As the church grows the structures change to deal with new sitution, with the reality that the game has changed. Larry Osborne points out some ways that help us know the game has changed.
How you know it's a whole new game
A star football player and good athlete, Tim decided to go out for the varsity basketball team. He made the team. But whenever it came time to play hard-nosed defense, he reverted to the tactics he'd learned on the football field. He never quite understood that this was a new game with new rules.
What football player Tim called "a little pushing and shoving," the basketball referee called a foul. Soon Tim was on the bench, frustrated that the officials didn't appreciate the tight defense that had won him awards as a cornerback.
While changes are inevitable in a growing church, they are not always easy. Leaders who don't see them coming or don't realize they have already taken place pay a high price in emotions and relationships. So do their teammates and churches.
Besides simply the number of players, here are other signs that the game has changed.
Relational overload.
An increase in time spent massaging relationships is an early sign that the game may have changed.
My preferred style of leadership is relational. I'd rather convince than give directives. I don't do memos (okay, I didn't do memos). Instead, I prefer to pass vision and direction through ad hoc meetings around lunch or the water cooler.
That worked well for a long while. Adding a few staffers and a weekly staff meeting, we easily made the transition from track to golf to basketball. We hit our stride. We hummed along on a long winning streak. It was a blast. Everyone was happy.
But with steady growth in attendance came the need to add new players. Eventually we were no longer an overgrown basketball team. We were a football team. But since the staff came aboard one at a time, I didn't realize the game had changed. I noticed I was suddenly spending a lot of time keeping everyone in the loop.
The ministry team thought we were still playing basketball, so they were upset every time something happened that they didn't know about. I thought we were still playing basketball, so I assumed their complaints were legitimate. Their grievances about relational issues eventually pointed me to structural issues. Only when I realized I was trying to lead a football team like a basketball coach did I find my way out.
Increased miscommunication.
When important messages are chronically missed or misunderstood, it's time to change the way we play the game.
On a golf team, communication is easy and natural, there is seldom a need to set up a special meeting to discuss anything. They probably covered it on the way to the clubhouse.
When our church staff was small, we hardly ever had a scheduled meeting. It felt silly. If we had something to discuss, we did it on the spot. It was fun and fluid, and took little time or planning. But as our staff grew, that style was less effective. Someone was always missing from our discussions. The larger team needs intentional communication.
I've coached my son's basketball teams. Ocasionally, another team will throw a surprise defense our way. Nothing is harder than trying to explain to the kids in the middle of a game what's happening and how to beat it. It seldom works.
The information is not that complicated. But you need a chalk board, about two minutes of explanation, and several walk-throughs. The problem is the number of people who need to grasp it. If just one kid misunderstands or tunes out, we'll turn the ball over, no matter how well the others understand. Usually, we just do the best we can and then deal with it at the next scheduled practice. Larger teams need special meetings, chalk talks, and film sessions to keep everyone on the same page. And if the group grows large enough, you'll have to break it down into smaller groups to facilitate communication.
That's not as easy as it sounds. Expect resistance when shifting between sizes. Duffers who thrive on leisurely fairway talks will feel cheated when you suddenly call an in-bounds play for the last shot. They don't want to substitute rambling conversations with agenda-driven meetings.
For many of them, it's not the game but the relationships that count most. And hoopsters who once knew everything about the game plan aren't usually thrilled with a new structure that leaves them focusing on only part of the picture. For them, knowledge holds the key to power and prestige. Because of this resistance (and the fact that some of us like the old game better than the new game), it's tempting to communicate in the old ways long after they no longer work. That might keep one or two players happy, but the rest of the team will flounder. The coach can either help the team adapt to the new reality, or wait until serious conflict solves the problem by shrinking the group to a more comfortable size.
Conflict over decisions. Many ministry teams are hamstrung when it comes to making decisions. Their structures remain stuck in the past, appropriate for a game they are no longer playing.
More commonly the bottlenecks occur when we try to include too many people in the process. Some years ago we added just one person to a key team. Previously, this tight golf team made great decisions and enjoyed the process. But suddenly things fell apart. A group that once reached consensus quickly started debating every little thing. Coalitions formed, relationships suffered. What were once enjoyable strategy sessions became dreaded staff meetings.
What happened? The game had changed, but the players didn't know it. The problem was not the newest member. The problem was adding one player too many without changing the rules.
Look what happens each time a new person joins the decision-making mix: With two people, you have to maintain just two lines of communication. Adding a third creates six lines. A fourth, 12. A fifth, 20. Add a sixth person and you now have 30 lines of communication to monitor!
No wonder growing leadership teams find their old processes breaking down.
The basic principle: daily operational decisions need to be pushed out to the frontline while decisions about vision and direction are made by an ever-narrowing group at the top. This ensures that those close to the action make good decisions and those who shape vision are not bogged down by relational overload. As a church grows, directional decision-making shifts from congregation to board to staff. At the same time, operational decisions once vested in the solo pastor and a few lay members shift to staff or to specialized team leaders. Unfortunately, it's here that many church leadership teams get stuck. As a result, important decisions become bottlenecked and meetings turn combative. The real issue is not who makes decisions, but that the decision-making architecture remains appropriate to the game. When it no longer fits, we must be willing to change it.
Next Time: Play Ball!
No comments:
Post a Comment