Leadership Commentary

Go On Vacation

2010-07-19T14:49:00.000-07:00

I’m getting ready to head out on vacation Friday. Since we’ll be in Canada, I’m looking forward to being unplugged for a week. While I’ll probably fire up an internet connection in our condo, I won’t pay for data roaming, so I won’t be checking my email and such several times an hour throughout the day like usual.

I love my iPhone. I’ve been a smartphone user from their inception; Palms and Blackberries were great, but the iPhone is the best. There is certainly a bit of a tethering that comes with these great tools… but I think it is more than mere rationalization when I say that I can make the most of my evenings and weekends by knowing what is going on through my iPhone and knowing that I can be reached if someone needs me. But I also know that I’ll get the most out of this week of vacation by being unplugged. I get about the business of truly relaxing, faster and better, when I am untethered from my email.

Since I know that I’ll be mostly unplugged next week, I’m working harder than usual to tie up loose ends and letting folk know that I really do not want to be bothered unless there is truly an emergency. I probably ought to always work this hard to prepare for vacation. It could be that I’ve just gotten a little lazy due to the convenience of tools like the iPhone… but it could be something deeper, including:

Inflated Self Importance – Sometimes I get the feeling that folk purposefully allow emergencies to pop up that they are uniquely suited to fix. They remind themselves, and all those around them, that they really are important because only they can solve these kinds of emergencies. I’ve occasionally allowed vacations to be interrupted by emergencies; in every case, when I’ve looked back, I’ve realized that it really didn’t qualify as an emergency. While I may have had a tiny rush knowing that I was just that important to have to take that call, write that email, or pick up that FedEx… it has never really been worth it. I suppose that the President of the United States really must be on call with all the trappings (staff, Air Force One, and all), but seriously… I’m just not that big of a deal… not even close.

Personal Insecurity – What if one were to be really gone and nobody noticed? Sometimes I wonder if I keep myself in the middle of things when I should be on vacation just to be sure that I really am in the middle of things.

Insecurity of Staff – It seems that some folk can’t go on vacation because their coworkers, colleagues, and staff are paralyzed without them. Sometimes folk can’t function (not enough perspective, authority, knowledge, etc.) and other times they won’t function because they won’t risk making a mistake, fearing that the vacationing one will come back and blow a gasket.

Disorganization – Finally, sometimes it is just plain old lack of organization. We can’t really go on vacation because we never sufficiently button things up. The "emergencies" that we allow to crowd in our vacation could simply be result of our own lack of work and organization.

We have vacation policies in place, not just because we must, but because it is good for business. People need to take a break, a sabbath to wind down and be rejuvenated. As CFO, I see that vacation liability as an actual expense on our budgets, a pretty big expense, and I think it is worth every penny. When I don’t really go on vacation, in a very real way I’m ripping off the company; since they are really paying for vacation, I owe it to them to give them the best vacation I can for their money.

Choose and Act

2010-07-09T16:23:00.000-07:00

Would I rather have Sarah Palin?

I listen to Denis Miller’s radio show; he occasionally says something like, “Well, I know that Sarah Palin couldn’t be a Jeopardy champ, but I’d rather have her in the Oval Office than our current president.” He usually goes on to explain that while Palin likely has a lower IQ than Obama, Miller would rather have her at the helm… that she is smart enough. I agree.

I agree because I know that high IQ doesn’t necessarily translate into the ability to lead. Leadership doesn’t necessarily require the ability to generate the most brilliant answer; leadership has much more to do with selecting a brilliant answer and acting on it. That usually has more to do with issues of character and perspective than mere intelligence. You don’t have to always generate the smartest answer (if you’re responsible for a lot, you’ll likely rarely have the expertise anyway)… you just have to be able to choose a smart answer and then act on it.

Emergency!

