Six elements of successful organizational change

Many attempts at organizational change are not successful. Often they flounder because they lack one of six fundamental elements for change to be successful. If any one of these are missing, the change process is compromised.

Conviction
Major change will not happen unless leaders have an absolute and unshakable conviction that it must happen. Usually this revolves around the need for the organization to re-envision for its next run, to adapt to changing opportunities or to address a specific threat. The conviction comes from the belief that if the organization does not change it will be in trouble. Many leaders understand the need for change but lack a compelling conviction that they must help the organization move through it. It is easier to ignore the need than to address it.

Without a bedrock conviction of the need for change, it will get derailed by doubts, anxiety and push back from resistors. Conviction brings the peace of mind in moments of doubt that you are on the right track and that this needs to be done.

Courage
If change were easy it would be common. It is not either easy or common. Suggesting that major change must take place takes a great amount of courage on the part of leaders. They know that if they are rebuffed or if the change is not successful, their own job is in jeopardy. Change takes the organization through some whitewater and uncertainty and it takes courage on the part of leaders to be willing to enter those white waters.

Risk
Change means that old methodologies and ways of thinking are jettisoned for new. Often those new ways and thinking are untried and therefore there is a certain amount of calculated risk involved. Good leaders have through through the risks and unintended consequences but there is still risk. The willingness to take the necessary risks requires the conviction and courage already noted.

Process
Because change is unsettling to most people the way in which it is approached is just as important as the change itself. People need to understand the why and the how and what the future looks like and while there is white water in the process there should not be chaos. Change is a process of thinking differently and acting differently and that takes time to assimilate. 

Unmanaged change, or change that lacks proper process will likely fail because the very staff who need to live out the change are not given the time to assimilate the change. Never underestimate the need for process. If there ever is a time it is when the organization is going through change. Much of the process is a continual dialogue with leaders and staff about what you are doing, why your are doing it and how it is going for them.

New Practices
The best way to assimilate change is to commit to new practices. Change is theoretical until you actually put it into practice. Not only that, but actually doing something new channels anxiety among staff about change into productive energy and as they try out new practices they don't seem as threatening as they did when it was theory. As those new practices are being tried out, leaders should be in active dialogue with staff as to how it is going, what their frustrations are and encouraging them to keep pushing into the new. Because practices are driven by habits it will take a great deal of time for new habits to be formed - for organizations it can take years.

Resolve
People and organizations naturally seek the familiar and comfortable and thus even with new practices being tried there will be a pull back to the old ways of doing and thinking. Some of this is natural as habits are hard to break. Some of this will come from resistors who just don't want to change. This is where the organization needs to feel the resolve of its leaders that the change is going to happen, that there is no going back and that no matter what pressure is brought to bear organically or from individuals that the organization is going to push forward into a new future.

It takes a unique leader to drive organizational change and successfully see it through. These six elements are fundamental to a successful change process.

Ezra's and Nehemiah's: We need one another

A common theme I hear from highly qualified business people and other professionals today is "Why won't the church let me use my gifts in its ministry?" Many feel marginalized and underutilized. Some feel like they are not wanted at all on the ministry side.

Not that they are not allowed to minister. Ministry folks are often glad to let professional folks minister in ministry slots they have created that they need to be filled. That is not what these professionals are asking. They want to be able to use the skills God has given them in ministry - not filling slots the church has created!

Many ministry professionals lack experience and gifting in leadership, business, strategy and management. They don't like to admit it but it is true.

Many professionals lack experience in preaching, teaching, counseling or theological intricacies.

Perhaps given those facts, we need each other! Playing to each other's strengths and complementing one another. Actually making room for each other and not being threatened by one another.

Ezra was a spiritual leader and a good one. He was terrible as a leader or administrator! So God provided Nehemiah who did not pretend to be a priest, but who had amazing administrative and leadership gifts and who got done in a short time what Ezra could not get done in years. They needed each other, they played to their strengths and the people were stronger for it.

Ezra was a priest. Nehemiah was an executive of the king. Ezra's and Nehemiah's need each other. Too often they have not found a way to work well with each other. The church is the purview of the Ezra's and the world of the Nehemiah's.

We need the Ezra's and Nehemiah's in our churches to appreciate one another, trust one another and allow one another to play to the strengths God has given. Our congregations might, like the people of Israel in Nehemiah actually be better off because of it.

Supervisors and staff: Maintaining appropriate boundaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What our calendars say about us

Whether we are an organizational leader or team member there is a very telling tool about our priorities and what is really important to us. It is not what we say. It is not what we communicate to our teams or one another. It is not the mission or priorities of our organization.

It is our calendar.

Nancy Ortberg in her book, Unleashing the Power of Rubber bands: Lessons in non-linear Leadership writes something that is all too true: "There is often an enormous disconnect between the vision of an organization and the events that make up the daily calendar pages of the organization's leaders."

Don't get me wrong. There is always great activity on a calendar. But the focus of that activity for too many does not match up with the vision or mission of the organization or the stated priorities of leaders (or team members). All of us can easily fall into the trap of mistaking activity for the results we say we are committed to.

