What you need to know when you are going to suggest major change

Before a whitewater-rafting trip, a good guide is going to sit everyone down in the calm water and tell them what to expect. The reason is simple: knowing what is in store lowers the anxiety level. At least we say to ourselves in the middle of the whitewater, our guide told us that it would be this way.

Here are some realities of negotiating change:

Most likely you will face resistance. This is normal. Don't be anxious or discouraged when your great ideas face resistance; that is simply how many people are wired.

A few loud voices will often seek to shut down the change process. This is normal too. Don't allow their voices to keep you from doing what you need to do, even if they make threats. An exception to this would be individuals who you know have great wisdom and a history of being supportive (not squeaky wheels) and who have significant 'coinage' with you and others. Not everyone's voice carries the same weight.

Some people may threaten to leave to leave your church or organization. This is normal. The more intentional you are as leaders, the more resistance you will encounter from a few because you are messing with the status quo. It is not unusual for some people to leave a church or organization when key directional decisions are made. To cave into their threats is to compromise the kingdom impact of your ministry because of a few loud voices. Don't cave!

You may have leaders who suggest that you revoke the suggested changes, even though they agreed with the need before pushback occurred. This is normal, although unfortunate. True leaders don't retreat from something they believe to be right, just because their proposed change causes waves. Whitewater is all about waves. Change is about waves. Leaders who cannot live with waves are probably in the wrong place.

The greater the change, the more uncomfortable you may feel. This is normal. In the middle of the whitewater it is hard to think calmly. Change produces anxiety in people, which will cause you anxiety. Stay the course, keep your anxiety low and work the process.

You will get wet. This is normal. when the boat is bucking, water comes over the sides. When equilibrium is upset, people say things that are sinful and take shots at those who caused the waves. Respond in ways that lower the tension and stay the course. If you know you'll get wet going in, you won't feel as uncomfortable when it happens.

Did you see the theme here? This is normal. so often in the midst of change, when we are getting wet and are surrounded by whitewater, we question our decisions: We are tempted to retreat; and we lose our nerve, thinking that we must have really screwed up to be where we are No! All of this is normal. Expect it and negotiate it with wisdom, patience and low anxiety.

Issues to consider when hiring new staff

One of the top leadership tasks is to hire well. Every hire impacts the entire organization in a ripple fashion. Hire well and the organization becomes healthier and more effective. Hire poorly and the organization suffers. I am a fan of the concept, "hire slow, fire fast." Being slow on the hire allows you to avoid a lot of pain later.

When hiring:

Never negotiate the critical issues

Especially when hiring, it is a temptation to overlook character issues that may be present but are overshadowed by our view of a person's competency and what they might bring to our team. This is a fatal mistake for a leader in any organization, but especially in Christian ministry where the character of our staff goes to the heart of our credibility. If there is any question on the character issue, walk away!

There are others who have great Christian character but don't have the right competencies or EQ. I am always amazed when someone who does not have the competencies or EQ is recommended for a position with the statement, "Well, they are really nice Christians and they want to work for a Christian organization."

Be clear on the Key Result Areas for the job as well as the competencies needed to fulfill the job

Job descriptions are not enough when you are looking to hire. Job descriptions describe the activities that the position entails. What you really need to focus on are the results you need to see for the activities. For all positions there ought to be three to five clearly defined results that, if fulfilled will spell success (Key Result Areas).

Once you know the results that spell success for the position you can determine the core competencies that you need for the individual to be successful. The core competencies are the non-negotiable skills that an individual must possess to successfully fulfill the Key Result Areas. Many things are negotiable in the hiring process and will be determined by the wiring and gifting of the individual. What are not negotiable are the core competencies since without these, there is no chance for the prospective hire to be successful.

Understand the principle: pay now or pay more later

The longer I lead and the more people I hire, the more convinced I am of the wisdom of thorough testing before hiring (I've paid plenty of dumb tax for not doing it enough). The reason we don't do more testing and due diligence is that it costs money or we are in such a hurry to hire, or we choose to be optimistic and hope for the best.

Here is the reality. You either pay now and spend the time and money to ensure the competence of your potential hire, or you pay dearly later when you have to endure the pain of letting someone go - often after enduring months or years of performance issues.

If they will be playing at a senior level in the organization (including churches) it pays to put individuals through the same executive testing that any good secular organization would use. This will help measure capacity, leadership skills, conflict resolution skills and EQ. Untold pain and frustration would be avoided if we would take the long-term view and spend what we need to spend before we hire to ensure the best fit.

Never make a hiring decision by yourself

Ask those who know you best and who have good discernment to interview those you are thinking of hiring. Do multiple interviews and listen to the gut reaction of those you bring into the process. Include interviewers that are both male and female to see how both react. Be wary of hiring if others you trust express cautions. They are probably seeing something you don't see (or don't want to see).

Make the 'need to know' list

When you are adding someone to your team make two lists: what you need to know about the candidate and what they need to know about you. You need to know their wiring, background, competency, character, culture fit, work style, level they can play at, passions, values and whatever else is important to you.

