When leaders receive pushback

As leaders we have limited time, energy and leadership capital. We also have agendas for our team or organization that we believe is helpful and directionally sound which is what leaders by definition do. But not all of those agendas are equally important and some will face significant pushback. Knowing when to yield, when to wait and when to press on is an important trait of a healthy leader.

Pushback from your team (or board) can mean a number of different things. It can mean that they are not ready for your proposal and you need to do additional work to explain or prepare them. It can mean that there is something in your proposal that they are cautious of – which is a good thing to pay attention to as a leader. It may mean that you have not done a good enough job of explaining the benefits of the proposed direction.

When pushback comes the first key is not to react or go on the defensive. Both reactivity and defensiveness send a message that we are closed to dialogue, questions or analysis. And it indicates that getting our way is personal which is the wrong message to send. In fact, welcoming questions, concerns or dialogue and acknowledging their legitimacy brings those who raise them into the proposal in a positive way.

Honest dialogue around the idea you have put on the table – without defensiveness – often leads to additional shaping of your proposal that not only strengthens it but leads to the ownership of others who now also have a stake in the idea. Remember, you have had time to process the idea – they have not. You have put your stamp on the proposal, allowing them to do the same brings mutual ownership.

If after dialogue there is still not mutual ownership or consensus, it is often wise to suggest that the group take more time at a later date to discuss it and simply give it time. Middle and late adaptors need time to process, think and reflect before feeling good about a major decision. Giving it time also indicates that you are not going to “run over them” to achieve your wishes but desire the team or board to be with you in it. Whenever we try to force people to agree we lose leadership coinage because they feel violated and disempowered. Sometimes we simply need to wait until there is better understanding. Waiting is far better than dying on the wrong hill.

Leaders who must get their own way are usually poor leaders who lose the confidence of those they lead. Leaders who respect others, honor process and people in decision making and foster open dialogue along with a willingness to be flexible are wise leaders. Most foolish of all are leaders who in the face of pushback or caution from their board or team simply do what they want to do anyway. Every time that happens they lose significant leadership capital

An unexpected gift

There is a perspective on hard times that we often overlook. It is a wonderful thing to come to a place where we have nothing to trust in but God.  It forces us to put our trust in the only place of ultimate hope – Christ.

When it is all stripped away, when all of our resources are exhausted as eventually they are, there is the one answer we have had all along, “the righteous will live by his faith” (Habakkuk 2:4).  Here is the most important question we can ask ourselves: Are we coping with life on our own, or are we living by simple child like faith in the living, all powerful, loving heavenly father who invites us to live by faith and simply to trust Him?

We might just call it “simple faith!” It is a faith that believes that God is in control of all of our circumstances and knows that nothing under His control can ever be out of control. Not cancer, bankruptcy, a spouse walking out, a child’s death or the worse that we could imagine. Nothing under His control can ever be out of control. He is still God and still Immanuel – God with us – regardless of what happens to us.

I remember such a simple faith in an old woman I met in rural China one day. She was a Christ follower. Her possessions were the clothes she was wearing and two little pigs. When she discovered that we were believers she said, “My eyes are not good (she had cataracts), would you ask Jesus to heal them?” Simple child like faith – she had nothing else to trust in but God. Putting aside our own sophistication, we joined her in her simple faith and asked God to heal her eyes.

Periodically God interrupts our lives with issues that we cannot solve and did not ask for. They are often scary and painful interruptions. But they may also be a great gift as we are forced to put our trust in the only safe place to put it – stripped of our own solutions and answers – our heavenly father.

Several times in my life I have had the gift of coming to a place where all I had to trust in was God. In retrospect, those were precious times of simple faith where I learned more about my heavenly father than all the theology I have studied sermons I have preached or books I have read. It was a true gift.

The illiteracy epidemic

The recent report by the Barna Group on megatrends in the American church should give rise to significant concern. The first has to do with biblical literacy: “The Christian Church is becoming less theologically literate. What used to be basic, universally-known truths about Christianity are now unknown mysteries to a large and growing share of Americans–especially young adults.”

This should not surprise us given the growing secularization of our society but it does raise both questions and challenges for the evangelical church. The questions have to do with our own culpability in many corners for preaching pragmatic life principles from Scripture but not a systematic teaching of the whole council of God. Certainly the Scriptures are full of wonderful life principles that if followed make our lives healthier and better. But the Bible is neither a self help manual nor is it pop psychology.  It is God’s character, plan, and invitation to join his family and his work. It is first about Him and then about us.

