When you start hearing about defining “values” of a team, do you sometimes think–well, we’re just a small group, that doesn’t really apply to us.
I’m with you. Sometimes a group of just four or five, say a small sub-committee or ministry core team, doesn’t quite seem to need values, right? I mean, we’re so small and close, we “get” each other. But, think about it from this perspective:
When we first drafted and integrated our values we were a four-person team. We spent a few weeks developing our corporate values together, discussing how the values should be interpreted (and hence applied), and then integrating them into our processes and culture. A year later, we’re 21 people and growing, and our team still references these values multiple times a day. (Amelia Friedman, “How to Establish Values on a Small Team,”HBR, Apr 2018)
Whatever your ministry or organization, it’s likely to “grow”–even if growth in your context means training volunteers or engaging parishioners. It’s easier to reflect and shape culture early on, before it becomes an entrenched harmful culture, so taking the time to do so when small can save heartache and hurt down the road.
Key steps from the rest of Friedman’s article (which I highly recommend):
Develop your corporate values together
Give folks the opportunity to reflect and contribute thoughtfully.
Get all ideas out there. And then organize them.
Collaboratively identify a shortlist of values.
Integrate your values
Reflect and share…what have your successes or lessons learned been when developing shared values within a small team?
Misunderstanding the Catholic meaning of “Tradition” can stifle inklings of innovation, creativity, and new design in our mental models as we minister. Let’s start from the beginning…
What is Tradition in Catholicism?
Three powerful points on the meaning of “capital-T” Tradition in the Catholic faith:
Para. 78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition…Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” Para. 79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church – and through her in the world – leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”
Para. 83 Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed.
Insights from David Fagerberg
Through the lens of liturgy, Catholic theologian David Fagerberg offers insights with application to decision-making and planning in a ministry or parish. Three key points:
Tradition is Something More than History.
The love of tradition in Roman Catholicism came to be identified, as was natural, with conservatism, but conservatism proves itself to be inadequate.
Tradition is a capacity, a faculty.
Fagerberg’s synopsis of Church teaching is,“The pure notion of Tradition can then be defined by saying that it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, communicating to each member of the Body of Christ the faculty of hearing, of receiving, of knowing the truth in the light which belongs to it and not according to the light of human reason” (Fagerberg, “The Cost of Understanding Schmemann in the West”).
Pondering Church teaching, he emphasizes that Tradition would therefore seem to be both how something is delivered, and what is delivered. By an action called tradition (a verb), a content called tradition (a noun) is delivered. A thin sense of tradition is merely precedence. By this definition anything can become traditional if given enough time. Do it more than once and it becomes a tradition. In this thin sense, everything was “untraditional” the first time it was done (Fagerberg, “Two Centuries”).
Under a more complete grammar, the thick meaning for which I am searching, something could be said to be Traditional the first time it was done. A sacramentary in Latin, the iconostasis, Gothic architecture, the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, the term homoousios—all these were Traditional the first time they appeared.
Patristic theologian, Jarislov Pelican, captures this contrast between a Tradition alive in the Holy Spirit, and tradition as “dead,” unmoving custom or convention, writing:
Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.
On Common Mental Errors in Ministerial Leadership
As leaders in ministry, how does this apply to us? Mistaking traditions for Tradition limits our openness to God’s spirit and curtails brainstorming before it even begins.
Pope Francis reflects:
I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation. The renewal of structures demanded by pastoral conversion can only be understood in this light: as part of an effort to make them more mission-oriented, to make ordinary pastoral activity on every level more inclusive and open, to inspire in pastoral workers a constant desire to go forth and in this way to elicit a positive response from all those whom Jesus summons to friendship with himself. (Evangelii Gaudium, 27)
Without an accurate and deep appreciation for Tradition, we can find it difficult to imagine, dream, or renew–difficult to brainstorm about “transforming everything” when it comes to customs, schedules, structures, etc. for the sake of the Church’s preeminent evangelizing mission.
Phrases That Hint at Our Self-Imposed Limits
When our minds (or mouths!) say…
Tradition is something we stick to…
Tradition ignores changes in culture…
Tradition prevents us from ______________…
Or, when we generally scapegoat our own strategic choices or decisions on “Tradition”–in all of these cases we’re turning the Great Tradition into a dead traditionalism. When others hear us do this or see it in our actions, to put it bluntly, we are reflecting poorly on the beauty and fullness of what the Church proclaims Tradition to be, we’re not making the fullness of our Catholic faith seem very appealing.