2010-05-22T14:11:00.000-07:00

It seems like when I look back on some of my mistakes, I see that the mistake was at least partially due to me wrongly identifying an emergency. I’m generally pretty good at handling emergencies. I can usually size up a situation pretty well, determine a solution, order a response within our means, and do it all without getting carried away with emotion. Colleagues have told me that they appreciate my ability to lead in crisis situations.

When I error, it isn’t usually because I don’t identify a true emergency as an emergency; the error in this regard usually comes when I treat a non-emergency like an emergency. When I look back on times like these, it is clear that I would have likely handled things better if I hadn’t escalated things to emergency status.

I watched one of these unfold several weeks ago. Somebody did something that they probably shouldn’t have, and the authority went into full emergency mode. While there may certainly be emergency situations that result from bad behavior, ordering the punishment or disciplinary procedure is rarely an emergency. In this case, the authority made a non-emergency an emergency and insisted on dealing with the issue and the punishment under emergency conditions. It resulted in an overreaction and bruising some important relationships. Had the authority realized that this wasn’t even close to an emergency situation, I’m confident there would have been a better outcome for everyone involved. Don’t make a non-emergency an emergency.

I’ve also noticed that we tend to like to escalate situations to emergency status when we are confident that we have the solution. It is fun to solve problems… to ride in on the white horse and save the day. When folk fan the spark of a little issue into a flame of something like an emergency, just so they can be the hero by alleviating the problem, it is really weak leadership. Don’t allow things to become and emergency just so you can have the thrill of saving the day, and certainly don't trump up an emergency for your own satisfaction.

Stock Pot of Water

2010-01-24T21:28:00.000-08:00

I’ve been thinking of a leadership metaphor; it involves a stock pot and a wooden spoon. The steel pot is filled with water. It needs to be emptied. And the only tool we have is the wooden spoon.

I’m a simple guy with a bias toward action, so my inclination is to grab the spoon and get to work, one spoonful at a time, scooping the water out of the pot. It will take some effort, won’t be particularly spectacular, but the job seems clear, the resources limited, and we’re wasting time as long as we aren’t draining the pot. As long as we stick with it, the job will be completed.

While this all seems so very simple, there are alternative leadership approaches.

Study It
There are those that would want to do some figurin’ before getting underway. Even though the work seems simple, they want to know more before getting underway. Determine that each spoonful, adjusting for spillage, averages to be about 94% of a tablespoon… determine that there is 2.7 liters of water in the stock pot… do the math… adjust for evaporation… factor in breaks… you get the picture.

Document It
A slight twist on the “study it” approach is the “document it” approach by which you simply write up the findings of the “study it” approach and put it on your shelf, bound nicely in a three-ring binder. The satisfaction of filing the report replaces the satisfaction of finishing the job.

Rationalize It
If this really needs to be done then there ought to be a better way. Don’t they know that we need more resources than this wooden spoon? If they were serious about getting this work done, they would have given me better tools and more staff. I’m not doing anything until they make this easier.

Boil It
I have a better idea… a more spectacular idea… an idea that will be far less work and will be seen by all as brilliant. All I need to do is light the wooden spoon on fire, set up the stock pot over the fire, and the water will boil, turn to steam, and “presto.” Of course the fire from the spoon barely warmed the water, let alone brought it to a boil. The fire was spectacular, and it was an amusing idea, but we still have a pot full of water and now we don’t even have the spoon.

Can you think of others?

Agreement

2010-01-05T13:35:00.000-08:00

A couple of recent conversations clarified a vital question: what does it really mean to be a member of a team? A defining characteristic that has emerged and been helpful in our conversations is agreement.

It might be helpful to first be a bit more specific about what we mean when we say team, since team is one of those words we throw around with few boundaries. For the purposes of this discussion, I am meaning a work team that:

Operates with a specific charter and agenda,

Is comprised of members who have specific roles and the ability to contribute as a team member, and

Has the authority and resources to meet the demands of the agenda.

