How are you perceived?

From time to time I conduct staff audits to determine the health of the staff and leadership of an organization. Some years ago a board hired me to figure out why the staff was experiencing conflict and a low level of morale. One of the findings was that the perceptions of the senior leader's management were fairly bad. They liked the individual personally but his leadership left a lot to be desired and caused a lot of issues.

When I shared this feedback with the senior leader, he said, "You won't tell the staff what you found will you?" After a moment to collect my astonishment I said, "Where do you think I got the information?" He then said, "What they said is not true of me." My response was, "It may well be that their perceptions are wrong but it is their reality, it is a common reality among the staff and if you are going to change their perceptions you really need to modify your leadership practices."

The board had done this leader a great favor in conducting staff interviews as he found out what most leaders never do - how they are perceived by those who work for them. Often such feedback comes as a surprise to us because we don't see ourselves the way others see us. At times, people attribute poor motives to us that we know not to be true. At other times staff is not aware of circumstances that lead us to certain decisions. But, perceptions - right or wrong - are the reality of how others see us and our leadership. So we are left with two versions of our leadership: What we believe it to be and what others perceive it to be. And sometimes these are worlds apart from one another.

Wise leaders want to know what the perceptions of their staff are. They want to know what they don't know. This requires them to find a few trusted individuals who are willing to share with them how they come across along with the positives and negatives of their leadership style - from a staff perspective.

But remember: No one will tell you these things unless you directly ask and provide a safe environment for them to share their perspectives. Here are some of the kinds of questions we can ask those who work for us.

• Are there things I do that you wish I would do differently?
• If you could change one thing about my leadership style, what would it be?
• What are the strongest leadership qualities you believe that I have and what are the weakest?
• Is there anything I do that irritates you? Or that you feel is not respectful?

You will be surprised what you may learn from these questions. They are worth asking because our perception of reality can be very different than the perception of others. And there are usually simple ways that we can change our behaviors to address the negative perceptions of others.

Three ways that organizational conflict can be a help rather than a hinderance

Typically, we think of conflict as a negative event when it occurs. The truth, however, is that conflict is often a blessing in disguise and being aware of its potential up side can help us leverage it in productive ways. Consider these up sides of conflict.

One: Conflict is often an early warning system that the organizational system needs revamping
Organizations don't just grow, they change. Their environments change, their needs change and the organizational structure that worked at one time no longer works as it did. The reason is simple: What got you to here got you to here. It will not get you to there.

When the old way of doing things has run its course and is no longer working, conflict often occurs. There may be disagreements on strategy, tension between leaders or teams, frustration with work flow and substandard results. All of these, and other manifestations of conflict are warning you that it is time to relook at how you are doing things and what you are doing. In this case, conflict is warning you that things need to change! If you don't ignore the warning sign it can help you move forward. If you ignore it, the conflict will become worse.

Two, conflict may be telling you that greater clarity is needed
When there is not organizational clarity, leaders, teams or individuals step in and provide their own clarity. Inevitably this will result in conflict as competing ideas of who we are and what we are about collide with one another. In this case, the conflict is telling you that you need to clarify your clarity so that alignment is possible and everyone is working toward the same goals.

Ironically, the process of refining your clarity may bring greater conflict as ideas and people vie for their definition. This is good as it is in the clash of ideas that the best ideas are born. But until you come to agreement on who you are and what you are about you will never get alignment and without alignment you will never reach your organizational potential. In this case the conflict is telling you that you don't have adequate alignment and agreement.

Three: Conflict may be telling you that there are individuals who are not operating from a place of healthy EQ (Emotional Intelligence)
Healthy EQ is essential for healthy organizations. People who have unhealthy EQ can be defensive, closed to feedback, create conflict with those around them and are often responsible for relational issues with those around them. When there is a pattern of relational conflict around an individual you are probably dealing with an EQ issues that needs to be resolved.

It is easy to overlook these situations out of fear of conflict. Yet their behaviors are creating conflict already and disempowering those who are impacted by their relational issues. Not to deal with this is to sentence those in proximity to the effects of their behavior. 

When conflict pops up in your organization don't assume it is a bad thing. It is probably telling you something and understanding what it is saying can be valuable to your ongoing success. 

