If you want to know how healthy your leader is, check the health of the staff. It tells the story.

Because our own health as leaders spills out into those we lead a key indicator of a leader's health is the health of their staff. Is the staff culture healthy or toxic? Is it functional or dysfunctional? Are staff relatively happy and engaged or relatively unhappy and disengaged. If a leader has led for any length of time, the ethos and culture of their staff is a prime indicator of their own health.

I regularly talk to ministry staff members who describe toxic, fearful and unhappy staff cultures. What they often don't realize is that they are describing the dishealth of their leader. Church and ministry boards for the most part don't get this. They are all too willing to overlook unhealthy and toxic staff cultures as if all is well. The truth is it is not all well. Nor is the senior leader.

Staff cultures almost always reflect the health of the leader. This is why it is critical to have ways to ascertain the relative health of staff members and not to simply take the word of the leader. Controlling leaders control their staff. Dysfunctional leaders create dysfunction on their staff. Insecure leaders shut down candid discussion on their staff. Driven leaders create staff cultures where staff member always feel inadequate -  because their leader does. Grace filled leaders create cultures of grace and empowering leaders create cultures of trust and release people to use their gifting and intellectual capital. Staff cultures almost always reflect the health of dishealth of the leader.

This also means that where staff cultures are unhealthy, boards ought to pay close attention. Of course it presupposes that boards have a desire and way to monitor the health of the staff. Many don't. 

Every board ought to have a way to keep its finger on the health of staff because in doing so they not only protect the staff where necessary but they also get a read on the health of their leader. Good leaders create healthy staff cultures of empowerment, grace, candid conversation and trust. Unhealthy leaders create cultures of mistrust, control, lack of clarity and bureaucracy. There is a big difference. 

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.

Transformational ministries with toxic staff cultures

There is a disconnect in many ministries that claim to be about transformation. That disconnect is that their own internal staff cultures are often toxic, dysfunctional and highly untransformed. It is a sickness that pervades even high profile ministries that purport to be on the forefront of leadership and transformational ministries.

If our staff cultures are not healthy we do not have the moral ground to claim that our ministry is about transformation. There are too many places where fear and intimidation and lack of care for staff is the norm. It usually reflects the senior leader's lack of EQ or concern for those on their staff. It is often fueled by a leader's drive to succeed or their own insecurities. Whatever the cause it is inexcusable and sad. And not consistent with the kind of cultures that reflect the culture of Jesus.

Healthy staff cultures are marked by these kind of characteristics.

• All are treated with dignity
• Grace is extended in all situations - even when tough issues are being dealt with
• Truth is spoken in grace
• People are developed, empowered and valued
• Candid discussion is valued
• People are in their "lane" or sweet spot
• Men and women are treated equally
• There is a high value in helping people become all they can be
• Leaders serve their staff to help them be successful
• There is clarity of roles and people are given the tools to do their jobs
• Teamwork is highly valued
• Relationships are collegial 
• Opinions are valued
• Staff find their roles fulfilling because they understand the mission they are contributing to
• There is high trust
• Fairness is practiced in all situations
• Appreciation is regularly expressed

How does your staff culture measure up and where could you do better? Transformation starts at home, in our own ministries. As ministry leaders our commitment to transformation starts with our own staff.

See also:
Signs you work in a toxic workplace

Signs you work in a healthy workplace


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.

Staff and board relationships in the local church: What is healthy and what is unhealthy?

In the local church, staff board relationships are a critical factor in either health or dishealth. I am not speaking of the senior pastor (or in a large church the Executive pastor) here who is normally both a member of the board and the leader of staff. I am speaking of other staff and how they relate or do not relate to board members. Let me run through some scenarios that fit in the healthy and dishealthy columns as they are often played out in the church.

Unhealthy: There is to be no conversation between board members and staff except through the senior pastor or Executive Pastor. This effectively says that staff are not allowed to speak to board members or board to staff. This is often mandated in the name of policy governance. While it is true that in policy governance the board manages staff through one employee - the senior leader- and the board cannot manage staff other than the senior leader, eliminating conversation between boards and staff is not healthy. 

