On Monday the final report was presented to the board.  Although programs are a staff responsibility at CCCC, the board is always responsible for due diligence under any governance model and program evaluations are a good way to show they are doing their due diligence.  They help assure the board that our programs are effective and efficient and that our mission is actually being fulfilled through our programs.  If an evaluation cannot show a program is effective and efficient and moving the mission forward, then it should be re-designed or scrapped.

The leadership team has also reviewed the final report and is beginning the process of revamping the conference.  I don’t expect significant changes for the upcoming September conference, but I do expect several significant changes for the next conference.

You can download the final report, Conference Evaluation Report – Public, if you wish to see the extent of the work.  I think it reflects a fairly comprehensive program review.  Certain parts we have labelled ‘confidential’ either because they refer to information from outside sources that we are not at liberty to make public, or they refer to new initiatives that it is simply premature to make public.

This brings the program evaluation series of posts to an end.  My hope is that you will select a program, any program, and try it out.  Let me know how you do!

Deciding what research needs to be done

Having:

1. selected the program we want to evaluate,
2. developed the program rationale (theory of change and logic model), and
3. completed the literature review,

we next reviewed every part of the program rationale (theory of change and logic model) looking for assumptions that we already know about and assumptions that come to light only as we think more deeply about the program.  The goal is to develop a list of questions we want to answer.  If we can answer those questions, we will know how well the program is working and how to improve it.  We also looked at the research questions that were developed at the start and thought about what questions we need to ask in order to answer the research questions.  Other ways we used to develop our questions included:

• Reading the literature review to find decision points where we’d like to know what our members think about the options.  In our case, the literature review did not spark any questions that had not already arisen from our analysis of the program rationale, but it did provide ideas for improvement.  Decision points include such things as length, plenary/workshop mix, use of technology, etc.
• We asked the senior team for their questions.
• We keep a statistical analysis of each conference and have extensive feedback forms for both the conference as a whole and all of its components.  We ran reports that showed that 25-30% of the participants each year are first-timers, but conference attendance is not growing at that rate, so we’d like to understand better how the decision is made whether or not to come again.  The feedback showed that our conference is considered by most to be the best run conference they attend.  There is only one question of logistics or conference administration to ask.
• Finally, overall responsibility for the conference rests with me, so I sat back, closed my eyes, and just thought about what I’d like to know more about.

Keep in mind that in any program evaluation you want to essentially answer two questions:

1. Were we effective?  You need to compare the actual output to the expected output to discover if you did what you wanted to do.  That’s effectiveness.  The theory of change helps you answer the effectiveness question: Did we do the right things?
2. Were we efficient? You need to compare the ratio of actual output to actual inputs and ask if you were good stewards of your resources.  That’s efficiency.  The logic model helps you answer the efficiency question: Did we do things right?

Specific Questions

We developed specific questions to guide the development of surveys and further research, sorted by category.

Assumed Problem and Assumed Causes questions

We wanted to know how people feel about conferences and the other means they use to stay current in their fields.  We wondered how people challenge and stimulate their own thinking.

Assumed Assets and Other Attendee Needs

These questions related to their habits, preferences and decisions about conference attendance.

Interventions

We wanted to probe what happens pre-conference, during the conference, and post-conference from the attendee’s perspective.  How does an event fit within a person’s larger context?

Short Term Outcomes

Moving away from the conference itself, we wanted to know what people do with the material afterwards.

Long Term Outcomes

Stepping back from any particular conference, respondents to our surveys were asked about their employer’s overall assessment of the usefulness of attending conferences.

Inputs

There were some questions, not for surveys but for further research, that we asked to improve the use of our time, the locations we rent, and the handout materials.

Success criteria

If there are benchmarks or standards available for the program you are reviewing, you would determine what threshold must be crossed in order to consider your program a success.  It is very difficult to set a threshold once you know what the results are because biases will enter the equation!

Ministries might ask questions such as:

• What recidivism rate is acceptable?
• What is an acceptable percentage of new believers who are still attending church and being discipled a year later?
• What percentage of clients should have a job a year from now with at least three months of steady employment?
• What percentage of our congregation is involved in some form of Christian ministry, whether with our church or with another ministry?

In our case, I cannot find any benchmarks for success, so as part of the research we will attempt to create some benchmarks by asking other associations with voluntary attendance at their conferences about their results.  We will also ask ourselves: In light of the number of ministries that benefit from the conference compared to our resources that it consumes, is it good stewardship to continue running a conference?  This criteria is a bit fuzzy for evaluation purists, but it is good enough for me given that we are primarily looking for ways to improve the conference rather than make a continue/discontinue decision.

 Methodology

We then reviewed each question and decided two things:

1. Who should we ask this question of?
2. How should we ask it?

We decided we would find the answers in the following ways:

• Ask people who have attended the conference at least once since 2006 (includes members and non-members)
• Ask members who have not attended the conference since 2005 (the conference is designed for our members so we expect them to come; non-members are not our target for the conference)
• Ask speakers who have presented in three of the past six years
• Review possible venues at certain locations
• Analyze our database for attendance patterns
• Talk with other organizations that run conferences
• Based on the results of all the above inquiries, select a small group of people for one-on-one interviews to delve deeper to get more insight on any remaining questions.

While we chose to base the review on surveys for the most part, there are many research methodologies you could choose from:

• Verbal data: Conduct interviews either one-on-one or in groups (focus groups)
• Client surveys: expectations of services, use of services, satisfaction, rating of quality
• Outcomes surveys: behaviours, beliefs and conditions that have changed as a result of your service
• Observational data: Watch and see what happens
• Archival data: Check data collected from running the program, your own records, plans etc.

