Overseeing Staff

I have to remind myself on almost a daily basis that I’m here to help other people succeed. It’s in their success that I experience success.
—Don Cousins

One of the most critical responsibilities a church manager has is to build a well-functioning team of workers. In few areas of church life is there more latitude for grand opportunities or dismal failures. A unified team of motivated, well-trained church workers can accomplish just about any ministry objective. But allow that work force to degenerate into factions, or neglect to properly equip workers for their tasks, and a church can wither.

The key to fruitfulness in ministry is fruitfulness in the lives of the individual workers. Therefore, an effective leader must be committed not only to the organization’s goals but also—and especially—to the people making them a reality.

Commitment to Others

Jesus said, “The greatest shall be a servant,” and then he modeled servant-style leadership. What is this kind of leadership? Simply put, a servant-leader is more committed to the fruitfulness and fulfillment—the success—of his staff than to his own.

He knows that if his workers bear fruit, if they make a significant impact, they’ll be enthusiastic workers. And if they experience the satisfaction of sensing God’s affirmation of their service, they’ll be motivated to encourage others to serve more faithfully, too. So, the wise leader makes the personal effectiveness of his staff a primary goal, knowing that their fruitfulness and fulfillment will have a rippling effect.

Ken Blanchard, author of The One Minute Manager, describes such commitment to staff as an upside-down pyramid. Most organizational structures resemble a pyramid, with the ceo at the top, several levels of middle management as the pyramid broadens, and then the workers and constituents at the wide base. Blanchard, however, turns the pyramid on its point, placing the leader on the bottom. The leader serves the people above him, who in turn serve those above them, until ultimately the constituents are served. This way, everyone in the organization benefits.

The rewards of staff-oriented leadership are obvious, but they don’t come without effort. Enhancing the fruitfulness and fulfillment of the people who work for us involves three specific steps: communicating clear expectations, providing personalized leadership, and offering accurate and honest evaluation.

Communicating Clear Expectations

Peter Drucker has observed that one of the major problems in business today is that employees often see their primary tasks differently than do their employers. If the worker thinks he’s supposed to do one thing and his boss thinks he’s to do another, misunderstanding and conflict are inevitable. Therefore, from the start, leaders need to make sure expectations are dear. I accomplish that with two tools:

— A job description. By that, I mean a general guideline listing what a worker does, not a detailed job outline. A job description that’s too broad, such as “oversees the youth ministry,” functions more as a position title than a working description. But a grocery list of specific assignments—”plans games at summer camp” or “buys supplies for Sunday school”—makes the job description unwieldy.

A good job description typically lists four to six major responsibilities. For a small-groups director, it might include: recruit new leaders, train them, match them with small groups, and provide them ongoing support. This draws the rough boundaries of the position. It doesn’t answer all the questions of specific tasks, but it tells the worker he won’t be responsible for securing curriculum or maintaining group directories.

Individual assignments may change. The youth director may plan a retreat over Presidents’ Day weekend, but that shouldn’t be put into the job description. I’d rather have something like “plans and executes special events to build youth leaders’ commitment.” The particulars of execution are then left for planning with a supervisor.

— A monthly listing of priorities. In my first chapter, I talked about setting A priorities (the top-priority tasks of any particular ministry) and B priorities (ancillary tasks that support the higher priorities). In order to make expectations absolutely clear, every month staff members and I determine together their A and B priorities for the next thirty days.

The amount of input this requires from me depends on the worker’s experience and competence. New workers may not know yet what their priorities ought to be, so I help determine them. Experienced staff members simply submit their lists to me to keep me informed. In either case, every month the workers and I both see on paper what their essential tasks are for that month. That keeps us on the same wavelength.

I began spelling out expectations because of how often I found confusion in my workers. I would ask someone well into her job, “Why are you working so hard personally counseling every small-group leader who is struggling?”

“Well,” she would reply, “isn’t caring for my leaders one of the main things you want me to do—something I really need to do?”