Typical versus Normal
In our modern use of English, “typical” and “normal” are often used as synonyms. But, when we examine them with more precision, they have different meanings.
Typical is what is characteristically most common. What’s usual. Happens the most. Normal, on the other hand, is what conforms to a particular, pre-determined standard. The baseline for deriving or assessing other related things.
For us in ministry and in the Church, what’s typical in our current, cultural/historical setting is not necessarily what’s normal in the richness of Church teaching. For example, in parts of the United States, it’s much more typical for the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) to be used with baptized Christians seeking full communion with the Church. However, this is not normal based on what the RCIA tells us, the “standard” from which various Appendixes are derived for the baptized, is the un-baptized.
In the Church, what’s normal per Tradition as seen in liturgical rites, Church teaching documents, etc. may not be what’s the most popular, commonly done, or typical in one’s ministry setting.
Praying for wisdom in the Spirit and a deepening appreciation for the richness and living vitality of Tradition can prevent us from short-circuiting our mental models in ministry, stopping good ideas before we even begin to discern them. As ministry leaders, Tradition is never a scapegoat, but a Spirit-inspired richness that renews in and through us.
Culture is the social norms found in any group. You might think, “nah, my church is normal…we don’t have any special culture”–but you’d be wrong. Like it or not, there are norms of behavior that predominate in any group. The real question is, is your culture helping or hurting the mission and vision you understand your local church serving in the world?
Peter Drucker famously quipped, “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” meaning that culture isn’t just a side issue or one-time initiative, but something so important to success that it must be cultivated continuously to ensure a healthy and flourishing organization.
How Do We Know How We’re Doing on Culture?
As the adage goes, “never accept a story without data, nor data without a story.” In church world, we lean a bit more toward accepting stories without data, so it’s important for us to seek out metrics for keeping a continuous pulse on how we’re doing on growing a healthy culture in our churches.
How to do this will vary from church to church, but a “scoreboard” or “scorecard” is a must-have. Whatever you call this, it’s something that’s concise–can be read/understood in 1-4 minutes, usually 1 page or smaller–that provides a “snapshot” of indicators of culture at the present moment. When teams of leaders at various levels review this regularly, it helps unite everyone around the common goal, see how different initiatives that each might be working on interconnect, and collaborate to make changes on the fly, for the sake of continuous improvement. Worrisome indicators can be addressed before they become huge “implosions” of negative culture (and really 🙂 everyone wants a more peaceful and relaxed life, right?).
What to Include on a “Scorecard” or “Scoreboard”?
physical environment, aesthetics, and facilities
customs and habits
values and attitudes
…and see if there are quantitative or qualitative indicators related to any of these. Commit to a mix of both–50/50 discipline if this is a challenge for you! (And it is for most ministries). Keep a special mental “eye” out for leading indicators, meaning, indicators that give you a “heads up” on some larger, future goal, rather than the “lag” indicator that’s available, say, only after that big Christmas outreach has passed, for example.
Sample Church Scoreboards / Scorecards
There’s no one right format for any church. Here’s a very basic example of something that’s 1 page, can be read in <5 minutes, and incorporates both qualitative/subjective assessments of specific actions that are in-progress and quantitative lead indicators.
A scorecard/scoreboard like this should be updated every time it’s viewed, and the Actions should change once completed. The lead indicators, if well chosen, should be relevant for many months (and even years), though as situational understanding evolves, you’re likely to discover that new ones emerge and some become less relevant.
Additional resources I recommend taking a look at:
Amazing Parish Thematic Goals — While the examples given are not about organizational culture specifically, they do show how to break down the goal of a healthy organizational culture into sub-goals. Why I wouldn’t recommend copying this example precisely, is the lack of quantitative measures. Assessing indicators as red/amber/green based on progress can be highly subjective, vague, and thus reduce the effectiveness of a scorecard/board as a tool for spurring collaborative action. [Note: some organizations do assign specific quantifiable metrics to red/amber/green, however, it can be a bit more confusing as it forces readers to reference a “key” to explain the colors.]