Learning trumps blame in organizational conflict

We are wired, it seems, to assign blame when something has gone wrong, there is conflict in the workplace, or groups are not getting along with one another. After all, someone is responsible and must take the blame!

Not so fast. I would ask two questions.

Question One: Are there alternative explanations for what has gone wrong or the conflict we are experiencing? In most cases, the answer is yes. Conflict can arise from many organizational issues: unclear job descriptions and overlap of responsibilities, the wiring of the people involved; organizational systems that create conflict, attitudes of individuals or groups, practices of the organization, and I could go on. 

Blame is easy and often wrong.

Too often, we immediately assign poor motives to those we are unhappy with. In most cases, motives are not the issue. We are also prone to demonize those we feel are responsible (in our minds) for the conflict. This is a dangerous practice as it simply divides further and reinforces our belief that we are right and others are wrong.

In most cases when there is organizational conflict, there are reasons for that conflict that lie in the structure of the organization, its processes, or a lack of organizational clarity. Before we play the blame game -  which is inherently counterproductive, ask yourself if there are alternate explanations for the conflict you are experiencing.

Question two: Are we more interested in assigning blame or in learning from the situation we find ourselves in? Blame is easy. It absolves us and points the finger at someone else. We don't need to do any hard analysis or work, and it is not about us. In fact, blame is so easy that it prevents us from finding the real source of the conflict we are experiencing and, therefore, perpetuates the conflict.

We can blame, or we can learn. Blame perpetuates the status quo while learning makes us better. I recommend a culture that practices autopsy without blame when something goes south. We want to know the source of the problem or failure, but we want to learn from it, not assign blame to someone.

This kind of attitude creates a culture of nothing to prove, nothing to lose, and nothing to hide. We are about getting better. Not protecting ourselves, not trying to prove anything or hide anything. It is a posture of humility rather than pride. Of learning rather than blame. 

In my consulting, I have rarely encountered people who were bad people or who had bad motives. I have encountered people who needed to learn and develop, who were in the wrong seat for their wiring, and have seen many organizational issues, all of which can create conflict. Sometimes, hard things need to be said or done, but with the right attitude, we can learn, develop, and appreciate one another. 

Leaders and the affirmation of staff

Leaders often forget that one of the greatest gifts they can give their staff is affirmation and appreciation. So simple and yet often overlooked. Genuine affirmation for work well done is one of the highest motivators for staff and engenders significant loyalty. They know they matter! 

If you have staff who report to you, remember this:

They make you look good and make your work possible. You could not do it without them. Thank them often.

They could be working for someone else. All employees today are volunteers in that they can choose who they work for. That they are willing to put up with you is a blessing. Affirm them.

They don't have the perks you probably do and don't make what you make. So, don't take them for granted. They probably care as much about their work as you do yours. Maybe more. Make sure they know that their work is noticed and appreciated.

Taking a few moments to single them out, focus on them and thank them goes a long way. They know you noticed. They know they are appreciated and valued. They know they are not invisible to you.

Never underestimate the power of simple words of affirmation. Your staff will remember them for a long time. That goes for the janitor, the mail delivery individual, the front office phone operator and those higher staff members. 

Words matter!

It is not surprising that the perpetuator of the synagogue massacre had posted hate speech on a popular web site for those who want to express hateful views. Freedom of expression being one of the hallmarks of our constitution, it is a price we pay for our liberties. It protects the rights of all of us to speak our minds sad as some of those views may be.

There is, however, a higher responsibility for those in elected positions to be circumspect with their words toward members of the opposite party. Public figures have the ability and power to set the tone of public discourse. The civility of our national discourse is directly related to our maturity as a people and nation. By that standard we don't have much to be proud of today. Words matter!

We may be proud to protect the speech of all. But can we also be proud of what is being said? Or by the civil discourse of our elected leaders? 

When we dehumanize others with our words we lay the groundwork for other dehumanization. Words matter! It is why we teach our children to be kind with their words. Most efforts to rob others of their rights begin with words. Dehumanizing words are not neutral. Words can build up or they can tear down. Words can protect or they can incite violence. Words matter!

Let it not be lost on us that the pogroms of recent history started with words and ended with violence. The veneer of civilization is very thin. Words matter!

