How we respond to the coaching of our supervisor makes all the difference

Healthy organizations build into their system a mentoring/coaching component to ensure that all staff are developing their professional skills on an ongoing basis. Unfortunately many supervisors treat this as a formality rather than an opportunity to develop their staff and many staff treat this as a necessary evil rather than as an opportunity to grow.

All of us should be under authority. It may be the authority of a supervisor or of a board but unless one is self employed, we live with authority. The question is whether we see the coaching and mentoring of our supervisor (or board) as a necessary evil or as an opportunity to grow, learn and develop. Our attitude toward the input of our supervisor(s) has a great deal to do with our capacity to grow.

Good supervisors want to see their staff flourish. The better my staff becomes, the better our ministry so I will do whatever it takes to develop and help my staff flourish. Good staff come to this relationship with both expertise and humility. They are on staff because of their expertise but they understand their limitations as well and desire to grow. Good supervisers have the ability to help staff think with greater clarity about their roles and how best to fulfill them.

As one who is both a supervisor and supervised (by the president of our denomination) I both want to help others grow and I want to grow. With those I supervise I desire to challenge and clarify and see their potential released. In my relationship with my supervisor I also want to be growing and released which requires me to take off my leader hat at times and put on the learner hat. Lets face it, we often like to mentor others more than be mentored as the former puts us in a position of influence while the latter requires a spirit of humility and learning. Of course leaders who cannot follow don't belong in leadership so it is a good balance and regular reminder.

Supervisors who take a mentoring role seriously think about how they can best coach their staff. Staff who take the input of their supervisor seriously prepare carefully for their monthly meeting. When it becomes perfunctory it loses its value. When both parties take it seriously it is deeply valuable.

The ability to do critical analysis of staff

A key skill of leaders is that of being able to do critical analysis of people they lead. Critical analysis is not about being critical. It is about the ability to realistically understand and honestly evaluate strengths and weaknesses of people (we all have them) and not to gloss over problematic issues or areas of needed growth.

Many corporations require, for instance, that a supervisor defend the annual review he/she does for subordinates with other select individuals. The reasons is that they want a realistic and honest evaluations rather than glossing over needed areas of growth. They know that without honest discussion, it is possible to ignore important issues.

This matters because one of the most important roles of a supervisor is to help their staff grow and develop and become all that they can be. Unless they are serious about discerning the areas of need growth this will not happen. In the ministry world it is often, frankly ignored to the detriment of staff growth.

It also matters because a lack of such critical analysis impacts others in the organization who either flourish or suffer on the basis of the health of leadership.

Here are some evaluative questions for staff who lead others:

• Do they both empower others but stay connected in order to help them achieve their goals?
• Are they clear on what their missional agenda is and do they communicate it clearly?
• Do they keep their staff focused on the missional agenda at all times?
• How intentionally do they coach their staff?
• Are they able to do critical analysis of their staff in order to position them for success and keep them growing?
• Do you see regular growth in their leadership skill and emotional intelligence? Where do they need to grow?
• If there was one thing that would make a major difference in their leadership, what would it be?
• How focused and disciplined are they in their work?
• Where would they benefit from coaching and growth?
• Are they candidates for a higher level of responsibility? If so, what additional experience do they need to become qualified?

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. 

Ministry pay scales

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

The critical importance of exit interviews

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


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


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


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


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


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

Pastoral and staff reviews

I remember my first annual review as a pastor. It was painful: not because the elders thought I was doing a poor job but because it was not based on a clear job description so the comments were random, some felt petty or unfair and simply reflected the personal biases of various board members. I remember thinking, "well that didn't feel good!"

As a firm believer in feedback and reviews I also have strong views on the context in which they are done. 

First, they should only be done after a staff member or pastor have been working with a clear set of expectations for at least a year. In our organization, we use Key Result Areas and an Annual Ministry Plan which define the key results expected from the job and the plan laid out by the staff member to achieve those results. This changes the equation from a focus on activity to results, and it is based on agreed upon results and plans so there can be objectivity. Without agreed upon results, any review will simply be a reflection of the biases of a particular board member and not a fair evaluation of the staff member. 

Second, it is critical to do a review annually, not when the board or supervisor starts to believe there is a problem. Often, the first review a pastor gets is when there is disagreement between them and the board. The review is then used as the means of addressing long standing problems but unfairly so since there has not been agreed upon outcomes up to that point. 

Third, reviews should not have any surprises in them. Good supervisors or boards talk about issues long before they become major issues. There is ongoing dialogue between staff and supervisor or senior pastor and board in healthy ministry situations so that there is never a surprise. Surprises are an indication that such dialogue has not been taking place.

Fourth, reviews should be honest and candid. Don't dodge issues that need to be addressed. If you do, staff don't grow and become all that they can be. Direct and candid feedback is a critical element in growth. When we are not honest - often in the name of grace - we compromise the development and growth of staff. Be direct, honest, candid and invite dialogue to ensure that the issues, if there are any, are understood.

A full paradigm for Key Result Areas, Annual Plans and annual reviews is found in my book "Leading From the Sandbox: How to Develop, Empower and Release High Impact Ministry Teams." It lays out a simple, clear and results oriented process to clarify expectations as well as a healthy process for creating dialogue around work results. Do it right and annual reviews are a key part in creating a healthy environment for staff. Do it wrong and the opposite occurs.