Good Coaching Makes a Good Planter Better
Today's post started as an e-mail from a friend of mine at NAMB. (I am waiting for his permission before posting the text of the e-m.) Reader's Digest version: He rightly points out that so much of what leads to a church planter's success (or failure) on the field connects with who coaches him. Here's my response: ... This subject is ripe for a blazing [blog] battle. DISCLAIMER: [Blog Posting] OFFERS A NOTORIOUS MEDIUM FOR HURT FEELINGS, INUENDO, AND ALL MANNER OF DEMONIC NASTINESS. ONE CANNOT COMMUNICATE AS CLEARLY VIA E-M AS HE CAN IN PERSON (tough to display, body language, volume, etc.) E-mail does not offer very good give and take. So, start out by giving each other (especially me :-/ ) the benefit of the doubt, OK? Two things come to mind:
- All my coaches were constantly in my face. This one carries other baggage:
- Good coaching and distance do not make good partners.
- Good coaching involves an agreed upon (dare I say, “owned”), clear, measurable goal (like, “HIT THAT GUY THERE, THAT ONE”).
- Good coaching involves constant correction, criticism, and yelling is often necessary.
- The relational nature of mentoring/coaching demands mutual selection. When we assign mentors/coaches to planters, without the two guys first falling in like with each other, we should not be surprised to find that failure is the norm. As a rule, arranged marriages don’t work in the West.
posted by Dr. Jack Allen at 11:50 AM
5 Comments:
Guys, this is the message that started this stuff:
Guys, after reading several items today, it struck me that there seems to be a veering to the use of the word “coaching” in the relationship that that is provided to planter.
I have no doubt that “coaching” has become the popular word, in fact, it excites me to know that the focus is on helping the planter, for this, I will take credit for my small contribution to the movement of addressing the needs of the planter. What does concern me is the same problem that in some situations, supervision failed the planter in days gone past and for that matter still does. When I came to the realization of what was the planter’s greatest need, it was more that the best off the shelf resource, or latest book on the subject, it was clear—a relationship which came out of desire yearning for someone who is “there for me”, it was evident that for many, supervision had not met that need, thus was born the activity that went deep and dealt with the real and felt needs—MENTORING.
Guys, I could say much more about this, in fact, I really do not care what the supervision/mentoring/coaching activity it is called, but what will distinguish us in our commitment to serve planters? Let’s not settle for a secular/business use the term coaching of being there long enough so the planter can see how I did it either by osmosis or by telling you how I did it (yeah, I know that this is a gross
exaggeration) , which is helpful on one level, but I am talking about the level just above that of the Lord and the family. Who will be there addressing that level? What will they do when they get to that level?
Can we invite this issue into a dialogue and ask: What do we do to really help a planter as his greatest need? How serious are we to be about that activity? It is about significance, in the life and ministry of the planter and their family, it is about significance, in the service of us, the church planting leaders and one more thing, that because of our commitment, we actually reproduce that commitment in these planters and their spouses that will mentor the planters and their spouses that they bring up.
Thanks, joe
All,
I have been in discussions about the desireability of coaching versus
mentoring and the crucial issue is not whether they need someone who will
deal with personhood issues in the context of church planting (the mentor)
or just someone to help develop skills and give problem-solving perspective
(the coach). The conundrum is that while coaches can be assigned based on
model and issue competency, mentor's must connect relationally with the
planter. There must be trust. It is difficult to engineer this
relationship (probably "impossible" is the correct term) so we tend to be
passive on the issue - if the planter finds a mentor, excellent, but we
don't have a good relational clearinghouse to make it happen. Once a
mentoring relationship forms, we can train to make it more effective,
however, so it is still important that we be concerned with this aspect of
effective planting. Sometimes the coach "clicks" with the planter and we get
the best outcome - a coach who is a mentor. This rare but wonderful
occurrance stirs us into denial and we decide we will develop mentors
instead of just coaches. My opinion is that it can't be systematized on the
front end, only recognized and maximized on the back end. We could,
perhaps, develop a document for the planter on "why you need a mentor, not
just a coach, and how to find one."
Dan Morgan
"It is about significance, in the life and ministry of the planter and their family, it is about significance, in the service of us, the church planting leaders and one more thing, that because of our commitment, we actually reproduce that commitment in these planters and their spouses that will mentor the planters and their spouses that they bring up."
I love Joe Hernandez!! Jack this concept of reproducing commitment is gold. I would love for you to expand on it!!! Please feel free to yell at me!!
God has blessed me with terrific mentors/coaches/disciplers. As I read this, I recall that each one took the initiative with me.
One example was a Sunday School teacher who was a successful business man. He took me aside at a party and challenged me to write a personal mission statement and meet him at breakfast, that week, to discuss it. Those weekly breakfasts changed my life.
Second example is my current "Paul." Our wives knew each other and he invited me to lunch several times. I now work for him in full-time ministry, and he's taught me about all I know about regarding church planting.
Paul seemed to do the same with Timothy. Barnabas certainly initiated the relationship with Saul. In 2 Tim. 2:2, Paul tells Timothy to entrust his teachings to "faithful men." I heard Steve Farrar once tell a group of young ladies that the best attribute to seek in a mate is that he be teachable.
Pairing mentors with mentees is difficult. It be great if the seasoned, "good" ones, could initiate the relationship and if the young CP responds well, they move forward. If he/she doesn't, they move on (John Mark).
Like your blog. Keep the faith.
Church planters and students are looking for coaches, not mentors. Coaches are expected to provide imput that brings results. Mentors are personhood oriented...which is important, but not held accountable for the results.
In my experience, many "mentors" enjoy the role of being on the team but carrying no real responsibility or accountability for the results.
Together in His service,
Rod
Post a Comment
<< Home