I’d have to reply honestly, “No, it’s not. I see the priority as designing ways for those leaders to be counseled without having to do it all yourself. Practically speaking, you don’t have time for that sort of interaction with the number of leaders you oversee.”

I decided it wasn’t fair to expect those working for me to read my mind. But if people mutually communicate expectations, they can avoid many problems.

Such communication must, of course, take place in a safe, secure environment. The leader creates this environment through his or her attitude and manner of speaking. I can’t say to a staff member, “Here’s a list of priorities. I expect you to produce, because I need these tasks finished. I’m going to be checking up on you next month to make sure you’re not goofing off.” That creates a threatening psychological environment.

Instead, I need to say, “Let’s work out your priorities for this month. I’m committed to helping you fulfill these tasks, and I have confidence that you can accomplish great things.” That tells staff members I’m on their side and frees them to trust me enough to say willingly, “Hold me accountable.”

Occasionally a staff member comes in at the end of the month and says, “I didn’t accomplish my goals.” If this person is certain I have his or her best interests at heart—that I’m not just waiting to pounce on a mistake—the tenseness of the situation will be greatly mitigated. I can question gently, “Okay. Why not?” without posing a threat.

Such conferences, over a few months, can point out inconsistent work habits, overloaded job descriptions, or inappropriate placement. They help both me and the worker refine or alter the expectations we mutually agree upon. That not only enhances the individual’s personal fulfillment and job satisfaction, but it also makes the church’s ministry more fruitful. Workers whose time and abilities reflect their priorities usually accomplish their ministry objectives. Over the course of a year—if we’re setting the right A priorities and the workers are well suited for their positions—they should enjoy significant fruitfulness and fulfillment.

Providing Personalized Leadership

Any parent knows you can’t handle every child alike. One disobedient child may need to be rebuked sharply or even spanked. Another crumbles at the mere look of disappointment on his mother’s face. Treat both children the same, and one will be crushed or the other unswayed. For parents, the challenge is to know what kind of leadership each child needs.

Likewise, different workers need different kinds of leadership. Some people need a tight leash, others space. Some need to be shown clearly, almost harshly, when they blunder, because their characteristic response to mistakes is a blasé, “Oh well.” Others need only a gentle prod, because they’ve already died a thousand deaths over their error. Giving individuals the type of direction they need is one of the most important aspects of pastoral management.

The best model I’ve seen for individualized leadership comes from Ken Blanchard’s Leadership and the One Minute Manager. He calls it situational leadership. I prefer to call it personalized leadership, because it reminds me that I’m leading people, not just handling situations. Blanchard sees four different leadership styles—direction, coaching, support, and delegation—which should be used according to workers’ competence and confidence.

Consider direction: If we hire an inexperienced youth pastor straight from seminary, I can hardly delegate the ministry to him; he doesn’t yet know how to run a ministry. He lacks confidence because he’s never done it before. He comes to our planning meetings with a blank slate and says, “What do I do? Where do I go first?” He may have admirable character, a strong spiritual life, and the basic gifts to get the job done, but he needs point-by-point direction until he gains experience. My job is to give him detailed instructions and basically lead the ministry through him, probably for at least a year.

Coaching is the next step. We can coach workers whose confidence and competence is growing. They come to us with good ideas, and we add some of our own, so that the ministry becomes a joint venture. Coaches are involved enough to know exactly what’s happening at each step. The key words for coaches are affirmation and redirection. Coaches are generous with praise and ready to correct when necessary.

Typically, after a year of coaching, a worker is ready for the third leadership style: support. At this point, the worker sets his own agenda; he comes into meetings with his A priorities listed and says, “This is what I’m doing.” The supervisor’s role is to provide emotional support, encouragement, affirmation, and whatever correction and advice is necessary. The worker being supported knows what to do; he primarily needs to know that someone backs him. In short, for the next year, the leader’s role is to be a cheerleader.

The final style is delegation, which means the leader turns the ministry over to the individual, for the most part. Reporting continues, but it becomes less frequent; the leash is long.

