The power of truth in as an accelerator of growth

The willingness to look truth in the eyes is one of the keys to organizational health. Too often, leaders gloss over problems and issues in the organization they lead rather than facing them squarely, admitting that they exist and using that reality as an opportunity to grow, become better and rattle the comfort of the status quo. The very thing we are often afraid to admit - our organizational shortcomings become powerful tools for change when named.

From time to time I receive a call from a ministry or industry leader who says, "We have a problem,  would you be willing to help us figure it out, identify it and solve it." That immediately tells me that this organization has the courage to be truthful about their situation, allow a third party who has fresh eyes to look at it and use the information to improve. It takes courage to bring in an outside party who can name the issues and help frame the solutions. 

Often we gloss over issues and problems that we know are resident within our organization as if ignoring them will somehow help them go away. We gloss out of fear, because we are afraid of what we might actually find or because we are conflict avoidant. It is a mistake! It is a mistake because the very problems we seek to ignore could become our greatest accelerators of growth if we were willing to face them squarely, name them and focus on solving them. 

I live by a simple leadership premise (and it works personally as well). Truth about our situation can be one of the greatest accelerators of growth when we are willing to face reality and solve problems. Seen in that light, problems are an opportunity not a threat. Truth has power. Wishful thinking does not.

Ministry founders and their ability or inability to take the ministry they founded to a place of maturity

I have come to the conclusion that it is harder to bring a ministry to maturity than it is to found one. That does not mean that ministry start ups are easy - they are not. However, what they require in the beginning -  moxie, energy, vision and enthusiasm is different than what is required to bring them to maturity - discipline, empowering others, letting go of control and being a steward of a vision and mission rather than of a ministry.

In fact, the very skills needed to start a ministry may keep it from maturing into an enduring ministry. After all, ministries start with the vision of a person but enduring ministries are driven by a team who have a common vision. Ministries start by the seat of the pants while enduring ministries exist with disciplined excellence. Ministries start with a fair amount of control by the founder while enduring ministries are not dependent on the founder but where authority and empowerment is given away to qualified individuals. Ministries start with a fair amount of chaos (you do what you have to do) while enduring ministries endure because of stability.

In my experience no more than 50% of ministry founders are able or willing to transition from the start up stage to an enduring ministry stage. And that statistic may well be generous. Why is this?

First, it means giving up control of something we have birthed. For anyone that is hard. For some, it is impossible. It is "their" ministry and that is how they see it. Yet enduring ministries belong to a group with a common vision not an individual. Unwillingness to give up control allows the ministry to go only as far as the founder can take it with his/her span of control.

Second, it means delegating responsibility and authority. An unwillingness to give up control makes this hard for some and impossible for others.

Third, it means allowing the ministry to develop through a shared vision of others not the singular vision of the founder. This inevitably means that the founder is no longer the singular voice and this is how it should be. Only a shared vision with at shared plan can move from the founder stage to and enduring stage. But, the founder must be willing to allow this to happen and believe that the shared vision of the right group of leaders will be even better and more enduring than the singular vision of a single leader

Fourth, it means that the vision and mission become more important to the founder than that of controlling what she/he birthed. Enduring spiritual influence comes from an attitude that what we have birthed belongs to Jesus alone, not to us. We were simply the servants that Jesus used to birth what He wanted to birth. To the extent that I am unwilling to give up control even when that would be the best for the ministry itself - I am believing that it is more about me than it is about Him. And when this happens, it often is to the very detriment of the ministry He used us to found. Ministry founders can both start and hurt the same ministry depending on how they steward it.

From the moment a ministry is founded, good leaders understand that they play a unique role for a season. If they are unwilling to see their role change in the next season, they limit that which God used them to initiate. I have watched founding leaders make both good and poor choices in this and their choices impacted the ministry they founded for better or for worse.

Taking a ministry from start up to maturity is not easy. It comes with losses But if done well it comes with kingdom impact and even greater influence than when initiated.

Communicating in a matrix world - it is everyone's responsibility

Communication builds trust and trust minimizes conflict because information is power. The issue of how an organization designs systems where the right information gets to the right people at the right time so that good decisions can be made and everyone know what they need to know is complex. When it comes to information, everyone has an opinion and expectations are hard to meet. Some common complaints I hear are:

We don't get enough information.
We get too much information.
I don't know everything that is happening.
You did not solicit my opinion or input before you made the organizational decision.
My leaders don't tell me what is going on at their level.
Leaders can cascade information down through the organization but how do I send information back up to them?

