Listening Leaders

“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” - Robert McCloskey

“Listening is a magnetic and strange thing, a creative force. The friends who listen to us are the ones we move toward. When we are listened to, it creates us, makes us unfold and expand.”

– Karl Augustus Menninger

There is power in listening: Visionary leaders know this. When a leader listens, two important things occur: (1) the leader, with the Spirit’s leading, can craft a shared vision that reinforces focus on the big picture, and (2) the listening leader plays a significant role in decreasing the fear that comes with change.

When leaders discern a shared vision for what the church can become, the vision then serves “the function of providing the psychological safety that permit[s] the organization to move forward.” (Edgar Shein, Organizational Culture and Leadership) I think we can all agree that visionary leadership is vitally important. But we often lose sight of the importance of a shared vision – a vision shared by the entire organization. This type of vision comes from the bottom up rather than from the top down. A shared vision is a more powerful instrument for change. More people are invested in its success.

A shared vision is a picture of what life can be like in the future. A shared vision is clear and compelling. It creates an image of what is attainable, but not easily attainable. It is not filled with abstract language and unrealistic projections; rather a strong, shared vision creates a clear picture of what a church or conference can become. It is something to which the members can relate.

When a leader listens to the people, a shared vision with personal implications is constructed. These personal implications are critical to success. The members of the organization (church or conference) realize they can live into this new future (the new change) without losing their identity. This reduces the level of fear, empowering members to move into a new and challenging future.

Over the past two months, Bishop James King traveled across South Georgia leading worship rallies. More importantly, Bishop King spent the day in each district listening to pastors in personal interviews. Can you imagine the time demands on a new bishop? Conference and denominational meetings, getting to know an entire conference, moving into a new home, and attempting to spend time with family. With all of those demands on his time, Bishop King made it a priority to visit all nine districts in October and November – spending the entire day listening to a variety of United Methodists.

Actions speak louder than words. Are you curious about the new bishop of South Georgia? I can assure you he is a leader who listens.

“Deep listening is miraculous for both listener and speaker. When someone receives us with open-hearted, non-judging, intensely interested listening, our spirits expand.”

- Sue Patton Thoele

2008 Economic Issues

In the past few weeks, some of the largest companies in the United States have gone the way of the dinosaur. The U. S. government bailed out a few, but government (meaning taxpayers) can’t bail out everyone. Times are hard.

In many churches, congregational giving is down compared to last year. Finance Committees are meeting now to decide 2009 budgets. As they prayerfully plan for next year, they are currently struggling to meet their 2008 budgets. Missionaries, church agencies, and even church members are asking for help. Gasoline and utility costs are rising. Churches are making 2008 budget adjustments as you read this and the forecast for 2009 is not good.

Many church members will not receive pay raises, yet costs continue to soar. Companies are doing away with bonuses and saying no to charities. Synovus Corporation, in Columbus, Georgia, is a $34 billion financial holding company and one of Fortune’s Top 100 Best Companies in 2007. Two weeks ago, they announced 650 job cuts. They had to make a quick, yet painful, decision to stay solvent.

The local church is also making quick adjustments. Will we cut programs? The programming budget is usually targeted first – but ministry suffers. What about operational costs? The church can’t cut insurance, electricity, gas, and other vital administrative costs without serious consequences. What about mortgages? Churches with mortgage debt cannot refuse to pay. Staff and salaries? Cutting staff or salaries carries a heavy price and may lead to decline. These choices are difficult, yet churches are making these sacrifices everyday – right now.

Apportionments will suffer. Churches may desire to pay 100% of their apportionments, but the money may not be there. When resources are severely limited and the choice is a mortgage, utilities, salaries, or apportionments - apportionments lose. Churches face these tough decisions every week. Now, here’s the rub – while churches are brainstorming, adapting, changing, and reallocating, it seems to me the denominational budgets don’t flinch.

Unlike many corporations, families, and local churches, United Methodist Conferences seem unable make quick, reactionary changes to compensate for fluctuations in the economy. That puts added pressure on churches, pastors, and district superintendents to make sure apportionments are paid at all costs. After all, the Conference budget is suffering.

Here is one example: In June of 2007, The South Georgia Conference approved the 2008 budget of $11,505,287 - $1.3 million more than was collected on the budget in 2006 (www.sgaumc.com, AC 2007). In that budget, we approved several new conference staff positions for 2008 called Congregational Specialists. We’ve hired two so far, and another job is posted right now. Isn’t it peculiar that an organization which may end up being $1 million short of its budget, in a horrendous economic downturn, is hiring more staff based on a decision we made 15 months ago? The rest of the country is laying people off. Let me add that I voted for that budget in June 2007, but in September 2008, I have no vote - only the voice of this article.

