Many would be leaders relish the fact that they make fast decisions. They believe that quick and decisive decision making is the mark of a leader. It might be for a general in war time but apart from those situations that require immediate action, the best decisions are not made fast. In fact, the more significant the decision, the slower it should be made. Here are some components of good decision making.
When making critical decisions, good leaders think grey for a period of time. Grey thinking is thinking through options, listening to opinions and evaluating consequences without forming a conclusion until one needs to. It is the discipline of not forming a conclusion until one must in order to provide the time to gather information, listen to council and understand the implications. When thinking grey, leaders are not lobbying for a position with others, rather they are listening and evaluating.
Good leaders don't make critical decisions alone. The bring the best minds to the table to talk through options and come to a common conclusion. This may mean several or even many rounds of discussion until there is consensus that it is time to move forward and there is agreement on the direction. This runs counter to the "Captain and Commander" version of leadership where like the captain in the film, the leader makes unilateral decisions. The fact is that great leaders keep themselves and their organizations out of trouble by collaboration on critical decisions.
One of the key reasons for collaboration in is that there is likely to be push back from someone who does not agree with the direction. A leader does not want to be hanging out alone when that happens. He/she wants to have a guiding coalition of those who have been involved, agree with the direction and will help communicate and defend it.
Good leaders seek to understand the positive and negative consequences of critical decisions. They think through who will be affected, who is likely to push back and why, what questions will be asked, and especially what the unintended consequences will be. This is why thinking grey and collaboration are so important. Greater clarity comes over time as these issues are considered.
Good leaders make critical decisions a matter of prayer. God has information we don't have and He may choose to speak into our thinking - generally He does if asked.
Good leaders seek to come to the greatest clarity possible on why a certain decision has been made and how it will be communicated so that there is the best understanding and the greatest buy in - even if the decision has negative consequences for some which often they do. Lack of clarity creates confusion and confusion around a critical decision is deadly. Clarity comes best in collaboration as various people look at both the decision and the proposed communication through their particular lens. Quick decisions are far more likely to create questions and confusion than taking the time to do due diligence.
Because decisions impact people, good leaders think through the process of communicating that decision. This often means talking to those impacted before communicating to the organization as a whole. Process can be as important as the decision itself because a poorly thought through process is likely to create either confusion or push back from those who don't like the decision and divert the conversation to the process rather than the decision itself.
A key part of thinking through communication is to anticipate questions and reactions and seek to address them up front to the extent that this is possible. Included are not just the intellectual questions people may have but the emotions that the decision may elicit. Critical decisions are as much about managing emotions as they are about information.
Finally, good leaders create venues for dialogue and discussion in the aftermath of critical decisions. The best written explanations cannot substitute for face to face discussion with those who desire it. Remember that what you have been processing for some time may come as a surprise and shock to those who hear it for the first time. They need the same processing as you did only they must process after the fact.
Critical decisions impact people and good leaders care deeply about the people they lead. Thus they pay the time and attention to major decisions that will impact the organization and its staff.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The High Cost of Forgiveness
Forgiving those who have offended us is an imperative that one simply cannot escape in the Gospels or the Epistles. So radical was the notion to many that they actually asked Jesus, "well how many times do we need to forgive?" and Jesus replied 70 times 7, which was His way of saying, "There is no limit!" Our example is Christ Himself...which does not leave any wiggle room as Christ has forgiven us all of our sin which in the end were offenses against Him and His holiness and continues to do so every day. So the parable of the unforgiving servant!
Having been married 35 years I have had many occasions to be forgiven by a loving spouse and to forgive. Hard as it is sometimes with those we love, we have a vested interest in both forgiving and being forgiven because we value the relationship as there is no joy in unforgiving relationships. So too with our family members and close friends.
It is also easier to forgive when we are asked to forgive - after all the one asking is acknowledging their wrong. It may not make it easy - depending on the offense and its consequences on our lives but the acknowledgement of being wronged certainly helps.
The highest cost of forgiveness comes when we have been grievously wronged and there is no acknowledgement of the wrong. Accusations that are not true that go to our reputation, treatment that affects our livelihood and families, pain inflicted whose consequences will be with us for a lifetime in one way or another. Wrongs that even if acknowledged, cannot be taken back and impact us for years. Most of us have experienced situations like this. The question is whether we have paid the high cost of forgiving even when the cost is very, very high. Even when those we choose to forgive do not deserve our forgiveness.
Why pay the cost? First because we are told to by Christ who paid the cost for us. It is a Jesus thing to do and we are Jesus people. The world holds on to its offenses but we choose to forgive as He forgave us.
Second, there is freedom in forgiveness while there is bondage, anger and diminished joy in unforgiveness. As I write in When Life Comes Undone, "The only way out of the bitterness, the hold that the pain has on our lives, and the anger we feel toward those who hurt us is to choose to forgive them. Not for their sake but for our own sake. I don’t pretend it is easy, nor is it quick. But once we have made the decision and practice forgiveness, as the memories come back the hold of that pain lessens,and we are no longer hostage to those who hurt us."
I have often wondered why Jesus said we should forgive 70 times 7 times. Today I think I know. Because forgiveness is a process - especially for those egregious offenses that change the course of our lives and cause the deepest pain. I have been there and it took me years of repeated choices to forgive to get me to a place of freedom. In giving that number, Jesus is acknowledging how hard it is to forgive in certain cases. He is also acknowledging that it is often a process where we must choose forgiveness over and over and over. We don't do it for the sake of those who hurt us as much as we do it for our sake and to reclaim a life of wholeness. Forgiveness is an offensive move toward health when we have been wronged and when the evil one would have us choose a diminished life rather than life in all of its fulness.
There is legitimate and real pain in choosing to forgive egregious offenses. Every time we make the choice we relive the pain of the offense. Forgiveness does not mean that we "forget" (we won't), or that we stuff our plain (we shouldn't). At every juncture of forgiving again we acknowledge the pain and then make the choice to forgive. This is not pain avoidance but the opposite: it is allowing Jesus to help us work through the pain as we continually choose to forgive in spite of the pain.
We also choose to forgive because we know that God can take even the most painful situation and redeem it for His purposes if we choose faith over despair and freedom over bondage. Ironically, my greatest ministry has come out of my deepest pain. I could not conceive that in the dark night of the soul but today I see how God turned my human scars into divine scars and that my ministry has been deeply enriched by the very thing I thought had destroyed it.
There is no trait more like Jesus than that of forgiving the undeserving because that is what Jesus did for us (Matthew 18:21-35).
Having been married 35 years I have had many occasions to be forgiven by a loving spouse and to forgive. Hard as it is sometimes with those we love, we have a vested interest in both forgiving and being forgiven because we value the relationship as there is no joy in unforgiving relationships. So too with our family members and close friends.
It is also easier to forgive when we are asked to forgive - after all the one asking is acknowledging their wrong. It may not make it easy - depending on the offense and its consequences on our lives but the acknowledgement of being wronged certainly helps.
The highest cost of forgiveness comes when we have been grievously wronged and there is no acknowledgement of the wrong. Accusations that are not true that go to our reputation, treatment that affects our livelihood and families, pain inflicted whose consequences will be with us for a lifetime in one way or another. Wrongs that even if acknowledged, cannot be taken back and impact us for years. Most of us have experienced situations like this. The question is whether we have paid the high cost of forgiving even when the cost is very, very high. Even when those we choose to forgive do not deserve our forgiveness.
Why pay the cost? First because we are told to by Christ who paid the cost for us. It is a Jesus thing to do and we are Jesus people. The world holds on to its offenses but we choose to forgive as He forgave us.
Second, there is freedom in forgiveness while there is bondage, anger and diminished joy in unforgiveness. As I write in When Life Comes Undone, "The only way out of the bitterness, the hold that the pain has on our lives, and the anger we feel toward those who hurt us is to choose to forgive them. Not for their sake but for our own sake. I don’t pretend it is easy, nor is it quick. But once we have made the decision and practice forgiveness, as the memories come back the hold of that pain lessens,and we are no longer hostage to those who hurt us."
I have often wondered why Jesus said we should forgive 70 times 7 times. Today I think I know. Because forgiveness is a process - especially for those egregious offenses that change the course of our lives and cause the deepest pain. I have been there and it took me years of repeated choices to forgive to get me to a place of freedom. In giving that number, Jesus is acknowledging how hard it is to forgive in certain cases. He is also acknowledging that it is often a process where we must choose forgiveness over and over and over. We don't do it for the sake of those who hurt us as much as we do it for our sake and to reclaim a life of wholeness. Forgiveness is an offensive move toward health when we have been wronged and when the evil one would have us choose a diminished life rather than life in all of its fulness.
There is legitimate and real pain in choosing to forgive egregious offenses. Every time we make the choice we relive the pain of the offense. Forgiveness does not mean that we "forget" (we won't), or that we stuff our plain (we shouldn't). At every juncture of forgiving again we acknowledge the pain and then make the choice to forgive. This is not pain avoidance but the opposite: it is allowing Jesus to help us work through the pain as we continually choose to forgive in spite of the pain.
We also choose to forgive because we know that God can take even the most painful situation and redeem it for His purposes if we choose faith over despair and freedom over bondage. Ironically, my greatest ministry has come out of my deepest pain. I could not conceive that in the dark night of the soul but today I see how God turned my human scars into divine scars and that my ministry has been deeply enriched by the very thing I thought had destroyed it.
There is no trait more like Jesus than that of forgiving the undeserving because that is what Jesus did for us (Matthew 18:21-35).
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Bigger is often not better
As one who works with ministries and ministry leaders I often hear rather dramatic plans for income expansion along with a tendency to believe that more ministry requires more people. I would offer some suggestions to think about coming out of many years of ministry leadership.
One: Bigger is not necessarily better. Bigger does not necessarily translate into greater ministry impact but what it does do is add a tremendous burden financially, administratively and in management. Because budgets and staff are things we can count, we often use them to define success - at least in the west.
Success, however, is ministry impact and some ministries would be far better served to contract down to a core purpose, do that core purpose well and refuse to get sucked into ancillary things that are good but not core to who they are. A lean, nimble, "right sized" organization is better positioned for ministry impact than a bureaucratic, slow, undexterous large one. There are ministry organizations who have become so large that it is nearly impossible to change their direction and DNA. Don't assume larger is better.
Two: More money does not necessarily allow you to accomplish more ministry. I have a very good ministry friend whose plans always cost an amazing amount of money. I jokingly tell him that the right number is to divide his number by ten. He is never able to raise his large sums anyway. Resources are necessary for ministry. However, the thinking that "if I had more I could do more is often not true."
