By Allen Haynes • July 21, 2025

Listen to the podcast.

Lane Jones (00:02):
Welcome to the Andy Stanley Leadership Podcast, a conversation designed to help leaders go further faster. On today’s podcast, we’ll talk about creating a staffing system that will liberate your organization. Andy, I’m really excited about today’s topic because we’re going to look at three principles that can help ensure that we not only hire the right people, but that we set them up for maximum impact. I don’t think there’s a more important asset that leaders manage than the people in their organization.

Andy Stanley (00:29):
Yeah, in fact, when we wrote our constitution, our basically a legal document for our organization, the very first thing we put in there was simply that the people we use are as important as the systems we choose. The people we use are as important as the systems we choose and people we use. Obviously we don’t use people, but the people we select, I just wanted it to rhyme. So that’s why we said use. So the people we use are select are as important as the systems we choose. And the reason we put that up front is regardless of how well written our legal documents are, our mission, vision, purpose, all those wonderful things, if you don’t have great people, great things aren’t going to happen. At the same time, we’ve both seen organizations that aren’t that well organized departments or divisions, or even in our case churches who they don’t have extraordinary organization, but they have extraordinary people.

(01:18):
And everybody listening knows this. If you have extraordinary people, extraordinary things happen because they either work through a great organization or they will find a way to work around a not so great organization in order to get great things done. So obviously on the organizational side and structure side is super important, but finding and engaging great people, that really is the make or break really for any organization. And the reason we’ve chosen to talk about that is because unfortunately, some organizations actually have systems that prevent them from hiring and engaging the best and the brightest people. Again, everybody has the same goal in mind. Let’s get the best people we can, but systems ultimately Trump just about everything else in an organization. So an organization that hasn’t thought through the systems they’ve employed to hire and keep great people, again, there’s going to be an internal conflict. The whole organization’s going to be out of alignment. So these are some of the things that we’ve done systematically to help us get and again, engage and keep great people.

Lane Jones (02:15):
Andy, when I first heard you talk about this, probably 10 years ago, you gave us three principles related to staffing systems that they’ve really served our organization very well. The first one is your system should be designed to help you identify and hire the best person for the job.

Andy Stanley (02:31):
And as obvious as that is, the key is a system that will allow an organization to find and hire the right person. In the early days, we didn’t have a system, we just interviewed people. And like anybody in a startup organization where you need people, that’s what you do. You think we need people, so we’re going to interview people and hire people. That’s not a system. And where this first dawned on me was after my assistant Diane Grant sat in with me when I was interviewing someone, she told me appropriately later on, Andy, you should not interview people. And I’m like, why not? I’m in charge of this whole organization. She said, because you don’t listen, you talk and you sell them on working here, they already want to work here. And that’s when it dawned on me, okay, we need a system. This is bigger than simply interviewing people. So for those of you in startup organizations, again, it’s easy to rush into an interview process, but an interview process is only one part of a broader system. So the term system is important. It shouldn’t be overwhelming. It’s simple. And hopefully some of the things we’re going to say today will help you create that system. But the key there is creating a system that allows people to identify and hire the best people.

Lane Jones (03:40):
So Andy, what is it in our system that is designed to help us identify and hire the right person for the job?

Andy Stanley (03:46):
Well, the first thing is a clear job description. Actually, we don’t love the term job description. We like the term responsibility description because we want to hire responsible people. And so one of the things that we talk to people about when we hire them is what have you done? What have you been responsible for in the past? So as much as we hate job descriptions, a clear job description is absolutely crucial. But as you think through job descriptions, don’t simply think in terms of what people are going to do that you’re about to hire. Think about what they’re going to be responsible for. Because again, everybody listening, we don’t want to just hire people who can do things. We want to hire responsible people. So anytime you can craft a job description to sound more like a responsibility description, that’s important. And in the interview process, asking people as again, as you’re interviewing people for a specific job or a specific responsibility, asking that key question, and we’ve talked about this before, what have you done in the past? We’re looking at your resume. We’ve seen where you’ve worked, we’ve seen what you have been responsible for, but what have you actually done? Because matching people’s skillset and passion sets up with a specific job or responsibility. Description is absolutely crucial.

Lane Jones (04:55):
Alright, a very specific job description. What else?

