Why defensiveness is destructive and how we can become more open

Defensiveness is a part of the human condition. A negative rather than positive part. It is usually an indicator that we are guarding our pride and our ego and that we don't want to be found wrong or wanting. Defensiveness is wanting to be like God. He is the only one who is never wrong or wanting. Thus defensiveness is proclaiming that we are not what we are: human, often wrong, fallible, broken and often wanting. It is a façade rather than the truth and it is our way of saying, "I am better than I am." And we are the only one who believes it. 

Defensiveness is destructive to us in many ways. First, we fool ourselves into believing that we are better than we are. The best leaders and the healthiest individuals are those who know their own vulnerabilities, dark sides, and lack of knowledge. The truth is that we know very little, are often wrong, often misjudge others, and have dark sides that are far worse than we want to believe. Personal health comes from knowing the truth about ourselves, not from lying to ourselves. How we see ourselves will impact how we see and treat others and their views.

Second, defensiveness drives people away from us. When we are not open to the views, observations or criticisms of others we keep those around us at arms length. They know that we are not open to authentic conversation and thus don't share what they really think. In driving others away who could tell us truth we not only hurt ourselves but we hurt authentic relationships with those around us.

Third, defensiveness keeps us from seeing and treating others in a fair way. Defensive people generally see fault in others but not in themselves, see the quirks and shadow side of others but not their own. This impacts how we see those around us and if a supervisor, how we may treat our staff. The lens that a defensive individual sees through often sees others as worse than they are and themselves as better than they are. 

The root of defensiveness is insecurity or unworthiness. The feeling that we are not enough: good enough; competent enough; smart enough, wise enough or worthy enough. That lack of self worth causes us to want to look better than we are which amounts to elevating ourselves while lowering others and resisting anything that strikes us as criticism. Defensive individuals are not healthy, whole people. 

How do we overcome defensiveness and get to wholeness? The first step is to make a decision that we will be OK with who we are, how God made us and our strengths and weaknesses. If I can accept the truth about myself I no longer need to prove that I am different than I am, that I am better than I am or more perfect than I am. We are all broken vessels and becoming OK with that - even as we allow God to heal our brokenness - gives us freedom to just be us, not someone we wish we were. 

This is about adopting a "nothing to prove, nothing to lose and nothing to hide" attitude. I don't need to prove myself. I don't need to worry about losing my reputation. Nor do I need to hide those areas where I am weak. It is a freeing attitude and it is how God wants us to live. It allows others and ourselves to see our authentic self.

That inward decision needs to help us with our outward behavior. When we experience that knife thrust of criticism (whether it was meant that way or not), rather than reacting defensively we can learn to relax, not react outwardly and say something like, "That is an interesting thought, tell me more."  Rather than pushing people away, we are drawing them closer and inviting conversation rather than shutting it down. We may be fighting our emotions inside but outwardly we are practicing new behaviors.

Learn to spot the triggers that cause you to become defensive. Every time you get triggered, ask the question, how might I have responded differently than I did? And, Why did I react to that statement? Once you begin to learn the triggers to defensive attitudes one can develop strategies to counter it in the moment.

Defensiveness is about pretending to be someone we are not. Authenticity is allowing others to see us as we are.

"I don't need this". When leaders want to walk!

I met recently with a ministry that is in a stalemate. It has a group of individuals (current leaders) who desire to move forward into a new era of ministry. It has another group of individuals (past leaders) who are resisting almost all change. They want the future to look like the past even though staying there will inevitably compromise the church's future. 

Before I continue I need to say that building for the future does not mean that we dishonor the past. In fact, my mantra is that we must honor the past while we build for the future. If all one does is honor the past you compromise your future. If all you do is build for the future you disenfranchise those who got you to where you are so both are necessary and wise leaders recognize this.

Here is a true saying: What go you to here got you to here. It will not get you to there. No organization can stay static. All organizations either move forward or they stagnate and die. It is that simple. If you want to position your church or organization for a slow painful death, just stop moving forward into the future. This often happens when prior leaders create enough conflict and criticism that current leaders say "we don't need this" and walk away. It is very true that they don't need this. It is, however a mistake to walk away. Someone must build for the future if we care about the generations that come behind us.

