Ten indicators of unhealthy teams

Unhealthy teams cause a high degree of frustration for team members. The following indicators - if true of the staff or team you serve on would indicate that you serve on an unhealthy team:

There is low trust among members
Low trust is usually generated by an unhealthy leader who does not create a culture of trust and transparency within the team. Mistrust of one another, questioning of motives, or a culture of fear (fear of doing something wrong or crossing one's leader) are symptoms of low trust.

You don't really like to be with team members
This is a logical outcome of a culture of mistrust. Closed doors, secretive meetings, lack of cooperation and are indicative of a culture of mistrust and in this ethos, staff members do not bond.

There is weak missional leadership
There is not a strong missional emphasis by the team leader and therefore the missional glue that holds the team together and motivates its efforts is absent.

Candid and transparent dialogue is discouraged
Unhealthy teams know that certain topics are off limits and that transparency will get them into trouble. Team members keep their real opinions to themselves rather than run the risk of getting into trouble by being truly honest.

There is ambiguity regarding roles
There is not a clear delineation of what individuals are responsible for. Rather, than clarity, supervisors simply tell their reports what to do and that agenda may change on the whim of the supervisor. Staff is never entirely clear about what their responsibility is.

Team member are not empowered to use their ideas, creativity and gifts in accomplishing their jobs
Rather, their supervisor wants them to do their job as he/she would do it. Supervisors regularly step in and change what has been done, are critical work or micromanage their team members.

There is not a mentor/coach paradigm of supervision
Rather than serving as a mentor/coach whose objective is to bring out the very best in their team members, supervisors tell staff what they need to do, do not regularly meet with staff to help them grow and tend to be critical rather than a cheerleader.

Your leader lacks self confidence and self assurance
Threatened leaders make for a workplace of fear and intimidation because their lack of confidence and assurance often causes them to be hard on those around them rather than release those around them.

There is a low degree of collaboration
Team members "keep their heads down" and do their own thing rather than enthusiastically working with one another and guarding one another's back.

There is a culture that discourages innovation
Especially if the innovation is not the idea of the leader, who needs to drive each part of the ministry. Staff members are not released to dream, innovate and try new things.

If your team has five or more of these characteristics, you serve on an unhealthy team.

Team resources include The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni and Leading from the Sandbox: Develop, Empower and Release High Impact Ministry Team, T.J. Addington

Ten indicators of a healthy team

How healthy is the team or staff that you serve on? You know you serve on a healthy staff when...

There is a high degree of trust among staff members

Healthy teams are trusting teams. They trust their leaders and they trust one another. The high degree of trust eliminates the need for hidden agendas, lack of transparency or the need to question motives.

You love to be with your colleagues

Healthy teams enjoy working together. They may not be "best friends" outside of work but they enjoy working and collaborating together

There is strong missional leadership

One of the marks of a healthy team is that they are passionately committed to achieving a clear, motivating, meaningful mission. It is the mission which provides the glue that holds them together

Robust dialogue is encouraged and practiced

On healthy teams people have full freedom to speak their minds without hidden agendas or attacking others. There is no fear in being candid and honest even when ones opinion may not be the mainstream view.

There is clarity of responsibility

Healthy teams practice clarity of responsibility so that each member knows what they are responsible for.

There is empowerment to accomplish your job as you see fit

Healthy teams have empowered cultures where good individuals are empowered to accomplish their job in line with their particular gifting and without the micromanagement of supervisors.

Your supervisor is both a mentor and a coach

Healthy teams have leaders who both mentor and coach their team members rather than simply telling them what to do . There is a monthly mentor/coach meeting with supervisors.

Your leader is self assured and non-threatened

Healthy teams have healthy leaders who are are secure in themselves and not threatened by other strong leaders.

There is a high degree of collaboration between members

Healthy teams are those who work interdependently rather than independently. Each member is both aware of and supportive of the work and responsibilities of other team members. The end goal is always that of accomplishing the mission of the organization.

There is a culture of innovation

If you always do what you always did you always get what you always got. Healthy teams encourage innovative ideas, practices and new ways of accomplishing ministry in order to stay on the front edge of effectiveness.

How many of these indicators are true of the team you serve on?

When churches come undone and need to heal

I have been called into many hurting church situations over the past several decades and counseled many others from a distance, often once a week including several days ago. What I have learned  over the past years is that when a church comes apart it takes more time to heal than people realize.

We often underestimate the healing process. We think that if we address the presenting issues (which do need to be addressed) that we will be OK and we can then move on. The truth is, however, that all healing takes time, usually more time than we want or expect. I am still healing from a severe illness some five years ago. Congregations that have been severely traumatized also take years to heal.

I have three suggestions for churches that have come undone and are in need of healing.

First, healing may well be the main work of the church for a season. While I didn't like it, coming out of hospital five years ago my main job for a season was therapy. The same is true for a wounded church. Relationships have been impacted, divisions have been caused, trust has been breached, sides have been picked. While many will simply want to move on what is really needed is a time of guided healing from someone who can help address the critical issues. Healing and health are not side issues but the central issue when a church as come undone.

Second, trust must be re-established. Congregations are like families and when trust has been broken there is nothing more important than to re-establish trust where that is possible and relationships where they have been broken. This not only takes time but it usually takes the facilitation of an outside neutral third party who can help parties hear and understand one another and hopefully reconcile. While many want to skip this hard step, underlying hostilities will dog the church for years if not resolved in a biblical manner.

Third, there are usually underlying issues that need to be addressed that either contributed to the church's trauma or might have prevented it in the first place.  While we cannot foresee future events we can learn from past events. It is not uncommon that in retrospect we see things that we should have noticed or paid attention to. Whatever they are we want to learn from the experience and put appropriate safeguards in place that would help us see and deal with dishealth in the future.

All of this is best facilitated by an outside facilitator or intentional interim pastor who has the skills to understand the dynamics involved and guide the congregation toward health. When this does not happen the congregation either repeats the dysfunction down the road or suffers additional pain from unresolved issues from the trauma it experienced but did not properly address.

