Church members: They want just a little bit of info

How do those who come to your church feel about your church’s communication?

During a recent vacation, I saw a variety of good and poor communication from leadership. It reminded me what it might feel like to be a church member (not in a staff or leadership position) and to not be well-informed regarding church issues.

I had a airplane pilot who communicated well.  Although he couldn’t control the weather, our diversion to another city, or sitting on a tarmac for almost two hours, he communicated clearly and often with us about our status and next steps.

I also had my family pulled from a theme park because of a fire alarm. No fire trucks responded, and no one communicated to patrons how long we’d be standing in the sun with our kids pleading to go back in.

When I arrived home, I saw a church communicating the removal of their founding and senior pastor for “unfortunate choices.” I won’t weigh in on whether it was good or bad communication because I don’t have enough information to earn that right, but I’ll say this: I know they were faced with communicating a really difficult message.

All these experiences reminded me of the need for church-leaders to be really great communicators.

When churches don’t communicate, or do so slowly or ambiguously, one of these usually happen:

  1. You frustrate committed members who’ve earned the right to know information
  2. You leave a gaping hole about what’s going on, and people begin their own narrative to fill the void
  3. You create an atmosphere of mistrust, or at least a feeling that there’s a lack of transparency
  4. You lose credibility when you need to communicate something important

Many times, releasing small amounts of meaningful information will satisfy church members. But communicating even small amounts of meaningful information can be difficult because it’s complicated (confidentiality concerns, trust, managing the message, timing, and the possibility of it being live tweeted or captured via video).

So, how can church leaders communicate well, considering the many factors that impact information sharing?

Anticipate FAQs.  Consider your audience, determine what they want to know, and get ahead of it. Be succinct. When possible, say the last 2% first. As I wrote recently, three-fourths of an answer is better than an answer and a half.

Stick to the facts. Church leaders have a tendency to add more information than necessary, and that can lead to missteps. See previous remark.

Be prepared. You lose credibility if you’re unable to speak to key information. (Some of the content I wrote about being prepared for the media will relate here too.)

Manage, but don’t spin. In my interpretation, spinning is misleading or communicating with an ulterior motive – whereas managing speaks to providing limited amounts of information and having an intentional way of releasing it.

Be sincere. This is particularly relevant if it’s a difficult message (like the one relating to the removal of a pastor, mentioned earlier in the post). The only thing worse than a lack of communication is insincere communication.

Have a go-to forum. Whether it’s a town hall meeting, business meeting, bulletin, or remarks at the conclusion of the service, have a solid forum at a specific place and time for communicating important information.

Be considerate. Just because you don’t think changing the bulletin or replacing the pews with chairs is a big deal, it can be to the person who uses the bulletin as their only way to get their church information, or to the person who accepted Christ kneeling at one of those pews. I’ve seen a tendency in my generation (including me) and the one after me to be a little cavalier when it comes to interpreting which things should matter to others.

Not every church member wants fodder for gossip, and there are people who are invested in your church who’ll likely want to know things occurring there. So when confidentiality or governance guidelines don’t prohibit it, share meaningful information as often as needed.

Continue Reading

The Value of an Incomplete Answer

The meeting was tracking well. One particular individual was contributing helpful information and insightful remarks to those in the meeting. But then… they couldn’t stop. They kept talking. And before long, their extra contributions caused us to forget what their meaningful contribution had been.

One more point, one more remark, one more anecdote. It soon becomes white noise for all those listening.

You’ve heard it. And if you’re like me, you’ve done it.

In a recent episode of the 5 Leadership Questions podcast, Barnabas Piper and Todd Adkins had Simon Sinek as their guest (you can listen here). Sinek recounted participating in a meeting early on in his career and really being the person in the meeting who could speak with the most authority about a particular project the group had been working on. And he did. And most of what he said really mattered. But as they were leaving the meeting, a mentor of his put their arm around him and said:

“Three quarters of an answer is better than an answer and a half.”

I’ve written about this topic in a previous post titled, Being Prepared, But Saying the Least (in meetings). But Sinek’s mentor’s remark provided me a clear word picture for this practice of knowing when to stop contributing, and reminded me that a few comments too many can be the difference between meaningful content and being disregarded.

Take freedom in knowing:

  • You don’t have to know everything.
  • Everything you do know you don’t have to share with others.
  • And (as Sinek says in this podcast) even when you don’t know, you don’t need to pretend you do.

