Three things to be aware of in leadership transitions

There are three things every leader who resigns or retires needs to be aware of. It is true in the for profit, nonprofit, political and ministry world. I have experienced all three and watched it play out in politics, business and ministry every day.  It is well to be aware of these issues because they are not going to feel fair, and often are not but they are reality in a world that needs scapegoats.

First, no matter how well you led, in most cases, the one who takes your place will blame you for all that they can as they chart their new course. I was amused when one of my successors took some cheap shots about my leadership style after I left (to my face). Amused because he had served on my senior leadership team for some time and had never expressed his concerns to me until I was finished and then I was fair game. Equally amused, because when he is gone, his successor is probably going to do the same to him and some who have subsequently left have already done so! Unfortunately, this is the human condition and it will happen when you leave to some extent or another. We lead and serve for a time and when we are gone, others will criticize us to attain their own ends. Witness the transition in Washington DC when a new President comes to office!

Second, many things will change from how you did things to how the new leader will do things. This is natural but not always comfortable. If we have done our job well, the general philosophy of the organization will be embedded and remain stable but the details as to how these are are carried out will change. A highly empowering leader can be followed by a highly controlling leader (or vice versa) which can be a challenge for those who make the transition. The reality is that we served our time and carried out our leadership responsibilities in the best way we knew how. What happens next is not our responsibility and our former colleagues will make their own judgements relative to the new leadership philosophy.

Third, former leaders are just that – former leaders and need to move on to their next assignment. All of us learn lessons, good and bad as leaders. Wise leaders take the time to reflect on those lessons as they transition to a new role. The best thing we can do as former leaders is to focus on our new assignment, whatever that is and leave the old (for us) behind. We will answer for the stewardship of our leadership and others will answer for theirs. For those who operate out of a faith perspective this means that we leave the results of our leadership to God and move on, confident in God’s evaluation rather than in our own or the judgement of others. This last point is very important. We will often feel as if the evaluation of our successor is not fair. But we can rest assured that God's evaluation of our stewardship is totally fair. 

Transitions are not easy but the come to each of us who lead. How we dealt with our leadership assignment is important, and how we deal with our leadership transition is equally important.

Pastoral and leadership transitions are a precarious thing

Pastoral transitions are a precarious thing especially at the end of a career when pastors often don't want to let go and boards or congregations wish they would. And, nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room so the issue simmers under the surface often causing conflict in subtle ways.

It is unfortunate and often hurts the congregation who may start to feel that the church is adrift losing its way and it seems that leaders do not have the courage to figure out a plan. These issues in themselves often cause other tensions to come to the surface that never would have caused problems if the underlying issue had been addressed.

Here are some observations.

First, there is a time to for everyone to leave a leadership position. That does not mean that ministry is over but leadership is a tough job and age does take its toll. Leadership in the church is one of the toughest leadership roles coupled with preaching regularly and all the issues churches face. When we start to lose our energy, enthusiasm or edge it is time to step aside from leading - perhaps into a less demanding position.

Two, most of us are not fully aware that it may be time. This is why discussions with our church board (or ministry board) is so important. It seems to me that this ought to be a conversation each year when we move into our sixties to ensure that we are receiving the feedback that we need. We may not like the feedback but it is better than being surprised at some point.

Third, if pastors don't raise the issues it is incumbent on the board to do so. Once we hit our sixties it is foolish to pretend that transition is not coming. The question is whether it will be a healthy one or not. This is not putting an age on when the transition should come but it is recognizing that it is coming and we need a plan. I have seen some great examples of a planned transition because pastors and boards worked together to make it healthy. All too often that is not the case.

Fourth, planned transitions allow the one leaving to be honored and the church to move through an emotionally hard time in a healthy manner. Conflictual transitions do not. Conflictual transitions are often the result of pastors not willing to let go and the board having to force the issue leaving both parties with a bitter taste. Sometimes this is because the two parties have not been talking candidly and sometimes because pastors are not listening. When leaders are hired they and the hiring party negotiate what is needed for the relationship to work. The same should be true in leaving. There needs to be give and take but most of all there must be a plan and a strategy.

I fully realize that boards are often very poor at handling transitions with their pastors but it cuts both ways. Often pastors don't want to leave even in the face of boards trying to get their attention. Both parties need to be able to talk like adults and come to a plan that protects the church and honors all parties involved.

It is the avoidance of these conversations that creates unhealthy transitions. All of us leave sometime. The question is whether we leave well or not. It is sad to see pastors or leaders leave  poorly as that becomes part of their legacy. Healthy leadership includes a healthy leaving. Starting well, leading well and leaving well are all part of the healthy leadership package. 

Posted from Santiago, Chile

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.

leave when they want you to stay rather than when they want you to leave

One of the toughest issues for leaders is to know when to leave. In both the church and broader ministry world I have watched way to many leaders stay beyond their effectiveness and literally have to be pushed out of their leadership role because they hang onto it so tenaciously. Many around them know it is time but they refuse to acknowledge that. It puts both the board and the organization in a tough place. How do we move a leader on who needs to move on?

A friend recently observed that if we leave when our constituency wants to stay we are always welcome back. On the other hand if we leave when they finally convince you to leave the situation is much different because we have overstayed our welcome and created issues in the process. 

How do we know when it is time? First when we have taken the ministry as far as we can take it there is no question it is time. We may have literally run out of ideas and ability to take the ministry to the next level. That is not a criticism of us it is just the reality of how we are wired. We have done what we could do and now it is time for someone else to step in who has the ability to take what we have led to the next level.