What is more important than how much money we have is how much we leverage the money we have for ministry impact. The issue is not the amount of money but the amount of leverage that the dollars we have can make. Often, there are ways of doing ministry that are far less expensive than we assume - if we are willing to rethink how we do what we do.
The positive thing about limited resources is that it forces us to prioritize those resources. Not everything we do has equal weight, importance or value. It is not a bad thing to evaluate and reallocate resources toward those things that will give us greatest ministry impact. Don't assume more money is the answer to your ministry's future.
Third: More ministries do not necessarily help you get where you want to go. Ministries often tend to add ancillary ministries in good times because they can. Ancillary ministries are things that are good but not central and core to who you are, what you have been called to do or where your expertise lies. Ministries can be like magnets picking up good things to do which actually detract from the central thing they do.
Every ministry needs to define what their core mission is and focus on being the very best they can be at that core calling. In fact, economic times like the one we are in right now force that conversation because good things many of us have been doing are no longer viable as donation income falters. It is very easy to stray from one's core calling. But it is in that calling, not ancillary callings, that you will have your greatest impact. So don't assume that more ministry is better ministry.
One: Bigger is not necessarily better. Bigger does not necessarily translate into greater ministry impact but what it does do is add a tremendous burden financially, administratively and in management. Because budgets and staff are things we can count, we often use them to define success - at least in the west.
Success, however, is ministry impact and some ministries would be far better served to contract down to a core purpose, do that core purpose well and refuse to get sucked into ancillary things that are good but not core to who they are. A lean, nimble, "right sized" organization is better positioned for ministry impact than a bureaucratic, slow, undexterous large one. There are ministry organizations who have become so large that it is nearly impossible to change their direction and DNA. Don't assume larger is better.
Two: More money does not necessarily allow you to accomplish more ministry. I have a very good ministry friend whose plans always cost an amazing amount of money. I jokingly tell him that the right number is to divide his number by ten. He is never able to raise his large sums anyway. Resources are necessary for ministry. However, the thinking that "if I had more I could do more is often not true."
What is more important than how much money we have is how much we leverage the money we have for ministry impact. The issue is not the amount of money but the amount of leverage that the dollars we have can make. Often, there are ways of doing ministry that are far less expensive than we assume - if we are willing to rethink how we do what we do.
The positive thing about limited resources is that it forces us to prioritize those resources. Not everything we do has equal weight, importance or value. It is not a bad thing to evaluate and reallocate resources toward those things that will give us greatest ministry impact. Don't assume more money is the answer to your ministry's future.
Third: More ministries do not necessarily help you get where you want to go. Ministries often tend to add ancillary ministries in good times because they can. Ancillary ministries are things that are good but not central and core to who you are, what you have been called to do or where your expertise lies. Ministries can be like magnets picking up good things to do which actually detract from the central thing they do.
Every ministry needs to define what their core mission is and focus on being the very best they can be at that core calling. In fact, economic times like the one we are in right now force that conversation because good things many of us have been doing are no longer viable as donation income falters. It is very easy to stray from one's core calling. But it is in that calling, not ancillary callings, that you will have your greatest impact. So don't assume that more ministry is better ministry.
The economy is down so what do I do with my giving?
Whenever fear hits our economy, one of the first changes many people make is to cut back on their giving - whether or not the economy has affected them personally. It is the response of fear. I would take a different tack and suggest that even if the economy is impacting us personally, the last place we ought to cut back is in our giving.
The priority we place on our giving is a direct reflection on the priority we place on being generous with the One who has been generous with us. It is a act of thanksgiving. It is also a direct reflection of our priority to be a part of spreading the Gospel that has been our salvation. It is an act of followership. When giving is the first to go among our priorities in hard times it simply indicates that it is not a real priority to us but an optional activity. Something nice when we have extra.
Think about this: God does not abandon us no matter how tough things get. His faithfulness is the one thing we can count on at all times. Why, then would we easily cut back on our thanksgiving and followership by quickly abandoning our generosity in tough times. If anything it becomes an opportunity for us to be creative in our ways to give.
While the credit of the Federal government has been downgraded, God's faith and credit (and generosity to us) has not and will not be. So my goal is to do all I can to be as generous as I have been and trust Him for my daily provision, come what may. And you?
The priority we place on our giving is a direct reflection on the priority we place on being generous with the One who has been generous with us. It is a act of thanksgiving. It is also a direct reflection of our priority to be a part of spreading the Gospel that has been our salvation. It is an act of followership. When giving is the first to go among our priorities in hard times it simply indicates that it is not a real priority to us but an optional activity. Something nice when we have extra.
Think about this: God does not abandon us no matter how tough things get. His faithfulness is the one thing we can count on at all times. Why, then would we easily cut back on our thanksgiving and followership by quickly abandoning our generosity in tough times. If anything it becomes an opportunity for us to be creative in our ways to give.
While the credit of the Federal government has been downgraded, God's faith and credit (and generosity to us) has not and will not be. So my goal is to do all I can to be as generous as I have been and trust Him for my daily provision, come what may. And you?
Monday, August 8, 2011
The American Dream and God's Dream
As one who travels the world and sees how most of the world lives, I can say with great thankfulness that I enjoy freedoms and opportunities that are absent in much of our world. The ability to make a living, to have a home, access to childcare, a judicial system that while flawed in many instances is better then most in the world and the list could go on. For many, the "American dream" is alive and well, if not a bit more complicated than it used to be.
Whether we live in the United States or another developed country we have much to be thankful for. The alternatives are so much harder and more difficult.
But....
God's greatest goal for us is not that we are comfortable, have all we need and live a pain free life. His greatest goal is that we experience Him in all His fullness, live out His purpose and destiny for our lives and daily take up our cross and follow Him. The great irony is that all we have are blessings from His hand but those very blessings can easily sidetrack us from the very thing that will bring us our greatest pleasure and His: Living in the center of His will! It is the paradox He warned the Israelites of in Deuteronomy where He warned them of being seduced by their prosperity, allowing themselves to think it was from their own hand and divert their attention from full followership of Him.
If comfort was our goal, Robert Morrison would never have been the first missionary to China, leading to a Christian population today of over 100 million. If comfort was our goal, the translators of Wycliffe Bible Translators would not have gone to remote villages to spend their lives translating the Good News. Nor would Paul have put up with beatings, shipwrecks, death threats, poverty and hardship for the sake of the Gospel - among whom we are the recipients. If comfort was the goal, the men and women of Hebrews 11 would not have followed God to hard places and suffered hard things for His sake.
Jim Elliott had it right. "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." All God asks is that we follow him closely, respond when He speaks to us and live lives that are in alignment with His heart. Ironically, the very things He may ask us to do are the very keys to our own joy and legacy.
No one will regret for one instant in "eternity" what they sacrificed for the sake of Christ in "time." Many will regret for all eternity that they didn't follow Him more closely in this life. Our comfort is always secondary to our followership but in that followership we find joy beyond belief.
Whether we live in the United States or another developed country we have much to be thankful for. The alternatives are so much harder and more difficult.
But....
God's greatest goal for us is not that we are comfortable, have all we need and live a pain free life. His greatest goal is that we experience Him in all His fullness, live out His purpose and destiny for our lives and daily take up our cross and follow Him. The great irony is that all we have are blessings from His hand but those very blessings can easily sidetrack us from the very thing that will bring us our greatest pleasure and His: Living in the center of His will! It is the paradox He warned the Israelites of in Deuteronomy where He warned them of being seduced by their prosperity, allowing themselves to think it was from their own hand and divert their attention from full followership of Him.
If comfort was our goal, Robert Morrison would never have been the first missionary to China, leading to a Christian population today of over 100 million. If comfort was our goal, the translators of Wycliffe Bible Translators would not have gone to remote villages to spend their lives translating the Good News. Nor would Paul have put up with beatings, shipwrecks, death threats, poverty and hardship for the sake of the Gospel - among whom we are the recipients. If comfort was the goal, the men and women of Hebrews 11 would not have followed God to hard places and suffered hard things for His sake.
Jim Elliott had it right. "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." All God asks is that we follow him closely, respond when He speaks to us and live lives that are in alignment with His heart. Ironically, the very things He may ask us to do are the very keys to our own joy and legacy.
No one will regret for one instant in "eternity" what they sacrificed for the sake of Christ in "time." Many will regret for all eternity that they didn't follow Him more closely in this life. Our comfort is always secondary to our followership but in that followership we find joy beyond belief.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
The church as a redemptive community
Local congregations that desire to mirror the heart of Jesus willingly and intentionally embrace the role of being a redemptive community - embracing the broken and the hurting with the goal of moving them toward wholeness and healing.
Listen to the heart of Jesus: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." In the cosmic battle between the evil one and Christ, the evil one will do all he can to destroy people made in the image of God. Any way he can bring destruction he does and will. The pseudo satisfaction of sin is just that: the promise of joy and wholeness through the violation of righteousness and holiness. And with that destruction comes pain, guilt, sadness, addictions, relational brokenness and all the undoneness that characterizes our societies.
Jesus on the other hand, through the cross and the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit is in the business of redeeming what the evil one has destroyed and stolen in order to restore the image that He created us in - His image. Redemption is not just redeemed hearts (it starts there) but it is the bringing of life and life in all its fullness to people who have been damaged and victimized by the evil one. It is an ongoing process from brokenness to wholeness.
If that is the desire, ministry and commitment of Jesus, it must also be that of the church. We are a community of the redeemed after all, who are together on a journey toward greater wholeness as we pursue His image. As such, we are looking for the broken and hurting, introducing them to Christ, and as a part of our discipleship, helping them move from their brokenness to wholeness.
Do we see ourselves that way and do we portray that "redemptive community" to those we seek to reach? Here is an interesting observation. Most advertising for local churches portrays happy, intact, prosperous families, vibrant worship, healthy people who seem to have it all together and are living the American dream. If you doubt me, check out the web sites of local churches. What does that say to the broken, discouraged, divorced, and addicted individual who is looking for hope? It probably says, there is no one here that is in my shoes. Now look at the ads for local counseling centers or drug rehab centers and you get the picture. And by the way, what does the American dream have to do with following Jesus?
How do we see ourselves in the local church? Do we see ourselves as a place for people who have it together or a place for people who don't but want to go there? Are we a community of the redeemed, moving toward His image (slow and difficult as that is) or do we already have it together? (an oxymoron until we get to heaven). Are we looking for the "nice" people or the "broken" people?
To put this into New Testament perspective, the nice and the together were the Pharisees who looked the part on the outside but were in Jesus words merely "white washed tombs." The redeemed who were moving toward wholeness from brokenness were the tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, and generally the scum of the earth who understood brokenness and craved wholeness.