First West Church Scoreboards — These examples show various “scoreboards” for different areas within a church, in a form that includes plenty of quantitative leading indicators.
Now time for you to share! Do you have a great example of an assessment tool for culture? Tell us about it in the Comment Box.
Are you recognizable to the average attendee at your parish? Should you be?
I’ll backpedal a bit first…one of the things that surprised me when I began formation as a lay ecclesial minister was that the question of if, say a Director of Evangelization, Adult Faith Formation Coordinator, Director of Religious Education, etc. should be a parishioner at the same parish where he/she is employed. Coming from significant time in evangelical Protestant settings, I found this culturally perplexing–I’d never known anyone on ministry staff in any of my Baptist churches that maintained “membership” elsewhere.
There’s as much individual variety in this question as any, i.e. circumstances where a person works far from where they live due to family or financial needs, situations where language/cultural differences in parishes drive a specific choice, times when one’s “home” parish simply doesn’t offer any employment opportunities in a person’s field, etc.
But, let’s enter a generic (aka like none of our lives!) situation, an imaginary vacuum of sorts. Chris Wesley asks the essential question: “If someone needed a youth minister [in your parish/church] would they know exactly who to walk up to?” I encourage you to frame it more broadly and ask this: is your position on staff as a lay ecclesial minister one that a person who is less-engaged (i.e. not attending Mass weekly, checking parish website, etc.) would need to talk to?
Maybe it’s because you’re leading the RCIA team or Alpha–ministries where the less-engaged might find a starting point. Maybe it’s because you’re key for helping people discern their gifts and connect to ministries to serve in. Maybe it’s because you’re coordinating children’s ministries and rarely get a chance to talk to the adults who drop-off kids at your programs.
If this seems like you, Wesley sends an encouragement to simply be present around weekend Masses. Not in a way that compromises your own participation in worship and liturgy–but as something intentional flowing from your staff role. (See Must-Implement Concept #9 on the importance of including this in job descriptions). Doing this, Wesley writes, “not only maximizes your impact, but creates a loving and relational culture. That type of environment is why people will come back to your church.”
Be present and be approachable.
How you do this will depend on your role, your personality, your parish, and more. But the point is to do it. Take the step to offer more connection, more person-to-person contact, and see what fruit it brings in terms of relationships with those you serve–and fruit in your own spiritual life. Many in ministry recognize a humility in being behind the scenes–and this is a good thing. However, you’ll never know how God may be wanting to use you to offer a smile, a well-spoken word, a consolation, a hug, much needed empathy, or simply a reminder that they are not alone, to those who aren’t at your “regular” ministry events. Our parish campuses/grounds are the perfect place to first embody the love of Jesus that we week to bring to the entire world.
Why is it so hard to build the trust that’s essential for productive conflict as a team doing ministry?
If you’ve ever delved into Pat Lencioni’ s The Five Dysfunctions of a Teamyou’ve got the idea that trust is a foundation for any team–and only on that trust, can a team truly engage in healthy, productive conflict.
One of the barriers to this, however, can be the “accidental values” in an organization. These are the values that aren’t intentional and actually hinder the long-term good of the organization.
Another barrier to trust is the “fundamental attribution error.” This is the tendency in an organization to falsely attribute the negative behaviors of those whom we disagree with, who are newer to an organization, or otherwise on the margins to their character (an internal attribution), while attributing one’s own negative behaviors to environmental factors, like a decision made by someone else, etc. (an external attribution).
Organizations with teams that hold onto “accidental values” or are prone to the “fundamental attribution error” in decision making will likely struggle to build the trust essential for a healthy organization. At its heart, organizational health for a ministry means that the body of believers who have been first joined together in Christ, and now come together for a specific purpose, are consistently living out strategy and operations within a culture and values that all hold together–that make sense, that are consistent.
Organizational health starts with a team. And then spreads to other teams. A team of teams. A culture, values, norms, and way of being that’s best caught, rather than taught.
Truly living as a team is a difficult thing, a very specific thing. It means more than simply being together or working together. This is another stumbling block for many organizations–assuming that “we” are a team, when it’s not the case. Lencioni explains:
a team is a relatively small number of people (anywhere from three to twelve) that shares common goals as well as the rewards and responsibilities for achieving them.
