See the video.

Peace out, Dick Jauron

In a move that came about three years too late, the Buffalo Bills announced the firing of head coach Dick Jauron today in the midst of a 3-6 season and on the heals of a 41-17 loss to Tennessee Sunday. Jauron came on as coach of the Bills three years ago.

In each of his three full seasons in Buffalo, Jauron led the Bills to identical 7-9 marks, including one in 2008 after a 5-1 start to the season. Even with the off-season addition of Terrell Owens, Buffalo’s offense this year has been arguably the worst in the history of professional sports. Jauron fired offensive coordinator Turk Schonert nine days before the regular season got underway.

Jauron, whose contract still has two years and $6 million remaining, will be replaced in the interim by defensive coordinator Perry Fewell.

Let the Video do the talking and serve as an Evidence of the Truth.

]]> http://hoopscribe.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/a-move-finally-made/ Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:51:04 +0000 hoopscribe http://hoopscribe.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/a-move-finally-made/

Byron Scott is done in New Orleans.

Like he had in his prior stop in New Jersey, Scott apparently wore out on the team a long time ago, and frankly, I’m surprised his dismissal wasn’t done much sooner.

The Hornets were 3-6 this season following last night’s lackluster loss to Phoenix. This was a team with no identity and full of apathy and a lack of passion.

Just two years ago, Scott was the NBA’s Coach of the Year. He finished with a 203-216 record in New Orleans, but he has been known to be difficult for point guards.

Reportedly, Jason Kidd wanted him gone in New Jersey, and it appeared that Scott lost Chris Paul’s trust and attention a while ago, though it’s noted the two had a strong relationship.

Either way, there’s no doubting the frustration and seemingly lack of passion that Paul had played with since the second half of last season and beyond. Paul who was allowed to do whatever he wanted and whenever he wanted, eventually saw that he was directing a club that lacked discipline, attention to detail and was playing like a chicken with its head cut off.

Many, many times, coaches are made to be the scapegoat for underachieving teams. That’s just the nature of the beast in sports.

But, in this case, it’s a move that should have happened following last season, after the Hornets’ pathetic performance in their first-round ouster to the Mavericks, when Dallas outscored New Orleans by an average of 24 points per game.

Scott, particularly, is suited to coach a veteran club, but the Hornets don’t really fit that mold. They have a lot of young talent that needs nurturing (Julian Wright, Darren Collinson, Hilton Armstrong, Bobby Brown, et cetera) but Scott has never been successful with player development.

Mind you, I’m not sure who could succeed with this group anyway. The Hornets faced a rough early schedule, but that’s not the point.

Scott wasn’t fired because he wasn’t winning. He was fired because he let players like Chris Andersen, J.R Smith and Brandon Bass up and leave and be success stories for other clubs, and he was also fired because he can’t coach young talent.

Scott should be hired again, somewhere else. He has two NBA Finals appearances and a Coach of the Year under his belt, so he will likely pop up somewhere.

But it will have to be for a veteran-laden club with a solid nucleus that can lead itself and motivate itself for bigger and better things.

EDIT: By the way, here’s a piece from Yahoo! Sport’s account of the Scott firing:

Hornets forward David West(notes) told reporters in New Orleans there were “philosophical differences” between Scott and some players, and hinted that Scott might have become stubborn in his beliefs.

“Pride is a dangerous thing,” West said. “Amongst the team there was a sense of a few guys not trusting what we had in terms of our system and our ability to know what we were going to get every single night from our system.”

“We were way too predictable,” West said. “We worked way too hard to get simple stuff accomplished.

“What we had wasn’t working – the philosophy, the way we approached things just wasn’t working.”

I’ve been glazing away the last week or so, and had enough to fill kiln #1, which is about 25 cubic feet. Loaded up:

Check out those tall jars in the center back. This morning It’s cool enough for me to crack open the door for a bit, still can’t really unload it though:

Yum! New pots! I am so loving this yellow glaze. It’s still new to me and I just want to cover the world with it then lick it off.

This cup I snatched hot out of the kiln, burning my finger, and filled with coffee. I love how these lines turned out, first time trying them. It’s the yellow, with resist, then black. I love how they look like a cross between a Clyfford Still painting (link here) and architectural drawings. Still working through the bedroom theme.

