Unspoken discussions

Church boards as well as work teams are notorious for their unspoken discussions! Those unspoken discussions are the issues that are present, that people know are present, but that either individual board members or the board itself does not have the courage to discuss as a board. The elephant in the room - often key issues for the church that require being named and dealt with but the culture of the board mitigates against it.

Many individuals do not like conflict and their definition of conflict is anything that might cause individual or group discomfort. So there is subtle pressure put on board or team members to be nice and not rock the boat by naming issues that are out there and need discussion. (The same dynamics can be had on almost any team.) You know that you have breached a topic that makes people uncomfortable when you put an issue on the table and there is either silence, or someone jumps in to quickly deflect the issue from discussion.

I recently read an article about Patrick Lencioni suggesting that one of the reasons that major financial institutions have found themselves in so much trouble recently is the prevailing culture on company governance boards to not deal with issues that would make others uncomfortable. So the culture of nice sabotages a culture of truth and effectiveness.

Pastors, leaders, board members or team members who choose not to speak in the face of real unspoken issues do a disservice to the organization they serve. The irony is that everyone generally knows that there are unspoken issues - they just don't want the discomfort of naming them. The hope is that the issue will just go away!

How we speak to the issues is important. If I approach an unspoken issue and put it on the table it will be best received if: There is not a personal vendetta; my words are not meant to hurt; I don't have a hidden personal agenda; I want the best for the organization; I communicate in a way that invites rather than disinvites dialogue; I say it in love; and I acknowledge that the issue may make others uncomfortable.

The funny thing about "elephants" is that once they are named they are no longer elephants. I once worked with a group around a whiteboard and asked them to name every elephant they felt existed in their organization. We filled the white board (a bad thing) but once up there we could talk about all of them (a good thing). Once named an elephant is simply another issue that we are allowed to talk about. Unnamed it is one of the unspoken discussions that we know we need to have but don't have the courage to discuss.

Every board, team and organization is better off with a high level of candor coupled with a high level of trust which mitigates against the candor turning into anger or cynicism.

If you are brave, I would suggest that you ask your team or your board in a relaxed atmosphere to brainstorm on any unspoken board discussions you need to have, on any elephants that need to be named, white board them and then develop a plan to talk through them one by one.

Unspoken discussions are not discussions, just frustrations and they often hide real issues that unresolved will hurt the organization.

TJ Addington of Addington Consulting has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com

                                            Creating cultures of excellence

Christian Lies

Christian ministry should be about truth and honesty. Often it is about spin and dishonesty. In fact, there are often no better politicians than Christian leaders who use Christianese to hide their real feelings.

We often say, God bless you, when in truth we don't want God to bless them at all. It's kind of like the south where I live. If someone says, "Bless their heart," you know that something derogatory is coming.

We say, I am praying for you when in truth we rarely think of the person we are saying that to.

We say, Blessings, when in fact we would rather have God's judgement fall on them.

When things go wrong we spin the situation to pretend that it was God's will that what happened - happened. When in fact, it could more easily be credited to our poor decision making. Often, we credit or blame God for things He had little or anything to do with. I wonder if such comments surprise Him.

When leaders spin dysfunction as they did at places like Mars Hill, Harvest Bible Chapel or Willow Creek to justify behaviors that cannot be justified they are in fact lying to their congregations as they have now acknowledged in all three situations. Spin that is untrue is a lie.

Kind and diplomatic words when not true are not kind. They are lies. How often do we lie when we say, "I am praying for you?" Since Jesus says that all of our words will one day be evaluated for their truthfulness, I wonder how many of our kind and Christianese words are actually untruths or more pointedly lies.

I have been guilty of this and I suspect all of my readers have as well. Lies hidden behind Christian language and "concern" are still lies and maybe worse lies because we put God into the equation.

I am all for kindness and diplomacy as long as they are genuine and truthful. When they are not we are better off keeping quiet or not saying things that are untrue. I know people lie in Washington. But they also lie in the church and that is not good.

