EXPRESSIONS

Custom Search

“Counter Culture Companies Communicate Christ's Compassion!”

Ramesh C. Reddy
Publisher

What if the church were a company?

What if the core team leaders of the church were the board members of that church?

What if you, as the church's pastor, were its CEO?

How would you administer disciplinary action to those employed by the church company?

Will the discipline you give be harsher than that of a secular company?

Would your discipline involve fewer safeguards to protect those employed by the church than a secular company?

Would your church employees ever say to themselves, this is not the church I want to work for, but I would love to work for a secular company?

If you answered ‘Yes’ to any of these questions, you must ask yourself: Are you being countercultural and showing Christ’s compassion?

If you are not counter-cultural and show Christ’s compassion, then there will be no difference between you as an employer of the church and a secular company. This should not be the case.

Let us take the scenarios of a janitor working for company A vs company B.

Which company would you expect to be the church company versus the secular company?

Here you will be given authentic vignettes from both companies for you to decide your response. We will be using John Doe as an example for both companies, herein referred to as ‘janitor’, ‘he’, ‘him’, or ‘himself’

In company A, when the janitor misses certain areas, the employer shows them and takes pictures to send to the janitor. The employer also calls the janitor at times. The janitor is very happy because the employer showed him specific areas he has missed so he can improve for the following week.

In company B, when the janitor misses certain areas, the employer also shows the employee what was missed. The janitor is very happy because the employer showed him specific areas he has missed so he could improve for the following week.

In company A, when things have not improved, the employer continues to share what the employer heard from others about what the janitor missed, including sending photos, texts, and making phone calls.

In company B, the employer personally tells what the janitor missed based on their own observations instead of relying on third-party input. The employee knows who will check his work and what to improve on continuously.

In company A, the janitor starts getting very frustrated because if he misses anything, the people who notice it do not address the janitor, even if the janitor requested that anyone who notices a mess should feel free to confront and share. Instead, they wait until the monthly, bi-monthly, or quarterly board meeting to tell everyone what the janitor missed. That meant 15 to 90 days had passed by where the janitor was not spoken to by board members who have access to the janitor in person, through phone call, text, or email, even if messes were noticed. Instead, board members waste valuable board time talking about misses by the janitor during the facilities part of the meeting. During the board meeting, the janitor is not even there to hear the accusations to defend himself. This goes on for 2 years, where the janitor hears everything that went wrong after the board meeting and rarely ever before that by those who brought the complaints, even when those board members have access to the janitor weekly. The janitor is very frustrated because if the janitor knew when the mess was noticed, it could have been fixed, but rarely do the board members interact with the janitor to help him improve, and they wait 15 – 90 days to share their complaints.

In company B, the janitor has daily appraisals whenever a mess is seen. In this company, even if they are board members, they speak directly to the janitor about whatever they notice. Even if 9-18 board members notice different messes at different times, they let the janitor know personally. During their bi-monthly, monthly, or quarterly meetings, they don’t need to waste time talking about janitorial stuff because they personally speak to the janitor beforehand.

In company A, after hearing board members complaints multiple times in 2.5 years, the employer finally pulls the janitor into the office with two members of the board and shares that the board is not happy with the janitor’s work and warns there is a danger of the janitor losing the job because of the board members complaints during board meetings. The employer asks what they could do to help the janitor. The janitor does not like to be blindsided, so he tells the three board members there that he would like to have open lines of communication with all the board members and himself to do a good job. In other words, if any board member notices a mess, the janitor wants to know from them during the week through face-to-face, phone call, or text instead of having a surprise meeting 15-90 days later with a pink slip.

In company B, when the work has not improved, the janitor is called into the office with two other board members. The janitor is given constructive counseling, a verbal warning, and a checklist to follow. The janitor is followed up on daily instead of waiting 15-90 days to talk amongst themselves and then bringing the decision to the janitor.

In company A, the janitor is also given a checklist to follow. The janitor, however, decides to create his own checklist and share it with all the board members in the hopes that if they notice something not done, they can directly let the janitor know. He also shares the document with whoever he has access to so they can share their feedback when something is noticed. However, there is no daily feedback. The janitor thinks he is doing a good job because, as the saying goes, ‘No news is good news’.

In company B, the janitor still struggles even with the checklist but the employers and board members are there to develop him into the best janitor. They do not wait until 15-90 days to share their grievances with each other but whenever they see janitor they tell him his improvements and his struggles.

