Tips and tricks for Canadians who love makeup.
The best UberEats promo codes available! Submit yours here! Get your free meals and discount codes here... More about UberEats: https://ubereats.com
Can you take the gift & accept my invitation? We can both get free gifts this way!đ Search my code in Temu or tap my link to download & accept my invite 168174622
I applied last cycle and was fortunate enough to get into a handful of schools. Background: Iâm from Canada, had a low undergrad (completed undergrad in California) gpa then did a post bacc (also in California). I have learned lots along the way and, Iâd love to help anyone applying this cycle! Feel free to message me.
*Management style:
Not democratic/participative. Not transformational. Not Coaching. Very much Autocratic/Authoritative/Coercive. Sometimes Laissez-faire. Style depends on the department.
*Chain of command:
The ministry is seen as a church by top management. Top management are the âeldersâ and the CEO is the Senior Pastor. Then there is everybody else. So, confidence is put on their positions of authority. They are, in all sense and purposes, the âspiritual leadersâ. They present themselves as having spiritual authority and, therefore, as being entitled to receive immediate agreement and unquestioned compliance.
Also, there are multiple management layers or chains which this quote sums up as well:
"When you become an admiral, you never have bad meals and you never hear the truth. there are all these layers of management and buffer layers and each one is afraid to tell unpleasant truth to the top levels.... â
Not a culture of authenticity where everyone on the team, including management, is encouraged, and expected to be who they are. There is a sense that top management puts up a false front, they seem to want to appear perfect. Illusions of invulnerability exist. They always lead well, they always make the right decisions, they never admit mistakes, etc. Want people to think they got it all together- all rainbows and lollipops. Do not exhibit vulnerability. Toxic positivity is also very much present: Everything is seen as âawesomeâ. So, there is judgment if you have a bad (not "everything is awesome") day.
The vertical chain of command, results in less collaboration, slow communication, lack of career growth, feelings of subordination, and decreased employee empowerment. Top management sets the rules and standards without any input from the âbottomâ employees. Employee questions, concerns or ideas have to go up several steps of the chain of command so that upper management can address or approve. The bottom employees do not have the ability to make decisions related to their work or a particular situation. So, not everyone feels equal.
So, if you are not a spiritual leader, you are just basically told to submit and listen to those who are in authority over you because they are the people that âhear from Godâ and you are not and so whatever they say goes. And they set up a scenario where they basically kept those of us who were not spiritual leaders dependent upon them.
Many in management are overconfident and overestimate their abilities. They have a simple idea of how things are and how things work. Unfortunately, they make decisions that impact entire departments without gaining the needed knowledge.
The chain of command and lack of ongoing training also results in many employees being promoted so much that they max out their competence and will remain there until they leave or are let go. So, you end up with many in the role of management that lack the training and competence of the respective department. So, employees with the most authority are often not the most experienced and not adept in the particular field leading team members. And employees with the most experience and skills and knowledge and wisdom have the least (or no) authority.
Good leaders donât always claim the âleaderâ title. Oftentimes, good leaders are those with more understated temperaments. Leadership is as much about listening as it is about telling. However, people with the most open and receptive personalities often do not have much authority.
Also, how the chain of command should operate when there is a unit that acted without proper authorization, it is not a junior authority whoâs going to bear a responsibility for that, but somewhat of more senior status. And thatâs true in any military or business or ministry operating by a code of ethics. So, if someone at the bottom of the chain is struggling, failing, or making mistakes, those at the top of the chain bear full responsibility. Everything stands or falls on leadership. Unfortunately, the chain at FCBH is not two directional.
There is also a sense that top management promotes employees who are least-competent but pose no risk to their own position (in-group bias) to management.
*Feedback:
Work environment or culture is not set up for employees to give honest feedback/opinions or to deliver bad news or to question or disagree with management.
Sample bias is also common. Management will send an email asking for feedback but they won't consider how only the people who are open to talking and sharing their opinions will participate while others wonât. Bias arises because employees with specific characteristics (e.g., extroverts) might be more likely to agree to participate than others, making the participants a non-representative sample. People with strong opinions or substantial knowledge about a specific topic may be more willing to give feedback than those without. Management does not follow up to determine why they are unresponsive or follow up frequently to reduce attrition.
Management claims they want to hear from employees, but they only want opinions and ideas on matters that are superficial or trivial. So, few employees give candid feedback on important and significant matters.
Top management does not involve employees in the change process when changes occur.