In work teams like these, the rule should be agreement.

Mere democracy is not agreement. If a group operates according to “majority rule,” whether it is a small committee or a large country, it is not a team. That isn’t a bad thing at all, just a different “thing” than a team. There are all sorts of circumstances where “majority rule” is the best solution, it simply isn’t a team.

The rule of agreement takes into account that team members posses varying perspectives as well as differing amounts of influence. This is an important distinction from a democratic process in which every vote has the same value in every decision. Members of a team should acknowledge that each team member brings different things to the table. Each has a unique perspective, and some perspectives are better suited for various tasks and decisions than others. Some may have various levels of authority and responsibility that impact how agreement may be reached. While it may seem that more influential/powerful members of the team are less agreeable, it could be that their responsibilities require them to be more deliberate in a process toward agreement.

Blind obedience or unswerving allegiance is not agreement. A productive team should not allow for members who are simply “yes men.” It is often the most loyal thing one can do to help members of a team avoid a mistake, or insist on making a good idea a great success. On the other hand, those who only think of their role in terms of being a contrarian or antagonist are not productive members of a team.

Agreement should be neither political or protectionist. Reaching agreement should not be a matter of trading votes (“I’ll support you this time if you support me next time”). It should also not be a matter of giving in to simply protect a position, role, or job. The best team members often approach their work as being “self employed,” not so desperate to protect their job that they give in to anything that might threaten their position.

When agreement is not possible there are at least a couple of potential conclusions. It could be that the work at hand is not suitable for the team, or any team. Or it could be that there needs to be a change in the membership of the team. If a team is intent on operating with agreement, then there may be times that call for difficult decisions.

One of the markers that indicates that a work group has become a real team is when the members consider each other trusted colleagues that “have your back.”

These are just some ramblings of things I’m thinking about in this regard. I expect to do some more reading, thinking, and writing along these lines in the coming weeks. In addition to unpacking some of what I’ve written above, other aspects that I hope to give some attention include:

Leading a team

Team work under time constraints or emergency conditions

Dealing with members who are not meeting the demands of the team

Moving forward as a team after a difficult process of coming to agreement

Taking things off the teams agenda when the task or decision calls for another approach

Joining a team… breaking in when you’re new

I'm happy to have your feedback!

Seeing Change

2009-04-15T09:17:00.000-07:00

One of the best tools in a leader’s toolbox is perspective. Leadership often comes with the privilege of being able to see the organization from more broad perspectives. While likely unfamiliar with important frontline details, leaders should be equipped with perspectives that include a wide range of aspects, as well as a view over time and a sense about the future.

Listening to Tim Keller recently (a talk on change that you can hear by using this link), I heard him say that growth and change cannot be seen, but only measured. While it may seem like we can literally watch our kids grow, for example, we really only know that they’ve grown by measurement and comparison over time. Likewise, an isolated snapshot of our organization alone cannot tell the story of growth, change and progress.

The idea that growth and change cannot be seen, but only measured, is an important leadership principle.

It is easy for us in any organization to go about our work with the misconception that we are not moving the ball forward. Are we making a difference today? Are today’s tasks doing anything to impact the big picture?

Leaders need to be continually about the work of sharing perspective. More than just telling people what it looks like from leadership’s point of view, leaders need to make opportunities to bring folk to points of broad perspective and help them see. Opportunities to share perspective take all sorts of shapes, including:

Reminding people of the past through storytelling and interviews of historical figures
Keeping track of meaningful metrics and reporting on progress clearly and regularly
Explaining how different parts of an organization are interrelated and symbiotic
Illustrating how sacrifices today are intended to produce tomorrow’s successes
Competently demonstrating an ability to see, synthesize, and interpret the broad perspective in ways that build confidence and trust throughout the organization

As a leader, it is easy for me to forget that I have the benefit of a unique perspective; not everyone sees what I see. It is both a matter of position and ability, vantage point and equipment, sightlines and skill. Good leaders remember that they have unique perspective and share it well.