Andy Stanley (04:58):
The other thing we do that a lot of organizations do is we do multiple interviews, not just a single interview. And this is important for lots of reasons and we did not do this in the early days and we paid for it. When you interview within a department or division, you listen for specific things, but when you have a person interviewed outside the specific department or division in which they’re going to work, those people hear different things and everybody listening understands this dilemma. You’re so desperate. You need someone, you really need them now. So there’s a tendency not to hear things you should hear and not to see things that you should see.

(05:33):
And people who aren’t as desperate and people outside that division or department or branch will hear those things and see those things. They have a little bit greater objectivity and they’re willing oftentimes to say, okay, I interviewed them and here’s what I saw and here’s what I heard. So that’s been extremely helpful. We have about 420 employees just to give you an idea of how big our organization is now. And I remember a few years ago, my sister-in-law was interviewing to work for us and she called me one afternoon after all of these interviews and she said, I would like to resign before I begin. She said, if I have to go through one more interview, I’m going to quit the interview process. And she was sort of kiddingly saying, Hey, is it just because it’s me, because I’m your sister-in-law? I mean, are you being more sensitive because you’re hiring somebody that’s part of your family?

(06:19):
I said, no, this is just how we do it. We essentially interview people to death because again, it’s better to over interview than to under interview. And it’s always good to have people outside a specific discipline division, department or branch to be involved in the process. Now if you are in a small organization or startup organization and you say, well, there’s only six of us, you can use board members, you can use friends. Again, you can don’t think just in terms of who’s in the room when it comes to interviewing, look for ways to do multiple interviews. It always will always serve you well,

Lane Jones (06:52):
Andy, one of the things that we do in addition to interviews is we take every candidate through a system of testing.

Andy Stanley (06:58):
Yes. And some people love to be tested and some people do not like to be tested exactly. When we hire, we require them to take the Taylor Johnson test, which is essentially a test that looks at a person’s emotional health. We use right path. I know a lot of people listening use the right path. Then there are three other tests that are optional depending on the job description or the responsibility description. A lot of our employees love Myers-Briggs personality test because they’re familiar with that. We also use strength finders and then we use the Wonderlic personnel test. You may not be as familiar with that, but this is really a skills focused test. And the reason I mention those by name is people ask us sometimes what we use, but there are so many great evaluation tools. The point is within the system you’re using pick two or three and to use the same ones over and over.

Lane Jones (07:46):
Yeah, Andy, one of the things that we’ve always found helpful is by using the same ones over and over, we really establish benchmarks in our organization and we know when someone scores a certain way, we know they’ll be great for that kind of role. So just establishing that understanding across the organization has been very

Andy Stanley (08:03):
Helpful. And the other advantage of using the same tools over and over is that staff over time learns how to interpret the results. So again, some tests are better than other, but probably the takeaway from this is choose two or three, use the same two or three over and over and over. And again, it brings objectivity to the process.

Lane Jones (08:21):
So we began with, your system should be designed to help you identify and hire the best person for the job. The second idea that you shared with us is your system should provide you the flexibility to get the right people to the table.

Andy Stanley (08:33):
The keyword there is flexibility in this respect. The org chart is not your friend. And the tendency when it comes to gathering people to make decisions is to gather people according to the organizational chart. We’re going to get all the vice presidents together, we’re going to get all the regional managers together, we’re going to get all the peers together. And in many cases that’s appropriate, but in some situations it’s not. So the idea is to create in the organization the flexibility for division or department leader or president to pull into a meeting. And this is where it gets tricky. A series of meetings who he or she knows needs to be there in order to make the decision. And that means some new people get pulled in and some people who’ve been there get left out. But at the end of the day, when organizational leaders make great decisions, great things happen.

(09:19):
Everybody wins. The earlier an organizational leader can create this rhythm or this system within the organization, the better. Changing midstream is tricky. Again, people wonder why they’re not being invited anymore. But the goal again is to make great decisions, which means you have to have the information. And oftentimes, and everybody listening to this understands this. Oftentimes the information isn’t on a spreadsheet. The information is locked away in the experience of the person that is closest to the action. So when I’m trying to make a decision that has to do something with a specific environment, I need the people who are in that environment in the meeting, whether they report to me or not. So again, that’s what we mean by creating a system that allows you to get the right people in the room as you’re making decisions.