You can also see my lovely coaster is a holiday sale card from last year. That means I’ve been on the phone with the graphic designer. Holiday sale this year is Dec 5, one day only, get your tickets now, Sea-Tac is the closest airport but Portland isn’t far either. If you arrive from Europe, Asia or Africa you can come Friday night for a preview.

More glazing ahead, kiln #2 on the way…

Does it really have to be that way? Sure, there are lots of management courses that suggest that the old “Hire Slow, Fire Fast” process is a best practice, but there are plenty of things that have to have to go right along the way. Hiring slow the right way can make firing fast a non-issue. If so, then starting the process right pays huge dividends

Is everyone suddenly a Super Star in their own minds?

Using a proven methodology to select long term, successful hires that can and will sell ends the merry-go round practice that has become acceptable for many sales organizations.  The “hire three, keep one” stories exist in any economic condition, but with so many resumes touting a career as a top producer hitting the streets now, this practice can be even riskier. When you read these submissions it is truly hard to believe that such high producers and proven winners ever got let go at all. How did so many all-stars meet the fate of down-sizing all at the same time?

Don’t be duped

With everyone claiming they are competent, your process must include some tools and practices that separate the wheat from the chaff. Stop trusting your gut and intuition. No one’s resume says they performed poorly or got axed by an unappreciative manager, so buyers beware. Do the right thing and get some outside help. If two heads are better than one, get a second head or at least an instrument that can validate your gut feeling.  Slow down and make a selection that will last. It can’t be any worse than doing it all by yourself.

“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” Socrates

Seeing this quote today made me ponder the first lesson in managerial wisdom. What realization must a new manager make in order to begin maturing into an effective manager?  It is this: the new manager must understand that the men and women in his charge have dreams, ambitions and goals which have nothing to do with their jobs or with him.

If a manager internalizes this idea, he understands the humanity of his team, and the limit of his role in their lives. A manager must view his team as human beings or he will treat them as tools – mere cogs in the execution of work. Men and women who believe they are tools come to one of two ends: they become the passionless tools managers assume them to be, with consequent poor results; or they seek out managers who do not view them in such contempt. Either way, the manager suffers because the team’s effectiveness declines.

A manager must realize that men and women have and want their work to have limits. Work conditions may push those limits at times, but they always exist. The manager must realize these limits. Again, a manager who behaves as if only work matters risks losing the spirit of the team, because they perceive he does not see them as equal human beings.  The situation and the manager become insufferable.

The reader may ponder – this is an important lesson, but why does managerial wisdom begin here? From this profound understanding comes all the other critical managerial skills – or at least from this understanding comes the possibility the manager may develop those skills. Great coaching, for example, simply is not possible without making a personal, human connection, because coaching content and delivery must be relevant to the individual.

Even the hardest dimensions of a manager’s job require this understanding. Take firing an employee. The right way to do this difficult act acknowledges the humanity of the person fired. The manager must realize firing is not just a business action, but a personal one too. But do not think this humanity talk is all soft. Indeed, a manager who internalizes the humanity of his team will realize when a staffer’s performance has fallen below acceptable levels; it is a humane act to remove underperformers and thus allow them to seek out the work at which they can excel.

In conclusion, this lesson must come first. It creates the foundation for individual coaching, staff cooperation and cohesion and the full expression of the technical skills of the team.

I’ve had one too many meetings over the past couple of weeks where leaders I was chatting with were complaining about the actions of either a direct report or colleague.  When I asked them how the colleague had responded to their feedback, I got a blank stare.  And then, in each case, the conversation went something like this…

Leader: “Well… I haven’t actually spoken to them,” 

Me:  “Why not?”

Leader: “Well, I didn’t want to hurt their feelings.  They’ve been going through a lot and I didn’t want to add to the stress.”

Me: “But didn’t you say this is a pattern that’s been going on for a while?”

Leader: (grudgingly) “Yes… but I feel really badly.  I just don’t think they can actually do the job.  I guess I’m being too NICE.”

Okay… so, here’s the “newsflash”: by trying to protect people and not “hurt” them by giving them performance feedback that would HELP them keep their jobs… you are being the opposite of “nice”.  I would venture to say, your conflict avoidant excuses are setting your direct report (or peer, or supplier… whoever) for an exceptionally cruel awakening.