Delegation doesn’t, however, mean abdication. The delegating leader doesn’t hand over the responsibility, walk away, and provide no further leadership. He says, “This is your ministry. You build it. But I want to stay in touch. I’m here to serve you.”

Obviously, direction, coaching, and support take more of a leader’s time than does delegation. That’s why it’s so tempting to bring people on staff, direct or coach them for a few months, and then say, “All right, go at it.” But too often these workers aren’t ready for the delegation stage. What’s worse is that often delegation slides into abdication; the leader offers no feedback or communication. When that happens, seeds of discord and disarray grow.

Nine years ago, I delegated Willow Creek’s high school ministry to Dan Webster. I now meet with Dan for an hour every other week, but I bring a minimal agenda to those sessions. We focus primarily on Dan’s agenda. He says, “Here are my ideas (or concerns). Can you give me feedback?” Then we talk about new directions for his ministry, difficulties with his workers, or any other topics he wants to discuss.

In addition to my feedback regarding ministry concerns, Dan needs my personal involvement in his life. “Ask me how I’m doing at home with my marriage or my kids,” he says. “Ask me about my financial decisions, or how I’m handling temptation this week.” At this point, Dan’s ministry is well under control. He wants me to help him keep his personal life managed as well.

In order to lead properly each person under my management, I have to ask myself, Based on competence and confidence, does this person need direction, coaching, support or delegation? I also take that one step further and “contract” with each person about the kind of leadership I will provide, so each knows which to expect. This contract is absolutely vital; it prevents misunderstanding and frustration.

Our people are familiar with Blanchard’s system, so usually twice a year I sit down with them and discuss their leadership needs. Newer ministry directors often say, “I need direction.”

So I say, “Great! When we meet, I’ll do a lot of the talking, and I expect you to ask a lot of the questions.”

When a person says, “I’m ready to move on to coaching,” I tell him we’ll probably split the conversation in meetings. I’ll be there to probe and affirm and make sure he doesn’t get off the track. In a similar manner, I tell those in the support or delegation stage what to expect.

This contracting process insures that workers get the kind of leadership they need. Supervisors easily offend people by giving them the wrong leadership. If people expect support, and I provide direction, they start to wonder. Why is he running my ministry and trying to tell me what to do? On the other hand, if people want direction and all I do is stop by every three weeks and say, “Hey, good job. Keep it up,” they’re going to feel I’m not leading them.

My goal is for each individual I manage to become independent enough to reach the delegation stage. Usually it takes around three years—one year in each of the preliminary stages—to reach that point. If a person gets stuck and is unable to progress into delegation, it’s either because I placed the person wrongly or I haven’t supervised sufficiently. My responsibility in that case is to make a careful evaluation and take steps to alter the situation.

A common mistake is to move people through the process too quickly. Generally, staff members tend to slot themselves one step further in the process than they ought to be—a person needing direction, for instance, usually thinks he needs coaching. Too often supervisors, wanting to minimize their output of time, yield to the worker’s desire to speed through the process.

But we pay a price when we do this. Almost always a worker prematurely moved into coaching will have to be moved back into direction, and that will foster resentment. A horse that has run free in the pasture inevitably chafes when he’s brought back to the stable with a bit in its mouth. Better to keep the horse in the stable until you’re sure you want it to run free.

The number of people to whom a supervisor can provide personalized leadership—his span of control—depends on two factors: One, how people are divided among the four stages of supervision, and, two, the supervisor’s relational capacity. In other words, I couldn’t adequately oversee ten workers who needed direction or coaching, but I could if they moved to support or delegation.

In like manner, I couldn’t schedule six to eight conferences a day with leaders under my care; that would drain me emotionally. Being a mild introvert, I have to limit myself to three or four meetings a day if I want to stay emotionally strong.

I learned this lesson the hard way several years ago. Each day I left work exhausted; I had no energy to talk to my wife; I wasn’t enjoying my ministry. I finally realized I was overseeing too many people. Although I’m not a total recluse, neither am I a raving extrovert. I can’t spread my relational energy that thin without burning out.