Second, when we start to get feedback from staff that we are not moving ahead and they get restless we need to pay close attention. Staff are a barometer of how we are doing in many cases. Often leaders feel this restlessness from their staff but choose not to give them permission to speak candidly and honestly to us. Thus they may be talking to one another but not to us, not because they would not if asked but because we have not given them permission. We become the last ones to know what they are really thinking.

Third, since most of us report to a board if we are in a senior position there needs to be an opportunity from time to time to candidly discuss our leadership and how we are doing as leaders. Don't wait to have this discussion when things are going badly. Start this discussion when things are going well in order to establish a culture where honest and candid dialogue can take place. That allows us to talk together over time which makes it more likely we can be honest about our leadership.

There is a key principle that all leaders need to understand but that many do not. What we lead does not belong to us. We are stewards for a season. Seasons have a beginning and an end. And as stewards rather than owners we need to place the needs of the ministry above our own preferences or desires. Knowing when to leave a ministry is about understanding what the ministry needs rather than what we want. That is a crucial distinction.

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.

Stepping into a new role? Think about the following twelve recommendations

How a new leader steps into a leadership role sets the tone for their new role. It can be a pastor stepping into a new church or a new role or another leadership change. How that transition is negotiated is a critical issue. It takes wisdom and discernment to transition well. A friend who is making such a transition asked me recently what I learned when I stepped into my current role about a decade ago. This was my advice.

One. Only make critical changes in the first year. It is usually wise to take a year to understand what is going on, who the players are and why things are the way they are. In other words, don't act too fast. The caveat is that there may be a critical change that needs to happen in order to move forward. Be willing to make critical changes but also be willing to be patient with others.

Two: Listen to everyone but think grey. Listening and understanding current staff and stakeholders is very important. However, existing staff and leaders will inevitably lobby a new leader for their point of view. Don't commit yourself but think grey where you listen, evaluate but keep an open mind.

Three: Share your vision for the future on a regular basis and dialogue with staff, leadership and constituencies. The operative words are share and dialogue. This is a time to share one's heart and to listen to others. Ultimately as a new leader you need to have a vision for the future. At the same time you need buy in for that vision so it is through dialogue that you together come to clarity.

Four: Watch for the various agendas but don't get roped into them. All organizations have agendas within them. Some are good and some are problematic. As a new leader you want to understand those agendas but you also don't want to get roped into them. Understanding the territory is critical but thinking grey leaves your options open.

Five: Have some trusted people you can talk to. Perspective is critical and wise leaders have people around them to help clarify issues, ask questions and give counsel. Transitional times have many pitfalls and one wants to avoid them if possible. 

Six: Start looking for the people you need around you who can help you move the organization toward the future. New leaders usually need some new people around them who resonate with where they desire to go. The sooner you can get these key other leaders in place the better off you are. This is about developing a team around you who you trust, who are in alignment with you and who will work with you to synergistically get to where you need to go.

Seven: Evaluate how your predecessor did their job and how you want to do your job. Just because your predecessor did their job a certain way does not mean that you need to. That is important because they were not you and those you report to need to understand that you will be focusing on what you believe to be most important and it may well be different from the leader you follow.

Eight: Focus on the essential issues and not the many expectations that others will have for you. New leaders need to decide what is important and focus there. They also need to resist the pressure to do things as they were done or to meet the many expectations of those around them. This is where it is important to be self defining about what is important to you.

Nine: Evaluate all key staff under you for fit, competency and alignment. Even though it is wise not to make changes too quickly this is a time to evaluate key staff, get to know them and determine future fit. Had I gone with my gut coming into the organization I lead I would have made some wrong calls regarding staff (those who I thought who would not fit who did and those who I thought would fit and didn't). Taking the time to understand key staff will keep you from making assumptions that may be problematic.

Ten: Develop key relationships. All good leadership comes down to relationships because the best leadership is that of influence and influence is a matter of trust and relationship. Take the time before making significant changes to develop the needed relationships. It is the coinage you will need to make the changes.

Eleven: Always run process. Change is inevitable with new leadership but many new leaders hurt themselves badly when they don't do the above before those changes or run good process in making changes. Change without process significantly empties the bank of trust and that is a dangerous thing for a new leader who has not been in place long enough to fill the bank.

Twelve: Be reflective, prayerful and discerning about people, plans, agendas and timing. Usually time is on your side. Relax, watch, listen and talk with Jesus before acting.

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.

People who choose to leave their ministry by taking shots on the way out

So let me just say: It is not cool to take public shots at the organization we have been serving on the way out whether it is justified in our minds or not. It does not serve Jesus, it is not necessary and in the end it reveals more about our character than it does about the faults of the organization we are leaving.

When we choose to leave a ministry for whatever reason, we always have a choice as to how we leave. We can preserve unity, good will and relationship or we can destroy all three. Usually when we choose to take public shots it is more about our lack of EQ and character than it is about the shortcomings of the ministry. 

It is one thing to privately share our observations and concerns with those who can do something about them and it is another to go public with those who cannot and may not even know there are issues. I have watched pastors split churches and staff seek to hurt other ministries they have been a part of on leaving.

Ironically, any ministry that a disgruntled staff member goes to after they have publicly castigated their prior ministry is foolish to receive them. Why would they think that the individual will be any more gracious to them than to their prior ministry? They may feel good at the moment that the individual wants to work for them (and look how much better we are than that other group) but those who speak ill of their prior group may well do the same to the new group.

There are no perfect organizations, or leaders. But what would motivate one to seek to hurt or cast aspersions on either as they leave? The motivation certainly cannot be the betterment of the group they are leaving as they are no longer in a position to contribute. Those doing it certainly know it will not help their prior ministry. Usually the motive is personal and the behavior passive aggressive. It certainly does not fit the criteria given by Paul that what we say ought to build others up. In the end it is simply sad!

