It Takes A Church...

Canoeing the Mountains: A Sneak Peek

Here is a clip that can serve as a "Sneak Peak" to the presentations that I will be making on October 28 for the San Diego Presbytery Pastors and Leaders Retreat Day.

How do we "canoe" mountains?

How do we lead our churches into uncharted territory? 

How do we lead when the way in front of us is completely different than the terrain we were trained for?

What does this changing world require of us as leaders?  

When Win-Win is Wrong-Wrong.

The first leadership book I ever assigned my staff team was Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Effective People. It was, as my pal Charlie would say, “the right tool for the job.”  My team indeed became more "effective" in lots of meaningful ways.  One of the concepts that helped us the most was Habit #4: “Think Win-Win.”

Coming into a situation where there had been lots of “every ministry for itself” thinking and little teamwork around a unified vision, we needed to learn how to think “Win-Win” in as many situations as possible.  And it worked.  Within a remarkably short time, we became a “Win-Win”-seeking bunch of teammates all working together around a clear vision of what our church could be for our community.

Fast-forward a decade and the same “Win-Win” team finds itself “Stuck-Stuck”.  We had made a lot of good changes, the church had grown and we had re-built our entire campus.  Things were good. Mostly.

But now we faced far more complex challenges.  Challenges that had no clear cut solutions. Challenges that were more systemic in nature.  Challenges that required us to learn what we didn’t know.  Challenges that couldn’t be solved through a conference or a video series or a program.  What Ronald Heifetz calls an “adaptive challenge”.   Adaptive Challenges are the true tests of leadership.  These are the enduring tough problems that require PEOPLE to change in order for problems to get solved.  And, by definition, an “Adaptive Challenge” CANNOT be solved through Win-Win. 

Adaptive Challenges can only be solved through careful, wise, discerning, collaborative decision making that results in someone losing.  Indeed, if the organization or church (or  business or state, or country!) doesn’t face this hard reality and insists on “win-win”, the only real result will be “lose-lose.”

One executive pastor of a large Presbyterian church put it to me this way:  “Until now, we could solve every problem in our church through ‘addition’.  If there was a problem, we simply added another ministry, added more money to the budget, add more staff to the team. But now we can’t afford to add anything more.  Any changes we make now are going to have to come through making hard decisions and ‘subtraction’.” For a church that’s used to addition, ‘subtraction’ is really, really painful.

In our own church, getting beyond “win-win” required me to learn to lead differently.  Specifically, while the first decade of my ministry was built around getting “wins” together as we moved toward our vision, if we were going to truly fulfill our mission, we were going to have to make many more tough choices where someone was going to lose.  Perhaps for me, the most important day in my ministry at SCPC was when I realized that if we were going to move beyond “Win-Win” to bring genuine, missional, faithful, change the first “loser” was… me. 

More next post.

On Leadership and Learning Or The Two Newest Quotes on My Facebook Profile

After a bit of a blogging hiatus, I am returning to reengage in some conversations stemming from an intense 18 month season of participating in and leading organizational change.  Please join the conversation via comments.

"There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'" Abraham Kuyper

"In times of great change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped for a world that no longer exists." Eric Hoffer

In October, I was privileged to attend a “think-tank” like gathering at Laity Lodge in Texas, put on by the Laity Leadership Institute.  It was an amazing collection of thinkers and leadership practitioners involved in academics, politics, social sciences and business all coming together to discuss “Trinitarian Leadership”.  I was there, in part, to say a few words on the Trinity and how the Trinity relates to leadership.  (Of which, I will write in other posts.)  But mostly I was just thrilled to learn whatever I could by being part of a conversation on Leadership for the renewal of organizational life.

In many ways, those two themes, “Leadership” and “Learning” have been the dominant ones of this season of my professional life.  For years now, my focus has been on learning, unlearning and relearning leadership.  I have read a number of fine books, been introduced to concepts that I had never heard before, have had to reconsider my own leadership gifts and approach and been part of leading two extensive organizational restructuring efforts in my church and in our presbytery.  (Indeed, I was the moderator for a group that led our Presbytery to recast its vision as a “Missional Learning Community.”) I have started doing some coaching and consulting and have found myself speaking (when I am not preaching at church) now more on leadership issues and especially “change-leadership” than on any other topic (including, my bread-and-butter “community”).  