While benchmarks may be helpful, there are always so many differences between organizations or even divisions within the same organization – circumstances, conditions, history etc. – that the best comparison is really between your current results and your past results.  Is your performance improving?

You are now ready to go ahead and do the evaluation.

How a literature review helps

A literature review will:

• broaden your thinking by providing context for the issue.  It’s possible to be so consumed with the immediate work at hand that you miss the big picture.  A lit review will correct that.  An inner-city mission might be founded to feed the hungry.  As they read about hunger they will find that it is very much related to poverty and poverty is related to several issues, including mental health and joblessness.  So the mission might add counselling and job skills training to its services.  But causes related to individuals are just part of the problem because there are systemic reasons why poverty exists.  So the inner-city mission may engage in advocacy work, seeking legislative change or systemic change that will help minimize poverty.  A literature review will help you think BIG BROAD thoughts!
• take you deeper into the nuances of the issue.  It will help you think DEEP thoughts.  While writing my dissertation about church-agency relations, I started with the understanding that the divisive issue between them was one of control.  Most of the authors framed their discussions this way, and yet as I did the literature review and dug below the surface of their arguments, I realized control wasn’t the issue – responsible relationship was.  The solution to the problem could not be resolved if the debate centred on control, but it is easily resolved once we address the underlying goal that was shared by every one of the authors.  This is the subject of my book The Church At Work: A manual for church-agency relationships that will be coming out by the end of the year.  Exploring the breadth and depth of your mission will stimulate all sorts of creative ideas.
  
• reveal the points of controversy and the resulting key choices you need to make.  Let’s say you are a Bible study ministry producing educational materials.  A literature review will show that adults and children learn differently and that there are various theories of learning that compete with each other.  There are methods of studying the Bible that compete with each other too.  There is even controversy over which version of the Bible is the best one to use for study.  There are many choices to be made in each of these topic areas and by understanding the points of controversy or divergence, you can make an intelligent decision for what your ministry will do and you’ll know why it is the best choice.
• will keep you up-to-date in your field.  Missiology, for example, has changed enormously in the last fifty years, and even the last ten years.  If you are a sending agency and are still using a missions model developed in the 1950s or 1960s, you are badly out of date.  Missiologists have changed their thinking on relationships between sending and receiving countries and created a new paradigm for global mission.  Not only has the theory changed, but so have the practices.  A lit review will help you be a leading edge ministry.

What to do a literature review on

Review your theory of change and logic model to find researchable topics.  The topics might not be explicitly listed, but look at each box and ask, “What topics are related to this box?”  Based on my previous post about the program review of our annual conference, some possible researchable topics for our program review include:

• conferences: trends, promotion, logistics, why people attend, business models etc.
• adult learning theory and converting learning into doing
• networking

How to find the literature

• Books often have the most thorough treatments of a topic.  Look especially for recent books based on primary research.  For help in selecting books, read this post.   Don’t forget to go to the library to see what you can borrow before buying a bunch of books.
• Online websites, blogs and journals are where you will likely find the most up-to-date material.  If you are referred to journals that only have excerpts, or if you have to pay for the information, check if your your local university, college or seminary subscribes to the journal.  If not, you can likely do the search from within the library and see the results because they have already paid for access to databases of journals and you can read them or print them out at the library.
• Ask people to recommend sources for you.  If they are in the same field as you, they can usually recommend either a title or an author.
• You can stop looking for additional literature when you find that all of the citations and references are to articles and books you’ve already seen, or when you find the material has become repetitious.

How to analyze the literature

First of all, the purpose of this literature review is to design better programs and services.  For a real life excellent example of how to do the lit review, see Andy Harrington’s example which I highlight here.  Since you are not doing an academic literature review, the only issue to resolve is whether or not the information is useful to your ministry.  How you analyze the literature depends on whether you are reading about application and execution (to tweak a program) or about ideas and theories (to test the design of the program).

If you are looking for application and execution ideas, you simply make a list of the ones you find in the lit review that you want to consider.  For example, a list of technologies that can enhance a conference experience.  If you are researching at the theoretical or idea level, then you have some additional work to do to get below the surface of differing opinions:

• What are the premises on which the various opinions are based?  Are they valid?  Do they apply to your situation?  Especially in the social and political spheres, you have to ask if the premises and conclusions are theologically acceptable.
• What are the authors’ goals and values?  Can you reconcile their various views?  Can some be discarded because they conflict with your goals and values?  Sometimes their goals and values are explicit and sometimes not, in which case you have to try to infer them.  In my dissertation research on church-agency relations I discovered that some authors were primarily concerned that individuals be able to use their gifts while others were more concerned about showing unity to the public.  Some had a Christological focus while others had a Trinitarian focus.  Some used very strong language heavy on the ‘control’ aspect yet when they gave examples of what the relationship should be, the examples were much more moderate in tone.  I was able to reconcile the positions of authors who at first appeared to be diametrically opposed to each other.  The result was a new model of church-agency relations that all of the authors should be able to live with.  In fact, one of the authors I critiqued read my work and said he agreed with the end result even as he disagreed on how I got there!
• Finally, look at the recommended action steps or the model they propose.  Have they made a convincing argument to support their recommendations?  Do they make sense to you?

 The outcomes of a literature review

• A literature review should make you aware of what the choices are for how your program is designed and delivered.  Based on this, the program review would then assess if the current design would benefit from a change.
• It may determine questions you should ask as you do the program evaluation.
• It should help you identify hidden assumptions you have made, which you can then test to see if they are valid.
• It might suggest that some further research is needed in a particular area.
• It could provide a shopping list of enhancements to the current program or a list of ideas for new programs and services.