I like many have very significant differences with others politically. I feel strongly about many of those differences. But I will not dehumanize those who disagree with my views. Nor do I want those that I help elect to dehumanize those who disagree with their views. A nation that cannot be civil in its disagreements is no longer a civil society. Words do matter!

Two key reasons for confict within organizations

Think about these equations:

Healthy people + wrong role = conflict

Unhealthy people + wrong role = conflict

Unhealthy people + right role = conflict

Healthy people + right role = effectiveness

These equations illustrate three truths. First, it explains why conflict is so prevalent within organizations. Second, it illustrates the importance of hiring healthy individuals who have good EQ and understand how to relate to others in healthy ways. Third, it reminds us that even healthy people when they are in the wrong role can create conflict with people around them.

The keys to avoiding conflict are having healthy individuals in a role that is consistent with their wiring. When this is compromised, conflict is likely to result.

Unhealthy individuals, especially in leadership roles create conflict regularly. It can be a result of poor or non-existent people skills, inability to resolve differences or conflict, poor self awareness, hubris and a quest for power or any number of EQ (Emotional Intelligence) issues that leaves a wake of relational issues behind them.

When hiring, pay close attention to EQ skills and deficits. If you miss something and find that an individual leaves relational issues in their wake, get them coaching and if that does not work, move them to a position where they will not cause conflict. Don't allow an individual to create ongoing issues within your organization. It is counter productive, will hurt your return on mission and is unfair to staff who are impacted.

What about conflict with healthy individuals who are cast in the wrong role? This is conflict based in the skill set of the individual and not in their Emotional Intelligence. For instance, you can have a leader who does not know how to delegate, who micromanages, who changes their minds on a regular basis, who has no definable strategy and we could go on. This is not because they are unhealthy people. It is because they are in a job that is inconsistent with their wiring.

Getting the right people into the right role is absolutely critical to building a healthy organization. If you need to make adjustments for this to happen - do it. The alternative of conflict is a trade off you don't want to make.

Overestimating our skill and underestimating our weaknesses

It should not be a surprise that we are often prone to overestimate our skill and underestimate our weaknesses. This can have the affect of trusting our instincts too much in the first instance and not understanding how our weaknesses impact others in the second. 

Take for instance, an individual who is good at strategy. Because they have skill in determining strategy they can downplay the input of others, trusting their own analysis and conclusions. Yet, no one has the ability to think of all the consequences of any strategy or anticipate all the variables that can impact its success. Thus by not listening to others this leader is hurting the organization in their overconfidence in their own abilities. Their good ideas can fail because they overestimated their skill. 

It is not unusual for highly skilled individuals to fail to bring others into the conversation - a weakness born out of confidence and a perceived lack of need of others. In their overconfidence they also underestimate the impact of not listening to those around them. Few things are more demotivating than to give helpful and valid input to a plan and to have their leader either ignore it or dismiss it as irrelevant. 

In both cases the organization is served poorly - as well as people in the process. 

Pride plays a role in this equation. We like to think the best of ourselves and our abilities but we should also be realistic. Healthy individuals with good EQ understand their strengths and weaknesses as well as the shadow side of both. That awareness allows them to compensate for their weaknesses and ensure that they don't over rely on their strengths. In fact, that is a pretty good definition of a humble individual. They have a realistic view of themselves. 

How do we avoid these tendencies? One is to be aware of them and to ensure that we involve and listen to others. The second key is to solicit feedback from those we really trust. Feedback from others is an absolute essential part of growing our EQ as there are things we don't see about ourselves and never will unless others point them out. In order to hear feedback, however, we need to overcome our natural defensiveness. 

Often we are afraid that soliciting feedback is a sign of weakness. It is actually a sign of strength. We have the desire and courage to receive feedback. Only strong people do that.

Five gifts of failure

Success is a wonderful experience. We all want it but it does not always help us grow and develop. Sometimes success can even get in our way. In success it is easy to believe our own press and to assume we are better than we are. The truth is that we learn far more from failure than we do from success which is why the most successful have often failed more than they have succeeded. Much has been written regarding success but what does failure have to offer us?

First, failure makes us stronger. It is tough to fail, especially the first time. We can feel that life is over and that we are in some way diminished. If we push through the experience we come out the other side stronger and wiser. In fact, rather than diminished we are enriched with information and experiences we did not previously have.