But what has endured since the conference was the lingering power of conversations with people who are the literal embodiment of Kuyper’s declaration.  I discussed generosity and fundraising with a former US Ambassador, learned about “employee engagement” from a senior executive for a huge multi-national corporation, and talked about sustainability and environmentalism with a dean of a business school at a leading Christian college.  I learned about the writings of Wendell Berry from a psychiatrist and discussed how Wendell Berry reveals some things about Abraham Kuyper’s vision with a guy who knows Bono.  I chatted about balancing home and work life with a lawyer for a former presidential candidate over ice tea and homemade bread.  I learned about Estonian composer Arvo Pärt from a world-class cellist.  I had conversations about global economies and spiritual formation, chocolate candy and G.K.Chesterton, baseball and fly-fishing, the White House and farming.  

Since then, I have received letters and materials from my new friends, invitations to speak and well-wishes to stay connected.  Some are now even FB friends, too.  Which leads me to the two quotes that lead this post and two reasons why after a long-season of “learning-induced bloggers block” I am writing again:

First, while it does take “a” church to raise a Christian, it takes “THE” church, scattered over every “square inch of the whole domain of human existence”, to fulfill the mission of Christ.  If Christ’s “Mine!” claims the whole universe, then Christ’s followers must indeed be present in the world participating in the transformation of it for good.  We must continue to answer the call to service and leadership in every arena.  For every one of us who is called to pastor “a” church, we need thousands of committed, engaged, passionate followers of Christ to go into every sector of society and offer friendship, service, conversation and leadership.  In every boardroom, classroom, or courtroom, at every kitchen table or conference table, in every conversation, facing every dilemma, leadership means being present in the “mystery and mess” of God’s work in all the world.   

And second, as “disciples” of Christ, we are first, foremost and without ceasing, “learners”.  And it is as learners, not experts that we will make the biggest impact on the world as it unfolds and changes in front of us.  I fear that we in the Church are too often like those “learned” ones who, as Hoffer says are “beautifully equipped for a world that no longer exists.”  Unlike the gathering at Laity Lodge, we offer ourselves as experts on techniques and programs, we make ourselves into consultants and gurus who give to the world quick fixes and “Ten Steps.”  All the while we wonder why so few flock to hear us.  But the Laity Leadership Institute gathering was different.  

We need to marvel at the generosity of people who will share their lives, experience and expertise with us and as leaders, more than anything we need to figure out ways to bring people together for mutual learning.  Peter Block said that “Leadership is convening;” it is bringing people together to learn from each other and around a common mission and discover a sense of community that they didn’t know existed.  

Leadership and learning, leadership through learning. Not only does this sound like Christ’s own Kingdom project, but it is exactly what I experienced in October at Laity Lodge (and, I suppose, why I am eager to blog again.)

The Blessing of Blogger's Block

A quick glance back at the date of my last post will let the reader know that I have been suffering a bit from “blogger’s block” for a while now.  Not that I haven’t had any thing to write.  Since I last blogged I have written a dozen sermons, hundreds of emails, the prep work for a Leadership Open Space Gathering, and several revisions of our Presbytery’s proposed Vision for Mission Design.  It’s not that I haven’t had anything to say, it’s just that I found myself stuck about what to say next in this series that has captured my blogging attention since early in the fall.  And attending to, instead of resisting that “stuckness” finally led me to understand something about myself and my role as a pastor and leader that I had been silently resisting.

So, with apologies to anyone who actually missed this blog while I was working it out, I think I may be on to something.  To recap, back to where I was….

A year ago I read a book by Rod Beckstrom and Ori Brafman called “The Starfish and the Spider” that challenged me to start thinking about the way in which organizational design can limit organizational effectiveness.  I was challenged and fascinated by their insights.  Further, while they never mentioned the early church as an example, it was clear to me that if they had looked at the New Testament, there would have been ample reason to include the first century church as evidence of the success of an organization of circles and shared values. 

At the same time, I was working with a team of people from Los Ranchos Presbytery on a reworking of our Vision for Mission Design.  The Odyssey Group, as it was called, was working out a shift in our presbytery from being primarily a “regulatory body” to a “missional learning community.”

Meanwhile, at the church where I serve as Senior Pastor, we have been in the middle of a reconfiguration of our church leadership culture from a “pastor-centric” to “collaborative” model.  This process had started in earnest in June 2007 when I had invited in Kevin Ford of TAG to consult with us based on the concepts of his book, The Transforming Church.