Lane Jones (10:04):
Well, Andy, talk for a minute about how you’ve addressed this in your reporting structure.

Andy Stanley (10:09):
This is where I wish we had a chart. So if everyone can imagine whiteboard, yes, no, I discovered probably again 10 or 11 years ago that having three or four direct reports, while that is great on the org chart, that does not help me make great decisions. So I have both a management team and a leadership team, and there are lots have been written about leadership teams. But here’s what’s important to me and here’s the takeaway. Every leader needs to have a leadership team. That is your meeting where you talk about what you want to talk about and where at the end of the meeting you have the information you need to go forward and to continue to make good decisions, which means chances are on your leadership team, you need people who are not direct reports because of the way things function. Here, I have three direct reports plus my administrative assistant, but our leadership team is 14 people, which is a lot of people.

(11:05):
But in light of how we operate, I want weekly access to those 14 people. I want to know what’s in their head. We are an organization that lives and dies by what happens on the weekend. So since we have a weekly event or a weekly series of events, I want a weekly update. And I want the people in the room who, again, they were close to the action. It’s not just a spreadsheet. I want what’s in their head. I want what they experienced during the weekend. So again, that’s the way we operate. So in my leadership team, my direct reports are there, but the rest of the people in that leadership team report to the people who are my direct reports. So essentially I’m skipping over my direct reports in terms of a direct access, but that’s what’s important to me. So again, that’s a systems thing.

(11:51):
The other thing that we do is from time to time we invite people to sit in on our leadership team for a series of meetings because again, they’re closer to the action than anyone else in our leadership team. And then the other thing that we do from time to time or what kind of upsets the apple cart a little bit is when somebody moves off the leadership team, I almost never replace them with the person that took their job because it’s not the job description. Sometimes it’s the authority, it’s the responsibility a person carries or it’s just that person. There are some people who’ve been with us a long, long time. They have organizational history. Organizational history is so important when it comes to making decisions, especially financial decisions because organizational financial history is a context that’s important. When I’m making decisions today based on what’s happened in the past, again, there are lots and lots of moving parts, but the bottom line I would say to leaders is you need a system that allows you to get the people you need in the room and it needs to be flexible enough to where when you uninvite people or you uninvite people for a period of time.

(12:58):
Again, everybody has an ego, we get all that. But at the end of the day, if you make great decisions, it’s a win for everybody. So having a system that allows you to go beyond direct reports systematically and consistently I think is a win for the whole

Lane Jones (13:11):
Organization. Andy, what do you say to a leader who has inherited a system that determines who sits at the decision making table?

Andy Stanley (13:19):
There’s a couple ways to address that. First of all, the earlier you address it as a new leader within a department or division or organization, the better. The second thing is it’s easier to invite new people in than it is to ask old people to step out. When I say old, I mean people who’ve been there for a long time. So if you inherit, again, we’re not talking about board of directors, we’re talking about staff. So if there’s six people that always sit at the decision making table and you’re the new guy or you’re the new person,

(13:46):
You just say, Hey, I’ve asked so-and-so to sit in. So invite new people in. That changes the dynamic of the conversation. The other thing that you can do, especially if you’ve been there for a while, is to say, you know what? We’re going to reshuffle things. I’m going to ask everyone to be a part of the leadership team for a year or for 18 months and just establish, and again, coming in new, it is easier to do this to say, I want to invite you to be on the leadership team for the next year, for the next 18 months. That sets an expectation and it sets up an off ramp. Say, Hey, you’re 18 months are up. It’s been great. So again, creating a sense of, hey, this isn’t forever. Now again, there’s probably two or three other things, but at the end of the day, and I think this is the big takeaway, every leader needs to have a meeting that is helpful to them.

(14:32):
And so one of the things that I have to say every two or three years to our leadership team, this is my meeting, this is for me. I hope you enjoy it. I hope you get something out of it, but it’s really not for you. This is my way to get a weekly snapshot of what happened this past weekend. And again, we lots of things in our leadership team meeting, but it’s my meeting. And the other reason that’s important is because I want everyone on my management team and on our leadership team to have the flexibility to create the same system within their organization or their division or their department. I don’t want anybody in our organization to feel like they are stuck having to meet with the same people over and over, whether it’s helpful or not. Because as we all know, when you’re in system like that, then you create other meetings and other, then the decisions are made in other places. So it needs to actually function as a leadership team or a management team. It needs to do what it’s designed to do, which means you have to have the right people in the room, which means you need a system that allows you to get and keep the right people and the flexibility to bring people in and to move people out. People are always going to get their feelings hurt. That’s just part of organizational life. But back to what we said a few minutes ago, if great leaders make great decisions, great things happen. Everybody wins.

