Chapter 17

CHANGING THE RULES

Removing Unrealistic Expectations

One of the first things new advisors are likely to ask is, “Why are you doing that?”

Unencumbered by our long-held traditions, expectations, and standard operating procedures, they can see the unintended consequences of the patterns and behaviors we take for granted. They’ll often suggest some major changes, especially in two areas: relational expectations and organizational structures.

In this chapter, we’ll look at relational expectations. We’ll see how unrealistic expectations can cause an organization to hit the wall and what it takes to change the relational rules of the game (both written and unwritten). Then in the next chapter, we’ll look at organizational structures and what it takes to recognize and change the structures that hold us back.

Spoiler alert. Changing the relational rules of the game can be a bit scary. For some folks, it’s terrifying. But if you’ve hit a wall of unrealistic relational expectations, changing the relational rules of the game and working through the fallout is the only way to break through to the next level. Sometimes you simply have to change the rules or lose.

EXPECTATIONS

Everyone has expectations. Sometimes they’re realistic. Sometimes they’re not.

When leaders have unrealistic expectations of staff, congregants, or customers, it creates frustration, conflict, and turnover. But when staff, board members, congregants, and customers have unrealistic expectations of a leader or leadership team, it can also create a mess, especially when those unrealistic expectations are relational.

For instance, in a startup company, the founder is generally available to anyone on staff. As the company grows, it soon becomes necessary to bring in additional upper management. But early staff members may resent this change to a more executive style of leadership and the loss of immediate and direct access. Some lose motivation. Some badmouth the changes. Some leave for a competitor.

But the entrepreneurial leader has no choice. Adding new management positions and changing relational patterns has to be done or the company will stall in its tracks. Without these changes, it can’t move forward.

The same thing happens when a small church grows.

In a small church, people rightfully expect nearly instant access to their pastor. They expect to be known by name, to be counseled, married, and buried by whoever speaks on Sunday. It’s the relational paradigm of a small church.

But as a church grows larger, it becomes nearly impossible for a pastor to meet those same expectations. It’s no longer realistic for him to know every name and to counsel, marry, and bury everybody connected to the church. If he tries, he’ll soon be the one needing counseling.

In one sense, everybody gets that. They know that the pastor of a growing church can’t possibly meet every need. Most members of a growing congregation are good with that.

As long as he meets their needs, performs their wedding, and counsels them through their crisis, they’ll be more than happy. It reminds me of something a mentor once told me. “Larry,” he said, “everyone will tell you to slow down, but nobody really means it, especially if it impacts your relationship with them.”

LOW-LEVEL FRUSTRATION

I always tell young leaders that you can’t lead if you can’t live with low-level frustration. Most of them think that I’m referring to the internal frustrations of leadership.

I’m not.

I’m referring to the low-level frustration that the people we lead will often feel toward us and our leadership team. A major part of successful leadership is seeing what needs to be done, finding a way to get it done, and nudging mildly resistant to strongly resistant people to go places they need to go, but don’t want to go.

The fact is few people will understand why you do what you do. But that’s why you’re the leader and they’re not. If everyone understood and agreed with everything their leaders did, there would be no need for leaders.

In the relational realm this is particularly true.

No one in your organization will ever consider their own expectations to be unreasonable. Few will be happy when you have to change the rules of access, especially if it locks them out of the decision-making process or insider knowledge and status. But if you grow, sooner or later, it will have to be done.

Jim Collins popularized the idea of getting the right people on the bus and then making sure we have the right people in the right seats. It has become a common metaphor for building a great staff and having a winning team.

He’s right. We must have the right people in the right seats on the bus. But that’s easier said than done. When it comes time to move someone to another seat, few will go willingly, unless of course we’re moving them closer to the front of the bus.

Lots of leaders and teams get stymied because once they hit a wall of unrealistic relational expectations, they can’t handle the pain and conflict that come with changing the rules. So they try to find a way to keep everyone happy, even if it means the wheels come off the bus.

WHERE THE PAIN COMES FROM

One of my greatest leadership mistakes was underestimating and devaluing the level of pain and loss that comes when the relational rules change. Like many leaders, I was personally willing to do whatever it took to fulfill the mission. For me, personal sacrifice and loss for the cause are a given. I don’t begrudge them or resist them. They’re simply the price of leadership.

I identify with the way the apostle Paul described his own approach to ministry: “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.”¹⁴

But what I missed badly was that not everyone on our team or in our church was wired to be a leader. I made the mistake of assuming that everyone was just like me (or would be when they grew up). I figured they would handle the loss of power, prestige, or preference in the same way I did. Go home, kick the dog, and get over it.

I couldn’t have been more wrong. Looking back, I was an idiot. And at one point, it cost me dearly. It even led to an attempted coup.