Ten marks of healthy organizational cultures

What makes for a healthy ministry organization? Having worked in a few and led a few I would suggest that there are some clear markers that we should look for when exploring a ministry job – and which we should work toward if we are in leadership of a ministry organization. Each of these markers – their presence or their absence – will make a difference in the health of the ministry and the satisfaction of those who work there. Of course, there are no perfect ministries. There is, however, a wide variation in the health of ministries. Most overrate their health and underrate their dysfunction.

Marker one: we have great ministry clarity. Clarity on why we exist, what our non-negotiables are (guiding principles), what we need to focus on all the time (central ministry focus) and the culture we want to create are all significantly important. Specific answers to these questions are far better than general answers because the clearer we are, the better we know how to best live within the parameters of the ministry. In answering these questions we actually define the culture and ethos of our organization. Ministry organizations that have significant dysfunction usually have not taken the time to proactively determine their culture and ethos by clarifying these questions and then intentionally living them out.

Marker two: we drive a missional agenda all the time. The missional agenda of our organization is the process of living out our mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture through specific ministry plans and initiatives. It is not just about doing ministry but it is doing ministry that is in alignment with our clarity so that what we do on a day to day basis reflects the convictions and aspirations of our ministry. Thus our ministry plans and strategies are designed to help us achieve the clarity we have defined. Our actions (ministry plan) are consistent with our intentions (our clarity).

Marker three: individuals, teams and leaders are in alignment with our clarity. Alignment does not mean we all do the same things or use the same strategies to achieve our desired ends. It does mean that we are committed to achieving the same ends with the same non-negotiables. Many ministries are really only a gathering of nice people who like the days of the judges in the Old Testament, “do what is right in their own eyes.” Alignment around core principles (marker one) allows us to align all the arrows of the organization in the same direction even though we fulfill different responsibilities or pursue different strategies. Non aligned ministries often live with significant conflict because there is not clarity on what set of tracks to drive down. In an aligned ministry there is significant commitment to the same convictions coupled with flexibility on strategies to fulfill those convictions.

Marker four: we have an open and collegial atmosphere. Strongly hierarchical organizations will not attract the best people today. The best staff members want a place at the table and their voice to be heard. Indeed, the best organizations understand that a plethora of voices speaking into the strategy is far better than any one or two of us. Thus they seek to bring multiple voices to the table, encourage a huge degree of interaction and dialogue to find the best ways to deliver on the missional clarity we have determined. This does not mean that leadership is by committee. It does mean that we are open to the views of others and have a culture of collegial cooperation, interaction and collaboration.

Marker five: we encourage robust dialogue. Robust dialogue is the ability to disagree and state one's convictions as long as there is not a hidden agenda or personal attacks. Many would call this healthy conflict. It is in the conflict of ideas that better ideas emerge than either party had before the robust dialogue. Robust dialogue is not a smokescreen for hidden agendas, personal attacks or cynical attitudes. Healthy organizations call those behaviors for what they are – unhealthy. It is the ability to go at issues that need solving with vigor and conviction with an attitude of humility and care for others.

Marker six: we do our best but don’t pretend to be the best. Great ministries have high standards for clarity, ministry results and having the greatest influence for God’s kingdom as possible. At the same time, great ministries don’t fool themselves that they are the best or have a corner on the ministry world. They are humble about their place among God’s many workers, humble about their need to continue to learn, humble enough to collaborate with other ministries (many are not) and humble about what they don’t do well. Arrogant organizations go it alone while humble organizations go it with others.

Marker seven: we are candid about our success and failures. This follows from a humble attitude. How many times do you hear a ministry talk about its failures or weaknesses? How many ministries overstate their success? Healthy organizations are candid about where they are seeing success and where they are struggling. It is that very candidness that allows them to learn from others or collaborate with others from whom they can learn. Ministries are like people, they have strengths and weaknesses. Humble ministries collaborate with others where they are weak and don’t pretend that everything they do is a success.

