When leaders cannot be challenged

 

Leaders are stewards: The question is what are you stewarding and for whom?

 

Most would acknowledge that leaders are stewards. By definition, stewardship means that we look after the interests of someone or something else rather than ourselves. However, what we are stewarding and for whom requires some deep thinking and regular realignment because it is easy to get this wrong. We can inadvertently steward the wrong thing! This is true whether you lead a team or an organization. 

At any one time, if we are not careful, we may be stewarding (and looking after the interests of) ourselves or others and a mission. 

Leaders have the power to set agendas and focus. They also have the opportunity to look out for their interests or the interests of others. They can guard or give away authority and power. In fact, when a leader guards their authority, rather than sharing it, it is a sign that their stewardship is more about them than it is about others. 

The more autonomous a leader is in their decision-making (rather than sharing that decision-making with other competent individuals), the more their stewardship is about their interests, their ego, and their power. Often, they do not see it, but those around them do.

In all of this, ego is the enemy. Ego is about me and my interests, and to the extent that we focus on retaining our power and authority or arranging things for our interests and agenda, we are stewarding ourselves, not a mission or on behalf of an organization and its staff. 

There are four characteristics of those who are true stewards rather than faux stewards.

One: they think mission and something greater than themselves, talk about that mission, and encourage the whole organization to align their work around the accomplishment of that mission. It is not about themselves but about something greater than themselves.

Two: they lead from a place of great humility. This means that they bring others into the decision-making process, don't need to get their own way, admit when they are wrong, are non-defensive, open, and take differing opinions easily. 

Three: They share decision-making, power, and authority in appropriate ways, giving these to other competent people rather than hoarding them for themselves.

Four: They genuinely care about people around them, and their words, interactions, and actions reflect that care. Ego-driven people care about themselves, while humble leaders care about others. 

If you lead others, take a moment to reflect on this issue of stewardship and the four markers of those who are true stewards. All of us can improve, and this is an issue that leaders need to be aware of on a regular basis. 

Nine internal threats to any organization

Every organization faces threats to its existence and future health. While leaders are often aware of external threats, such as changes in the environment, competition, or technological advances, they often spend less time considering the internal threats within their own organization. Internal threats are often equally or more dangerous than external threats. 

Lack of clarity 
Few threats are more dangerous than a lack of organizational clarity. Diffusion of focus means that different leaders within the organization will choose their own focus leading to multiple agendas and the resulting silos. This is a severe threat because it divides the organization from within. Many well-meaning but disparate agendas cannot substitute for a clearly articulated vision, mission, common guiding principles, and clearly delineated culture. Lack of clarity creates a dangerous diffusion of energy, focus, and strategy. 

Undefined DNA
Every organization has a culture, a DNA. Unfortunately, many have multiple cultures, which means they don't have a single, unified culture. This is not only confusing to staff, but differing cultures will bring with them division and conflict within the organization. Ironically, it is something that we can control and create if we choose to. Culture does not happen by accident. It must be intentionally designed to be meaningful. And it must be emphasized and lived out daily, with leaders setting the tone and the pace. 

Overlooked behaviors
In many business and ministry settings, we overlook behaviors toxic to the organization's health. We don't want to lose the person (despite their behavior), don't want to deal with it (conflict avoidance), or just become used to destructive behaviors to others and the organization, but this corrodes trust, hurts others, and creates cynicism. When we overlook unhealthy behaviors, we allow those behaviors to sabotage the organization, and we send a message that such behaviors are OK. Overlooked behaviors undermine a healthy culture. 

Lack of a leadership bench
This one is hazardous. The test of outstanding leadership is not what happens when we are leading but when we leave because it reveals what we did or did not leave behind. The most important thing we can gift the organization is the next generation of leaders. Not only is it dangerous to ignore the development of future leaders, but it is selfish because someone will inherit what we leave behind.

Inadequate focus on actual results
All organizations are busy with a great deal of activity. The question, though, is not whether we have activity but whether we have results based on our clarity (see above). Most organizations, especially in the not-for-profit space, assume the results are good but need a realistic mechanism to ensure they are. Remember, activity does not equal results. It may just equal activity. Accountability for results must be built into the rhythm of every staff member and team.

Poor staff development
Every organization says its people are its most important asset, but many do little in coaching, mentoring, and developing their staff. To not place significant and intentional emphasis on what truly is your most important asset is to rob your staff of becoming all they could become and to shortchange your organization's impact. Organizations are only as good as the people they have, and the key to better organizations is the ongoing development of staff. When this is not a priority, it speaks poorly to the culture and the organization's future.

Lack of focus on healthy teams
Organizations are made up of groups, and those groups are either healthy teams or dysfunctional teams. Aligned, results-oriented, healthy teams working synergistically together under good leadership are the building blocks of a healthy and productive organization. There will only be health at the organizational level if there is health at the team level. 

