflict has become so complicated and contentious that in the short term all that will be experienced is pain. 

There is good news however. If leaders will wisely choose a course of action knowing they have no good current options, and knowing that there will be short term pain, there can be long term gains simply because they were willing to do the hard work of tackling the issue in spite of the pain in the process. Choosing the best of bad options today can lead to closure and health down the line. 

At times, leadership is nothing more than choosing between bad and painful options. But being willing to make the choice for the sake of a healthier future.

Helping people learn: Don't tell, ask

Questions are powerful tools in helping others grow. And often underutilized. We are prone to tell others something rather than ask them something. In telling them something we give them valuable information. In asking them questions so that they come to a conclusion themselves we help them to think for themselves, the skill that will help them make good decisions themselves.


We used to do this with our kids at the dinner table. The questions would result in free flow discussions on many topics and both our sons are today deeply inquisitive of life and good thinkers. Sometimes they turned the table on us and asked why we had certain rules, making us think about the why behind the what.


I was talking to a young leader recently about question asking and he made the comment that no one has taught him how to use that skill. I encouraged him that everyone can learn the skill with practice. I also told him that one had to be OK with a bit of silence after asking a question. Be patient and eventually the other party will answer.


Questions are particularly important in helping others understand their own wiring, motivations, strengths and weaknesses. We may not even have the option of telling them these things but through questions and dialogue we can help them uncover their own makeup.


One reason that more leaders do not ask more questions and default to telling is that questions and dialogue take time. Telling is fast and easy. However, while telling is more efficient in the short run is is less effective in the long run since telling rarely helps the other party actually grow. It gives them information but does not build the skill of critical analysis - necessary for growth.


I just finished a week of dialogue with some bright leaders from around the world. Many shared the power of the week because it was based on questions and group dialogue rather than information imparting which they were used to. Several said they would be using the same method with those they oversaw or mentored.


Questions rather than telling also sends a powerful message that you care about the other party. You are implicitly saying to them that you value their perspective, that they have something to contribute to the question at hand and that it is worth exploring the issue together rather than you as the supervisor or leader simply telling them the answer. Telling communicates that you have the answer. Dialogue indicates that we can come up with the answer. There is a big difference.

Got a situation? Try being candid.

It is an interesting phenomenon. Leadership spin.  Communications or answers to questions that are designed to equivocate or put the best face on something when in reality everyone knows it is not an accurate picture. 


Why cannot leaders simply be candid? Sure there are times when one would not reveal everything because it would hurt others but why not try simple honesty. The irony is that people appreciate transparency and don't appreciate spin. They know and when we choose spin, we lose. 


I suppose we do it for image control but it does not work. We watch public figures spin embarrassing situations and dig deeper and deeper holes until they are forced to come clean. If they had simply been honest in the first place, people would have been forgiving. Image control is pride. Truth is humble. People get the difference between the two.


Scriptures have a lot to say about truth. When Christian leaders are not honest about a situation with their constituents it is not just spin but it is dishonest. And it breeds mistrust. Jesus was refreshingly candid. I have found that the more candid I am as a leader the more trust I get. 


Got a situation? Try being candid. It is what it is and trying to make it something else does not work in the long run. Transparency works a whole lot better than the alternative.

Growing your ministry by developing new relationships

It is counter intuitive but a key way to grow your ministry is to focus on relationships outside of your ministry and normal relational circle. Relationships are the door openers to all kinds of opportunities, help, counsel and ideas. The wider our circle of relationships the richer our lives and leadership.

The reason it is sometimes counter intuitive is that we often feel like we don't have time to develop a wide set of relationships given the busyness of our lives and the demands of leading our own ministry. However, relationships are leverage for growth in our own lives and consequently growth in our own ministries. 

As a ministry leader, I intentionally take the time to develop relationships with other leaders. In doing so I am blessed by:

• Learning new things from new people
• Meeting a new circle of leaders who other leaders know
• Finding synergies where we can work together
• Gaining advocates or counsel when I need them
• Finding solutions for common issues
• Meeting people I can serve in various ways
• Enjoying the fellowship of individuals who have similar values and goals

Every new relationship widens my own world and the world of others. I am enriched and hopefully I enrich others. In fact, who I am today is directly connected to the number of people who have enriched my life and leadership. I owe many people many thanks and I would not be where I am today without those relationships.

Over the years I have grown a considerable library. Those books are my friends and I love to commune with them. But more significant is the group of friends that I have grown who in various ways contribute to my life and ministry and to whom I can contribute. It is a world wide group and each one is important to me.