Learning to discern the difference between what is negotiable and what is not and how it impacts your leadership

Too many leaders, especially when they are young have not learned that negotiation is a key to their leadership. Negotiation is the art of taking into account the various perspectives and concerns of a number of parties and coming up with a solution that can be supported by all.

Needing to have our way and not being open to other perspectives or willing to compromise with others is a sign of pride, stubbornness and often gets black and white leaders into trouble. People rightly start to perceive them as unreasonable and hard to work with.

This does not mean we cannot have strong opinions. It is a mark of a leader but why is my strong opinion superior to another's strong opinion? Because it is mine? Because I need to be right? Because my ego and person hood is so wrapped up in getting my way? When one looks at it that way it looks, well, arrogant and ugly!

Healthy leaders state their positions but also invite robust dialogue on issues, believing that better answers come from a number of competent people grappling with an issue than just them. They also have an attitude that it is about the mission, not about them and so don't take it personally when they don't get all that they want. 

All of life is a negotiation at some level. My marriage is. My leadership is. Even the relationship with my kids was. Sure there are  convictions that we won't compromise on but all too often what we won't compromise on is not conviction but preference. The best leaders invite opposing views and bring their group to a healthy consensus. They know how to negotiate and compromise.

When leaders create conflict

Leaders of organizations, churches and teams often have a role in creating conflict that is unhealthy. Much conflict could be avoided if leaders could avoid these mistakes.

Ambiguity
Leaders who are unclear as to who the organization is and where it is going and how it will fulfill its mission create conflict through their lack of clarity. When mission, guiding principles, ministry focus and culture are not clear, there is ample room for misunderstanding, unmet expectations and therefore, conflict over direction or philosophy. Healthy leaders are very clear on the critical elements and do not leave the door open for ambiguity which will naturally lead to conflict.

Disempowering actions
Leaders who seem to promise empowerment but in reality disempower their staff through micromanagement, lack of clarity or not delegating appropriate authority and responsibility create conflict by their actions. Empowerment is only possible where there is great clarity over mission, values, focus and culture. But it also requires the delegation of authority. Where clarity, delegation and authority are not matched, there is a recipe for conflict.

Dividing the team or teams
When leaders vilify or put down one member of the team over against another they automatically set the stage for conflict on the team. When a leader plays one group against another (for instance staff against the board or their team against a senior team) conflict is set up by the leader. (See the two posts on Leadership Default). Leaders who do this, and many do, set their organization up for conflict.

More concerned with their image than missional effectiveness
Leader who care more about being popular than missional will often create conflict because they are not able to be defining with their team (those they lead) because they are more interested in being liked by their team and therefore play to the team's desires rather than to the mission of the organization. Or, leaders may think it is about them, more than it is about the mission and take credit for success that ought to go to the team. Wise leaders understand that it is not about them but about the mission of the organization.

Telling the team what to do rather than engaging their team in the process
Some leaders, under the guise of 'leadership,' prefer to make pronouncements to their team about what they need to do rather than engage the team in meaningful process and dialogue to get to a mutually agreed upon strategy. While team member may 'agree' verbally, they do not necessarily agree 'with the heart' and feel bullied into a position that is not one they buy into. Again, this is a tactic that may work for a while but in the long run produces unhealthy relationships and lack of trust.

Good leaders can prevent most conflict by being clear on the big rocks of the organization, appropriately empowering their leaders or team, never creating division within the team or between teams, making the mission the focus, not themselves, and engaging their team in dialogue and process toward a mutually satisfying solution.

Who did you thank or express appreciation to today?

"Thank you." "I appreciate that." "You did a marvelous job on that." These and other words like it are powerful and encouraging  and say that we notice, that we are thankful for the contribution of others and that we care about them. It is stopping long enough to think about others rather than simply ourselves.

Those who thank God often and others around them live with a whole different outlook on life than those who do not. It is the attitude Jesus commends, after all, how can we not live in thanksgiving with all He has done for us. The more we live with appreciation and thanksgiving the more we see life through a positive lens. 

The more we thank others the more we recognize the value of those around us. It changes our attitude toward them and allows us to develop an attitude of graciousness toward others. In a bottom line world it makes a great difference in our lives and in the lives of others.

What are you thankful for today that you need to express to your Father. Who do you need to express your appreciation to today. Everyone needs the encouragement and we need the outlook on life that it brings to us.

Ten self management principles that will impact your leadership

Healthy leaders have learned the art of self-management knowing that who they are, how they act and react, and the model they set directly impacts those who work under their leadership. Let me suggest that there are eleven critical self management principles that all leaders should pay attention to.

Our Attitudes
Leaders do not have the luxury of being careless with their attitudes - toward people, situations, or life. One of the jobs of a leader is to inspire others toward healthy action, encourage the staff and be able to maintain a positive outlook on life, even when life is not cooperating. Their attitudes impact everyone around them.

Our Emotions
All of us have emotions. Leaders learn to manage their emotions so that their emotions do not cause them trouble. Think of how angry eruptions and words spoken in the heat of emotion cause harm to people. Leaders who cannot control their emotions cause uncertainty for the staff they lead. It has been the downfall of many otherwise bright leaders.

Our Empathy
Without empathy, leaders are not seen as caring individuals but as cold and lacking concern. Some people have a lot of natural empathy. When that is not the case, leaders must cultivate the practice of empathy. Empathy is a key in healthy relationships and relationships are a key to leadership.

Our Self Awareness
Self awareness is the ability to discern how we are perceived by others and how our actions, attitudes and words impact others. Lack of self-awareness causes great misunderstanding and assumptions by others that we don't care. When a leader is not naturally self aware they need coaching and feedback from others if they are going to lead successfully.

Our Focus
Focused leaders developed focused staff while the opposite is also true. Good leaders choose to hold themselves to a high standard of discipline in their work including eliminating those things they should not do and focusing on the most strategic.

Our Empowerment
It is easy to control. It is harder to properly empower but that is the key to a healthy team and healthy leaders are rigorous in empowering others within boundaries to accomplish their work.