Consider this fact. By eliminating conversation between board members and staff, a dysfunctional or controlling leader can hide the fact that there is toxicity on staff. I have seen it many times and the board who is actually responsible for the health of the church is the last to know. The rule in the name of policy governance can be used as a foil to keep staff issues from reaching elected leaders. Yet the health of staff must be one of the highest priorities of leaders. 

Healthy: Board and staff are allowed to interact but it is understood that the board does not manage staff other than its senior leader. Healthy senior leaders don't mind board staff interaction as long as the board does not overstep its authority. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the board has a responsibility to monitor the health of the staff ethos and not simply to rely on what they are told by the senior leader. As Reagan famously said, "trust but verify." 

Unhealthy: Staff go around their supervisor to the board to achieve their ends. This violates the chain of authority which is through the senior leader and boards that allow it to happen are foolish and have moved into the area of management as well as disempowering the senior leader. Any form of triangulation that goes around our supervisor to achieve our ends is unhealthy. 

Healthy: There must be a place where staff can go in the event that there is dishealth either in their relationship with their supervisor on staff in general. Senior leaders can bully their staff and dysfunctional ones often do to "keep quiet" about dishealth and significant problems on staff. In one church conflict I worked with there was a string of at least ten staff who had been unfairly treated and the board had never talked to any of them (they had a gag order). Essentially we are talking about a grievance policy where staff can go when they face serious issues. Not to have such a policy and procedure is to hurt staff and open the church up to legal liabilities.

Unhealthy: Preventing staff from communicating outside of the staff  structure if needed to resolve an issue - per a grievance policy. While it should happen seldom, there are leaders who make it impossible for a staff member to speak about serious issues outside of their presence. They do so because of their own insecurity and control issues.

Healthy: Regular board interaction with staff. I do not believe that staff should be on the board apart from perhaps the senior leader and the Executive Pastor. At the same time there should be regular touch points that boards have with the staff (in a large church, senior staff) where candid questions can be asked, relationships developed and ministry discussed. When this does not happen, boards only know what their senior leader tells them which is not always the full picture. 

To put all of this in perspective, whenever I see rules that keep conversation between board members and staff in the local church I become wary. Why does the senior leader feel he needs to prevent such communication? In healthy organizations with healthy leaders, there is not fear of such conversation because there is nothing to hide. Usually when excessive control is exerted, there is something to hide or unhealthy control being exerted by the senior leader. At the same time boards and staff must understand what a healthy relationship is and what it is not and abide by those principles.

I often hear from staff members who work in an environment where health does not exist and they have no real recourse. I am sad for them because the very transformative ministry that the church proclaims it is about is not what they live internally. It is a problem in too many churches.

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.

Leaders who neglect this discipline pay for it dearly

There is one discipline that no leader can do without but too many try. It is that of developing meaningful relationships with key staff and leaders or people of influence in their organization. For instance, I regularly talk with pastors regarding board members that they are having difficulties with and inevitably there is also an absence of a meaningful relationship.

This is not about lobbying these individuals. It is about understanding them and they us which only happens in the context of time together. Relationship is the foundation of understanding and where we have meaningful relationships we are willing to give others the benefit of the doubt rather than judging their motives.

My take is that many leaders are so busy doing their thing and building whatever they are building that they are too busy to be bothered by the time and attention it takes to develop meaningful relationships. Eventually this catches up with them when fault lines appear in the ministry and the very people who the leader needs to help them through have lost their confidence and there is no relational glue to hold it together.

This also pertains to leaders with their key staff. It is easy to neglect relationships with staff members, just assuming that all is well. But in the absence of relationships those staff members have no great incentive to stand by their leader when there is difficulty or conflict. This often catches senior leaders by surprise but it is often too late by the time they realize the situation.

All good leadership is based on relational equity. Without relationship there is little or no equity. If you lead anything, make sure that the discipline of meaningful relationships is high on your agenda.

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.

