A Nation of Christians Is Not Necessarily a Christian Nation - David French

 

THE FRENCH PRESS

A Nation of Christians Is Not Necessarily a Christian Nation

We cannot equate Christian power with Christian justice.

If you lead others, evaluate yourself against these 12 traits of a good supervisor

 

The best supervisors practice behaviors that build healthy staff and healthy teams. Consider these twelve characteristics of a good supervisor and evaluate how you do in these areas.

I Provide clear expectations to those who report to me

I provide clear expectations to those I supervise so they are never surprised.

I am accessible

My most important priority is the success of those who are part of my team. They get the best of me rather than the leftovers of my time and energy.

I am proactive in coaching.

Coaching and mentoring are always on my mind. How can I help my staff become more successful and develop them as people personally and professionally?

I provide the resources to get the job done.

When I give an assignment, I ensure that staff have what they need to accomplish the work.

I give candid and helpful feedback.

I am honest, candid, and gracious in providing feedback to direct reports. My goal is to help them grow and be the best that they can be. I don't shy away from hard conversations but am kind in my feedback.

I model what I espouse.

I walk the walk and live the talk. What I expect from others I model in my own work and practice. I don't ask of others what I am unwilling to do.

I am collegial in my relationships.

My staff are colleagues and not simply my employees. We are a team, and we will only be successful with one another. I treat them as valued team members and am always respectful.

I do not micromanage.

People need the freedom to figure things out and use their skills and creativity to accomplish their goals. I do not try to micromanage their work.

I craft a healthy team.

Everyone's happiness factor is affected by the health or dishealth of our team. I do all I can to ensure the healthiest team possible and deal with individuals who create dissonance on a team through relational issues or incompetence.

I insist on healthy practices.

Believing that culture is what is created or allowed, I seek to intentionally create a healthy culture while being clear that unhealthy practices, attitudes, or words are not part of that culture.

I listen well.

Knowing that all good relationships are based on healthy communication, I listen more than I speak and engage my staff in dialogue rather than defaulting to simply telling them what to do.

I care about each individual as a person.

My concern for staff is more than that they get a job done. I care about them, their health, growth, and personal circumstances in a holistic way.

Eight reasons that supervisors don't lead as well as they could

 

I suspect that many staff would not give their boss or supervisor high marks for their supervisory skills or stewardship. It is true in ministry settings as well as secular settings. I expect that in smaller organizations there might not be as much expertise in this area but poor supervision is found in organizations of all sizes.

Before I share the reasons why I believe this is the case, let me remind you of how I describe the kind of teams that supervisors ought to aspire to. A good team is a group of missionally aligned and healthy individuals working synergistically together under good leadership with accountability for results. When you consider how rare these elements are on teams one has to conclude that there is a problem with the good leadership piece of the equation.

My own work with organizations around these issues has led me to conclude that there are eight principle reasons why leadership and supervision of others is lacking the quality it ought to have. 

First, we often put supervisors in their positions without giving them the training in how to build teams, empower people, lead others and resolve conflict to name just a few of the necessary skills. It is foolish to believe that anyone can take the leadership of others without some kind of training as it is a skill to lead. Moving from being an independent producer to an organizational leader is no easy step and without coaching and mentoring many never make the transition.

Second, there is rarely a specific set of expectations that are given supervisors other than the fact that others now report to them. In my book there are at least ten critical issues that leaders of others must pay attention to but how often is the case that no one has clearly laid out what it means to lead other people?

Third, supervisors often treat the supervisory role they have as a distraction from their own work without realizing that it is the focus of their new work. Leading others is never ancillary, it must be central. In fact, this is one of the expectations that is often never communicated. When supervisors or team leaders treat this as a necessary evil, their staff read it quickly and it does not encourage them.

Fourth, most supervisors or team leaders do not know how to create clarity for those they lead as to what they are going after, what the non-negotiables are and how they will interact with one another. Lack of clarity creates conflict, confusion, lack of common direction and lack of accountability. Yet many supervisors are not taught these important skills.

Fifth, many supervisors do not empower but tend to control. Empowerment within clear boundaries creates health while control without clarity creates disempowerment. Whether because of a lack of training or a controlling nature this deficit creates dysfunctional teams.

Sixth, when team is not central, supervisors do not develop their staff. After all, that takes time and energy and the team is not their highest priority anyway. Any leader who does not develop those they lead is neglecting the leadership stewardship they have. 

Seventh, many supervisors are not held accountable for the quality of their leadership of others. That means that many supervisors have no real incentive to pay attention to building the kinds of teams I mentioned above. Especially in the Christian arena (but not only) where senior leaders don't want to confront substandard work in the name of grace or niceness this situation continues to exist. 

Eight and perhaps at the crux of the whole matter, senior leaders are not themselves committed to leading others with health or taking the time to build the kinds of healthy teams we are talking about. When the example and direction does not come from the very top, it is not going to be a priority for the rest of the organization. Unless seniors leaders care about the issue, it will never become an important issue in the organization.

I know individuals with great talent and potential who are leaving their organizations for all of the reasons above. They have not been led well and they are disillusioned by it and want their lives and energy to count. The organization ultimately loses and I hold their leaders accountable for the loss. Don't let it happen in your ministry or organization. It is a net loss for all.

4 Bold and Courageous Prayers for 2022 - Dan Reiland

 

Way beyond leadership techniques and ministry strategies, the following bold and courageous prayers will impact your ministry 

results. From the blog of Dan Reiland, The Pastor's Coach.

Seven evaluative statements for your board

 

Church boards (and other boards) often forget what good governance looks like. Not because they don't care but because, in the press of ministry life, they forget. 

