There are boards that are transparent and there are boards that are opaque. Transparent boards are those where the key conversations between board members take place in the board room so that everyone is party to the conversation. This is how boards are designed to operate.
Board members must make decisions and in order to make good decisions they need to have all the relevant information. In addition it is in the give and take of dialogue among good board members that the best decisions are made. It is a commitment to a corporate decision making model.
Unfortunately this is often not how boards operate. In many cases, leaders or powerbrokers on boards use a divide and conquer strategy. Rather than having the key conversations in the board room for all to hear they have private conversations behind the scenes with different board members which in turn influences the outcome of decisions at the board level.
Some would say this is smart politics and it is surely politics. But consider this: the practice destroys the concept of corporate decision making. This is a manipulative strategy designed to get one's desired outcome but not through group means. Not only that but it robs other board members of the information they should have. They don't know of the private conversations that have taken place and therefore are not privy to why people take the positions they take. In this scenario, the only individual who knows everything is the one who has been having the behind the scenes conversations.
I have consulted with churches and organizations where this practice took place on a regular basis. I call it an opaque process because it is not in the open and it is not transparent. Decisions get made but not in the open - they are made behind the scenes. It is a practice designed to get one's way but not designed to reflect good governance. It disempowers those not in the know and creates triangulated relationships rather than open, honest relationships.
Opaque boards and decision making is never healthy. Avoid it at all costs.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Monday, January 13, 2014
Does your staff work for you or with you?
There is a big distinction between having staff who work for you and staff who work with you. And it is all in the attitude of the supervisor and how they see the staff of the organization.
I meet far too many leaders who think that staff works for them. They can be demanding that staff respond to their needs when they require it - even late night phone calls to solve some travel problem. If they become irritated with staff it is easy to marginalize them, after all they have failed the leader. If they disagree with the leader they may be seen as no longer loyal. As long as staff jump to their requests and give the honor they believe due to them all is well. When that does not happen, they are easily shuttled aside.
This is not a surprise if a leader thinks that staff are there to serve them. In fact, it is to be expected.
There are healthier leaders who see staff as those who work with them - toward a common goal. While there are levels of leadership, these leaders develop a collegial, open, candid and friendly atmosphere where everyone's work and opinion is valued and appreciated. They understand that they as leaders serve those who work for them. It is a two way street of staff serving one another in order to accomplish something important. It is with not for.
These are the cultures where staff feel appreciated and a vital part of the enterprise or ministry. And this is where you find healthy leaders whose ego needs do not need to be met by people jumping at their request. In fact, these leaders are deeply sensitive to the implications of their requests and ensure that they do not cause undue difficulty for staff.
In your organization if you lead. Do staff work for you or with you?
I meet far too many leaders who think that staff works for them. They can be demanding that staff respond to their needs when they require it - even late night phone calls to solve some travel problem. If they become irritated with staff it is easy to marginalize them, after all they have failed the leader. If they disagree with the leader they may be seen as no longer loyal. As long as staff jump to their requests and give the honor they believe due to them all is well. When that does not happen, they are easily shuttled aside.
This is not a surprise if a leader thinks that staff are there to serve them. In fact, it is to be expected.
There are healthier leaders who see staff as those who work with them - toward a common goal. While there are levels of leadership, these leaders develop a collegial, open, candid and friendly atmosphere where everyone's work and opinion is valued and appreciated. They understand that they as leaders serve those who work for them. It is a two way street of staff serving one another in order to accomplish something important. It is with not for.
These are the cultures where staff feel appreciated and a vital part of the enterprise or ministry. And this is where you find healthy leaders whose ego needs do not need to be met by people jumping at their request. In fact, these leaders are deeply sensitive to the implications of their requests and ensure that they do not cause undue difficulty for staff.
In your organization if you lead. Do staff work for you or with you?
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Secure and insecure leaders
One of the key indicators of success or failure in ministry is the measure of personal security one has. The higher the level of security, the more likely there will be long term ministry success. The higher the level of insecurity, the more likely there will be a train wreck along the way - or a lot of pain.
The reason for this is that insecurity brings with it behaviors which hurt and compromise relationships while security brings behaviors that build long term healthy relationships. Because ministry is all about relationships insecure individuals end up sabotaging the very relationships that give them leadership capital. Secure individuals are able to build long term healthy relationships.