A closed rather than an open culture

Closed cultures resist open, candid dialogue. I define robust dialogue as a culture where any issue can be put on the table, with the exception of a hidden agenda or personal attack. The best organizations are open because it is in open dialogue that better ways are found. Closed systems require people to simply accept what they are told. This is a threat to the organization and inhibits better ideas. It also creates cynicism.

Poor EQ of leader(s)

No truth is more pertinent than the fact that the EQ of a leader directly impacts the health of an organization's culture. The responsibility of leaders is to be in an EQ growth mode all the  time. The responsibility of boards is to ensure that leaders create a healthy culture because they are themselves healthy. If not, they need to mandate growth in necessary areas. Organizations rarely rise above the EQ of their leader's health.

The good news about internal threats to our success is that we can do something significant about them. We cannot control external threats, but we can contain internal threats. 

Overcoming the need to control so your staff can flourish

 

Many leaders need to understand the power of moving from high control and a hierarchical structure to a light touch where staff feels empowered rather than controlled. 

Before you say to yourself, "I release staff rather than control them," you might want to check with your staff because, in most cases where leaders believe they empower and release staff, their staff says just the opposite. In fact, when I do culture audits of staff and report back to the senior leader, he/she is almost always surprised when they hear that their team perceives the culture as controlling rather than empowering. 

If you want to find out what the staff thinks, consider asking your team to answer the following three questions: 

"Would you describe the staff culture as controlling - where you need permission to do something, or empowered where you have the freedom to do what you need to do to accomplish your job? Why? How does it make you feel?"

This is a standard question I ask in staff audits, and the responses are revealing and often discouraging, as the majority of staff often report that it is a controlling culture. 

The third question, "How does it make you feel?" is essential. I will often hear responses like:

• "The organization hired me for my ability and expertise, but I cannot do anything without permission. I wish they would trust me rather than to doubt me."
• "I am seriously considering looking for a different job because my expertise and gifts are not being used here. If I don't do something the way my boss would, I hear about it and often have to back up and do it his/her way."
• "I cannot even spend small amounts of money without permission. That holds things up and is frankly demeaning. If I screw up, OK, tell me, but give me what I need to do the job without asking permission."
• "In our organization, decisions need to be made at least twice. First, by me and my team then I have to go through the same stuff with my supervisor, who feels free to override what our team has worked on. You feel disempowered and wonder why you put all the time and effort into a plan when you are often told to do things differently."

Because I often guide organizations through culture change, I also see the fantastic transformation when staff is released from control, trusted to make good decisions, and don't have to ask permission for most of what they do. That transformation is nothing less than impressive - and transformational to the culture.

I hear staff saying, "I cannot believe it. I don't need to ask permission anymore." "I feel much more valued and trusted than I did before." "I feel like I have been let out of my cage, and my self-confidence has increased exponentially." "My happiness factor in my job has gone way up, and I'm not looking to move anymore." "I am waiting to see if our freedom will last or our leaders will try to control us again."

This is all about moving from a permission-withholding organization where you cannot act without permission to a permission-granting organization with the freedom to work within established boundaries.

There is another significant advantage to a permission-granting culture. In a permission-withholding culture, staff doesn't have to take ownership of their work. After all, their supervisor is the one who allows, disallows, or modifies their work. If it doesn't work, that is the supervisor's issue since the staff followed his/her directives.

But when you move to a permission-granting culture. Staff develops the plan to achieve the objectives, and therefore, they must take responsibility for the success or failure of the effort. There is far more corporate buy-in and ownership in permission-granting cultures than in a permission-withholding culture. Which do you want for your organization?

Here is the great irony. We control staff so that everything goes smoothly. In the process, we disempower staff and create low morale, which translates into less ownership - the exact opposite of what we need and want from staff. When we release control of staff (within established boundaries), they flourish, are engaged, and take ownership, which is what we need and want. 

Those who control loose! Those who empower win!

Two things every supervisor must give their staff

 

Nine signs that our ego is getting in the way of our leadership

 

When boards ignore the obvious, people get hurt

 

Here is a scenario that I have seen repeated too often. The board of a large church asked me for help regarding conflict between the senior leader and two other leaders who had just been fired, causing an uproar in the congregation.

I discovered that there were at least six staff members who had been fired or left the church on their own accord in the past two years. I asked the board if they (or anyone) had conducted exit interviews, and of course, the answer was no. I interviewed each of these staff members, and the story was a similar account of abuse and bullying by the senior leader. This was not a case of benign neglect of staff but of active belligerence and unkindness toward his reports. 

I asked why the board had not explored these issues, knowing that there was a pattern. They didn't have much to say. Unfortunately this is one of many instances where I have seen boards ignore the obvious because they did not want to wade into unpleasant waters or challenge their leader. 

In their lack of due diligence, they become complicit in the dysfunctional culture created by their leader and the unfortunate pain caused to staff members poorly treated. In this case, when the issues were brought to light with the congregation, the entire board resigned and new board members were elected. 

Boards have responsibilities to guard the culture and health of the organization they represent. When they don't do that in the face of obvious leadership issues, they become complicit. They contribute to the pain of others. And that disfunction spills over into the rest of the organization.