Our Boundaries
Boundaries are the things we do not allow in our behavior and in the behavior of others because it is hurtful to the culture we want to create. In effect, leaders set the boundaries for what is out of bounds within the organization or team.

Our Example
We lead most powerfully be example. When our stated commitments and example are not in alignment the result is cynicism. When they are in alignment, staff know that we are serious. Examples speak louder than words.


Our Humility
Everyone thinks they are humble but that is the insidious nature of pride. Humility comes when we know our strengths, are acutely and equally aware of our shadow side and our need for others. Humility is cultivated through time with God and a great deal of introspection.

Our Service
Few things speak louder than our commitment to serve those we lead and help them be all they can be. For leaders, life is not about us but about others and the mission that binds us together. The more we serve, the better leaders we become.

Each of these ten areas of a leaders life must be practiced with intentionality for successful, healthy leadership.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

You get what you create and allow in your organization

Organizations have cultures. In large part they are what the senior leader intentionally creates as the culture of the organization. It is also deeply impacted by what a leader allows within the team or organization. "You get what you create and allow" in your organization (thanks to Henry Cloud for this quote).

For instance consider what happens when leaders allow the following:

• Negative attitudes that corrode enthusiasm and optimism.
• People that do not keep their commitments and are not challenged.
• Conflict that goes unresolved.
• Complaining, gossip and poor attitudes.
• Lack of cooperation and collegiality

What leaders allow they get! There are things that leaders should not allow or put up with if they want to create a healthy culture. But unless a leader draws clear boundaries on what they allow in their organization or team (or church) they will get behaviors that hurt the rest of the team.

On the positive side, leaders create a kind of culture through the expectations they create. In our organization that includes things like:

• When something goes wrong we do autopsy without blame.
• We practice an non defensive attitude of nothing to prove, nothing to  lose.
• We always encourage robust dialogue where any issue can be discussed as long as there are no hidden agendas or personal attacks.
• We lead through team.
• We have a no elephants policy. Once named they are no longer elephants, simply issues to be discussed and resolved.

What you allow (or don't) and what you create (or don't) becomes the culture of your organization. Something to think about.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Six questions that can help you vet ministry ideas and choices. When to say no

What does your ministry - church, mission, para-church or other - say yes to and what do they say no to? Ideas, opportunities and options are easy to come by. What is more difficult is knowing if one should spend energy, time and resources on a particular idea, proposal or opportunity. And if your gut says "no" how do you communicate that to those who made the suggestion?

No ministry can do everything. The most effective ministries have a clear focus on what God has called them to do and are wise in the decisions they make regarding ministry opportunities.

Remember:

• Not all ministry opportunities are equally important.
• Some opportunities will dilute your current effectiveness.
• Everything you do takes time, resources and energy.
• Maximizing your influence means that you have a grid by which to say yes and no.

I have served in both church and mission settings. In both, there are more requests, opportunities and ideas than one can accommodate and stay focused and effective. It is not a question of whether someone is called to fulfill a certain ministry. The question is whether you are called to fulfill it and if this is the right time to do so.

There are a number of questions one should ask about potential ministry opportunities that can help determine whether one should move forward.

One: Does it fit our mission? Your mission is your true north so if a good idea does not fit your mission it will become a distraction. A good idea that does not contribute to your mission is a bad idea - for you.

Two: Is it truly strategic? Not all opportunities are equal. Some will give you significant ministry leverage and others will not. Maximizing our ministry opportunities is simply wise stewardship.

Three: Do you have the resources, time and energy to meet the opportunity without diluting other important things you are doing? You have limited resources so you need to understand the impact of saying yest to other ministries you are engaged in.

Four: Is there qualified, passionate and available leadership to make it happen well? Many ministries fail at this point. There may be a need but without the passionate leadership of a qualified individual it cannot flourish.

Five: Is there a plan or just an idea? Without a well thought out plan your opportunity is likely to fail. Ideas are not plans. Plans are necessary to flesh out a ministry opportunity and in that exercise you learn a lot about its viability.

Six: Do you have an evaluation process to determine whether what you started should be continued. The lack of evaluation is a key reason that ministries build up a stack of general ministries which yield general results.

It is a good thing to say NO if these six questions cannot be answered adequately. Saying yes to a few strategic options is far more effective to saying yes to all options. And that means that we also need to say no.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Expanding our influence and span of ministry

Most of us desire to expand our spiritual influence and our span of ministry. In order to do this there is one skill that we must learn and practice and that is to authentically give ministry away to other qualified people.

Take the local church. Many ministries that I observe do not do this well. Typically there is an invisible string that goes from the senior pastor to each ministry in the church. The result is that the church can only grow to the extent of the number of strings and relationships the senior pastor can juggle. He becomes the bottleneck because one way or another he has the final say.

Another outcome of this management style is that those who run the various ministries are not truly empowered within appropriate boundaries to lead themselves. They are always looking over their shoulder to see what the senior pastor wants or will say.

I have a core conviction that in order to expand our influence and span of ministry we must do three things. One: develop good people. Two: Empower good people. Three: Release good people. I call it Develop, Empower and Release. The more we do this, the more influence we will have in the kingdom.

On the other hand, the more I need to control or pull strings, or look over the shoulder of good people, the less true influence I will have since I am limiting them from fully taking responsibility and meeting their potential.

This is about giving ministry away, which is the job of those called into full time ministry according to Paul in Ephesians 4:12. Now we need to give ministry away to the right people. But once we find them, once we develop them, we must empower them and release them. They then take full responsibility for their ministry within agreed upon boundaries and not needing our permission are given the freedom to soar.

The more we do this the more spiritual influence we have. We gain spiritual influence by giving it away. We lose spiritual influence by not giving it away.

I am convinced that this is the key in missions today. Missionaries are there to raise up indigenous leaders as quickly as possible and then empower and release them to do what they can do better than we in their culture. As we multiply ourselves by giving ministry away we expand our influence and span of ministry. To the extent that we do not, we limit our influence and span of ministry.