Every leader has limited time and relational capacity to invest in personalized leadership. The wise supervisor gauges his span of control by those limits.

Offering Accurate and Honest Evaluation

Good parents openly affirm their children: “We appreciate your good behavior.” Or, “You’re doing a great job in school.” They also know when to discipline: “If you jump on your bed again, you will be punished.” Thus, children know where they stand and what they need to do.

Staff members need similar feedback. They should not be left wondering. What does my supervisor think of my work? Am I valuable here? Do I make a difference? The more secure an employee is, the more freedom with which he can operate. That’s why leaders need to offer accurate and honest evaluations of those they lead.

I emphasize accurate and honest for good reason. If feedback is inaccurate—all sugar and spice, or clearly out of touch with reality—people lose respect for it. In other words, if I praise efforts for a job poorly done, workers will lose respect for my opinion. Similarly, if feedback is dishonest—if I twist the facts or misrepresent a person’s performance—the person naturally will lose trust.

I would rather have my workers know where they stand—even if they stand on the bubble—than have them wondering what I think of their work. They won’t have to play guessing games if I care enough to say accurately and honestly where they stand. If people are doing well, they can rejoice in that and work with confidence. If their work is unacceptable, they can determine why and make the necessary changes.

Leaders avoid heartache by providing immediate feedback regarding inferior work. If their initial feedback doesn’t bring about the desired change, they need to offer more. Eventually they may have to say, “In spite of my repeated expressions of concern, you are making the same mistakes again and again. If this continues, it may lead to the loss of your job.” Yes, that creates insecurity, but ultimately honesty is in everyone’s best interest.

Several years ago, we had a talented staff person who turned out excellent work but at the expense of the people with whom he worked. I held conversation after conversation with him expressing appreciation for his work but trying to explain, “Look, you can’t go on bruising people as you accomplish your tasks. This has to stop.” But nothing seemed to change. The necessary people skills just weren’t there.

After much thought and prayer, I found a task-oriented position for him in which he didn’t have to work with teams of people. I relieved him of his previous responsibilities and placed him in the new position more suited to his abilities. Nine years later, he continues on our staff as a respected worker, appreciated and loved for his contribution.

In spite of our attempts to be fair, there inevitably will be occasions when the outcome is painful. At those times, fairness may be the most we can expect to offer.

Leading the Team

Workers who are led well and who enjoy fruitfulness and fulfillment can join together to form a strong, smoothly functioning work team. But just like an individual, the team needs to be led. It needs to be encouraged and motivated; it needs to be informed and educated; it needs to have its vision renewed. The avenue through which this happens is the staff meeting.

The staff meeting is similar to the team meeting a coach schedules prior to an important game. Because the coach knows his players are about to confront the opposition, he prepares his agenda carefully. He determines what his team needs most and lists his primary objectives for the meeting.

A church staff faces a challenge far more important than any athletic event, so it’s good for pastors to view staff meetings as opportunities to motivate or equip their team for the battle. It’s not effective to make a few announcements, work through a brief agenda, and then wonder why workers comes up with so many excuses for missing these weekly meetings.

If staff meetings exist mainly to enable the leader to communicate his agenda, staff morale will suffer. But the leader who thinks, What does my staff need? How can this meeting help them grow in their effectiveness? will find the staff eagerly anticipating the meetings. And when staff members feel served by the leader, they will breathe life into the organization.

A leader who recognizes the various functions of staff gatherings will be able to serve his staff’s needs better. First is the business meeting, in which the work of the organization is contemplated and communicated. It’s the time for making announcements and comparing calendars. Second is the training meeting, where the staff is educated for greater effectiveness. Third is the relational meeting, which builds unity.