Arrogance or humility in leadership is found in how we treat staff

While many have been watching high profile evangelical leaders who have treated staff and congregants poorly, the truth is that this happens all the time in otherwise good evangelical churches and Christian ministries. I routinely see this first hand as I consult and hear regularly from people who have experienced heavy handed treatment. I would say that there is more pain from poor treatment of staff in the church and ministry world than in the corporate world. This is partly because they can get away with it as people are not likely to cause division by broadcasting the issues.

Mistreatment of people is a sign of leadership arrogance. Often boards are complicit as well when they do not verify what they are hearing from their senior pastor or allow what they know to be heavy handed tactics. Here are some common ways that arrogance is demonstrated in the treatment of staff and/or congregants.

One: Staff who try to raise legitimate issues or engage in legitimate dialogue are shut down by senior leaders through intimidation or threats. This is far more common than many people realize. The threat can be for their job (and there are many ways to threaten one's job subtly), it can be around causing division (by a difference of opinion?), ridicule, or a pattern of simply firing those who disagree. When there is fear within a staff culture there is clear indication that intimidation is taking place and there are many churches where this is the case.

One of the most egregious kinds of intimidation is a gag order where staff are not allowed to talk about issues with themselves, with members of the congregation or with elected leaders and  their leadership will not let them into the process of ministry decisions. They are essentially left without a voice, without a place to go with their concerns and live with the fear that if they voice their concerns they will be called to task. All such gag orders are a sign of poor leadership, they are dysfunctional, they lead to toxicity and a culture of mistrust and eventually good people will choose to leave. 

A second sign of arrogance in leadership is when staff are let go without due process. Even with "at-will" employment in many places I am amazed that there are not more lawsuits for staff being fired by senior leaders for highly questionable leaders (I just want them gone) without due process. Sometimes the fired staff are not even told why they are being let go. Due process means a process where the issues are explained, there is the ability for the staff person to defend themselves and if necessary there is a third party present. I have seen countless examples where staff are "gotten rid of" by senior leaders who either don't like them, don't like their opinions or simply want to fill slots with sycophants who will do their bidding - all without true due process.

Even when there are performance issues, the first question should be, has this person been coached and mentored and can we help them get to where they need to go. If many senior leaders were treated like they treat their staff, they would understand what it feels like to be at the capricious will of a dysfunctional leader and it does not feel good. 

Another way that arrogance is expressed in treatment of staff is very simple: not listening to staff, not soliciting their views, and not engaging them in the process of ministry decisions even though they are stakeholders and will be impacted by those decisions. I am always amazed when senior pastors (many when they first arrive and are going to solve everything that is bad in the church - from their perspective) make sweeping unilateral decisions without even engaging their senior staff. It is a fast way to lose all coinage with staff. And it is highly disempowering. 

Why do I call behavior like this arrogant? Because it is clearly all about the leader and what he/she wants and not about the staff. Anytime we mistreat staff we are using our authority and power in ways they were never meant to be used. Nor did Jesus operate this way. Humility is a recognition that we need each other, honor each other, build team and always treat others with fairness, integrity and dignity. Humble leadership may take more time to get some things done but it will build to last with a reservoir of trust. Arrogant leadership can move fast but at the deficit of trust and through using and abusing staff along the way.

A word to elected leaders. Behaviors like this are usually blissfully ignored by boards. Why? Their leader is getting things done or they simply don't want to address it. Ultimately if such behaviors are taking place on your watch you are responsible even if not the agent. Poke around a bit and make sure that your staff culture is as healthy as you are told it is. Often it is not. I know because eventually I get called into situations when they come apart and I always wonder why leaders either did not know or did not intervene.

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.

Want to know how your staff is doing? Try asking these questions

I meet a lot of ministry staff who feel disempowered in their jobs. Often, those above them don't know what those issues are that bring down the happiness factor of their team because they don't ask the important questions that would uncover issues and make the workplace happier and more effective. Try asking these questions of your staff in a safe (maybe anonymous way). What you are looking for are themes. 

Is your assignment clear?

Are you empowered to do your job?

Do you have what you need to do your job well?

Does your supervisor coach and help you or micromanage and control you? Explain.

