Want the loyalty of your staff? Consider these things.

Recently I wrote a blog on "The issue of staff loyalty," which had more hits than any blog in two years. Mostly because the loyalty that many leaders ask for is neither healthy or true loyalty. 

Here is the question I want to pose? How do leaders develop true and healthy loyalty among their staff. The answer is deeply counter intuitive and the opposite of how many leaders seek to enforce loyalty. In fact, loyalty cannot be forced or enforced. But it can be nurtured and developed. It is done, however, in just the opposite way that unhealthy leaders seek to enforce it.

These are some of the qualities that build high loyalty among staff. They are practices of healthy leaders.

I want the very best for my staff and their development.I will help them become everything they can be and at the same time hold them with an open hand should it be time for them to leave and take on a larger challenge. When that day comes I will celebrate with them and help them make a healthy transition.

I will encourage them to be their own people, speak their own minds and engage with me and the team in robust dialogue as long as there are no personal attacks or hidden agendas. Every person at my leadership table is there for a reason and I want all their intellectual capital, ideas and thoughts. It is an open, candid, collegial atmosphere.

I will encourage disagreement and push back and will never marginalize anyone for doing so. Loyalty is not that you agree with me but that you want the very best for the organization and are willing to do whatever it takes to help us get there. Rather than trying to control thoughts (which never works), I will encourage candid discussion of the issues knowing that this is how we get to the best solution. I will always send the message, "I want your opinion."

I will keep my word and model integrity and honesty. The commitments, lifestyle and treatment of people by leaders breeds either cynicism or respect. There is no loyalty without well earned respect by leaders. Leaders model the behaviors and commitments that they require of staff.

I will stay connected with them so that they know I care about them and appreciate their work. Disconnected leaders send a message of lack of appreciation. I cannot be the best buddy of my staff (and that is not healthy) but I can stay connected, interested and engaged in what they are doing. This also means that I will give regular feedback on how they are doing and remove barriers they face so they can be as productive as possible.

I will compensate them fairly for the job they do. Taking advantage of people by not paying them well or fairly for their work breeds discontent with good reason. 

I will not micromanage but empower well within understood boundaries. Empowerment is one of the most powerful keys to loyalty because it sends a message of trust, competence and the desire to allow one to use all of their gifts and creativity to accomplish the outcomes of their job. Micromanagement is deeply disempowering.

I will provide maximum clarity on what our ministry is about and how we intend to get to success. Clarity is empowering and releasing because with clarity people know what direction to go and they are released to help us get there. 

I will lead from influence rather than positional authority except in those rare instances where positional authority must be used. Positional authority can be a means of control while leading from influence is a means of mentoring and empowerment. Wherever possible we want staff to make appropriate ministry decisions within the boundaries they have been given.

I will not make unilateral decisions that impact my staff without talking to them. People do not like surprises. And, senior leaders may well not have thought through all the unintended consequences of decisions made for the organization. Thus I will always consult my senior leaders prior to any major directional or policy move so that it is us making the decision, not me.

I will be candid and truthful about issues related to the organization. Staff have the right to know what challenges the organization is dealing with. Unless it is confidential, good leadership does not hide issues or spin them but shares them candidly and honestly.

I will encourage loyalty to God and to the mission of the organization rather than to me as the leader. Our mission is the strongest glue that holds us together. Loyalty to the leader is never as strong as loyalty to the mission. Leaders can disappoint and leave.   Leaders who demand loyalty are leading from a narcissistic place while leaders who encourage loyalty to the mission are leading out of servant leadership.

Ironically, leaders who don't demand loyalty but serve in ways illustrated above are leaders who have the loyalty of their staff. They did not ask for it but they earned it. In fact, good leaders don't even think about developing staff loyalty to them. They simply serve their staff well.

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.

Relational Intelligence

I believe there is a direct connection between the health of a church or organization and the relational intelligence of its constituency. I would argue, for instance, that churches with high levels of conflict have poor relational skills while congregations with little to no ongoing conflict have a higher level of relational intelligence. 

Relational intelligence, a part of EQ or emotional intelligence, is the ability to relate to others in healthy ways, keep personal boundaries intact, negotiate conflict or differences with others without breaking relationship, be self defined personally about what one believes even when others would disagree and not get pulled into emotional triangles or enmeshment with others. If you think about it, the lack of these skills are large contributors to conflict and relational dysfunction.