In our desire to be relevant, we often fall into the trap in our preaching and teaching of making the Scriptures first about us and then about Him – the very opposite of Scriptures emphasis. And in the process, we miss the foundation of the Christian life – Christ. Paul was unabashed in declaring that “I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes; first for the Jew, then for the Gentiles. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’” (Romans 1:16-17). Scriptures are first a message of the gospel and its call and implications on our life. That is the foundation!

I believe many pastors today have a fear that if they simply preach the text, the church will not be seen as relevant. Here is the irony. People are hungry for real truth, not the stuff that can be bought on the self help shelves of Barnes and Nobles. Not only can we take it but we need it and it is out of God’s clear and unvarnished truth that we find a foundation for our lives.

Contrast what is often heard from pulpits today with Paul’s instructions to Timothy. “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Timothy 4:2). Why? Because “all Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

If there is biblical illiteracy in our own churches, we must own that challenge and do everything we can to combat it. Biblical illiteracy leads to a diminished life and a followership of convenience rather than the life God intends for us and a whole hearted devotion. The Old Testament prophets were hard on the spiritual leaders of the day for not faithfully teaching God’s word. We must be wary of falling into that same trap today.

Hard but healing words

Six of the hardest words to speak are: “I was wrong,” and “I am sorry.” Ironically while they may be some of the hardest words to speak, they are also the very words that have the power to heal relationships like little else. In fact the harder we find it to verbalize these words the more power those words have to heal.

Why so hard to say? Our pride and the pull of our lower nature conspire against us to cling to our own righteousness even when that righteousness is really nothing less than sinfulness and even thought the cost of our “righteous” silence is relational disconnection against those we caused offence. The more we have personally vested in being right, the harder it is to admit wrong which is why those of us in leadership are often the last to admit wrong and apologize.

There is a reason that Scriptures talk so often of humility. At our core, our lower nature craves autonomy and pride. Proverbs says that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Why we ask? Because pride is the primary characteristic of Satan who elevated himself above God, while humility is the defining characteristic of Jesus in the incarnation (Philippians 2).  God cannot honor pride which elevates our interests above His. He will always honor humility because it mirrors His heart and a willing submission to His will.

Thus each time we resist making things right when we have been wrong we reflect our lower nature and the master of pride. Each time we humble ourselves to make things right we reflect the transformed life and the Lord Jesus Christ. That puts a whole different perspective on the struggle to say these words.

Keeping short accounts reflects the heart of Jesus. The humility of admitting wrong and asking forgiveness reflects the character of Jesus. Wanting whole relationships when they have been broken by our sin or error reflects the reconciliation of Jesus.

Thought Leaders

Every organization needs one or more individuals who are thought leaders in the areas which the organization works. Thought leaders are different from other competent leaders on the team in that they are able to see further, think differently and deeper than others. They continually challenge the status quo, are always thinking ministry strategy and architecture and looking for game changers that don’t tweak the present but change the whole nature of the equation.

The Apple Corporation is an example of a business with a significant bench of thought leaders. The result is not simply new technology but different technology that has changed the way we view and use our electronic gadgets. The IPad, for instance will no doubt replace many still bulky and heavy laptops for a wide variety of travelers. Not only is it cool but it changes the equation for many who don’t want to lug their computers around.

Thought leaders have some common characteristics. First they question everything rather than simply accepting the status quo. They see “common wisdom” as common but not necessarily wisdom and are contrarian in their thinking – asking why we do what we do the way we do it and whether there is a different way. Rather than looking to tweak systems they are more likely to look for game changing opportunities where radical shifts bring significant ministry leverage. Video venues, for instance, were used by a handful of ministries who went against conventional wisdom that preaching had to be in person and that innovation has changed the game for numerous ministries who are now reaching far more people and offering more worship venue options.

Thought leaders can be found at many different levels of a ministry and wise leaders are always on the lookout for those whose insight is regularly challenging the status quo. They then find venues for dialogue with these good thinkers in order to maximize the effectiveness of the ministry. One of the mistakes many older leaders make is not to listen to the thought leaders of the young generation among them who may not have the positional status of older leaders but who are on the cutting edge of what needs to happen in the future. In my experience, many of the key thought leaders of today are in their twenties and thirties and are the voices that are going to mold ministry in the next generation. To ignore them is particularly dangerous as thought leaders by definition need ways to exercise their mental creativity and will move out of organizations where that is not valued or possible.