At the center of all of this discussion was an ongoing to and fro around roles and responsibilities.  Especially leadership roles and responsibilities.  Most specifically the Pastoral roles and responsibilities.  (And notice the plural in roles.)

I was using my blog to reflect upon the insights of Beckstrom and Brafman and had written a dozen or so posts on a roughly once a week basis when I got stuck trying to work out the last piece on the roles of a pastor. 

In my last post I had written about pastors as catalysts, but even more than that, pastors had to be champions.  Something that I truly believe.  Indeed I need to finish this thought because I believe that it is as a “champion” to a community filled with catalysts and connected people that a pastor finds the kind of fulfillment and energy that makes ministry so rewarding. 

But…this is where I got blocked.  Other thoughts kept running around in my head.  Thoughts about staffing a church team, about the roles of pastors and lay leaders together, about who gets paid in a church system and why, and how in an organization of “circles and shared values” there is a crucial “adaptive shift” that must take place that is so difficult for most communities of faith to do that they never make it.  Thoughts that led to questions that I couldn't answer and even worse, questions that led to more questions.

Every time I wanted to hold up the role of Champion as the main role for a pastor in a “catalytic and connected community”, I kept feeling this, “yeah, but…” sticking like a sliver in my mind. And after just sticking with the unanswered questions and continually raising them in different circles, I stumbled on an insight that has been staring me in the face all along.  Even more than being a Champion of Christian catalysts and their ideas, Pastors especially had an even more important function in a community that is so wedded to who they are as pastors and leaders that it has been overlooked.

The primary role of pastors in a church community, the role that we are most equipped for, most eager to do...
the role that probably got us into this in the first place and the role that we probably left behind somewhere along the way as we became more experienced and successful...
the role that if we could recapture it and if our church’s would let us live it out would keep us pastoring longer...
The role that many, many churches are just to fearful to let their pastors pursue is that of…

Learner.

This is what I needed to figure out how to say.  Pastors are not primarily Chaplains or CEOs, and only secondarily Catalysts and Champions.  We are, are at least we once were, Learners, students, disciples.  And as we reconnect to and live out that primary calling as learners we best serve our churches. 

Further, if we are recast as the CLO of an organization (the Chief LEARNING Officer) we guide our churches into the organizational shift that is most necessary if our churches are going to remain vital in a changing world.  This shift has been at the heart of the redesign of our Presbytery, the restructuring of our church and the renaissance of my calling as a pastor. 

It’s the shift from an “Expert-Centered Organization” to a “Learning Community”.  (Which will be my next series of posts after I put up the "Champion" piece.)

For me, the blessing of blogger’s block was reconnecting to the part of me that was resisting becoming the “Starfish and the Spider” expert.  Even blogging has a tone of “I know this and need to share it”.  I was struggling with writing about something that wasn’t fully formed in my mind.  About writing about what I was learning, what was changing, and how I was shifting.  And that led to me being “blocked”.

When people asked me when I was going to post again, I went from feeling irresponsible to finally feeling free.  And all it took was for me to honestly answer, “I don’t know.”  I didn’t know when I was going to post again, because I didn’t know when I was going to figure out what I needed to figure out.  And once I embraced that ‘ignorance’, ‘insight’ followed.

Because I am at my best when I admit what I don't know.  Being a learner is what eventually led me to be a pastor. Being a committed passionate learner is what led me, paradoxically, to become a leader.  When I am leading from my ignorance, (instead of my expertise), I am ironically leading best.

In the upcoming posts, I’ll explore this notion of being the CLO of a Learning Community as the heart of leadership for a changing world (and especially at the heart of pastoral leadership in a changing world.)

But for today, I just want to give thanks for a blessed and fruitful blogger’s block.

Starfish and the Spider #3: What good is a Starfish anyway?

All of my friends who have read The Starfish and the Spider have told me that the first 158 pages were both interesting and frustrating.  The stories of the power of decentralization were compelling and engaging.  What’s not to like about the “little” apaches taking on the “big” Spanish Army?  Or decentralized Napster wreaking havoc on the centralized music industry?  Or rag tag Al Quaeda…oh.

That’s when the frustration set in.  While decentralization is very effective at attacking, confronting and deconstructing (or in some cases destroying) centralized entities, what good are they?  What can they do that is constructive? 

