Inviting your board or staff to become disrupters rather than engage in group think

 

Organizations love to live in the comfortable because the uncomfortable creates anxiety and questions that are not easily answered. This is the major reason that board members, for instance, love smooth and friendly meetings. It is why they keep hard questions to a minimum, don't tend to ask them, and live with the hope that all is okay rather than dealing with known issues. 

It is also why many leadership groups do the same thing. They do not invite disruptive questions or observations, especially if it would make the senior leader uncomfortable. This is the nature of organizations and the pressure to keep people comfortable rather than challenging what is. Those who ask disruptive questions are often marginalized or put in their place by other group members. 

How, for instance, did the Willow Creek Church or Harvest Bible Church dysfunction go on for so long, and how did the boards and staff disregard what was so apparent to those on the outside looking in? In both cases (and in multiple other cases), the desire to live in the comfort zone precluded candid discussion about what was actually going on, and in both cases, a lot was going on. In retrospect, it seems incredible that no group member called the question. Still, it is testimony to the intense pressures to ignore what is inconvenient or potentially disruptive and the power of groupthink.

There is a much healthier alternative, but it takes leaders who possess self-confidence, courage, and nothing to prove, nothing to lose attitude. It is an open invitation to engage in robust dialogue where any issue (read that again) can be put on the table except for a hidden agenda or a personal attack. 

Robust dialogue is an invitation to explore new ideas, ask disruptive questions, speak candidly without reprisal, and do so for the organization's good. It is a rare commodity in most churches and organizations. The result is that issues don't get addressed in a timely manner, those who speak candidly are diminished, and the return on mission is compromised. Unfortunately, it is a rare organization that values disruptive questions, ideas, or observations.

When I led a large international organization, I only put someone on the senior leadership team who I thought would be willing to challenge, disagree with, or take issue with me. I wanted an organization that didn't settle for comfort at the expense of being everything we could be. It made a big difference. 

Any leadership group: a board or executive team is wise to ask the question: Do we value disrupters, or do we love comfort? Have a candid conversation around that issue and see what you learn together. 

See also

What leaders and board members don't know and why

Curiosity and hard questions create discomfort but are the path to becoming better

In many organizations, those who ask the best questions become the object of criticism while the questions remain unanswered

Can you disagree with me as your leader?

As a leader of others I always want to know that those who join my senior team or cabinet are able and willing to disagree with me. Too many leaders define loyalty as agreeing with their position and therefore surround themselves with "yes" people. In my mind this is not loyalty - but disloyalty to the good of the organization. Thus I will not put someone on my senior team who does not have the courage and willingness to disagree with me as their senior leader.

It surprises many people to find out that I do not make unilateral decisions for ReachGlobal. Rather, we say we are team led and team driven and all issues that impact staff go through the ReachGlobal cabinet or the Directional team. People ask, "Do you always get your way?" I say "no." They ask, "Do you care?" I say "no." Then they ask "Why." My answer is that I believe the very best decisions are made when you have the right people in the room and are able to think through the decisions together. It is in the multiplicity of gifts that the best decisions are made.

I find that many senior leaders are threatened when people disagree with them and I find that sad. It is a reflection of their own insecurities and need to prove something rather than truly wanting the very best for the organization. One of our values is that we engage in Robust Dialogue, where "Any issue can be put on the table for discussion with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas." It makes for a culture of freedom where together we can work toward what is best for the organization.

This is all done in a collegial atmosphere where are differences are not personal and do not become personal. Rather we have learned how to stay in relationship while differing in our perspectives, to have candid dialogue and then to support the decision with one voice once it is made. The fact that I submit to this process as a leader also means that when I do feel strongly on an issue, it is taken seriously by the team. Leaders actually gain influence when they bring others into the decision making process. I know that when the decision is made that all support it and key people have had the chance to speak into it.

So the actual question is: Can you disagree with me as your leader and stay in relationship with me?

Posted from Oakdale, MN

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Leaders who do not allow free expression of ideas are operating out of insecurity and fear

I run into them from time to time: leaders who demand that their staff think like they do. They are intimidated and fearful of those who freely express their opinions rather than simply agree with their views. Often, they try to find ways to ensure that independent thought is stifled or discouraged whether through intimidation, policies or signed documents (you must agree with me to be in leadership or on staff).

Whenever leaders must try to enforce agreement with their views, they are not only losing a valuable asset (diversity of views and opinions) but are displaying their own insecurities and fears. Let's be real: healthy leaders not only invite their staff to be honest and candid but value their opinions while unhealthy leaders are afraid of views that disagree with theirs. The end result is that leaders who insist that staff agree with them lose both the value of robust dialogue and the best staff who will not stay in a (dysfunctional) culture that demands conformity.

The more coercive the culture (you must agree with me), the more dysfunctional that culture is. Healthy leaders lead out of influence and persuasion, not out of control and policies. When a leader must turn to control and policies to ensure agreement with them it is always a sign to beware!