I often talk to people who are “in transition” who, from their perspective, feel that they were solid performers and were “shocked” when they were the ones who got downsized.

I hear people say to me all the time “no one’s safe” when it comes to corporate restructuring.  Even the super smart “high performers” can find themselves on the chopping block.

Some of this may in fact be true (although, personally, I’d be hard pressed to see a reason to ever let go my top talent).  But here’s the rub. I’ve also had conversations with some of these people’s former bosses and my observation is, many bosses are too “nice” and many of these people who find themselves unemployed were being fed a line of malarkey about how well they were doing.  When the opportunity came along for their boss to show them the door (think tanking economy), they used the opportunity to “upgrade their talent”.

I think one of the deadliest epidemics in today’s workplace isn’t H1N1… it’s lack of feedback.  And, if you want to take control of your leadership career… you’d better make sure you’re getting a regular dose.

And, stop thinking that you’re being “nice” if you’re not giving your direct reports the straight goods on how they’re doing. You’re being mean.  After all, wouldn’t you want to know how you were messing up and be given the opportunity to fix it or, if it wasn’t fixable, move on to a new career without the humiliation of being fired or downsized?  I know what I’d rather have.

If you’re worried that you may be leading without a feedback safety net, why not come and check out the launch of our newest program: The Roundtable for Leaders.  Isn’t it time you stopped waiting for your boss to keep your job safe and started looking after yourself?

Happy leading!

by Andy Titcomb

Once the teapot design has been planned and drawn, I carve a model either out of clay or solid Plaster of Paris. From this I take a mould which can be anything from two to 20 pieces depending on the complexity of the shape.

The process I use to make the actual teapots is called slip casting.

The clay, although mined in Cornwall, arrives from Stoke on Trent where it has been processed and packaged. It is cut up into thin strips and mixed with water and sodium silicate, a defloculant (chemical that increases the fluidity of the slip without having to add more water), in a mixing machine called a Blunger to form a liquid clay.

The individual plaster moulds are then filled with the slip and left to stand for about 25 minutes (time for a cup of tea), after which the the slip is poured out again. Water is absorbed by the mould, leaving behind the basic shape of the teapot. The mould is carefully taken apart and the teapots are left to dry for a short while; they are then ready for fettling and sponging. Sometimes, handles and spouts are cast separately and joined together later using slip as a glue.

Using a scalpel I gently scrape away the seams left by the moulding process. I then sponge over these areas to make sure they are smooth and no traces are left. The teapot is decorated with under glaze colour and after thoroughly drying out it’s ready for the first firing, this is called the biscuit firing. (Temperature is about 1080ºc). The second firing is the glaze firing (temperature 1140ºc). The teapots are dipped in a bucket of glaze, which when fired will turn into a thin layer of glass and give the pot a water tight seal.

The third firing is the lustre firing, (temperature 840ºc) Gold and silver lustres are painted on by hand. The gold lustre contains real gold and the silver lustre is made with platinum and very expensive!

The whole process takes about 10 days.

Andy’s blog, Teapots Teapots Teapots, is a great place to learn even more ab0ut teapots!

Author: Toni Bowers

It’s happened to all of us – we hire a new employee who later turns out to lack knowledge vital to our health club, yoga studio or wellness center –  such as the latest conditioning research, healthy nutrition principles, or even basic customer service.

Making a decision to end an employee’s tenure can be painful and emotional.   Use this flowchart to make a clearheaded decision on your employee’s future.

Post your comments or questions about difficult employee situations below and we’ll give you our take.

or: slashing the staff like this could results in assault charges

or: Remaining News Staff required to perform miracles, also to cure cancer before fiscal quarter

Well, it is with a heavy heart and a cold sweat that I have to write this piece on the further death nell of the Newspaper industry. I say newspaper because all indications show that the online/television media are fairing relatively well. All signs point to the eventual demise of the printed paper on a wide scale and little can be done, it seems, but for industry leaders to continue to cut off fingers and limbs so as to slow the gangrene-like spread of the infection until they can find a cure for what ails news, the most valuable use of movable type in my humble opinion. With companies reporting massive ad revenue losses, circulation decline, and current business models failing like a bad monkey heart transplant, there has been no choice but to make sweeping layoffs, close reporting bureaus, and to close down papers all together. Though reporters and their families are the immediate victims of this necessary blood letting, the real victim here will undeniably be the American public with less diverse and more poorly researched and fact checked stories as the remaining reporting force is stretched thin to continue to deliver the same level of content with less resources and editorial oversight.