As one of my older friends commented in a most exasperated voice, “What good are starfish?  They just lie there.  At least Spiders build webs.” 

Even the stories of positive “starfish” organizations like Craig’s List and Alcoholics Anonymous had a frustrating downside:  They don’t make money.  They can’t pass on assets in an enduring way that can last beyond the personalities of those running the “circles”. 

So, what’s the answer?

Some, in applying this starfish thinking to the church, have advocated a return to home churches or informal networks of Christians without any formalized (and especially paid) leadership.  No buildings, no foundations, no bylaws, no structure.  Just Christians hanging out together for Jesus doing the mission of Jesus. 

But what if you already have assets like a building?  Or you want to provide for some security for leadership so that they can stay put and shepherd the flock?  What if you want to start a hospital or university to carry on the mission? Or what if you want to insure faithfulness to a vision beyond the personality of the founder?  (I have no idea what will happen to “Craig’s list” after “Craig”.)

As soon as you buy something or “resolve” something or pass down something or pass on something, you have a “head” of some kind.  And the informal, organic, spontaneously splitting starfish becomes a “spider”.  Remember how the US Army conquered the Aztecs?  They gave them cows.  As soon as they had stuff they had to settle down and protect it.  And in many ways, that is what has happened to so many of the home churches or informal Christian groups I have known.  They were changed as soon as they had something to protect.  And in most cases, that was cows…but kids.

As soon as you want a children’s ministry, or a youth program or you want to insure that there is something for your kids that is safe and secure for them to belong to or to grow into, you become a spider in some way.  Indeed, security always leads to centralization of some kind.  (Which is why Ebay bought PayPal and why every decentralized online merchant relies on some trusty centralized banking system so that people will give them their credit cards.  Would you give yours to some stranger named “Craig” just because he has a list?)

Which is why on page 159, the light bulb goes on.  This is when the authors introduce the idea of the The Combo Special of the Hybrid Organization.  Figuring out this "Hybrid Sweet Spot", this right combination of some centralization and some decentralized is one of the most important ongoing decisions for any changing, adapting organization. 

This process of discerning what must be centralized for the sake security and what can be left decentralized for flexibility, creativity and adaptation is the key leadership question of our age. 

And so, ponder with me:  What MUST be centralized in a healthy organization and why?   What is necessary for good, constructive decentralization?

Starfish and the Spider #2: Is the Head the Problem, or the Problem the Head?

If you asked most people in my church or who are familiar with church things what my title is they will tell you that I am the “Pastor” or sometimes the “Senior Pastor” of San Clemente Presbyterian Church. But, officially, in the Presbyterian Church (USA), my title is actually “Pastor and Head of Staff”.  And if Brafman and Beckstrom’s book, The Starfish and the Spider is correct, that title and all that it reveals could be the one of the most significant reasons that the PCUSA and other denominations are in decline.

But let me tell you a true story…

Last fall, a consultant that we hired to evaluate our church walked into my office.  The plan was that after he had sifted through a few hundred surveys and finished up with several focus groups (including a group of people who had left our church), and had conversations with my executive staff and some representatives of the rest of the staff, that he and I would talk one on one. 

He sat down, smiled and said, “You should be very happy about what is going on around here.  All the indicators are that this is one of the healthiest churches in the country.  People respect you, they love your preaching, they know and are committed to the vision of the church, they trust the leadership, they believe that it is heading in the right direction.  It’s a really strong church.  In fact, if I lived near by, I’d raise my children here.” 

I listened, not terribly surprised, but gratified all the same.  But, I knew that a “but” was coming…

“But, people are beginning to disengage emotionally.  They feel as if there is no place for them to personally contribute.  That the staff and inner leadership of the church runs everything so well that there is no need for them.  Many people feel as if this church can run just fine without them and that the church itself doesn’t need them to participate in any way.  They are satisfied but complacent.  Many of them are beginning to slip away.”

As I listened to him, I felt both saddened and relieved.  I had had a sense that there was something that was creating a kind of malaise in our church community.  That for all the indicators of strength, that we were beginning to plateau numerically and become complacent spiritually.

“Okay,” I said, “it’s good to get that feedback.  So what do we do?” 