Does your supervisor give you helpful feedback on a regular basis?

If there was one thing that you wish were different and that would allow you to do your job better, what would it be?

What practices in your work environment disempower and discourage you?

Are you regularly encouraged to grow and learn? 

Do you have to ask permission to do things that you feel you should not need permission to do?

Is there anyone in your group who causes regular negative issues for others? If so, explain.

What do you think those above you need to know about your work environment?

If you were in charge what would you do differently?

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.

A major way that leaders disempower staff

Picture this all too common scenario. A staff member has been given a responsibility or a project. They spend days or months working on it. When they show it to their supervisor he/she makes significant changes to what has been done so that it fits their preferences.

It is one of the most disempowering actions a leader can take and they often don't realize the damage they do by redoing what they have asked someone else to do.

Some leaders do this routinely, blithely unaware that every time they do it they lose coinage with staff who wonder why they were asked to design something in the first place when it is going to be redone by their leader.  If one is going to delegate authority one must also delegate responsibility and be willing to live with the result unless there are glaring issues unaddressed. 

Leaders who routinely change the work of their staff are usually doing so because something does not fit their own personal preferences. But how is a staff member to know what those preferences are and why are preferences of a leader fair game to change the work that has been delegated? Preferences are just that - preferences - and not non-negotiables. If a leader has a preference they ought to state it up front so the work they have delegated does not need to be redone after the fact - a disempowering action.

Inherent in delegation is the fact that things may not be designed as I would design them. The key is that the objective is reached, not how it is reached in most cases. If I have to redo the work of staff I either have the wrong staff or I am not flexible enough to allow for things to be done in ways other than my own. And that demonstrates a lack of humility as I must have my way. 

Continuing the conversation on whether staff should serve on the elder board

Recently I reposted a blog on whether staff should serve on the elder board of a church. You can see that blog here. My answer was that as a practice it is a bad idea apart from the senior pastor and in a large church the regular attendance (but not a voting member) of the executive pastor. 

This generated some comment from those who believe that all pastors are "elders" and therefor should be on the board. I will not repeat what I said in the earlier blog but would like to point out some fallacies of trying to "prove" everything we do in church governance from Scripture.

First, Scripture gives some overall guidance on what leadership in the church should look like but it does not give specific guidance on this. What we do know is that there were overseers or elders and deacons and deaconess. And their qualifications are spelled out in the text. We also know that the church was flexible and responded to the needs it had as in the book of Acts when the Apostles appointed a team to look after the widows.

Because Scripture is not overly specific on these issues is why you can "prove" various ecclesiastical models from the same text! 

Second, God designed the church to be the most flexible, missional and effective organism on the face of the earth so that it can flourish in any political, economic or social system. That very flexibility will demand different models for how we do church governance. A house church in rural China is very different from the typical church in the United States. Context and size make a difference in how one can govern and lead well. You do not lead a church of 100 like you do a church of 1,000 or more. For that matter, the early church was more likely to be a house church than what has become the norm in the west. 

Third, God tells us to use wisdom in all that we do. In other words, while Scripture gives us very broad principles in the area of church leadership and expects us to use wisdom in how we apply them to our situation. What is clear is that leaders are responsible for the spiritual climate of the church, that the congregation is taught, protected, cared for, released into ministry and led well. How that happens is not spelled out and of course will depend on the size and context of the church. We must figure out how to accomplish these Biblical mandates in our own situation.

This leads to the final thought. Governance and management of the day to day activities of ministry are not the same thing. We know that the early church made a distinction between teaching elders and non-teaching elders so why would we not make distinctions as well. Taken to the extreme, a large church with 30 pastors could have 30 pastors on the board as they are qualified as "elders." We all know that you cannot lead a large church with a huge group. Just because one is qualified to be an elder does not mean that they serve on the governance or leadership board of a church. For that matter there are many people in a larger congregation who are Biblically qualified as elders who do not serve in that role.

My point is that you cannot "proof text" the details of good church leadership but need to use wisdom and best practices to accomplish it. Be smart in how you lead not because the church is a "business" but because God designed it to be missional, effective and flexible and we must figure out how to do that in our context.