Conducting a literature review will help ensure that, as you progress through the program evaluation, you are well-informed and up-to-date on the subject you are evaluating and it will help you focus on the areas that need more scrutiny.

Theory of Change

The theory of change is all about ensuring that you are doing the right things.  It is mostly about effectiveness.

It’s important that you know why you provide a certain program and understand all of the assumptions you have made about it.  The theory of change is how you document why you believe this program will result in changes that will help you fulfill your mission.  It also helps you find assumptions you may not even be aware that you have made.  I’ll be describing the model that I came up with for the conference.  If you click on the picture of the model it will open up large enough that you can read  it.

Click the picture to open a readable version

Impact

Since you should only be working on projects that will fulfill your mission, the starting point for a theory of change is your mission statement, which is the impact that you want to have on the outside world.  Since we are simultaneously doing a strategic review that will develop a new mission statement for CCCC, I have chosen to draft a statement that reflects the general idea of where I think we will end up.  Our desire at CCCC is to help ministries become strong and healthy so they can fulfill their missions.  That is both our mission and the impact that we assume our programs and services will make.

Assumed Problem

Why hasn’t our mission been fulfilled already?  Why hasn’t the positive change we want to see already taken place?  The next step is to consider what is holding your beneficiaries back from experiencing the fulfillment of your mission.  Depending on your mission, you may ask, Why haven’t people come to Christ yet?  Why are people still suffering? In our case, what is holding ministries back from being strong and healthy and progressively fulfilling their missions as well as they might?  There could be many reasons, and if this theory of change model was for CCCC as a whole, we’d document all of them here.  But this theory of change relates only to the conference, and the reason that relates to the conference is that lack of organizational knowledge results in ministries having to shift their focus, energy and resources away from their core missions into their non-core areas.  Perhaps they don’t know how to receipt properly and get caught in a CRA audit that suddenly requires management’s rapt attention.  Maybe their fundraising staff have damaged donor relations by taking donors for granted and they don’t know how to manage relationships.

Although there are assumptions underlying every box in this chart, I chose to highlight here one assumption that is so basic that I thought it should be featured right in the chart.  It is the premise that if people had knowledge of how to do something or knew who could help them, most problems could be either avoided or quickly solved so that more focus, energy and resources could be given back to the core mission.  They would then perform better and fulfill more of their mission.  All other assumptions will be documented when we get to the research questions.

Assumed Causes

Why does this problem exist?  What is going on in the lives of your beneficiaries that they have this problem?  In the case of our members, I think there are four underlying causes,  so we list them all.  First, people don’t know what they don’t know, and so may be quite unaware that there even are regulations and fundraising practices they should be knowledgeable about.  Second, even if they know they should be knowledgeable about a topic, many people are too busy to keep up-to-date with rapid changes.  Third, some ministries can get by without direct knowledge by using expert consultants.  Others, however, cannot afford consultants and so make do without their knowledge.  Finally, many people do not have contact with their peers at other ministries, and so don’t have the opportunity to learn from their peers.

Corrections

When you have identified the causes of the problem, the next step will be state what the corrections for those causes are.  This is the external change that your ministry must effect if you are to solve the problem and fulfill your mission.  For each cause, I have listed a possible correction.  There could be multiple corrections for one cause, or several causes may be overcome by the same correction.  It’s just a matter of logically thinking through the problem and its causes to brainstorm possible corrections.

Assumed Assets

Assets are what your beneficiaries bring to the table.  Think about what you assume your beneficiaries have available to them.  In our case, we assume they can communicate in English because we don’t provide translation.  We assume they have the time to travel and attend a conference, and we assume they have other assets.  We need to check that our assumptions about their assets are true.

Other Attendee Needs

You should recognize that your beneficiaries have other things going on in their lives besides what interests you from a program standpoint.  When you know their other needs you might be able to design your program to meet these as well.  If their other needs intersect in any way with your program, you have the chance to modify the program so that it meets not only your mission needs, but their related needs as well.  This is a huge win for both parties.

For example, many of our members are also members of professional associations and have continuing education requirements.  By getting our conference recognized by their association, they can fulfill part of their CE requirements by attending our conference.  A good deal for everyone.  From the feedback we get, we hear that many people are motivated and refreshed by our conference, so the devotional and plenary sessions are not just nice add-ons to the workshops – they are meeting a real need and making the conference more valuable to the attendees.

Interventions

These are the actual activities you plan to carry out.  They document what the program involves.  Each activity should tie back to either a beneficiary’s need or a correction for a cause.

Outcomes

Next you show both the short and the long term outcomes.  Outcomes are always the changes that occur outside of the ministry.  They are the changes that your beneficiaries achieve.  There should be a logical connection that makes sense to people between every step in the chart.  When people read your theory of change they should nod their heads, saying “Ahh yes.  That makes sense.”

The Chart

The chart has been colour-coded (although it doesn’t have to be) just to emphasize the different parts.  Everything in green is either what CCCC wants or what it does.  The orange columns document things from the beneficiaries’ perspective.  The problem is in mauve and what the beneficiaries are responsible for is in purple.

Logic Model

The logic model is all about ensuring that you are doing things right.  It is mostly about efficiency.

Once you have a theory of change, you can do a logic model.  The interventions column from the theory of change comes over to the logic model.  The columns are essentially the same between the two models, although I reworded one of the boxes for the logic model.