One of the key responsibilities of leaders is to position their organization for a hopeful and fruitful future. If it were easy we would not need leaders. But without courageous leaders, there will not be a hopeful or fruitful future. The harder the leadership task the more an organization needs to break through into a new future. For leaders who want to walk: You can, but the very fact that leadership is hard where you are is an indicator that you are needed more than ever. 

In my book, High Impact Church Boards I write this:
Leadership is an awe-inspiring, weighty calling. From the earliest days of biblical history, God has called men and women into leadership roles, energizing and gifting them for the task. One lesson shouts from the pages in this history of God’s people: When there was a faithful leader,God’s people flourished. In the absence of godly, empowered leadership, His people suffered.

Without a Noah, mankind would not have survived. Without a
Moses, the Exodus would have failed. Without a Joshua, the land would not have been conquered. Without a Deborah, the Israelites would not have been liberated. Without a David, a nation would not have been built. Without a Nehemiah, a city would not have been reborn. Without an Esther, a people would not have survived.
In each instance, God called a leader or leaders for His purposes,

clarified their assignments, and empowered them with skill and wisdom.

In God’s kingdom, leaders are called by Him for His purposes and

empowered by His Spirit. We do not just choose to be a leader; God chooses those He wants to lead.

If you are in a hard leadership place, consider: Maybe God has you here for such a time as this.

How are you perceived?

From time to time I conduct staff audits to determine the health of the staff and leadership of an organization. Some years ago a board hired me to figure out why the staff was experiencing conflict and a low level of morale. One of the findings was that the perceptions of the senior leader's management were fairly bad. They liked the individual personally but his leadership left a lot to be desired and caused a lot of issues.

When I shared this feedback with the senior leader, he said, "You won't tell the staff what you found will you?" After a moment to collect my astonishment I said, "Where do you think I got the information?" He then said, "What they said is not true of me." My response was, "It may well be that their perceptions are wrong but it is their reality, it is a common reality among the staff and if you are going to change their perceptions you really need to modify your leadership practices."

The board had done this leader a great favor in conducting staff interviews as he found out what most leaders never do - how they are perceived by those who work for them. Often such feedback comes as a surprise to us because we don't see ourselves the way others see us. At times, people attribute poor motives to us that we know not to be true. At other times staff is not aware of circumstances that lead us to certain decisions. But, perceptions - right or wrong - are the reality of how others see us and our leadership. So we are left with two versions of our leadership: What we believe it to be and what others perceive it to be. And sometimes these are worlds apart from one another.

Wise leaders want to know what the perceptions of their staff are. They want to know what they don't know. This requires them to find a few trusted individuals who are willing to share with them how they come across along with the positives and negatives of their leadership style - from a staff perspective.

But remember: No one will tell you these things unless you directly ask and provide a safe environment for them to share their perspectives. Here are some of the kinds of questions we can ask those who work for us.

• Are there things I do that you wish I would do differently?
• If you could change one thing about my leadership style, what would it be?
• What are the strongest leadership qualities you believe that I have and what are the weakest?
• Is there anything I do that irritates you? Or that you feel is not respectful?

You will be surprised what you may learn from these questions. They are worth asking because our perception of reality can be very different than the perception of others. And there are usually simple ways that we can change our behaviors to address the negative perceptions of others.

Three ways that organizational conflict can be a help rather than a hinderance

Typically, we think of conflict as a negative event when it occurs. The truth, however, is that conflict is often a blessing in disguise and being aware of its potential up side can help us leverage it in productive ways. Consider these up sides of conflict.

One: Conflict is often an early warning system that the organizational system needs revamping
Organizations don't just grow, they change. Their environments change, their needs change and the organizational structure that worked at one time no longer works as it did. The reason is simple: What got you to here got you to here. It will not get you to there.