Recently the Times Co. issued a statement that they would be cutting some 100 jobs from now until Dec. 31, which accounts for 8% of it’s newsroom staff. This is only the first sign of how many jobs it will cut, being as this is only the first number since it cut 100 jobs in this same type of program last year. The Times Co. as of 2008 employed some 1,300 employees. That number today is difficult to calculate, but they have had regular rounds of layoffs, and with revenue dropping by the millions every quarter you can bet that the layoffs are going to come more rapidly in the coming year. Up to this point it was cutting in to their profits, stock dropping, but they didn’t have to make the severe cuts. Now it has become apparent that a company of this size, a company that was founded in 1851, is beginning to buckle under its own weight, its spindly legs of analog media can’t support its decrepit, obese form any longer. You have to understand that the Times Co. also owns the Boston Globe, the International Herald Tribune, and about 15 other regional publications as well as a minority stock holding in the Boston Red Sox, a fact that a lot of New York sports fans probably don’t know, if they did I think the circulation would fall through the floorboards over night.

In addition to one of the largest publishing organizations making cuts the Wall Street Journal is simply closing its doors on the Boston Bureau it has maintained for many years, try 100 of them, which generally contributed reports on New England, health care, education, and financial services. Yes, this is what we need, an industry leading, pulitzer winning bureau that covers these pivotal topics at a time like this. Dow Jones & Co., who on the Wall Street Journal have taken drastic measures recently with salary cuts, hiring freezes, completely closing some regional publications, and most recently cutting 50 jobs, leaving the company with only 750 employees world wide. 750, that is only 150 more employees than the LA Times currently employs; in 2007 the LA Times employed 1,200 employees. As you can see we’re not just losing ho-bunk back water papers, the leaders of this industry are failing every day as times get more and more complicated and good news coverage becomes critical.

Are you about to slit your wrists journalism students? A few hesitation cuts while you get the nerve up to pull it off? Well I’ve got exactly what you need to close the deal; The East Valley Tribune, after some 118 years of publication, is turning off the presses and calling it a day Dec. 31, 2009. Yes, a paper that has service Phoenix and the surrounding areas for more than a century could not survive despite cutting staff by 40%  and scaling production back to only four days a week. The problem might have come from their parent company claiming bankruptcy recently, but one can’t be sure. In putting the paper up for sale the closest thing they got to a serious offer was a oily haired jukebox salesman in an ’84 caddy who offered $500 dollars, a Wurlitzer at factory cost, and a buffalo head nickel. The deal fell apart when they wanted all of the 45’s thrown in for free and ol’ Neil commented that he wasn’t gonna get hosed like that without getting kissed first. You might say that who gives a shit about the Phoenix area? Well it has stood for a long time as the largest growing community in America, a growing readership pool to draw from every year, and the pulitzer prize winning paper continued to lose circulation and ad revenue. If a paper in a growing community with more potential readers moving there every year can’t survive, then who can?

This is only a portion of the bad news, a small sliver of the awful news coming from the financial front. Every single day bad news streams in and I just can’t publish all of it, for the mere fact that I can’t stand to analyze it as I try to break in to an industry that is hemorrhaging revenue and dropping employees like a pinata exploded. The WGA East (Writers Guild of America) issued some statements that echo my own concerns. I find that the most disconcerting fact that I think we are all failing to recognize is what the guild refers to as a difficulty to provide “reliable, informative material in the face of unrelenting budget cuts.” This is exactly how I feel as a journalist. What is occurring is news gathering organizations attempting to provide the same level of coverage with less staff to do so. What happens is now you have employed staff journalists required to now cover more ground, which will stretch them thin on accuracy and in depth, thoughtful coverage. Then, in a sick twist of fate, now there are fewer checks and balances as to the accuracy and quality of this writing in less research staff and editorial oversight leaving far too many wholes for poor journalism to fall through.