Consider personal boundaries. Any number of individuals or groups would like to pull you into their orbit, take up their cause, believe their version of events and rope you into their issues. Healthy personal boundaries recognizes this when they see it and wisely hold their own counsel rather than get pulled into other issues. One of the major reasons that conflict escalates is the lack of healthy personal boundaries.

Or consider self definition - the ability to speak one's mind with clarity even when others may disagree. When there is poor relational intelligence, rather than being self defined, individuals communicate what they think others want to hear (for reasons of acceptance). The problem is that they often cater to their audience and end up giving false impressions as to what they really believe and say one thing to one group and another to another group which causes all kinds of confusion.

One of the most critical areas of relational intelligence goes to how we handle people who disagree with us. All too often when people disagree, they are cut off from friendships, marginalized if they are staff, and labeled as disloyal and troublemakers. Think of how destructive, painful, unloving and emotionally immature this is. It is a sign of someone who is not only emotionally immature but self absorbed because the core of this behavior is totally narcissistic. Because someone has not treated me well, or disagreed with me, or taken issue with me, I can no longer trust them, don't want to relate to them and thus I will marginalize them. Notice that it is all about me.

Whole churches get embroiled in conflict when this lack of relational intelligence prevails because those who don't agree with us become the enemy and relationships are severed. Staffs become dysfunctional when senior leaders display this behavior because they are dividing their staff into two camps, the loyal and disloyal and loyalty is usually defined as "they agree with me."

Interestingly, the New Testament has a great deal to say about relationships - healthy and unhealthy and it is the healthy that define good relational intelligence. Groups with high relational intelligence can differ on major issues but remain connected, loving and committed to one another. That is not true when there is poor relational intelligence which by definition divides, escalates conflict and destroys relationships.

I tend to give those with poor relational intelligence a very wide berth because I don't want to be caught up in their relational chaos. 

We need to talk more candidly with our congregations about what God honoring relationships look like and what behaviors are destructive and decidedly not God honoring. We also need to be far more proactive in training ministry staff on issues of relational intelligence. Either we allow a relational culture that defines itself (usually negatively) or we define a God honoring relational culture and help people understand what contributes to health and what contributes to dis- health. 

Good relational intelligence:

• Does not get pulled into others issues
• Is self defined and keeps one's own counsel
• Resists triangulation and enmeshment with others
• Stays in relationship when others disagree with them
• Is not threatened by disagreement
• Forgives easily and seeks forgiveness quickly
• Does not divide people into friend and enemy camps
• Gets one's relational clues from Scripture and Jesus
• Thinks of the other's perspective as much as their own
• Tries to put themselves in the shoes of the other to understand their point of view
• Places love and grace for others above their own concerns
• Lives out 1 Corinthians 13
• Treats everyone with dignity

Would it not be great if our congregations and organizations had that kind of relational intelligence? The higher the relational intelligence of our organization the healthier it will be but the opposite is also true.

"I knew I should have said something!"

I have heard that statement numerous times from staff or board leaders about a decision that was made that they knew was not a good idea but did not speak up. It only takes one individual who is willing to show up to stop a train that looks like it is gathering steam - toward a train wreck.


Especially is ministry there is a tendency toward optimistic thinking. That things will work out or we just need to have faith. But faith and optimism in foolish or reckless decisions is not faith but folly. 


Whenever we have a "check in our spirit" we ought to pay attention to it. That "check" or "doubt" may well be the Holy Spirit, or plain wisdom, saying, "Don't go there." "Speak up even if you lose the day." Never ignore the whisper of doubt when making an important decision.


We have a lot of group think on staffs and church and ministry boards. It is an unfortunate thing. The very reason that God designed church leadership as a "plurality of leaders" is that no one individual has the wisdom or gifts to lead alone. But group think circumvents that design by the group simply acting as one individual. Plurality in leadership only works well when each individual is willing, able and courageous enough to speak their minds and even to go against the flow when necessary.


This is not about being the "gadfly." It is about being an independent thinker who is able to speak honestly, candidly and truthfully even when that means raising uncomfortable questions that others don't want to raise. Often, if one individual has doubts, others do as well and the one who is courageous enough to speak gives others permission to speak as well.


