Who’s Your Choir?

I was at a conference recently where someone referenced “preaching to the choir” as a criticism of these types of gatherings – the kind where we all probably agree with one another and smart people tell us what we already believe. And … surprise … we decide they were really insightful.

But the problem is not preaching to the choir. The problem is preaching only to the choir or not preaching to them at all.

You see, at first, I was “Bobble Head Gary” when I heard that statement – agreeing emphatically until that crick in my neck acted up. 

Thankfully, the crick forced me to stop nodding in agreement and sort of hate the phrase that had triggered it.

Having nodded thoughtlessly in agreement, I “did the opposite” and turned my attention toward thoughtful agreement or disagreement. 

A turned a question over in my mind: “Shouldn’t it be “preaching ‘only’ to the choir?” Am I the only grammar nerd left or is there some distinction?

I know this phrase suggests something akin to an echo chamber – a warning that speaking only to people who already agree with you has little value.

Of course, for me the warning was the crick in my neck – nodding so vigorously that I wasn’t really singing anymore … and maybe not listening that closely. Maybe I was biased to believe that people I deemed to be aligned with me were probably saying something worthy of vigorous nodding.

I found myself trying to piece together where the balance sits.

• Only listening to ourselves is ossifying – we become rigid (even in our desire to be flexible and understanding humans).

• Not getting ourselves fired up may leave us depleted – filling the cups of others while ours gradually empty.

·        

Then, still resting my neck, I wondered a bit about the choir. Who are these good people? For all of us, finding the choir and ensuring they can find us is fundamental to the work.  We can’t get out of balance until we have the right people to get out of balance with.

Our organizations exist to do particular work in the world, in a particular way, with people who believe in that work.

We preach mission, vision, and values – the messages we share to find the people that belong with us and the filter we use to sift through all the people who walk through the door. They tell us what form believing and belonging take at our organization. When the belief system is clear, people know whether they want to join your choir or not.

If we try to distill mission, vision, and values into a single idea, repeat ideas across all three, or use indistinguishable lingo – finding the right people will be hit or miss, at best. The concepts are related, but they do very different jobs.

• Mission answers a relatively stable question: What do we do? It names the work itself.

• Vision answers a different question: Where are we trying to go? It describes the future the organization is working toward and provides context for priorities and tradeoffs.

• Values answer a third question: How do we work together while working toward our mission and vision? They shape behavior, decision-making, and how conflict is handled, especially when the work becomes difficult (which it always is, don’t you agree?).

·        

People opt in knowingly when the purpose is clear. They recognize themselves in the principles espoused by the organization. They understand what the work asks of them and what it does not.

When people join your organization, they also need to join a conversation that ensures that you live what you profess. Mission, vision, and values are centering but only when they are not static. No matter how clear our purpose, the invitation is to learn more – to deepen our understanding through discussion and debate to better rise to the challenge our missions call us to.

These conversations are like the weekly services we attend to refuel – the way we find inspiration through thoughtful questioning that then encourages us to share the message of our work. 

We all know that people can be talented, committed, and well intentioned – and still be in the wrong pew or choir.

Our shared beliefs define who belongs in the choir.

Preaching to the choir does not mean ignoring the congregation. The distinction is not about who is worthy of attention; it is about the kind of relationship being assumed. The choir is made up of people who have already chosen to commit to the work. The congregation is a broader audience – some bought in, some curious, some skeptical – but believers all the same.

This is where the very valid critique of “preaching to the choir” comes in. When leaders presume universal alignment, even well-intentioned dissent can be written off as a bad culture fit.

In leadership, we have the obligation to bring people along – to inspire and encourage. That never goes away. We speak differently to those we know are bought in and those who may be but still have important questions. Morale takes a hit when leaders either treat the congregation as if it were already committed or the choir as if it no longer needs encouragement.

In strong cultures, Honesty is the goal, not harmony. Questioning the status quo is not an indicator of disloyalty.

When we speak above the dissent to the diehard believers, we take the easy way out – feeling good about the agreement, whether it’s healthy or not. When we bring our own questions forward as part of the conversation, we build an even stronger and safer workplace.

Discussion, disagreement, and reflection help us refine what the organization stands for and what it is moving toward. We find ourselves in the mission, vision, and values by engaging with them, not blindly following them.

But not all debate arises from clarity of purpose. Sometimes it is the product of confusion and a lack of organizational focus. As leaders, we need to always assess which is happening.

If we don’t articulate vision clearly and consistently, we allow the conversation to wander – a sort of internal mission creep. Leadership sets the guardrails, determines who belongs within those guardrails, and fosters discussion and reflection that adds nuance to our shared understanding.

I was reminded of healthy guardrails in the classroom when I asked students whether they had been through a values exercise. The groans and eye rolls were immediate and surprising to me. I probed.  “I thought everyone wanted to be involved in this type of conversation.” Their critique was not a rejection of articulating values. Instead, they expressed that values should be set by leadership but earn their legitimacy through transparent decisions, accountable actions, and space for conversation.

Leaders are responsible for doing two things at once. They must speak clearly to the people who believe – reinforcing purpose, direction, and standards – and they must remain open to challenge, learning, and voices beyond the choir.

Preaching to the choir is not about repeating slogans to people who already agree. It is about sustaining belief through clarity, dialogue, and recommitment.

But it cannot stop there.

Healthy organizations are clear about who they are and disciplined about not sealing themselves off from the communities they serve. They find the right choir through mission, vision, and values, and they avoid the echo chamber by inviting debate, learning, and evolution.

• Mission defines the work.

• Vision gives it direction.

• Values shape how it is carried out.

·        

None of these endure unless leaders are willing to speak to the people who already believe — and listen beyond them.

Share the message, inspire believers, and advocate to non-believers. 

It’s that simple, eh?

If you’re leading a team or board (or both), it may be worth pausing to ask: who’s in your choir, who’s in the congregation, and how intentionally are you speaking to both?

Feel free to share your reflections in the comments. If you’d like to discuss further, you can email me at gary@garybagley.com or DM me on LinkedIn