I have only five priorities - Key Result Areas (KRA's). The are:

1. Personal development


2. Strategic leadership


3. Strong team


4. Leadership development


5. Mobilizing resources

Those are the big rocks of my work. Given those priorities, the proof of whether those are in reality my priorities is whether my calendar reflects those priorities. Do the majority of my appointments, obligations, and time allocations reflect those five areas, or does my calendar actually reflect a scattered and accidental approach to my work. The calendar tells the story!

If you are committed to a life of intentionality I would challenge you to identify the big rocks of your work and then compare the obligations of your calendar with your priorities. Do they line up? Are you intentional in scheduling your priorities? Can you say no to those things that distract from what you are called to do? Are you willing for your colleagues to see your calendar? Would they say it reflects your big rocks?

Our calendars tell the story of our true priorities. And they are a powerful tool in ensuring that we achieve those priorities when we allocate our limited resource of time according to those things that we know are most important.

I don't have time

Are you ever caught in the trap where you don't have time to do what you need to do? What someone else wants you to do? Something you feel obligated to do? How does it make you feel?

Here is a truth to consider: We all have time to do what is most important to us and we all have time to do what God has called us to do. If we run out of time, it may be that we have things in our schedule that are not really important for us, or we have taken on responsibilities that God did not intend for us to take on! They may be important for someone but not for us.

Those times in my life where I have been harried and hassled are also times when I have not been careful about what I said yes or no too, and times when I had taken on new responsibility without letting go of old responsibility - always a mistake.

When I feel like I don't have time it is really a symptom that I need to more carefully examine the responsibilities and obligations I have and determine where adjustments need to be made so that I have adequate and good time for those things that are most important.

And that in itself takes time, which is why a monthly personal retreat day is so important to me. It gives me time to prioritize, evaluate and find time for those things that are important. And jettison those things that are distractions that take away from what is actually important. It takes time to save time!

I have had periods when I was too busy. I am not impressed with busyness. In fact, I am far more impressed with those who are not too busy to find time for those things that are truly important in their lives - and still have margin. It tells me that they have wisdom. They have thought through their lives so that they have time for what the ought to have time for.

"Father God, help me (and us) to do that."

The advantages of engaging a coach

Many of us would benefit from a formal coaching arrangement from someone who can help us ask the right questions, think strategically and improve our personal effectiveness. I am aware of one large denomination that has every one of their senior executives in such a coaching relationship.

Many executives in the business world do the same thing and pay several thousand dollars a day for day long sessions. The good news is that one can find a coach who can be in touch monthly for an hour or two using the phone or teleconference.

Why consider a coach? We see what we see and know what we know. A coach is not there to tell us what to do but to ask questions that help us think about options we might not think of, to challenge our presuppositions and to help us figure out how to be more effective.

There are trained coaches for pastors and ministry leaders, or one can ask someone who you respect and trust to coach you. It can be formal or informal.

The greatest barrier I find to entering into a coaching relationship is the fear of greater accountability. That is in fact one of the benefits of such a relationship because having that regular conversation with someone who is helping you focus on what is most important and to be disciplined in our use of time fosters accountability. But it is accountability from someone who is in your corner and is there to help you be more effective.

Monthly coaching from someone outside your organization is a great way to help you keep growing personally and become more missional and effective in the process

The soft side of leadership

I spoke with a member of a large organization this week who told me that the morale of the staff was hurting. One of the factors was that the new president did not connect with the staff like the previous president. When I probed as to why that was he could not explain the difference except that it was different and it had made a difference with morale.

There may well be reasons for this. The business is a lot larger than it used to be and many employees would not know the new president. Economic realities may well dictate that he spend his time on different issues than his predecessor. Or, he may not be perceived as relational.

What I do know is that there is an important but "soft" side to leadership which is not about strategies, vision, budgets or execution. It is showing an appreciation for one's staff, being personable and approachable when with staff, and caring about the impact of decisions on people in the organization.

One leader I have watched breezes in and out of the office with a sense of importance, rarely stopping to greet those he passes and when he does he says, "I'm really busy." What he communicates is "I am really full of myself and what I'm up to is important but you are not." This is a ministry leader - a pastor - and his lack of interest in or time for staff sends a strong message to those who work for him.

Rarely does he engage staff personally, stop into their offices or invite them into his and sends a strong message that he is the leader, is busy and does important things. Behind his back his staff have a name for him and it is not one he would appreciate - but it fits well. Any leader who sends those kinds of message may have authority but is not a good leader.

It also breeds mistrust among staff because trust is only possible in the context of relationship. Certainly a high view of ourselves and the perception that we use people rather than value people breeds mistrust.

The leader I work for is never too busy to stop, talk, engage staff and to find out what is happening in their lives, no matter where they are in the organizational structure. He is widely loved, trusted and respected while the individual above is neither loved nor respected. The difference? Treating people with dignity, concern and appreciation.

Organizations, whether businesses or ministries are made up of people. It is the staff which represents the heart, the intellectual capital and the ability of the organization to deliver something of value to those outside of the organization.

Staff knows whether their leaders use them or value them. That is essentially the difference in the illustrations above. People may fear a leader because he or she uses people but they will neither respect nor love them.

