Here is an interesting question. We talk much about EQ (Emotional Intelligence) as it relates to individuals but do ministries also have a corporate EQ? I believe that they do: It is the combined EQ level of its leadership and staff and it has profound implications for the overall effectiveness of the ministry. My observations come out of two decades plus of working with ministry organizations.
Here are some of the markers of good and poor organizational or ministry EQ.
How we handle conflict
This is a biggie! I once worked with a troubled church where any disagreement with the senior leader was seen as a lack of loyalty and works like "submission" and "obedience" along with ubiquitous scripture references were bandied around frequently. Then there were "charges" against those whose behavior was seen as "sinful" and "admonitions" to those who had crossed some line.
While this may seem extreme - and it is more common than it should be - there are many ministries that don't know how to deal with conflict, differences, or simply resolve differences quickly and without major drama. The upshot is not only relationships that do not get healed but often conflict escalates rather than de-escalates, becomes a matter of obedience or submission (so now we are in the realm of sin and righteousness) but it steals amazing amounts of time from what could be productively spent elsewhere.
I am always way when Scripture plays a big part in ministry conflict - used as a defense or hammer. What it often reveals is the defensiveness of the one using it and the spiritualization of what is often just a difference of opinion.
How we handle candid dialogue
This is the corollary. There are organizations that reflecting their leadership are "defensive" organizations, unable to tolerate, invite, listen to and value differences of opinion. Healthy organizations allow the free flow of opinions, ideas, viewpoints and convictions rather than stifle them.
When healthy EQ is present, these organizations actually realize far greater innovation and effectiveness and there is a spirit of freedom. When unhealthy EQ is present there is often fear in expressing one's opinions because it leads to conflict (above) and the inability of the organization to deal with that conflict.
How we treat people
In healthy organizational EQ, staff are valuable individuals who do ministry with - not for - their leaders. There is an egalitarian ethos where all are treated with dignity and their opinions valued no matter where they fall on the organizational chart. Whenever staff feel that they are used for the benefit of leadership or the mission there are EQ issues that are being played out.
A good test in any organization on this score is how we treat people who are at our level or below (organizationally). If there is the same honor and value placed on those who fall below us on the org chart ans there is on those above us it is a sign of good EQ.
How we deal with criticism
This goes to the issue of candid dialogue but to a different level. The ability of people to speak to dysfunction or push back in a healthy manner on one another is a critical EQ issue, especially for leaders who are most often impacted. Healthy organizations have a "nothing to to prove, nothing to lose" attitude that responds to critique non-defensively rather than with defensiveness. When that stance is taken, there are no issues because there is no defensiveness.
When leaders respond defensively there is usually a built in probability of conflict where there did not need to be. Church leaders often get themselves into trouble here by taking critique personally and circling the wagons to defend themselves. Why is that necessary and why should those who attend the church not have the ability to speak into issues that concern them? How leaders respond to critique is a sign of the EQ of the organization as a whole.
Organizational pride or humility
Ministries can be prideful or humble. The truth is that pride is always a sign of low EQ and it negatively impacts the organization because it is not able to see itself objectively. I have worked with churches, for instance, who went through an era where they were a "big deal" in their community. Decades later, even when facing decline of significant issues of health their perception of themselves is that they are still that "big deal." Unfortunately it keeps them from seeing themselves as they truly are and being willing to take a good look in the mirror.
Proud ministries don't partner well with others (they have an attitude that they can always do it better), resist any good ideas that are not their's (thus if they didn't produce it - it is not worthy), talk among themselves about how special they are and how pedestrian other ministries are and have an elevated view of themselves. Humble ministries partner well, are always looking to learn from others, understand the small place they play in the grand scheme of God and rather than lifting themselves up simply seek to do the best they can and encourage other ministries along the way.
It is worth some thinking and dialogue within your ministry as to what the EQ of your ministry is. Of course it takes humility to be willing to do that just as it does for us personally.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Is my leadership about me or about Him?
One of the fundamental differences between Saul’s leadership and David’s leadership in the Old Testament was its focus. For Saul, it was about him. He was king, he had the power and he believed that he could make the critical calls without heeding Godly advice or even God’s advice. Essentially leadership was about him. It was a self centered leadership and a selfish leadership.
Leaders who believe that it is about them become arrogant leaders who believe their own press and believe that since they got into the position it must mean that they are pretty good and have the wisdom to make the calls. One sees this in political leaders on a regular basis – and among many business leaders.
leaders in the God’s arena, however, know that we play by a different set of rules. For us, leadership is a trust. Peter makes this clear when he says to elders of the church, “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers – not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away” (1 Peter 5:2-4).