What we have here is maybe comparable to a regimen of men trying to hold a line, defend against an enemy and without warning half their force is called away, so now you have half the fighting force holding the same stretch of land; it is too much for too few to cover, no matter how hard they try and with whatever conviction they have, it will not be the same caliber as when they had more men. This thinning of the ranks leads to less accurate, and to a greater extent less thoughtful and in depth reporting. The 100 year old Boston Bureau I mentioned earlier won its Pulitzer prizes for investigative reporting on favoritism in university admissions to the children of Alumni as well as shady business practices of backdated stocks for company executives. The first casualty of this cut back will be the time consuming, heavily researched, and expensive practice of investigative reporting. The in depth kind of work that you don’t get without a company putting journalism first. Where we have ended up, and are heading to like a bat out of hell is now ‘bottom-line journalism’ on two fronts; basic, bare bones daily reporting coupled with cost first decision making on what gets covered and how.

Years ago journalism starting taking its cues from tabloids and sensationalizing stories. This is the time of the likes of Fox News coming to supremacy in the network battles. When you started listening to pundits and stopped watching the nightly news. The loudest voices and the most controversial personalities became the leaders in news, and then you have Glenn Beck in a league unto himself. News became about salacious headlines and quick witted propaganda, but to a greater extent it just became about entertainment. What was tolerable was that you had relatively legitimate news organizations to cover everything else and deliver unbiased news on a daily basis. Those that wanted real news coverage could get it. What also aided in the tolerability of the situation was that there were many voices, many sources, and great staff members checking and rechecking facts as well as layers of editors and publishers sifting through work to prevent bias and misinformation to greater extent. This slashing of staff and research budgets is now leaving fewer voices, 50% at some papers as other just close their doors. Now the diversity of coverage has been compromised, the quality of coverage has been compromised, and to a greater extent, the publics trust has been compromised.

I want you to, for just a moment, imagine a world without the LA Times, NY Times, and USA Today. Where will you get the news? You can’t get there? OK, how about a more nefarious and dangerous situation, imagine only the NY Times, or the LA Times, or the USA Today. This is the great disaster you will have to come to terms with eventually. Imagine a world where everyone has gone bankrupt and one company, one news gathering organization stands as the only publication left. What if there was a bias, or if they decided to not cover certain things? Without other companies to compete with, without a need to fact check they could run rough shod over the world, and God forbid you get a publisher or owner with an axe to grind, bias could run amok upon it’s pages with no way for you, the reader, to compare facts and try to get the whole story. It would be a Stars and Stripes kind of situation during Vietnam; smooth over the bad news and beef up stories with false facts and embellishment whatever news fit your agenda (also see ex. FOX News). Absolute anarchy as the public can’t get the real story or be informed enough to make a decision about Presidential candidates, bills up for a vote, etc. You don’t want to be there, I know I don’t.

This is a scary situation that needs immediate attention as diversity and quality in reporting begins to deteriorate in the public sector. A bailout is out of the question, the newspapers didn’t get in line soon enough and with all of the healthcare reform spending a TARP money, there isn’t enough to go around, so papers are shit out of luck for Government help. Besides, if the Obama Administration got its fingers in to free press the effects and distrust by the public in reporting would go through the roof. A share of the Times Co. in the Obama back pocket would only fuel the flames of the communist and fascist sentiment some have for the administration. I have heard rumors that the companies I have spoken of in this piece may be considering creating a united front with other groups to team up and begin charging for premium content or online subscriptions all at once. This would not create an immediate flocking from those who charge to those who don’t. A kind of Newspaper Alliance to help everyone and hurt no one so that they can all try and move in to an era of online profitability that has been lacking ever since the 90’s.

I promise you that the fall of the news empires in this country is not over, it will be getting much darker before there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and I predict the fall of a titan Newspaper like the Boston Globe or a paper with a readership nearing one million on Sunday editions going down before people begin to take serious notice. It will take the fall of a news empire or the sale of the LA Times to bring the spotlight squarely on the industry. Can you imagine if the NY Times were put up for sale or eventually just had to claim bankruptcy. It is not entirely impossible as being a publicly traded company, if stock were to fall to a buck a share the company would crumble, massive closing of international bureaus, layoffs, etc., the company could be in ruin inside 90 days from the stock falling. A world without the NY Times would a be a terrible place given the fact it would shake confidence in others and possibly lead to a domino effect resulting in the ugly world I mentioned in the last paragraph.