One of the best things leaders can do is to pay attention to those around them and those who work for them. It will deeply impact the morale of the group and treating people with dignity, well, it is what Jesus would do - and did.

Pretense, the enemy of authenticity

The enemy of authenticity is pretense, pretending to be what we are not! It is nothing less than dishonesty which compromises our personal integrity and causes us to live with personal dissonance. 

This was the problem with the Pharisees in Jesus' day. They worked hard to "look and play the part," but that is exactly what they were, actors, playing the part, rather than authentic people of God. It is interesting to me that the only people Jesus was "hard on" were the Pharisees. He hated their hypocrisy.

There are many practices that believers are "supposed" to follow. The "rules" that govern how we live, act, talk and behave. Often we are no different from the Pharisees. We play the part even though it does not reflect the real us. And many of the rules have nothing to do with God but are as man made as those of the Pharisees.

Authenticity is one of the greatest gifts that leaders can give their teams. Authentic men and women have problems, experience spiritual highs and lows, make mistakes, need to ask forgiveness, and don't need to pretend that something is not what it really is. What you see is what you get. People can relate to that because that is real life. People cannot relate to perfection (and of course that is a lie anyway).

Authentic people don't do appearances for appearance sake. Jesus certainly didn't. In fact, he went out of his way to tweak the minds of the Pharisees by breaking stupid man made rules. Authenticity is not about legalism or "keeping the rules." It is about being serious about our followership of Christ in a real way, caring about the important matters of the heart and living in the transformational power of the Holy Spirit - the opposite of trying to keep up appearances.

Authenticity is about living honestly. Being honest with ourselves about our followership and where we come up short and honest with others. If there is one thing that turns off non-Christ followers, I think it is the lack of transparency and honesty among those who tell them that they ought to follow as well. People see through pretense.

Pretense actually breeds legalism and more pretense  After all, if my role model is someone who pretends to have it all together, I may well decide that I need to pretend to have it all together as well. And keep the silly rules that accompany such pretense.  Pretense is a prison because it is not real, cannot be sustained and requires way too much effort to keep up the pretense.

Authenticity on the other hand is freedom. What you see is what you get and I don't need to spend energy trying to look like something I am not. Funny thing is that the only people who get ticked off with authenticity are those who are putting up a pretense themselves. Authenticity puts a lie to their lack of authenticity, hiding behind legalism and false spirituality. Jesus was the greatest threat to the Pharisees - and they knew it which is why they had it in for Him.

Here is an interesting question: where in my life do I feel a need to pretend I am something I am not? Why do I have that need? Something to ponder as we live out our faith.

What you need to know when you are going to suggest major change

Before a whitewater-rafting trip, a good guide is going to sit everyone down in the calm water and tell them what to expect. The reason is simple: knowing what is in store lowers the anxiety level. At least we say to ourselves in the middle of the whitewater, our guide told us that it would be this way.

Here are some realities of negotiating change:

Most likely you will face resistance. This is normal. Don't be anxious or discouraged when your great ideas face resistance; that is simply how many people are wired.

A few loud voices will often seek to shut down the change process. This is normal too. Don't allow their voices to keep you from doing what you need to do, even if they make threats. An exception to this would be individuals who you know have great wisdom and a history of being supportive (not squeaky wheels) and who have significant 'coinage' with you and others. Not everyone's voice carries the same weight.

Some people may threaten to leave to leave your church or organization. This is normal. The more intentional you are as leaders, the more resistance you will encounter from a few because you are messing with the status quo. It is not unusual for some people to leave a church or organization when key directional decisions are made. To cave into their threats is to compromise the kingdom impact of your ministry because of a few loud voices. Don't cave!

You may have leaders who suggest that you revoke the suggested changes, even though they agreed with the need before pushback occurred. This is normal, although unfortunate. True leaders don't retreat from something they believe to be right, just because their proposed change causes waves. Whitewater is all about waves. Change is about waves. Leaders who cannot live with waves are probably in the wrong place.

The greater the change, the more uncomfortable you may feel. This is normal. In the middle of the whitewater it is hard to think calmly. Change produces anxiety in people, which will cause you anxiety. Stay the course, keep your anxiety low and work the process.

You will get wet. This is normal. when the boat is bucking, water comes over the sides. When equilibrium is upset, people say things that are sinful and take shots at those who caused the waves. Respond in ways that lower the tension and stay the course. If you know you'll get wet going in, you won't feel as uncomfortable when it happens.

Did you see the theme here? This is normal. so often in the midst of change, when we are getting wet and are surrounded by whitewater, we question our decisions: We are tempted to retreat; and we lose our nerve, thinking that we must have really screwed up to be where we are No! All of this is normal. Expect it and negotiate it with wisdom, patience and low anxiety.

Issues to consider when hiring new staff

One of the top leadership tasks is to hire well. Every hire impacts the entire organization in a ripple fashion. Hire well and the organization becomes healthier and more effective. Hire poorly and the organization suffers. I am a fan of the concept, "hire slow, fire fast." Being slow on the hire allows you to avoid a lot of pain later.