Marker eight: we encourage innovation. Trying new things, rethinking old strategies, allowing the freedom to fail (some new things will fail) are signs of health. Ministry tiredness has set in when we are afraid to take a risk, afraid to fail, and settle into what is familiar rather than being willing to step into the unfamiliar. There is something deeply refreshing when people try new strategies and break old rules. Just as Jesus broke many of the traditions of the Pharisees, healthy ministries love the break the old rules as to “how it is done.” They encourage innovation, new ideas and give people freedom to try and even fail. They understand that if you always do what you always did you always get what you always got and they don’t settle for that.

Marker nine: we love to get people into their sweet spot where they are using their gifts and are in their right lane. Healthy ministries don’t fill ministry slots with available people. Rather they find the best people and then design ministry lanes that are consistent with the gifting and wiring of those great staff members. When staff are in the right lane, when they are playing to their strengths rather than their weaknesses, morale and productivity are high.

Marker ten: we empower people and hold them accountable. Empowerment means that we are clear about the results we seek and the convictions of the ministry and then set people free to achieve the missional agenda in line with their creative gifting. The other side of empowerment is accountability for results and living within the convictions of the ministry. Great staff love empowerment and are committed to accountability.

It takes the commitment of everyone to build a healthy ministry. It is not simply the job of leaders – they can help set the ethos but making it happen is the responsibility of every staff member all the time. That commitment pays off with a great place to work, colleagues we trust and appreciate and ministry results that give us energy.

It takes only one individual to hurt a team

One of the realities of teams is that it takes only one individual who is not in alignment with the rest of the team to significantly impact the unity of the team. This can be a result of any number of issues. For instance, they:

• may not be in agreement with the direction of the team or organization
• do not pull their own weight in terms of productivity and results
• may have attitudes that are counterproductive to a healthy team: cynicism, sarcasm, lack of trust or some other unhelpful attitude
• may like to do their own thing and are not committed to working as a productive team member
• may have Emotional Intelligence (EQ) issues that disrupt the health of the team
• may not be teachable or coachable
• may be very smart and successful but will not cooperate with others

Here is the reality. It takes only one member of the team to pull down the rest of the team, and to take a huge emotional toll on the other team members and the team leader. All of this hurts the overall missional effectiveness of the organization and creates discouragement among team members.

Ministries often ignore these situations in the name of "grace." We hope they will go away, but they rarely do without intentional and direct intervention. When we do not resolve these negative behaviors we unfairly punish the rest of the team who must live with the unhealth of one member, and we hurt the missional effectiveness of the organization.

If you have a situation where a team member is not in sync and is hurting the team, consider these options.

1. Provide very direct and immediate feedback in person and follow up in writing indicating the problems and the necessary changes that are necessary of they are to continue to play a role on the team and in the ministry. Be direct, honest and defining. Indirect communication is unlikely to work in these situations.
2. Establish time parameters in which the issues must be resolved or they will be placed on a probationary status. If they need additional coaching during this time, provide it and always give honest direct feedback verbally and in writing.
3. If there is not adequate progress, place the individual on a probationary status (in writing - always document) with the understanding that if there is not appropriate resolution they will not be able to continue on the team or with the organization.
4. Be willing to let them go and transition them out of the organization if they do not meet the requirements of the probationary period.

Your willingness as a leader to take appropriate steps in cases like this sends a powerful message to the rest of your team that you care about their health and the health of the organization. When one does not take these steps the opposite message is sent - and clearly read that our organization does not take health seriously. Lack of action also fuels cynicism toward leadership and their unwillingness to deal with situations that are at odds with organizational values.

The emotional and energy toll that is paid for allowing an unhealthy team member to continue is higher than we realize until the issue has been resolved and we finally realize the price we paid. Don't allow one individual to pull the rest of the team down.