Never underestimate the value of taking the time to develop relationships outside of your normal circle and from other ministries. You never know how those connections will enrich you, allow you to enrich them, open doors, provide counsel and or simply allow you or them to be connectors with others in ways that build God's kingdom. For those who say, "I don't have time," my response is that it is some of the best time you will invest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transitions that can help your ministry go to the next level

 Periodically ministries need to honestly evaluate the present and envision for the future. This is true for teams, ministry divisions, programs or entire organizations. There is a fairly simple way to get at the transitions that one needs to make. It can be done on a white board in four steps. 


This exercise, however, is not for the faint of heart or people who easily become defensive. In fact, the major reason more ministries do not look in the mirror to see what is really there in order to move beyond the present to the future is that they find it hard to be honest about their reality. It is too threatening and intimidating. It is far easier to live with the illusion that all is well than to look at the true facts and face reality. It is ministries that refuse to live with illusion and value looking at reality that continue to move toward more fruitful results.


Step one: Celebrate the past. Make a list of the the good things that you can celebrate about where your ministry is. You will be encouraged by the "wins" you have experienced. Here is an important principle. We celebrate the past but we envision the future. 


Step two is harder: Look under the hood. This will require you to set aside your ego and act like a consultant to your own organization. The goal here is to look beyond all the good things and make a list of the deficits which you know are there. Where is the organization not working well? Where are there silos? How well are you meeting your mission really? What staff are not performing? Where do you have lack of alignment? I tell staff in this step to act like a consultant to their own organization and tell the truth to the organization where there are major deficits. What would an outsider say to you? Be brutal, honest, candid and realistic about what is. Too many leaders are experts at step one but never go to step two because it is too intimidating. One cannot go forward without being honest about where you are.


Step three: What do you wish your organization looked like? Here you want to define your preferred future: you describe the organization, structure, results and organizational culture you believe would be optimal for you to meet your mission, see significant results and organize for maximum synergy. There should be a counter description for every negative you listed when you looked under the hood. What opportunities is the ministry missing today because of how they are organized? If you could build your ministry from scratch today, how would it look to maximize your ministry impact. This is the picture of what you believe you should become. 


Step four: What transitions do you need to make to get to where you are to where you desire to be? In other words, if you were to move from the present to the preferred future while overcoming the issues you discovered by looking under the hood what key transitions would you need to make? Here you are defining the true cost of moving from what is to what you believe needs to be. It is truly your road map to the next level of ministry success and impact. 


The transitions you need to make call the question on the courage of the leadership of the organization. Are we willing to pay the price that needs to be paid to get to where we need and want to go? Often the answer, candidly, is no. We may not want to rock the boat or pay the cost of necessary change - which is why many churches and ministries stall out. Courageous leaders, however, will take up the challenge and determine a strategy to make the transitions because their highest value is not comfort but effectiveness. 


A simple paradigm with powerful results - for courageous leaders only.

Group think and courageous interlopers

It happens on boards, among staff members, in congregations and even among friends: group think. A common opinion or shared course of action even when there is evidence that there is another side, another option or even an elephant in the conversation that is being ignored. But the dynamics of the group and peer pressure prevent people from going there. Sometimes it is easier to just agree and pretend that the elephant is not there.

Enter the interloper - "one who jumps into the midst of things," (Webster) and says, "hmm, wait a minute, what about?, have you thought about?, I think we are possibly missing something here, let's talk about the real issue, there is an elephant we are not willing to discuss so I am going to put it on the table."

This is not an easy role to play and it needs to be played carefully. But it is a necessary role for those who are courageous enough to do it. Disagreeing with group think can be an unpopular role to play and thus needs to be done with grace and humility. But, when there are issues behind the issues that are being ignored for comfort or convenience, someone with courage can do the organization a favor by at least putting it on the table. Once on the table, others may be willing to consider it. 

Mature individuals are self defined individuals. They are able and willing to speak their mind without being disagreeable, able to disagree while remaining relationally connected and are not intimidated by being a lone voice with both conviction and humility. They don't have to get their way but they are also not going to ignore issues that are part of the equation. In a word, they are wise without being obnoxious.

Church boards need courageous interlopers from time to time who are willing to press in where others will not go. So do staff teams and even groups of friends. It is not easy but sometimes necessary.

Church conflict, christian character and the reputation of Jesus

Church conflict inevitably happens since their populations are made up of "flawed saints." I am currently involved in consulting with a number of congregations walking through conflict and the thing that grabs my attention time after time is that those who claim to love Jesus are quick to damage His bride - the church - when they don't get their way in the church. Here is the irony: many are willing to trash, divide, hurt and engage in unholy conduct in the church (Jesus' most precious possession) and yet claim to love the Lord of the church. It is not compatible, it does not compute and God is not pleased!