For example, insecure individuals do not know how to deal with those who disagree with them. They often become defensive when they perceive that others either disagree or are pressing for a different direction. That defensiveness says, "I don't want to hear what you have to say!" Which, of course shuts down constructive dialogue. A secure individual is non defensive in the face of alternate options and communicates "I have an open mind, lets talk."
That goes to the issue of dialogue. Have you ever had to negotiate an issue with an insecure individual? It can be like trying to talk to a wall. It is a one way conversation. There is no sense that the other party is open to what one is tying to communicate. This of course kills relationship. The opposite is true with secure individuals who invite dialogue, there is back and forth, questions are asked and answered and often there is movement on both sides to move toward a common view.
Secure individuals understand that compromise is not a bad thing, in fact, getting to a consensus is a healthy place to be. Insecure individuals frankly don't know how to compromise because they have a set view of what should be and anything that does not fit that view is a threat to their personal well being. Thus insecure people polarize others: they either see them on their side or against them. Even good people who disagree with them find themselves on the out list and again relationship is lost.
Because insecure individuals polarize, they are unable to seek and receive counsel from a variety of people who could speak into their lives or situations. Rather they listen to those who agree with them and therefore contribute to their sense of being right. This automatically disempowers anyone who might take an alternate view - and it is one of the reasons that boards become divided when insecure pastors start to only listen to those who agree with them. Those who don't happen to agree are simply marginalized.
Over time when this happens, those who are marginalized simply leave leadership and often the church. They no longer have a voice and don't feel valued.
The personal security or insecurity of senior leaders has huge ramifications for a ministry as a whole. Insecure leaders end up destroying relationships. Secure leaders build relationships. The first will also hurt the ministry. The second will build a ministry. It is a serious issue.
The reason for this is that insecurity brings with it behaviors which hurt and compromise relationships while security brings behaviors that build long term healthy relationships. Because ministry is all about relationships insecure individuals end up sabotaging the very relationships that give them leadership capital. Secure individuals are able to build long term healthy relationships.
For example, insecure individuals do not know how to deal with those who disagree with them. They often become defensive when they perceive that others either disagree or are pressing for a different direction. That defensiveness says, "I don't want to hear what you have to say!" Which, of course shuts down constructive dialogue. A secure individual is non defensive in the face of alternate options and communicates "I have an open mind, lets talk."
That goes to the issue of dialogue. Have you ever had to negotiate an issue with an insecure individual? It can be like trying to talk to a wall. It is a one way conversation. There is no sense that the other party is open to what one is tying to communicate. This of course kills relationship. The opposite is true with secure individuals who invite dialogue, there is back and forth, questions are asked and answered and often there is movement on both sides to move toward a common view.
Secure individuals understand that compromise is not a bad thing, in fact, getting to a consensus is a healthy place to be. Insecure individuals frankly don't know how to compromise because they have a set view of what should be and anything that does not fit that view is a threat to their personal well being. Thus insecure people polarize others: they either see them on their side or against them. Even good people who disagree with them find themselves on the out list and again relationship is lost.
Because insecure individuals polarize, they are unable to seek and receive counsel from a variety of people who could speak into their lives or situations. Rather they listen to those who agree with them and therefore contribute to their sense of being right. This automatically disempowers anyone who might take an alternate view - and it is one of the reasons that boards become divided when insecure pastors start to only listen to those who agree with them. Those who don't happen to agree are simply marginalized.
Over time when this happens, those who are marginalized simply leave leadership and often the church. They no longer have a voice and don't feel valued.
The personal security or insecurity of senior leaders has huge ramifications for a ministry as a whole. Insecure leaders end up destroying relationships. Secure leaders build relationships. The first will also hurt the ministry. The second will build a ministry. It is a serious issue.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional Intelligence (EQ) has a huge impact on our leadership, relationships and influence. Poor EQ causes us to lose coinage with others while good EQ does just the opposite. Think through the following indicators of good EQ and evaluate how well you are doing in these crucial areas.