They need to understand your leadership style, how you do team, expectations that you and the organization have, values, mission, preferred future of the organization, the culture of your ministry, what they can or cannot expect from you as the leader and other significant issues that define who you are as an organization. Be brutally transparent so that they know the upside and downside of your organization. If your honesty scares them away, they are the wrong hire.

Have potential hires interview those who know you best

Have the candidate meet with and interview several people you currently lead who know you well so that they understand how you are wired, how you lead and what they can expect from your. Often those around us can give a better explanation of who we are and how we lead than we can ourselves.

Questions to ask yourself in the process

-Does this person have high EQ?

-Can this person play at the level that other members of this team play at?

-Does this individual have a skill that will complement the team?

-Is this person a team player?

-Will they contribute to the whole rather than simply guard their turf?

-Do they fully embrace the mission and values of the organization?

-Do the other members of the team think they will fit well?

-Do they have the expertise needed for the ministry in which they will participate?

-Do they understand the implications of joining your team and what the expectations are for them as a team member?

-What level of leadership and management support will they need from you?

-If they will lead others, does their leadership style fit the leadership culture of the organization?

Empowering pastors

One of the most disempowering issues for senior pastors are boards that want to second guess much of what they do - or require them to ask permission before they can act. Frequently, churches are permission withholding rather than permission granting and many senior pastors chafe under controlling boards. 

It need not be the case and in fact controlling boards actually slow down and hinder ministry rather than facilitate it. So how does a board empower their senior leader - and therefore their staff - and still ensure that adequate safeguards are in place for the organization?

One simple solution is for boards and their senior leader to sit down and delineate those thing that the leader must do and those things that the leader cannot do without board assent. In policy governance used by many boards these are called executive limitations - the limits put on the senior leader by the board. Aside from those limitations, the senior leader is free to act with "reasonable interpretation" and make decisions as they see fit. 

By putting these into policies the senior leader knows what his or her limits are and are free to make decisions consistent with the ministry vision of the church without needing to run all of those decisions by the board - a redundancy that makes for inefficient ministry. Policies that make sense in one stage of a church's life may not make sense in another and these limitations can be either relaxed or tightened depending on the need. It also clarifies which issues are management issues delegated to the senior leader and which issues are board issues so that there is no longer confusion around responsibility and authority - a common issue in church governance. 

Often in working with boards, someone will ask the question, "But what if we don't trust that our senior leader will make the right decision." The question is either about trust or about competency and if the question needs to be asked there are other issues that the board and senior leader need to work on. Often a board member is simply not willing to allow the senior leader the latitude to do their job as they want to control not empower.

It is always amusing to me to see the competencies that churches look for when hiring a senior pastor and then the lack of empowerment they give this individual who they believe matches those competencies. Pastoral work is hard enough without a board second guessing everything that one does. Clarifying what the expectations are and then giving maximum freedom outside those limitations is one of the greatest gifts a board can give their leader.

Job competency and emotional competency: which is more important?

Here is an interesting question: What makes a person competent in their job? For many of us the first answer would be that they "do their job well" referring to their professional ability. I believe, however, that professional competency is only part of the equation and that relational and emotional intelligence is just as important as professional skill.

Take a top rate accountant for instance. They may be superbly trained and incredibly accurate but if they cannot get along with their peers they will never be successful. In fact, I believe that we underestimate the impact on poor relational and emotional skills to our detriment because they impact so many others on our teams.

No matter how competent someone is in a specific skill - if they have significant relational or EQ deficits they become a real liability to the health of a team or organization. We often overlook the damage because of their skill but the truth is that a strong skill cannot make up for the negative impact of relational and EQ dishealth. 

This has two important implications. The first is that relational and EQ health must be a significant issue in the hiring process. Can they do the job is an important question. Equally important is whether they can get along with others and display healthy EQ. 

The second implication is that we need to be addressing issues of relational and EQ health on a regular basis with our staff. All of us can grow in these areas unless we have a significant personality disorder. Growth in these areas grows the health of the organization as a whole. Many individuals have never been trained in relational and EQ health. Yet it is perhaps the most significant issue in their professional and personal success.

I meet many professionally competent people. I meet fewer people whose relational and EQ health matches their professional skill. I am committed to developing both sides with our staff and certainly look at both sides when hiring.

Seven indicators of a healthy organization

Leaders are always looking for the magic bullet to differentiate their organization from others and give themselves an edge. Often, they end up chasing the wrong things. In fact, the key to a great organization is pretty simple: they focus on health. This is the opposite of a toxic workplace which is unfortunately more common than we wish.

What are the signs of a healthy organization?

One: They have great clarity about what they are about. There is no ambiguity regarding their mission, their guiding principles, what they need to focus on and what they desire to accomplish. Because of this clarity, the whole organization is on the same page and are moving in the same direction.

Two: They have a candid and trusting culture where there are no elephants (issues that cannot be discussed) and where honest dialogue is valued and expected. Unhealthy organizations shut down candid and robust dialogue as a threat. Healthy organizations encourage and expect it knowing that the only way to better solutions is honesty. This can only happen in a culture of trust which is the ground from which such honest dialogue emerges.