I wonder if the modern day pharisees are those who pretend that they have it together spiritually when inside there is a lot of hidden darkness and brokenness. I wonder if the modern day prostitutes and tax collectors are those who know how desperately broken they are and who genuinely crave the mercy, love and wholeness that Jesus brings. That is what a redemptive community looks like. Can whole congregations be characterized by one group or the other?
Listen to the heart of Jesus: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." In the cosmic battle between the evil one and Christ, the evil one will do all he can to destroy people made in the image of God. Any way he can bring destruction he does and will. The pseudo satisfaction of sin is just that: the promise of joy and wholeness through the violation of righteousness and holiness. And with that destruction comes pain, guilt, sadness, addictions, relational brokenness and all the undoneness that characterizes our societies.
Jesus on the other hand, through the cross and the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit is in the business of redeeming what the evil one has destroyed and stolen in order to restore the image that He created us in - His image. Redemption is not just redeemed hearts (it starts there) but it is the bringing of life and life in all its fullness to people who have been damaged and victimized by the evil one. It is an ongoing process from brokenness to wholeness.
If that is the desire, ministry and commitment of Jesus, it must also be that of the church. We are a community of the redeemed after all, who are together on a journey toward greater wholeness as we pursue His image. As such, we are looking for the broken and hurting, introducing them to Christ, and as a part of our discipleship, helping them move from their brokenness to wholeness.
Do we see ourselves that way and do we portray that "redemptive community" to those we seek to reach? Here is an interesting observation. Most advertising for local churches portrays happy, intact, prosperous families, vibrant worship, healthy people who seem to have it all together and are living the American dream. If you doubt me, check out the web sites of local churches. What does that say to the broken, discouraged, divorced, and addicted individual who is looking for hope? It probably says, there is no one here that is in my shoes. Now look at the ads for local counseling centers or drug rehab centers and you get the picture. And by the way, what does the American dream have to do with following Jesus?
How do we see ourselves in the local church? Do we see ourselves as a place for people who have it together or a place for people who don't but want to go there? Are we a community of the redeemed, moving toward His image (slow and difficult as that is) or do we already have it together? (an oxymoron until we get to heaven). Are we looking for the "nice" people or the "broken" people?
To put this into New Testament perspective, the nice and the together were the Pharisees who looked the part on the outside but were in Jesus words merely "white washed tombs." The redeemed who were moving toward wholeness from brokenness were the tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, and generally the scum of the earth who understood brokenness and craved wholeness.
I wonder if the modern day pharisees are those who pretend that they have it together spiritually when inside there is a lot of hidden darkness and brokenness. I wonder if the modern day prostitutes and tax collectors are those who know how desperately broken they are and who genuinely crave the mercy, love and wholeness that Jesus brings. That is what a redemptive community looks like. Can whole congregations be characterized by one group or the other?
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Four reasons people don't fully embrace their God designed gifting and destiny
Many people have not yet stepped completely into their destiny and embraced who God made them to be. They are holding back, and in doing so and living cautiously they live with the sense that God has something more for them, that they are not truly fulfilled and that they are not using all of the gifts and wiring that God created within them.
Why would people not fully embrace and live out the real them that God created and settle for something less than they know to be who they are? I believe there are four key reasons that we choose caution over all out destiny producing lives.
One: all of us suffer the wounds of life. Many times those wounds cause us to pull into our shell and protect ourselves. The wife who has been told by her husband for years that she is "stupid" and "incompetent." The pastor who has suffered wounds from his leaders and chooses to back off and lead cautiously. The woman who had an abortion in her youth and secretly believes that because of that act she will never be used by God.
Life brings with it wounds and those wounds, even without us knowing it can cause us to pull back from all God made us to be. In doing that we short circuit who God made us to be.
Two: The lies of the evil one: He does not want us to claim our destiny or fully live in the lane God created for us. Lies like, "He will never use you because of what you have done," "you are not worthy," "you will make a fool of yourself," "you are not qualified," and the lies in our head go on and on and cause us to pull back, live in caution and even fear.
The evil one absolutely does not want any of us to step completely into our destiny and who God made us to be because it is then we are a direct threat to him. He will do all he can to keep us living in fear and caution.
Three: The expectations of others. Many of us are doing what we do because someone else had a plan for our lives - parents, spouses, or other well meaning people who told us what we ought to be doing but which leaves us with a quiet sense that we are not doing the right thing that maximizes our gifting and impact. Many people have plans for our lives but God's plan trumps them all. When we are in a role that is incompatible with the real us we live with frustration, anxiety and that vague sense of incompleteness. And it prevents us from fully embracing God's plan for our lives.
Fourth: Fear. Fear of failure, fear of allowing out voice to be heard, fear that we might be wrong, fear that others will take offense. Fear is the killer of faith which is why the number one command in scripture is "Fear not." Here is the irony: God never asks us to step into who he made us to be without promising to go with us, empower us and protect us. After all we are simply living out His will for our lives.
Let me ask a personal and direct question. Are you holding back in your life? Are you resisting God's whisper to step out and be who God made you to be - completely? Do you have a sense that God has more for you but that it is you who is holding back? If so, the antidote to these destiny killers is to courageously step out in faith, in followership and in close connection with God and just go for it, trusting that God will go with you.
Cautious living leads to diminished joy and diminished impact. When we fully embrace our God given gifts and destiny the adventure begins and our joy increases.
Why would people not fully embrace and live out the real them that God created and settle for something less than they know to be who they are? I believe there are four key reasons that we choose caution over all out destiny producing lives.
One: all of us suffer the wounds of life. Many times those wounds cause us to pull into our shell and protect ourselves. The wife who has been told by her husband for years that she is "stupid" and "incompetent." The pastor who has suffered wounds from his leaders and chooses to back off and lead cautiously. The woman who had an abortion in her youth and secretly believes that because of that act she will never be used by God.
Life brings with it wounds and those wounds, even without us knowing it can cause us to pull back from all God made us to be. In doing that we short circuit who God made us to be.
Two: The lies of the evil one: He does not want us to claim our destiny or fully live in the lane God created for us. Lies like, "He will never use you because of what you have done," "you are not worthy," "you will make a fool of yourself," "you are not qualified," and the lies in our head go on and on and cause us to pull back, live in caution and even fear.
The evil one absolutely does not want any of us to step completely into our destiny and who God made us to be because it is then we are a direct threat to him. He will do all he can to keep us living in fear and caution.
Three: The expectations of others. Many of us are doing what we do because someone else had a plan for our lives - parents, spouses, or other well meaning people who told us what we ought to be doing but which leaves us with a quiet sense that we are not doing the right thing that maximizes our gifting and impact. Many people have plans for our lives but God's plan trumps them all. When we are in a role that is incompatible with the real us we live with frustration, anxiety and that vague sense of incompleteness. And it prevents us from fully embracing God's plan for our lives.
Fourth: Fear. Fear of failure, fear of allowing out voice to be heard, fear that we might be wrong, fear that others will take offense. Fear is the killer of faith which is why the number one command in scripture is "Fear not." Here is the irony: God never asks us to step into who he made us to be without promising to go with us, empower us and protect us. After all we are simply living out His will for our lives.
Let me ask a personal and direct question. Are you holding back in your life? Are you resisting God's whisper to step out and be who God made you to be - completely? Do you have a sense that God has more for you but that it is you who is holding back? If so, the antidote to these destiny killers is to courageously step out in faith, in followership and in close connection with God and just go for it, trusting that God will go with you.
Cautious living leads to diminished joy and diminished impact. When we fully embrace our God given gifts and destiny the adventure begins and our joy increases.
Friday, August 5, 2011
What has your ministry learned in the past five to ten years?
I had a great conversation with a ministry this week. They are ten years old and the goal of the conversation was to figure out how they could accomplish in the next two years more than they had in the past ten years.
Now that may sound like an audacious goal, but not necessarily - because, when one stops and thinks about it, lessons have been learned positive and negative that could change the nature of how the ministry approached its next run and from those lessons extrapolate ministry strategy that is far more successful.
The answers to "what have we learned in the first ten years" filled a huge whiteboard several times over. The dialogue around those lessons started to clarify in these leaders minds, how they needed to shape their strategy for the future.
Once we had done this we moved to a second question. What "game changers" could we think of that would dramatically increase the ministry's impact in the next two years. We put one other thing on the table: as we considered the next two years we wanted to totally ignore how we were currently configured and ask how we would organize the ministry today if we were starting all over - knowing what we know today.
Our goal was to erase from our minds our preconceived conceptions of how things should be done (because we have always done them that way) and ask how we would organize today if we were starting from scratch based on lessons learned. Again, we came up with some significant game changers along with robust dialogue around those potential changes.
Based on those "game changers" this ministry is moving forward and taking some calculated risks about how they see a quantum leap in their ministry effectiveness - based on the positive and negative lessons learned in their past.
If you have never tried this exercise I would strongly encourage you to do so. Your team actually has an amazing amount of information as to what has worked well and what has not worked well but until one puts that in black and white and asks one can leverage that valuable information for the future, we continue to do what we always did - out of sheer habit.
Now that may sound like an audacious goal, but not necessarily - because, when one stops and thinks about it, lessons have been learned positive and negative that could change the nature of how the ministry approached its next run and from those lessons extrapolate ministry strategy that is far more successful.
The answers to "what have we learned in the first ten years" filled a huge whiteboard several times over. The dialogue around those lessons started to clarify in these leaders minds, how they needed to shape their strategy for the future.
Once we had done this we moved to a second question. What "game changers" could we think of that would dramatically increase the ministry's impact in the next two years. We put one other thing on the table: as we considered the next two years we wanted to totally ignore how we were currently configured and ask how we would organize the ministry today if we were starting all over - knowing what we know today.
Our goal was to erase from our minds our preconceived conceptions of how things should be done (because we have always done them that way) and ask how we would organize today if we were starting from scratch based on lessons learned. Again, we came up with some significant game changers along with robust dialogue around those potential changes.
Based on those "game changers" this ministry is moving forward and taking some calculated risks about how they see a quantum leap in their ministry effectiveness - based on the positive and negative lessons learned in their past.
If you have never tried this exercise I would strongly encourage you to do so. Your team actually has an amazing amount of information as to what has worked well and what has not worked well but until one puts that in black and white and asks one can leverage that valuable information for the future, we continue to do what we always did - out of sheer habit.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
What boards and pastors need to know about one another
The relationship between senior pastors and their board is a critical factor in the success or failure of any pastor and it therefore impacts the health of the church. It is not always an easy relationship and takes time to build and nurture. Here are some things that pastors and boards need to know about one another.