THE LOSS OF POWER

Whenever it’s time to change the decision-making or reporting structures within an organization, someone loses power. It can’t be helped.

As healthy organizations grow, they make room at the top. The number of people sitting at the leadership table grows. That adds new blood and new ideas. It keeps the young eagles around. It’s how growing organizations stay fresh and innovative.

But sooner or later the leadership table gets too crowded. Communication suffers, meetings run too long, low-level conflict increases, and nothing much gets done anymore.

That usually means it’s time to shrink the leadership table back to an appropriate size. But therein lies a problem. Who should stay at the new and smaller table, and who should go?

Having the right people at the new table almost always means that some folks who were there first will have to give up their seat. That’s incredibly painful, even for those who know it’s the right thing to do. It’s excruciatingly painful for those who don’t understand why they’re the ones who no longer have a chair.

As a leader, it’s vital to understand and acknowledge their pain. Go toward the problem. Ignoring it or hoping that it will go away won’t work. It will only make the pain worse.

That doesn’t mean that those who have lost power will suddenly agree or understand the changes. They seldom will. But it will do wonders for making sure that their pain doesn’t turn into a festering wound that also hurts others.

Refusing to shrink the table or to put the right people in the right seats is not an option. Once you’ve hit a wall, you have to address who is at the table or you’ll be stuck in neutral. Having people in power who shouldn’t be in power is a guaranteed way to make sure that you remain stuck. You’ll never break through the wall. That’s probably what caused you to hit the wall in the first place.

THE LOSS OF PRESTIGE

Recalibrating relational expectations not only impacts who has power; it also impacts how people feel about themselves. It has been said that knowledge is power. That’s true. But it’s also prestige. That’s why we gossip or tell stories that we were supposed to keep confidential. There’s something about being in the know that makes us feel important.

Whenever someone on your team used to be in the know, but now no longer is in the know, expect them to experience a deep sense of loss and some occasional embarrassment.

Let me explain.

When it came time for our board to change its role from overseeing day-to-day details to more of a high-level governance model, it meant that they would be in the dark on some things they used to know about. The church had grown so large and complex that having the board involved in every decision was slowing things to a crawl.

So we all agreed on a new set of board guidelines and expectations that narrowed their scope of hands-on oversight. For the most part things went fine. But there were a couple of board members who periodically fell back into micromanaging. At first, I couldn’t understand why. They had agreed to the changes, but every now and then kept reverting to the old rules.

Then it hit me. Almost every time that they demanded more day-to-day details, it was immediately after a social setting in which they had been asked about a decision the staff had made, but which they had no knowledge of.

I realized that subconsciously they found it devaluing and embarrassing to be in the dark, especially when they used to know everything. So at the next meeting, they’d ask lots of questions.

And it’s not just the loss of insider information that causes this loss of prestige. The loss of easy access to a leader will do the same thing. When someone who once dropped into your office at will finds out they now need an appointment, they’re bound to feel a great loss. It can’t be helped.

But once again, any loss like this has to be personally addressed. People who have lost a sense of prestige need to know that you understand how they feel. That won’t take away their pain. But it might take away the fight-or-flight response that often follows deep hurt and pain.

The fact is, if given a choice, most people in an organization will choose to maintain comfortable patterns of relationship over fulfilling the mission. That’s why people who are passed over for promotions, demoted, or moved to another seat on the bus so often leave the church, nonprofit, or business that previously meant so much to them. Their embarrassment and sense of loss are simply too painful to handle, no matter how important to the mission the changes might have been.

Unfortunately, despite the pain it causes, there’s no way around the need to change relational expectations when you’ve outgrown the old patterns and have hit the wall. You have no choice. It’s the leader and leadership team’s job to make these tough calls.

THE LOSS OF PREFERENCE

A final area of loss that comes with significant changes in relational patterns has to do with personal preferences. Easy access to leadership and positions at the seat of power generally come with lots of input into how things are done.

When that input is lost, many people discover that things are no longer done according to their liking. They lose their personal preferences.

Just like a loss of power and prestige, the loss of personal preference is a painful deal. It’s why so many former leaders (board members, pastors, staff members, company presidents, and business leaders) have to get out of town once their gig is up. They have a terribly hard time accepting the fact that they no longer have a say in how things are done. And worse, they discover that some things are done in ways they don’t approve of. Their loss of personal preference in an organization they have long helped to shape and lead can be devastating. So much so that in some cases they end up sabotaging the direction of the new leadership.

Changing relational expectations is never easy. But letting longtime congregants, customers, staff members, or former leaders have their way is a recipe for stalling. In most cases, it was doing things their way that caused you to hit the wall in the first place. Allowing them to continue to have their way ensures that your church or business eventually shrinks to a size that perfectly fits the way everyone wants to relate to one another.