When hiring:

Never negotiate the critical issues

Especially when hiring, it is a temptation to overlook character issues that may be present but are overshadowed by our view of a person's competency and what they might bring to our team. This is a fatal mistake for a leader in any organization, but especially in Christian ministry where the character of our staff goes to the heart of our credibility. If there is any question on the character issue, walk away!

There are others who have great Christian character but don't have the right competencies or EQ. I am always amazed when someone who does not have the competencies or EQ is recommended for a position with the statement, "Well, they are really nice Christians and they want to work for a Christian organization."

Be clear on the Key Result Areas for the job as well as the competencies needed to fulfill the job

Job descriptions are not enough when you are looking to hire. Job descriptions describe the activities that the position entails. What you really need to focus on are the results you need to see for the activities. For all positions there ought to be three to five clearly defined results that, if fulfilled will spell success (Key Result Areas).

Once you know the results that spell success for the position you can determine the core competencies that you need for the individual to be successful. The core competencies are the non-negotiable skills that an individual must possess to successfully fulfill the Key Result Areas. Many things are negotiable in the hiring process and will be determined by the wiring and gifting of the individual. What are not negotiable are the core competencies since without these, there is no chance for the prospective hire to be successful.

Understand the principle: pay now or pay more later

The longer I lead and the more people I hire, the more convinced I am of the wisdom of thorough testing before hiring (I've paid plenty of dumb tax for not doing it enough). The reason we don't do more testing and due diligence is that it costs money or we are in such a hurry to hire, or we choose to be optimistic and hope for the best.

Here is the reality. You either pay now and spend the time and money to ensure the competence of your potential hire, or you pay dearly later when you have to endure the pain of letting someone go - often after enduring months or years of performance issues.

If they will be playing at a senior level in the organization (including churches) it pays to put individuals through the same executive testing that any good secular organization would use. This will help measure capacity, leadership skills, conflict resolution skills and EQ. Untold pain and frustration would be avoided if we would take the long-term view and spend what we need to spend before we hire to ensure the best fit.

Never make a hiring decision by yourself

Ask those who know you best and who have good discernment to interview those you are thinking of hiring. Do multiple interviews and listen to the gut reaction of those you bring into the process. Include interviewers that are both male and female to see how both react. Be wary of hiring if others you trust express cautions. They are probably seeing something you don't see (or don't want to see).

Make the 'need to know' list

When you are adding someone to your team make two lists: what you need to know about the candidate and what they need to know about you. You need to know their wiring, background, competency, character, culture fit, work style, level they can play at, passions, values and whatever else is important to you.

They need to understand your leadership style, how you do team, expectations that you and the organization have, values, mission, preferred future of the organization, the culture of your ministry, what they can or cannot expect from you as the leader and other significant issues that define who you are as an organization. Be brutally transparent so that they know the upside and downside of your organization. If your honesty scares them away, they are the wrong hire.

Have potential hires interview those who know you best

Have the candidate meet with and interview several people you currently lead who know you well so that they understand how you are wired, how you lead and what they can expect from your. Often those around us can give a better explanation of who we are and how we lead than we can ourselves.

Questions to ask yourself in the process

-Does this person have high EQ?

-Can this person play at the level that other members of this team play at?

-Does this individual have a skill that will complement the team?

-Is this person a team player?

-Will they contribute to the whole rather than simply guard their turf?

-Do they fully embrace the mission and values of the organization?

-Do the other members of the team think they will fit well?

-Do they have the expertise needed for the ministry in which they will participate?

-Do they understand the implications of joining your team and what the expectations are for them as a team member?

-What level of leadership and management support will they need from you?

-If they will lead others, does their leadership style fit the leadership culture of the organization?

Empowering pastors

One of the most disempowering issues for senior pastors are boards that want to second guess much of what they do - or require them to ask permission before they can act. Frequently, churches are permission withholding rather than permission granting and many senior pastors chafe under controlling boards. 

It need not be the case and in fact controlling boards actually slow down and hinder ministry rather than facilitate it. So how does a board empower their senior leader - and therefore their staff - and still ensure that adequate safeguards are in place for the organization?

One simple solution is for boards and their senior leader to sit down and delineate those thing that the leader must do and those things that the leader cannot do without board assent. In policy governance used by many boards these are called executive limitations - the limits put on the senior leader by the board. Aside from those limitations, the senior leader is free to act with "reasonable interpretation" and make decisions as they see fit. 

By putting these into policies the senior leader knows what his or her limits are and are free to make decisions consistent with the ministry vision of the church without needing to run all of those decisions by the board - a redundancy that makes for inefficient ministry. Policies that make sense in one stage of a church's life may not make sense in another and these limitations can be either relaxed or tightened depending on the need. It also clarifies which issues are management issues delegated to the senior leader and which issues are board issues so that there is no longer confusion around responsibility and authority - a common issue in church governance. 

Often in working with boards, someone will ask the question, "But what if we don't trust that our senior leader will make the right decision." The question is either about trust or about competency and if the question needs to be asked there are other issues that the board and senior leader need to work on. Often a board member is simply not willing to allow the senior leader the latitude to do their job as they want to control not empower.