Many organizations spend the bulk of their staff time in business meetings. But leaders devoted to building up their workers know that business is their least important staff objective. If they do have to make announcements, they do so in the context of the vision and purpose of the ministry. For instance, I can say, “Well, folks, we need to fill fifteen slots for small-group leaders. Who can we get?” That’s an announcement. But I build our common vision if I say, “Friends, our people need to taste what it is to be used of God. One way we can help them do that is to give them a chance to lead small groups … “

Recently Bill Hybels, our senior pastor, had to inform the staff of some difficult adjustments in the upcoming year’s budget. Bill carefully explained how the adjustments in each department fit into the overall plan, what the implications of not making the adjustments were, and how they ultimately would enhance our efforts. Rather than simply handing out a ledger sheet, he built vision and a spirit of camaraderie as he challenged us to accept the adjustments for the sake of the overall ministry.

Even with such vision-building twists, only about 25 percent of staff-meeting time should be spent on business issues. The bulk of staff time—50 percent, ideally—should be devoted to training. We have found staff meetings to be the best place for workers to develop skills that lead to increased fruitfulness and fulfillment. We’ve taken our ministry directors through in-house courses on public speaking, lay counseling, and discipleship.

For instance, we’ve just worked through a book on leadership. We read it individually. Then in regular staff meetings we broke into small groups to discuss and apply questions I prepared. I try to use variety in the way skills are taught. Some themes work best as talks; some are great for discussion groups. We’ve had outside experts, such as a professional lecturer on public speaking, lead us through some sessions. Sometimes I ask a staff member who excels in a particular skill to share his insights. Recently the director of our counseling center presented a three-week series on counseling techniques.

Through classes such as these, we’ve taught our staff how to recruit leaders, build teams, and delegate responsibility. We’ve even discussed confrontation and conflict resolution.

We try to use 25 percent of our staff time for relationship-building activities. Relational meetings can include anything from a volleyball game to pour-out-your-heart sessions of sharing and prayer. Most of our staff meetings include regular times of sharing and prayer. One department even publishes an in-house newsletter with prayer requests, answers to prayer, and messages of encouragement to other staff members, and the staff prays through it together monthly.

Special events also contribute to the emphasis on the relational. We may have lunch together on the patio or attend a Cubs game. One of our ministry directors actually ran his key lay leaders through a boot-camp-like obstacle course, where they had to work together in order to make it through. Such activities pay large dividends in team spirit.

Devoting time to nurturing staff members’ competence and interpersonal relationships says we value them, not just their ministry output. Organizing staff meetings to meet their needs is one of the most important ways we can serve our workers.

Results

Overseeing a staff is hard work. It takes time and energy to communicate clear expectations, provide personalized leadership, and offer accurate and honest evaluation. It takes even more time and energy to forge individual workers into a smoothly functioning work team.

Leadership is particularly draining when it involves making tough decisions. But the rewards validate the efforts. Some time ago I received a letter from a staff member that reads in part (with names changed):

I wanted to encourage you regarding something you said in ministry directors’ meeting yesterday. As you put it, “It is better to do the painful task of redirecting someone now than to let it go on, making the task more painful in the future and the rebuilding process that much longer.”

One reason that’s true is that those under such misplaced people also suffer. For the two years I worked under Ted, I was in agony. Though he tried to do the right things, his methods left me hurting (to this day). Part of what devastated me was the thought that you must not have thought much of me to have left me in the care of such an inept person.…

Your moving Ted out and putting Jeff in restored my faith in you. Now I know you care, because you provided me with a leader who can do the job well.

I don’t know how much longer I could have worked under the old conditions. But I’m still here, more fulfilled than ever—and dare I say more fruitful?—and it’s because you faced up to a tough management dedsion and did the right thing even though it caused you pain.

Thanks for enduring that for me.

A letter like that reminds me that the decisions I make have repercussions that go far beyond the people I oversee directly. It’s the rippling effect again. My effectiveness in leading them determines their effectiveness in leading others, and eventually that impacts the entire congregation.

That’s why the way I lead is so important. The people under my supervision need to be built up and encouraged, so they can enjoy maximum fruitfulness and fulfillment, and produce that in others. If I don’t provide leadership to bring that about, I’m not doing what I’ve been called to do.