Three: They empower people to make necessary decisions within well defined boundaries. Controlling organizations stifle creativity and are permission withholding cultures. Healthy organizations encourage creativity and empower people as permission granting cultures. Unhealthy organizations control people through rules while healthy organizations empower people through well defined clarity (one above). Healthy organizations trust their staff while unhealthy organizations control their staff.

Four: They treat people with dignity. Great organizations are places people love to work because they value their staff and live that value in all relationships. Every organization says that their people are their most valuable asset but most organizations do not live out their stated value. Treating people with dignity means that staff are trusted, empowered, their opinions valued, failure is not fatal but a learning opportunity, and staff are regularly developed to maximize their potential. 

Five: They care about real results. Of course every organization says it cares about results but the truth is that in the ministry world very few actually have ways to measure results which means we are not truly serious! Healthy organizations have great clarity and are focused on living out that clarity for tangible results that they measure and evaluate. Healthy organizations can easily answer the question "How do you measure success?" Can yours?

Six: They constantly develop their staff. Toxic organizations use people while healthy organizations develop and grow people on a regular basis. They create a culture where emotional, relational, spiritual and skill health is both an expectation and something that is constantly growing. Healthy organizations are made up of healthy people so any focus on health must start with staff. 

Seven: They are humble. Humble organizations continue to grow because they know they have many areas where they can grow. Proud organizations actually hurt themselves by their pride. They think they have a corner on ministry and are superior to others. Great organizations take a humble posture with humble leaders and staff whose humility allows them to continually evaluate how they can do what they do better. Humility breeds a servant mentality while pride does not.

How does the organization you lead or are a part of compare to these seven indicators of health?

Leaders and managers and definitions

There is a lot of talk about leadership and some confusion about who is a leader and what it means to lead. It is easy to define organizational leadership because organizational leaders are visible, have leadership titles (president, lead pastor etc) but it is harder to define leadership at other levels or sometimes recognize that while we may not be organizational leaders many of us are in fact leaders and need to lead well. Consider these types of leadership that are critical to any organization.

Team leader: Anyone who is responsible for leading a team whether  as a paid staff member or as a volunteer is a leader. The team will only be as good as the one who helps them move toward common objectives in a healthy manner. One of the primary but often neglected responsibilities of a team leader is to ensure that what the team is doing contributes to the overall ministry objectives of the organization rather than doing their thing (one of the dysfunctions of teams).

Project leader: Those who drive strategic projects for an organization that require coordination of people, resources, teams and often outside groups or individuals. They may not have direct line authority but they use their influence to bring people together across department lines to ensure the project is successful. In some ways this requires even more skill than a team leader who has direct authority over their staff (unless they are leading volunteers).

Many would call project leaders managers. I prefer the word leader because while they are managing processes they are also leading people to ensure that the project is accomplished. If they don't lead well the project does not get accomplished. People don't like to be "managed" but they do want to be led.

Influence leader: These are individuals who have no direct or indirect authority over those they are working with apart from their personal influence that results from their expertise and experience in a particular area. They lead through mentoring, training and influencing others. A good example of this kind of leadership is the Global Equipping Team in ReachGlobal which trains in the areas of theology, church planting, pastoral skills among national partners globally. They are leaders in every sense of the word but they lead through their experience and expertise. 

Take that one step further. Those who look at your life and emulate your actions because you have influenced them are following your example. You are leading through the model of your life. Yes, leading.

Many people who don't think of themselves as leaders, actually lead. Where we lead we want to lead well. Organizational leadership is not a top down affair but is dependent on those who lead at every level of the organization starting with the leadership that is the responsibility of every one of us - self leadership.

Are you an institution or a movement?

Is the church or ministry you are a part of more of an institution or a movement? Look at this excellent description of the difference between the two by H.R. Neibuhr.

There are essential differences between institutions and movements: the one is conservative the other progressive; the one is more or less passive, yielding to influence from the outside, the other is active influencing rather than being influenced; the one looks to the past, the other to the future…the one is anxious, the other is prepared to take risks; the one guards boundaries, the other crosses them.

By this definition most churches and ministries are more institutional than they are missional. Most start their ministry journey with  missional energy and vision but over time move to the institutional side of the continuum. Institutional is more comfortable, demands less of us, requires us to think less and does not demand that we change much. It is a nice place to be.

And a very dangerous place to be! The cost of institutional is that we lose our ability to flex to meet current ministry challenges. We become comfortable with what is rather than with what could be. We become oblivious to the threats to our existence. We allow comfort to subvert effectiveness. We live with the allusion that all is well while in fact it is not!

How do you know where your ministry falls? Ask the following questions from the quote above. Better yet have all your staff and board members answer the questions and then compare notes.

1. Would we be considered conservative or progressive in our ministry paradigms?
2. Do we yield more to influences from the outside or do we influence our direction actively?
3. Do we look more to the past or more to the future?
4. Are we risk takers or risk adverse?
5. Are we afraid to try new things or actively look for new opportunities to pursue?
6. Where would we peg ourselves on the institutional/movement continuum?
7. Are we satisfied with where we are? If not what do we need to do about it?