The Advantage: A Healthy Organization

We’re working our way through Patrick Lencioni’s The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else In Business.

Lencioni consults with businesses, nonprofits, and churches, and he frequently explains how the lessons apply especially to churches, because the work churches do is so much more important than the work done by anyone else.

Lencioni points out that every organization he has consulted with has smart leaders. They know their business, finance, marketing, sale, production … every aspect of how to create, produce, and sell their product. In the church world, we’d say that church leaders know their doctrine and know how to run a worship service, high school program, adult ed program, etc.

And in both cases, there is no lack of resources — books, seminars, YouTube videos, blog posts, and consultants out there to go to to learn the necessary skills. The Christian bookstores are filled with literature on how to “do church.” In fact, I have about six linear feet of books and seminar notes on church management and leadership.

Despite the explosion in “how to” materials that so many of us read (and many of these are truly excellent books), Lencioni argues that most organizations are not “healthy.” He says organizations rarely fail for lack of being smart about how to do their business or how to do church. They fail due to poor organizational health.

The single greatest advantage any company can achieve is organizational health. Yet it is ignored by most leaders even though it is simple, free, and available to anyone who wants it.

What is “healthy”? He says,

An organization has integrity—is healthy—when it is whole, consistent, and complete, that is, when its management, operations, strategy, and culture fit together and make sense.  …

A good way to recognize health is to look for the signs that indicate an organization has it. These include minimal politics and confusion, high degrees of morale and productivity, and very low turnover among good employees.

He lists as signs of health —

* Minimal politics

* Minimal confusion

* High morale

* High productivity

* Low turnover of good employees

Lencioni says,

What I find particularly amazing is that none of the leaders I present to, even the most cynical ones, deny that their companies would be transformed if they could achieve the characteristics of a healthy organization.

Now, let’s reflect a bit on these characteristics. “Politics” means that you have to be less than honest to achieve your goals. If you have to tell the congregation you’re hiring a female “ministries coordinator” rather than a “minister” even though she’s being hired to do the work of a minister, you’re playing politics. You’re not being dishonest, but you’re being forced to play games to deal with a lack of health in your organization.

If you have to be very, very careful about how you say things to your employees, and can’t be honest in your statements because they’re overly sensitive, you’re playing politics.

If you have to manipulate the preacher into thinking an idea is his before he’ll accept it, you’re playing politics.

Employee turnover is generally a bad thing for an organization. Having to hire new employees costs training time, search time, etc. It forces a ministry to rebuild relationships.

On the other hand, some turnover is very good. Some employees are poisonous — dishonest, incompetent, or sowers of dissension. Therefore, you can’t judge your leadership merely by whether  you have turnover. Keeping a bad employee is much worse than the cost of hiring new.

No, it’s only when good employees are routinely lost to lateral (or worse) jobs that you flunk this test. After all, if you’re routinely producing great ministers who leave to move into more responsible, better paying jobs, that’s a sign of good health. (The same is also true of assistant football coaches, you know.)

The other tests — confusion, productivity, morale — are more subjective. But the signs are usually pretty apparent. The members or staff say things like “I’m confused.”

Poor morale can be evidenced by a lack of initiative among the staff or members. If they have to be cajoled to do their work, they’re unmotivated and something is likely wrong.

Again, it’s important to distinguish between poor morale or productivity resulting from unhealthy leadership versus unhealthy employees. Some ministers are lazy, distracted, or uninterested in their ministries for reasons entirely independent of the leadership. But a wise eldership can tell the difference.

Now, this is not in Lencioni’s book, but one very helpful tool for evaluating staff (and indirectly, the elders) is to do a 360-degree review once a year. It’s a lot of trouble, but it’s an essential tool of church leadership.

The idea is that you review the staff by interviewing people on all sides of them — above, below, and beside them on the organizational chart. To be scrupulously fair, you should have the employee name some people to be interviewed, so he is certain that you’ll talk to people who know his work well and will be fair. But you should always interview others not on his list.

Now, some ministers will, quite naturally, feel very insecure about the process and resist it. Some will argue that it violates Matthew 18 or otherwise rationalize. Be the boss and do your job. Do it well and fairly, and the next year, the ministers won’t be so resistant.

The goal, of course, is not to dig up dirt on the minister but to help him or her mature in ministry — so she can do a better job and stay at your church for many years doing great ministry.

Therefore, it’s imperative that you be open and honest about the process, talk about it with the staff, and let them know your goals. In fact, I’d mention that this is your practice at the first interview before you hire her.

After all, a minister is going to be reviewed and his salary will be set based on that review. The question is not whether to do a review but whether to do it well and fairly. Nothing is more unfair than elders doing a review based purely on complaints heard in the hallway! Therefore, a minister ought to be thrilled to know that his review will be based on a broadly based sample of members and fellow staff members rather than random complaints.

Finally, to work, those being interviewed will likely insist on confidentiality, and that’s okay. The minister will have to accept that fact. Moreover, to work, the other ministers have to be willing to talk about their impressions of their fellow ministers honestly.

It’s entirely possible that an insecure minister will attempt to put the others up to either refusing to participate at all or else refusing to say anything bad. That would be childish and would evidence a willingness to deceive the elders to accomplish a personal agenda.

Such employees should be counseled lovingly, but if the behavior continues, they should find work in a field where honesty isn’t required. After all, they are implicitly saying that their relationships with each other and getting next year’s raise is far more important than doing the best possible ministry — indeed, that they’ll interfere with the elders’ doing their work as overseers to protect their pocketbooks. It’s a selfish attitude, and may have to be called out as such.