There are some principles that if understood and practiced would help address these and similar concerns.

In today's flat world, communications is from the top down, the bottom up and horizontal all at once.

While there must be intentional organizational communication, the day of leaders simply telling the organization what it needs to know is long gone. I receive up to 100 emails per day, from people throughout our organization, from national ministry partners, from donors and pastors on any number of issues. And, I reply to every one of them or I ensure that the one who can address the issue they have raised replies to them.

One of the great blessings of our day is the access to information from many sources and the ability for most to quickly communicate throughout the organization to share insights, express opinions, offer solutions or share challenges. This works both ways. In the traditional top-down organizational structure, employees knew primarily what their leaders wanted to tell them. And, leaders knew primarily what their reports chose to pass back to them. No longer: I can solicit or receive unsolicited information from anywhere in the organization and so can anyone else in the organization.

In today's flat world, it is the responsibility of every team member to share information that needs to be shared with whom it needs to be shared and to solicit needed information in order to make healthy decisions.

Here is a paradigm shift. In the old paradigm, it was primarily the job of leaders to communicate pertinent information throughout the organization. In the flat world, it is the job of everyone to share relevant information that they possess to those who need to know it regardless of where they fit in the organization.

And, it is the responsibility of each of us to solicit information we need (if we don't have it) from those who do have it to make the best-possible decisions. Rather than allowing a culture of blame to exist (you didn't tell me), we need to create cultures of proactive communication in which people at all levels of the organization are responsible to others at all levels of the organization. This is empowering for those who practice it because anyone, at any level of the organization has the ability to influence the direction of the organization if they are willing to share what they know or solicit information they need to have to do their job well.

Flat organizations that are intentionally healthy create an egalitarian communications culture where everyone has the responsibility and freedom to communicate with those who need information they have and to solicit information they need. At the same time they retain organizational structure and accountability and the support for decisions by the right people at the right level of the organization. The central theme here is that every one of us has responsibility to communicate relevant information, not just some of us.

Not everyone needs to know everything

Small organizations are like families. In families, everyone kind of knows what everyone is kind of doing. It happens naturally through family relationships, shared meals and relational proximity. As organizations grow, this changes because of the complexities of ministries, relationships, the number of personnel and the need for everyone to focus on their particular areas of responsibility.

For those who were in the organization when it was small, this is a tough transition because where they always used to be in the know, they no longer are. This is a painful transition for staff members in growing churches.

Historically, the organization I lead has called itself a family. And, back in the '60s when the denomination was small and the mission family was small, it felt like family. Today, it is not a family but an organization because you cannot be 'family' with 550 personnel scattered across 40 countries of the world (Except by Facebook). Thus, like a church that has grown out of the family state (at about 150 people), we have as well but the expectation is still there by some (who remember the old days) to think we are family.

A family knows what is going on with all its members, a clan does not. When people say to me, "I don't know everything that is happening anymore," I reply, "neither do I." The truth is that I need to know certain things, but not a lot of things. I expect members of the organization to share significant breakthroughs or issues, and always their concerns. But much of what happens I don't know. I am trusting good people to do the right thing. Anyone who expects to know everything, or even most things in a growing organization, will be disappointed by their unrealistic expectation.

In a flat organization everyone has responsibility for communication:
To communicate concerns to appropriate people.
To communicate with appropriate parties after decisions are made.
To solicit information that is needed for making wise decisions from any level of the organization.
To alert leadership of barriers, concerns and opportunities.
To be as transparent as possible on any issues that are raised.
To recognize that no one will know everything.
To take personal responsibility for getting information they need rather than complaining that they did not get it.

Your organization has a mission but has it created a culture that will support that mission?

Most organizations are clear on their mission - a good thing. What many organizations don't understand, however, is that unless you have a culture that supports the mission it is unlikely that you will fulfill it the way you desire to. In other words, an inadequately designed organizational culture can sabotage your ability to achieve your mission.

Many churches, for instance are committed to introducing people to Christ and helping them grow in Him - a good way to understand the Great Commission. However, if the culture does not reflect the Great Commandment - Loving God with all our heart and loving our neighbors as ourselves. What attracts people to Christ? The grace and love of Jesus as expressed through His people. No matter how much a church might want to see people come to Him, unless they have a culture that reflects Him, it will rarely happen. The culture sabotages the mission!