When the old way of doing things has run its course and is no longer working, conflict often occurs. There may be disagreements on strategy, tension between leaders or teams, frustration with work flow and substandard results. All of these, and other manifestations of conflict are warning you that it is time to relook at how you are doing things and what you are doing. In this case, conflict is warning you that things need to change! If you don't ignore the warning sign it can help you move forward. If you ignore it, the conflict will become worse.

Two, conflict may be telling you that greater clarity is needed
When there is not organizational clarity, leaders, teams or individuals step in and provide their own clarity. Inevitably this will result in conflict as competing ideas of who we are and what we are about collide with one another. In this case, the conflict is telling you that you need to clarify your clarity so that alignment is possible and everyone is working toward the same goals.

Ironically, the process of refining your clarity may bring greater conflict as ideas and people vie for their definition. This is good as it is in the clash of ideas that the best ideas are born. But until you come to agreement on who you are and what you are about you will never get alignment and without alignment you will never reach your organizational potential. In this case the conflict is telling you that you don't have adequate alignment and agreement.

Three: Conflict may be telling you that there are individuals who are not operating from a place of healthy EQ (Emotional Intelligence)
Healthy EQ is essential for healthy organizations. People who have unhealthy EQ can be defensive, closed to feedback, create conflict with those around them and are often responsible for relational issues with those around them. When there is a pattern of relational conflict around an individual you are probably dealing with an EQ issues that needs to be resolved.

It is easy to overlook these situations out of fear of conflict. Yet their behaviors are creating conflict already and disempowering those who are impacted by their relational issues. Not to deal with this is to sentence those in proximity to the effects of their behavior. 

When conflict pops up in your organization don't assume it is a bad thing. It is probably telling you something and understanding what it is saying can be valuable to your ongoing success. 

Learning trumps blame in organizational conflict

We are wired, it seems, to assign blame when something has gone wrong, there is conflict in the workplace, or groups are not getting along with one another. After all, someone is responsible and must take the blame!

Not so fast. I would ask two questions.

Question One: Are there alternative explanations for what has gone wrong or the conflict we are experiencing? In most cases, the answer is yes. Conflict can arise from many organizational issues: unclear job descriptions and overlap of responsibilities, the wiring of the people involved; organizational systems that create conflict, attitudes of individuals or groups, practices of the organization, and I could go on. 

Blame is easy and often wrong.

Too often, we immediately assign poor motives to those we are unhappy with. In most cases, motives are not the issue. We are also prone to demonize those we feel are responsible (in our minds) for the conflict. This is a dangerous practice as it simply divides further and reinforces our belief that we are right and others are wrong.

In most cases when there is organizational conflict, there are reasons for that conflict that lie in the structure of the organization, its processes, or a lack of organizational clarity. Before we play the blame game -  which is inherently counterproductive, ask yourself if there are alternate explanations for the conflict you are experiencing.

Question two: Are we more interested in assigning blame or in learning from the situation we find ourselves in? Blame is easy. It absolves us and points the finger at someone else. We don't need to do any hard analysis or work, and it is not about us. In fact, blame is so easy that it prevents us from finding the real source of the conflict we are experiencing and, therefore, perpetuates the conflict.

We can blame, or we can learn. Blame perpetuates the status quo while learning makes us better. I recommend a culture that practices autopsy without blame when something goes south. We want to know the source of the problem or failure, but we want to learn from it, not assign blame to someone.

This kind of attitude creates a culture of nothing to prove, nothing to lose, and nothing to hide. We are about getting better. Not protecting ourselves, not trying to prove anything or hide anything. It is a posture of humility rather than pride. Of learning rather than blame. 

In my consulting, I have rarely encountered people who were bad people or who had bad motives. I have encountered people who needed to learn and develop, who were in the wrong seat for their wiring, and have seen many organizational issues, all of which can create conflict. Sometimes, hard things need to be said or done, but with the right attitude, we can learn, develop, and appreciate one another. 