Networks and Structures

2009-04-01T11:56:00.000-07:00

I recently heard Ed Catmull, president of Pixar, reflect on a September 2008 article he wrote for the Harvard Business Review about fostering collective creativity. One of the key quotes from the interview went something like this, “we need people at Pixar to recognize that we are highly organized, but the organization structure and the communication structure are two different things.” I downloaded the article; here’s how he stated it in print: “Everyone must have the freedom to communicate with anyone. This means recognizing that the decision-making hierarchy and communication structure in organizations are two different things.”

I think this is something that I’ve always understood, but I know I will do well to better adopt and propagate this key concept. Organization structures and communication networks need to both be leveraged to their maximum potential in collective creativity and decision making.

The skilled leader will keep both the structures and the networks in harmonious tension. It is easy to err by failing on either side.

In my experience, we don’t need to do anything to create the communication networks; people talk. Our task is really to better acknowledge the networks and leverage them to their maximum potential; we can do more to enable the networks. Managers err when we build a culture that causes the networks to go underground, failing to acknowledge and encourage open communication. The extremes, with awful consequences, are those that attempt to forbid or punish open communication.

The opposite error is to fail to acknowledge the organization structure for decision making. We commonly forget that an open communication network does not negate what Catmull calls a “decision-making hierarchy.” Short circuiting, or even the perception of short circuiting, an organization structure generally results in chaos that includes poor decision making, bruised relationships, and damaged communication networks.

For a while now, we have adopted a vernacular for three stages of decision making:

discussion,
deliberation, and
decision.

I think it is helpful to think of these ideas in a simple matrix:

Collective creativity and sound decision making generally is best served by open discussion that may or may not involve the organizational structure. This is the early stage in the process characterized by brainstorming, floating of ideas, and what I often call swirl.

Deliberation ought to involve the networks and must consider the structure. This is the stage when operable plans come together. Productive deliberation should reflect the work of networks, and consider the structure in such a way that it results in a proposal that is actionable by the structure.

Decision, then, should be well informed by the networks via the previous stages, but entrusted to the organizational structure. The best decisions will include a feedback loop that demonstrates the value of the networks, especially when there is respectful disagreement.

If only it were this simple. Models like these are easily thrown by distrust and insecurity. Those in the communication networks may not be able to trust the organizational structure, even when open communication is enabled and thoroughly considered. Those in decision-making hierarchies may be so insecure that open communication is threatening, discouraged or disregarded. Then there are the added complications that might include legal constraints, confidentiality issues, and the various competing goals and perspectives of all involved. Nevertheless, sometimes a simple model like this helps, even in such complexities.
.

Can I Get an Amen?

2009-03-15T16:23:00.000-07:00

I was talking with friends a few days ago about the use of various media technologies in our church worship services. Several of us saw news coverage on how Mars Hill Church encourages twittering during services. They are providing another way for people to reflect on their worship experience, live, to an audience that includes friends, church leadership, and even extends far beyond the walls of the sanctuary. In most churches, worshipers are routinely told to turn off phones; at #MHC they are encouraging folk to turn them on and use them.

We talked about how it might be cool if people could use a mobile device to talk to us during the sermon. Twittering is cool, but not everyone twitters (especially at my church), and it would take a little effort to set up a system to view twitters from the pulpit.

So I published my mobile number in the Sunday morning bulletin this morning and proposed an experiment.

I’ve always been a fairly avid, early adopter of technology. When I was my sons’ age, the first home computers were hitting the market. I started to program on TRS-80s, Apple IIs, and Commodore 64s. I’ve been hooked ever since.

I get a little edgy when I’m not connected. My iPhone is always on and with me. I monitor my email constantly as well as Facebook, voice mail, and text messages (and, yes, I'm paying attention to Twitter again @dtneary). I pride myself in being pretty easy to get a hold of, by just about any means. Many have noticed that I’m generally not still very long before I take a glance at the screen on my iPhone.