My observation is that missions are notorious slow in giving ministry away, in truly empowering and releasing. We talk the talk but we do not walk the walk. Instead we create dependencies which may make us feel good (we are needed) But which does not expand our spiritual influence and release others to be all that they can be.

Here is the irony. When we hang on we lose influence but when we give it away we gain influence. Think about your ministry. How much are you genuinely giving away? How much are you hanging on to? Why would you hang on? How much are you trying to control and how much are you giving up control by empowering other good people?

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Dealing with attitudes of cynicism on your staff

There is an attitude on the part of staff toward their leadership (whether it be their church board or ministry leaders) which is a killer in terms of morale, trust, and team effectiveness: cynicism.

It is popular to be cynical about leaders. But it is not healthy and good leaders address this attitude whenever it shows up among their senior team - or others. Cynicism is a choice people make and it is deadly because it leads directly to mistrust of leadership among those with whom they have influence. If I am cynical about my leader, those with whom I have influence pick up on that and will often mirror my attitude.

Cynicism shows up in derogatory comments, in mistrusting motives of leadership, in refusing to accept answers given and instead assuming less than honorable intentions rather than assuming the best and in an arrogant attitude that ones leaders ought to do as we think they ought to do.

There is no way around it: Cynicism is deadly to a team and an organization.

Cynical people often hide behind the excuse, "I don't have a voice." Sometimes that is true - and the truth is that if I cannot serve my organization with a happy heart and a clear conscience I am in the wrong organization. But it is not an excuse for me to undermine my leadership with cynicism. If I am in an organization that breeds cynicism, I probably need to find another place to serve.

More often, however, this is a smokescreen for the real issue: "I don't like choices or decisions my leaders make." Having a voice means that I have the ability to share my thoughts honestly and openly (but without personal agendas or hidden motives). Once I have shared those opinions, I must allow leadership to make whatever decisions they choose to make and refuse to undermine them in words, attitudes or insinuation. That is integrity and it is the opposite of cynicism.

How does a leader deal with cynical team members? First, never put a cynical person in a key position. No matter how good they are they will hurt you more than help you. Cynicism is poison to your team or organization.

Second, when it happens, confront it directly and make it clear that cynicism and mistrust are not going to be tolerated in your team and that if it continues, you will take corrective action. Follow up those conversations with a written document that clarifies what you have said.

Third, if it becomes pervasive, speak to the whole staff and be defining about what attitudes are acceptable and what attitudes are not. Cynical people operate behind the scenes spreading their brand of poison one person at a time. Calling it out publicly puts them on notice that you are not unaware of their behavior and that you will not tolerate behavior that is detrimental to the health of your team or organization.

Fourth, if it is continues, remove the source by removing the individual who is guilty of hurting the team. That will send the strongest message of all that this behavior is unacceptable.

The effectiveness of our ministries depends directly on the health of our teams. Cynicism is a direct threat to the health of the ministry because it breeds mistrust. 

I for one, will not tolerate mistrust or cynicism among key leaders in the organization I lead. It is poison, dangerous and will destroy the health of the team. Healthy leaders take responsibility for the organizational culture they create and they do not tolerate cynicism.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Trust and mistrust in ministry organizations

In his best seller, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni says that mistrust is at the root of much team dysfunction. I am continually amazed by the cultures of mistrust that pervade ministry organizations. This mistrust hurts the organization, hurts productivity (people who don't trust one another don't work well together), contributes to silos (lack of synergy with others so we keep to ourselves) and ultimately detracts from our return on mission.

The truth is that trust ought to be the most prevalent in Christian organizations where the culture of Christ should be more pervasive than the culture of our world. The culture of our world is one of mistrust while the culture of Christ is one of trust. This is an elephant that must be confronted if a ministry or team is going to be healthy.

Practices that contribute to a culture of mistrust

Approaching others from the outset with an attitude of mistrust.

This is an attitude that says "I will not trust you until you prove to me that i can" (the reverse of how a healthy individual thinks). An unfortunate and often pervasive attitude in the church and Christian organizations is a built-in mistrust of anyone who is in leadership. Rather than making the role of leaders a joy (Hebrews 13:17), it becomes a burden because leaders are constantly fighitng against this damaging culture of mistrust.

Assuming poor motives

This attitude believes that "everyone is going to let us down or make decisions that we would not make." Unfortunately, many of us quickly default to a position of mistrust - assuming that the motives that lie behind the action or decision were bad. Invariably, when I have made that assumption about others I have found that when I clarified the situation there were no bad motives involved. There may have been poor judgment, or there may have been issues and circumstances I was not aware of , but the motives were not bad.

Believing something to be true when one does not have all the facts

Leaders often find out months or even years after making a decision that someone in the organization is deeply distrustful of them because they had assumed certain things when in fact those assumptions were not true.

Taking on someone else's offense

This happens when an individual takes on the offense of another person, usually without knowing all the facts. Healthy individuals understand that there is more than one side to a story and do not make assumptions without doing their due diligence.

Healthy individuals and teams practice three principles that directly contribute to a culture of trust.

One: I will choose to trust you unless you give me a reason not to.

Two: I will assume your motives are right even when I disagree with you.

Three: I will be proactive in clarifying issues rather than assuming something to be true.

Two great resources on the issue of trust:
The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni
The Speed of Trust, The One Thing that Changes Everything, Stephen Covey

The amazing power of grace

Think about whom it is that you really love to be around because they accept you for who you are, unconditionally, they stick by you in tough times and are not judgmental. Friends like that are magnets because you don’t have to prove yourself to them and they just love you for who you are. Those who grew up in homes where performance was the deal and conditional love was the culture know what I am talking about. Unconditional love is like a cool oasis.

This is why Jesus was such a magnet for people who had screwed up their lives. The more we have to forgive, the more we appreciate grace. And Jesus extended grace to those who never expected it and from the perspective of the religious authorities did not deserve it.

There was something utterly disarming about Jesus with sinners. They did not sense condemnation like they received from the establishment but unconditional love. While they may have been repelled by society at large Jesus attracted them because of his grace and they knew all too well that they needed grace.