I am approachable and have a nothing to prove, nothing to lose attitude
I seek to resolve conflict quickly and well
I am self defined but always leave the door open for dialogue with those who disagree and work to keep the relationship
I live with self confidence but not hubris
I am highly flexible
I seek to understand myself well including, weaknesses and strengths and the shadow side
I ask others for feedback on my behaviors
I am a team player and value “us” more than “me”
I work very hard to understand others and put myself in their place
I don’t hold grudges and extend forgiveness easily
I don’t need to be popular but I do desire to be respected
When conflict occurs I take responsibility for my part
There are no issues that are off limits for my team to discuss
I am patient with people and always give them the benefit of the doubt
I have a sense of humor about myself and don’t take myself too seriously
Right people, right seat: often the most important issue
It was a conversation between myself and an executive pastor over a number of issues he faces in his large church. As we discussed these challenges, almost every one of them came down to a singe issue: having the right staff in the right seat on the bus.
We pay far too little attention to the issue of "right staff, right seat." Wrong staff - those who are not suited for what they do, or are placed in a place where they cannot play to their strengths cause huge frustrations for supervisors and the rest of the team. This executive pastor was focusing on the issues he faced but not on the source of the issues which were in almost each case staff issues.
It is amazing how many issues are solved when there is a great fit between a needed role and a staff member who fits that role. No longer is there a need to closely supervise the staff member and there is not the frustration of lack of alignment or sub standard work. When the fit is right there is synergy and effectiveness. When it is wrong, there is frustration and ineffectiveness.
Often when talking to leaders about staff issues they recount their frustrations with a specific staff member and a history of ineffectiveness. When I suggest that the best predictor of future performance is past performance they agree but keep hoping that the situation will change. Usually it will not - unless you can find another role where the staff member can better play to their strengths.
The more supervision that is required, the less likely it is that the staff member in question is in the right spot. Rather than upping the supervision it is probably time to look closely at the job fit. And to realize that trying to make the fit work probably will not work. If the strengths and capacity do not match, nothing you do will make it match.
Remember too that the frustration of the supervisor is often matched by frustration by the staff member. Keeping the staff member in a spot that does not play to their strengths and allow them to be effective, is not in the best interests of the staff member. In other words, making a change solves problems all around but it takes the courage to do so.
The issue is rarely about the character of the staff member. More likely it is about their wiring, strengths and capacity. Entering into a dialogue with them on where they can be best utilized based on these factors, while sometimes difficult, honors them by focusing on where they will be most successful - and ultimately fulfilled.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Four characteristics of dysfunctional leaders who create chaos in their organizations
Ministry leaders often bring significant chaos to an organization when their own EQ (Emotional Intelligence) becomes a barrier to their leadership. It may not manifest itself in the beginning but over time these dysfunctions become issues for their staff, the direction of the organization and the ability of the organization to move to a new level
Defensiveness
Defensive leaders face a dilemma. It is not easy for their staff to address issues that need to be addressed, especially if the leader feels that it involves him/her. That inability often creates crisis situations where things finally blow up and then need to be massaged because the feelings of the leader have been hurt.
The upshot is that issues are never really resolved but often move in a cycle of a blow up, some sort of peacemaking and then another blow up and the cycle goes on. Eventually good people get tired of the drama and choose to move on.
Ego needs
Leaders who confuse their identity with their ministry are usually unable to let go, empower others and allow other voices to speak into situations. Their need for approval, for being at the center of the ministry and a need to control coupled with defensiveness puts staff in a difficult situation. Everything ultimately revolves around the leader and their needs. Ego also needs make it hard for such leaders to see issues in an objective manner because criticism even when constructive is seen as a threat.
Because of their defensiveness, staff members may regularly play to the ego of their leader in order to get things done which feeds an unhealthy addiction all the while preventing candid, honest dialogue around real organizational issues. The result is a significant amount of drama around the leader and their relationships along with an inability of staff to make independent decisions.
Lack of self definition
The first two dysfunctions feed a third which is the inability of leaders to stake a position that is consistent. Because defensiveness prevents true dialogue and because ego needs drive their leadership, these leaders often move from one position to another - often in the direction of the last individual who stroked their ego. It is why such leaders change their minds often which causes all kinds of issues for staff or volunteers.
Triangulation
Leaders who suffer from these dysfunctions often prefer private conversations with staff or board members rather than laying all the cards on the table in a group setting where they cannot control the outcome as easily. It is a divide and conquer strategy which allows the leader to bond with another individual on issues but not allow the give and take of opinions and options that takes place in a group setting. It comes out of their need to control rather than to allow robust dialogue.