He said, “First of all you have to see the problem for what it is.  For all the strengths you bring, Tod, the problem is you.  We have rarely seen a church that is as healthy as this one.  We have NEVER worked with a church that talks about its pastor as much as the people here talk about you.  The people are here because of your preaching and your leadership. Many believe that this church was turned around, even 'saved' because of you. The people who left did so because they thought that you can’t relate to them.  The people who are excited feel personally close to you, the people who are complacent say that they need you to support their visions and dreams.  And most people believe that the church will die if you leave. This whole church is built around you.”

I gulped.  I honestly didn’t know what to say.  I didn't like the idea that this church was so much about me.  I felt a bit embarrassed and defensive.  I really hadn't tried to make the church so centered around me.  But obviously, that is exactly what had happened.  So, I just asked, “What do we do?” 

He said, “You have a couple of options.  On one side, you can all continue on the way you are going.  You have great job security, the church trusts you, people will follow you.  You can keep doing what you are doing for another ten years and then what will very likely happen is what is happening at large churches all over the country.  They start a slow decline that continues until the pastor finally leaves.  Then they cave in.  And the church has to start all over from the ground up.”  (My mind raced to all the other ministries that I have been part of before coming to SCPC…none of them thriving today.)

“Or you can begin to make changes to move yourself out of the center of the church while still being the pastor of the church.  You can move from a ‘pastor-centric’ model to a ‘collaborative’ model.”  And that was the first time that I heard the word in this context that would lead to the biggest “adaptive shift” of my leadership style: “Collaborative”. 

Starfish and the Spider is study in the power of collaboration.  The Starfish and the Spider argues that while healthy, “centralized leadership” can build healthy, visionary, enduring organizations that are worthy of investing one’s energy, time and resources, that same centralized leadership also stymies the collaborative creativity that makes personal investment and participation so exciting, meaningful and well, fun.

In fact one of its central rules is “Everybody wants to contribute”.  They draw upon the story of Wikipedia to demonstrate that when given an opportunity to meaningfully and positively invest in something they believe in, most people would rather be participants than spectators.  However, strong centralized leadership, no matter how well-meaning and effective, inevitably erodes participation and personal contribution.

In Starfish, Brafman and Beckstrom demonstrate that whenever there is a “head” in the center of the “body”, the body overtime naturally becomes overly dependent on the head.  (Indeed, if the head is cut off, the body dies.)  But if the function, the values, the security and accountability of the head can be distributed throughout the body, then the body can survive, adapt and multiply.

What I learned from the consultant and from reading this book, is that the very style of leadership that has made my congregation appreciate and trust me was now keeping us from becoming the church that we needed to be and this book was giving me a vision for what that new creative, collaborative community could look like in our church.

Now, Brafman and Beckstrom are NOT arguing for complete decentralization (indeed, in most cases that would be catastrophic), but for what they call the “sweet spot” of the “hybrid-combo”:  A system that is centralized in the things that bring security, accountability and trust and decentralized in the areas that need creativity, participation and investment.

In a “Collaborative Model” the whole system is set up to engage and invite the personal participation of every member of the community in the partnership of ministry.  It’s not about carrying out the leader’s vision, it’s about each person working together in partnership to contribute to a much greater vision.  As our consultant told me, “Tod, if this church can stay as healthy as it is, and become more collaborative, it can make a great impact for the Kingdom.” 

To understand more about this, next post, I’ll say more about the history of our church,  “The Hybrid-Combo Sweet Spot” and why Ebay had to buy Paypal.

Leadership and Generative Shifts

The fourth and final segment from my Odyssey Group presentation to the Los Ranchos Presbytery on "Shifting the Work of Organizations".   This final segment talks about the most overlooked element of leadership in a world where everything is constantly changing.  To watch all the segments go here, to see the previous presentation called "Canoeing the Mountains"  (that also introduces the Odyssey Group go here.  If you'd like to subscribe to future videos coming out of our work as a presbytery click here.

Toward Missional Effectiveness

A Matter of Trust

The second video installment about the necessary "shifts" that must occur for organizations (like our Presbytery) to adapt to a changing environment.  This segment refers to the "fiduciary responsibilities" of leadership, and that means a whole lot more than money.

When Trying Harder Isn't Working

Here is the first installment of a new presentation I made on "Shifting the Work of Governing Bodies".  Sounds thrilling, huh?  While it is targeted toward our presbytery, hopefully anyone who serves a mission agency, a school board, a hospital or any other entity in which you give your time and energy passionately will find some helpful things in a changing world.

I'll post the other three parts as they are finished.