One of the marks of good emotional intelligence (EQ) is the ability to be self defining. That is, to be able to state one own's opinion with conviction and clarity even if it is a lone voice. 


There are ministry leaders who exert a great deal of pressure for their boards or staff to go along with them. Healthy leaders and staff are respectful but independent thinkers who hopefully won't wish after the fact that they should have said something. 

Leadership fear and faith

Is there one key issue you know that you need to address in your organization that you have put off because of fear? The fear may be of dealing with the consequences, explaining to someone that they are not a good fit or needing to make a major shift that you know has unknowns attached to it.

Leadership fear that paralyzes action you know must be taken is not uncommon. You are in good company - but also dangerous company. Leaders suffer from it. Boards suffer from it. Fear is normal but not acting because of it is leadership default.

Inability to address necessary issues can increase with our longevity as leaders. The longer we have been in a position the more we have to lose if we rock the boat. So it is easy to look the other way or even to figure our successor will take care of it. If you inherited such issues from your predecessor you know how well that works!

Often our inability to act comes from confusing the issue we need to address with the question of how we should do it. These are two very different questions. The first question is what do we need to do and once we are clear on that the second is how do we do it. 

If you have an issue, don't ignore it but make a conscious decision as to what you need to do. Then, start thinking through the strategy for how you can best address it with as little fallout as possible.

Remember that doing the right thing honors God, is what we are called to do in our leadership roles and is critical to the health and missionality of the ministry. I have been amazed at how God has gone before me when I have done the right thing even if it was the hard thing. 

Being willing to address those issues we know we should address is not only a matter of courage but of faith. Do we believe that God honors leaders who do what is best? Do we trust him for the wisdom to do it in a way that is prudent? Do we believe that if He is prompting us to act that He will act on our behalf as well?

Most of us know when we need to act on something. The question is whether our faith or fear will win out. As Paul said, if God has given one the gift of leadership, lead!

The critical importance of exit interviews

One of the most neglected disciplines in many churches and ministry organizations is that of doing exit interviews when staff leave. In fact, in some cases, I believe that some leaders don't want to do candid exit interviews because they know they have a problem with retaining staff and frankly don't want to address it. Yet, had they conducted candid and confidential exit interviews they would know how to address the issue.


What can exit interviews tell you? First, they may tell you why a staff member is actually leaving. Let's be honest. In many cases in ministry settings staff don't reveal the actual reason they are leaving out of concern for the organization or because they are under pressure not to rock the boat. If there is an underlying reason for their exit related to the culture of the ministry it is a good thing for you to know this.


Second, if there is a dysfunctional staff situation, and you see trends (see my blog, When the bodies pile up), the exit interviews give you information that can be used to address whatever dysfunction exists. That is, if you truly desire to do so. In some cases, in spite of problematic trends, leaders simply ignore the problem not wanting to deal with it. However, common stories when people leave do give you some helpful data to address underlying issues.


You may also discover that your hiring processes are not robust enough if there is a trend of people who don't fit. Poor hiring practices lead to a higher attrition rate which is unfortunate for the staff member as well as the organization.


One thing to remember is that people may vent on their way out so their own experience can be colored by their issues. One problematic exit does not make a trend. Over time, however, if there are consistent themes around any issue of staff health or culture the exit interviews give you an opportunity to address it. 


As the leader of an organization, I take the feedback from staff who leave seriously. It gives us an opportunity to improve our culture and practices. I am given regular feedback from our personnel folks on trends that they pick up. Don't neglect your exit interviews. They are crucial to a healthy organization.

The quiet ministry of calling out the best in others

A question to ponder. Who saw potential in you and called it out of you? Who encouraged you in your growth and quietly mentored you? Whoever it was left a legacy not only in you but in all the people you have touched. 


Those who encourage and develop others are special people. Theirs is a ministry behind the scenes that gets little press but which has huge reward. It is a ministry that is other centered rather than self centered. And, it is a ministry that every one of us can have.


The story of the early church was easily dominated by one great figure - the Apostle Paul. As a theologian he defined much of its theology, as an apostle he planted key churches and as a developer of people he trained up the generation that would go after him. 


Think about this, however. Behind this giant was a quiet, unassuming gentleman by the name of Barnabas who took Paul under his wing when everyone else was afraid of him. It was Barnabas who taught Paul in the early days. It was Barnabas who introduced him to the other apostles and the church. It was Barnabas who encouraged and walked alongside Paul when others did not.