13 lessons I have learned about mentoring young leaders

Mentoring young leaders is a passion of mine. At sixty two, the more young leaders I can help grow, the more ripples I can make - and keep on making after I have left the leadership stage. I believe that mentoring is a stewardship responsibility of all leaders and it is one of the most unselfish investments we can make.

Mentoring young leaders is all about taking people with significant potential and helping expedite their growth through your sponsorship, attention and leadership example. A proven leader can open critical doors of opportunity, understanding and growth to a young leader which can dramatically accelerate the leadership trajectory of young leaders.

I recently reflected on some of the lessons I have learned in this process:

Look for potential not experience. Almost all job applications have an experience clause. Sometimes that is what you need. But often, what you really want is the "right stuff" in potential that can be shaped and grown. It is a thrill to hire someone who is "too young" by others standards and watch them flourish.

Look for good EQ. Good emotional intelligence is critical for a mentee because there will be plenty of opportunities when they will need to receive honest feedback on their performance. Poor EQ - defensiveness, inability to accept honest feedback, poor relational skills - will prevent them from growing like the should. Get good EQ, combined with potential and you have a powerful combination.

Help them understand their wiring and strengths. Mentoring is not about growing another "you" but about helping a young leader understand how God designed them, how they are wired and where their strengths lie - and don't lie. Young people often don't have the life experience to figure that out well but a good mentor can dramatically speed up the process by helping them discover their strengths.

Dialogue a lot. Mentor's use Socratic dialogue to help those they mentor think through issues, solve problems, discover solutions and evaluate performance. By its very nature, mentoring takes time and only those who are willing to make the investment will make good mentors. People learn the best when they are challenged to think critically and evaluate well so mentors think out loud with their mentees on a regular basis.

Ask lots of questions. The more questions one asks, the more you will help your young leader think and evaluate. Engage their perspective on people, situations, problems and solutions. Don't tell, ask - and then dialogue.

Give honest feedback. Good mentors give feedback but they do it in appropriate ways and appropriate settings. No, the Trump method "You're Fired," does not fit that paradigm! Mentors never embarrass by calling out a failure or misstep in public. They do it behind closed doors and in a way that causes growth, not discouragement (again, good EQ is very helpful).

Allow young leaders to figure it out and even fail. We learn more from our failures than our successes so allowing young leaders to figure out how do get something done (consistent with their strengths) and even to get it wrong on occasion is a powerful growth strategy. We practice "autopsy without blame" after a failure. We want to know why it happened and what went wrong and why but it is not about blame, but about learning.

Give assignments that stretch. Often, young leaders do not see in themselves what others see in them. Giving assignments that are out of their comfort zone - but within their ability helps them test their skills and critical thinking. Again, Socratic dialogue along the way is helpful, but not solving the problems they encounter.

Keep their plate full. Bright young leaders get bored quickly. Keep their plate full so that they continue to grow and stretch and increase their capacity. If they are really good - do whatever it takes to keep them engaged with you so that they don't look for greener pastures elsewhere.

Let them shadow you. Young leaders need models of what good leadership looks like. Because mentors are all about developing others, find ways to expose them to your world even if it is not in their job description. Exposure to meetings, problems, problem solving and other key people will give them context that they would not otherwise have and exposure that helps them leverage growth.

Ensure a relationship of high trust. Mentors often share information with a young leader they would not share with others - precisely because by introducing them to one's world and the real challenges one faces, young leaders learn how to deal with real life situations. This means, however that young leaders must be trustworthy (EQ again) to keep information that is private private and the maturity to handle sometimes difficult information. Clear guidelines should be discussed up front and reminders made along the way regarding confidential information.

Don't push them to be like you. You are you, not them. Encourage leaders to lead from their strengths, think of their own solutions and find their own way. We are there to share wisdom, principles and help them shorten their learning curve. They will do things differently than you and you should encourage and celebrate this. 

Be tansparent. Sharing one's life honestly is an important element in growing leaders. Understanding how to balance life, deal with life when it comes undone and persevering in Godly character is the inner core that will sustain young leaders over the long haul. Wherever appropriate, be transparent so that they are challenged by your heart and character as well as your leadership expertise.