It is always amusing to me to see the competencies that churches look for when hiring a senior pastor and then the lack of empowerment they give this individual who they believe matches those competencies. Pastoral work is hard enough without a board second guessing everything that one does. Clarifying what the expectations are and then giving maximum freedom outside those limitations is one of the greatest gifts a board can give their leader.

Job competency and emotional competency: which is more important?

Here is an interesting question: What makes a person competent in their job? For many of us the first answer would be that they "do their job well" referring to their professional ability. I believe, however, that professional competency is only part of the equation and that relational and emotional intelligence is just as important as professional skill.

Take a top rate accountant for instance. They may be superbly trained and incredibly accurate but if they cannot get along with their peers they will never be successful. In fact, I believe that we underestimate the impact on poor relational and emotional skills to our detriment because they impact so many others on our teams.

No matter how competent someone is in a specific skill - if they have significant relational or EQ deficits they become a real liability to the health of a team or organization. We often overlook the damage because of their skill but the truth is that a strong skill cannot make up for the negative impact of relational and EQ dishealth. 

This has two important implications. The first is that relational and EQ health must be a significant issue in the hiring process. Can they do the job is an important question. Equally important is whether they can get along with others and display healthy EQ. 

The second implication is that we need to be addressing issues of relational and EQ health on a regular basis with our staff. All of us can grow in these areas unless we have a significant personality disorder. Growth in these areas grows the health of the organization as a whole. Many individuals have never been trained in relational and EQ health. Yet it is perhaps the most significant issue in their professional and personal success.

I meet many professionally competent people. I meet fewer people whose relational and EQ health matches their professional skill. I am committed to developing both sides with our staff and certainly look at both sides when hiring.

Seven indicators of a healthy organization

Leaders are always looking for the magic bullet to differentiate their organization from others and give themselves an edge. Often, they end up chasing the wrong things. In fact, the key to a great organization is pretty simple: they focus on health. This is the opposite of a toxic workplace which is unfortunately more common than we wish.

What are the signs of a healthy organization?

One: They have great clarity about what they are about. There is no ambiguity regarding their mission, their guiding principles, what they need to focus on and what they desire to accomplish. Because of this clarity, the whole organization is on the same page and are moving in the same direction.

Two: They have a candid and trusting culture where there are no elephants (issues that cannot be discussed) and where honest dialogue is valued and expected. Unhealthy organizations shut down candid and robust dialogue as a threat. Healthy organizations encourage and expect it knowing that the only way to better solutions is honesty. This can only happen in a culture of trust which is the ground from which such honest dialogue emerges.

Three: They empower people to make necessary decisions within well defined boundaries. Controlling organizations stifle creativity and are permission withholding cultures. Healthy organizations encourage creativity and empower people as permission granting cultures. Unhealthy organizations control people through rules while healthy organizations empower people through well defined clarity (one above). Healthy organizations trust their staff while unhealthy organizations control their staff.

Four: They treat people with dignity. Great organizations are places people love to work because they value their staff and live that value in all relationships. Every organization says that their people are their most valuable asset but most organizations do not live out their stated value. Treating people with dignity means that staff are trusted, empowered, their opinions valued, failure is not fatal but a learning opportunity, and staff are regularly developed to maximize their potential. 

Five: They care about real results. Of course every organization says it cares about results but the truth is that in the ministry world very few actually have ways to measure results which means we are not truly serious! Healthy organizations have great clarity and are focused on living out that clarity for tangible results that they measure and evaluate. Healthy organizations can easily answer the question "How do you measure success?" Can yours?

Six: They constantly develop their staff. Toxic organizations use people while healthy organizations develop and grow people on a regular basis. They create a culture where emotional, relational, spiritual and skill health is both an expectation and something that is constantly growing. Healthy organizations are made up of healthy people so any focus on health must start with staff. 

Seven: They are humble. Humble organizations continue to grow because they know they have many areas where they can grow. Proud organizations actually hurt themselves by their pride. They think they have a corner on ministry and are superior to others. Great organizations take a humble posture with humble leaders and staff whose humility allows them to continually evaluate how they can do what they do better. Humility breeds a servant mentality while pride does not.

How does the organization you lead or are a part of compare to these seven indicators of health?

Leaders and managers and definitions

There is a lot of talk about leadership and some confusion about who is a leader and what it means to lead. It is easy to define organizational leadership because organizational leaders are visible, have leadership titles (president, lead pastor etc) but it is harder to define leadership at other levels or sometimes recognize that while we may not be organizational leaders many of us are in fact leaders and need to lead well. Consider these types of leadership that are critical to any organization.

Team leader: Anyone who is responsible for leading a team whether  as a paid staff member or as a volunteer is a leader. The team will only be as good as the one who helps them move toward common objectives in a healthy manner. One of the primary but often neglected responsibilities of a team leader is to ensure that what the team is doing contributes to the overall ministry objectives of the organization rather than doing their thing (one of the dysfunctions of teams).

Project leader: Those who drive strategic projects for an organization that require coordination of people, resources, teams and often outside groups or individuals. They may not have direct line authority but they use their influence to bring people together across department lines to ensure the project is successful. In some ways this requires even more skill than a team leader who has direct authority over their staff (unless they are leading volunteers).