As one who has consulted with many churches and organizations I understand dysfunctions. But when I hear public criticism of a ministry as a staff member leaves it usually tells me a lot more about them than it does the organization they are leaving.

A very tough decision: When it is time to leave!

All of us face this decision from time to time in our lives. Henry Cloud calls them necessary endings. It is making the decision that it is time to leave a job - whether for another - or even not yet knowing what is next.

A good friend of mine just announced his resignation from a ministry. I asked him what he was planning to do and he simply said, "I am concentrating on finishing well and the rest will sort itself out." His internal compass convinced himself that after a ten year run it was time to move on. Even though he does not know what is next.

There are times when we know that our time is finished but we cannot pull the trigger to resign a familiar position. We are afraid for the future. Yet the coinage we trade in is that of faith and these are times that require great faith. Even when we leave for another position there is uncertainty and the requisite fears about leaving the familiar for the unknown.

In his book Necessary Endings, Henry Cloud rightly makes the point that in order for something new to start, something old must die. It is the nature of life. That is why there are endings that are necessary. The courageous heed the inner signs that it is time. Often we know in our heart of hearts that it is but resist out of fear. When we resist we miss out on that "new thing" that God wants to do in our lives. 

A tough decision but often the most important decision. Knowing when it is time.

Ministry founders and their ability or inability to take the ministry they founded to a place of maturity

I have come to the conclusion that it is harder to bring a ministry to maturity than it is to found one. That does not mean that ministry start ups are easy - they are not. However, what they require in the beginning -  moxie, energy, vision and enthusiasm is different than what is required to bring them to maturity - discipline, empowering others, letting go of control and being a steward of a vision and mission rather than of a ministry.

In fact, the very skills needed to start a ministry may keep it from maturing into an enduring ministry. After all, ministries start with the vision of a person but enduring ministries are driven by a team who have a common vision. Ministries start by the seat of the pants while enduring ministries exist with disciplined excellence. Ministries start with a fair amount of control by the founder while enduring ministries are not dependent on the founder but where authority and empowerment is given away to qualified individuals. Ministries start with a fair amount of chaos (you do what you have to do) while enduring ministries endure because of stability.

In my experience no more than 50% of ministry founders are able or willing to transition from the start up stage to an enduring ministry stage. And that statistic may well be generous. Why is this?

First, it means giving up control of something we have birthed. For anyone that is hard. For some, it is impossible. It is "their" ministry and that is how they see it. Yet enduring ministries belong to a group with a common vision not an individual. Unwillingness to give up control allows the ministry to go only as far as the founder can take it with his/her span of control.

Second, it means delegating responsibility and authority. An unwillingness to give up control makes this hard for some and impossible for others.

Third, it means allowing the ministry to develop through a shared vision of others not the singular vision of the founder. This inevitably means that the founder is no longer the singular voice and this is how it should be. Only a shared vision with at shared plan can move from the founder stage to and enduring stage. But, the founder must be willing to allow this to happen and believe that the shared vision of the right group of leaders will be even better and more enduring than the singular vision of a single leader

Fourth, it means that the vision and mission become more important to the founder than that of controlling what she/he birthed. Enduring spiritual influence comes from an attitude that what we have birthed belongs to Jesus alone, not to us. We were simply the servants that Jesus used to birth what He wanted to birth. To the extent that I am unwilling to give up control even when that would be the best for the ministry itself - I am believing that it is more about me than it is about Him. And when this happens, it often is to the very detriment of the ministry He used us to found. Ministry founders can both start and hurt the same ministry depending on how they steward it.

From the moment a ministry is founded, good leaders understand that they play a unique role for a season. If they are unwilling to see their role change in the next season, they limit that which God used them to initiate. I have watched founding leaders make both good and poor choices in this and their choices impacted the ministry they founded for better or for worse.

Taking a ministry from start up to maturity is not easy. It comes with losses But if done well it comes with kingdom impact and even greater influence than when initiated.

The single most important decision we make

The single most important decision we make is the decision as to how we will leave our ministry when our time is up. It is more important than the decision to come and it is more important than many of the decisions we make along the way. Because this final decision has the ability to hurt and destroy all that we have built and this decision reveals our true character. Will we do all that we can to uphold the Bride as we leave or will we do something to hurt the bride on the way out! And whatever choice we make, it cannot be undone.

As a church board member and organizational leader I have watched people make both very good and very poor decisions on how they exited their ministries. 

I have had people come and say, "T.J", I sense it is time for me to go and I want to do everything I can to make this a seamless, God honoring transition that blesses the organization and leaves it ready for the one who takes my place.

I have had others who came with demands and indicated that if those demands were not met they would do all they could to hurt the organization on their way out. And I watched some who did just that. Their bitterness drove ungodly behavior which undid much of what they had done during their tenure. 

How we leave is a test of our true character. Those who try to hurt a ministry or its leaders on the way out reveal a bitter spirit and heart that is willing to see God's work compromised in order to justify their own sinful behavior.

Contrast this with Paul who knew that some people preached out of envy and rivalry and even selfish ambition but "what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice (Philippians 1:18)."

No matter what the circumstances with which we leave we always have a choice. To be gracious for the sake of the One we serve and His Bride. Or to be bitter and divisive because we can. The first reflects the Spirit while the second reflect the flesh in all of its sinfulness. How we leave is a test and a reflection of our true character. 

Handing over the keys to ministry

Handing over the keys of ministry to others is one of the hardest things we do whether it is in the development of young leaders, in church ministry or in missions.