So who is more important in the story of the early church: Barnabas or Paul?


Barnabas saw potential in Paul when others did not. As he did with John Mark when Paul did not. I would suggest that Barnabas had a high level of spiritual discernment along with the patience and desire to develop others. His was not a flashy ministry but a ministry in the shadows that lifted others up. 


The development of others is a a humble ministry. It often goes unseen and unacknowledged - except by God. It's legacy is in the impact of those they encourage, develop and lift up. Those who see potential where others don't are like prospectors who know the vein of gold is somewhere beneath them. They have the heart of God who sees the potential in each one of us. And they have the patience to draw it out.


Few of us will be earth changing leaders. All of us can be life changing people who have the heart of Barnabas and who call out the best in others. 

The issue of staff loyalty

"Are they loyal to me?" is the question that many leaders ask themselves about their staff. Sometimes in conflictual situations, a leader will either ask or demand loyalty of their staff. In negotiating through conflict I have often heard the charge, "he or she is not loyal to me as their leader," which usually means they don't belong in the organization anymore.

I believe, by the way that loyalty is a good thing and that healthy organizations and leaders have a great deal of loyalty. There is a difference, however between loyalty and subservience. 

When I hear this kind of thing I always ask the question, "What is your definition of loyalty?" Some of the more interesting and problematic responses I have received are "that he/she agree with me," or "that they do what I tell them to do and how I tell them to do it." For others it means, "never question my decisions (implicitly or explicitly)." I find these problematic definitions because they remove the autonomy of thinking from the staff member and insist that they allow their leader to think for them. That, by the way is how cults start. And how many dysfunctional staffs operate.

In my experience, the removal of staff on a charge that they are not loyal is usually more of a reflection on an insecure or narcissistic leader than it is on the conduct of the staff member. Unless one  can demonstrate that an individual's behavior is harmful to the organization, labeling someone as "disloyal" and marginalizing or firing them is a reflection of an unhealthy leader rather than an unhealthy staff member who may simply be thinking for himself/herself and expressing themselves honestly. Beware of leaders who have a pattern of dismissing or marginalizing people on the basis of a lack of loyalty.

There are gradations of loyalty. Our highest loyalty cannot truly be to any person but it is to God. Thus, if any individual, leader or not, asks us to violate a moral or ethical standard or skirt the truth our loyalty to God trumps our willingness to do as we have been asked even if out of "loyalty."

Our next highest level of loyalty is to the mission of the organization we work for. If I don't believe in the mission of my organization and cannot be loyal to that cause I am in the wrong spot. So while I work for the most empowering leader ever, I do not serve because of him but because of the cause of the organization. He makes it a joy to work for the organization and I might not be there under another leader.

So what about loyalty to our leaders? One dictionary defines loyalty as "Faithful to any leader, party, or cause, or to any person or thing conceived as deserving fidelity: a loyal friend."  Notice that it is couched in the term faithfulness and only to a person or cause that is "deserving of fidelity." In other words, loyalty cannot be demanded but it can be deserved and earned.

But take this one step further. What does faithfulness to a leader entail? It certainly means that we want the very best for them and for the organization they lead. Thus there will be times when we specifically do not agree with them if a decision they are making is going to hurt them or the organization. Loyalty by definition speaks up (respectfully) when one is concerned about and issue. It does not stay passively silent and supportive. Loyalty means that my leaders trusts me to be supportive of him/her and the organization, and not to do anything that would undermine it or them. 

In our organization, I would want these characteristics from our staff: Loyalty to the cause, respect for and cooperation with those who lead, and nothing that undermines either the mission or those who lead including cynicism and mistrust. Honesty and candidness in communication with the best of the organization always in mind. 

I also have a set of expectations for leaders toward those on their teams. Loyalty and respect go two ways.

Leaders who demand loyalty no matter what are merely looking for "yes" people who will do their bidding. Healthy leaders want to be respected but they want their staff to be honest, candid and to think for themselves - and speak up when needed. Unhealthy leaders categorize staff into two camps: those for me or against me - a dysfunctional definition of loyalty and disloyalty. Those who do this lose the support of healthy staff and build a staff of people who know that they cannot cross their leader.