A simple way to evaluate your board work is to have everyone on the board assign a number from 1 to 10 for each of the statements below. Ten signifies we do this well and consistently, and one signifies we do it poorly or inconsistently. Average out the scores for each statement and have a board conversation around it.

1. We have an outward vision rather than internal preoccupation

Churches with an outward vision do so because their boards are more occupied with thinking about how to impact the community and world rather than spending the majority of their time discussing what happens inside the church.

2. We encourage a diversity of viewpoints

Healthy boards do not do "group think" but encourage each member to think for themselves, share their thoughts, and, through the diversity of viewpoints, come to better decisions.

3. We do strategic leadership more than administrative details

Boards are not designed to spend their time on administrative details that others can do. They are designed to provide strategic leadership to the organization and grapple with the BIG rocks.

4. We have a clear distinction between the board and lead pastor roles

A lack of clarity between the responsibilities of a church board and that of a lead pastor creates either confusion or conflict. Clear distinctions between the board and lead pastor roles foster healthy relationships between the two and smoother leadership.

5. We make collective rather than individual decisions

Healthy boards make collective rather than individual decisions. They also have an understanding that once the decision is made, each member will be supportive of the decision. No individual can force their will on the board or choose not to support its decisions.

6. We are more future-focused than we are present or past-focused

The best boards have a clear focus on the future rather than on the past or present. While they may need to deal with current crises or some administrative details, their primary focus is on the future and how they can help the organization meet the needs of the future.

7. We are committed to being proactive in our leadership rather than reactive

The vast majority of church boards live in a reactive world - dealing with crises or day-to-day issues. The best boards are proactive in their leadership by setting appropriate policies and thinking about the future rather than doing reactive leadership that is focused on the present and second guessing the decisions of others.

See also, 
Church board self assessment. 15 Questions

Resilience is a key to strong and long leadership

 

There is a quality that every leader who is going to lead over the long haul must have. That quality is resilience. Webster defines resilience this way: "The ability to become strong, healthy, or successful again after something bad happens." I would define leadership resilience as the ability to deal with hard situations and difficult people without becoming overly emotional, angry, or cynical. It is also the ability to live with a soft heart but very thick skin and not to be discouraged by the inevitable challenges and personal attacks that leadership brings.

Leaders who lack resilience:

• Become easily discouraged
• Feel threatened and deflated when attacked
• Become emotional when things don't go their way
• Can become subject to depression and moodiness
• Are often fearful
• Can easily overact to situations that seem out of their control
• Crack under pressure

I am an avid reader of biographies and would suggest that individuals like Winston Churchill, FDR, Ronald Reagan, or Margaret Thatcher were individuals who personified resilience. Each of these was able to overcome regular difficulties, keep their cool, and continue to lead. In the New Testament, Paul certainly has this trait.

The test of leadership is not what happens when all is well but when all is hell. That is when the mettle of our souls and resolve is tested and where our resilience or lack of it becomes critical. When I hear leaders complain and feel sorry for themselves and express significant emotions, anger, and frustration, I often wonder if they have the resilience to lead well. 

Resilient ministry leaders usually have the following characteristics:

• They have thick skin and have learned how to weather personal attacks
• They take the long view and know that the irritations of the moment will pass
• Their self-worth is not wrapped up in their leadership role, and they realize that leaders are often targets
• Their focus is on the mission of the organization rather than on themselves 
• They have learned to see the tough times as leadership challenges 
• They are generally optimists and communicate hope to their teammates
• They have a good team around them
• They have a high view of God's sovereignty and, therefore, are able to trust Him
• They have learned that anxiety is wasted energy and manage it well

Resilience can be learned and should grow over time as we recognize that the crises of the moment do pass, life does go on, the world does not fall apart, and the worst possible case does not usually come to be. It has much to do with our perspective on God, on life, and on ourselves. The more we focus on ourselves, the less resilient we will be. The more we focus on the mission and on God, the more resilience we will have.

Before you send that email, think about these five things

 I just saw an email that caused me to say, "Oh my!" and it reminded me of the dangers that emails present. I suspect that if it could be recalled, it would be, but that is not possible, and now it is being circulated to places and people the author probably does not desire.

Five things to remember about all emails we send:

First: Do not assume they will not be made public. The more controversial the conversation, the greater the chances there are that whatever you write will find its way into the hands of others. All it takes is one click. Do not write anything that you don't want others to see and that you cannot substantiate. Our tone, our words, our attitudes, and our assumptions matter in print, and they can easily be wrong or badly misunderstood.

Second: Do not question the motives of others. In the first place, you may well be wrong. In the main, we cannot know what those motives really are. Conversations may unearth them, but emails rarely will, and you run the risk that you have it wrong - but now in print.

Third: Do not make accusations you cannot prove, and even if you can, that will not be understood by others who might read the email. Emails are not the place to make accusations. I am reluctant to do so in person, let alone by email. And remember that even if you are right, those who are friends of the one you are writing to will rarely agree with you, and it probably will come back to bite you. Why pick fights that you don't need to pick?

Fourth: Do not use inflammatory language. The harsher the language, the tougher it is going to be to resolve whatever issue needs resolution. Inflammatory language raises the level of conflict, can be accusatory by its very nature, and is unnecessary in an email. Even if everything you say is true, third parties who may see the email will inevitably take exception to you and what you wrote - and you will lose coinage.

Five: Don't make a threat by email. There may be consequences to someone's actions, but rarely is it helpful to threaten them in a way that could go public or that will be misunderstood by third parties.

If one is tempted to send an email that violates any of these five principles, it is a smart practice to first wait 24 hours before sending it and second to have a colleague you trust read it. If it has implications for your organization or ministry, show it to your supervisor before sending it because if it comes back to haunt you, it will also haunt them.