Boards need to know that pastors see their role not as a job but as a calling. It is one of the reasons that many pastors are deeply sensitive to what they perceive to be criticism. This is their life, not just a job! Board members who are insensitive or critical are likely to get a defensive reaction from many pastors. Yes, pastors (I was one) can be insecure and sensitive. Much of that is that they care a lot about what they do.
Boards need to know that a pastor can weather almost any storm as long as the board is with him. But, if the board is not supportive publicly and privately the relationship is likely to go south. This does not mean that they always need to agree. It does mean that a pastor can count on the board to guard his back and take arrows for him. Boards that are not supportive are likely to lose their pastor as no pastor can effectively minister without the support of his board. Pastors are much more likely to listen carefully to board members who they know they can trust than whose support is tepid.
The job of a pastor is often a lonely one and it brings with it huge pressures. Someone is always unhappy and unlike the workplace you cannot fire your congregants! If a pastor can rely on his board for friendship and support it goes a long way for them.
Boards need to know that pastors resent being micromanaged. Pastors have lots of people who think they can and should tell them how to do what they do. What they don’t want is the board doing the same thing in terms of their day to day duties. Healthy boards don’t do management – they leave that to the pastoral staff (or volunteers). Instead they focus on vision and direction and policy.
Pastors on the other hand need to know that board members are used to having robust dialogue without people getting defensive over direct comments and opinions. That is the way it is in most workplaces. People express their opinions openly and candidly and it is expected that others can take it without it causing angst. Just because board members express differing opinions does not mean they are not in your corner. They are used to candid discussion.
Pastors need to know that board members have a tremendous amount of expertise from their experience and work which can be brought to bear on ministry. And they want to use their gifts in the ministry setting. But they often feel like this is not welcome because “this is a ministry not business.” Good leadership, good practices apply in the workplace and the church. Whenever we give the impression that “business and ministry” don’t match up we disemempower board members who come out of the non ministry world.
Pastors need to know that board members care about bottom line results and getting things done. They are often frustrated by the slow pace in ministry or staff members who don’t have a plan or cannot execute that plan. Return on investment (ROI) is something they value in their business – they want to stay in business. Return on mission (ROM) is something they value in the church. Lack of effective planning and execution on the plan will cause great frustration to good leaders.
Consider having a candid conversation as a board with your pastor on areas that each side sees that cause angst or frustration. You may not agree on everything but at least you will understand one another better and the needs that both have from the other. As this relationship goes, so goes the church.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Disappointments are Opportunities
We all have them. In fact I had one yesterday: disappointments! They are a part of life and no on is exempt. The Apostle Paul had people who let him down, places he wanted to bring the Gospel but was prevented from doing so, physical ailments that God did not take away. Just go down the list of Biblical characters and you will find a trail of disappointments behind them. It is part of the human condition. Some of those disappointments are irritations and some are deeply painful.
But all disappointments are also opportunities because God is the only one who can redeem any and all disappointments for His glory in our lives. Humanly, disappointments are just that. Spiritually, they are an opportunity to see what God intends to do either in the situation, in the lives of others or in our lives through them. That fact does not necessarily make them any easier to endure but it does give us hope that God can take what looks messed up to us and use it in ways we never dreamed of. God is not just in the business of redeeming hearts but in redeeming circumstances as well. And no one is more creative in how He does it than Him.
Consider this: how many ministries on this globe were started by someone who had walked through great disappointment and pain and because of it channeled their energies to helping others in similar situations. That is disappointment turned inside out for God's glory! Ask people passionate about some unique ministry how they got there and you will often find the beginning of the trail at disappointment!
In fact, ask yourself this question. "What were the greatest disappointments of my life and how did God use those disappointments to make me who I am today?" Most of the major ministry themes in my life can be traced back to disappointments that God turned into opportunities to minister to others. Can you see any of the same trails in your life?
Dealing with disappointments is influenced by how deeply we understand and believe in and trust God's sovereignty over our lives. This understanding does not lesson the pain of disappointments but it does give us a foundation for how we deal with them. I am convinced that nothing happens in our lives, good or bad that does not first pass by the hands of God and which He does not use for his purposes in our lives. That knowledge does not lesson the pain of disappointment. It does give me a reference point of faith in dealing with them. I can say in my heart, "God is up to something in this and He will redeem it for His glory if I let him and trust Him."
Moses had forty years to deal with his disappointment of being a fugitive on the run and then a simple shepherd before God redeemed his situation to lead his people out of bondage. Joseph had disappointments with betrayal from family and employers before God redeemed his situation for His purposes. David was anointed king and then chased for years by Saul and you hear the despair in his voice through the Psalms. The list goes on. I am on the list. You are on the list. God is in the business of redeeming our situation for His glory and our growth.
Yesterday I received one of those nice "no thank you letters" from a publisher who had previously said they would publish what I consider my best book. Disappointment. But then, I began to think "I wonder what God has in mind" because what to me is a disappointment is to Him an opportunity to demonstrate His creativity, His sovereignty and in the end His glory. What it takes from us is to turn our disappointments over to Him and ask Him to take them, redeem them and use them in a way that honors Him. We will often be surprised with what He does.
But all disappointments are also opportunities because God is the only one who can redeem any and all disappointments for His glory in our lives. Humanly, disappointments are just that. Spiritually, they are an opportunity to see what God intends to do either in the situation, in the lives of others or in our lives through them. That fact does not necessarily make them any easier to endure but it does give us hope that God can take what looks messed up to us and use it in ways we never dreamed of. God is not just in the business of redeeming hearts but in redeeming circumstances as well. And no one is more creative in how He does it than Him.
Consider this: how many ministries on this globe were started by someone who had walked through great disappointment and pain and because of it channeled their energies to helping others in similar situations. That is disappointment turned inside out for God's glory! Ask people passionate about some unique ministry how they got there and you will often find the beginning of the trail at disappointment!
In fact, ask yourself this question. "What were the greatest disappointments of my life and how did God use those disappointments to make me who I am today?" Most of the major ministry themes in my life can be traced back to disappointments that God turned into opportunities to minister to others. Can you see any of the same trails in your life?
Dealing with disappointments is influenced by how deeply we understand and believe in and trust God's sovereignty over our lives. This understanding does not lesson the pain of disappointments but it does give us a foundation for how we deal with them. I am convinced that nothing happens in our lives, good or bad that does not first pass by the hands of God and which He does not use for his purposes in our lives. That knowledge does not lesson the pain of disappointment. It does give me a reference point of faith in dealing with them. I can say in my heart, "God is up to something in this and He will redeem it for His glory if I let him and trust Him."
Moses had forty years to deal with his disappointment of being a fugitive on the run and then a simple shepherd before God redeemed his situation to lead his people out of bondage. Joseph had disappointments with betrayal from family and employers before God redeemed his situation for His purposes. David was anointed king and then chased for years by Saul and you hear the despair in his voice through the Psalms. The list goes on. I am on the list. You are on the list. God is in the business of redeeming our situation for His glory and our growth.
Yesterday I received one of those nice "no thank you letters" from a publisher who had previously said they would publish what I consider my best book. Disappointment. But then, I began to think "I wonder what God has in mind" because what to me is a disappointment is to Him an opportunity to demonstrate His creativity, His sovereignty and in the end His glory. What it takes from us is to turn our disappointments over to Him and ask Him to take them, redeem them and use them in a way that honors Him. We will often be surprised with what He does.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The cancer of mistrust
Mistrust is one of the most common dangers that organizations face whether it is mistrust of leaders or mistrust of others on the team. It is like a cancer in the organization and by its very nature, when not addressed it becomes larger rather than smaller as the attitudes rub off on other members. In addition, where mistrust flourishes, good ministry diminishes because the emotional energy needed to deal with mistrust issues takes away from healthy energy that could be focused in productive ways. Mistrust is always a lose/lose proposition.
What causes mistrust? It is not what one usually thinks. Often it starts with a perception about another person and rather than going to that person to determine whether the perception is accurate, which means taking responsibility, it is easier to simply believe that the perception is correct and allow that to color their attitude toward that individual. And, as that "perception" is shared as truth with others, the cancer spreads.
Then there are people who intentionally plant seeds of mistrust toward those they don't like or a leadership philosophy they take umbrage to. In both of these cases, the conversations that take place are behind the scenes, often couched in spiritual language (we are ministries after all). Because the conversation is not out in the open, you see the impact of the cancer but it is often difficult to pin point who is responsible.
In both these scenarios, others get sucked into the mistrust when they unwisely take up the offenses of others. So here you have people who have no first hand knowledge of issues that are shared with them, or even their veracity but they pick up the offense and make it theirs. This is not only unbiblical but it is harder to fix because there was no offense, real or perceived, committed that involves them. How do you solve mistrust issues where one has not done anything to cause it?
Healthy organizations and leaders always walk toward the barking dog when it comes to attitudes of mistrust because of the terrible damage it has in the organization. In fact, the longer one ignores pockets of mistrust, the more damage to the organization. Just as we would not think of ignoring a diagnosis of cancer, we cannot think of ignoring a diagnosis of mistrust.
Pockets of mistrust usually have a common source so one of your strategies is to watch and listen and seek to determine who is behind the distrustful attitudes and who has simply taken up that attitude and made theirs. Given time and attention, you can usually identify the source of the problem.
When one knows the source, enter into a defining dialogue with that individual putting the elephants on the table and indicating that unless the mistrust can be resolved it will not work for them to be a part of your organization. Dialogue about the real or imagined offenses that the individual has and seek resolution. Part of that resolution is that in the future when there are issues they must go to the one they have an issue with and seek to resolve it rather than going to others and talking. What mistrust makers need to know is that their behavior is not compatible with the ethos of your organization so you are going to hold them accountable for how they deal with issues they have. Every time there is a violation of that agreement, a direct discussion takes place.
What about others who have taken up offenses? In our organization we go to every one of them that we know, and in dialogue seek to get to the bottom of the issue. Usually their information is either incomplete or not accurate and their assumptions are not correct. After all, these are not their issues, they have simply taken up the offense of others. Once issues have been clarified and questions answered we ask that in the future they don't take up the offenses of others and always go to the person involved first and try to resolve their real or perceived issues. Because we know how damaging attitudes of mistrust are we will not ignore them ever.
Not everyone wants to be accountable for attitudes or be held to biblical standards of conflict resolution. Where we cannot make progress on resolving trust issues we will take the step of indicating that unless it is resolved, the individual cannot stay with the organization. That calls the question since no one can be productive in a ministry organization where there is a lack of trust in leaders or others. In these cases, some choose to leave and some choose to resolve their attitudes. What is not acceptable is living with mistrust because of its high and negative cost.
