the art of discerning the nature of mistakes – FILO Blog

To hear Richard Hammond of the BBC’s Top Gear fame utter a sincere, “sorry” in his gentle English accent after he has caused mayhem with a motor vehicle is to understand the complex nature of mistakes. In our fast-paced, highly accurate tech world, mistakes can and do happen, and “sorry” is often used to lessen the damage. However, as a leader, trying to decipher whether mistakes are due to lack of training or lack of attention is another matter indeed, since none of us possess the insight of Richard Hammond’s cohost, the masterly James May.  Church tech is unlike corporate, entertainment, or educational tech for it must balance the need to accomplish the goal in a precise, professional manner while relying on the variability of volunteers, not paid industry veterans as the other verticals employ. The first step, then, toward creating a healthy and balanced church tech work environment is the setting of clear expectations to establish a baseline and the second step is using our discernment to ascertain whether the responsibility and more importantly, the solution, lies within us or the volunteer.     Expectation lies at the intersection of intent and understanding, for it must move beyond implication into clarity and from assumption into the realm of the concrete. A list of written expectations is the only path to success as it nullifies the fleeting nature of verbal communication in favor of a permanent record. The list should flatly state the nature of the role, its time frame, performance minimums, focus requirements, and duration, but it should also be tempered with a list of the resources and investments the team will make to on-board a new volunteer. At the head of this list is a commitment by the Tech Director (TD) to prayerful encouragement, investment in the volunteer through personal connection, small group participation, and comprehensive training encompassed within a spirit of inclusion of the whole person, not just their tech function. New tech training, unfortunately, often degrades into a quick run-through of the task on a hurried Sunday morning, followed by a link to a YouTube video and a one-time shadow of the person currently in the position who is moving out of state the next day. Such a scenario serves no one and must be set aside in favor of a consecutive series of actions designed to bring the new volunteer into the role at a pace slow enough to allow absorption but fast enough to function within the realities of church-world timelines. Most training should start with the concept of the role, then roll into a basic theory of the task’s ultimate goal and followed then by hands-on application in low-consequence environments such as a mid-week rehearsal and a local conference before two Sundays of shadowing, first in the watch position and then in the action position. Once the expectations are communicated and confirmed and the volunteer has been brought up to speed, the function will be met, the leadership satisfied, and the volunteer emboldened to accelerate their learning. However, when the inevitable first mistake happens, the key is to address it directly, but gently, and to do so after the event has ended. It serves nothing to highlight the mistake as it happens since any functional volunteer is utterly aware of it and already feeling the angst and shame it brings. Better to let it lie and interview, not interrogate, in the calm of the after-service. Let the volunteer walk through the mistake, how it came to be, and what was done to correct it before casting judgment or corrective action. Let them own it, then alleviate their burden with encouragement, reassurance, and shining the light of knowledge on a path toward improvement. Win their heart to fix their action. However, if the volunteer later repeats the mistake or commits a series of errors not aligned with the complexity of the task then lack of care, focus or attention becomes a valid cause agent. After confirming the training is up to par,