Can you identify the thought leaders in your organization? Do they have venues to speak into your strategy and paradigms? Do you as a leader have ways to interact with them and benefit from their creativity?

How long should I stay?

It grieves me when a healthy pastor is saddled by a board that is weak, ineffective, unsupportive and continually critical. And the sad thing is that it only takes one or two malcontents on a board to infect the atmosphere of the whole board. I know how painful it can be – I have been there and I feel deeply for friends that are in that situation today.

The problem is greater than the discouragement that this brings to the senior leader as disunited boards usually infect the congregation with their lack of unity. So your own senior team of leaders is working against you and the health of the church when they cannot get their act together, act in unity, and support their pastor (I am assuming here a healthy pastor). No matter what a pastor does in a situation like this, he is continually undermined by the dishealth of the board because make no mistake that lack of health does not just stay at the board level.

What advice would I give a pastor who finds himself in this position? First, I would encourage them to be upfront with the board about how the board culture is impacting them and their ability to lead. Second, I would work through a book on healthy boards such as Larry Osborn’s Unity Factor or my High Impact Church Boards. Both books put the critical issues of board health on the table for discussion and give the board permission to police itself.

In particularly onerous situations it is often helpful to bring an outside individual who can help the board think through its culture and behavior and help the board develop a covenant of how they will work together. An outsider can say what others on the board often do not have the platform to articulate.

I would also ask myself the question about whether it is worth my time, energy and emotional health to stay in a situation where I don’t have the support of those from whom I need it the most – the board. I am convinced that churches get what they deserve when it comes to pastors. And it often comes down to the board/pastor relationship. There is a time to try to help the board get to health for the sake of the church and there is a time to conclude that you are not going to be the one who can do that and choose to move to a place where one can use their leadership and ministry gifts with the synergy of supportive leadership rather than the anchor of unsupportive leadership. 

Obviously we need the direction of the Holy Spirit in determining which course of action to take. But, many pastors in unhealthy situations stay too long and in the end are deeply hurt by unhealthy boards. That pain often takes years to heal. There are situations we cannot fix this side of heaven. Others might be able to lead in that situation but if we cannot, it is not worth compromising our family, our emotional health or our ministry opportunity by staying in a situation where we cannot lead from health. Remember only healthy leaders can create a healthy church. Unhealthy, divided, critical and dysfunctional leaders create the same in their church. Unless that is changed, even a healthy pastor cannot lead the church to health.

Having walked this path years ago, I would encourage pastors not to stay too long when their board is not healthy. Those who followed me in my situation faced the same situation I did for many years. That is the reality of church DNA. Unhealthy churches can become healthy but not without healthy leaders. They may choose their path of dysfunction. I want to work in a place where I can maximize my gifting and calling and that only happens if I have the support of leadership.

What kind of churches should we be planting around the world?

Those of us involved in missions as practitioners’ and those who support the global missions endeavor need to think carefully about what kind of churches we are planting. I believe that the target can be defined in five words: healthy, indigenous, self-supporting, interdependent and reproducing. Where the target is reached, the possibility of significant impact in a whole region is often the result. When just one of the targets is missing, the long term impact of our efforts is compromised.

Healthy

Only healthy churches can produce healthy disciples so our focus must always be on ensuring that the churches we plant are healthy. This means that they are gospel centered, missional in reaching out to those around them, have a culture of grace and love and humble leaders who serve rather than dictate. They are churches who reflect the character of the book of Ephesians. Emphasis on numbers in church planting often leads to a lack of emphasis on health. Better to have fewer healthy churches than many unhealthy churches. The key to church health is the training of healthy leaders both pastoral and lay.

Indigenous

Indigenous churches are churches that reflect the culture of the people among whom the church is planted while being thoroughly biblical in their practices.  Too often, missionaries have inadvertently brought both biblical practices and outside culture as they have planted churches rather than bringing the truth of the gospel and allowing that truth to be expressed within the culture of a local population.

Anyone who has participated in worship services in Africa, for instance, understands how culture affects “how people do church.”  The service may last four hours, has African music, lots of dancing and long (even multiple) messages.  Then, there may be a long meal together before people disperse.  It can last much of the day.

The key to planting indigenous churches is simple: missionaries don’t lead the church but from the beginning, train, equip, empower and coach nationals to lead the congregation – either with them or instead of them. Where pioneer work is being done, new believers are disciple and brought into church leadership as quickly as possible. Missionaries from another culture cannot plant a truly indigenous church – only nationals can so partnering with nationals from the outset – or equipping nationals to do the church planting is the key to indigenous churches.  Thus, wherever possible, our task is to develop, empower and release healthy national leaders who can plant healthy churches in their context, their culture but with the same gospel truth.