Management does not ask for honest feedback on their leadership or on decisions that are made that affect employees. Management will not ask how they are doing as leaders, what employees need from them. No regular check-ins or 1:1 on employeesâ professional and personal well-being. Are employees stressed, disappointed or feeling burdened physically, emotionally or spiritually? No growth and career discussions.
Management will ignore most feedback, comments, suggestions even when it's common knowledge but will adamantly listen to employees who preface with "God told me to tell you..." Or âI felt God say âŚâ or âGod spoke to me and saidâŚâ
For example, management started focusing on Gen Z only after a few people claimed that âGod told us that Gen Z are important for our future business growth.â In another instance, someone said âGod gave us this word: we as a ministry need to really consider how everyone is wired, how each person is different. How people have different personalities.â Then, management affirmed this âword from God.â
If one employee brings something up to management it is often ignored and the employee is gaslighted. If two or more employees bring the same thing to management, then God is communicating something and they take it seriously (per Matt 18). Even if it is just coincidence or frequency bias.
*Groupthink/Conformity:
Groupthink, confirmation bias, in-group bias, illusions of unanimity, and self-censorship is very prevalent in the culture and especially in their meetings. There is a lot of direct pressure to not question, to conform, to agree with the views and personal convictions of the top management. Employees condemn those who disagree or question top management and they accept those who agree, creating immense pressure for conformity.
So, many employees frequently remain quiet, preferring to âkeep the peaceâ rather than disrupt the uniformity. Employees are pressured to hide problematic information (especially from top management).
*Disagreements/Different perspectives:
Top management will also point out the working and living conditions of international employees to âencourageâ local employees to not âcomplainâ or give critical feedback or bring up legitimate problems (e.g., fumes or loud noises from construction in the building).
Management also often commits the "ends (or goals or vision) justify the means" fallacy: the work, the production and distribution of bibles (the ends) being done is more important, so employees shouldn't complain at all about the means or their working conditions (broken chairs, broken or inadequate equipment, poor work-life balance, bad management).
And, if management disagrees with you, with your observations, feedback, suggestions, or theology, they will often try to trump you with spirituality or vague meaningless spiritual terminology instead of using Scripture (properly interpreted), facts and reasoning.
In addition, top managers will take great offense when employees question or disagree with the directions and decisions they make. Dissent is not welcomed. Respectful debates/disagreement is not encouraged. Open discussion and alternative perspectives are not encouraged. Management does not value, support, or respect diverse opinions and ideas. They do not actively seek out different viewpoints. Do not allow people to speak their perspective, their thought of mind. So, there is no psychological safety. Employees do not feel comfortable expressing dissenting opinions without fear of retribution or judgment. Afraid of breaking the little glass image. People do not feel comfortable sharing setbacks, mistakes, failures. Management does not encourage open communication. Management often seeks agreement, instead of posing honest questions that challenge the status quo and provoke critical thinking and discussion. They do not encourage employees to challenge them. In fact, they are seen as a type of complaining or critical feedback and so are viewed as sin. This makes top management seem self-centered.
*Appeals to emotion: Guilt and Shame:
Top management often shares their personal opinions and convictions (e.g., spending money only when absolutely necessary, not accepting large gifts, not buying fancy items) as something everyone should do. Itâs never direct. It's always through stories. Management loves stories. The personal convictions of management are presented as more than preferences.
For instance, top management encourages extreme frugality and poverty through their personal anecdotes #loudbudgeting and stories from international cultures. Think along the lines of: âwe, here in America, have no right to be sad or to complain about things or to request better things or ask for accommodations or for more employee engagement because others (internationals) have it much worse.â Even wanting better equipment and supplies or asking for better working conditions is frowned upon (in some cases seen as a sin), even if your request helps you to do your job more effectively and makes the work better (a new whiteboard, a new office chair, better computers, etc.)
Example: âYou should really try to come in to work even if you feel bad, even if you are snowed in and the roads are hazardous because people need to get our bibles. And our international employees work in much harsher conditions.â
You also get this feeling from the way they communicate that top management would rather not pay their employees. They would prefer it if everyone just worked for free because âwe are on a mission from God. We are doing the Lord's work.â There is also a sense that employees should be more than willing to sacrifice their well-being, career goals, financial goals, personal goals for reaching people with their Bibles.