There are no easy answers here, but I believe we need to help our Conferences become more nimble organizations, lest they too, go the way of the dinosaur.

Transitions in the Methodist Church

Kevin and Edward Coyne, in an October 2007 Harvard Business Online article, discuss a new CEO’s role in shaping leadership and vision in an organization. In the first 60 days, personnel decisions are made by the CEO. Some executives are moved, some let go, some reassigned, and some promoted. The new CEO makes the call because the CEO gets the credit or takes the blame for the success or the failure of the organization.

In many Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches, staff members keep a letter of resignation on file. When a new senior pastor arrives, the pastor uses the first 60 to 90 days to evaluate staffing to see if they fit into their working style and vision. A few Presbyterian pastor friends of mine have used resignation letters – many times to the relief of the congregation.

The United Methodist Church is different. Pastors are appointed by Bishops, not interviewed by the church (most of the time). This promotes a culture where the new leader of the organization must tread carefully while negotiating relationships and leadership style. Granted, there are times when pastors come into healthy churches with no staff problems – but there are exceptions. Having served on staff at large churches, I have personally seen struggles between a new pastor and staff. In those situations, the struggle caused tension and led to the early delegitimazation of the new senior pastor’s leadership in the eyes of some members.

At one large church I served, a long time staff person walked into my office after meeting with our new senior pastor. The staff person said, “I’ve been here a long time and I’m not changing the way I do things.” The church supported the senior pastor’s vision and it wasn’t long before the long-time staff person departed – but it took time and it was a struggle.

The United Methodist appointive system is the best there is in my opinion. If you disagree, eat lunch with a Baptist preacher. But we do need more consultation between pastor and church in certain situations. Churches with full-time staff should be allowed a conversation between pastor and church/staff before the appointment is made. The new pastor needs to know if the staff and the staff parish committee are fully supportive. The church needs to know about the pastor’s vision and leadership style. Church and pastor may decide it is not a good fit, or they may decide it is a great fit. This in no way undermines the appointive authority of the Bishop – but it can make for more successful appointments. Actually, the process I’m suggesting was used previously in one United Methodist church I know and the result was a tremendously successful match of pastor and church.

I am not advocating turnover with every new pastor. Methodist preachers move too often for that to make sense. I’m just suggesting a conversation between church and pastor about leadership style, vision, and staff – before the appointment is final. Businesses, and the many mainline denominations, operate this way.

More Than General Conference

I tried to watch one afternoon of General Conference online, but I have to be honest – it reminded too much of CSPAN. After about 30 minutes, I had enough. The way we engage in dialogue as a whole in the United Methodist Church is not uplifting. The old adage from Otto von Bismark holds true with General Conference, “laws are like sausages . . . it is better not to see them being made.”

It is disappointing to see a forum where the biggest issues of our church are decided in an arena where debate is limited to three speeches for and three speeches against. No offense, but some of those six speeches are made by people who have no business ever taking the microphone in the first place. One thousand people dealing with the biggest issues in our church for a few minutes every four years – not exactly an effective way to dialogue with one another. And don’t confuse a four hour debate on homosexuality as substantive dialogue. Those hours are filled with amendments, amendments to the amendments, and other parliamentary procedures. No dialogue about the issue. No dialogue on issues of retirement age, candidacy processes, homosexuality, the number of bishops, sacramental authority to deacons, continuing (again) the study of the ordering of ministry. Granted, there are small committees that discuss these issues, but the larger body only addresses major issues a few days every fours years. Is this an appropriate amount dialogue to guide the direction of our church?

Rev. Robert Beckum, General Conference delegate from South Georgia, echoed this thought in a video interview that can be found at the South Georgia Conference website (www.sgaumc.com). Robert feels the nature of the process is flawed. The business is done in three minute sound bites. This is not a good formula for thinking through issues before the church. It may be the way we’ve always done it, but that doesn’t make it the best way to do it. I agree.

We need to create more opportunities for dialogue. Mistrust is fostered when we fail to listen to each other. I have always been an advocate for yearly, pre-Annual Conference discussions in every district. If the floor of an Annual/General Conference is not the place for dialogue, then let us create a space where substantive dialogue can occur. Here is an example: This June, South Georgia will bring a motion to change how we calculate local church apportionments, taking the membership factor out – 100% based on finances. Delegates will have many questions, but no time to address them all. There will be three speeches for and three speeches against. Then we vote to determine apportionments - 14% to 18% of every local church budget.