Many groups that aren’t true teams succeed. There are good reasons not to be “partially” a team without going all-in on trust and productive conflict. Even within the Body of Christ, people can get hurt when there’s a pretense of forming a team, without commitment to the tough values of trust a team requires. As Lencioni cautions:
if your group is not meant to be a team, it’s far better to be clear about that than to waste time and energy pretending you’re something you’re not. Because that only creates false expectations, which leads to frustration and resentment.
In summary, these three challenging barriers to overcome in building trust as a team are:
Your “accidental values” — the deeply ingrained norms, cultural habits, and values of your organization that work against the team you’re trying to become.
The “fundamental attribution error” of limiting one’s own vulnerability by justifying negative tendencies of the “in” group to external, environmental factors beyond one’s control, while calling out the negative tendencies of others as unchanging character or personality flaws.
Experiences of false expectations of being a team. When team building with people who have experienced the perception of a “team” without the direct and vulnerability-based trust, there’s a brokenness to be overcome.
What have your experiences been? What, for you, has been the most challenging hurdle to becoming a trust-filled team in ministry?
…No parish organization should be content to dwell in suffering, or embrace suffering flowing from unhealthy organizational relationship as a spiritual discipline, as dutiful conformity to Christ. No, Christ’s suffering was redemptive. Our Savior lives–He did not remain in the grave. He did not remain on the Cross. Evidence of past suffering marks his Glorified Risen Body, yet the victory has come.
The suffering in a parish organization journeying to become truly healthy should be the suffering of confronting situations, exposing unhealthy relationships and assumptions, of mutual openness among leaders, of facing difficult situations head on. This suffering is not weakly accepting unhealthiness in the Body, but boldly, in the Spirit pursuing the ultimate good for the glory of God. Becoming a healthy parish organization means walking in the Spirit to distinguish the suffering of dysfunction and the suffering of transformation, so that we can flee the former and embrace the latter.
Yet even where Christ’s victory prevails, where forgiveness between members of Christ’s body is possible, this suffering of dysfunction can create real hurts, personal hurts that don’t disappear instantly. Human pains like experiencing a break in trust, loneliness, fear of vulnerability, or bitterness–just to name a few.
What to do on a human level when these experiences come?
Avoid the situations that fill you with bitterness, the pain of broken trust, etc. Sometimes we can’t, but if you can–do it. As Fitz notes, “Yes, it would be fantastic if you could somehow be so saintly that Fr. Backstab and Sr. Gutpunch didn’t bother you anymore. Maybe one day that will be you. Until then, give your weakness a little breathing room.” Yes. Breathing room.
Draw close to those who can help you through it. The type of person this is will vary. It might be a listener who can help you process the pain. It might be someone who creates that “breathing room” through healthy and joy-filled distraction (yes–we can and should have fun!). It’s not someone who merely reinforces the experience of personal pain or echoes back bitterness, isolation, etc. to you.
That feeling of dread, regret, or resignation. Not wanting to step into the office. Wishing you’d never taken that new diocesan position. Wanting this year of RCIA to be over because you don’t even want to see your volunteer team. What does it mean when ministry becomes the setting for feelings of desolation?Where is God leading me in times when problems seem overwhelming and suffering seems far from redemptive?
Job often comes to mind as a Biblical portrait of suffering and persistence. Yet, Job’s situation is very different from most of ours in specific ministry settings. See, God puts Job through a trial of extreme crises in faith and life–questions of survival of everything and everyone Job knows and loves. Job does nothing to bring this on himself. For many in ministry (whether paid, volunteer, ordained, or non-ordained) our particular way of living out the call to missionary discipleship is something we’ve discerned and chosen. Something we’ve stepped out to do.
This brings us to a different Old Testament character, Jonah. Jonah is a missionary prophet. He’s actively stepping out to do God’s work. While Jonah does face a crisis, it’s not one of basic human needs and longings, but of if he’s going to listen to God’s words for him and how Jonah should fulfill the call God has placed in his life.
When we think, maybe I’m just not where God called me to be, we’re in a place to enter into Jonah’s story more deeply, to see where we might persevere or change in order to serve God in the way He desires of us.
Diving into the Bible, we meet Jonah with the narrator’s declaration, “The word of the LORD came to Jonah” (Jonah 1:1). Notice the passiveness of Jonah. His patient, receptive posture. Jonah was listening. And we find out in verse 2, that he hears God’s communication clearly. Jonah’s not acting on divine silence, nor guessing in absence of communication or answered prayer.