Click the picture to open a readable version

Inputs

First you document all of the inputs that make the program work.  The general categories of inputs are physical assets (buildings), time and money.  I’ve been a bit more detailed on this logic model because as I created the model I realized that not only were there benefits for our members, but there were benefits in the program for CCCC too.  Since the goal is to ultimately compare inputs against outputs, I thought it only fair to allocate the time that benefits CCCC separately from the time that benefits our members.  This simply recognizes that the content created by staff for their workshops can be used in multiple ways beyond the conference itself.

Interventions

As already mentioned, this is the list of program activities and is the same as the list in the theory of change.

Outputs

Outputs represent the completion of the program.  When the outputs are done, you can say “We did our part, now the beneficiaries have to do their part.”  Outputs could be the number of presentations of the Gospel, or it might be the number of people given glasses.  They could be the number of Bibles handed out or the number of Sunday School classes and attendees.  Whatever the outputs are, they are what you used the inputs for and did the activities for.

The outputs tell you how busy you’ve been.

Outcomes and Impact

These are the same as in the theory of change model.  The outcomes and impact will tell you how effective you’ve been.

Where to from here?

Now that you have your theory of change and logic model, go over them very carefully and think hard about any assumptions you are making.  You will want to check all the assumptions.  Of course, at least some of your assumptions have turned up in the models themselves.  For example, I made assumptions in coming up with the causes of the problem and with the attendees needs which I included in the models, but there are many, many more that I have listed and which form the basis for the research questions, which I’ll be blogging about later.

You now have two models that, put together, will help you check that you are doing the right things right.  The next time I post on this program review, I’ll discuss reviewing the literature as a key part the review process.

If you aren’t yet doing program reviews in your ministry, this series in real time should help you get started.  The goal of doing a review is to decide whether to continue, discontinue or modify a program.  Some people may question the value of doing program evaluations because you can just ‘eye-ball’ a program and get an idea of its performance.  Maybe.  But you are only looking at what is and not what could be.  I don’t want to lead a ministry that is only doing ‘okay;’ I want to lead a ministry that is doing the very best possible!  I want to get the whole job done, not just part of it.  A formal program review will force you to get outside of your own observations and take an objective look at the program as it is and as it could be.

This first post will document the organizational context for the review, the rationale for the selection of the program to be reviewed and the high-level research questions that will drive the evaluation.

Organizational Context

Not every organization is ready to do a program evaluation.  Employees might be suspicious of ulterior motives.  Perhaps previous evaluations were badly done and no one wants to go through that exercise again!  There may be little credibility in evaluations if program staff were not involved in designing and conducting the review.  If the focus is on assigning blame for a failing program, you have bigger problems than the evaluation to address.  Make sure your team knows that taking a hard look at performance is something that is rewarded.  No one who is fearful of being blamed and penalized will take an honest look at their own work.

CCCC has had a good experience with program reviews and there are no special concerns or considerations to be addressed prior to launching this evaluation.  CCCC  began doing formal program evaluations when we added a new standard for our Certified Members that requires program evaluations to be done.  After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!  If CCCC says it should be done, then we’d better be able to show how to do it.

Having no experience with formal program evaluations, we started with a small scale review.  ”Start small and grow with experience,” is what I advise first-time program evaluators.  In my opinion, some evaluation is always better than no evaluation!  The result of the first formal evaluation at CCCC was to terminate the Certified Stewardship Counselor program.  The program was muddling along but not going anywhere, and the research question was simply “Do we kill the program or invest in growing it significantly?”  A synopsis of that report is here.  Stopping that program gave us the time to develop the highly successful three day Advancing Stewardship I course.

We next did an operational evaluation of the Community Trust Fund, which was a labour-intensive program.  Not only was it not scalable, we wondered if the program was even covering its costs.  The result of this evaluation is that the Community Trust Fund today is highly automated, donors can open an account to manage their gifts, and the program is paying for itself.  (I still manually sign the cheques that go out, and it gives me great pleasure because while signing I think of the ministries who are receiving these donations.)  If you have donors who want to give you publicly-traded securities and you aren’t set up for that, send them to the entry page of the Community Trust Fund’s website.  You can read a synopsis of this report too.  We’ve done other reviews since these first two.

Our positive experiences with program evaluations mean that our employees know that doing a review is risk-free for them, so they need not be afraid of them.  Every review, including the one that cancelled a program, led to a positive outcome for all staff because we are more effective and efficient and we have made room for new, more promising programs.  The point of finding out why something did or did not work is to help us make better use of our resources.

So given this context, I think we are ready to tackle a major program and ask the hard question, “Is this program still worth doing?  Is it effective?”

Program Selection

People generally evaluate their programs on a rotational basis over a period of years.  Some might be reviewed every year or even a couple of times per year.  There are a few factors that will help you decide which program to evaluate:

1. If a program is clearly not performing or is causing you trouble, evaluate it.
2. Programs that consume a lot of resources, whether money or time, should be evaluated.
3. If you simply have questions about a program, if you find yourself wondering if it is worth it, then evaluate it.
4. If a program hasn’t been evaluated in a long time, evaluate it.

This year we are reviewing the Annual Conference.  Here’s why:

• The conference, along with the Bulletin newsletter, is the original program of CCCC.  I think this factor elevates the conference to sacred cow status, and for that reason alone, it should be carefully reviewed
• The conference accounts for about 14% of our expense budget and 8% of our staff time (we don’t outsource conference planning and management).  With salary and overhead plus the direct costs, the total cost of the conference is $250,000, the second highest investment in a program by far.  The only program surpassing it is providing general technical support to our members, which is $676,000.  The conference covers its out-of-pocket costs (everything but salary and overhead) and last year provided $11,000 towards staff time and overhead.  That means that the conference is heavily supported from our general revenues.  This is another compelling reason to check that the conference is an effective program and worthy of such support.
• Attendance is nowhere near the level that we would like it to be.  Given a membership of over 3,200 ministries, why do only 180 or so send someone to the conference?
• Is the conference up-to-date with all that is going on in the world?  Is it still relevant?