A frustration of young leaders the world over is the time it takes for someone to trust them enough to give them significant ministry responsibility. Those of us who are blessed with ministry responsibility often think that our younger leaders are not ready - and we wait - often too long to give them the ministry keys.

In local churches the issue is often whether to hand over ministry responsibility to volunteers. In missions, it is whether to hand over ministry to our national partners. In both cases we are far too slow compared to what happened in the early church.

The result of our caution is often that qualified leaders become disheartened and discouraged while we leave ministry opportunity on the table. In the early church the workers were the new converts who were quickly given appropriate ministry responsibility. After all there was not much of a bench available.

However, the model went back to Christ himself who after three years with His disciples was willing to trust His most precious possession, that which He died for, His church to eleven disciples who were the most improbable individuals from the worlds (or our) point of view.

Jesus was willing to trust the Holy Spirit and these twelve men, knowing that they would screw up from time to time, which they did. Paul did the same thing. He found faithful men and women, built into them while he was in a city and then turned the ministry over to them - trusting them and the Holy Spirit.

One of the principles I have observed in both the local church and on the mission field is that the longer we refuse to turn over the ministry keys, the less likely it is that there will be a successful transition. Our lack of trust fosters an attitude of dependency on the part of those who we lead. The longer we lead the more that dependency grows - unless our younger counterparts break away in frustration to get in the game.

Given the example by Christ and in the early church our reluctance to share ministry responsibility and turn it over to others is an indictment on ourselves. Especially in light of the theology of Ephesians 4:12 where the responsibility of church leaders is to equip others for ministry and to then deploy them.

We can all cite instances when handing over ministry was premature. The key is to start handing over responsibility and see how it is handled. As people prove to be capable and faithful, we hand over more.

The fact that they make mistakes should not deter us. Most of the Epistles in the New Testament are meant to clean up one mess or another, but that did not deter Paul from handing over ministry. Sure stuff happens. But that is the way we learn and leaders grow. That is how we learned and grew! We learn from experience and mistakes along with a few victories.

The best leaders and mentors I know follow the example of Christ and Paul. They find good people, give them responsibility and take a risk. It is always risky but Jesus took a risk with us! Lets be willing to take that risk with others.

How people respond to organizational change

Many are familiar with the bell curve that describes how people respond to change: innovators; early adapters; middle adapters; late adapters and laggards. In my experience in the change process I have another set of suggested categories to watch for. Where individuals are on this continuum from change resistors to evangelists for change makes a great difference when you are considering them for leadership positions either on staff or a board.

Resisters. Like the laggards on the bell curve, these are people who will actively resist change because they are simply wired that way. This is the individual who told me, "T.J., you can bring whatever change you want to the organization but don't expect me to do anything different." No rationale is going to change the mind of a resister.

Protectors. The protector is also highly resistant to change but for another reason. They believe in the status quo, the way things have been done in the past and they will actively try to protect "what is," rather than embrace "what could be." This was the individual who told me and many others that the changes I was bringing to ReachGlobal would destroy the mission. 

Cynics. This group is simply cynical about change unless the proposed change is their idea. They tend to view change as "the flavor of the month" and are often vocal about their opinion. Cynics generally don't trust leaders so proposals brought by leaders are quickly discounted.

Loyal followers. These individuals have a deep commitment to the organization and team. They accept change if there is a good rationale for it. These are staff who say, "Just tell me which direction we are going and I will go with you." 

Idealists. This is an interesting group with an upside and a downside when it comes to change. When creating change one inevitably creates a gap between what is and what should be. Idealists are highly impatient to get to what should be and believe that we should be there now. On the up side, they want the change. On the down side they can become highly critical that we have not arrived. Thus on any day they can be either an ally or a critic.

Realists. This group is supportive of change, realizes that it will take time and process and is generally comfortable with that process. They are helpful in realistically figuring out how to get there and can live with the tension of what is and what should be.

Change agents. These individuals not only support proposed changes but will be active agents in helping the organization get there. They are your front lines in speaking a new language, setting a new course and helping redesign philosophy and strategy.

Evangelists. These are the champions of change who publicly and privately live the change out, help others understand and get there and advocate for the new direction.

In my experience it is the realists, change agents and evangelists who will help drive change while the resisters, protectors and cynics will actively undermine change. Loyal followers and idealists will go with you but will not drive change. 

Think about the implications of these eight ways that people respond to change in terms of who you hire, who you put into leadership and who you ask to serve on a board. One church leader, after hearing these descriptions aptly commented, "no wonder so many boards are stuck." He is right. Resisters, protectors and cynics must be managed but beware of allowing them into positions of leadership and influence! 

The baton has passed: My father's death

My father went to heaven today at age 86. In some ways I lost him a number of years ago when dementia set in but today it was final - for this world. He left ten children, many grand and great grandchildren and many spiritual children.

My life changed today. I am not sure all the ways but I know it did. I will know it next week as well as we lower a casket into a grave.

There is no longer a generation of men ahead of me to die. I am now on the front lines. Mortality took a step closer. I cannot pretend. The grave is ample proof. My father said as much to me years ago when his father died. It was a rare instance of transparency into his heart. He was a private man but less so as the years went by.

Legacy now passes to me. I am part of my father's legacy and it is now mine to pass one on to my children: Jon, Chip and grandson Gavrel. Like my father's it will be flawed by living in a fallen world but still I have choices and those choices and example and relationships and life become the legacy I will one day leave. There is much that I can treasure about the legacy I was handed. There is much I can do about the legacy I hand off. 