Second, failure makes us more thoughtful and reflective. You can accept success without reflection but few can accept failure without reflection. Its very nature causes us to think, ponder and ask "what if?" 

Third, failure tends to clarify both our strengths and weaknesses far more than success does. In failure we start to differentiate what we are good at and where we need others around us. Success simply makes us think we are good at most things which is far from the truth. We are good at a very few things and poor at most other things. Failure helps clarify.

Fourth, failure builds humility whereas success tends to build pride. I realize in failure the limits of my own capabilities and a need for others. Success on the other hand simply fuels my hubris and wisdom. 

Fifth, failure fuels learning and growth if we have the curiosity to understand why we failed in the past and how we can avoid it in the future. Success can do just the opposite. Why do we need to grow if we are as good as it seems?

Most leaders attribute far more of their learnings to failure than they do to success. So powerful a drug is success that some leaders who fail for the first time in their fifties or sixties are crippled by the experience because they have no context for it. Thank God for your successes as well as for your failures. Allow your failures to help you grow.

See also
The up side of failure
A leadership perspective of growth
When a great idea didn't work: Dealing with failure
The gift of failure and pain

It is not the knowing but the doing that is most difficult

"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity." -Amelia Earhart
What is it that keeps us from acting on issues that we know we should act on? They may be in our personal or professional lives. It is the gap between what we know we ought to do and the resolve to do it. It is not the knowing but the doing. And then when we finally act, if we do, we wonder why we didn't do it a long time ago. There are three common reasons for avoiding action on things we know we ought to act on. Inertia It is easier to live with the status quo than it is to rock the boat and cause disruption. So, we keep an unproductive staff member, don't deal with conflict between two work teams or ignore the need to clarify what we are all about. Inertia is about living in our comfort zone. Not stirring up things that don't need to be stirred up (but actually do). It is about our not wanting to wade into things that will be hard or inconvenient but that we know in our heart of hearts are important to deal with. Maybe if we wait long enough the problem will resolve itself - usually it gets worse not better. Fear The other side of the inertia coin is fear. Inertia is often a result of fear. What will happen if I take a bold step and deal with this issue? Will I get pushback (probably)? Will someone be upset with me (probably)? Will I have to confront a person or issue (probably)? If our fear is greater than our resolve we ought not be in leadership. All leaders have fear but good leaders learn to not allow fear to keep them from acting on known issues. They do the right thing in spite of their fear and don't allow their fear to drive their inaction. Leaders can use their fear to define how they do something but should never use their fear to keep them from doing what needs to be done. Acknowledge you fear, use your fears to alleviate unintended consequences but take the needed action. Resolve Lack of resolve is the reason that many issues are partially addressed but then left hanging. Why? There was pushback, someone got upset or we had to confront something that was inconvenient. It is worse to address an issue and then drop it than it is to not address it in the first place. "Do not underestimate my resolve" ought to be the mantra of a leader. If I need to deal with something I will deal with it completely rather than partially. My resolve keeps me from backing down simply because there is pushback which there almost always will be given people's preference for inertial over action. Leaders not only must know but they must do. That is leadership.

Smelling Good, Looking Great and Divisive Attitudes

This blog was written by Edmund Chan of Singapore, Leadership Mentor at Covenant EFC and Founder of the Global Alliance of Intentional Disciplemaking Churches

“Oh, for God’s sake, stop it!”

That’s what the Apostle Paul said, with compassionate apostolic authority. And he meant it. Well yes, Paul didn’t put it exactly like that. But I think it captures rather accurately his keen sentiments.
[And by putting it in street vernacular, I don’t mean that Paul was using the Lord’s name in vain! It was quite literally “for God’s sake”, and theirs!]

You see, these were two Christian women. One was named “Smell Good” and the other was named “Look Great”. Both were friends of the Apostle Paul. And both couldn’t get along; such that it was affecting the church. Perhaps you know them by their Greek names: Euodia (“Smell Good”) and Syntyche (“Look Great”)!

With great names like “Smell Good” and “Look Great”, and being persecuted Christians in the first century church (and being friends and co-labourers with Paul), I would be rather surprised if I were told that there was a dark rivalry and relational friction between them.

Fact is, there was!