Mentoring is a challenge and a great privilege. And it allows you to expand your influence far beyond what you could ever do yourself.

Five barriers to unleashing people into meaningful ministry

We want our people involved in meaningful ministry and to embrace ministry for Christ as a lifestyle. Too often it does not happen. Why? I want to suggest that we inadvertently create barriers to seeing this happen. Our motives are right but nevertheless, we create barriers by our own actions.

Barrier One

We have professionalized ministry rather than equipping His people. We hire professionals in the church who usually have advanced theological education. But, rather than equipping people we tend to expect those staff members to carry their particular ministry out. This has two consequences. One, it sends a message that we need professionals to do "real" ministry and two that "formal" training is necessary to be successful in ministry.

Barrier two

We convey the message that "ministry" is all about what happens in church "programming." Our programming is important but it is only a small piece of what God intends for his people to be involved in. His intention is to penetrate and influence a sinful and broken world and to bring small bits of His perfect will to dark and needy places. Ministry is about God's people being God's people wherever they are and with whoever they have influence.

Barrier three

We have so stressed "being at church" that we have not left people the time they need to develop relationships where they live, work and play and with the very people who need the love of Christ.

Barrier four

We have complicated spiritual gifts. God created us to do "good works" (Ephesians 2:10). If we encourage people to do "good works" with the people they have influence with and in the places God put them they will do those good works in ways that are consistent with their wiring. They will do things that they are comfortable doing - which will be in sync with how God wired and gifted them.

Barrier five

We have sought to get people involved in ministry by creating programs rather than encouraging them to figure out how they can make a difference for God where they live and work. Programmatic ministry trains people to let the church create ministry opportunities for them rather than looking for those opportunities themselves. Organic ministry wins out over programmatic ministry each time

God has an amazing and unique call on every single life. The best thing we can do on His behalf is to unleash God's people on a sinful and needy world rather than to corral them for our programs inside the church. The latter makes us look good. The former makes God look good. Which is better?

The key to accountability is an open organizational culture

Every leader says they desire a culture of accountability. The proof of their commitment is whether or not they create an open organizational culture. Closed cultures where leaders control information, what can be discussed or are defensive when challenged destroy accountability. Open cultures by definition encourage accountability. 

There is a direct correlation between leaders who create closed cultures and their own ability to violate staff, make questionable decisions, become impervious to input, shut down honest discussion and become domineering in their leadership style. Dysfunctional leaders intuitively or by design can create closed cultures because open cultures allow others to challenge their views or practices. 

Signs of a closed culture:

• There are issues that you know you cannot raise because your leader will become defensive. What this does is shield the leader from criticism or challenge because they keep the discussion from taking place.
• Robust dialogue is discouraged.
• Leadership cannot be challenged.
• Leaders withhold information or share it selectively so that staff never have the full picture of what is going on. The information hub is the leader.
• Often, in a closed culture, those who raise questions or challenge leadership are labeled as dissidents or as uncooperative.
• Financial information is often kept secretive.
• Staff are not empowered to act but need the permission of leadership. 
• There is a high degree of pressure on staff to conform to the party line.

You can see how cultures with the above characteristics shield leaders from accountability. Whenever you limit discussion and dialogue you limit accountability. Closed cultures are unhealthy cultures and usually reflect an unhealthy leader. In contrast to this, consider the signs of an open culture:

• Information is available to all unless by nature it is confidential.
• Finances are transparent.
• Robust dialogue is encouraged: Any issue can be put on the table with the exception of a hidden agenda or a personal attack.
• Leaders are not threatened by questions, ideas, dialogue or differing opinions.
• Key decisions are vetted with stakeholders.
• All staff are treated with dignity and respect. No one gets a pass on treatment of staff that is unprofessional, unkind or disrespectful.
• Staff are encouraged to "think outside the box" in order to better fulfill the mission of the organization.
• Standards of behavior are the same for leaders and staff. 