Maybe when we experience desolation in our ministry, it’s because we never heard the word of the Lord as Jonah did. Maybe our good intentions were charitable, but not what God willed for us, personally.
But Jonah, he’s not falling into that trap in his ministry. He hears God, yet he decides to resist. He “made ready” for a new, impromptu plan of “fleeing” away from the city and ministry God had called him to (1:3-4). Jonah is being reactive; there’s seemingly no purpose to his actions other than trying to be “away from the Lord.”
Jonah takes flight on a boat and a storm comes. In this dangerous situation, the boat’s captain comes to Jonah (1:6). Jonah’s qualities and calling in ministry can’t be ignored–even if he’s choosing to turn away from what God has equipped and called him to. Jonah is immediately aware of what he has done (1:12). And this isn’t shocking–remember, Jonah heard God, Jonah knew what God wanted of him. Jonah acknowledges what he has done, how he fled from God’s true desire for him. Oh how we yearn for this clarity ourselves in problematic ministry situations! In times of desolation, we can say “yes, Lord–I’m ready to repent,” yet not have the slightest idea what God had wanted us to be doing in the first place.
How does God respond to Jonah? He sends “a great fish to swallow Jonah” (2:1). This is active voice, God is acting directly in Jonah’s life, creating a space for temporary hardship, challenge, and (if Jonah’s anything like us moderns!) forced introspection (I mean, it’s not like there was reading material in the fish’s internal organs). Early allegorical interpretations of this passage suggested that this time of darkness and testing represented Israel’s exile. Later, Christian allegorical interpretations (spurred by the Gospels themselves, i.e. Matt 12:38–42 and 16:1–4) offer Jesus’ three days in the tomb as a parallel. Yet, the original sense of the passage in and of itself–without any allegory–is very relevant to each of us when we experience problems in ministry. As Walter Brueggemann writes:
It is enough to see the ‘fish’ as a vehicle whereby Jonah is put deeply at risk to the power of chaos (the sea), and is rescued by the power of the Creator (who presides over chaos) through the creature, the fish. Thus the rescue of Jonah is also a demonstration of the power of the Creator who will not have the mission of the prophet thwarted (Introduction to the Old Testament, 231).
The second time God speaks to Jonah, he listens. He acts “in accord” with God, not fighting, going against the grain, or avoiding what he heard from the Lord (3:1). God’s will is done, God’s heart is full as His mercy is extended to the people of Ninevah who turn to the Lord. Jonah has had “success” in his ministry, but still he is not where God wants him to be in his heart and soul. We can find ourselves in these places too–doing the successful thing in ministry, even seeing fruit, yet not truly living the life God has called us to. There’s external fruit, yes–praise the Lord!–but still not the interior conversion God desires of us.
The Lord teaches Jonah this in the final chapter of the book. Here we find Jonah outside the city of Ninevah, sulking about how he knew all along of God’s merciful character, and it was that knowledge that drove him to flee, so that he’d avoid this “awful” predicament he’s in right now. The narrator hints that Jonah is still holding out some “hope” that the mercy extended by God to Ninevah might change, as Jonah builds a dwelling to “to see what would happen to the city” (4:5). As one might guess, it’s pretty hot and sunny out in the desert, so Jonah’s quite happy about a nice shady gourd plant that grows up by his new home (4:6). But then God takes the plant away, and Jonah finally gets it. It’s not about him. It’s not about us when it comes to ministry.
We need to discern and listen where is it God is calling us to, and what it is God wants us to do. We can grow attached to a certain vision of how, when, and where will will serve–but ultimately it’s all a gift from God. A particular ministry or belief isn’t ours to cling to any more than the gourd tree was Jonah’s “possession” when God shows us otherwise. God’s concern is far broader than ours! And, even if we don’t fully understand it in every moment, God’s gracious love for all includes each of us. Always. In every moment.
In the end, through Jonah we see that God’s will is not simply what’s convenient for us, or what we already happen to believe (or want to believe) about the mission field around it. God’s will for us might include people we’ve never thought of before. God’s will might be something more precise or focused than what we currently dream of. Each of us can only know when we begin as Jonah did: hearing the word of the Lord.