They couldn’t get along with each other; in spite of the common trials they face and the common faith they share! The Bible is silent on the exact nature of the disagreement. Euodia and Syntyche were probably in some sort of power struggle over an issue that boiled down to influence, or perhaps a preferred comfort zone; simply a personal preference for how something should be done. [Often, big quarrels stem from small things!]

Even though Paul did not treat this matter as he would false doctrine or teaching, neither did the Apostle ignore this fracture within the fellowship. Phil. 4:2-3 “I ENTREAT Euodia and I ENTREAT Syntyche TO AGREE IN THE LORD. 3 Yes, I ask you also, true companion, HELP THESE WOMEN, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (emphasis mine). 

The word “entreat” is “parakaleo” in the Greek (used 109 times in the NT). “Parakaleo” is often used to mean “encourage” or “exhort”. But in this case, the ESV has captured the nuance rightly with “I entreat (beg!) you”. 

The point of this passage is more than just about Paul wanting two women to get along. Rather, it about the Gospel. 

The revelation of the Gospel comes with the GRACE and CALLING of God to live and labour as a redeemed and transformed covenant community. This call is vital and congruent with the responsibility to proclaim this Gospel of LOVE. And just how can they do so when there is bitterness and divisiveness? In Philippians 4, Paul asks these women to ‘be of the same mind IN THE LORD’. 

We might disagree but never disengage. Disagreement happens. It’s not wrong. The diversity of views is healthy; it’s the divisiveness of personalities that is troublesome. Neither be discouraged by the diversity not disrupted by the divisiveness. 

The important thing is to deal compassionately (and humbly!) with the differences and be reconciled “with one mind” over what’s important! Whatever the dispute was, it was not to sidetrack them from the work of the Gospel and the unity of faith in it. No dispute is worth the division. 

Euodia and Syntyche had to learn from their apostolic mentor about getting along. About taking responsibility for their part in their dispute. About laying down their pride, without the self-righteous attitude: ‘well, I hope she’s listening!’ We might ‘look great’ or even ‘smell good’.  But if we do not embrace a MEEKNESS that brings a fragrance and not a fracture to the covenant community, they are but empty accolades. Don’t be divisive.

For God’s sake, stop it!

When crisis envelops a church personal agendas must go!

Like all institutions, churches can have leaders, staff and congregants who harbor personal agendas. Those agendas are often checked when the church is healthy but when crisis hits they can appear from wherever they have been hiding. In crisis, churches need leaders who will ruthlessly set aside their own personal agendas and seek only God's agenda. Those same leaders must insist that others set aside their agendas as well.

Personal agenda's are dangerous in the church for several reasons. First, they are personal rather than corporate. Second, they often have hidden in them some advantage to the one whose agenda it is. Often that is power, position, personal preference or influence all of which benefit an individual over the congregation as a whole. Ironically, the church as the bride of Christ is all about His agenda but such details are often forgotten.

Times of crisis are ripe for agendas to pop up precisely because the crisis often creates a vacuum of leadership combined with a future that is unclear. Personal agenda's flourish in this environment as something and someone will take advantage of the situation. 

I recently encountered a church going through a major crisis and the agendas are numerous. People who want the senior position, those with a theological agenda, those who are willing to marginalize those who built the church for their version of being relevant, those with power who want to stay on and the list goes on. What is needed here is for all these agendas to be put aside and for the leadership to focus on the health of the church.

In times of crisis, ask all parties to put their agendas aside and to focus on God's will for the Church. Focus on health, not agendas. In fact here is a principle: The more agendas there are in a church the unhealthier the church is. 

Sorry about that: My board or boss made me do it! Leadership Default

Leaders can be strange creatures. We want to lead but there are times when we don't want to take responsibility for our leadership decisions which we know will be unpopular. So we look for a foil, someone else to blame for the bad news that is coming. Sometimes it is our board (My board said this is what we have to do). Other times it is our boss (I was told that this is what has to happen). Sometimes it is God (God told me to do this). 

In all three cases you will notice who is not responsible for the decision that has been made: The leader who is making the announcement. In essence the leader is saying "They have said we must do this" creating a deadly division between their staff and whoever he/she is blaming for the decision. Good leaders never blame others in the organization for decisions as it sets up a them/us mentality as if the "they" are not part of "us." 