Embrace of online media will help, but it is not going to fix the problem, you don’t make up 60% ad revenue declines by charging .99 micro-charges for weekly subscriptions to the Times. A complete restructuring of the business model will need to take place to find a profitable design for the 21st century paper. In the meantime you, the readers and general public need to be wary of reporting, check your own facts and dig deeper to find the information that you need to form opinions and make decisions. As the journalists are stretched thin and expected to perform miracles on a daily basis for less money on tighter deadlines without the needed support staff I ask that you forgive inaccuracies and instead pick up more than just the one paper. Take a cue from me, I read the LA Times, NY Times, USA Today, as well as my local papers to check facts and try to get the whole story as well as a wide array of different stories. I don’t subscribe to any of these papers, I read them online for free, bad aspiring journalist, I know, but I put in the leg work to be assured that I am as diversely informed as possible. What you now need to do is support papers more than ever by doing the job of research assistant, reporter, editor, and publisher at multiple papers to get your news. You now do the same job four people used to do at the paper…welcome to modern journalism, you have to get your own coffee, too, we had to fire Jimmy last week.

Join Steve and Sara at 11:00 a.m. on November 8, 2009, when they will be discussing the topic of “Employment Law.”  Tune in to WNOX-FM 100.3 NewsTalk 100 or listen live via the web by visiting http://www.wnoxnewstalk.com.

Call during the show with your questions about Employment Law issues in Tennessee by dialing (865) 656-TALK (8255) or (800) 951-TALK (8255). U.S. Cellular and AT&T Wireless customers can also place a free call by dialing *100. If you prefer, feel free to post your questions and/or comments here on our blog. We will review the blog before and during the show and attempt to answer your questions on the air.

You can also contact Steve and Sara during the week with your questions by calling The Oberman Law Firm at (865) 249-7200.

 

Radca 14″ Vessel

Radca 27″ Charger

For the first time in more than 12 years, area resident and internationally-known ceramic artist Tom Radca will have an open house at his workshop on November 7th & 8th, 2009 from 10-6 each day!

Not only will he feature his work and show his techniques for creating pieces, but his fiancé Brenda McMahon will also display her artwork as well as show off her art studio. The two create their artwork at workshop nestled in the rolling hills of Tuscarawas County, near Port Washington. Radca and McMahon live in the cabin where famous pitcher Cy Young was born.

Radca, who has been creating artwork for more than three decades, has exhibited internationally since 1994 and just recently wrapped up an international show with McMahon in Plunket, Thailand, where both artists’ works were featured.

Together, they teach a local ceramics class called “Loose and Large and Poetic and Polish.” Radca shows students the “loose and large” technique of creating artwork on the wheel whereas McMahon offers the more “poetic and polished” approach to art.

“It’s a big deal,” Radca said. “It’s a joint open house. We welcome the people to our open house because people love to see where artists create their works.”

Their studio is located at 15216 Grove Road, Port Washington, Ohio. They also have their own Web sites that feature their artwork at www.BrendaMcMahonCeramics.com and www.TomRadca.com. They may also be reached by calling (740) 498-4303.

I have collected Tom’s pottery for some time now and own over 12 pieces. You have to make time to go down and meet Tom and Brenda and see their work!     

One of my pet peeve’s in any organization is seeing “Leaders” stay in positions, well beyond their time. This post is aimed at more of the “senior” Leaders within an organization. I have seen in some organizations where the senior person stays on well beyond when they should have given up the reigns to someone else. This can be viewed as positive (experience factor) and negative (status quo), but over the long-term I believe it has a negative impact for the organization.

As Author Alan M. Weber stated in his May 26, 2009, Washington Post Blog Titled “Firing the Leader“:

“When a leader stays too long, it’s usually the fault of the oversight committee–people who are too timid or too intimidated to do what they probably know is right, but desperately want to avoid having to do.  But ultimately, that’s what the leaders-of-leaders have to do. They’re the ones who have to have the character to tell the leader who reports to them that it’s time for a change. “

In the military, Officers would stay in any given position at best a year (unless it was Command, which averages 18 months to over 2 years). This rotation was good because it was just long enough for the Officer to learn the position, then rotate into another level of responsiblity and not burn them out. On the flip side some of the Enlisted Leaders didn’t like this because just when the Officer was starting to get good at their job, they were rotated out. Good Leaders leave systems in place and build a pipeline of talent to ensure continuity from one Leader to the next. From a people perspective, I agree that it wasn’t good because you got to know your people really well and functioning well as a Team.

