I met with one of my professors yesterday and we were walking through my personality assessments from class. Not really much has changed over the years with my personality, but what was interesting was asking questions regarding its applications in what job I get.
If you are familiar with the Myers-Briggs personality inventory, my type is ENFP. The first letter deals with how you get your energy, from people (E-Extrovert) or by away from them (I-Introvert), the second is how you see the world, how you take in information, either through the five senses (S-Sensory), which is the type of person who can map out the details of a vision or big picture, or through intuition (N-Intuitive), which are more of the big picture people. The third letter deals with how you make decisions, through thinking or by your gut. This doesn't necessarily mean thinkers don't feel and vice versa, but if you were cornered down in the end, how would you make decisions? The final letter deals with how you organize. J's (Judging) are the Type A organizers. They have to have everything lined up for them. P's are more spontaneous and less organized than J's.
Now, what was interesting to me as we were talking was the second letter. I am a big vision guy, a big picture guy. I see the possibilities in people, the hopes, the dreams. However, when I read most job descriptions, I read something like this in the expectations:
-able to cast vision and big picture for youth ministry
-great attention to details (or good administrator)
There are certain people who are good at both. If you find one of those types of people, consider yourself blessed. However, for the most that aren't, what if you're the vision person, but have a harder time mapping out the details? The fact is, you need to surround yourself with people who are the "detail" people. What I found in my past church experiences was that the church expected you to perform at a high level at both. What ended up happening to me was that the things that I did well were knocked down a notch because I was expected to be the details guy. When I tried to foster support, getting those who were detail people to help me, there was the attitude of "this is what we pay you for."
This went on for 8+ years, and it killed me. The same goes with organization. My spontaneity and improvising was great, but I had a harder time organizing in general. I didn't have an assistant, and again, for the same reasons, could not find anybody to help me, or it was chalked up to "this is what we pay you for," or "you should be mature enough to know how to do this." It doesn't mean I can't do it, it just takes a TON more energy for me, and, in the end, if I am spending most of time doing these types of things, it sacrificed what I'm good at, or at least performed at a much lower level than I'm capable of.
Most people thought this explanation was just making excuses, but reflecting on this for the last 2 years, I see that it was really about understanding how you "fit" within in a culture, and whether or not that culture has realistic expectations of who you are, and let you operate in your strengths while helping you find support for your weaknesses.
I'm just curious on how many people have been dismissed or resigned from positions because of this fact. Some people have problems with using personality assessments in hiring, but I'm a believer that you are not just hiring a resume, but a particular type of person (and I have a huge problem with resume hiring in churches, I'll explain in another post), and if that person does not fit in your culture, or if there is not going to be support for that person in areas where they are not as strong in, yet expected to perform high in, then you need to find someone else.
My problem was, I wasn't even aware of this until after the fact. It's only been the last couple of years of sitting back and reflecting that I've been able to see this. I'm a believer that a person must operate in their strengths (that's really what you hired them for), and to have support for them in the areas they are not good at to improve on the weaknesses. If you're focus is to have them improve their weaknesses to get up to the level of their strengths, you will burn them out and chase them out the door. Quite honestly, I don't think churches even consider that they are part of the problem. It is mostly attributed to that person's lack of performance, so (and I'm speaking from a youth ministry context), you're switching leaders every 2-3 years or so, because they can only do so much.
Now, I'm not saying this is the SOLE cause of the longevity problem, but I think it's one part that isn't really thought about too much by church hiring committees, boards, etc...
Long enough for now, I hope it makes sense.