Giving an answer and half isn’t all about ego. Not everyone who gives more than three-fourths of an answer is trying to make sure everyone knows they’re a subject-matter expert. Sometimes, the topic is so important, they believe putting everything out there is critical.

But it’s rarely critical. And if it’s important for everyone to hear a comprehensive answer, a well selected three-quarters will prompt others to ask for more explanation, whether inside the meeting or outside it.

A filter: less is more.

Or a second filter: does this last “fourth” I want to say really advance the conversation? Advance the meeting? Advance the cause? Or is my next contribution really about me?

P.S. Also, don’t forget: sometimes we shouldn’t even speak the first three-fourths.

Continue Reading

5 Responses to Critiques

I like to read leadership books. What I don’t like is reading about myself in a book and it not being a compliment.

I guess I had delusions of grandeur that if I were to be mentioned in a top shelf leadership book, it would be for some sort of example where I’d been part of something good. But that’s not how it unfolded.

While reading the latest book of an author whose ideas and teachings I respect, I came across an anecdote about a meeting the author had with an executive pastor. As I read further, it became clear to me that he was sharing about an actual exchange he and I had on a previous occasion. The details he recalled (which were a pretty close rendering of the actual conversation) didn’t show me or my leadership in the best light.

What do you do when you read or hear feedback about yourself that’s negative?

If you’re like me, you react. On your best day, you hear it, evaluate its truth, and act accordingly. On your worst day, no matter if its truth, it elicits an emotion that’s likely tied to sin.

Can you think of the last time you heard someone say a critical comment toward you? How’d you feel? And more importantly, what did you do with the critique?

The answer to that last question is what separates average leaders from great leaders.

I don’t know if I’m alone in this, but negative feedback about my work and decisions comes fairly often. I work with and for quite a few people, and they all have opinions.

Sometimes those critical opinions of my work and leadership are expressed well. The “critic” isn’t disparaging me as a person, but is simply giving their opinion on how I did something wrong or made a poor decision. The author I mentioned earlier didn’t go after me as a person, but he captured a trait of mine that admittedly leaves me with a leadership deficit.

I could spend time writing about how I reacted in that situation, but I’ve spent enough time being a book-example-martyr, so let’s talk about how you and I as leaders can respond well to the critical comments that come our way

Respond to critiques by…

Separating from it

Some people need seconds of separation. Some people need days. I don’t know how you’re wired, but you need to know what your separation time needs to be, and then commit to not respond to the critique sooner than you should.

Setting aside the person

I think a lot of critical feedback gets missed because we only look at the person delivering it, and not the content. Some people are jerks. Some people have no concept of what you do. Some people are negative about all things. But that doesn’t mean their critique can’t be valuable in improving how you lead. In your mind, pretend the same critique instead came from someone you trust and who understands what you do. It’s mental gymnastics, but it can be helpful. And when you can play this game in your head, it’ll be easier to see content that’s valuable.

Seeking truth

What if you started with the presupposition that all critique has some level of truth? If you need biblical help to get you there, think, “I’m depraved. Therefore, my leadership is depraved.” What 2, 5, or 50 percent of the critique is true? Pray — seek what the Spirit affirms.

Many times critiques are uninformed or out of context. But even then, there’s almost always some truth in it. Don’t dismiss the little bit of truth just because the critic doesn’t have all the facts.

Substantiating

If you can’t determine if the critique is accurate, take it to someone you respect, and ask a question like, “Someone mentioned to me the other day that in meetings I come across as ‘My way or the highway.’… Have you seen that in me at times?”

If your substantiation process clears you, get the critical comment out of your head and move on. However, if it’s substantiated, move to the next step.

Setting a corrective course

(S)engage it (That’s a silent ‘S’ so I could keep up my alliteration)

First, re-engage the person you “set aside”. Depending on your relationship with them and what you think they can offer, say to them something like: “Your feedback caused me to think, and I’ll keep considering what I need to learn from it.” or something like, “Your feedback was hard for me to hear, but I think you’ve identified something in me that needs to get better. Do you have any thoughts?”

Second, engage the portion of the critique you can control and identify the ways you can make changes. It may be a helpful self-development exercise for you.

If you lead, critique will happen. Some of it will be more justified than others. But the discipline of responding well to critique and engaging with it in a healthy way separates average leaders from great leaders. Average was okay with me in school, but you and I know there’s too much at stake in our churches and in leading others to be average as a leader.

Continue Reading

Subscribe To Receive Posts in Your Inbox

Join my mailing list to receive all my blog posts in your inbox and other special subscriber-only content.

You have Successfully Subscribed!