(Posted from Oakdale, MN)

Who is responsible for the well being of the staff of a church?

In most cases, the responsibility for the staff of a church falls ultimately on the senior pastor, whether or not he directly supervises them. But here is an irony. While senior pastors usually want staff reporting up through them (makes sense from an organizational point of view) those same pastors don't always take the time to care for their staff (an abrogation of their responsibility). Some ignore them altogether while others go through the motions of leading and caring in a superficial way. Fortunately some take the responsibility seriously and develop cultures that are life giving.

Here though is an irony. While churches talk about transformational ministry many staff cultures are far from transformational: being instead marginally healthy or even toxic. Often this stems from a senior pastor's focus on the congregation at the expense of his staff. Untransformational staff cultures cannot contribute to a transformed congregation so this is a great disconnect for the ministry.

Where this is the case there are at least four possible explanations in play.

One: The senior leader is so self absorbed that they don't see the necessity of building into their staff who actually make their own success possible. This form of narcissistic behavior is damaging in the long run to the trust and strength of the staff team.

Two: The senior leader is ill equipped to supervise, not having the training to supervise well. In this case, if the leadership of the church cares about staff health (and most do) why not get your senior leader management/supervisory training as they are ultimately responsible for the well being of their staff.

Three: The senior leader has not learned that his greatest leverage point is a strong team that is aligned and focused on the same things. This only happens when the leader has taken the time to make this a reality. 

Four: The senior leader just is not interested and therefor thinks they don't need to pay staff much attention. After all they are professionals, let them do what they do and fare for themselves. Caring for your staff, building mutual trust, being on the same page, contributing to their growth and success is not only the job of a leader but a responsibility of a leader. One should not lead if they are not willing to take the time to build and nurture a team.

None of these possible explanations are good excuses for not nurturing, growing and supporting the pastoral and support staff of a church. There are things we do because we like to do them and other things that come with the territory. If we are not going to care for staff then we need to empower someone else to do so but the issue cannot be ignored. 

I believe strongly that boards should hold their senior leader directly responsible for the health and happiness of the staff. It is one of the most basic requirements of leadership. How the senior leader chooses to organize for the health of staff is their business. But it is ultimately their responsibility and they should be held accountable for the result. 

(Posted from Santiago, Chile)

What I wish more leaders did differently

Someone asked me recently what I wish organizational leaders did differently after all the consultations I have done. I have been mulling on that so here goes:

I wish more leaders cared about the health and vitality of their staff. There is frankly no good excuse for an unhealthy workplace or unappreciated staff. If we cannot create a healthy work environment we don't deserve to have staff working for us. If we are going to lead we must make the health of our staff one of our highest priorities.

I wish more leaders understood how important it is to clarify who the organization is, where it is going and how it is going to get there. The truth is that our staff deserve this clarity. The other truth is that without that clarity we don't know where we are going. And if that clarity simply resides in the head of the leader it is not understood by those who need to understand. If we are going to lead we need to be clear about what is important.

I wish more leaders were willing to empower others rather than to control others. Leaders who control, micromanage or make decisions others should be making are unempowering leaders who are treating their staff poorly. It is usually a sign of threatened and insecure leaders! Those who cannot empower should not lead and don't deserve to have staff working for them.

I wish more leaders paid greater attention to their own Emotional Intelligence (EQ). It's health or dishealth directly impacts their staff. Too many leaders are defensive, don't allow candid dialogue, marginalize those who disagree with them, don't listen, don't ask questions and cannot handle push-back. What they get in return are people who don't tell them when the emperor has no clothes because staff know they won't hear or don't want to hear. They are poorer leaders and people because of it.

I wish more leaders paid attention to their personal and professional growth. The quality of leadership depends on the quality of our spiritual, emotional, relational and skill health yet so many leaders have no development plan. They are too busy leading to become better leaders! Eventually those who don't pay attention to growth hit a wall and can no longer lead well. That could have been avoided if they had paid attention to the right things along the way.