Earlier this week, Laurie got on my case a bit for fussing with my iPhone while listening to a speaker; she thought I wasn’t paying attention. Truth is, I was really paying attention. While listening to the guy deliver his talk, I was:

Looking up scripture references
Skimming an article that the guy had on a website
Looking at his recently released book on Amazon

Folk who attend my church are connected too. Looking up things on their mobile devices, even occasionally bringing a laptop… nobody is freaked out by appropriate use of technology, even in our “traditional” church. As long as the gear isn’t distracting, it is welcomed.

So… with all of that said, here’s the experiment. I thought it might be cool if there was a way people could communicate with me during the sermon. What if folk were able to say “good point” or “you’re losing me” while I’m talking?

Some, of course, are happy to just shout out stuff like that… but for those who might want to try a more sophisticated approach, I invited them to send me a text.

They did, and I was able to read the feedback, in real time on my iPhone, without it being a distraction. Most were variations on “hey, this is cool, I’m texting the pastor while he’s talking,” but some were insightful, and helped me know that I was landing the points I was trying to make.

The response I received from people after the service was all enthusiastically positive. Even for those who didn’t take advantage of the technology, the idea that they could seemed to be meaningful.

I think I will keep encouraging this sort of thing, at least for the few weeks ahead. Stay tuned and I’ll give readers an update on whether we find this to be a meaningful practice, or just a gimmick.

You can hear how I set it up with our congregation this morning at http://www.cedarpark.org/thechapel/services

You Can’t Steer a Parked Truck

2009-01-21T10:52:00.000-08:00

One of my guiding maxims has been, “you can’t steer a parked truck.”

The picture that comes to mind is one of me and my brother on Old 29. When Randy and I were growing up, our Dad (Tom) served as a volunteer firefighter. So, from time to time, we had the enormous privilege of hanging out at the fire station. Most of the equipment was off limits, of course, but we were occasionally allowed on Old 29… a restored, antique fire engine that was used for parades and community events. (There’s a picture posted of Engine 29 at http://southhavenfire.com/Apparatus.htm)

We could spend hours bouncing on the black leather seats and cranking on the large, wooden steering wheel as we raced to imaginary emergencies. In our minds we were Johnny Gage and Roy DeSoto aboard Squad 51; lives were at peril and relied on our swift arrival. It was great fun!

The cranking on the steering wheel had no real impact, but only aided our imaginations. No matter how hard we tugged, our efforts didn’t move the truck an inch. Furthermore, these childhood “driving” experiences caused me to wonder, “Just how strong will I have to become to drive a truck like this?” Try as I might, I couldn’t get the truck tires to swivel. Only later would I realize that in order to have any hope of turning the wheels, the truck need to first start moving.

I’ve translated this little maxim into a bias towards action. Planning is vitally important, but it takes movement to get things done. Although there is a certain amount of gratification of “bouncing on the seat” and imagining how the plans and resources at my disposal might accomplish a goal, the engine needs to be started and the wheels need to start rolling before we can actually begin to steer into any accomplishment.

Today I’m reminded that God can’t steer the parked truck of my life either. Sure, He speaks to me and molds me in times of still quietness. But in order for Him to accomplish much through me, I need to be moving. I’ve have especially found that I need to be moving in order for Him to accomplish the things He has planned for me to do that I don’t yet know anything about.

For example, I took a day-long road trip across our State last month with one good plan and goal in mind. Looking in my rearview mirror, it now appears that the trip accomplished at least three good things… none directly associated with my original plan (which I still think will be accomplished as well). I would have rather stayed in the office that day, and probably could have made some progress towards my original goal by making a few phone calls. But it appears that God needed the truck of my life to roll across the state so that He could steer me into opportunities that I was not yet aware.