Life is precious but it is also limited which is why heaven becomes even more precious. For it is unlimited in its time (there is none), its person (Jesus), and it's wonder. As C.S. Lewis wrote, it is the home we were truly made for. It is the home father was made for and he has now looked into the loving eyes of the One he served and loved. Like Paul, he fought the good fight. Like Paul, not perfectly, but like Paul not timidly either.

There is no unfinished business between us. Fortunately we took care of that years ago. It won't be long until we are reunited as he today is with parents, family and other friends who went before. I am sure there is a party taking place somewhere even as we grieve but grieve well for a life well lived. 

Finishing well is the challenge all of us have. Dad finished well. I desire to finish well. It makes the leaving ever so much more easy for the one who leaves and the ones who are left. For believers there are no final good by's, just temporary ones. 

See also, Legacy. Thoughts on my dad

Rekindling passion for the next run

I spoke recently to a long time friend in ministry who is tired. I could hear it in his voice. With the tiredness has come questions about whether he is in the right place and what his next run looks like. As the pastor of a church that has experienced significant growth over the past three years he realizes that if he is to ramp up for a new phase of ministry that he is going to need to rekindle his passion and make some strategic changes.

In conversations with colleagues in their fifties, I find this to be a very common struggle.

Many reading this blog have been in a similar position. Certainly I have, at a number of junctures of my career. While it is a frustrating place to be, these junctures represent a significant opportunity because they force us to look at ourselves, our gifting, our wiring, God's call on our lives and rethink our assignment for even greater ministry impact.

Obviously I do not know what is right for my friend. However, I do believe that there are some guiding principles that can help us evaluate how we respond to our lack of passion and the rekindling of that passion.

First, recognize that long ministry runs at high energy levels inevitably deplete us and we are naturally left tired, empty and wishing there was a different way of doing life. In many respects that personal depletion is a result of good things that God has done but our bodies and spirits cannot sustain that kind of pace for ever.

Second, there are natural junctures over our career where unless we refocus our energies so our time is more directly spent in our areas of greatest strength and get out of areas of weakness, we will increasingly become bored and unfulfilled in our work. It is natural for this to happen in our fifties because by then we are pretty aware of who God made us to be, what fills our tanks and what depletes us.

We look at the years before us and think to ourselves, I have a limited number of years left, I know how God has made me and what I am really good at, and I don't want to squander my time doing things that I am not made to do. How we respond to this inner prompting - indicated by our lack of passion may well determine whether we coast to a finish, keep on our current trajectory or figure out how to ramp up for an even more effective next run. We also know that our pace is not sustainable and ultimately not fulfilling.

Usually, significant tiredness indicates that we are moving too fast, probably doing things that are not in our sweet spot and need to refocus what we do if we are going to re-engage for the next run.

The last time I faced such a juncture, I went to those who knew me best, inside and outside of my organization and asked the question, "Knowing what you know about me and how God made me and where I am most effective, and my organization, what are the things you think I must do and what are the things you believe I ought to give up?" It was fascinating to me that the response I received was pretty uniform and I was able to refocus my personal role around four areas where I uniquely gifted - and give up some things where I am not.

Rekindling passion almost always involves letting some things go that others can and should be doing and refocusing our energies around our greatest strengths. It is doing less in order to do more and it is slowing down to do "more" better.

Third, recognize that refocusing your role may create a crisis of sorts in your organization because it often means reorganizing your leadership structure which brings advantage to you (you are better positioned in your sweet spot) and brings perceived loss to others.

The loss may be to congregations who expect their senior pastor to take care of all of the pastoral care and no longer does, to other leaders who are used to more access to you who no longer do or other scenarios depending on your situation. There is no refocusing that does not bring some loss for you as you give something up or to others who are affected by your revised focus.

One of the reasons that pastors often leave a successful ministry at this juncture is that their leaders who love them do not understand the need to refocus and rather than fight that battle a senior member of the staff may choose to move on. It is often an unnecessary loss for both the pastor and the church had they understood the dynamics involved.

This leads me to a fourth principle. You may need to bring in an outside adviser or consultant to help you refocus and to help a board or staff understand the value and importance of that refocus. You are not then left as the one trying to convince others that this is a good thing or be seen as looking out for yourself when in fact it is a matter of what will best serve the organization.

My final observation is that what is best for you in refocusing your role in order to rekindle passion for the next run is usually what is best for the ministry as well. Your ability to live in your area of greatest strength is a huge plus for the ministry. Their flexibility in allowing that repositioning is to their advantage because your renewed energy, engagement and effectiveness is the result.

Transitions are always opportunities

I have learned that as we build healthy teams we must always hold staff lightly. If God chooses to move them to a different ministry or role we may mourn their loss but we never want to stand in the way of God's will for their life and calling.

Here is something else to remember. While transitions can be hard (if they were really good team mates) there is always an opportunity to go to the next level in some way at a time of transition. In other words, I choose to see staff transitions as opportunities even though they are hard and even though we will miss our colleague.

Often in transition we can refocus the position toward issues that are more urgent today than they might have been in the past. Sometimes you find that you can hire at a higher skill level than the one leaving. Or, it gives you the opportunity to rethink the position itself and ask whether a reconfiguration is even better allowing you to hire for something totally different.

In some cases, the individual leaving has done their job so well that their position may no longer actually be needed. This give one the opportunity to reconfigure and staff for the future, rather than assuming it needs to look like the past. We have had situations where it was not necessary to replace a position at all as the actual needs of the ministry had changed.

Having a high view of God's sovereignty, I rest in the fact that He always has a hand in these transitions and that I can trust the one leaving that God has their best interests in mind and I can trust that God also has the best in mind for the ministry I lead. Thus transitions, while often hard, are for me an opportunity to reconfigure for the future.

