Two key reasons for confict within organizations

Think about these equations:

Healthy people + wrong role = conflict

Unhealthy people + wrong role = conflict

Unhealthy people + right role = conflict

Healthy people + right role = effectiveness

These equations illustrate three truths. First, it explains why conflict is so prevalent within organizations. Second, it illustrates the importance of hiring healthy individuals who have good EQ and understand how to relate to others in healthy ways. Third, it reminds us that even healthy people when they are in the wrong role can create conflict with people around them.

The keys to avoiding conflict are having healthy individuals in a role that is consistent with their wiring. When this is compromised, conflict is likely to result.

Unhealthy individuals, especially in leadership roles create conflict regularly. It can be a result of poor or non-existent people skills, inability to resolve differences or conflict, poor self awareness, hubris and a quest for power or any number of EQ (Emotional Intelligence) issues that leaves a wake of relational issues behind them.

When hiring, pay close attention to EQ skills and deficits. If you miss something and find that an individual leaves relational issues in their wake, get them coaching and if that does not work, move them to a position where they will not cause conflict. Don't allow an individual to create ongoing issues within your organization. It is counter productive, will hurt your return on mission and is unfair to staff who are impacted.

What about conflict with healthy individuals who are cast in the wrong role? This is conflict based in the skill set of the individual and not in their Emotional Intelligence. For instance, you can have a leader who does not know how to delegate, who micromanages, who changes their minds on a regular basis, who has no definable strategy and we could go on. This is not because they are unhealthy people. It is because they are in a job that is inconsistent with their wiring.

Getting the right people into the right role is absolutely critical to building a healthy organization. If you need to make adjustments for this to happen - do it. The alternative of conflict is a trade off you don't want to make.

Overestimating our skill and underestimating our weaknesses

It should not be a surprise that we are often prone to overestimate our skill and underestimate our weaknesses. This can have the affect of trusting our instincts too much in the first instance and not understanding how our weaknesses impact others in the second. 

Take for instance, an individual who is good at strategy. Because they have skill in determining strategy they can downplay the input of others, trusting their own analysis and conclusions. Yet, no one has the ability to think of all the consequences of any strategy or anticipate all the variables that can impact its success. Thus by not listening to others this leader is hurting the organization in their overconfidence in their own abilities. Their good ideas can fail because they overestimated their skill. 

It is not unusual for highly skilled individuals to fail to bring others into the conversation - a weakness born out of confidence and a perceived lack of need of others. In their overconfidence they also underestimate the impact of not listening to those around them. Few things are more demotivating than to give helpful and valid input to a plan and to have their leader either ignore it or dismiss it as irrelevant. 

In both cases the organization is served poorly - as well as people in the process. 

Pride plays a role in this equation. We like to think the best of ourselves and our abilities but we should also be realistic. Healthy individuals with good EQ understand their strengths and weaknesses as well as the shadow side of both. That awareness allows them to compensate for their weaknesses and ensure that they don't over rely on their strengths. In fact, that is a pretty good definition of a humble individual. They have a realistic view of themselves. 

How do we avoid these tendencies? One is to be aware of them and to ensure that we involve and listen to others. The second key is to solicit feedback from those we really trust. Feedback from others is an absolute essential part of growing our EQ as there are things we don't see about ourselves and never will unless others point them out. In order to hear feedback, however, we need to overcome our natural defensiveness. 

Often we are afraid that soliciting feedback is a sign of weakness. It is actually a sign of strength. We have the desire and courage to receive feedback. Only strong people do that.

Five gifts of failure

Success is a wonderful experience. We all want it but it does not always help us grow and develop. Sometimes success can even get in our way. In success it is easy to believe our own press and to assume we are better than we are. The truth is that we learn far more from failure than we do from success which is why the most successful have often failed more than they have succeeded. Much has been written regarding success but what does failure have to offer us?

First, failure makes us stronger. It is tough to fail, especially the first time. We can feel that life is over and that we are in some way diminished. If we push through the experience we come out the other side stronger and wiser. In fact, rather than diminished we are enriched with information and experiences we did not previously have.

Second, failure makes us more thoughtful and reflective. You can accept success without reflection but few can accept failure without reflection. Its very nature causes us to think, ponder and ask "what if?" 

Third, failure tends to clarify both our strengths and weaknesses far more than success does. In failure we start to differentiate what we are good at and where we need others around us. Success simply makes us think we are good at most things which is far from the truth. We are good at a very few things and poor at most other things. Failure helps clarify.