This is why we (in ReachGlobal) have a policy that any issue can be put on the table - we call it robust dialogue. The only exceptions are hidden agendas or personal attacks. We value the free exchange of ideas and we value the opinions of good leaders. We agree on the philosophic boundaries of our ministry but in strategy we encourage candid and honest dialogue. Does your church or ministry encourage robust dialogue or do you live in a culture of control and fear where leaders insist you agree with them? It says much about the health or dishealth of your leaders.

When leaders start being coercive in insisting that others agree with them they are operating out of insecurity and fear, rather than out of health. The best leaders listen closely to a variety of views and never insist that staff agree with their views.   

All of T.J. Addington's books are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 discount on orders of ten or more.

Getting it all on the table

I recently sat through a meeting that was honest, hard, candid and helpful. It was honest and candid in that everyone had a chance to speak into the issues fully. It was hard because there were hard issues put on the table. It was helpful because what was inside and impacting the thinking of people toward one another was said, making it easier to deal with the real issues. 

Because there was goodwill toward one another there were no words spoken in anger but many with conviction. What really mattered was the mission of the organization and that was put at the center of the discussion. Everyone had a chance to speak and they did.

This kind of dialogue happens too seldom. We dance around issues, we pretend all is well and we don't say the truly honest things to one another. It is unfortunate because in the end the organization does not reach its full potential. Truth and honesty bring clarity and understanding while stuffing it causes ambiguity and misunderstanding. But it takes courage to put issues on the table and trust that it will be heard and not used against us. That is the mark of a healthy team. Easy? No! Freeing? Yes!

Life is too short to pretend or hide. And neither move the mission forward. People of goodwill, however can have this kind of candid dialogue because they care for one another and the mission and are willing to have the uncomfortable but necessary conversations to get there relationally and missionally. It may get tense at times but it does get the issues in the open so that they can be discussed and hopefully resolved.

Getting it on the table is not something to be feared but to be embraced. Without this there cannot be resolution. With it there can be.

All of T.J. Addington's books are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 discount on orders of ten or more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take a few moments and read this letter of apology 

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 discount on orders of ten or more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Does your team understand and practice robust dialogue? Want to know more?

Robust dialogue is the ability to put any issue on the table for discussion with the exception of hidden agendas or personal attacks. The truth is that most teams do not have the permission or the ground rules for candid and frank discussion and it hurts them. This applies to teams and boards alike. In this short video I talk about how to engage in healthy robust dialogue in your setting. I hope it can encourage leaders and teams to take the next step in learning how to communicate for maximum ministry impact.

Hit this link to my short talk.

The freedom to speak one's mind

In my experience in working with churches and ministry organizations I find many where it is not safe to speak candidly about issues that exist. I am not referring to undiplomatic communication or attacks - just the ability to share honest opinions without being attacked, censored or privately (or publically) shamed. This is nearly always a result of an insecure leader who is unable to deal with candid dialogue and takes any disagreement as a personal attack. And it is a sign of insecurity and low Emotional Intelligence (EQ).

When this happens, there are a number of negative consequences. First, the leader loses major respect among his or her staff. Their defensiveness is seen for what it is - insecurity. Second, when staff cannot talk openly about issues they will end up talking to each other in private or even with others. People need a place to talk. Third, the unresolved issues that cannot be put out in the open fester and become major irritants to those involved and even minor issues can become large issues in the absence of the ability to talk. Fourth, mistrust flourishes! And mistrust destroys otherwise good teams.

Here is a question to leaders who do not invite candid input: Why are you afraid of being questioned or having issues raised? It is not as if they go away in the absence of conversation. In fact, they get larger! It is not as if ignoring the issues solves anything - they just squeeze out somewhere else. Why would you prefer that these topics get discussed behind your back rather than in your presence so that you are part of the discussion? 

Another question. What is it inside you that resists hearing what others think when it might be critical of you or something you do? You may not agree with their analysis but what keeps you from hearing it? As a consultant I hear from staff on a regular basis that they cannot be honest with their leader. Does this not hurt the leader as much as it hurts the team? It really makes no sense at all for the leader or the team. I would rather know what people are thinking than not know. 

Those who don't listen are not only unhealthy emotionally but have something to prove and something to lose - in their own mind. I prefer to live with a nothing to prove/nothing to lose attitude because that is freedom. If I am wrong in some area, so be it. If someone disagrees with me it is OK. If there is robust dialogue over some issue I can be fine with it. Such a stance prevents discussions from being had in the wrong venues with the wrong people and it fosters the very best ideas in a safe atmosphere. It makes for a healthy team as well as a respected leader.

One can gauge the health of a team and a leader by how many issues they cannot discuss as a group. The more there are the unhealthier the team and leader. And it always ultimately comes back to the leader because teams know where they can and cannot go - that is always a function of the openness of a leader. Some of the largest names in Christian leadership are some of the most closed when it comes to candid discussion and feedback. What does that say about their health?

To make it personal, how open or closed are you? I ask myself the question regularly. I want to lead well.

(Written today from Berlin, Germany)

What leaders need to know

Have you ever sat down with a friend or colleague or leader to gently try to tell them something that they really needed to hear but the moment they realized you were addressing something they perceived as critical, the defenses went up, the body language told you that the conversation was not going to be easy and instead of a dialogue there was only a defensive response?