For all these reasons, it is a good time to take a serious look at the conference.

Research Questions

Program evaluations must have a focus.  Our review of the Certification program focused on the internal operations required to support it with the goal of ensuring we could handle double the number of currently Certified members.  Our review of the Advancing Stewardship I program focused on how it was delivered, with a goal of changing the program if necessary and of designing the follow-up program, Advancing Stewardship II, based on what we learned from the first one.

CCCC is in a season of challenging itself on all of its stated and unstated assumptions.  We are diligently searching out our hidden assumptions, things we have implictly accepted as our version of reality, and subjecting them to challenge in order to verify the accuracy of our assumptions.  While we have a pretty good feel for the conference, we want this review to go back to square one and address why we even have a conference, what function it serves, and whether or not it is really accomplishing anything worthwhile.  The research questions are therefore all-encompassing:

1. Is the conference program helping CCCC fulfill its mission?  It is only fulfilling our mission if it is helping our members fulfill their missions.  So we need to examine what the attendees do with what they learn at our conference.
2. If it is helping CCCC fulfill its mission, then how can the conference program better meet the needs of ministry workers?  How can it attract more of them?  We need to dig into what they think of conferences in general, how they learn, and why they attend.
3. What assumptions have we made about our members’ needs and about how to put on conferences?  Do they stand up to scrutiny?  We need to understand what is going on in the life of a Christian worker and how that relates to attending a conference.
4. What is the state of conferences today?  What are the trends and new developments?  What does research show?  Are there viable alternatives as replacements?

Sarah Rush, my assistant, will be the lead evaluator with the goal of presenting a final report to the January 30th board meeting.

After selecting the program and defining at a high level what you want to learn about it, you must document all the expectations you have of it, along with all the resources it consumes.  So my next post in this series will be about the theory of change behind holding conferences and the resulting logic model.

The truth about the “New College Oak Beams” story

Okay, now that you’ve read it, you should know that the New College Archives investigated this story because it has received so much attention, and they debunked the more spectacular points (the ones that make it fun to tell!).  Their current website does not refer to the story, but the old site has been archived and you can still read it, although it takes a moment to load.  The roof was indeed replaced in 1862 but it had already been replaced in 1786, with a plaster roof that had just enough molding to make it look like “an inverted tea tray” and no beams.  And the wood for the molding was pine, not oak.  Why didn’t the foresters tell them about the oak trees back then, the Archives asks.  When oak was used in 1862 to restore the original roof design (with beams), the wood did come from college lands, but those lands were purchased in 1441, sixty years after the roof was originally built, so the original builders did not plan the forest.  You can read the 1906 history book of New College that includes the story about the rebuilding of this roof on pages 58-59.

The truth is, the story is actually quite ordinary.  As an internet search will show, good forest management has always left some trees to grow really large, for needs such as roof beams, ship masts for the navy and so forth.  The point of planning ahead can still be made, but just not that the college builders themselves planned for it or that the trees were specifically saved for New College’s roof.  But it is true that Oxford University held on to the forests, so they were still holding assets for future use rather than selling them to raise cash.

So when you hear a good story…

Check out the stories you want to tell.  If a story isn’t true, you can still use it, but in a different way.  Rather than portraying it as real, which I admit is the most powerful way to tell the story, you can say “While the story is apocryphal, its message is a powerful one…”  Otherwise when people find out it’s not true, your credibility suffers.  It makes you look gullible and that you are sloppy with your facts, and it makes your audience feel manipulated.

An even better story!

But in this case, a little bit of research shows there is a true story that is quite similar to the New College story and it is just as powerful.  It is from the May 18, 2004 edition of the Times and if you google any of the key terms you will find quite a few reliable verifications of this story.

IN AUGUST 1802 Admiral Lord Nelson toured the Royal Forest of Dean, in Gloucestershire, in search of timber for the naval dockyards and was appalled by what he found.  Not only had a large section of the forest been plundered by the charcoal-burning industry but the trees that survived were unavailable after a dispute between the timber merchants and the Admiralty.

Nelson’s flagship HMS Victory had had a refit two years before, which could not be completed because of a shortage of wood. Nelson made a secret deal with the timber merchants and recommended to Parliament the replanting of large areas of the forest to guarantee the supply of raw materials for the Royal Navy of future centuries.  By 1808, three years after Nelson’s death, Parliament ordered the replanting of the Forest of Dean and today it has the largest area of old oak trees in Britain. The trees are still known locally as “Nelson’s Oaks”.

But even Nelson’s foresight could not have predicted that the saplings he had planted would be used to repair his own vessel 200 years on. Two great oaks have been felled in the forest to provide raw material for the restoration of HMS Victory in time for the 200th anniversary next year of the Battle of Trafalgar on October 21, 1805.

Good forestry management includes planning for the future.  Let’s manage our ministries as well as the foresters manage their forests!

“As a member of the leadership team, each person is responsible for fulfilling the following roles… Supporter of the CEO, supporting and advancing the CEO’s agenda both publicly and privately.”
Nadler & Nadler, “Performance on the Executive Team: When to pull the trigger” in Executive Teams.