Fourth, failure builds humility whereas success tends to build pride. I realize in failure the limits of my own capabilities and a need for others. Success on the other hand simply fuels my hubris and wisdom. 

Fifth, failure fuels learning and growth if we have the curiosity to understand why we failed in the past and how we can avoid it in the future. Success can do just the opposite. Why do we need to grow if we are as good as it seems?

Most leaders attribute far more of their learnings to failure than they do to success. So powerful a drug is success that some leaders who fail for the first time in their fifties or sixties are crippled by the experience because they have no context for it. Thank God for your successes as well as for your failures. Allow your failures to help you grow.

See also
The up side of failure
A leadership perspective of growth
When a great idea didn't work: Dealing with failure
The gift of failure and pain

It is not the knowing but the doing that is most difficult

"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity." -Amelia Earhart
What is it that keeps us from acting on issues that we know we should act on? They may be in our personal or professional lives. It is the gap between what we know we ought to do and the resolve to do it. It is not the knowing but the doing. And then when we finally act, if we do, we wonder why we didn't do it a long time ago. There are three common reasons for avoiding action on things we know we ought to act on. Inertia It is easier to live with the status quo than it is to rock the boat and cause disruption. So, we keep an unproductive staff member, don't deal with conflict between two work teams or ignore the need to clarify what we are all about. Inertia is about living in our comfort zone. Not stirring up things that don't need to be stirred up (but actually do). It is about our not wanting to wade into things that will be hard or inconvenient but that we know in our heart of hearts are important to deal with. Maybe if we wait long enough the problem will resolve itself - usually it gets worse not better. Fear The other side of the inertia coin is fear. Inertia is often a result of fear. What will happen if I take a bold step and deal with this issue? Will I get pushback (probably)? Will someone be upset with me (probably)? Will I have to confront a person or issue (probably)? If our fear is greater than our resolve we ought not be in leadership. All leaders have fear but good leaders learn to not allow fear to keep them from acting on known issues. They do the right thing in spite of their fear and don't allow their fear to drive their inaction. Leaders can use their fear to define how they do something but should never use their fear to keep them from doing what needs to be done. Acknowledge you fear, use your fears to alleviate unintended consequences but take the needed action. Resolve Lack of resolve is the reason that many issues are partially addressed but then left hanging. Why? There was pushback, someone got upset or we had to confront something that was inconvenient. It is worse to address an issue and then drop it than it is to not address it in the first place. "Do not underestimate my resolve" ought to be the mantra of a leader. If I need to deal with something I will deal with it completely rather than partially. My resolve keeps me from backing down simply because there is pushback which there almost always will be given people's preference for inertial over action. Leaders not only must know but they must do. That is leadership.

Smelling Good, Looking Great and Divisive Attitudes

This blog was written by Edmund Chan of Singapore, Leadership Mentor at Covenant EFC and Founder of the Global Alliance of Intentional Disciplemaking Churches

“Oh, for God’s sake, stop it!”

That’s what the Apostle Paul said, with compassionate apostolic authority. And he meant it. Well yes, Paul didn’t put it exactly like that. But I think it captures rather accurately his keen sentiments.
[And by putting it in street vernacular, I don’t mean that Paul was using the Lord’s name in vain! It was quite literally “for God’s sake”, and theirs!]

You see, these were two Christian women. One was named “Smell Good” and the other was named “Look Great”. Both were friends of the Apostle Paul. And both couldn’t get along; such that it was affecting the church. Perhaps you know them by their Greek names: Euodia (“Smell Good”) and Syntyche (“Look Great”)!

With great names like “Smell Good” and “Look Great”, and being persecuted Christians in the first century church (and being friends and co-labourers with Paul), I would be rather surprised if I were told that there was a dark rivalry and relational friction between them.

Fact is, there was!

They couldn’t get along with each other; in spite of the common trials they face and the common faith they share! The Bible is silent on the exact nature of the disagreement. Euodia and Syntyche were probably in some sort of power struggle over an issue that boiled down to influence, or perhaps a preferred comfort zone; simply a personal preference for how something should be done. [Often, big quarrels stem from small things!]

Even though Paul did not treat this matter as he would false doctrine or teaching, neither did the Apostle ignore this fracture within the fellowship. Phil. 4:2-3 “I ENTREAT Euodia and I ENTREAT Syntyche TO AGREE IN THE LORD. 3 Yes, I ask you also, true companion, HELP THESE WOMEN, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (emphasis mine). 

The word “entreat” is “parakaleo” in the Greek (used 109 times in the NT). “Parakaleo” is often used to mean “encourage” or “exhort”. But in this case, the ESV has captured the nuance rightly with “I entreat (beg!) you”. 