There is a trap we face when we come to Christ. We come on the basis of his unconditional love and unmerited grace. But in the process of growing we realize that there are areas of our lives that need to be cleaned up and we work on those. We often also pick up rules that Christians are supposed to live by. Never mind that they are not rules of God but are like the “rules” of the Pharisees in Jesus day, made up by them and imposed on others.

The trap is that we start to expect that others who don’t know Christ should clean up their lives as well – when in reality what they need is our unconditional love and acceptance as people who have not found and experienced truth. This is why so many churches are not places of grace and unconditional love to outsiders but judgmental and conditional in their acceptance, no matter how subtle it is. My experience is that most churches are not friendly places for sinners. Jesus was: many of his people are not.

People crave unconditional love like Jesus gave to those around him. Because of his grace and love he could call them to righteousness and repentance and people heard and listened. When people respond to the good news of the gospel the Holy Spirit starts to work in their lives and it is he who convicts them of sin and unrighteousness (not us) and plants in their hearts a desire to live like Jesus.

As a school nurse, my wife was called the “second mom” by a lot of troubled students. Those who came to school hungry knew that she had a stash of food for them in the closet. Those who were trapped in bad relationships they knew they could come and talk to her. Those who became pregnant they knew that she would love them. I remember one time when she brought a birthday cake to school for a troubled young lady and told her to get her friends together for a party. This sixteen year old had never had a birthday party in her life and was stunned. She didn't know who to invite.

Here is the fascinating thing. Mary Ann can be blunt and truthful with these kids about dangerous and destructive behaviors and they never mind because she has such unconditional love and grace for them that she is not perceived as judgmental but rather someone who is in their corner and looking out for them. So, even after repeatedly screwing up they can come back because in Mary Ann they find security, love, grace, forgiveness and truth.

Her example has helped me grow tremendously in this area although I am not close to her league. Because of her grace and unconditional love she is a magnet for hurting people who know they will find a friend who loves them and speaks truth at the same time.

This is the combination Jesus had. The Apostle John writes in John 1:17 that “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” That is a powerful balance for any of us who want to ripple on others. Anyone who has that combination of grace and truth becomes a magnet for hurting and vulnerable people.

The dysfunction of professional ministry

This dysfunction applies particularly to churches and mission organizations. It is the thinking that only those who are formally trained are really able to minister effectively. If you doubt that this is true in your denomination, just ask yourself how many pastors there are who have not gone through formal theological training and whether you can be ordained without it. 

In the local church, this dysfunction shows itself in the areas where lay people are not given significant ministry responsibility and whether or not there is a concerted effort on the part of full-time personnel to develop, empower and release others into ministry. After all, the mandate of church leaders, according to Ephesians 4:12 is to equip, empower and release everyone into active ministry. Yet in many places of the world we have not done this, trusting 'real ministry' only to the hands of those who are formally trained.

We have trained our people to think that way as well. After all we hire professionals to do ministry for us. It leads to a passive laity - at least when it comes to significant ministry responsibility.

Here is something to chew on. There is no intrinsic link between one's level of education and one's ministry effectiveness! Educators may want you to believe there is but there is not. I am amazed at people, for instance, who get a PhD in Organizational Leadership but who cannot lead anything. Training and experience matter but how one gets that training and experience (formal or informal) does not.

I know hundreds of pastors internationally who lead highly effective ministries who have never had formal theological education, and often, heave not even been educated beyond the secondary level (what does matter is that pastors have a level of education consistent with those in their congregation).

It's not that I am anti-education (I hold a Masters Degree in Divinity from a great seminary). What troubles me is the culture we have bred in our ministries that leaves highly qualified people out of the game because they lack a degree. In fact, when churches are looking for staff members today, the first place I suggest they look is inside the congregation for someone who has the appropriate skill set and who is spiritually mature. You know them, they know you and you know whether or not it will be a good match based on long experience - rather than hoping that someone you call from the outside will be a good match.

By the way, for the first two hundred years of the church, most of those who had church leadership responsibility would probably not be ordained in our movements today. Something to chew on. 

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Effective churches have pastors and boards with a bias toward strategic action

Effective leaders are proactive rather than passive, and leadership is an active rather than passive role. I believe that many church boards need to confront the reality that they have been acting as passive trustees rather than proactive leaders. When this happens, they miss the role they have been called to play and the mission Christ left for the church.

Consider Christ's instructions to His followers: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always to the very end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). The first two words of Christ - therefore go - imply something deeply proactive and leadership-oriented.

There is nothing passive in this mission! We are to aggressively 'take territory for Jesus' in our communities, our nation and our world. This is a picture of Christ-followers on the move, bringing real change to communities, institutions, marketplaces and families.

Many have attended the leadership conferences of successful ministries. One mark of a successful ministry is the presence of leaders with an extraordinary bias toward action. By definition, leaders are people who think action, not status quo, and who are always looking to the future (where do we need to go?) rather than the past (how did we do things then?) or the present (how do we keep the status quo?).

The books of First and Second Timothy intrigue me because they are the counsel to Timothy from a strong, action-biased mentor. It seems that Timothy was a rather shy, conflict-avoiding, reluctant leader. Paul, on the other hand, was a natural born leader. I am intrigued by Paul's advice to Timothy, because most of us don't fit the natural-born leader profile either. Natural-born leaders were born wired for high-energy leadership. Leadership comes to them innately.

What about those of us who are not naturally strong leaders? Can we grow in our leadership? The answer from First and Second Timothy is that we can, if we are willing. As you read the letters from Paul to Timothy, you hear Paul giving instructions on basic leadership principles: resolving conflict, training leaders, teaching boldly, correcting error, leading by example, living authentically, refusing to be intimidated by bullies and any number of practical principles. Because Paul believed that Christ had called Timothy and that he was willing to learn and grow, he encouraged Timothy in his leadership role.

To lead well, those who have been called to pastoral or board roles must by necessity become students of leadership. Let's face it, a passive person is not a leader! If we believe that leadership in the church is a sacred task given to a few by Christ to ensure the health of His people and the expansion of His kingdom, we must be willing to grow in our understanding of what effective leadership looks like and learn to become better leaders.