Throw a stone into calm water and some waves will ripple out radiating in all directions.  The CCCC’s logo shows exactly that, the ripples of our work extending outwards and helping Christian ministries be stronger ministries.

When it comes to leadership, though, I have another image that I think is inspiring.  Ripples of water gradually smooth out as they move further away from their origin.  Senior leaders, though, do not want their leadership diluted by distance.  A frontline worker should be just as close to the senior leader’s leadership as a VP or manager is.  The senior leader needs to influence all staff members, not just those on the leadership team.

The other leaders within the organization are the crucial element in keeping the ripples flowing.  By giving their wholehearted support for the senior leader and the leader’s agenda, they extend the CEO’s leadership right out to the frontlines.  The CEO’s leadership is re-energized at every level and so continues to ripple out just as strongly at the edges of the organization as it did at the centre.

My favourite image of this is often seen in fireworks when one rocket goes up and explodes with great effect, and then others explode nearby with the same effect, extending the effect of the original.  It’s a beautiful sight to behold!!

And that is what all the leaders in the organization should be doing.  You couldn’t have a whole bunch of leaders all doing their own thing.  The quote at the top says leadership team members support the CEO and the CEO’s agenda in public and in private.  Just imagine if someone on the senior team were to say:

• “I do not support the CEO”,
• “In this department we have our own agenda,” or
• “I tell people when speaking one-on-one that I do not support the CEO’s agenda.”

That would never do!  The board has appointed one person to provide direction and lead the organization and given that person its confidence.  Undermining the effectiveness of the board’s chosen leader is also undermining the board’s leadership.  Organizational leadership originates with the board, flows through the senior leader, empowers the leadership team and then ripples throughout the organization.

As the agenda is passed from COO to VPs to managers and supervisors, each leader takes the agenda and “adds more meat to the bones” so that at each level it becomes increasingly more specific, detailed and operational.  Every leader has the creative freedom to determine how the agenda will be applied in their own work areas, but always in harmony with the agenda they received.

In “The World of the CEO” (also in Executive Teams), Nadler & Heilpern say that “To be successful…the executive team must effectively become an extension of the CEO’s personal leadership, a force that projects the CEO’s vision, values, objectives, and requirements out into the organization.”

In one sense, the CEO’s agenda is personal because there is a reason why one particular person holds that role and not another.  There is something about that particular person the board wants to have impact the organization.  So there very well could be a truly personal component to the leader’s agenda because, especially in a change situation, the leader is bringing his or her own expertise to the table.  But in another sense, the CEO’s personal agenda is not so personal, since whenever possible it is developed with the participation of the leadership team.  CEO’s draw on many sources for inspiration: observation, friends and peers, past experiences, and most importantly their own leadership teams.  A CEO normally adopts a position only after consultation with the leadership team, and when adopted, the team’s position then becomes part of the CEO’s personal agenda.

The principle at issue here really is just common sense, that there not be any division in leadership within an organization.  Debate and lively discussion are encouraged, but only within the team when the team is assembled, or one-on-one with the leader, but never outside of those conditions.  The principle of ‘cabinet solidarity’ applies, for the good of the organization.

The ‘ripple effect’ of leadership applies not just to the senior leader, but to every leader in the ministry.  All should enjoy the same ripple effect and see their own leadership extended further through their work areas.  The whole organization then benefits from a cohesive leadership team.

I could have telephoned or emailed all the people whom I met and got a good portion of the information that I now have, but I wouldn’t have received all of the information or benefits that I did get by physically going there. Because I was there:

• I developed a more personal relationship with the people I met. We had time for small talk, to learn who each other really is, and to not just share information, but to build a warm relationship. Who knows what my expanded sphere of acquaintances might lead to?
• We talked about more than my agenda. I wanted to leave a deposit in exchange for what I was getting from the people I met with, and as they had time to talk about whatever was on their minds, I was able to help them in some way. All parties left these meetings with take-aways.
• I met a number of people almost on the spur of the moment when someone I was seeing suggested I meet a few other people, and those meetings were fruitful.
• I was able to see them in their context and appreciate all the more the nuances of what they were telling me. I understand Hillsong Church much better by having seen the complexity of their operations. Watching someone who could neither read nor write open an account at the Urwego Opportunity Bank and seeing the advertising in the branch showed me the level of care the bank has taken to bring financial services to the least in its society. Watching children run to Connie at Village of Hope spoke volumes about the love they are receiving. Each in-person interaction helped me see foreign mission work in a slightly different light, and I am sure that will have positive benefits for the mission of CCCC. I have a wealth of information about the administrative and governance aspects of foreign ministries that missionaries and ministry leaders were willing to provide confidentially that will serve as grist for the strategy mill here at CCCC!

By going, I’m further ahead than if I didn’t go. But I didn’t go to Asia and Africa because I’ve always wanted to, quite the contrary. I’ve never, ever had even the vaguest hint of the slightest inclination of a desire to go to Asia or Africa, ever. For a variety of reasons I had formed opinions that made me either afraid of those societies or at the least, determined to avoid them. The reason I went was that I had enough evidence from people who lived in those countries that I suspected my fears and dislikes were not well-founded, but based upon ignorance of reality.

For example, my life insurance provider suspended my coverage while I was in Rwanda, but the people living in Rwanda refuted the risk. The insurer’s risk assessment was one reason why my visit there was so short, but never being more than a few feet away from one of my hosts 24 hours a day mitigated the risk to the point I was willing to go for at least a short visit.

Even where there was some truth to my aversion, I thought it might be bearable in the short term (here I am thinking more at the level of preferences than, say, personal safety).