Self-Supporting

This is perhaps the most difficult concept for those who live in the developed world to understand.  Self-supporting means that the church is not dependent on outside funds in order to exist, nor is its pastor paid from outside the local congregation.  It is also based on the conviction that Christ designed the church to exist in any culture, any socio-economic climate, any political climate and to do so in a way that it can organically reproduce itself regardless of the political, social and economic structures in which it exists.  When we tamper with that Christ designed structure, we inadvertently destroy or impede the organic growth of the church.

A great example of how the church operates organically can be found in China.  When missionaries were forced to leave in 1949 there were approximately one million believers in China and the prediction was that the church would die.  Interestingly, the many missionaries who were active in China had imported western ways of doing church including all the denominational distinctives present in the western church.

Instead of dying, the church flourished and did so organically as Christ designed the church to do in spite of a terrible economy, a government that tried to eradicate it and the absence of trained pastors.  It flourished much like the early church with lay bi-vocational pastors, house churches neither of which were dependent on funding.  China is proof that the church does not need to reflect a western developed model to flourish but that it can flourish organically in any context – if we do not tamper with it.

There are three barriers to church multiplication world wide.  These three barriers are practices of the western church that we often import to the church in the developing world.  They are the concepts that to be a church on needs a full time pastor, a pastor with a formal theological degree and that the church should have a building and real estate.

Why does this thinking hurt multiplication?  Because we live in a poor world.  Consider this.  Fifty four percent of our world lives on less than three dollars US per day and 91% of our world lives on less than $10,000 per year.  What does that say about the ability of most of our world to do church like we do church with full time pastors, degreed pastors and with buildings and real-estate? 

The early church was not hampered by these three constraints.  The very reason that it could organically reproduce itself – like the church in China was that it did not rely on paid pastors, real-estate or degreed pastors.  Where full time pastors developed it did so organically as the church could afford to do so rather than as a paradigm for how to do church.

Because we view church in American terms, we often seek to reproduce our version of church around the world.  One of the easiest ways to do this is to pay pastors in developing contexts.    So we start to pay pastors so that they can work full time with the thinking that it makes perfect sense and will increase their effectiveness.  However, good intentions often have unintended consequences.

Let’s consider some of the unintended consequences of this practice.  First, it is no longer an organically reproducible model.  Once you start paying pastors, new churches are not started until more money is found to pay that pastor.  Second, it is almost impossible to wean these pastors off of that support once they are on it.  Third, congregations do not give because there is little need for them to do so.  Fourth, these pastors and congregations are not indigenous or independent since they are beholden to those who pay them and finally dependency is created.  They church cannot exist without the outside money.  The bottom line is that what was done for good reasons actually hurts the church and stifles the growth of the church as well as tampering with how God designed the church to organically reproduce itself in any world context.

If a church is to be healthy, indigenous, and reproducible it must be self supporting.  When we force another model on the church it has negative unintended consequences.  This is why we must be committed to self-supporting churches.

A word about real-estate and buildings.  Great wisdom is needed in when to help a church in the developing context purchase or build buildings.  Remember the church does not need real-estate to flourish.  When we define church in terms of buildings and real-estate, other churches start to define it that way.  What happens is everyone in that locale starts to believe that to be a church one needs buildings but they cannot afford the buildings.  Thus in order to reproduce themselves they need help from the outside to purchase and build structures.  Again, the organic nature of the church is compromised.

In one city where our organization works, there are five key churches, each of which has been helped with building a building with multiple outside work teams.  Those five churches have been very slow to plant new churches.  They have said, “we need to be strong first,” which has meant they need to complete their structures and then have enough people to pay for the upkeep of those structures.  One must ask the question, did our help in building buildings get in the way of organic multiplication? 

Many missions have learned hard lessons in this regard.  Those lessons can lead us back to a healthier and more biblical model of self-supporting churches that can organically reproduce themselves in any context, any political climate and any economy.  Where it is necessary to help pastors find a way to support themselves, we can help them be self-sufficient through micro-enterprise rather than through ongoing financial support.

Interdependent

Congregations are healthiest when they are in fellowship and are cooperating with other like minded congregations.  Thus one looks for partners who value interdependence rather than independence.  Interdependent churches work together to bring the gospel to those around them, to train workers and to do missions together.