Why do leaders name others who made a decision? It is simple. First, they want to be popular with their staff so blaming others means they themselves were not responsible. Second, when you blame others, what is staff going to say. If it is the board, they have ultimate authority! If it is my leader's boss, what can you say? If it is God, how do you argue with Him? In other words, the strategy is to blame someone who has more authority and is not in the room so there can be no discussion. Let me be clear. This is terrible leadership.

Think about this. How can the senior leader blame his/her board when they sit on the board? It is not "They have decided," but it is "We have decided" including that leader.

How can you blame your boss when your primary team is the team of your boss, not the team you lead. Blaming God is the ultimate strategy to shut down discussion in a Christian organization. What room is there for discussion when God has spoken?

I label all these behaviors as "Leadership Default." I have not taken personal responsibility for decisions that I have had a part in or that I am committed to supporting in my leadership role. In blaming others I am trying to deflect my involvement, shut down discussion and in doing so I create a them/us dichotomy that divides rather than unites. 

Leadership Default is poor leadership. And, unfair to staff who cannot engage in a discussion regarding the decision. It is unfair also to those we blamed who then look like the bad guys when that is rarely the case.

When senior leaders exert too much pressure on staff

Many senior leaders are highly driven. Maybe most. They tend to see life from 35,000 feet and all the things that need to get done. And, they are often impatient. They want to see results, fix things, explore new opportunities, reinvent old strategies, ensure results, fix disconnects and who knows what else. Are you tired yet? Some years ago my senior team said, "TJ, we are not starting anything new this year!" They had their hands full.

There are predictable results when senior leaders push too hard on too many things. 

Cynicism. Because you cannot do everything at once, leaders who are always pushing for more and for better eventually wear their subordinates out until each new proposal is met with a certain level of skepticism, even cynicism. Better a few important initiatives than many minor ones. More does not equal better. Usually it equals mediocrity. Usually, leaders who push and push also change their minds often leaving staff who have worked on an initiative frustrated when they must change directions mid stream.

Discouragement. There is nothing better than celebrating success. But when many initiatives are on the plate, success is elusive since most will not get accomplished. Or accomplished well. This is discouraging to staff who are working hard to accomplish the mission of the organization. 

Lack of focus. None of us can focus on more than a few important issues at a time. When leaders make unrealistic demands on many fronts, staff don't know where to put their energies and the priority of the senior leader my change quickly. Staff are left to guess as to which initiative is the priority leading to a lack of focus throughout the organization.

Commitments that don't get kept. When pushed hard, many staff will make commitments that they don't want to make and cannot keep. It is the only way to relieve the pressure of the senior leader, however, so they do it. Many of these will not be met because they were unrealistic to start with. This then sets up a cycle of blame for promises not kept which in this case is the fault of the leader rather than the staff member.

If senior leaders will allow their senior team to have a voice in what issues are tackled when there will be a far more realistic view of what can and cannot get done and by when. When leaders exert too much pressure they hurt themselves, the organization and the staff. 

Understanding why people are reluctant to try new ideas

For those who are wired to innovate and bring change the resistance they encounter from others can be frustrating. This is especially true when change is critical to the organization or when doing things differently would save a great deal of time, money and frustration. We ask ourselves in these instances, "Why don't they get it?" It is a good question and it has three good answers. 

First, there is the change scale. When it comes to one's openness to change people fit into one of five categories: Innovators who drive change and are always looking for new and better ways; Early Adaptors who embrace change quickly once it is presented; Middle Adaptors who need to think about the change before adopting it; Late Adaptors who are late to embrace any change and Laggards who resist any change. 

Of these categories which represent how people are naturally wired, only innovators and early adaptors quickly embrace change. the other three categories are essentially change resistant at different levels. Thus any strategy to drive change must speak to middle and late adaptors. One need not worry about innovators and early adaptors. As for laggards, don't bother to try to convince them - they are inconvincible when it comes to change.

Resistance to change has nothing to do with an individuals character or intellect. These categories represent how they are naturally wired. The key to helping middle and late adaptors get to a yes on change is to appeal to a higher value than their resistance to change. If they deeply believe in the mission of the organization, for instance, one can appeal to the ability to better accomplish that mission if we adopt the proposed changes. 