Effective leadership is all the more critical given the statistics that an overwhelming majority of churches in America are either at a plateau or losing ground. This reality calls into question the ability of many leadership boards and individuals to actively and biblically lead. If we are not moving forward, we are inevitably slipping backward! Church leaders need to be actively leading or willing to learn to lead, or they should step aside and allow someone else to lead.

"You are a bad witness." It is a lie of the Devil.

It is a lie of the evil one that keeps many believers from freely sharing their faith. We believe that we are bad witnesses because  our lives are messy and we have a a history of issues. And, we know the issues we struggle with and are confident that we are not qualified to share our faith with others.

Here is the irony: imperfect people are what we all are and it is because of our struggles, issues, messes, that we can share our faith and be successful in doing so because others can identify with us (we are like them with common struggles), we can identify with them and we can attest to how God meets us in our sin and imperfection with His grace and love - no matter what! That, is the heart of our Good News. 

Every struggle we have had, every issue we struggle with, helps us identify with others. Every time God forgives, gives us hope and redeems our lives for His purposes, we have stories to share that others can identify with. Satan would have us believe that our issues disqualify us from sharing our faith. Jesus would tell us that His grace in the midst of our struggles is precisely what gives us credibility to share our faith.

What the world does not understand are people who pretend to have it all together. They cannot relate to that. Further, it is not true. We are all broken, deeply flawed human beings with common struggles and issues. Broken pots that God has redeemed and is in the process of reimaging. The very things that we think disqualify us from sharing our faith are the things that give us credibility in sharing our faith.

Rethinking the meaning of congregationalism

Many reading this blog are part of churches that are congregational. The essence of congregationalism is this: All members of the church are filled with the Holy Spirit and all make up the body of Christ, so within the local fellowship, the congregation is the final authority under Christ. This means that no ecclesiastical hierarchy can tell the church what it must do, and that a congregation has the ability, if necessary, to override decisions of its leaders. It is rooted in a theological understand of the independence of the local church and the priesthood of all believers.

It is important to understand what congregationalism does not mean, because this biblical concept can morph into some unbiblical forms.

First, congregationalism does not mean that all members of the congregation have an equal voice in all decisions.

If this were true, the job of leaders would simply be to poll a congregation on any issue and take the church in that direction. The New Testament, however, places a high premium on strong leadership from spiritually motivated individuals who are vested with responsibility and authority. In fact, the New Testament has a higher view of leadership than many congregations, which ought to give us pause.

The New Testament model is that we are to choose godly leaders who have the gifts, skills and character to lead the church on behalf of Jesus in directions that are consistent with God's mission for the church. While the congregation has a role in choosing or affirming those leaders, they are chosen to lead, trusted to lead and given the authority to lead. Those who insist that all members of a congregation have an equal voice may be reflecting a popular belief as to how government should run on the national or local level, but they are not reflecting the biblical model for local church government.

Second, congregationalism does not mean that all members have a voice in all matters that leaders must decide.

Those who have the hardest time with this concept are those who remember when the church was a family (under 150 people), when most decisions were naturally made by some kind of consensus. In smaller congregations, naturally, more issues are discussed by the congregation because the church is a family system no matter what its polity. As a church grows, it changes, and the larger the church, the fewer issues actually come to the congregation.

As a church grows and leaders take more responsibility for decision-making, you often hear the complaint, "We are not congregational any longer." While we need to understand and be sensitive to the genesis of that comment, it is not necessarily a true statement.

Leaders can bring many or few issues to the congregation for decision-making and still be congregational. Congregationalism looks different in different size churches. Leadership pain comes when churches don't realize this and continue to bring numerous issues to the congregation as it grows, creating the biggest tollbooth of all: the need to have sign-off at congregational meetings for all decisions. It simply no longer works.

Ultimately, if a congregation has a say in the choosing of its leaders, in the calling of the senior pastor, must approve changes to bylaws, approves the annual budget and approves the purchase or sale of property, it is congregational, since it has the ability to override its leaders (if necessary) by changing its leader(s) or withholding permission on budgets.

Our church governance systems do matter!

My experience in working with churches is that the vast majority of our governance models are controlling rather than empowering, permission-withholding rather than permission granting and deeply frustrating to leaders. As such, they prevent the church from being nearly as effective as it could and should be. In other words, our structure often compromises our missional effectiveness.

Structures do matter, because they either serve our mission or hinder our mission.

In a recent consultation, an executive pastor of a church of 500 told me a funny story. He needed to deal with some changes to a nursery ministry. When he asked around to find out who the nursery folks were accountable to, nobody really knew. He went to the elders (directional leadership) to explain the changes that he wanted to make, and then to the finance committee for funding, and finally to the 'general board' to explain again before he could accomplish the relatively minor changes he set out to accomplish.

Now if we really believe that the mission of the church is more important than the structure of the church, and that structures ought to serve mission, these kinds of tollbooths would be unacceptable. In such cases, the mission of the church has become subservient to the structure.

For some inexplicable reason (to me), church bylaws (and therefore our governance system) are often considered more sacred than Scripture! If you doubt that, think of some of the objections you face when you try to change them. Yet, many people do not realize that church governance is often driven by a combination of theological and sociological forces.

Consider the New Testament, for instance. Little is said about church leadership structures in the New Testament, apart from clear instructions for the senior leaders of a congregation called overseers or elders. While their responsibilities are clear, the structure of how they do governance is not.

In fact, the story of the early church is clearly a story of flexibility of structure as the needs of the church changed. Deacons, for instance, were added early on to deal with issues that the elders no longer had time to handle. As the church grew, senior leaders started to delegate major ministry issues to others. Today, many congregations have multiple committees or boards that are never mentioned in the New Testament.

My point is that there is nothing sacred per se about the structures that most churches have in place for leadership. Governance structures, apart from what is clearly spelled out in the New Testament as prescriptive, are simply tools that should be designed to empower people and facilitate ministry. Unfortunately many of our structures disempower and frustrate ministry.