Leaders and the affirmation of staff

Leaders often forget that one of the greatest gifts they can give their staff is affirmation and appreciation. So simple and yet often overlooked. Genuine affirmation for work well done is one of the highest motivators for staff and engenders significant loyalty. They know they matter! 

If you have staff who report to you, remember this:

They make you look good and make your work possible. You could not do it without them. Thank them often.

They could be working for someone else. All employees today are volunteers in that they can choose who they work for. That they are willing to put up with you is a blessing. Affirm them.

They don't have the perks you probably do and don't make what you make. So, don't take them for granted. They probably care as much about their work as you do yours. Maybe more. Make sure they know that their work is noticed and appreciated.

Taking a few moments to single them out, focus on them and thank them goes a long way. They know you noticed. They know they are appreciated and valued. They know they are not invisible to you.

Never underestimate the power of simple words of affirmation. Your staff will remember them for a long time. That goes for the janitor, the mail delivery individual, the front office phone operator and those higher staff members. 

Words matter!

It is not surprising that the perpetuator of the synagogue massacre had posted hate speech on a popular web site for those who want to express hateful views. Freedom of expression being one of the hallmarks of our constitution, it is a price we pay for our liberties. It protects the rights of all of us to speak our minds sad as some of those views may be.

There is, however, a higher responsibility for those in elected positions to be circumspect with their words toward members of the opposite party. Public figures have the ability and power to set the tone of public discourse. The civility of our national discourse is directly related to our maturity as a people and nation. By that standard we don't have much to be proud of today. Words matter!

We may be proud to protect the speech of all. But can we also be proud of what is being said? Or by the civil discourse of our elected leaders? 

When we dehumanize others with our words we lay the groundwork for other dehumanization. Words matter! It is why we teach our children to be kind with their words. Most efforts to rob others of their rights begin with words. Dehumanizing words are not neutral. Words can build up or they can tear down. Words can protect or they can incite violence. Words matter!

Let it not be lost on us that the pogroms of recent history started with words and ended with violence. The veneer of civilization is very thin. Words matter!

I like many have very significant differences with others politically. I feel strongly about many of those differences. But I will not dehumanize those who disagree with my views. Nor do I want those that I help elect to dehumanize those who disagree with their views. A nation that cannot be civil in its disagreements is no longer a civil society. Words do matter!

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.

When senior leaders exert too much pressure on staff

Many senior leaders are highly driven. Maybe most. They tend to see life from 35,000 feet and all the things that need to get done. And, they are often impatient. They want to see results, fix things, explore new opportunities, reinvent old strategies, ensure results, fix disconnects and who knows what else. Are you tired yet? Some years ago my senior team said, "TJ, we are not starting anything new this year!" They had their hands full.

There are predictable results when senior leaders push too hard on too many things. 

Cynicism. Because you cannot do everything at once, leaders who are always pushing for more and for better eventually wear their subordinates out until each new proposal is met with a certain level of skepticism, even cynicism. Better a few important initiatives than many minor ones. More does not equal better. Usually it equals mediocrity. Usually, leaders who push and push also change their minds often leaving staff who have worked on an initiative frustrated when they must change directions mid stream.

Discouragement. There is nothing better than celebrating success. But when many initiatives are on the plate, success is elusive since most will not get accomplished. Or accomplished well. This is discouraging to staff who are working hard to accomplish the mission of the organization. 

Lack of focus. None of us can focus on more than a few important issues at a time. When leaders make unrealistic demands on many fronts, staff don't know where to put their energies and the priority of the senior leader my change quickly. Staff are left to guess as to which initiative is the priority leading to a lack of focus throughout the organization.

Commitments that don't get kept. When pushed hard, many staff will make commitments that they don't want to make and cannot keep. It is the only way to relieve the pressure of the senior leader, however, so they do it. Many of these will not be met because they were unrealistic to start with. This then sets up a cycle of blame for promises not kept which in this case is the fault of the leader rather than the staff member.

If senior leaders will allow their senior team to have a voice in what issues are tackled when there will be a far more realistic view of what can and cannot get done and by when. When leaders exert too much pressure they hurt themselves, the organization and the staff.