Leadership sets the example and expectations, so this all ends up making employees confused and feeling guilty and ashamed. Guilty and shameful about asks, spending money (even their own). Guilty and shameful about having nice things (new car, new phone, new tv), about making needs known, about sharing concerns regarding work, about asking for raises to keep up with cost of living, etc.
Example: An employee has continued to use an old whiteboard. It is so old it is hard to read and difficult to erase. Management likes to tell donors: âWe don't spend money on everyday things like whiteboardsâŚ. Instead, we use that money for more bible recordings, for people to hear about Jesus.â
This also causes confusion. Every few months there is a meeting where management discusses how sitting on stores of money is bad, but spending it is also bad, but also not spending it is bad... "Being rich is bad. Money is bad. let's not accumulate money, that's bad. We must think about how people will see what we have. So we should look poor and not appear too frivolous." But top management is okay with receiving gifts from donors and other ministries. Management personally does not like to have nice âfancyâ things, and as a ministry, they say FCBH should also not have nice fancy things, they should use the money for other more important things. They don't like when other ministries use their money for nice fancy things, but it's okay if other ministries give FCBH nice fancy things like tote bags, key chains, mugs, phone holders, lunch bags. Another example, it took them years to repaint the parking lot. It was at the point where people did not know where to park. Before repainting, management decided to remodel the hallways and install posters and multiple monitors with language stats.
There is also a subtle sense that producing audio and video bibles is the highest calling one can have. And it's implied that FCBH is the main means God uses to fulfill the great commission: âGod needs FCBH to do these bible recordings or people (specifically unreached internationals) will go to hell.â So, top management hints that working anywhere else isn't really serving God (or at least, not serving God as well as one could if they worked somewhere else). They imply that working at this ministry is the only way to truly serve God and fulfill your calling. They also use this framing to guilt and shame employees into not quitting. Management implies that employees should not take opportunities to leave or take other jobs because getting the Bible to people is Godâs highest calling for us as Christians:
âIf anyone leaves FCBH, then they must not really understand the vision/calling. They are not committed to saving people. We should be willing to give up things to fulfill the calling. The apostles did not pursue better jobs and so God will provide if we need better pay, benefits, career. For those of us who join the ministry to hold true to get God's word to every person, it takes discipline because we have opportunities to do other things. I'm sure that Noah had problems with Builders because he probably had hundreds of people not thousands working on the ark. They started their own businesses and started side things going on. pretty soon they'll have no time to work with him on the ark. and you can have all kinds of diversionary things happen. and so we want to understand they focused in the ministry. and that's been one of the things that I've really tried to do is what did God tell me at the time this ministry began because I was not interested in this ministry. I was interested in living by faith and experiencing God through people and seeing people experience God. and when I was praying about that here in Albuquerque the Lord said bring my church together and make disciples. and then he also told me that when his people think the same they are one. so it's not a matter of getting rid of the buildings or the leaders but it's a matter of people thinking the same. They can go to different denominations, different buildings, have different teachers, and different preachers and leaders but once they think the same, they're one and that's what his objective was. and so that's when I felt like the Lord said get God's word to every person. So I'm challenging us to stay true to what God has called us to do. and every time somebody leaves the ministry there are reasons for leaving. but it startles me a little bit, because I think well we haven't, we haven't communicated the vision very well somehow because they didn't get it. like Noah building the arc. it it's a long project it's not a month or a year two years or three years. our immediate goal is 2033 and it means that we're committed to a cause. and that means some of us we give up something. I we've given up stuff we live in a small apartment and that's what we saw that God had us do and that's our lifestyle we we tone down our lifestyle to get the cause committed to the cause. and and I know that's difficult for some, in some cases maybe there's financial needs because of family growth and stuff there they just can't afford to work in the ministry. but sometimes it's a choice and every time somebody leaves it where it's actually a choice. I think we haven't communicated the mission very good the vision very good. I've been looking at is that could you imagine read reading the New Testament. and finding out that Peter about halfway through or Paul halfway through the ministry all of a sudden got a better job offer. and stopped their portion of the ministry they held the course no matter what happened. whether it was good or whether it was bad. Paul talks about this and sometimes we want to follow the Lord. but we don't impart on ourselves the same responsibilities that those disciples did. so when God Empower them is he empowering you in the same way. and you're making choices that maybe you shouldn't make that you will impart and say the Lord is leading me someplace else when in fact maybe it isn't. it's just a better offer. if the Bible in the New Testament was reading a little bit different than Stephen left the ministry at this point or James left the ministry at this point because of something I think we need to be very very careful and why I say that is that as we work internationally.â
SO, there is a lot of guilt and shame about leaving to pursue other interests or meet needs. Guilt and shame about wanting to leave to advance and develop professionally. For this reason, many remain âloyalâ and stay at the ministry.