Conflict: Walk toward the barking dog

Dealing with conflict is not something most of us enjoy. However, it is an inevitable part of leadership. How we manage ourselves and the conflict itself will in large part determine its outcome.

I have a personal saying: 'walk toward the barking dog.' That is, where there is conflict, don’t avoid it or pretend it is not there. Avoidance is not resolution. Rather it often simply prolongs the pain. Walking toward the conflict to acknowledge it, confront it and manage it is a sign of a healthy leader.

Before we talk about managing the conflict, however, we need to think about how we manage ourselves when conflict occurs. The first skill (and it is a skill) is to keep our own anxiety low. Conflict raises the adrenalin level causing us personal anxiety which if not properly managed will keep us from responding in a measured fashion. When I feel the temperature of my own anxiety rising I will literally remind myself, “keep anxiety low.” Letting it rise does not help me in any way and the truth is that I will be much better at confronting the issue if I can keep my personal anxiety level low.

A second self-management tool is that of not questioning the motives of the one who is causing the conflict. People can cause a lot of pain and relational chaos without having poor motives. Motivation goes to the heart and we cannot judge another’s heart. We can however, make judgments about behavior.

If I assume that motivations are evil, it will be very difficult for me to deal with the one causing the conflict in a productive way. I have learned over the years that even those who have caused me the worst pain usually did not have bad motives. Bad behavior yes but bad motives, usually not. Assuming that motives are not evil allows us the freedom to try to get to a mutually workable solution rather than demonizing the person.

I also assume that in most cases, conflict can be resolved in a reasonable manner while knowing that there are times when it cannot be. If we walk into the process assuming that resolution is possible the likely hood of success of greater than if we do not. At the same time, realism tells us that sometimes resolution will not be possible because it takes the goodwill of two parties to bring healthy resolution.

Self management in conflict allows us to better manage the conflict itself. Remember, where there is conflict, someone is usually upset. Our ability to minimize our own anxiety will help to lower the temperature in most cases. The higher the anxiety level on both sides, the more likely the conflict will escalate.

Walking toward the barking dog of conflict starts with acknowledging that the conflict is there. That seems obvious but many people actually try to ignore it and hope it will go away. It won’t. Some people use passive aggressive behavior to undermine others or get their way. Being up front and acknowledging the issue will often surprise people since they are not used to being confronted with behavior or issues in a direct manner.

Having acknowledged that conflict is present we can then seek to clarify what the real issues are. Remember that ‘presenting’ issues in conflict are often not the ‘real issues.’ This is often true in church conflict where ‘presenting issues’ may be philosophy of ministry or strategy but the real issues revolve around power.

Asking clarifying questions in a dialogue fashion will often get to the core issue. That may not solve the problem but at least you have a better idea of what the issue is. When I was elected to my present position of leader of ReachGlobal, there was one particular vocal individual who had numerous issues with my ministry philosophy which he freely shared with others in a not so helpful manner. The core issue was not philosophy; it was that he did not think I was qualified to lead the mission organization. Through dialogue and asking questions and listening the core issue became evident.

Having entered into dialogue it is also key for one to be honest and self-defining about what we believe to be true. People are often not used to honesty in conflict, they are used to a clash of emotions. In the situation above, after dialogue and conversation, I simply asked the question, “Can you continue to serve this organization with a happy heart and clear conscience?” The frank question surprised him and put him on notice that I was not going to ignore the issue.

Because unproductive behavior often accompanies conflict, it is often the case that a leader must point out behavior that is unacceptable even though they have not questioned motives. In the case above, I was OK with a colleague who did not want me as his leader but I was not OK with behavior that was designed to undermine my leadership. Thus I made it clear that certain behaviors were unacceptable in our organization regardless of one’s preferences. Often people who cause conflict do not understand how their behaviors affect other people so honest, frank feedback after good dialogue can be a learning experience for them.

Finally, do not let the issue go until it is resolved. Often times it is critical to agree to how future issues will be resolved so that there can be honest discussion without the unhealthy conflict that has occurred. If there cannot be resolution between parties, (usually there can be) they may be in the wrong organization or on the wrong team. Unresolved conflict just simmers it does not go away. So agree to follow up steps that will help you get to a point of agreement and resolution.

Remember, walk toward the barking dog – don’t run toward it and don’t run away from it but take as measured an approach as you can to resolve the conflict you are a part of or that you need to help resolve.

Nine characteristics of healthy leaders

Healthy leadership is a huge issue for any of us who are part of a staff or team. The reality is that the health of the team largely depends on the health of its leader. Healthy leaders produce healthy teams and unhealthy leaders produce unhealthy teams.

I refuse to work long term for an unhealthy leader because life is too short and because unhealthy leaders do not create healthy work environments or release the potential and creativity of their team members. Unhealthy leaders hurt people and ministry. Healthy leaders release and motivate people in the pursuit of missional effectiveness.

Healthy leaders have certain characteristics that create a healthy team and contribute to missional effectiveness.

Healthy leaders are comfortable with themselves

Healthy leaders have nothing to prove and nothing to lose. They are comfortable with themselves, understand how God made them and therefore are not threatened by others or by opinions or convictions that are different than theirs.

When others engage in robust dialogue they do not become defensive or irritated. In fact, because they are comfortable with who they are, they encourage candid and transparent conversation in order to find the best ways to accomplish the mission.

Healthy leaders do not "own" the ministry they lead

Healthy leaders understand that the ministry they lead is not "theirs." They are stewards who serve the staff and the constituents in pursuit of the mission of the organization.

Because it is not "theirs" and because they are stewards, they are not compelled to "get their way," but to work through a team to accomplish the mission.

Healthy leaders are missional

They are committed to and driven by a clear, compelling and meaningful mission and everything that the staff does is designed to best accomplish the mission. Missional leaders are not driven to look good, climb a ministry ladder, or advance themselves. Rather they are committed to a clear, compelling and meaningful mission. It is about the mission and not about them.