This is all too common, especially among ministry types (I am one) who seem to be more defensive than the general population because their ministry (what they do) is so wrapped up with themselves (who they are) that it is hard for them to take a step back, listen to counsel, advice or honest feedback without feeling that they and their ministry are being attacked.

The result for ministry leaders is that they often do not hear what people are really thinking because they have trained them that they are not responsive to honest feedback that they might construe as criticism.

I was once tasked to solve a difficult financial issue and when I presented my findings and solutions to my ministry leader he became angry, defensive and called me arrogant. Why? Because he did not want to hear "bad news" that challenged his paradigm of how things should be. With a response like that, he was training his people not to give him honest feedback because we knew that he didn't want to hear it and that it would not be a pleasant conversation.

This raises two questions for leaders. The first is, "Can I overcome my fear of hearing something that I may not want to hear and do so in a way that invites honest feedback rather than pushing it away?"

The reason we would resist honest feedback is that we are fearful that it reflects poorly on us. That is the source of our defensiveness. It is also an indication of poor emotional intelligence (EQ) because people with healthy EQ are open, non-defensive, and exhibit a "nothing to prove, nothing to lose" attitude. Indeed they not only invite feedback but when they get it they engage in non-defensive conversation to draw out the issues and seek to understand what the individual is saying.

In Proverbs, it is the classic "fool" who resists counsel and feedback, while the "wise" invites it and listens to it.

This raises a second important question: "Why would I risk the danger of not knowing what people really think by resisting honest feedback?" The end result of defensiveness in the face of feedback is that people often stop telling us what they really think and only what they think we want to hear.

There are two predictable outcomes of this scenario. One is that we don't know what is going on within our own team or organization and the second is that our defensiveness creates cynicism by people who do not feel like they can be honest. Both are dangerous for a leader.

I once suggested to a Christian leader whom I consulted with that he did not know what his people really thought about him because of his defensive attitude. He just looked at me with a blank face that said, "I don't care." He is in for a rude awakening when his leadership comes apart and he discovers that he has alienated many of his staff. His fear of knowing their true feelings was greater than the danger of not knowing but he will discover that in the end the danger of not knowing is higher than the fear of knowing.

Healthy leaders want honest feedback for the sake of their ability to lead well and for the health of the organization. Their healthy EQ invites honest conversation and they keep their anxiety and fear under control so that they are open to suggestions, critique and feedback. They listen carefully and then evaluate the information for its truth or relevancy. They do not need to agree with the feedback but they want to know what people are thinking. 

How leaders often shut down discussion, stifle dialogue and create stagnant cultures

Have you ever been in a staff meeting at some time in your career where you knew it was unsafe to say what you really felt? Or, where everyone knew that nothing would be said that would be considered contrary to what the leader thought? Where many positive things would be said about the ministry but no one would name the many elephants? 

Whenever I see a culture like this I know that there is a leader who has shut down discussion and stifled dialogue enough times that people will not say what really think, and everyone but the leader seems to know that.

How do leaders shut down discussion, stifle dialogue and create stagnant cultures? One of the easiest ways is simply to make  dismissive statements when suggestions are made: "that won't work," "I don't like it," "We don't do that kind of thing here, "We've never done that." Sometimes it is just body language that says something like "You have to be kidding."

Whether the idea or suggestion is a good one or not these kinds of statements from leaders send a strong message that one is better off just keeping their mouth shut. Not only are such statements pathetic in their lack of EQ but they are designed to end conversation that the leader does not want to have.

Often, leaders who display such behaviors are really saying that if the idea is not theirs it is not going to fly. In other words they are simply not willing to consider anything that does not fit their paradigms which staff quickly pick up on and choose to simply stay quiet. 

Those who continue to speak up and press into things that the senior leader does not want to hear or do quickly find that they are marginalized and sometimes even forced to move on. That sends a very powerful message the conformance and silence are the keys to survival.

Another way that leaders can do this is simply to ignore proposals that are made. In one such case I am aware of, the leader will tell subordinates that he will "think about it" or "study the proposal" and never bring it up again. It dies by deliberate neglect.

All of this creates a culture of stagnation because ideas, suggestions and different paradigms are not welcome at the leadership table. Staff must operate within a narrow band of what is acceptable and cannot be themselves in using their best thinking and creativity. It is a deeply frustrating place to be for anyone who is even a moderately healthy individual.

It also creates a culture of elephants - issues that everyone know are there but which cannot be safely addressed or even identified. What makes this so absurd and crazy is that the issues are not secret but they have to be treated as secrets, or as non-issues. As the number of issues grow that cannot be discussed, so does the dysfunction in the organization. When things do erupt out of frustration, the eruption is often unhealthy because healthy dialogue was shut down long ago. 

Unfortunately there are many examples of leaders who shut down discussion, stifle dialogue and create stagnant cultures. It is a sign of personal leadership dishealth, insecurity, dysfunction and it hurts the staff, organization and even the ability of the leader to lead well. I have vowed that I will never again work for such a leader.