Open cultures create accountability because questions can be asked, dialogue engaged in and people cannot hide behind a veil of secrecy, control or pressure to keep the party line. The more open the culture the more accountability there is for everyone, not just leaders. Healthy cultures encourage healthy accountability. 

Healthy and accountable cultures are created intentionally. They don't happen by accident.

Five contrasts between healthy and unhealthy leaders

There are significant contracts between healthy and unhealthy leaders. If you lead, take a moment and consider the following contrasts. The reality is that in each case, every leader struggles with some of these and growing in personal health is a lifelong pursuit. Any leader who claims that they are fully healthy in all five is fooling themselves. So....as you read these, consider honestly where you are in each contrasted character trait.

Contrast one: Pride versus humility
Pride sees life as being about us while humility sees life as about others. Pride believes that others should serve us while humility believes that we are here to serve others. People with significant pride focus most of life on themselves while those with true humility focus most of life on others. Prideful individuals like and need the spotlight while humble leaders focus the light on others. For a Christ follower, life is a journey from pride to humility and Jesus is our model of humility.

Contrast two: Personal gain versus a life of stewardship
Leaders have perks. They have more flexibility than others, get paid better, have more power in the organization and have more control over their destiny. Some leaders love it and use their leadership status and power for personal gain whether in salary, power or other opportunities that benefit them. there is a direct connection between an attitude of pride and a desire for personal gain.

Contrast that outlook on life with one that sees leadership as a trust to be stewarded. It is not about personal gain but about stewarding a mission and a staff. Stewards have a humble persona that is not self seeking but is other centric. Leadership as a stewardship sees authority and power as tools to serve the staff and mission and not for personal gain.

Contrast three: Intentionally accountable versus intentionally unaccountable
Unhealthy and self seeking leaders will intentionally foster systems that protect themselves from close accountability or scrutiny. Sometimes the strategy is to surround themselves with people whom they can manipulate. At other times unhealthy leaders use personal intimidation to prevent questions from being raised. Interestingly enough, in the Christian world you can add another strategy: allowing people to place themselves on a pedestal of spiritual leadership which keeps many people from challenging that leader. Make no mistake: These are intentional strategies to screen themselves from close accountability.

Healthy leaders are equally intentional but their intention is to keep themselves accountable so that there are no questions about their integrity, practices and activities. They create cultures that are open and which allow for contrary opinions, allows and encourages questions and is not threatened by debate. In creating this kind of culture healthy leaders create a culture of accountability because nothing is off limits and the open ethos creates natural accountability. While unhealthy leaders try to shield themselves from scrutiny, healthy leaders create a culture of accountability.

Contrast four: Control versus empowerment and freedom
A major indicator of unhealthy leaders is a need to control. That control can be manifested in control of people, of money and resources, of information through its withholding, of debate questions that disagree with the leader and finally, the need to regularly get their way. The greater the culture of control, the more dysfunctional the system. This is not about legitimate controls necessary to accomplish one's mission but a culture of control that seeks to limit the conversation, questions and ideas.

Healthy leaders understand that unless they can pull out the very best from those around them, the organization will not move forward. They encourage discussion around the allocation of resources, they share information liberally in order to foster a flat organization, give people the freedom to share their opinions and challenge the status quo, and people the freedom to use their gifts and abilities to accomplish their responsibilities. It is a culture of empowerment, not control.

Contrast five: Image control versus mission accomplishment
When you encounter leaders who have a high need to practice image control be wary. Image control is about the leader. It is about the leader looking good which is about pride, ego and narcissism. Healthy leaders are not focused on their image but on helping the organization accomplish its mission. Image control is inward looking whereas accomplishing the mission is outward looking.

For those who lead it is worthwhile to think through these five contrasts and where they fit on the continuum with each. Also, don't be fooled by impressive looking leaders who exhibit the unhealthy characteristics on the left of the continuums above. Where you find symptoms of dishealth above, it will harm the organization.