The journey from individual producer to leading through team

Many pastors and Christian organizational leaders did not sign up for ministry to lead others. They heard the call of God, wanted to make a difference for His Kingdom and entered ministry. It was a shock for some to wake up one day and realize "I am a leader and I've got to lead a staff, and I don't really like doing it."

I remember when I was an independent producer. I was a staff of one with an assistant. It was convenient: one person to oversee, my schedule was my own, I could focus on things I wanted to focus on and, while my work affected others, I was not personally responsible for them.

Today, the picture is different. I have a staff of over 550 with 10 senior leaders who directly or indirectly report to me. What I do, how I spend my time, and what my priorities are all directly affect others - and my ability to lead them well. 

The transition from independent producer to the leader of a staff of various sizes was not without its bumps and its lessons because the two kinds of responsibilities are very different.

Life for an independent producer is fairly simple. Life for a leader who leads staff or a team is much more complex. A leader of others must make critical transitions in how they think and act. They must transition:

From thinking about "How I drive ministry myself" to "how I facilitate ministry through other good people." It is no longer about me as much as it is about us.

From "how I would do things" to "empowering other good people to do things as they would do them" - in line with their gifting and skills.

From "I can do life as I like to arrange it" to "I need to take into account all those on my team and how I can best serve them and help them become the best they can be."

From player to coach. The larger my staff (volunteer or paid), the more I must transition from player to coach. It is not possible for me to ignore my team. If I do, they go south attitudinally or we develop silos without alignment.

From "hands on: in the details to helping define the "big rocks" and allow others to figure out the details.

From "I can determine the plan and strategy" to "we need to determine and own a common strategy."

From "I have a meeting to go to" to "I have a meeting that I need to carefully prepare for and lead."

From "my opinion is the one that counts" to "I need to be collaborative in my thinking, and decision making." And, "I need to encourage robust dialogue around issues and take a non-defensive posture when others disagree with me."

These are not easy transitions and there is significant leadership pain and even attrition when leaders go from being solo producers to team leaders and don't understand the need to do life differently. It is not uncommon for pastors who suddenly find themselves saddled with reports and a team who have not made the transitions above to face considerable unhappiness or conflict with staff. Often they are not aware of why the conflict is occurring.


If you lead others, have you made the transition?

The Nine Critical Shifts that must take place in missions today

Many mission agencies are still living in the old, pre-globalized world paradigms. The world has changed around them, but they have not changed. I believe that there are nine critical shifts that mission agencies and churches engaged in missions need to make to minister effectively in today's world context. They are also the nine shifts ReachGlobal has made over the past eight years.

Shift One: Moving from being primarily doers to being primarily equippers of national workers. It is no longer about what we, as missionaries, can do ourselves but what we can help others do in their context. Increasingly, we must stand behind and alongside national workers as equippers, coaches, and encouragers rather than in front of them.

This is reflective of what Jesus intended for the church. Paul writes in Ephesians 4:11-12 that “Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.” Often, we hire pastors to do the work of ministry for us when, in reality, their job is primarily to equip all of God’s people to be involved in ministry in line with their gifting and wiring.

The application of this in missions is that missionaries are often trainers and equippers of others to help them do what they can do better than us in their context. Thus, in many cases, missionaries are no longer primarily church planters and evangelists but are equippers and trainers of nationals in theology, church planting, holistic ministries, and those ministries that contribute to the growth of the church.

This leads naturally to Shift Two: Moving from being in charge to equal partnerships with nationals where neither party is subsumed under the other and where each retains their autonomy. The day of colonial and paternalistic missions is over. It is a remnant of the black-and-white world. Equal partnerships are the coinage of the color world where each party, missions, and nationals brings different skills and abilities to the table for mutual cooperation.

It is in partnership with national movements that are orthodox in their theology and missional in their activity, bringing the most significant leverage and synergy. This is a natural outcome of the first shift: We are present to help the church grow, and that is done in equal partnerships where each party brings something of value to the ministry table.

Shift three is a natural outcome of the first two. Moving from owning and controlling to a philosophy of “we own nothing, control nothing, and count nothing as ours.” This is a servant mentality that says we are here to serve you in helping you plant churches, develop holistic ministries, and evangelize your people. We will serve you, not control you. Those agencies that serve with an open hand are magnets for indigenous believers to partner with.

Living out a non-controlling ministry philosophy is a prerequisite for partnerships today. It also models the ministry model of Christ and the Apostle Paul and the spirit of humility that Paul speaks of in Philippians 2:5-11. This is sometimes a challenge for Western missions, who are used to being “in control” rather than at a table of equal partners.

Shift four. Embracing the reality that missions are moving from Western Missionaries to Global missionaries. The future is all people reaching all people. Increasingly, missionaries will be coming from the majority world, and our willingness to invite them to the table on our teams and within our structures or to partner with them becomes a test of a servant philosophy.

This also means that we must work to encourage and equip our national partners to become sending entities rather than simply receiving entities. When national movements become engaged in the Great Commission, amazing things happen, and they participate in the joy of seeing new areas reached for Christ.

Shift Five: Moving from dependencies to self-sufficiency wherever possible. Helping indigenous partners grow out of their dependencies on the West by realizing what they bring to the table and by assisting them to fund their efforts from their context wherever possible lifts them up, gives them dignity, and allows us to partner as equals rather than dependents. Dependent partners cannot be equal partners.

This often means helping national partners find ways to finance their ministries more independently and partnering together in places where that is not fully possible.