Leaders who don't have the courage to deal with pockets of mistrust in an upfront way see the health of their organization or team deteriorate. It is a cancer and needs to be dealt with.
What causes mistrust? It is not what one usually thinks. Often it starts with a perception about another person and rather than going to that person to determine whether the perception is accurate, which means taking responsibility, it is easier to simply believe that the perception is correct and allow that to color their attitude toward that individual. And, as that "perception" is shared as truth with others, the cancer spreads.
Then there are people who intentionally plant seeds of mistrust toward those they don't like or a leadership philosophy they take umbrage to. In both of these cases, the conversations that take place are behind the scenes, often couched in spiritual language (we are ministries after all). Because the conversation is not out in the open, you see the impact of the cancer but it is often difficult to pin point who is responsible.
In both these scenarios, others get sucked into the mistrust when they unwisely take up the offenses of others. So here you have people who have no first hand knowledge of issues that are shared with them, or even their veracity but they pick up the offense and make it theirs. This is not only unbiblical but it is harder to fix because there was no offense, real or perceived, committed that involves them. How do you solve mistrust issues where one has not done anything to cause it?
Healthy organizations and leaders always walk toward the barking dog when it comes to attitudes of mistrust because of the terrible damage it has in the organization. In fact, the longer one ignores pockets of mistrust, the more damage to the organization. Just as we would not think of ignoring a diagnosis of cancer, we cannot think of ignoring a diagnosis of mistrust.
Pockets of mistrust usually have a common source so one of your strategies is to watch and listen and seek to determine who is behind the distrustful attitudes and who has simply taken up that attitude and made theirs. Given time and attention, you can usually identify the source of the problem.
When one knows the source, enter into a defining dialogue with that individual putting the elephants on the table and indicating that unless the mistrust can be resolved it will not work for them to be a part of your organization. Dialogue about the real or imagined offenses that the individual has and seek resolution. Part of that resolution is that in the future when there are issues they must go to the one they have an issue with and seek to resolve it rather than going to others and talking. What mistrust makers need to know is that their behavior is not compatible with the ethos of your organization so you are going to hold them accountable for how they deal with issues they have. Every time there is a violation of that agreement, a direct discussion takes place.
What about others who have taken up offenses? In our organization we go to every one of them that we know, and in dialogue seek to get to the bottom of the issue. Usually their information is either incomplete or not accurate and their assumptions are not correct. After all, these are not their issues, they have simply taken up the offense of others. Once issues have been clarified and questions answered we ask that in the future they don't take up the offenses of others and always go to the person involved first and try to resolve their real or perceived issues. Because we know how damaging attitudes of mistrust are we will not ignore them ever.
Not everyone wants to be accountable for attitudes or be held to biblical standards of conflict resolution. Where we cannot make progress on resolving trust issues we will take the step of indicating that unless it is resolved, the individual cannot stay with the organization. That calls the question since no one can be productive in a ministry organization where there is a lack of trust in leaders or others. In these cases, some choose to leave and some choose to resolve their attitudes. What is not acceptable is living with mistrust because of its high and negative cost.
Leaders who don't have the courage to deal with pockets of mistrust in an upfront way see the health of their organization or team deteriorate. It is a cancer and needs to be dealt with.
Your church has a financial challenge
As we live through year three of an incredibly difficult financial environment a good number of churches are feeling significant pain as giving is not keeping up with budgets. In many cases, there is reluctance to tell the congregation exactly what the situation is and try to solve the problem internally via spending cuts and even lay offs.
Perhaps the reluctance to be transparent with the congregation is that we don't want to look like we have not managed the situation well. Yet it is the congregation who are the stakeholders of the ministry and simply laying it out to them often results in many people stepping up to meet the need. Remember that in the typical evangelical church, forty to sixty percent of all giving goes outside the local church so these situations are rarely money problems even in a down economy.
One church I know had a 1.5 million dollar shortfall that absolutely needed to be met. Over a period of five weeks they simply laid the facts out to the congregation and thus far they have seen nearly a million dollars of that need met. And, the leaders were praised for their humble transparency.
Rather than losing credibility in being transparent, leaders gain credibility as they include the whole congregation in seeking to meet the need and solve the problem. At the very lease you don't know what people will do until you lay it out and ask.
If cuts must be made the key is not to compromise the central or core ministries of the church. In good times we add ancillary ministries that are nice to have but not core to what we must do. Those are the places where cuts should take place. In fact, the gift of financial challenges is that it forces us to determine what is central and core to who we are and focus on those things.
Perhaps the reluctance to be transparent with the congregation is that we don't want to look like we have not managed the situation well. Yet it is the congregation who are the stakeholders of the ministry and simply laying it out to them often results in many people stepping up to meet the need. Remember that in the typical evangelical church, forty to sixty percent of all giving goes outside the local church so these situations are rarely money problems even in a down economy.
One church I know had a 1.5 million dollar shortfall that absolutely needed to be met. Over a period of five weeks they simply laid the facts out to the congregation and thus far they have seen nearly a million dollars of that need met. And, the leaders were praised for their humble transparency.
Rather than losing credibility in being transparent, leaders gain credibility as they include the whole congregation in seeking to meet the need and solve the problem. At the very lease you don't know what people will do until you lay it out and ask.
If cuts must be made the key is not to compromise the central or core ministries of the church. In good times we add ancillary ministries that are nice to have but not core to what we must do. Those are the places where cuts should take place. In fact, the gift of financial challenges is that it forces us to determine what is central and core to who we are and focus on those things.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Learning quotients
Standard questions I ask leaders are "What have you learned about leadership in the past year?" and "What are the most significant books you have read recently?" Or, "What dumb tax have you paid recently that you wish you didn't have to pay?"
The responses are interesting - I learn from them. How quickly the leaders can answer the question is also telling. Some have a hard time coming up with an answer while others can tell you immediately. The difference between the two usually has to do with whether one has a mindset of learning or not.
Life gives us amazing opportunities to grow emotionally, spiritually, relationally and in our areas of strength - if we are intentional about it. What works against us is the pace of life and the tendency to be so busy that we don't have time to reflect on the very things that could make us better leaders or better people. But it is reflection that gives us the greatest opportunities for growth as we intentionally ask ourselves questions about our lives and leadership. One of the reasons I blog is that it allows me opportunity to reflect on issues that I have observed or experienced. It is about learning and growth.
All of us need a strategy for personal growth. Since we learn and process differently there is no one way but there should be a way - practices that are built into our lives or schedules that allows us to grow from what we experience and observe. A helpful question to ask is "How do I best learn and grow?" The follow up question is "Is my life, schedule and practice congruent with how I best learn?" so that the growth curve never slows down.
For leaders, that growth quotient is critical since they need to be on the front end of those they lead. Leaders who are not intentional about growth often have a rude awakening when those they lead become disillusioned by their leadership. Our leadership capital is our ability to help those we lead maximize their gifts and effectively meet the mission of the organization. When we lost that capital our leadership is over.
Whether you are a leader or not, what is your strategy for growth and are you continuing to grow at the pace you once did? Sloth (a great word) in this area of life is both dangerous and unfortunate but it often sets in in our forties or fifties when we think we have learned what we need to learn and can simply rest on our past experience. If anything it is at this stage of life that intentionality in growth is the most important. No past experience can compensate for what we need to learn and where we need to grow today.
Take a moment and reflect on your learning quotient and strategy. It is the way of the "wise" in the book of Proverbs.
The responses are interesting - I learn from them. How quickly the leaders can answer the question is also telling. Some have a hard time coming up with an answer while others can tell you immediately. The difference between the two usually has to do with whether one has a mindset of learning or not.
Life gives us amazing opportunities to grow emotionally, spiritually, relationally and in our areas of strength - if we are intentional about it. What works against us is the pace of life and the tendency to be so busy that we don't have time to reflect on the very things that could make us better leaders or better people. But it is reflection that gives us the greatest opportunities for growth as we intentionally ask ourselves questions about our lives and leadership. One of the reasons I blog is that it allows me opportunity to reflect on issues that I have observed or experienced. It is about learning and growth.
All of us need a strategy for personal growth. Since we learn and process differently there is no one way but there should be a way - practices that are built into our lives or schedules that allows us to grow from what we experience and observe. A helpful question to ask is "How do I best learn and grow?" The follow up question is "Is my life, schedule and practice congruent with how I best learn?" so that the growth curve never slows down.
For leaders, that growth quotient is critical since they need to be on the front end of those they lead. Leaders who are not intentional about growth often have a rude awakening when those they lead become disillusioned by their leadership. Our leadership capital is our ability to help those we lead maximize their gifts and effectively meet the mission of the organization. When we lost that capital our leadership is over.
Whether you are a leader or not, what is your strategy for growth and are you continuing to grow at the pace you once did? Sloth (a great word) in this area of life is both dangerous and unfortunate but it often sets in in our forties or fifties when we think we have learned what we need to learn and can simply rest on our past experience. If anything it is at this stage of life that intentionality in growth is the most important. No past experience can compensate for what we need to learn and where we need to grow today.
Take a moment and reflect on your learning quotient and strategy. It is the way of the "wise" in the book of Proverbs.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
When bad things happen
Things go wrong in any organization. Sometimes in a very messy way! The question is not whether things will go south but what we learn from them when we do. There are three common reactions to problems when they occur. Only one of them is truly helpful.
A common response when things go south is to quickly blame someone - after all, someone must be at fault. Actually, sometimes this is true and sometimes it is not. There are times when systems need to be fixed and it is not really a people problem. However, blame is not a very helpful response (unless you have an ongoing problem with an individual) because in assigning blame one tends to ignore other factors that may have contributed to the problem. Blaming allows one to ignore other critical factors that may be present. It is a convenient response because once blame has been assigned, one can move on without critical analysis.
A second response to things going south is to simply "move on." Here there is no real analysis of the factors involved which means that leaders don't need to take any responsibility for what occurred. This happens because leaders are either naive and believe that moving on is the best thing to do, or they don't want to look in the mirror and honestly evaluate the situation for lessons that could be learned. This is essentially a convenient non-response that simply hopes that by moving on the problem will not recur. It is also the reason that the problem will probably recur since important lessons are not learned.
A third and the most helpful response is to do an autopsy without blame. Here, leaders intentionally ask the kinds of questions that can help them understand why what happened happened and what they can learn from it. Questions like: What contributed to this situation?; What could we have done differently?; What do we need to do differently in the future?; What lessons can we learn so that we grow as an organization?; How do we process the constituency in an honest way?; - all evaluative questions designed to learn from the situation.