Lane Jones (15:48):
Andy, the final principle that you gave us is your system should ensure that only one person answers to they.

Andy Stanley (15:55):
In most organizations, because of the way we design org charts, really only one person actually answers to a they. The real issue here is that we don’t want people feeling as if they answer to a they. So here’s how that happens. And we’ve all seen this and let’s take me for example. So I come out of a board meeting and our board has said, Andy, you guys need to do such and such and such. Then I gather the leadership team together and I say, well, gang, they say we have to do such and such. The moment a leader does that, they have abdicated leadership and they’ve abdicated responsibility. And essentially they have said to their direct reports, I’m not empowered, I’m not in charge. You are now all working for they. So in many organizations, and no one does this on purpose, you have employees two or three layers down within the organization knowing that ultimately there is a, they out there somewhere who are making decisions that impact their daily lives and ultimately impact their destiny and their career.

(16:57):
And that’s a terrible, terrible environment to work in. So it’s incumbent upon the person in my position, the one person that actually answers to they to own the decisions of the board to do battle and to make sure that when I walk out of that meeting, not only even if I disagree, I’ve got to own it. And when I stand up in front of our team or our leadership team or our management team, I don’t say, this is what we’re going to do and I believe this is what we ought to do because the moment I defer to they, I’ve just infused the entire organization with something that’s so unhealthy because that trickles down so quickly. So the takeaway is actually only one person should answer to a they. And along with that, no one should feel as if they answer to a they because the one person that answers to the, they does a great job communicating and communicates in such a way that everyone understands they really are taking responsibility for the future of the organization.

Lane Jones (17:53):
Andy, I think that’s so important. And from time to time, we do hear that around here, the management team has decided. And I think the frustrating point about that is you don’t know who. You don’t know the personality of a group, if I hear Andy has decided or my direct report, Bob has decided I know, okay, I can answer his question. I know him.

Andy Stanley (18:14):
Or you can make an appointment, get clarification,

Lane Jones (18:16):
Right? And have that conversation. But how do you decide what a group is thinking or how do you make an appointment with a group to convince a group? It’s just,

Andy Stanley (18:23):
It’s frustrating. And in most cases, I think that frustration can be eliminated from an organization, but it has everything to do with how decisions not are made, but how decisions are communicated.

(18:38):
That’s why it’s so important for those who walk out of a group meeting where really they has decided whether it’s a management team or a leadership team, and they don’t leave until they really can own it. And then they have to decide, you know what? This is what we have decided. I don’t necessarily agree, but I am not going to blame this decision on a they. I’m just not going to do it. I’m going to own it. I’m going to lead my team. If my team is frustrated with the decision, I want them to be frustrated with me because at the end of the day, blaming anything on a they, you give up credibility, you give up credibility, you give up authority, you give up some of the very things a leader needs most when it comes to moving a division or a department forward.

Lane Jones (19:21):
Andy, as we wrap up the podcast, any final thoughts?

Andy Stanley (19:24):
Yeah, I think stepping back to the 30,000 foot level systems create behaviors, and that’s why when it comes to hiring or managing people, there really do need to be systems in place. In fact, the truth is there are already systems in place. Every single organization, no matter how large or small, there are systems in place that determine the way that people behave. It’s only when we examine our systems. It’s only when we are intentional about our systems that we’re able to leverage our systems to accomplish what we ultimately want to accomplish. So as we think about hiring new people, as we think about attracting new people, there is some system already in place with every organization that allows that to happen or keeps that from happening. So examining our systems and then being intentional about how we go about doing some of these things, it’s really important. It deserves some time and some attention.

Lane Jones (20:13):
Well Andy, thanks so much for your time today and to all our listeners, we want to thank you for joining us as well. To hear more from Andy on leadership, please visit andy stanley.com.

Comments are closed.