I wish more leaders would ask their key reports how they could lead better and what their reports wish were different. Because most leaders don't ask they simply remain ignorant to issues that they should be aware of. It takes courage to ask but if we really care about the health of our staff or team we will. If we are not courageous enough to ask we are really saying that it is not important to us and that is a sad statement. Unfortunately many will never ask.

What is interesting about this wish list is that the burden of poor leadership falls to one group - our staff. The blessing of good leadership falls also to staff. How we lead directly impacts all those who work in our organization. I meet too many staff who live with the burden rather than the blessing.

(Written from Berlin, Germany)

Does your staff work for you or with you?

There is a big distinction between having staff who work for you  and staff who work with you. And it is all in the attitude of the supervisor and how they see the staff of the organization.

I meet far too many leaders who think that staff works for them. They can be demanding that staff respond to their needs when they require it - even late night phone calls to solve some travel problem. If they become irritated with staff it is easy to marginalize them, after all they have failed the leader. If they disagree with the leader they may be seen as no longer loyal. As long as staff jump to their requests and give the honor they believe due to them all is well. When that does not happen, they are easily shuttled aside. 

This is not a surprise if a leader thinks that staff are there to serve them. In fact, it is to be expected.

There are healthier leaders who see staff as those who work with them - toward a common goal. While there are levels of leadership, these leaders develop a collegial, open, candid and friendly atmosphere where everyone's work and opinion is valued and appreciated. They understand that they as leaders serve those who work for them. It is a two way street of staff serving one another in order to accomplish something important. It is with not for. 

These are the cultures where staff feel appreciated and a vital part of the enterprise or ministry. And this is where you find healthy leaders whose ego needs do not need to be met by people jumping at their request. In fact, these leaders are deeply sensitive to the implications of their requests and ensure that they do not cause undue difficulty for staff.

In your organization if you lead. Do staff work for you or with you?

Right people, right seat: often the most important issue

It was a conversation between myself and an executive pastor over a number of issues he faces in his large church. As we discussed these challenges, almost every one of them came down to a singe issue: having the right staff in the right seat on the bus.

We pay far too little attention to the issue of "right staff, right seat." Wrong staff - those who are not suited for what they do, or are placed in a place where they cannot play to their strengths cause huge frustrations for supervisors and the rest of the team. This executive pastor was focusing on the issues he faced but not on the source of the issues which were in almost each case staff issues.

It is amazing how many issues are solved when there is a great fit between a needed role and a staff member who fits that role. No longer is there a need to closely supervise the staff member and there is not the frustration of lack of alignment or sub standard work. When the fit is right there is synergy and effectiveness. When it is wrong, there is frustration and ineffectiveness.

Often when talking to leaders about staff issues they recount their frustrations with a specific staff member and a history of ineffectiveness. When I suggest that the best predictor of future performance is past performance they agree but keep hoping that the situation will change. Usually it will not - unless you can find another role where the staff member can better play to their strengths.

The more supervision that is required, the less likely it is that the staff member in question is in the right spot. Rather than upping the supervision it is probably time to look closely at the job fit. And to realize that trying to make the fit work probably will not work. If the strengths and capacity do not match, nothing you do will make it match.

Remember too that the frustration of the supervisor is often matched by frustration by the staff member. Keeping the staff member in a spot that does not play to their strengths and allow them to be effective, is not in the best interests of the staff member. In other words, making a change solves problems all around but it takes the courage to do so.

The issue is rarely about the character of the staff member. More likely it is about their wiring, strengths and capacity. Entering into a dialogue with them on where they can be best utilized based on these factors, while sometimes difficult, honors them by focusing on where they will be most successful - and ultimately fulfilled.

Is your staff more family or more team?

I am working with a church that is in a common spot. Their staff is more like a family than a team and they need to make the transition from family to team.

Staff as family has an upside and downside. The upside of course is that there are loving and caring relationships - which should characterize any healthy staff. But there is a downside when staff see themselves as family. There is often a reluctance to push into issues together that need to be addressed for fear of stepping on the toes of "family members." In other words, collegiality becomes a higher value than robust dialogue or honest feedback.