This is not about blame but about learning and growing. In fact, the lack of "blame" and the refusal to just "move on" gives leaders the opportunity to grow from the experience. Bad things will happen. The question is whether we will learn and grow from them or repeat them.
A common response when things go south is to quickly blame someone - after all, someone must be at fault. Actually, sometimes this is true and sometimes it is not. There are times when systems need to be fixed and it is not really a people problem. However, blame is not a very helpful response (unless you have an ongoing problem with an individual) because in assigning blame one tends to ignore other factors that may have contributed to the problem. Blaming allows one to ignore other critical factors that may be present. It is a convenient response because once blame has been assigned, one can move on without critical analysis.
A second response to things going south is to simply "move on." Here there is no real analysis of the factors involved which means that leaders don't need to take any responsibility for what occurred. This happens because leaders are either naive and believe that moving on is the best thing to do, or they don't want to look in the mirror and honestly evaluate the situation for lessons that could be learned. This is essentially a convenient non-response that simply hopes that by moving on the problem will not recur. It is also the reason that the problem will probably recur since important lessons are not learned.
A third and the most helpful response is to do an autopsy without blame. Here, leaders intentionally ask the kinds of questions that can help them understand why what happened happened and what they can learn from it. Questions like: What contributed to this situation?; What could we have done differently?; What do we need to do differently in the future?; What lessons can we learn so that we grow as an organization?; How do we process the constituency in an honest way?; - all evaluative questions designed to learn from the situation.
This is not about blame but about learning and growing. In fact, the lack of "blame" and the refusal to just "move on" gives leaders the opportunity to grow from the experience. Bad things will happen. The question is whether we will learn and grow from them or repeat them.
Give the Gift
Who do you know who is in crisis, who is hurting, who is walking through life having come undone in some way? There are few gifts we can give that are more significant than that of simple encouragement. It costs us nothing except our time and willingness to hurt with those who hurt and it mirrors the character of God who will never leave us or forsake us: who constantly encourages and brings comfort to the hurting. He is called "the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort" (2 Corinthians 1:3).
Encouragement is not making things OK. Usually we cannot do that. It is coming alongside the hurting, praying for them, staying in touch, giving or sending words of healing and comfort and just being there for them. It is listening and entering into their pain. The word compassion actually comes from a Latin word that means "co-suffering." When we suffer Jesus suffers for us and with us. We can give the same gift to others.
Interestingly, Paul also says that God's comfort to us is designed to spill over to our comfort to others. "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles so we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows" (2 Corinthians 1:3-5).
God's comfort to us is intended to overflow to others - but that takes the attitude of Christ who selflessly comes alongside the hurting. There is a price: it is the price of entering into the hurt of others and co-suffering with them. But it is one of the greatest gifts we can give. When we encourage, we become Jesus to others. And, the more we encourage, the more our hearts become like the heart of Christ.
Encouragement is not making things OK. Usually we cannot do that. It is coming alongside the hurting, praying for them, staying in touch, giving or sending words of healing and comfort and just being there for them. It is listening and entering into their pain. The word compassion actually comes from a Latin word that means "co-suffering." When we suffer Jesus suffers for us and with us. We can give the same gift to others.
Interestingly, Paul also says that God's comfort to us is designed to spill over to our comfort to others. "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles so we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows" (2 Corinthians 1:3-5).
God's comfort to us is intended to overflow to others - but that takes the attitude of Christ who selflessly comes alongside the hurting. There is a price: it is the price of entering into the hurt of others and co-suffering with them. But it is one of the greatest gifts we can give. When we encourage, we become Jesus to others. And, the more we encourage, the more our hearts become like the heart of Christ.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Organizational Renewal or Decline
All organizations including businesses, ministries, missions and congregations have a predictable life cycle of missional growth, a plateau and then a slow slide into decline - unless there is direct and intentional intervention by leaders to renew the organization from within on a regular basis. All of us can name churches, for instance, that were once vibrant and missional but are not struggling to simply exist. In the business arena, General Motors is a great example of this life cycle and without the necessary renewal it ended up in bankruptcy. Denominations face the same laws of organizational life cycles as a recent report, for instance, of the Southern Baptist Convention indicates that they are facing the challenge of an aging organization now losing people and seeing fewer conversions.
If you are reading this and your organization does not face the challenge of plateau or decline, don't get too smug. No organization is exempt from this phenomenon unless there is direct intervention to prevent it.
There are several factors that contribute to plateau or decline in organizations. First, organizations that start out missional can over time slip into institutional where the institution becomes more important than the mission. Here are churches who never change their bylaws or governance structures (which become sacred) even when they are strangling the congregation from responding to the needs of a new day.
Second, they forget the rule that "what got you to here will not get you to there" and become change resistant. Resistance to change will guarantee decline because what worked in one day will not work in another. This is the trap many missions find themselves in, doing ministry like they did in the fifties when the whole ministry context has changed around them. As a rule, the longer an organization has gone without major change the greater their risk of sliding into irrelevancy. Risk adverse ministries will go into decline.
Third, there is a tendency to worship the past and wish that the future could look like the past. I can think of congregations that were considered cutting edge flagship congregations twenty years ago who are in serious decline today but leaders still remember the good old days and just assume that they can make them come back. It won't happen without major change.
Finally, decline comes when the missional commitments of the ministry get lost in preserving the institution. Survival mode is rarely missional. The focus is on survival rather than moving forward and taking territory for Jesus.
The only way to arrest this tendency toward decline is to continually renew the organization from within. This takes courageous leaders who care more about the effectiveness of their ministry than their own jobs because the only way to create ongoing renewal is to push the organization to take risks and get out of their comfort zone. Many will not like the discomfort of renewal. Here are some keys to such renewal.
First, there must be absolute clarity on the mission of the organization and what spells success. Declining ministries have inevitably lost their sense of clarity and unless a new and compelling clarity can be articulated renewal will not take place (see chapters two, three and four of Leading From The Sandbox). Can everyone in your organization clearly articulate a common compelling mission and vision? If not you are at risk!
Second, you can gauge your ability to renew by how change friendly your organization is because without regular and major change to meet the needs and opportunities of a new day decline is inevitable. Can you identify three to five significant changes that have taken place in your ministry in the past three years? If not, you are at risk!
Third, is there an openness and a strategy for getting new ideas on the table? This will usually happen when new people come on board and see what you don't see, or with younger staff members who are not stuck in the old ways of thinking. If you do not have an intentional strategy to bring new ideas and new people to the table, you are at risk! Long term employees will often work to guard the status quo which is comfortable for them rather than be initiators of new ideas which will stretch them.
Fourth, do you have the courage to move along leaders who are stuck in the past and who will not go with you into the future? Those who have quit growing and who guard the status quo are anchors to your ministry, holding it back. The mission is more important than job security. If you do not regularly evaluate leaders for their ability to lead the organization forward you are at risk! If you are the senior leader and realize that you have taken the ministry as far as you can, the best thing you can do is to step aside and let someone else lead into the future. Far from being a failure, you are opening the door to organizational renewal.
Fifth, are you annually driving a set of ministry initiatives that all can rally around, will help you achieve your mission better and keep improving the ministry results you are after? We call these the "game changers" that change the nature of the results in a significant way. If you cannot identify those annual game changers you are at risk!
The longer a ministry has been in existence, the more difficult it is to keep renewing it from within so that you don't move into the plateau and decline phase of life. In other words, leadership becomes more complex, not easier and the need for risk, new ideas, critical thinking and creating waves greater as the ministry matures. Take a moment and think about where your ministry is against some of these principles.
If you are reading this and your organization does not face the challenge of plateau or decline, don't get too smug. No organization is exempt from this phenomenon unless there is direct intervention to prevent it.
There are several factors that contribute to plateau or decline in organizations. First, organizations that start out missional can over time slip into institutional where the institution becomes more important than the mission. Here are churches who never change their bylaws or governance structures (which become sacred) even when they are strangling the congregation from responding to the needs of a new day.
Second, they forget the rule that "what got you to here will not get you to there" and become change resistant. Resistance to change will guarantee decline because what worked in one day will not work in another. This is the trap many missions find themselves in, doing ministry like they did in the fifties when the whole ministry context has changed around them. As a rule, the longer an organization has gone without major change the greater their risk of sliding into irrelevancy. Risk adverse ministries will go into decline.
Third, there is a tendency to worship the past and wish that the future could look like the past. I can think of congregations that were considered cutting edge flagship congregations twenty years ago who are in serious decline today but leaders still remember the good old days and just assume that they can make them come back. It won't happen without major change.
Finally, decline comes when the missional commitments of the ministry get lost in preserving the institution. Survival mode is rarely missional. The focus is on survival rather than moving forward and taking territory for Jesus.
The only way to arrest this tendency toward decline is to continually renew the organization from within. This takes courageous leaders who care more about the effectiveness of their ministry than their own jobs because the only way to create ongoing renewal is to push the organization to take risks and get out of their comfort zone. Many will not like the discomfort of renewal. Here are some keys to such renewal.
First, there must be absolute clarity on the mission of the organization and what spells success. Declining ministries have inevitably lost their sense of clarity and unless a new and compelling clarity can be articulated renewal will not take place (see chapters two, three and four of Leading From The Sandbox). Can everyone in your organization clearly articulate a common compelling mission and vision? If not you are at risk!
Second, you can gauge your ability to renew by how change friendly your organization is because without regular and major change to meet the needs and opportunities of a new day decline is inevitable. Can you identify three to five significant changes that have taken place in your ministry in the past three years? If not, you are at risk!
Third, is there an openness and a strategy for getting new ideas on the table? This will usually happen when new people come on board and see what you don't see, or with younger staff members who are not stuck in the old ways of thinking. If you do not have an intentional strategy to bring new ideas and new people to the table, you are at risk! Long term employees will often work to guard the status quo which is comfortable for them rather than be initiators of new ideas which will stretch them.
Fourth, do you have the courage to move along leaders who are stuck in the past and who will not go with you into the future? Those who have quit growing and who guard the status quo are anchors to your ministry, holding it back. The mission is more important than job security. If you do not regularly evaluate leaders for their ability to lead the organization forward you are at risk! If you are the senior leader and realize that you have taken the ministry as far as you can, the best thing you can do is to step aside and let someone else lead into the future. Far from being a failure, you are opening the door to organizational renewal.
Fifth, are you annually driving a set of ministry initiatives that all can rally around, will help you achieve your mission better and keep improving the ministry results you are after? We call these the "game changers" that change the nature of the results in a significant way. If you cannot identify those annual game changers you are at risk!