The point of this passage is more than just about Paul wanting two women to get along. Rather, it about the Gospel. 

The revelation of the Gospel comes with the GRACE and CALLING of God to live and labour as a redeemed and transformed covenant community. This call is vital and congruent with the responsibility to proclaim this Gospel of LOVE. And just how can they do so when there is bitterness and divisiveness? In Philippians 4, Paul asks these women to ‘be of the same mind IN THE LORD’. 

We might disagree but never disengage. Disagreement happens. It’s not wrong. The diversity of views is healthy; it’s the divisiveness of personalities that is troublesome. Neither be discouraged by the diversity not disrupted by the divisiveness. 

The important thing is to deal compassionately (and humbly!) with the differences and be reconciled “with one mind” over what’s important! Whatever the dispute was, it was not to sidetrack them from the work of the Gospel and the unity of faith in it. No dispute is worth the division. 

Euodia and Syntyche had to learn from their apostolic mentor about getting along. About taking responsibility for their part in their dispute. About laying down their pride, without the self-righteous attitude: ‘well, I hope she’s listening!’ We might ‘look great’ or even ‘smell good’.  But if we do not embrace a MEEKNESS that brings a fragrance and not a fracture to the covenant community, they are but empty accolades. Don’t be divisive.

For God’s sake, stop it!

When crisis envelops a church personal agendas must go!

Like all institutions, churches can have leaders, staff and congregants who harbor personal agendas. Those agendas are often checked when the church is healthy but when crisis hits they can appear from wherever they have been hiding. In crisis, churches need leaders who will ruthlessly set aside their own personal agendas and seek only God's agenda. Those same leaders must insist that others set aside their agendas as well.

Personal agenda's are dangerous in the church for several reasons. First, they are personal rather than corporate. Second, they often have hidden in them some advantage to the one whose agenda it is. Often that is power, position, personal preference or influence all of which benefit an individual over the congregation as a whole. Ironically, the church as the bride of Christ is all about His agenda but such details are often forgotten.

Times of crisis are ripe for agendas to pop up precisely because the crisis often creates a vacuum of leadership combined with a future that is unclear. Personal agenda's flourish in this environment as something and someone will take advantage of the situation. 

I recently encountered a church going through a major crisis and the agendas are numerous. People who want the senior position, those with a theological agenda, those who are willing to marginalize those who built the church for their version of being relevant, those with power who want to stay on and the list goes on. What is needed here is for all these agendas to be put aside and for the leadership to focus on the health of the church.

In times of crisis, ask all parties to put their agendas aside and to focus on God's will for the Church. Focus on health, not agendas. In fact here is a principle: The more agendas there are in a church the unhealthier the church is. 

Sorry about that: My board or boss made me do it! Leadership Default

Leaders can be strange creatures. We want to lead but there are times when we don't want to take responsibility for our leadership decisions which we know will be unpopular. So we look for a foil, someone else to blame for the bad news that is coming. Sometimes it is our board (My board said this is what we have to do). Other times it is our boss (I was told that this is what has to happen). Sometimes it is God (God told me to do this). 

In all three cases you will notice who is not responsible for the decision that has been made: The leader who is making the announcement. In essence the leader is saying "They have said we must do this" creating a deadly division between their staff and whoever he/she is blaming for the decision. Good leaders never blame others in the organization for decisions as it sets up a them/us mentality as if the "they" are not part of "us." 

Why do leaders name others who made a decision? It is simple. First, they want to be popular with their staff so blaming others means they themselves were not responsible. Second, when you blame others, what is staff going to say. If it is the board, they have ultimate authority! If it is my leader's boss, what can you say? If it is God, how do you argue with Him? In other words, the strategy is to blame someone who has more authority and is not in the room so there can be no discussion. Let me be clear. This is terrible leadership.

Think about this. How can the senior leader blame his/her board when they sit on the board? It is not "They have decided," but it is "We have decided" including that leader.

How can you blame your boss when your primary team is the team of your boss, not the team you lead. Blaming God is the ultimate strategy to shut down discussion in a Christian organization. What room is there for discussion when God has spoken?

I label all these behaviors as "Leadership Default." I have not taken personal responsibility for decisions that I have had a part in or that I am committed to supporting in my leadership role. In blaming others I am trying to deflect my involvement, shut down discussion and in doing so I create a them/us dichotomy that divides rather than unites. 

Leadership Default is poor leadership. And, unfair to staff who cannot engage in a discussion regarding the decision. It is unfair also to those we blamed who then look like the bad guys when that is rarely the case.