Many would call project leaders managers. I prefer the word leader because while they are managing processes they are also leading people to ensure that the project is accomplished. If they don't lead well the project does not get accomplished. People don't like to be "managed" but they do want to be led.

Influence leader: These are individuals who have no direct or indirect authority over those they are working with apart from their personal influence that results from their expertise and experience in a particular area. They lead through mentoring, training and influencing others. A good example of this kind of leadership is the Global Equipping Team in ReachGlobal which trains in the areas of theology, church planting, pastoral skills among national partners globally. They are leaders in every sense of the word but they lead through their experience and expertise. 

Take that one step further. Those who look at your life and emulate your actions because you have influenced them are following your example. You are leading through the model of your life. Yes, leading.

Many people who don't think of themselves as leaders, actually lead. Where we lead we want to lead well. Organizational leadership is not a top down affair but is dependent on those who lead at every level of the organization starting with the leadership that is the responsibility of every one of us - self leadership.

Are you an institution or a movement?

Is the church or ministry you are a part of more of an institution or a movement? Look at this excellent description of the difference between the two by H.R. Neibuhr.

There are essential differences between institutions and movements: the one is conservative the other progressive; the one is more or less passive, yielding to influence from the outside, the other is active influencing rather than being influenced; the one looks to the past, the other to the future…the one is anxious, the other is prepared to take risks; the one guards boundaries, the other crosses them.

By this definition most churches and ministries are more institutional than they are missional. Most start their ministry journey with  missional energy and vision but over time move to the institutional side of the continuum. Institutional is more comfortable, demands less of us, requires us to think less and does not demand that we change much. It is a nice place to be.

And a very dangerous place to be! The cost of institutional is that we lose our ability to flex to meet current ministry challenges. We become comfortable with what is rather than with what could be. We become oblivious to the threats to our existence. We allow comfort to subvert effectiveness. We live with the allusion that all is well while in fact it is not!

How do you know where your ministry falls? Ask the following questions from the quote above. Better yet have all your staff and board members answer the questions and then compare notes.

1. Would we be considered conservative or progressive in our ministry paradigms?
2. Do we yield more to influences from the outside or do we influence our direction actively?
3. Do we look more to the past or more to the future?
4. Are we risk takers or risk adverse?
5. Are we afraid to try new things or actively look for new opportunities to pursue?
6. Where would we peg ourselves on the institutional/movement continuum?
7. Are we satisfied with where we are? If not what do we need to do about it?

All people matter to God: Check out the amazing diversity of our world.

At the start of a new year it is fitting to remember that the call of the church is to take the Gospel to every corner of our amazingly diverse and needy world. Sometimes, pictures say it better than words and in this case I believe it does. This is a three and a half  minute video from the BBC called Human Planet. Take a look and be reminded of who Jesus died for and the challenge to share that Good News in many places where it has not yet penetrated. 

As you watch, think of the words of Revelation: "After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: 'Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the lamb.'"

As a mission leader, this is what gets me out of bed in the morning and fuels my energy and passion. All people matter to God.

Guard the gate to your church leadership

How well do you guard the gate in your church to determine that the right people get into leadership and the wrong people do not? Most churches have poor systems for leadership selection - and they pay a high price.

Consider this: the most powerful group in the church are those who choose who will lead. Yet, this group is rarely given any training, little guidance or leadership in choosing the best leaders for their congregation. In fact, serving on the "nominating committee" is often a kind of consolation prize for those who are not on a ballot for something else!

Not everyone, no matter how godly are qualified to serve in church leadership. The quality of our leaders will determine the quality of our ministry. If we care about Return on Mission, we will care deeply about how we choose leaders. Furthermore, it takes only one individual to significantly compromise the working of a good board team.

It is estimated that some 80% of churches in the United States have lost their way and are floundering to one degree or another. That is a direct reflection on who they have in leadership. Get the right leaders along with a strong staff and the church will flourish. Get the wrong leaders and even with the right staff and ministry is significantly compromised. Choose the wrong leaders and have a weak staff and you have the makings of trouble. Never compromise on who you put into church leadership. Their impact is huge.

The New Testament actually has much to say about who we should put into church leadership and it gives us the characteristics of healthy church leaders. Consider these:

Exhibits godly character and lifestyle
This is the most critical, non-negotiable characteristic of a church leader. We are called to lead on behalf of Jesus Christ, as shepherds accountable to the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4). Paul made it clear in First Timothy and Titus that, above all else, a leader's life must be in the process of being transformed into the likeness of Christ. Only those deeply committed to personal transformation and authenticity can lead others in that direction.

Has a deep passion for Jesus
The church is about Jesus! He is its leader. We serve as leaders under Him. Thus, only those with a passion for Him are qualified to lead His people. Those we lead will be influenced by whatever passions drive us. It is painfully obvious when church leaders are more interested in power, ego or their own agendas than in leading Christ's people where He wants them to go. Remember, few congregations rise above the spiritual level of their leaders.

Displays personal humility
Leadership in the church differs in two significant respects from how it is practiced in other arenas. First, it is a leadership of service rather than power.  As Peter wrote, "Overseers should be 'eager to serve: not lording it over those entrusted to you.'" Second, this leadership already has its agenda set by the Lord of the church. Our agenda has been set, and our leadership priorities are Christ's not our own.