I asked myself:

• If I lived life based on my fears and ignorance, what might I not do that I should be doing?
• What opportunities would I never know about?
• What misrepresentations would I continue to perpetuate?
• How far short of God’s purposes for me would I fall?
• How much would my life shrivel from what it was meant to be?
• What personality characteristics and flaws would develop from living life based on fear and ignorance?

Fear is not necessarily a bad thing. Fear of burning my hand on the stove elements keeps me safe. Fear is definitely a life-saving emotion when it is a truly valid fear. I don’t believe you must put yourself in danger to conquer every fear. But there are some fears we live with that are not helpful. These need to be addressed. I asked people with direct experience in those countries about my fears and then took steps to mitigate them. When we choose not to investigate and test our fears, we live voluntarily in continued ignorance and missed opportunity without even realizing it!

If you have a fear or suspect you might be living in some type of ignorance that may be holding your ministry back from fulfilling its mandate, then you need to do something about it. If you have been paralyzed by fear, I wrote about how to embolden yourself to take positive action in my post, When Fear Strikes.

So, with respect to moving forward on your ministry’s mission, what are you afraid of, and how will you test whether or not it is a valid fear? One way to identify your fears might be to ask yourself, what have you ruled out as a non-starter? What strategies are never considered just because they are obviously off-limits? Some of those may actually be strategies you are afraid of. Check them out. You may be surprised!

“Do not be afraid!“
God, either directly or through one of his servants, repeated 73 times in the NIV Bible

So it was that Satan brought forth his carefully crafted claim.  “You, who know everything, know exactly what I have seen.  You claim perfection and omnipotence.  You claim that through the Death and Resurrection…”  And here the impious creature lost his composure as he seemed to choke on the words.  “…you claim all has been made right.  But you are neither perfect nor all-powerful because you tolerate imperfection.  I have found a ministry of yours that has failed its purpose.  Hear now the case I make.”

The King gave permission for the case to be presented.

Satan spoke, saying, “Surely an organization staffed entirely by your underlings would have unparalleled success because all have been made new in your image and all have one purpose and all would have access to the mighty power that you claim to possess and, in fact, to have given to them.  Yet that is not the case.  [Insert your ministry's name here] has failed to achieve its mission and fulfill its vision.  There is still much that it has failed to do.  Its failure is, in fact, a sign of the tenuousness of your reign and proves your dominion over the earth is provisional at best!”

Hearing this, the King called forth one of His elders and said, “Let us review together what has been written in the Book of Deeds about this ministry.  Go and bring the book here to the assembly that we may establish the facts.”  And so the history of the ministry was reviewed that judgment might be made upon it.  The elder returned, and standing on the dais at the side of his King, he placed the book on the podium, opened it, looked up at the assembly and then began to read…

=======================================================

Insert here details of your ministry’s

• mandate from God (its mission),
• distinctive values,
• vision,
• major successes,
• major failures or shortcomings,
• a brief narrative of the epic stories that have become part of your ministry’s lore – its “myths and heroes,” and
• major challenges  yet to be conquered.

Insert also anything else you would like to include in God’s permanent record of your ministry’s life.

=======================================================

The elder finished reading the entry in the Book of Deeds, closed the book and sat down.  Having heard the record of the ministry’s history, the assembly turned its eyes to the King and awaited His judgment.

The King did not consider long.

“Satan, you continue to misunderstand the times.  Your definition of success is not Mine.  You judge by externals because that is all you can discern.  I judge by the heart.  The issue to be judged in this case is, given their present level of maturity and understanding, are My people who work in this ministry doing their best to discern and obey My will?”

The King stood to His feet, gathered His robes around Him and announced for all the congregation of heaven to hear, “Just as My kingdom has been established in fact and is also being established in experience, so also this ministry has been established and is being established.  Like an acorn that grows into a mighty oak tree, this ministry is growing and progressively fulfilling its mission and vision as its staff remains faithful to My call and open to discerning My continuing guidance.  On that basis I declare that [insert your ministry's name here] is successfully fulfilling its purpose.”

As the assembly bowed to worship the King and marvel at His wisdom, no one noticed Satan withdraw from the assembly, defeated yet again and realizing ever more fully the awful finality of his cosmic defeat at the Cross.

=======================================================

Leaders are storytellers, so you should learn how to create your own stories.  Practice writing stories, even if you never use them exactly as written, because you will use stories in your speeches, interviews, newsletters, orientation sessions and fundraising appeals, not to mention writing posts for your blog.  The story you tell will reinforce your ministry’s goals, values, and its way of life every time you tell it, so you want to craft it in a way that is interesting and memorable, that touches people emotionally and taps into their own aspirations.

Your ministry’s story is a big story, so if writing narrative is new to you, you might start with a much simpler assignment and just craft a story about something that happened to you, such as I did when I discovered ink on my face.  It took only a few minutes to write the basic story about how the ink got on my face, but it took another two-and-a-half hours to craft it into the version that was posted.

That was time spent thinking about how to set the scene for maximum humour, how to create empathy for me, and how to bring the reader to suspect what was happening without my saying anything.  I wanted my readers to squirm a bit and be very glad that the story is about me and not them!    I was thinking about the rhythm of sentences, and using paragraph breaks to focus the reader’s attention and provide some pacing that highlighted the moment of horror.  I changed it from the past tense to the present tense, to further involve the reader in an unfolding calamity and I used imagery that should be pre-existing in most readers’ minds, so they could better imagine exactly how it was.  The application point took time as well.  And then further time was spent stripping the story of every unnecessary detail and honing it into as few words as possible.