Staying in “senior” positions too long within a company can stifle development and potentially create a negative environment with people trying seek a favorable view from the “senior” Leader in hopes of eventually replacing them. This in turn creates uncertainty within the ranks and has somewhat of a deflating effect on the Leaders looking for increased responsibility, which ultimately will cause them to leave the organization for other opportunities.

From my experience Leaders staying on too long can cause these counterproductive situations:
1. Complacency
2. Status Quo (My way or the highway)
3. Uncertainty – Leaders don’t know succession plan or timeline
4. Unhealthy Competition among Leaders

I always go back to the point that if you are in this situation you must self-reflect and ask yourself “why am I continuing to hold on to the position?” If you are in a position of influence: Recognize it and have the guts to handle it before it spreads like cancer throughout the ranks. Leaders DO THE RIGHT THING, regardless of the situation.

© 2009 Benjamin J Larson (aka TheLeaderWay). All Rights Reserved.

text

Over the past year, I have had nearly a dozen friends who joined the honored list of those terminated by their church or ministry organization. These terminations were not the result of moral failure. These were all good, godly men and women. For some it was due to economics, but for most it was much more complicated. For all of them, the termination was devastating to them and their family, particularly in this economically difficult time. In church lingo, we say that men and women are “called” to a ministry; not hired. But when things go south, every one of them is fired. Like others terminated from the workforce, the “let go” lose more than just their income. They lose their church family, their colleagues, their self-esteem, their sense of worth, confidence, and sense of calling. For some, they lose their faith in the goodness of the church. In extreme cases, they lose their faith in God. They feel rejected, beat-up, and discouraged. It affects the spouse and their children, who bear the emotional scars for years. The loss of income can lead to the loss of their house, and financial ruin. For each of my friends, they felt called to that church or ministry and still believed that calling was on their life. They are now told they are unable to continue in that calling and they cry out, “Where is God in all of this?”

Staff members and their families are not the only ones affected. A termination has rippling effects though out that individual’s ministry and church. In many cases, the individual was terminated without any opportunity for closure with church friends and fellow staff members. These staff members were surprised when they received the news of the termination. Church members closest to the staff member are also shocked and grieve the loss. In one larger church, the dismissal was conducted by someone in Human Resources, rather than a pastoral staff member. In most cases, the churches behaved less “Christian” than secular businesses. A termination, particularly if it is wrongful, will impact the leadership of those who remain.

Because of the expense of hiring new personnel, secular businesses go to great lengths to find the best prospects, train them, and keep them. When employees do not work out in secular organizations, they have specific procedures for trying to rectify the problem, provide notice of what will occur if improvements are not observed; a process that is clearly articulated over a course of six months to a year. In other words, there should be no surprises.

Some individuals are asked to resign (rather than be fired) and they must sign non-disclosure statements or they will forfeit any severance. A stigma is attached to staff members who are terminated, making it longer for them to secure another ministry position in a church or ministry. That’s why I recommend that a staff member stay in a difficult situation until they are called to another church. Churches take months to “call” ministers. The autonomous nature of many evangelical churches makes it difficult to get a resume before a church and it is a laborious process. It is often not what you know, but who you know.

The purpose of the blog is not to question the decision by a pastor or personnel committee to terminate a church staff member. Sometimes a staff member is not a good fit, or they are not on the same page as to mission or strategy, or they are ineffective in their ministry. Paul and Barnabas parted ways at one point in their ministry. I understand that. My question is not about why, but how. An African proverb says, “It is not only what you do, but how you do it that matters.” I lament for my friends and their losses.

Should churches and non-profit organizations approach hiring and firing differently than secular businesses? How much severance is appropriate? What responsibility does the pastor and church have in shepherding those who are released from the flock? I’d love to hear your thoughts, stories, and faith journeys. Respond on this blog or email me at daryl.eldridge@rsconnect.org. Your name will not be shared with anyone.