The mission of New Life Church in Stockholm Sweden is to Impact our world with Hope. That will not happen unless they have a culture of Hope - which they have defined in this way: Hope in the transforming power of the Gospel; Hope that we can be transformed; Hope that others can be transformed; and Hope that our world can be transformed.  With a constant emphasis on this culture of hope New Life Church cannot help but be a place of hope and impact their world with hope. Their culture is designed to support their mission.

Many businesses have mission statements that reflect a commitment to their customers but do not have an intentionally created culture that reflects that commitment. Without a culture designed to put the customer first, those mission statements mean little to nothing. It is easy to write a mission statement. It is much harder to create a culture that supports the mission.

Take a moment to consider the mission of your ministry or business. I assume you believe in the mission. Have you intentionally created a culture within the organization that is designed to support that mission? Could you describe that culture and could your staff and people define it? If not, this needs to become a priority. Attention to your culture can significantly help you live out your mission. It is an investment worth making.

Grey thinking

A secret of wise individuals and leaders is the ability to evaluate all sides of a potential decision, listen carefully to those who are part of the decision or will be impacted by it while keeping all options open until the decision must be made.

This is called thinking grey.

All key decisions have consequences, some of them unintentional. The better one understands the consequences and can smoke out the unintended consequences the better. That takes time and time is the ally of all good decisions. The faster we make key decisions the greater the risk of a significant downside.

Leaders who practice grey thinking are upfront with others who should have input that they are mulling on a certain course of action but that they have not made a decision. They invite input without making premature commitments regarding their ultimate course of action. And, they are willing when they are processing but have not come to a decision to say, "I am thinking grey on that." 

Some leaders are unable to say those words, thinking that they always need to have an answer. Good leaders willingly admit that they may not have an answer but in telling staff that they are thinking grey they invite conversation and dialogue until a decision has been made.

Finally, good leaders don't make a decision until they need to. The longer one can put off a decision without hurting the organization, the more time one has to get clarity on the issues and clarity allows one to make better decisions. Many decisions made by leaders would have been better made or better executed if they had taken more time to think grey before pulling the trigger.

All good supervision is relational

It is a simple concept but one that is often forgotten: All good supervision is relational. 

Too often, we make supervision a mechanical matter - developing systems (not bad in itself), reports (nothing wrong with them) and accountability systems (always a good idea). But, it is easy to forget that in the end, a supervisor's influence with the staff they are responsible for comes down to relationship. The better the relationship the more effective the supervision.

Staff don't want to be treated mechanically but as individual people. Some say one should treat everyone the same. That is foolish: people are different and needed to be treated differently. Over the years I have supervised many wonderful individuals who are just that - individuals whose needs, situations and wiring were all different. My time and relationship with each was different because they were different. In addition, how much face time each needed with TJ were different.

Relationship means that a good supervisor talks face to face both formally and informally with staff. We care about our staff as individuals and know something about their work, their family and their lives. We ask questions about them, not just about their work. We manage by walking around and interacting. And when we meet formally we have a dialogue rather than a monologue.

The better the relationship with those we supervise, the more our influence because the best supervision is deeply relational. Relationships build trust and understanding, building blocks to developing engaged staff. 

The difference between defensiveness and defending your position

I am a big fan of good EQ (Emotional Intelligence) and one of the hallmarks of good EQ is the ability to be non-defensive when challenged. A non-defensive posture is one where we can listen to the push back of others without our emotions getting in the way (anger, anxiety), listen with respect and have a productive dialogue.

But non-defensiveness does not mean that we do not defend our position on a matter. In fact, people with good EQ are self-defined. They know what they think and are able to state their position clearly, even with those who might disagree.

This raises an interesting issue. I often hear people say about others, "They would not listen to me," or "they were defensive." What they are usually saying is "They did not agree with me." Those are not the same thing. I can non-defensively listen to another position while still holding my own and defending it. If I listen to you carefully and don't get hijacked by my emotions, I can do it non-defensively and still defend my particular position. Because I did not agree with the other party does not mean that I did not listen or became defensive. It simply means that I hold a different view and did not change my mind to agree with them.

In fact, a sign of poor EQ is the expectation that because I believe something that others need to agree with me. Often that will not be the case and it is why collaborative decision making is both characterized by robust dialogue and better decisions. Each of us can bring the best to the table.

Don't be afraid to defend your position while being open to modifying it if there is good reason to. And don't assume that people didn't listen to others or were defensive just because they did not agree.