In company A, 15-90 days have passed. Only two board members have complained to him during those days, even though the janitor sees almost all the board members weekly. The janitor is happy because he feels his work has dramatically improved after 2.5 years.

In company B, 15-90 days have passed. The janitors' work has improved, but there are still shortfalls after 2.5 years. The janitor keeps working.

In company A, the janitor is called to the office after 30-90 days of work. The janitor wonders why he is being called to the office. The janitor is told that his services will no longer be needed because, during the board meeting, they wasted time talking about the janitor's work when there are far more important things to focus on. The janitor is told he will be given 60 days to find another job. The janitor is shocked because he had thought everything was improving since he did not hear any but two complaints in 30-90 days. The janitor cannot believe what has happened.

In company B, the janitor is also called into the office because the work has not been done where needed. The janitor is given a written warning with lots of help for improvement. The janitor accepts the written warning, but is so happy he has not been fired. He also knows his employer will give a second written warning, a suspension, and termination. The janitor also knows he is only responsible to one person who can fire him, give constructive counseling, or promote him after all the safeguards are used. The janitor knows he can improve more because his employer desires to develop him to become a supervisor.

In company A, the janitor felt the board members never invested in him enough to develop him to be the best janitor. However, they only complained during board meetings about the mess instead of dealing directly with the janitor. The janitor felt that if his work was going to be discussed, he should have been there for that part of the meeting, in line with due process. The janitor never developed to his potential because the board members had the attitude that he should know his work by now. The janitor left the company with bitterness because of the lack of due process and safeguards to protect his job.

In company B, the janitor felt that even after 2.5 years, the employer still wanted to invest in him and develop him to the point that he could become a supervisor to supervise other janitors. The janitor stayed and became a supervisor and developed janitors under him.

Company A and Company B had exit interviews with their janitors at different times. When the janitor from company A left, he left with a bad taste toward all the board members, and when the janitor from company B left, he left with a high regard for the board members who had trained him to be a supervisor.

In company A, the janitor shared that he had 6 days to get the company ready for a weekly convention every week. The janitor shared he would work on the 2nd day of the week and then return on the 6th day to clean. The janitor shared he had requested that the board members only hold him accountable if there was a mess on the 7^th day, but not to keep track of the mess on the other days, because the janitorial work won’t be completed until the 7th day, since he only works 2 days. However, the janitor shared that board members would keep track of the mess even before day 7 and share it during board meetings. This frustrated the janitor very much, especially if a mess happened after the janitor cleaned it, but it was blamed on the janitor when someone remade the mess but never cleaned after themselves. The janitor also felt that messes were staged to see if the janitor would notice the mess and clean it up.

In company B, the janitor knew that he had to take care of the mess after company closed but was not responsible for what happened if he already cleaned that area. The janitor felt he was working for a fair employer and board members.

In company A, the janitor shared that he was not given a raise even after 2.5 years, even with high inflation. Even when the raise was given because the janitor asked, it was very minuscule.

In company B, the janitor was given a substantial raise after 2 years, accounting for inflation.

In company A, the janitor shared that he was never given due process to listen to his accusers and what he was guilty of; he always had hearsay information, which made it impossible for him to defend himself.

In company B, the janitor shared that he was always given due process to listen to his accusers face to face and defend himself, whether 1 or 20.

In company A, the janitor was told that after 2.5 years, he should be perfect in his job and avoid making the same mistakes.

In company B, the janitor was told that after 2.5 years, mistakes were still made, but there was also so much room for development. The janitor was developed.

In company A, the janitor was compared to the janitors before him and was told he never measured up to that standard.

In company B, the janitor was told that the employer uses situational-based management, where each individual is unique and brings their own uniqueness without comparing them to others. In their own uniqueness, they are developed without being put down.

After reading the scenarios from companies A and B, which company would you say was a church company and which company was a secular company?

What reasons would you give for your choices?

Which company would you say was countercultural and showed Christ’s compassion?

What is a biblical model for an employer-employee relationship?

“If a brother sins against you, go to him privately with his fault.” (Matthew 18:15, TLB)

Can we say a janitor not cleaning the mess properly is sinning against his employer?

For argument's sake, let us say, ‘Yes’

What if the board members are the employers?

What should the board members do according to Matthew 18:15?

Which company did that?

What Biblical principles will you use to run your company?

Let me know

Reddy’s Right Rhetoric takes you into the realm of employment, asking you which company shows Christ’s compassion as countercultural. He can be reached at reddy4hisglory@gmail.com