Shift Six, Moving from addition to multiplication. This is consistent with shift one, from doers to equippers. It is not about what we can do but what we can help others do. While we must often start with addition, basic evangelism, and discipleship, our mindset should always be to move as quickly as possible toward multiplication strategies that allow us to leverage our efforts for the Gospel.

Shift seven, Moving from competition to cooperation, gets more personal for many of us. We are used to doing our thing. We have taught our national partners to do their thing. In the process, we have created ministry silos and denominational entities that work alone in relative weakness rather than figuring out how to work together to propagate the Gospel. We are better together than alone.

This is a time in history when we have a unique opportunity to work together rather than separately for the sake of the Gospel. The world's needs are too high to tackle alone, and we need one another. It is possible if we look at what we have in common instead of concentrating on those things we don't.

This leads me to Shift eight. Moving from an emphasis on my brand to His brand. Jesus did not die for my brand of the church, the EFCA. He died for His bride, the church. That is why we no longer plant EFC churches but seek to plant healthy, indigenous, self-supporting, reproducing, and interdependent churches. The brand is not as important as the spread of the Gospel. At the end of the day, Jesus is not concerned about brand names. He is, however, concerned about His Bride and the spread of the Gospel.

Shift nine. Moving from agency-based missions to church/agency synergy. The vision for missions belongs first to the local church, not to mission agencies. Missions that thrive in the future will be those that serve the mission vision of the local church, domestically and internationally. We are servant organizations. In the globalized world, we no longer have a monopoly on the great commission, and local churches will increasingly go their own way if we do not serve them well.

Let me illustrate these shifts with a real-life example. Six years ago, I met a young couple in Manila from a closed country in South East Asia. They had just finished their degrees and were heading back to work in the complex context of a brutal regime in a profoundly Buddhist context. I knew this individual had leadership stuff in him, and we developed a relationship over the next several years.

Sometime later, a cyclone hit this fragile country. I received an email saying that he had spent all his money providing rice and water to those affected who were without food and homes. He asked if there was any way we could help. 

Over the next several years, we helped my friend develop a ministry team that has rebuilt bamboo homes and lives, done evangelism and church planting where there are few believers, trained pastors, and developed leaders. He is one of the few leaders in this country that works across denominational lines. We helped him develop three businesses, providing funds for his team to fund his efforts. Regularly, we coach, mentor, and train him and his team. They have formed a ministry to train leaders and plant churches nationwide regardless of their brand.

This country is a classic example of the result of propagating our brands over the years. I have been up to the northern mountain village where missionaries in years past liked to live. I won’t forget that town. We landed on an airstrip with animals wandering on it. The only hotel we could stay in as foreigners charged us twenty dollars a night for lousy food, no mosquito netting, and about one hour of electricity daily. I was particularly enamored by the airport security when we left. The airport had no electricity, but we still had to walk through the non-functioning security machine.

Here is the wild thing. You will find every denomination known to mankind in this town and many denominations not yet known to mankind as the original denominations split and formed new groups. It is a hoot to drive through this town in this Buddhist country. All the streets have biblical names, and you pass building after building of different denominations. Here in a country that desperately needs the Gospel, you find an amazing number of small, weak denominations that don’t work together. We trained them well, and they followed our example.

But think about this: In equipping my friend, we have lived out shift one, moving from being primarily doers to primarily equippers. In partnering with him, we live out shift two, from being in charge to equal partnerships. In helping him develop his ministry, we live out shift three, that we own nothing, control nothing, or count nothing as ours. In helping him build his own team, we live out shift four of raising up indigenous missionaries.

We live out shift five by helping him become self-sufficient rather than dependent. In empowering his team, we live out shift six of multiplication. In mentoring him to work with multiple Bible-based denominations, we live out shift seven of cooperation rather than competition and shift eight that it is not about our brand but the Gospel.

In connecting my friend to churches in the States and Asia interested in reaching this nation, we live out shift nine of agency/church synergy. In every way, it is a win for him, us, the Gospel, and his nation. Start multiplying that one example globally, and you see the amazing potential for the Gospel.

Transformational Leadership

There is much discussion around the issue of transformation today, as there should be. One thing that we often overlook is that ministries are  often deeply in need of transformation and renewal as well and it is the job of leaders to see that happen. I call this transformational leadership.

Transformational leadership in the Christian ministry arena is the deliberate creation of healthy, empowered, Spirit led, collegial and effective ministries. It is the opposite of managing the status quo. Instead, the transformational leader sees his or her job as bringing transformation to all areas of the  organization where malaise, bureaucracy, lack of Spiritual sensitivity, unempowement, lack of missional clarity or alignment and focused results has crept in. This is not a one time thing but an ongoing concern. Organizational renewal is always ongoing.

It is organizational change designed to breath life, spiritual vitality, missional clarity and focused results into it. The transformational leader applies the principles of spiritual transformation into an entire ministry organization. On the individual side they create a culture where spiritual transformation is encouraged and on the organizational side they create a culture where spiritual vitality and missional clarity can flourish.

All good leaders are change agents toward healthy organizational structures, cultures and ethos where individuals can flourish and be all that they were made  to be. Because organizations slide toward institutionalism and comfortable, leaders are constantly ensuring that they stay missional and focused. When a leader ceases to be a transformational leader they cease to be effective.

Transformational leadership starts with leaders who make transformation in their own lives a priority. One cannot take others where one has not been themselves. They are then deliberate in creating the healthiest environment within the ministry or team that they lead. 

Are you a leader or a transformational leader and what does that look like for you and your organization? Where is your organization in need of renewal?