We must provide forums for dialogue about the issues. Pre-conference meetings, town hall discussions, district and conference days of dialogue, and other meetings on issues are all needed. We need to talk, but more importantly, we need to listen to each other. We should in engage in more holy conversations.

Tenure Matters

“How long have you been the pastor?” a visitor asks.

“Ten years,” I reply.

They look back at me with a little uncertainty. “You’re a Methodist preacher – I’m sure they will move you soon.”

I’ve been hearing that refrain for six years. People remember the days of moving Methodist preachers every four years. The old Methodist adage was, “After four years, if the pastor is good, it’s time someone else had them. If the pastor is bad, it’s time someone else had them.”

Considering the decline of our denomination, it is clear that our churches need leaders who can manage effective change. A major ingredient in managing effective congregational change is tenure. Let me be clear – tenure without shared vision and shared values is like a pool of stagnant water – it may be there a long time, but it produces nothing. Effective leadership shares an investment of more than time – the leader shares vision and core values with the congregation. As leaders build vision and values over time, trust grows and trust is the key ingredient in the dynamic relationship required to manage change. Serious, fundamental change (described by some as “frame-bending” change) can threaten the identity of the church. Congregations will not take a chance on losing their identity with a leader who they feel is not a stakeholder. They need a leader who understands the identity of the congregation – someone who is invested in that identity. If they feel the pastor is looking ahead to the next move, why would they enter into a time of disruption? Why would a church go out on a limb while the pastor remains on the ground?

Some pastors constantly look ahead to the next appointment - they move every four years. After 20 years in ministry they say, “I have 20 years of experience.” No, they have four years of experience five times. Churches are also guilty of a “four year and out” mentality. One lay person told me, “We are a four year church – even if we like the pastor, we make a change.” Then he wonders why his church has been in decline for 20 years. Pastors and churches with four year mentalities change very little. How can preachers and congregations learn and develop through conflict if they make a change every time the going gets tough? If they part ways when things are difficult, what do they learn? If a pastor moves every four years, where do they gain the leadership skills needed to lead a church through multiple stages of development? It takes more than four years to enact substantive change.

In The Second Coming of the Church, George Barna states, "The average tenure of a pastor in Protestant churches has declined to just 4 years—even though studies consistently show that pastors experience their most productive and influential ministry in years 5 through 14." A long term relationship (tenure), rooted in vision and values, builds trust. Trust is a required to manage substantive change. Tenure matters.

Ministerial Accountability

I’ve been blessed to serve on the South Georgia Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM). We’ve undergone many changes in how we evaluate clergy for admission into conference membership and ordination in the past several years. The process is more difficult now than when I went through, but it assures the conference that candidates have an understanding of Wesleyan theology and a command of the core competencies of ministry.

On the BOM, we joke about how glad we are that we do not have to go through the process now. We don’t really mean it – or do we? Think of the benefits to our church if all ordained clergy were required to periodically go through a recertification process. Many other professional vocations (with less impact on people’s personal lives!) require continuing recertification. At minimum, other professions mandate a certain level of continuing education.

In my time on the BOM, I have also served as the continuing education chairperson. While many take continuing education seriously, some do not. Do you know what happens if a minister does not attain the required number of CEU credits? Nothing. There have been attempts in South Georgia and other conferences to put teeth in continuing education policies. In South Georgia, the response was overwhelmingly negative to the idea of holding elders and deacons accountable for continuing education. The primary resistance was from the ministers! Can you imagine the response to a recommendation for some type of recertification?

Continuing education alone may not be enough. Let’s say a certain minister is not a strong preacher, yet a gifted administrator. Every year he/she looks for continuing education opportunities in administration, after all, that may be his/her passion! They learn a great deal, but all this new expertise in administration doesn’t seem to increase worship attendance. What’s wrong? They are, after all, fulfilling the requirement for continuing education.

Candidates interviewed by the BOM must show proficiency in the areas of theology, preaching, teaching, pastoral care, personal life and psychological health. They provide credit reports, criminal background checks, and divorce paperwork. We evaluate the whole person on the way in – and never again.

But look around your conference and ask yourself – which ministers have undergone the most recent disgraces? The large number of controversies and failures come from those who were approved years ago, or who have never been approved at all. Many live without accountability in both their personal lives and their public ministry.

Don’t hear me wrong – this is not about running people out of the ministry. On the contrary, I think the best system would be more akin to how we evaluate probationary members. If we find an area needing work, we make suggestions and offer help. We give time, resources, and training. We bring them back the next year to ensure they have followed the recommendations. Wesleyans emphasize accountability, holiness, AND grace. Our goal should never be a witch hunt, rather a covenant of accountability that builds the kind of church that can transform the world.