I am not saying that important issues in the church must sometimes be addressed, even when it makes others unhappy. However, when our actions, words, attitudes and conduct violates what Jesus has to say about those issues, we have crossed a line into sin. Our cause may be righteous but if our conduct is sinful we are in the wrong and the loser is the church and the reputation of Jesus. Spiritual issues must be dealt with in spiritual ways. When they are not we have crossed a dangerous line.


Many of us have an inadequate view of the place and theology of the church in God's plan. According to Scripture, the church is the bride of Christ. He has placed His whole plan for the salvation of the world at the feet of the church as His chosen instrument to reach the world. Further, He loves the church and members of the church are members of "His body." As His bride, His reputation is wrapped up in the conduct of the church. Trash the church and you trash His reputation. Divide the church and you divide His body. Be careless about preserving the unity of the church and you are playing careless about His bride. 


Think about this: if someone violated your children or tried to destroy or hurt your family you would hold them responsible for the damage they inflicted. Why do we think Jesus is any less grieved and angry when people are careless about their conduct in the church that results in damage to His family? And to make it worse, it is members of His family hurting His family! To top it off, it is people He redeemed who are hurting others who He redeemed. 


The reputation of Jesus is either lifted up or brought down by the conduct of His church. One of the greatest proofs of His transformation in our lives is our ability to disagree with one another while continuing to love one another and refusing to hurt each other in the process. Acts 15 and the council of Jerusalem gives us a good example of Christian leaders working out disagreements while retaining their Godly character. There was robust dialogue which resulted in conflict being resolved in a godly way. However, when our disagreements result in sinful behavior toward one another we are not only trashing each other but we are trashing our Lord - strong words but true.


When dealing with conflict in the church we ought to ask several key questions:
One: How do we address the issue without hurting the bride?
Two: Does my conduct in any way move away from the christian character I have been called to?
Three: What other Godly individuals can we call in to help us negotiate our issues when we come to an impasse or are we afraid of accountability?
Four: Are we together living out the teaching of Philippians 2:1-5, along with the example of Christ?
Five: Am I coming at this issue from a spirit of humility or pride?
Six: Do I have bitterness and anger in my heart toward anyone on the other side?


Any church engaged in conflict needs to think deeply about these words of Paul. "If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also the the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that  of Christ Jesus (Philippians 2:1-5)."

The elephants in the room

On a recent consult with leaders from a local church one of the common refrains was that there were a lot of elephants in the room. Elephants are those issues that everyone knows are present but nobody feels free to name. It is also an indication that there is not enough safety or trust in the group to put the elephant (an unresolved but significant issue) on the table.

Every organization has issues that are problematic. The problem with elephants is that they are issues that cannot be discussed without repercussions from some corner. In other words, the presence of elephants is indicative of a culture that both avoids conflict (we don't want to talk about it) and which lacks the necessary trust to have a discussion around an issue without threat of personal repercussions. Elephants then, by definition, because they cannot be named and discussed are indicators of a dysfunctional group or team.

We discussed the result of conflict avoidance in a recent post - sick churches, both because unresolved conflict does not go away but because the inability to deal with conflict indicates leaders who do not have have the courage to lead. Unattended issues fester and become tumors that hurt the body.

What groups do not understand about elephants, however, is that they are really opportunities to become a better organization or team. Dealt with, they are not negatives but opportunities to deal with an issue that has gone untreated and which if solved will better the team and organization. In other words, wherever you uncover an elephant you uncover an opportunity to get better, become healthier and build greater trust.

One of the elephants for this group was that while they "wanted to grow" they didn't want their church "family" to change so they actually resisted allowing new people into the family dynamics or relationships of the church. Thus, like many churches they were plateaued and actually in decline. Nobody wanted to talk about the dynamic that held them hostage because it was uncomfortable and involved something they had to own. But once on the table for discussion they had an opportunity to face their own dysfunction and think about changes they needed to make so that new people coming in would want to stay. Their significant problem was actually a huge opportunity if faced and handled well.

The reluctance to name elephants or issues is that we know someone will be offended. In our organization we talk about robust dialogue where any issue can be put on the table with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas. We can be honest but we cannot get personal. The issue is the issue, it is not a person. We also work very hard to create safe environments where we can discuss issues without people feeling unsafe.

It is a matter of perspective. Elephants are problems but problems, rather than being negative are actually opportunities to grow and get better. I am always interested in finding ways to grow and get better as an organization so I welcome the uncovering of problems or elephants or any issue that if resolved in a positive way makes us a better, healthier, more effective organization.