Genuinely loves people
Ego-driven individuals love themselves, not others. Humble godly individuals love others as Christ loves them, and their leadership is fueled by genuine spiritual concern. The driving characteristic of God's pursuit of us has been unexplainable, powerful, unrelenting love, bathed in mercy, compassion, forgiveness and grace.

Is a lifelong learner
Leaders are learners. They are hungry to understand the leadership task. They are driven to lead well to become more effective. Nowhere is it more important for leaders to be lifelong learners than in the context of the local church. Healthy leaders are learners of God, of effective ministry options and methods and of leadership. Once leaders give up learning as a high value, their effective leadership days are over.

Understands and agrees with God's leadership assignment
I often ask leadership boards if they can clearly articulate their responsibilities. Invariably the answer is no, apart from generalities. It is my belief that God has given leaders specific responsibilities and every leadership board should be able to define its responsibilities.

Grapples with the future
To lead is to be out in front of others. True leadership is primarily about the future and secondarily about the present. While this may seem obvious, most leadership boards spend the majority of their time dealing with present-day rather than future issues.

Focuses on the team
Warning: Never elect or appoint to leadership an individual who cannot graciously work in a team setting - and publicly and privately support decisions that the team has made. Leadership teams require team players. Those who cannot function as a healthy member of a team will destroy the unity necessary for a leadership team to lead (remember humility). Mature, healthy leaders choose to subordinate their egos to the will of the group and deeply value the perspectives and input of others and the collective decisions of the board.

Leads willingly
Good leaders are willing leaders (remember 1 Peter 5). Willing leaders are ready to make the sacrifices necessary to lead, without inner resentment and frustration. It is a mistake to coerce individuals to serve in leadership positions. When we push people to serve before they are mature enough to handle the difficulties of leadership (such as conflict), they often have experiences that cause them to avoid future leadership.

Positively influences others
Real leaders have influence over others, whether they are in positions of leadership or not. This is the key: When considering individuals for leadership, ask the following questions: "Do they already have a positive influence over others? Do people look to them for leadership? Do they lead people closer to Christ and in positive ministry directions?"

Has an action bias
Leaders do things. They have a bias toward action and away from the status quo. They don't always know what to do but they will try things and see what sticks, what works. Leaders are never content with how things are but dream of how they could be - continually looking for ways to accomplish mission more effectively.

Is a purveyor of hope
Leaders are optimistic about the future and convey that optimism and hope to those they lead. They believe that positive things can and will happen because they understand that it is God who empowers and it is He who has promised to be with the Church until the end of the age. Pessimists are not leaders! Pessimists telegraph caution and see all the reasons why things cannot happen.

Rarely will a church rise above the personal, spiritual and missional health of its leaders. Who you select is a key either to mediocrity or to health. No one has all of these characteristics in equal measure but they are key questions to ask about those whom you put into leadership.

Five temptations leaders face

Leadership positions are a mixed blessing. For those wired to lead it is a joy to be in one's sweet spot. However, leadership brings with it a set of very real temptations that trip up CEO's, pastors, presidents and ministry leaders. Given these temptations, the first priority of every leader ought to be health: emotional, relational, spiritual, leadership and skill health. In the absence of that kind of care, there is a high likelihood that a leader will suffer one or more of the following temptations.

Isolation
Leaders find themselves in a difficult place. They higher one rises in leadership responsibility the more isolated it feels. Good leaders, while collegial and approachable are not "one of the boys," or "one of the girls." They must push the missional agenda with those they lead and while the culture may well be collegial, they are still the leader and their focus on the missional along with decisions they must make will not always leave them popular.

Leaders who are promoted from within their organization quickly realize that the relationships they had with their peers have changed. It must if one is going to lead well.

Isolation, however, is a trap because we were not made to live in isolation. Isolation breeds loneliness and loneliness breeds unhealthy habits and addictions in a desire to fill that hole of loneliness. Leaders must face that temptation squarely and intentionally foster deep, meaningful relationships with peers at their level and friendships outside their organization. Isolation is dangerous so there needs to be a strategy to counter it.

Feeding a dark side
As noted above, feeding a dark side is often the result of isolation. Long hours, loneliness, constant travel, lack of genuine friendships all leave one vulnerable to unhealthy addictions: pornography, affairs, gambling, drugs, alcohol or other risky behaviors. The unconscious justification is "I need an outlet to my hectic leadership responsibilities."

Isolation and dark sides go together. Wise leaders have a deliberate strategy for avoiding isolation and the development of healthy habits that minimize the need to feed the dark side - which is simply a way to fill some emotional, spiritual or relational hole.

Running on empty
Many leaders have bought the lie that in order for them to lead well they need to be constantly on the move, running from one important meeting to another, one city or country to another. One cannot run a sprint twenty hours a day, day after day, and not pay the price.