What is intriguing in this passage is that Paul eliminates the motives for leadership that drive leaders – money, power and personal agendas. In fact, he makes it clear that our leadership is simply a “trust” given to us by the true leader of the church – Christ. And, he says that the core of our leadership comes from who we are and the depth that has been developed within us when he tells us to lead by being examples to the flock. He is saying that the most powerful influence, the deepest influence that we will have as leaders comes from our lives, and our lives are simply the outward expression of our inner core.
This frankly is the missing element in many who give leadership to the church. They may be good leaders but their lives do not reflect a deep inner core of spiritual maturity, wisdom, understanding and attitudes that come from a deep place within themselves. Often it is not a leadership of deep influence but rather a shallow leadership that is more about their agenda for the congregation than God’s agenda. Not necessarily out of lack of desire to serve well but because the spiritual depth has not been developed that naturally spills out in their thinking, actions and attitudes. It is a leadership that has not been marinated in the things of God.
The reason the distinction between leadership about me or Him is so central to our leadership role is that as leaders of ministries, God has an agenda for how our church or organization can specifically contribute to His work in this world. Understanding that agenda and how we can serve His plan can only come out of relationship, dependence and an understanding of what God wants to do in our world. It is not primarily about our wisdom but about His presence and our understanding of Him informing all that we do as leaders under his Lordship.
Deep influence is about influence that has been deeply informed by our relationship with God, our understanding of his character through scripture, the wisdom that comes from above rather than simply from ourselves, and the personal character, wisdom, and dependence that spills out of our lives because of the deep waters within. The deeper our leadership is informed by God and His agenda and His character within us, the deeper our influence. Our influence is actually His influence lived through us!
This last truth is the greatest reason that we ought to do all we can to go deep with God. Our influence is connected to His influence. We become His agents of influence when our lives are deeply connected and informed by Him. Our leadership is an extension of His leadership which is precisely why Peter calls elders in the church shepherds who work for the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:2-4).
Our leadership is an extension of His leadership. Any eternal influence we have is an extension of His influence. Our effectiveness as leaders is directly connected to the depth of our connection and relationship with Him. Clearly, our leadership is therefore about Him and not about us. The question is whether our leadership reflects that truth.
The rear view mirror
Some things belong in our rear view mirror rather than our worrying, feeling guilty or obsessing about them. Here is a truth that many of us find hard to accept: Some situations we cannot fix, some people we cannot change and some problems we cannot solve. Often when we run up against such walls we feel guilty that we could not make it right, we wonder how we get through to people who don't want to hear and we feel anxious that we didn't do all that we could.
How many supervisors have agonized before, during and after letting someone go who needed to go! As a consultant I have encountered clients that I could not much help and watched good ministries settle for what is rather than what could be. Or, that relative who we want to help but isn't open to input. These situations can be anxiety and guilt producing and we constantly re-saw the sawdust in our mind. Or, we have finally got rid of that highly dysfunctional leader who made our life miserable but we keep dwelling on the pain.
Here is a second truth: God does not expect us to solve all the dilemmas we encounter. People make choices, organizations make choices, and some folks are not interested in hearing or changing. That is not our issue so why do we obsess about issues we cannot change?
There are some phrases that apply here: "It is done, put it behind us," "get over it," "put it in the rear-view mirror and move on." "It is not our responsibility." "We cannot solve someone's problem who does not want to hear." "Some people like their dysfunction and drama." "Let it go."
When we hang on to stuff we cannot solve we take responsibility for things that are not ours. It is wasted energy to be sure and highly unproductive to say nothing of stress producing. Let it go and put it in the rear view mirror where it belongs.
How many supervisors have agonized before, during and after letting someone go who needed to go! As a consultant I have encountered clients that I could not much help and watched good ministries settle for what is rather than what could be. Or, that relative who we want to help but isn't open to input. These situations can be anxiety and guilt producing and we constantly re-saw the sawdust in our mind. Or, we have finally got rid of that highly dysfunctional leader who made our life miserable but we keep dwelling on the pain.
Here is a second truth: God does not expect us to solve all the dilemmas we encounter. People make choices, organizations make choices, and some folks are not interested in hearing or changing. That is not our issue so why do we obsess about issues we cannot change?
There are some phrases that apply here: "It is done, put it behind us," "get over it," "put it in the rear-view mirror and move on." "It is not our responsibility." "We cannot solve someone's problem who does not want to hear." "Some people like their dysfunction and drama." "Let it go."
When we hang on to stuff we cannot solve we take responsibility for things that are not ours. It is wasted energy to be sure and highly unproductive to say nothing of stress producing. Let it go and put it in the rear view mirror where it belongs.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Opaque boards: When boards do their work in private rather than in the board room
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)