This does not meant that we should be in the business of starting denominations.  In fact, denominational structures often hinder multiplication as leaders focus on their institutional needs rather than the multiplication of the church.  It is better to allow organized structures to develop organically and at the right time for the right reasons rather than missionaries taking the lead in making it happen.

Reproducing

Healthy churches reproduce themselves.  Movements that are not deeply committed to and actually practicing the reproduction of new churches are simply not healthy.  This often happens when denominational structures take greater precedence than multiplication or where the organic nature of the church has been tampered with as I have described above, resulting in multiplication being stifled and hindered.

God designed the church to reproduce itself organically, intentionally and rapidly – once the gospel takes hold.  Healthy churches can do that. Healthy missionaries work in a way that fosters this multiplication of the church wherever possible.

The High Cost of Poor Emotional Intelligence

Consider these common scenarios:

A staff member resigns because of a poor fit with his/her organization or team and then on the way out plays the victim and seeks to damage the reputation of their supervisor or leader. The leader is left spending inordinate amounts of time putting out fires, clarifying “reality” and trying to undo the damage of the renegade staff member.

One of your staff has a tendency to get angry when things don’t go their way and in their anger make accusations, threats and ultimatums requiring you to constantly be in dialogue with them about their attitudes and responses which spill out over others and cause others pain. Everything seems to revolve around them, their issues, their pain, the injustices they feel and it takes a lot of your time cleaning up after them.

A member of your team seems to have a constant “edge” in their attitudes and interactions. You always have the sense that they are not really on your team. They display an arrogance that they could always do things better and while they are usually fairly gracious to you in person, you know that they are not as gracious with others when you are not there. You are left always wondering whether the team member is really on your team and you have a vague but real “gut feeling” that they are not to be trusted. You spend hours in dialogue and discussion when the “edge” becomes inappropriate but your staff member never seems to “get it” or take ownership for their attitudes.

You are a senior leader with a leader under you who “bonds” with his/her team through inappropriate emotional enmeshment. While they demand and receive loyalty from their team through their enmeshment, their loyalty to their team is far higher than their loyalty to your leadership, even though they serve under you. Together they develop an “us against the world” mentality and over time you realize that their team is not on your team. The team has effectively been high jacked by its leader – who should be in alignment with you. Ironically, while they demand that their team follows them, they cannot follow themselves.

What I am describing are high maintenance individuals who take an inordinate amount of time, cause one to be diverted from productive work while cleaning up their messes and negatively impact others in the organization. The bottom line is that they have poor emotional intelligence (EQ) and regardless of how competent they are, their poor EQ hurts the organization and is a drain on those who supervise them.

In my book, Leading From the Sandbox, I write that “Emotional Intelligence, often labeled EQ, is the ability to understand ourselves, know what drives us, accurately see how others perceive us, and understand how we relate to others. EQ also measures whether we have the relational skill to work with others while being “self-defining” and allowing others to speak into our lives. Good EQ includes openness to others’ opinions, lack of defensiveness, sensitivity to others, the ability to release others rather than control them, freedom for constructive and robust dialogue, and the willingness to abide by common decisions.”

“Signs of poor EQ include the inability to listen to others, defensiveness, unawareness of how we come across, lack of sensitivity to others’ feelings, an inability to deal constructively with conflict, a drive to control others, narcissism, and the need to have our own way.”

How do you handle folks who exhibit poor EQ and eat up your time and energy? This is the frustrating part because it is their poor EQ which prevents them from understanding their own issues or understanding your concerns. In fact, it can take some intense discussion around behaviors which are unacceptable and accountability for better behavior. It often means that a supervisor or leader must become more and more defining if behaviors don’t change.

There are people who never “get it” and in those cases one has to recognize that they probably will never “get it” and make a decision as to whether their behavior is acceptable in your organization. If it is not, don’t ignore it because their poor EQ impacts everyone around them, may well undermine you (depending on their behaviors) but certainly hurt the culture of your organization. You may need to “marginalize” them in a role that limits the damage they can make. Or, you may simply need to let them go for the sake of the health of your organization. What one should not do is ignore the issue. The cost of maintaining, dealing with and supervising people with poor EQ is high. I often wonder how much ministry is left on the table because of problematic individuals on our team. Remember that if they are impacting you, they are also impacting others. 

Above all, be aware of the EQ issues when hiring. No matter how competent an individual, if they have poor EQ they will hurt you, your team and your organization. Compromising on this issue is one of the most common mistakes in hiring. Leading From the Sandbox can help you think through these issues if you are dealing with them on your team.