God did not design us to run on empty. It can feel good - after all I am so important that I have this incredibly busy schedule - my input is needed all over the place: balderdash! Busyness may feed our self importance but it is not a necessity of leadership. Wise leaders set a livable pace, building in relational time, think time, rest time, and they say no to tons of good things in order to say yes to the most important things. Run on empty long enough and your leadership will be compromised

Taking short cuts
It is amazing how many leaders run aground on the shoals of ethical issues. After all, I work so hard, I give so much of myself to the organization, I am owed something too! Above all, leaders must model the highest ethical behavior and go the extra mile to avoid any appearance of ethical short cuts.

Arrogance
Arrogance is both the end result of the first four temptations and feeds them further. Arrogance is an attitude that the rules don't belong to me, I am the one with the needed wisdom, as the leader, I am different, and this ministry or company revolves around me.

Many leaders fall to this temptation. In the end it severely compromises their ability to lead because those around them will not give themselves to an arrogant leader - if they have other options.

Leadership is a high calling and for those who lead well a most satisfying job. But we will only be good leaders to the extent that we are healthy leaders. Healthy leaders live lives of significant discipline with a great deal of self knowledge because leadership 101 is avoiding the five temptations that will unravel my leadership!

The Power of No

There is an interesting passage about Jesus in Mark 1:21-39. Jesus was in Capernaum where he healed Simon's mother-in-law, and "healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons." Early the next morning Jesus went to a quiet place to pray. When Simon and his companions found Jesus, they told Him, "Everyone is looking for you!"

Jesus' response is surprising. Rather than doing what the disciples expected, and going to those looking for Him, He replied, "Let us go somewhere else - to the nearby villages - so I can preach there also." In other words, He said no to the need and expectations the disciples brought to Him because he had more important missional things He needed to do.

Jesus understood the power of "no" because He could distinguish between those things that were good and those things that were critical for His ministry. Jesus was self defining about what He needed to do rather than allowing others to define those things for him.

It should not be lost on us that Jesus said "no" to the disciples' expectation after He had spent time with His Father. Jesus was in the habit of regularly taking time to refresh His intimacy with the Father and to pray through those things He should be doing so that His priorities were in alignment with the priorities of the Father.

Most of us love to please others. It makes us feel good because in saying "yes" to others' requests they feel good about us and we feel good about ourselves. We get our cookies by pleasing others!

I once did a consultation with a senior pastor of a large church. I was there because his staff felt he did not pay enough attention to them and to building a strong team. When I probed the pastor about how he spent his time (activity), one of the things I learned was that he made all the hospital calls - in a large church! When I asked why he said, "Because it makes me feel good." At least he was honest. While his activity was 'good,' it was not focused on what his true big rocks were, which included building a strong staff team (results). His team was suffering because of his focus on the wrong activity - for him.

Yes and No are powerful words with powerful results. Saying "yes" to the right things allows us to focus our attention on those key areas that spell success for us. Saying "no" to the wrong things (nice activity that is not strategic for what God has called us to do) is equally powerful. Lots of good and nice activities seek to distract us from what is key for us. Wise people refuse to be sidetracked by the nice at the expense of the important.

Saying "no" is not easy. When I am asked to consider an opportunity, my usual answer is "I will think and pray about it and get back to you. Rarely do I agree on the spot. Often I will consult one of my trusted colleagues for a second opinion on whether the opportunity is one that is truly important. After thinking, praying and considering my schedule and priorities, I will accept or decline.

I am learning that saying "no" can be very powerful in accomplishing what God has called me to accomplish. Saying "no" allows me to say "yes" to the key missional things God has called me to do. I cannot say "yes" to those without saying "no" to other good things.

Accidental vs intentional living

All of us live somewhere on a continuum between accidental and intentional living. At the end of one year and the start of another it is worth considering where we fall on the continuum and where we desire to be.

Accidental living can be characterized by the following:

-Lives moment by moment
-Often harried
-Little advanced planning
-Does not distinguish between 'big rocks' and 'small rocks'
-Busy without well defined priorities
-Allows life to determine schedule

Intentional living can be characterized by the following:

-Lives within structure
-Seldom harried
-Significant advanced planning
-Distinguishes between critical and non-critical
-Schedule revolves around key priorities
-Mission drives schedule

Do you fall more on the accidental or the intentional side of the continuum? Are you pleased with where you are?

How intentionally we live our lives matters. From a personal perspective, the issue is whether we are using the gifts, time and opportunities Christ has given to us to the fullest advantage. We have one life to live and it goes fast. On the other side of 50, I am on the down slope of opportunity, time-wise, but have greater opportunity to influence others given my stage of life and the lessons I have learned.

I meet few individuals who want to squander their lives, yet the way they go about life does not match their desires. Lack of careful thinking about priorities and schedules, allowing others to determine them, and not living in light of the gifts and opportunities God has given us equal accidental living.

In John 15, Jesus makes it clear that fruit matters to God. The fruit of our lives is directly related to the gifting God has given us and the "work that he prepared in advance for us to do." (Ephesians 2:10). Seeing the reality of this fruit is directly related to how intentionally we live our lives in light of our God-given gifting and priorities.

Healthy leaders and teams are made up of people who refuse to settle for accidental living, out-of-control schedules, unfocused activity or the expectations of others. Rather, they are deeply thoughtful about what God has called them to accomplish, focusing strategic activity on the big rocks of their lives, all of which come out a deep sense of God's call and our stewardship of that call.