So there is lots of control and manipulation in the work culture.
*Weekly worship meetings:
These are mandatory and there are some legitimate concerns:
Top management seems to have misconceptions about true worship and worship experiences. They often reduce worship to singing by their communication, the way âworshipâ is used. Worship is seen as something we do on occasion - once a week, when we gather at work for the mandatory worship time. Top management, by ignoring other styles, seems to believe that there is a single style of worship which is correct for Christians.
And it seems like just about anyone can lead worship or be on the team: anyone that can play an instrument. Top management does not require a worship class or agreement to biblical principles concerning worship as a prerequisite for employees who desire to plan and lead worship experiences. So you end up with people who have different views/philosophies on the worship team. Unfortunately, many who lead do not take the time/effort to plan and lead worship experiences, to discern from songs that are better suited for individual or private worship from songs that are corporate or public worship, to discern songs that are controversial/questionable (have bad theology, weak theology), songs that are theologically ambiguous or songs that lean more towards âfeminineâ attributes. Most, if not all, of our modern âChristianâ worship music is written at a simplistic level of understanding and comprehension. Most music tends to appeal to our emotions. Many songs appeal mostly to women. So there is a great need for teaching on the biblical principles concerning worship. Also a need to choose theologically balanced songs with music appropriate for the people. Unfortunately, many of the songs chosen are theologically incorrect (e.g., having elements from the Word Of Faith movement, New Apostolic Church, New Age). Songs are often not theologically balanced. Songs seem to be chosen for their emotional impact, to make employees feel good; many focus on just one aspect of God (e.g., love). Many promote self-centered worship.
Most of the worship leaders just sing the songs: They do not actually âleadâ people into worship. They do not help people connect the lyrics of the song to where they are at in their personal life, to teach them something about God or help the people understand what this song means and what God wants them to get out of it, so they're not just singing songs and just doing, going through the motions or help them understand the depth and the richness of what lyrics mean and how it applies to their life. What matters to them seems to be whether songs are impactful, moving, and beautiful. (Whatever that means.) Whether songs make employees feel good. They don't seem to care whether the songs actually reflect truth: Do the lyrics line up with Scripture? Do the songs glorify self or God? How would new Christians or nonChristians interpret the song?
Theology is the study of God and it's very important doxology is an expression of praise to God so the point here is that all theologies should ultimately lead to doxology if theology doesn't lead to doxology then we've actually missed the point of theology so if you have theology without doxology you just have dead hold orthodoxy which is horrible. On the other side you have the people who say âforget about theology I just want to praise.â But if you have doxology without theology you actually have idolatry because it's just a random expression of praise but it's not actually informed by the truth of who God is so God is
concerned with both he's concerned with an accurate understanding of him and that accurate understanding of him leading to a response of praise adoration and worship towards him.
*Leadership quality:
Top management has more respect for donors and guests than their employees.
Management lacks basic core leadership principles/values:
Unfortunately, many employees are not given power or resources: Management just gives them the responsibility to get things done. Before responsibility is given, employees should be equipped: be empowered, have the authority, be given resources and have the experience. Employees are not empowered as individuals to solve their own problems using their own solutions. Micromanagement is often required every time the situation changes or problems arise. Employees are not inspired to act as leaders for themselves, delivering amazing performance without guidance. They have coaching sessions but only when thereâs a problem. True coaching occurs regardless of whether the individual is crushing their goals or falling behind. Management does not seem to care about unlocking a personâs potential and getting the most of their performance. They seem only interested in producing more followers, not more leaders.
No method to hold management accountable to core values listed in their own Employee handbook. Employees are expected to abide by the procedures and rules described in the handbook but top management can choose to ignore it when it is convenient for them.
-Top management are NOT learners: No desire to develop and improve their skills.
-They do not ask employees: Whatâs one thing you see me doingâor failing to doâthat you think I should change?
-They do not ask how they are doing as leaders. Or ask employees how theyâre doing.
-They do not ask what employees need from management that they are not giving them.
-No performance evaluations for both management or non-managment.
-They often fail to emotionally connect with employees.
-They do not speak to employees' needs first.
-They do not focus on what they can put into people rather than what they can get out of them.
-They do not understand basic psychology, how people think and behave.