The issue of results and accountability for results often suffers in this environment. As a family member, I am unlikely to try to hold my brothers and sisters accountable for results which means that staff as family has very loose accountability and often, staff members who are unproductive are not challenged for years even though everyone is aware of the lack of productivity. Even leadership is hard in "staff as family" because in a family system consensus rather than leadership is the key factor with family members uneasy about creating waves or stepping into leadership.

I come from a large family and know the delicacy of family relationships and where one might or might not go or might or might not say. In the same way when staff is family there are clear limits on where staff go with one another, even if it means elephants in the room that everyone knows are there.

Staff as family is often "nice" but not very missional. Families exist as families, not as missional teams. Staff as a healthy team is a whole other matter. It is collegial for sure but it is also deeply missional.

I would describe a healthy team as a group of missionally aligned and healthy individuals working strategically together under good leadership toward common objectives, with accountability for results.

Healthy teams are about alignment of the whole organization around a passionately held common mission. They are synergistic in harnessing the various gifts on the team and focus on the bottom line, which is delivering on the mission - achieving actual results. They are egalitarian in culture where robust dialogue is encouraged and they are led by healthy leaders who love to empower and release team members to do their thing. The ethos is characterized by a commitment to results, good emotional intelligence among members and meaningful meetings.

Think about the contrast between a culture of "family" and a culture of "team." The first reminds me of "Minnesota nice" where only nice things are said and truth often gets lost in the shuffle. The other is deeply missional and synergistic around a mission one is passionate about under good leadership.

The transition from family to team is not always easy. A new set of rules need to be learned. Relationships need to be renegotiated around mission rather than "best friends." Some make the transition well - usually those who are committed to real results and missional effectiveness. Some never make the transition because it imposes a whole new work ethic and level of personal discipline.

In fact, your best players will be frustrated with staff as family precisely because it lacks the missional focus, synergy, discipline, focus on results and leadership. They will flourish, however, in staff as team if it is a healthy team with the right players.

If you are on staff, which paradigm describes your staff: family or team?

It takes only one leader to hijack a team and cause great pain to your ministry

I often write on the issue of alignment within organizations. I know from both personal experience as well as from working with numerous organizations the pain that an unaligned leader can bring to the organization.

Unaligned leaders essentially hijack their entire team from the rest of the organization. It happens in churches, missions and other ministry organizations. Unfortunately, when this happens, and the leader is redeployed, (often outside the organization) it often takes great time and energy to bring the team back into alignment with the organization as a whole. As a senior leader who has had to deal with this on a number of occasions I know the harm it does and the incredible effort it takes to rectify the situation.

Ensuring alignment throughout an organization is one of the most important jobs of a leader and one of the most critical issues to constantly monitor. When senior leaders allow leaders in their organization to drift or act as independent contractors they take their staff in the same direction. The longer it is allowed to exist the longer it will take to rectify. 

How do you ensure that your leaders are in alignment? Alignment always requires great clarity as to what the organization is about and what the non-negotiables are. Without clarity there will never be alignment.

Second, Senior leaders must spend quality time with leaders throughout the organization, dialoging, asking questions, probing and observing those who lead throughout the organization. And, asking questions of staff throughout the organization. 

If one knows or senses that there are alignment issues, push into it. It may well be that the issue can be resolved. Sometimes resolution means that a leader who is operating as an independent contractor needs to be moved out of their role. Remember though that where nonalignment occurs it impacts everyone on that team or in that division and therefore hurts the organization as a whole.

Philosophically I deeply believe in empowering leaders in our organization and our leaders have a huge degree of freedom. What I cannot do is to delegate and ignore issues of alignment. I never take it for granted, guard it constantly and talk about it regularly.

If you are dealing with alignment issues you may want to read Leading From the Sandbox which deals with clarity, healthy teams and healthy leaders.

Investing in your staff

One of the highest callings in Christian leadership is to be in a position where one must discern the character, gifts, skills and abilities of others and direct them to a meaningful, purposeful, and fulfilling ministry. God’s call in our life is always to be in a context where we can grow in him and effectively serve him, using the gifts and talents that he has given us to serve his Kingdom communities (the Church) and be a witness to his compassion and love.