Healthy leaders develop, empower and release others

Because they are stewards and because it is about the mission, healthy leaders find and deploy the best possible staff, clarify the responsibilities of those staff and then empower their staff to get the job done. They do not micromanage or need staff to do what they do as they might do it. They love to bring out the best in others, give them appropriate freedom with accountability and give them the credit for success.

Healthy leaders listen far more than they talk

Healthy leaders ask others their opinion, ask a lot of questions and foster open dialogue to come to common conclusions and strategies that have the buy in of the group. Staff meetings that are about staff listening to a leader rather than the leader engaging and listening to the staff indicate a lack of leadership health.

Healthy leaders mentor and coach their staff

They meet with their staff at least monthly, one on one, and engage staff in their ministry plan, probe areas where they need to remove barriers for staff, listen for areas where staff is facing roadblocks or problems in order to help them overcome them. They do not declare to staff what they should do (if they need to do that they have the wrong staff) but act as a mentor/coach to help them be as effective as possible.

Healthy leaders always thank and encourage their staff

Leaders who do not thank those who they lead are selfish leaders. They are thinking about themselves more than they are thinking about others. Healthy leaders know that it is the staff who carry out the bulk of the ministry and therefore they give the team credit for success and are always thanking and encouraging staff.

Healthy leaders are forthright, candid and transparent

Secrecy breeds mistrust while candidness breeds trust. Staff want and need to know what their leader is thinking, what is coming in the future, and what the board is up to (if there is a board).

Because information is power unhealthy leaders often "guard" their information rather than share what they can freely. The more information staff has the more trust there will be.

Healthy leaders are consistent, fair and keep their promises

Staff respects leaders who can be counted to be consistent, who are fair with all reports and who keep their word.

If you are a leader, think through these characteristics as well as those in the following two blogs. Where are you doing well and where do you need to "up your game." If you are staff, at least you get a picture of the relative health or unhealth of your leader.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Missions and Europe. Should we be sending missionaries to a place that has been evangelized in the past

From time to time I am asked why we send missionaries to Europe when it has had a chance to hear the gospel and there are still populations that have not. It is a good question but like so many questions it is not an either/or but a both/and. Let's think through some of the issues involved.

First, in the great commission, Jesus made it clear that we are to go and make disciples of all nations. In Acts 1:8, he said, you will be my disciples in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the earth. The implication is that we are to go wherever the gospel is scarce. Today, that also includes populations that have had the gospel in the past but do not today.

Second, what does it mean that we should go only where the gospel has never been preached? Some of the earliest places to receive the gospel were North Africa, and Turkey. Does that mean we don't go back today when Christianity is almost non-existent? Today, these would be considered part of the critical 10-40 window. Yet one cannot say they have not had the gospel in the past. Both were leading centers of Christianity in the early church. For that matter, Constantine's whole empire had the gospel at one time. Yet there is a tremendous amount of difficult mission work going on in these places today because today they are unreached populations.

Let's apply that same logic to Europe. We in the west are the recipients of the Reformation in Europe, as are all the nations to whom the west has sent missionaries. But remember that much of Europe was not evangelized by the Reformation for within a hundred or so years of the Reformation, European regions were either almost fully Catholic or fully Protestant. Much of Europe was not a recipient of the Reformation message or if they were, not for long. This was certainly true of places like Poland and Spain (where the current evangelical population is below 1%). The Reformation brought with it a counter Reformation of the Catholic church along with conflict, wars and finally, divisions where only Protestantism or Catholicism became legal.

Of course, even in places where the Reformation did have enormous impact (England, The Low Countries, Scandinavia and Germany) there is very little left of its influence apart from beautiful churches which are mostly empty on Sundays. Just as the Mongol hoards brought Islam to North Africa and Central Asia, so secularism has brought spiritual deadness to much of Europe. Both were equally deadly to the gospel.

Finally, we need to think about how the world has changed and who actually resides in the great cities of Europe. Go to any major city on the Continent and you find people from everywhere in the world - including great numbers of those we would call unreached today from places like Iran, Iraq, North Africa, and nearly every country on the globe. 

If one goes to Germany, for instance, they will find a resurgence of evangelicals among the Iranians there. The point is that if you want to reach unreached people, the cities of Europe are prime opportunities, not only for Europeans but for immigrants who are coming legally or illegally from all over the world. 

One of the significant churches in Stockholm (as secular a city as one will find) is New Life Church where on any given Sunday you will find about 800 Christ followers, half Swedish and half from the rest of the world (services look like the United Nations). They want to plant some 20 similar churches in Stockholm. 

All of the immigrants of Europe have ties back home including family so introducing them to the gospel has a huge ripple impact around the world. By definition, if you want to reach unreached populations, the cities of Europe are central to that mission.

So my answer to the original question is that we must send missionaries wherever the gospel is scarce. That includes those who have never heard, those who heard a long time ago and those countries that heard in the past 500 years but where the gospel message has again become scarce. That, by the way is why we plant churches aggressively in the Untied States as well even though the gospel has been known in this country since the first immigrants from Europe appeared in modern times.

It is not an either/or but a both/and.

A true test of organizational health

Organizations can look great on the outside and be significantly sick on the inside. They, like people can put on a great face to their constituents, be it a local church or other ministry while living with significant dysfunction within.

Here is something to ask yourself. Would I want those who love my ministry to sit on my board or in my staff meetings? Would they like what they see? Would they be impressed with the relationships they observed? Would they be as impressed after a season on the inside as they are now?

The truth is that in many cases, the closer one gets to the heart of a ministry the more disillusioning it becomes. Boards that don't pray, members who bicker, turf that is guarded, lack of transparency, attitudes that are unbecoming, leaders who don't empower, conflict that is unresolved, and I could go on. Yet the true health of a ministry is not how it looks on the outside, and not even if good things are happening because of it but what it looks like on the inside where the unvarnished truth is seen.

If you would not want your best donor to see the real you as an organization you might want to consider what it would take to get to true organizational health. There are no perfect organizations but there are healthy and unhealthy and the closer you get to the leadership core the more real that definition becomes.