The key is to create a safe environment where we can put the issues on the table and keep them as issues that we all have a stake in resolving with the commitment that there will never be recrimination for naming them. This obviously requires a senior leader and other leaders who are not defensive but who model and invite transparency and open dialogue. After all it is not about us but about the mission that Jesus has given us.

Critical Decisions

Many would be leaders relish the fact that they make fast decisions. They believe that quick and decisive decision making is the mark of a leader. It might be for a general in war time but apart from those situations that require immediate action, the best decisions are not made fast. In fact, the more significant the decision, the slower it should be made. Here are some components of good decision making.

When making critical decisions, good leaders think grey for a period of time. Grey thinking is thinking through options, listening to opinions and evaluating consequences without forming a conclusion until one needs to. It is the discipline of not forming a conclusion until one must in order to provide the time to gather information, listen to council and understand the implications. When thinking grey, leaders are not lobbying for a position with others, rather they are listening and evaluating.


Good leaders don't make critical decisions alone. The bring the best minds to the table to talk through options and come to a common conclusion. This may mean several or even many rounds of discussion until there is consensus that it is time to move forward and there is agreement on the direction. This runs counter to the "Captain and Commander" version of leadership where like the captain in the film, the leader makes unilateral decisions. The fact is that great leaders keep themselves and their organizations out of trouble by collaboration on critical decisions.

One of the key reasons for collaboration in is that there is likely to be push back from someone who does not agree with the direction. A leader does not want to be hanging out alone when that happens. He/she wants to have a guiding coalition of those who have been involved, agree with the direction and will help communicate and defend it. 


Good leaders seek to understand the positive and negative consequences of critical decisions. They think through who will be affected, who is likely to push back and why, what questions will be asked, and especially what the unintended consequences will be. This is why thinking grey and collaboration are so important. Greater clarity comes over time as these issues are considered.


Good leaders make critical decisions a matter of prayer. God has information we don't have and He may choose to speak into our thinking - generally He does if asked. 


Good leaders seek to come to the greatest clarity possible on why a certain decision has been made and how it will be communicated so that there is the best understanding and the greatest buy in - even if the decision has negative consequences for some which often they do. Lack of clarity creates confusion and confusion around a critical decision is deadly. Clarity comes best in collaboration as various people look at both the decision and the proposed communication through their particular lens. Quick decisions are far more likely to create questions and confusion than taking the time to do due diligence.

Because decisions impact people, good leaders think through the process of communicating that decision. This often means talking to those impacted before communicating to the organization as a whole. Process can be as important as the decision itself because a poorly thought through process is likely to create either confusion or push back from those who don't like the decision and divert the conversation to the process rather than the decision itself. 


A key part of thinking through communication is to anticipate questions and reactions and seek to address them up front to the extent that this is possible. Included are not just the intellectual questions people may have but the emotions that the decision may elicit. Critical decisions are as much about managing emotions as they are about information. 


Finally, good leaders create venues for dialogue and discussion in the aftermath of critical decisions. The best written explanations cannot substitute for face to face discussion with those who desire it. Remember that what you have been processing for some time may come as a surprise and shock to those who hear it for the first time. They need the same processing as you did only they must process after the fact.


Critical decisions impact people and good leaders care deeply about the people they lead. Thus they pay the time and attention to major decisions that will impact the organization and its staff.

Your church has a financial challenge

As we live through year three of an incredibly difficult financial environment a good number of churches are feeling significant pain as giving is not keeping up with budgets. In many cases, there is reluctance to tell the congregation exactly what the situation is and try to solve the problem internally via spending cuts and even lay offs. 

Perhaps the reluctance to be transparent with the congregation is that we don't want to look like we have not managed the situation well. Yet it is the congregation who are the stakeholders of the ministry and simply laying it out to them often results in many people stepping up to meet the need. Remember that in the typical evangelical church, forty to sixty percent of all giving goes outside the local church so these situations are rarely money problems even in a down economy.

One church I know had a 1.5 million dollar shortfall that absolutely needed to be met. Over a period of five weeks they simply laid the facts out to the congregation and thus far they have seen nearly a million dollars of that need met. And, the leaders were praised for their humble transparency.

Rather than losing credibility in being transparent, leaders gain credibility as they include the whole congregation in seeking to meet the need and solve the problem. At the very lease you don't know what people will do until you lay it out and ask.

If cuts must be made the key is not to compromise the central or core ministries of the church. In good times we add ancillary ministries that are nice to have but not core to what we must do. Those are the places where cuts should take place. In fact, the gift of financial challenges is that it forces us to determine what is central and core to who we are and focus on those things.