Therefore, one of the most important tasks of a leader is discerning proper placement for the service of those they lead. (I Corinthians 12). And then to mentor, develop and coach them in that spot.

Many leaders do not understand either the priority or the value of making a significant investment in their staff. From a priority standpoint, the better one's staff, and the better they are positioned for success and the better they are developed and empowered, the more missional success your ministry will achieve. Because ministry happens through people, the larger your ministry the less it will be directly impacted by you and the more it will be impacted by others. Therefore your investment in others becomes one of your most critical tasks.

From a value standpoint, staff who are invested in to help them grow, develop and work from their strengths, not only become better but they become deeply loyal to your organization.

As I have reflected on the senior level leaders in our organization who oversee many others it is my conviction that at least 25% of their time must be spent in the development, coaching, mentoring and placement of people so that they reach their full potential.

I believe that senior pastors have the same obligation with their staff, leaders and volunteers. The best ministries are those that have a huge commitment to develop and release their staff in line with the gifting God has given them.

The largest inhibitor to this practice is that many of us did not go into ministry to develop others but to do ministry ourselves. Thus as our leadership position grows or our ministry grows we continue to do ministry rather than making the fundamental shift to a leadership role of developing our staff for their maximum success - and therefore for your maximum success!

Take a look at your calendar and ask the question, in the course of my month, how much time do I spend in the mentoring, developing and coaching of those who report to me or to my larger staff (if some report to you through others). Many of us would find that we spend very little time in that arena yet it is one of the most important things we should be doing. How are you doing?

Supervisors and staff: Maintaining appropriate boundaries

Leaders have an interesting dilemma when it comes to how close or distant they are socially from those they lead. It is often something that they don't think much about but it has important ramifications for how they relate to others.

There is a difference in the relationship between peers and those one leads. This is obvious when a leader is promoted from within and goes from peer to supervisor. Everyone knows that something has changed and that the relationship is different.

It is different because now one who was a peer is leading those he or she was a peer with. Now instead of relating as peers, they are asking hard questions and holding others accountable for results. Often the transition is not easy. I remember one such transition myself where I was now supervising former peers and some of them never adjusted to it.

The issue of social distance can be framed this way: How close or distant do I position myself as a leader from those I lead, knowing that while we have a collegial relationship it is not by nature a peer relationship?

Some leaders try so hard to be best buds with those they lead that they lose their ability to speak into the lives, ministries, or strategies of their team because that is not the function of being best buds. In other words, in their attempt to be "one of the boys or girls" they lose their ability and authority to lead well. It is a leadership error.

Other leaders are so intent on their leadership role that they become distant and unapproachable from those they lead. Another leadership error because the human element is lost to the leadership role.

Social distance for a leader really depends on the situation. The best leaders are highly personable on a personal level. They care about families and kids and the personal issues of life and easily engage in discussions that deal with the human issues we all face. On that level, the relationship feels like a relationship of peers.

On the other hand, when leading the team, or pressing into a work related issue, they put on the hat of leader and can move into a collegial but clearly a leadership role where they are not afraid to give direct feedback, deal with a difficult issue or press into the work of those they supervise. In this role they are clearly not peers and need to be taken seriously by those they lead.

The most complicated relationships are those where a former peer was also a close friend. Now, there is both a friendship and a supervisory capacity that must be negotiated. In some settings they remain defined by the friendship but in the leadership setting it is the supervisory role that must be realized and acknowledged by both parties.

Wise leaders are both friends and leaders and they understand when it is appropriate for the social distance to be close and when it must be more distant. When social distance is too close it is difficult or impossible to lead. When it is too distant it is difficult to be seen as a leader who cares. Good leaders can and do switch from close to farther depending on the situation. They are collegial and human but also leaders and supervisors. If you are a leader, think about how you negotiate social distance with those you lead.

Leaders can be friends, colleagues and supervisors. They regulate the social distance depending on the situation so that they lead well. But they will never just be "one of the boys or girls."