-They are often resistant to (and even hate) change: Perhaps because they fear losing control. In fact, new information, objective facts, research, stats, and even new ideas are often ignored in favor of what's easiest to do or because of tradition. If something has been done and âworksâ, top management does not see a reason to question it or to improve on it. If something was tried 5, 10, 20, even 50yrs before and failed, top management does not see a reason to try it again even if the exact circumstances have changed.
-They do not empower or give the means, the power or opportunity to do to employees.
-They do not trust others to follow through managing processes and performing tasks.
-They do not lead by example.
-They do not know when to move forward and when to back off, what to improve and how radical those improvements should be.
-They often fail to see options, and plan and prioritize.
-They fail to develop leaders around them.
-Their communication is often poor.
-Their listening is also poor: do not listen for more than facts, but also the feelings, meanings and undercurrents.
-They do not take the time to get to know the people they lead: no weekly check-ins which top organizations have to discuss how employees are doing professionally and personally. Management doesn't ask âwhat was good this week? What was not good this week? How is your well-being? How is your family?â
Competence in leadership skills is also poor.
-They are not teachable: not willing to keep learning, growing, improving in leadership and management practices: FCBH has a yearly âleadershipâ summit. But, the way it is set up, it reinforces weaknesses instead of challenging leadership growth.
The summit is also just for a select few in top management. Not every employee is seen as a leader so most employees are excluded.
Top managers attend the summit but there is no followup, no post accountability by other managers and especially by the employees that are under the managers. No discussion on how management will apply what was learned.
Some of the past speakers have had questionable characters and even questionable teachings (Judah Smith). Leadership qualifications and theological background seems to be ignored in favor of charismatics, dynamics, popularity.
-Top management does not take responsibility for their part of a disagreement or failure and apologize.
-They often embrace a victim mentality.
-They often limit yourself by your job title.
-They do not invest in better tools or processes.
-They are content with the status quo.
-They allow their past achievements to stagnate their desire to keep learning.
-There is a lack of discernment, finding the main cause of problems/issues.
-They do not anticipate problems.
-They do not accept the truth of the problem: Do not face up to the reality of the situation;
-They get bogged down in the details.
-They often avoid problems.
-They donât deal well with problems.
-They do not have their team study all angles.
-They often do not value nontraditional thinking: Donât embrace change, ambiguity and uncertainty well.
-They do not work well with differences.
-They do not have their own mentors or provide mentorship to others.
-They do not invest to improve their own professional or leadership skills.
-They are often insecure, constantly seek validation, acknowledgement and love.
-They limit employee's success and recognition:
-They do not seem interested in making people successful: Donât attempt to remove barriers that prevent employees from being successful.
- They often feel threatened by accomplishments by employees who are not management:
If an employee who is not management has a great idea to improve the work, management often does not support it and may secretly try to shut it down.
When a team succeeds, management will not give other people credit and instead take the credit themselves.
It seems like some of the people working there were given the title of management, the position, and that alone made them qualified. Management or leaders assume that their position alone qualifies them to make critical decisions where they may not have the best data, insight, wisdom, skill, experience. Just because one may have the word âmangerâ in the job title, does not automatically make them a great leader. Leadership is about dealing with people, and the dynamics between those people, and influencing people.
*Dead end career path:
For the most part, top management assumes that team members are fine and "settled", rather than taking the time to understand their true feelings and needs. They do not ask employees where they are struggling, where they are having trouble, what frustrates them the most?
Management does not seem interested in making employees better both personally or professionally. They do not have a growth plan or professional development plan for employees. No job related training. They do not provide what is needed to help employees to grow and improve. They don't provide opportunities for employees to apply their talents and expertise. They donât ask how they can better support employees. Employees donât check on each other.
One is expected to work until health deteriorates and skills become obsolete so you leave in a worse place than you started. For most employees, there is no long term future with the organization. Management does not let employees know how they are doing and what the future looks like for them. What the opportunities are. They do not take the time to learn from employees what they want to be. No honest conversations to understand employees goals and ambitions. So, because there is no growth or development plan, no career path, once your skills are outdated, they will probably let you go or they will keep you in the same position and your salary will max out.
Management does not coach employees on how to manage their time, priorities, and energy; no teaching on how to problem solve, or make better decisions, or how to set boundaries or how to minimize context switching and zoom fatigue.
Can you accept my invitation so that I can get a free gift? Download Temu App and search the code below to accept my invitation! 233127810