The longer a ministry has been in existence, the more difficult it is to keep renewing it from within so that you don't move into the plateau and decline phase of life. In other words, leadership becomes more complex, not easier and the need for risk, new ideas, critical thinking and creating waves greater as the ministry matures. Take a moment and think about where your ministry is against some of these principles.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Viewing People Like Jesus Views Them
What we really think about people is most often revealed in private conversations about them. And how we choose to think and talk about them spills out in our attitudes toward them, words we use with them and the level of honor we afford them. Thus our private thoughts and conversations impact our relationships. Jesus Himself said that what is in our heart is what comes out in our words. The connection is clear.
Think of how we unconsciously judge people we see by their appearance, weight, mannerisms or obvious social class. In every instance we are looking at a man, woman, or child who is made in the Image of God, has inestimable eternal value and is a potential son or daughter of the King of Kings. Where our evaluation is different from God's evaluation, we violate His heart.
When we call people names to one another - "that pinhead" - we judge them and develop attitudes toward them. When we see only the negative in people, we do the same. All of this is human (fallen) nature as we evaluate people by our standards and against our grid which usually makes us feel good by keeping ourselves near the top. What this is not is a reflection of God's character or His evaluation of people which is one of love and compassion.
There are times, when we judge actions of people which can be wrong, egregious, unhelpful and foolish. But judging actions is very different from labeling people. The former evaluates actions while the latter evaluates a whole person including their heart.
None of us is exempt from this challenge. But consider for a moment how lucky we are that God does not judge us the way we judge others. From his perspective we are sinful, rebellious, flawed and in every way deserving of death. Yet God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through Him John 3 16-17)."
When our attitudes are condemnatory, they violate the attitude of God toward us. His goal with all people is that they would find Him, find eternal life and it stems from His great love for us that wants to see all saved and accepts the unacceptable - all of us from a divine perspective.
It is a challenge, but it will impact our ability to love like He loved and to lead people to the Lord who loves completely and purely.
Think of how we unconsciously judge people we see by their appearance, weight, mannerisms or obvious social class. In every instance we are looking at a man, woman, or child who is made in the Image of God, has inestimable eternal value and is a potential son or daughter of the King of Kings. Where our evaluation is different from God's evaluation, we violate His heart.
When we call people names to one another - "that pinhead" - we judge them and develop attitudes toward them. When we see only the negative in people, we do the same. All of this is human (fallen) nature as we evaluate people by our standards and against our grid which usually makes us feel good by keeping ourselves near the top. What this is not is a reflection of God's character or His evaluation of people which is one of love and compassion.
There are times, when we judge actions of people which can be wrong, egregious, unhelpful and foolish. But judging actions is very different from labeling people. The former evaluates actions while the latter evaluates a whole person including their heart.
None of us is exempt from this challenge. But consider for a moment how lucky we are that God does not judge us the way we judge others. From his perspective we are sinful, rebellious, flawed and in every way deserving of death. Yet God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through Him John 3 16-17)."
When our attitudes are condemnatory, they violate the attitude of God toward us. His goal with all people is that they would find Him, find eternal life and it stems from His great love for us that wants to see all saved and accepts the unacceptable - all of us from a divine perspective.
It is a challenge, but it will impact our ability to love like He loved and to lead people to the Lord who loves completely and purely.
Two lives lived well: One Famous, One Not
It was forty years ago this year that as a youngster of fifteen I sat captivated through a week long series of talks by John R.W. Stott at the St. Andrews Church on Nathan Road in Kowloon, Hong Kong. Never had I heard such a cogent series of messages on Christ by a man with rosy cheeks, unruly hair, easy smile and a warm heart. After the sessions he would mingle and talk to us about matters of faith.
That mission, opened my eyes to what clear, expositional preaching should look like and it influences my preaching to this day. Over the years I have stayed in tough with John from time to time and he always had time to reply. Early I adopted him as one of my heroes and role models for his faith, ministry, simple lifestyle, commitment to evangelism, fine writing, prophetic voice on many issues and his amazing approachability. To this day, "All Souls Church in London reflects the character that he instilled when he became rector at 29 years old.
There are few people I have admired more than John R.W. Stott. Heaven is rejoicing today and I am once again reminded of the kind of person I desire to be. Farewell John to a much deserved reward with a savior you loved and served with your whole being.
And then my friend Honson Lee who died suddenly of a heart attack in China this week. Honson is not well known. He was an engineer for a major firm in Holland for much of his career but took early retirement to come back to his home, Hong Kong, and work with ReachGlobal in reaching Asia for Christ. Placing his faith and followership above comfort and money, he and his lovely wife Manling threw themselves into full time ministry at a time when many others were opting for a life of leisure.
Both of these men have my utmost honor and respect for their love of Jesus, concern for the gospel, humility, sacrificial lifestyle and service to the King. Not only do I honor them but I want to be like them. I mourn their loss but know that heaven celebrates their arrival.
That mission, opened my eyes to what clear, expositional preaching should look like and it influences my preaching to this day. Over the years I have stayed in tough with John from time to time and he always had time to reply. Early I adopted him as one of my heroes and role models for his faith, ministry, simple lifestyle, commitment to evangelism, fine writing, prophetic voice on many issues and his amazing approachability. To this day, "All Souls Church in London reflects the character that he instilled when he became rector at 29 years old.
There are few people I have admired more than John R.W. Stott. Heaven is rejoicing today and I am once again reminded of the kind of person I desire to be. Farewell John to a much deserved reward with a savior you loved and served with your whole being.
And then my friend Honson Lee who died suddenly of a heart attack in China this week. Honson is not well known. He was an engineer for a major firm in Holland for much of his career but took early retirement to come back to his home, Hong Kong, and work with ReachGlobal in reaching Asia for Christ. Placing his faith and followership above comfort and money, he and his lovely wife Manling threw themselves into full time ministry at a time when many others were opting for a life of leisure.
Both of these men have my utmost honor and respect for their love of Jesus, concern for the gospel, humility, sacrificial lifestyle and service to the King. Not only do I honor them but I want to be like them. I mourn their loss but know that heaven celebrates their arrival.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Sick churches and corporate repentance
It is a fact of faith that when we have engaged in sin, the price of moving forward is always deep repentance, and acknowledgement of our sin to Christ and a commitment to take on new practices. We understand this in the individual arena but what about situations where congregations have sinned. Can they move forward in strength without dealing with their sin and acknowledging that sin publically? I believe not.
In fact, I would suggest that there are many churches who have lived with sinful practices in their midst - gossip, unresolved conflict, negative attitudes, ill treatment of pastors, prideful boards, and you name it - who will never move into a place of spiritual health until they publically acknowledge the sinful practices, repent of them, commit to new practices and seek the forgiveness of those who have been hurt.
Interestingly, these are the very things that have been key features of revivals when they have occurred. Coming clean, acknowledging failure and seeking forgiveness are hallmarks of spiritual revival. So why would we believe that we can move forward in congregations when such sin has occurred without the spiritual renovation that must take place first?
Why don't more congregations practice confession and repentance? I believe the operative reason is pride. It means that we have to admit we were wrong, that we have accepted sinful practices, that we hurt someone and public hurt must be followed by public acknowledgement and confession. Rather than do that, we would rather take the easy way and retain our pride.
Years ago I was deeply wounded by a church I served. Years later the leaders asked to meet with me in private. They apologized for what happened but they never did so publically. Yet, the wounds has been public. They took the easy route which did nothing to heal the church nor to heal me.
Daniel nine gives us a great example of public repentance for public sin. On behalf of the nation of Israel, Daniel pleads for God's forgiveness after enumerating the sins of the people. Public sin calls for public repentance.
What is the price that congregations and church leaders pay for not being willing to repent of public sins? I believe that God simply withholds his blessing from them. God does not bless proud hearts but humble hearts. Public confession of public sins is a sign of a humble heart. Most congregations won't go there but those who do see God do extraordinary things.
In fact, I would suggest that there are many churches who have lived with sinful practices in their midst - gossip, unresolved conflict, negative attitudes, ill treatment of pastors, prideful boards, and you name it - who will never move into a place of spiritual health until they publically acknowledge the sinful practices, repent of them, commit to new practices and seek the forgiveness of those who have been hurt.
Interestingly, these are the very things that have been key features of revivals when they have occurred. Coming clean, acknowledging failure and seeking forgiveness are hallmarks of spiritual revival. So why would we believe that we can move forward in congregations when such sin has occurred without the spiritual renovation that must take place first?
Why don't more congregations practice confession and repentance? I believe the operative reason is pride. It means that we have to admit we were wrong, that we have accepted sinful practices, that we hurt someone and public hurt must be followed by public acknowledgement and confession. Rather than do that, we would rather take the easy way and retain our pride.
Years ago I was deeply wounded by a church I served. Years later the leaders asked to meet with me in private. They apologized for what happened but they never did so publically. Yet, the wounds has been public. They took the easy route which did nothing to heal the church nor to heal me.
Daniel nine gives us a great example of public repentance for public sin. On behalf of the nation of Israel, Daniel pleads for God's forgiveness after enumerating the sins of the people. Public sin calls for public repentance.
What is the price that congregations and church leaders pay for not being willing to repent of public sins? I believe that God simply withholds his blessing from them. God does not bless proud hearts but humble hearts. Public confession of public sins is a sign of a humble heart. Most congregations won't go there but those who do see God do extraordinary things.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Leadership in Crisis
Unfortunately, every ministry finds itself in a crisis mode from time to time. How leaders lead in times of crisis either gives them added credibility or causes them to lose credibility. Here are some critical elements of crisis management.
First, be utterly transparent as to why the crisis has occurred. As I wrote in a recent blog, spin management does not work because people have the ability to sense whether the explanation is the real story which goes to honesty, openness and the credibility of leaders. I once listened to a leader explain why his ministry had lost a great deal of money in a certain year leading to a financial crisis. He spiritualized the situation rather than simply telling the truth that there had been some bad management and he lost credibility in the eyes of many. Rule one is come clean and while you may take some short term shots, you will be better off in the long run.
The issue of total honesty is important. Many ministry leaders complicate a crisis by not being transparent about the crisis. Transparency creates trust even where mistakes have been made. Lack of transparency creates mistrust which further erodes the leader's ability to lead. If mistakes have been made and leaders are honest about it, people will forgive. If mistakes have been made and leaders try to hide them, people will lose confidence.