A second reason that people resist change is their own comfort. People simply get comfortable doing things in certain ways and changing those ways can be uncomfortable. It is far easier not to rock the boat and to leave things as they are. After all it has worked in the past so it will work in the future. Except of course, the future is different than the past and those who don't understand this are destined to lose their effectiveness. 

Resisting change for one's own comfort is not a noble cause and those with this tendency should not be in organizational leadership. Leaders realize that their loyalty is to the mission of the organization, not their comfort. 

There is a third reason for resistance to change which change agents need to understand. There are people who resist change because they cannot envision what it looks like. These are people who understand new paradigms when they see it but cannot envision those paradigms without first seeing it. 

In these cases simply be aware of the fact that the change resistance is not a poor attitude but that these individuals need to see the new way in action and are likely to support the change once they understand it.

Part of the job of change agents is to understand how their audience is likely to respond to the change and to tailor their communication in ways that will allow the most people to get to a place of support. They need to be change agents in communicating their proposed changes - and flexible in their approach.

The cost of elephants and the cost of transparency

Elephants are those issues that a team or organization knows is present but no one feels that they can talk about. That fear comes from knowing that the leader is not willing to put those issues on the table and you will be met with resistance, pushback or retribution. The number of elephants in any organization is a direct indicator of its health. The greater the number of elephants, the more unhealthy the organization. A low number of elephants indicates a healthier organization. 

Here is what we forget. There is a high cost to elephants. Elephants represent issues that ought to be addressed because they are negatively impacting the organization or team. Choosing to leave elephants alone means that these issues cannot be solved. And the ironic thing is that everyone is aware that the elephant exists even as they try to pretend that it is not present which of course they know it is. Elephants breed cynicism and mistrust when unaddressed.

There is an alternative to letting the elephants be but it also comes with a cost. The alternative is transparency, what I call in my writings Robust Dialogue. Its definition is that any issue can be put on the table with the exception of a personal attack or hidden agenda. 

The cost? The cost is that Robust Dialogue means that there will be uncomfortable conversations from time to time. Yet without uncomfortable conversations there is no significant progress, there are no paradigm shifts and there are no game changers. Elephants keep progress from occurring while Robust Dialogue forces the conversation and drives change in the process. So the cost of elephants is stagnation while the cost of Robust Dialogue is hard conversations and progress. 

Both elephants and transparency have a cost attached. And a result. The question is which result do we want? If you are a leader at any level, which culture are you creating? If it is a culture of not rocking the boat you will allow elephants to exist and guard the status quo. It is a comfortable place for you to be. If it is a culture of transparency you will drive progress at the cost of hard conversations. It may be uncomfortable but it will be far more successful. 

You may think there are no elephants on your team or in your organization. There is one good way to find out. Ask your staff what elephants exist that need to be named? They will tell you and once an elephant is named it is no longer an elephant but simply an issue to be discussed.

What wise people know about gossip

Gossip is one of the most destructive habits we can engage in. Often it is nothing less than character assassination since our information is often incomplete, second hand and wrong. Wise people know four things about bad news they hear regarding others.

One: There is always more to a story. Usually when we hear bad news about another person it is at best partial news. Take a marriage conflict or a divorce. Hearing from one partner does not give one a complete picture. There is always more to a story. Wise individuals think grey about negative information passed on about others because they know there is always more to a story.

Two: There is always the rest of the story. Even when people do bad things, that need not be the end of the story because with redemption and change the end of the story can be different than the current story. Wise people know that we need to give people the opportunity to change their story rather than assume their current story is the full story.

Three: Good people can do bad things. Do you doubt this? Consider yourself. Each of us do bad things but we don't consider ourselves bad people. God sees us as holy people who still sin. Therefore, don't write others off because of their bad actions. Wise people know that good people can do bad things and don't demonize the person.

Four: People love to believe and share the worst about others rather than the best. It is our lower nature to share the worst about others rather than the best about others. We are really good at it. Perhaps it makes us feel better about ourselves. Wise people know this tendency and keep in mind that there are likely very good things about the character and behavior of those they are hearing negative things about.

These four truths can change our paradigms when it comes to gossip. Wise people always keep these in mind and therefore resist gossip. It also gives them a more compassionate and gracious response to those who have done bad things. It need not be the end of the story and it is unlikely the full story.