A good story takes time to develop, but then it is useful in so many ways.  The ink story will be a great one for me to tell (in the right circumstances of course) because it shows I am a fallible human (an equalizer with my audience), willing to poke fun at myself (not pretentious) and I think it builds rapport with people who have vicariously shared an experience with me.  You can use stories to position yourself with your audience too.

I crafted the heavenly court story as an assignment for my doctorate program in which we had to creatively tell the story of our ministries.  I did not intend to actually use the story anywhere, but writing it was good practice in creating an attention-grabbing opening, a plot-line, a building of tension towards a crisis point and then a resolution that satisfies the listener (or in other situations, a call to action).  And, since I have a practice of getting three uses minimum out of everything I write to justify the time spent writing something, I’ve just got my second use by using it in this post!  Now if I can only find one more place to use this heavenly story, I’ll be happy!

Some people have others write their material.  I don’t know their circumstances, but for me I write everything that has my name on it because a) I want to be honest, and b) I want a personal connection with you.  Except for technical writing, I deliberately insert my personality into my writing so you can get to know me better.  What you read are my real sentiments, not what somebody else thinks will be most effective.  I want you to hear my voice, not a ghost-writer’s.  And I think most leaders would want the same.  So it is worthwhile learning to write well.

If you want to become a better writer, you can read all you want about how to write, but you only actually become a better writer by writing, so why not try your hand at creating an opening and conclusion for a story about your ministry?  At least try to write a really good opening sentence.  And please share the opening line or paragraph of your story so we can all get our creative juices flowing.  Be daring and share!

I took an open enrollment university course about fifteen years ago on how to write fiction.  It was very helpful in learning the elements of a good story.  I got a lot of practice doing the assignments in that course.  By the way, the absolute best book I’ve ever read on writing well is called, funnily enough, On Writing Well!  Part One alone (just 48 pages long) is enough to fix virtually every bad writing mistake most people make.  That book will help with the content of your writing.  For help with grammar and formatting, I’m sure you are familiar with the standard reference book, The Elements of Style.   

Have fun crafting your story and please post your opener!

The truth is that I didn’t love it and didn’t have the passion for it and that what I was doing wasn’t my own voice.  I wanted to be a university president.  I didn’t want to do university president.  Now that was a huge lesson for me, because if there is one single thing I have found out about leaders is that, by and large if not every day, they seem to love what they’re doing…[The] question made me aware that administration wasn’t for me.  I found my calling as an advisor and a coach to leaders.  

Managing and leading are very different from doing.  Of course, all leaders do a mixture of leading, managing and doing, just as any doer can also do some managing or leading (even if informally).  It is just a matter of the percentage of time allocated to each activity.

You may be very skilled at doing, and you may be the best person on the team doing your work, but that doesn’t mean that you should manage or lead it.  Our culture promotes the idea of career progression up a hierarchy, so most people aspire to rise as high as they can in their organization rather than staying at a level they are better suited for. (If you want to be promoted to management, here are my tips.)

The problem with always seeking promotions is that you may be promoted right out of your areas of strength and into your areas of weakness.  This is the Peter Principle:  People are promoted to the level of their incompetence.  How many people who are team members say to themselves, “I could lead this team better than that!”?  They make the mistake of thinking that the ability to do is the qualification for the role of leader.  Far from it.  The skills for leadership are different from the skills needed for doing.  Team members can get promoted and have no idea what leadership is really about, and then they fail as a leader or have a miserable time of it because it is not the sort of doing that they love and are good at.

The sad thing is, when people are promoted beyond their competence, not only do you remove your best worker from the team and lose the related productivity, you also usually end up losing the person to your organization entirely because it seems the only way out of a leadership role is right out the organization’s door.  I’ve always thought this is too bad.  Surely there should be honour in recognizing your gifts and their limits and stepping down to pick up once again at the job where you were performing at your best.  But our culture doesn’t cope with such ‘failure’ very well.  I acknowledge that it would take a very self-aware person to be willing to step down to a different position (if a position should still be available).  The unfortunate reality is that usually all  you can do is go to a new organization.

So, should you continue in your leadership role?  If you are having difficulty, two key questions are:

1. Am I called to be a leader?  See my post on discerning your call.  If both you and your organization affirm your call to leadership, then persevere!
2. Can I become the leader this ministry needs?  It may be that you are called to lead, but for various reasons this ministry is not the place for you.  But if you are called to lead this ministry and yet are experiencing difficulty, then professional development is what you need.  I’ve written a number of posts about professional development, but The most daring case study of all is by far the best starting point.

If you are not yet a leader but aspire to be one, the questions you should ask are:

1. Am I really called to leadership?  Again, see this post for a good discernment process.
2. Have I already led, or could I arrange to lead, a project to test out my leadership skills before taking the risks of team or organizational leadership?
3. What am I really attracted to: the leadership role, the perceived perks and privileges, or fullfilling societal expectations about career advancement?  Do I have the right motivation?

The upshot is that every position in an organization is important, valuable and respectable.  One role is not better than another, it is just different.  There are different risks and commensurate rewards with various levels of positions.  Some are more demanding on your personal life than others, and some take their toll with heavier responsibility.  But all positions can be satisfying and intrinsically rewarding.  Which position that is simply depends on who you were made to be, what you have been called to do and your willingness to invest yourself in becoming excellent at what that role requires.  For some, the answer is a leadership role and for others, it is a doing role.  If you are not where you should be, the tragedy would be to not make a correction.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.  And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.  There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.  But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good….But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.
1 Cor 12:4-7, 18