I cannot stress the importance of transparent honesty on the part of leaders enough. Think of the corporations that have tried to deal with their public problems without being transparent - it does not work and causes all kinds of additional problems. Be transparent, take your lumps if necessary but don't tell untruths or color the truth. It does not work and will cause further damage. Falsehoods under any guise cause damage to an organization while truth brought into the light can bring healing. This takes leaders who are courageous enough to speak truth even when it is hard.
One of the results of not coming clean in crisis is that people are left confused. Some know that the story does not add up. Others want to believe their leaders explanation even if it is not totally trustworthy. If on the other hand, leaders are totally transparent, there is little confusion. Truth brings clarity while dishonesty under any guise brings confusion. It is the way of truth and falsehoods.
Honesty and transparency reflect humility on the part of leaders while spin control and dishonesty reflect pride on the part of leaders. People intuitively understand which they are getting and humility breeds respect while pride breeds cynicism.
Second, tell people how you are going to deal with the crisis in clear, unambiguous language. If hard things need to be done, give it to people straight. Stability for them is knowing that someone has a plan and that they are being let in on the plan. Generally there are not more than a handful of key actions that must be taken in a crisis so concentrate on those and leave ancillary things aside.
Third, give people forums where they can talk to leaders so that their issues are clarified and they can share their own perspectives. Leaders need to hear what others have to say and they often know more than leaders think they know (or want them to know). Everyone in a congregation or organization is a stakeholder so after leaders have been forthcoming and laid out a plan, give people a chance to clarify, respond and speak. The only ground rules are that there are no personal attacks or hidden agendas.
Fourth, find some common commitments that the whole group can commit to in order to weather the crisis. If the crisis is financial, there should be financial commitments. If it is spiritual, there should be spiritual commitments. If it is a result of leadership mistakes there should be leadership commitments. The commitments should reflect the reality of the reasons for the crisis and an organization wide response to it. This is possible only if leaders have been upfront initially.
Crisis is the ultimate test of leadership courage. All too often, leaders fail the test because they want to protect themselves. When leaders do what I have outlined above they gain credibility even if they have made mistakes along the way. People respect honesty and despise dishonesty.
First, be utterly transparent as to why the crisis has occurred. As I wrote in a recent blog, spin management does not work because people have the ability to sense whether the explanation is the real story which goes to honesty, openness and the credibility of leaders. I once listened to a leader explain why his ministry had lost a great deal of money in a certain year leading to a financial crisis. He spiritualized the situation rather than simply telling the truth that there had been some bad management and he lost credibility in the eyes of many. Rule one is come clean and while you may take some short term shots, you will be better off in the long run.
The issue of total honesty is important. Many ministry leaders complicate a crisis by not being transparent about the crisis. Transparency creates trust even where mistakes have been made. Lack of transparency creates mistrust which further erodes the leader's ability to lead. If mistakes have been made and leaders are honest about it, people will forgive. If mistakes have been made and leaders try to hide them, people will lose confidence.
I cannot stress the importance of transparent honesty on the part of leaders enough. Think of the corporations that have tried to deal with their public problems without being transparent - it does not work and causes all kinds of additional problems. Be transparent, take your lumps if necessary but don't tell untruths or color the truth. It does not work and will cause further damage. Falsehoods under any guise cause damage to an organization while truth brought into the light can bring healing. This takes leaders who are courageous enough to speak truth even when it is hard.
One of the results of not coming clean in crisis is that people are left confused. Some know that the story does not add up. Others want to believe their leaders explanation even if it is not totally trustworthy. If on the other hand, leaders are totally transparent, there is little confusion. Truth brings clarity while dishonesty under any guise brings confusion. It is the way of truth and falsehoods.
Honesty and transparency reflect humility on the part of leaders while spin control and dishonesty reflect pride on the part of leaders. People intuitively understand which they are getting and humility breeds respect while pride breeds cynicism.
Second, tell people how you are going to deal with the crisis in clear, unambiguous language. If hard things need to be done, give it to people straight. Stability for them is knowing that someone has a plan and that they are being let in on the plan. Generally there are not more than a handful of key actions that must be taken in a crisis so concentrate on those and leave ancillary things aside.
Third, give people forums where they can talk to leaders so that their issues are clarified and they can share their own perspectives. Leaders need to hear what others have to say and they often know more than leaders think they know (or want them to know). Everyone in a congregation or organization is a stakeholder so after leaders have been forthcoming and laid out a plan, give people a chance to clarify, respond and speak. The only ground rules are that there are no personal attacks or hidden agendas.
Fourth, find some common commitments that the whole group can commit to in order to weather the crisis. If the crisis is financial, there should be financial commitments. If it is spiritual, there should be spiritual commitments. If it is a result of leadership mistakes there should be leadership commitments. The commitments should reflect the reality of the reasons for the crisis and an organization wide response to it. This is possible only if leaders have been upfront initially.
Crisis is the ultimate test of leadership courage. All too often, leaders fail the test because they want to protect themselves. When leaders do what I have outlined above they gain credibility even if they have made mistakes along the way. People respect honesty and despise dishonesty.
Giants and Grasshoppers
“There are giants in the land” was the report of the spies who went in to spy out the land of Canaan for the Israelites prior to their infamous mutiny from God and subsequent wandering in the desert for forty years (Numbers 13-14). For ten of the twelve spies, those giants were insurmountable barriers to taking the land. Only Joshua and Caleb saw the giants in light of God’s power and ability to take them. The rest of the spies looked at them through human and therefore fearful eyes.
All of us have giants in our lives – those people, circumstances or situations that cause fear and anxiety, wake us up at night and which we struggle with. Those giants are real; they often pose a significant threat and are not to be discounted.
The game changer for giants, of course, is God himself, who is not intimidated by those things that cause us fear because He has the power to deal with them. His words to His disciples are encouraging to us. “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world (John 16:33).” Wow! We know of the “many troubles” but do we live with the daily knowledge that He has “overcome the world and therefore we may live in peace?” His overcoming power trumps any trouble we could face. Not that he promises to take those troubles away but that He gives us what we need to deal with them no matter how fierce they are.
I have a friend who recently received the devastating news of a diagnosis of mesothelioma. Not only is this an incurable disease of the lungs but it’s typical progression is rapid and its symptoms are terrible. There is nothing nice or comforting about that kind of “trouble:” and absent God’s miraculous healing it is a one way street. This friend and his wife are not despairing of this giant, as great as it has invaded their world. Rather they are facing it with courage and faith and his whole focus now is preparing to meet Jesus who he has served for many years.
Giants create fear while God gives peace and divine perspective if we will allow Him. We confront giants when we give them to God and press into Him with faith knowing that there is no giant he cannot overcome. Ironically the spies reported to the Israelites that compared to the giants “we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes and we looked the same to them (Numbers 13:33).” What they did not realize is that compared to God’s power, the giants they faced and those we face are mere grasshoppers in God’s eyes: fearful to us, grasshoppers to Him. As Jesus said in John 16:33 it is all a matter of perspective.
I recently confronted one of my giants. The details are unimportant but realizing that God’s power was greater than my giant was everything. It was not without much prayer and faith on my part. Today the giant has been put into its proper perspective (a mere grasshopper in God’s eyes) and for that I am grateful. Our giants are very real. Only God can put them into proper perspective. Are you living with giants or grasshoppers?
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Rupert Murdock and a failure of leadership
Rupert Murdock failed his ultimate leadership test this week when asked whether he was ultimately responsible for "this whole Fiasco" in British Parliament. He tersely replied "No." When asked who was he said "The people that I trusted to run it and then maybe the people they trusted (The Nation, Thursday July 21, 2011)."
Murdock failed his leadership test on three counts. First leaders always take responsibility when something goes south in their organization. His explanation that he has 35,000 employees and cannot keep track of what they do means nothing. Leaders take responsibility when there is trouble. They do not point fingers at others and blame them for ultimately the buck stops a the senior level. Further, if you are going to blame others that you hired, who is ultimately responsible if not the one who did the hiring! And, if your senior leader ducks the blame, why should not everyone else down the chain?
This is not only a failure of leadership but a failure of courage. It is like a kid getting caught and pointing his finger at another kid and saying, "He did it." Leaders man up! They don't blame others.
Second, Murdock failed his leadership test by hiring and keeping individuals who did not have a strong moral compass. Perhaps they made money for him and that was enough. Leaders lead through the quality of the people they hire - first their moral convictions and second their business expertise. He certainly had business expertise but he failed to hire people with high moral convictions. If there is one failure common to many such situations it is that corporations have filled their ranks with many who have no moral foundation allowing the widespread practices as in this case of immoral and illegal behavior.
Third, Murdock failed as a leader by failing to set a high standard to ethical, legal and moral practices that were the expectation of all those who worked for him. It strains credulity to believe that he did not know that corners were being cut - all he needed to do was to read his own papers and it would be obvious that there was something going on. If others could figure it out, so could he. But the company lacked a moral compass that only he could both model and insist on. Obviously it was possible to work in a culture where illegal and unethical practices were either ignored or accepted.
These three failures of leadership are fundamental flaws that would sooner or later have come to light. Those of us who lead ought to take notice and ask if we share any of these three threats to our own leadership.
Murdock failed his leadership test on three counts. First leaders always take responsibility when something goes south in their organization. His explanation that he has 35,000 employees and cannot keep track of what they do means nothing. Leaders take responsibility when there is trouble. They do not point fingers at others and blame them for ultimately the buck stops a the senior level. Further, if you are going to blame others that you hired, who is ultimately responsible if not the one who did the hiring! And, if your senior leader ducks the blame, why should not everyone else down the chain?
This is not only a failure of leadership but a failure of courage. It is like a kid getting caught and pointing his finger at another kid and saying, "He did it." Leaders man up! They don't blame others.
Second, Murdock failed his leadership test by hiring and keeping individuals who did not have a strong moral compass. Perhaps they made money for him and that was enough. Leaders lead through the quality of the people they hire - first their moral convictions and second their business expertise. He certainly had business expertise but he failed to hire people with high moral convictions. If there is one failure common to many such situations it is that corporations have filled their ranks with many who have no moral foundation allowing the widespread practices as in this case of immoral and illegal behavior.
Third, Murdock failed as a leader by failing to set a high standard to ethical, legal and moral practices that were the expectation of all those who worked for him. It strains credulity to believe that he did not know that corners were being cut - all he needed to do was to read his own papers and it would be obvious that there was something going on. If others could figure it out, so could he. But the company lacked a moral compass that only he could both model and insist on. Obviously it was possible to work in a culture where illegal and unethical practices were either ignored or accepted.
These three failures of leadership are fundamental flaws that would sooner or later have come to light. Those of us who lead ought to take notice and ask if we share any of these three threats to our own leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)