When it is time for ministry founders to transition

Ministry founders are special people. They took risks to get the ministry up and running and took it through the hardest period - the early years. The ministry vision was theirs. The decision making was theirs and others largely acceded to their wishes because the founder represented the vision and heart of the ministry. Often, for many years their decisions went unchallenged even by those who they brought into leadership around them. The ministry is seen as the founders ministry.


Founders often forget, because of the role they play that the ministry is not theirs. In fact, once a ministry goes beyond one person (the founder) it is no longer His or Her ministry and they are simply stewards of that ministry. 


Once there is a board there is an acknowledgement that there is also accountability to others and the ministry is no longer a sole proprietorship. In other words, even though the founder played and plays a special role, it does not belong to them and they are now accountable to steward well and accountable to those in leadership above them.


The transition from being in control to being accountable to others is often a hard transition for founders to make. After all, they are entrepreneurs who figured out how to get the ministry to where it is today. In their minds, nothing has really changed except that the ministry is larger and they now have more structure. They believe that they made the right calls in the past and can and should continue to make the calls in the future.


In reality, though, a lot has changed: The ministry is not larger but different, there is now a formal leadership structure that even the founder is under, others legitimately want a seat at the leadership table and what was once "mine" is now "ours" and the founder is just one of the players. Whether the founder realizes it or not, the whole world around them has changed and it is a new day that relies much less on them than it once did. 


In addition, and this is a very hard thing for founders to grapple with: there often comes a time when the leadership needs of the organization have moved beyond the leadership skills of the founder. This poses a delicate issue for them and their board. For founders, because admitting that they are no longer the needed leader is very tough - they got the ministry to where it is. It is in their minds their ministry. For boards, because they need to make a transition while acknowledging the special part that the founder has played.


I have watched high profile ministries do this well and do it poorly - it depends on how the board handles it and how the founder responds to it. However, these dynamics hold true in small ministries and churches as well. Many times, founders hold on and their fingers need to be pried open to allow the ministry to move on and flourish in the next run. Sometimes, when founders hold on tenaciously they end up seeing the ministry they built go into a sad decline.


In ministry, founders are not owners but play the start up role. Whether they can transition from the start up role to that of leading a different and more mature organization depends on their skill set. Some can and some cannot. Both boards and founders, however, need to acknowledge that the ministry does not belong to the founder. It is not unlike parenting. My kids grew up and now make their own independent decisions - and organizations grow up and start to make their own independent decisions. 


Founders are special people. Most people cannot start something like they did with their faith, courage and entrepreneurial spirit. But they and their organization need to understand that this does not mean that the ministry belongs to them. And there will come a time when they need to release the ministry to the next leader.

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.

Paradigm shifts and the job of leaders

Paradigm shifts are very hard for most people to grasp. It is not that they are necessarily resistant, lack intelligence or don't want better results. The truth is that we see through a lens that is familiar and the unfamiliar is hard to grasp, especially if it requires us to think differently. The challenge is that the familiar will often not take us into the future. The world changes, and as it does the familiar often becomes our enemy, not our friend.


Interestingly, when change around us is rapid, we often cling to the familiar because it provides us with stability when in reality the familiar is destined to keep us from meeting new opportunities in our changing world. Think General Motors or Kodak. While they clung to the familiar the world changed and they were caught unable to catch up. The familiar was their nemesis.


For example, in the world of missions, the familiar is particularly dangerous as many of the traditional models will not carry water in the future. There are major shifts needed if mission agencies are going to meet the needs of a color world. Local churches must also make shifts in how they view missions strategy. In both cases, the familiar is the nemesis of future success.


This does not mean that what we did in the past did not serve us well in the past. It does mean that ministries need to ask the question of what will best serve them in the future. The future will never look like the past so it is reasonable that much of our methodology in the future will be different than in the past. That means a change in the way we think about what we do and how we do it. It is true in business and ministry. 


The challenge is that we are so used to the familiar that we often do not even question our methodologies. In fact, we often don't even think it is necessary to ask questions about our methodologies which is the real danger. And sometimes, those who do ask the questions are seen as irritants because they are messing with the familiar.


Leaders have the responsibility to take the time to consider where ministries need to go to meet the challenges of the future. That takes time, reflection and a lot of questions. No one else will do it for them. Then, they need to help their staff understand the needs of the future and press into needed changes in paradigms that will help them get there. This takes great courage because it requires us to give up the familiar for the unfamiliar.


Helping staff transition to new paradigms is a necessary, time consuming and dialogue rich discipline. Leaders who do not have the courage to position their ministry for success in the future leave their organization in a deeply vulnerable position. Here is what I know. The future is not like the past so we need to ask what old paradigms need to go and what new paradigms need to be embraced. And then, how do we help our staff and organization embrace new ways of thinking.

Running process

"We need to run a process" is a common phrase in our organization. Whether we are considering hiring, transitioning an individual to a new role, putting someone in leadership or believe that we need to transition an individual out of the organization, running a process is a non-negotiable part of the equation.

It is one thing to believe that you are making the right decision in any of these cases. It is another thing to know for sure, to understand the upsides and downsides, to know what training and coaching will be needed with a new hire or a transition, or in the case of helping someone transition out of the organization that we have done due process and have a plan for how to proceed. With new hires it is understanding the wiring and experience of the individual to ensure that they are placed in the right spot.

Many organizations do not pay enough attention to the process. Mainly because it is because it is time intensive and hard work. 

How well we run these processes is a measure of how much we value people in our organization. People matter. They are the most important asset we have. Proper process is what we owe our people because the consequences of how we deploy them impacts them directly as well as the organization.

Process is an investment in our people, our organization and mission. It is some of the most important work we do.