These dysfunctions create a fair amount of chaos, relational issues and drama. Whenever those characteristics are present it pays to look more closely at the EQ of the leader. They set the stage for either a healthy or dysfunctional organization. More importantly these dysfunctions keep the organization from becoming all that it can be. It is literally held hostage by the EQ issues of the leader.
Defensiveness
Defensive leaders face a dilemma. It is not easy for their staff to address issues that need to be addressed, especially if the leader feels that it involves him/her. That inability often creates crisis situations where things finally blow up and then need to be massaged because the feelings of the leader have been hurt.
The upshot is that issues are never really resolved but often move in a cycle of a blow up, some sort of peacemaking and then another blow up and the cycle goes on. Eventually good people get tired of the drama and choose to move on.
Ego needs
Leaders who confuse their identity with their ministry are usually unable to let go, empower others and allow other voices to speak into situations. Their need for approval, for being at the center of the ministry and a need to control coupled with defensiveness puts staff in a difficult situation. Everything ultimately revolves around the leader and their needs. Ego also needs make it hard for such leaders to see issues in an objective manner because criticism even when constructive is seen as a threat.
Because of their defensiveness, staff members may regularly play to the ego of their leader in order to get things done which feeds an unhealthy addiction all the while preventing candid, honest dialogue around real organizational issues. The result is a significant amount of drama around the leader and their relationships along with an inability of staff to make independent decisions.
Lack of self definition
The first two dysfunctions feed a third which is the inability of leaders to stake a position that is consistent. Because defensiveness prevents true dialogue and because ego needs drive their leadership, these leaders often move from one position to another - often in the direction of the last individual who stroked their ego. It is why such leaders change their minds often which causes all kinds of issues for staff or volunteers.
Triangulation
Leaders who suffer from these dysfunctions often prefer private conversations with staff or board members rather than laying all the cards on the table in a group setting where they cannot control the outcome as easily. It is a divide and conquer strategy which allows the leader to bond with another individual on issues but not allow the give and take of opinions and options that takes place in a group setting. It comes out of their need to control rather than to allow robust dialogue.
These dysfunctions create a fair amount of chaos, relational issues and drama. Whenever those characteristics are present it pays to look more closely at the EQ of the leader. They set the stage for either a healthy or dysfunctional organization. More importantly these dysfunctions keep the organization from becoming all that it can be. It is literally held hostage by the EQ issues of the leader.
If you are fifty plus this question is for you
.jpg)
Questions are amazingly powerful tools to challenge our thinking and to rock our paradigms. Just one question, if the Holy Spirit has been working in someones heart can crystallize an idea, a dream or awaken a passion that has been dormant. Questions are powerful which is why I love to ask them and see what happens.Here is a question I often ask of people in their forties or early fifties. By then, they have a pretty good understanding of themselves and they have yet unfulfilled dreams - which often lay beneath their own consciousness: "What do you want to accomplish between now and when you retire?"
That question, to a fifty something has meaning because they know that the years ahead of them are dwindling and fewer than the years behind them. For those truly motivated by influence they also want to make those years count in a larger way than the years that have already passed.
Here is why the question is so powerful. Often, the answer that comes is not consistent with the job or ministry that the person currently is in. Which means that the dream they have is not going to be fulfilled where they are - and the question brings to the surface - often over a period of reflection - dreams that God has laid on hearts that to be fulfilled will mean re-evaluating their current job or ministry.
This does not mean that they are in the wrong place now. God uses our now to prepare us for our future. What it does mean is that in order to fulfill the dream or passion God has laid on their heart that they may need to move to a different ministry platform.
Several years ago a pastor in his fifties came to my office to talk. He had a great church and a productive ministry. But as he looked at his last run his heart desire was to influence, mentor and equip many church leaders. This led him eventually to join ReachGlobal in the capacity of a global equipper of church leaders. His prior ministry was great. His new ministry answered the passion in his heart to equip multiple leaders and expand his legacy.
If you have not asked that question yourself, I challenge you to do so. If you have the opportunity to ask others, try it. Questions are powerful. This one is both powerful and enlightening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)