I think that it is natural for us to, especially when in doubt, choose stasis; rather than risk failing with an incomplete plan, we sit still far too long. Let’s face it; our plans are always incomplete because we simply can’t account for every eventuality. So let’s adopt a bias toward action and remember that we, and even God, can’t steer a parked truck.

Keep Your Ideas to Yourself

2008-11-17T10:21:00.000-08:00

I podcast the HBR Ideacast; it is one of those podcasts that I load on my iPhone, but often times it takes a while for me to get to the individual episodes. I left this particular recording on the bottom of the pile because the title seemed so very ridiculous: Keep Your Ideas to Yourself. Why in the world, as a leader, would I keep my ideas to myself? Isn’t that precisely my job… to be adding value with my brilliant ideas?

The point of the podcast is this. There are many times when adding our ideas has a diminishing return. The author makes the point that there is both inspiration and perspiration in every initiative. There is both the excitement of the project leader (I often refer to the one who has their hair on fire) and the core ideas. Sometimes we leaders add our ideas into the mix, possibly improving the core ideas by 5%, but all the while throwing a bucket of cold water on the “fire”, gutting the personal commitment it takes to make the project work.

Take a few minutes and listen to the podcast yourself at http://media.libsyn.com/media/hbsp2/HBR_IdeaCast_Episode_85-Keep_Your_Ideas.mp3

I think you’ll find useful ideas that work with direct reports, colleagues in teams, and even members of your family.

One final thought, the author, Dr. Marshall Goldsmith, quotes a friend who says, “Achievement is about me, leadership is about them.” In my estimation, this might very well point to the most common mistake of most, especially young, leaders; we often mistake achievement for leadership. We often are more wrapped up in achieving a rank, role, or post than actually leading people. We come to be served, rather than to serve (sound familiar?).

Rose or Cabbage?

2008-11-06T09:44:00.000-08:00

Listening to talk radio yesterday, a caller, reflecting on the presidential election, rolled out the following quip:

It appears that we decided that, since a rose smells better than a head of cabbage, we figured it would make better soup.

I assumed that such homespun wisdom must have been derived from a popular colloquialism… but a Google search reveals no such saying, so I can only assume that this was original with the caller.

So… what is better? A rose or a head of cabbage? It all depends on the end sought, doesn’t it? If you’re heading to a dance, the rose will likely be more useful. If you’re heading to the kitchen to make dinner, the cabbage will provide more nourishment.

I’m more of a cabbage guy than a rose guy. I tend to overemphasize the substance of things and underestimate the importance of the sensory appeal. When I cast my vote, I focused almost entirely on ideas and ideology; it appears that a lot of people focused more on charisma and appeal.

I suppose that we need both. Not only for the leadership of our country, but for leadership in general.

One good question is which comes first? Is one more important than the other? Is one more easily acquired, or learned, than the other?

If you are a cabbage, can you hire or acquire rose-ness? If you are a rose, can you lead the cabbages?

I think the answer is yes. Leaders need to be keenly aware of both style and substance, and be vigilant to address their own shortcomings in these areas and the weaknesses in the organizations that they lead.

Parthenocarpic Leadership

2008-10-20T19:11:00.000-07:00

In Colossians 1:10 we can see that God is pleased when we are “bearing fruit in every good work.” A recent study caused me to ask the question, “What is the point of fruit? (Other than to make delicious pies that go into my belly?)”

The point of fruit is that it contains seed, the reproductive power of an organism. The Gospel isn’t just an idea, or philosophy, or point in history… it is a living organism. It has in it the power of reproduction, the power of self propagation through its fruit.

So if the point of fruit is seed, and the point of seed is reproduction… it is plain to see that it pleases God for us to be about reproducing our hope, love, and faith through our fruit (through our good work).

Fruit…

Let me ask you this… what is the fanciest “kind” of fruit? What kinds of mutant fruit do we like the best?

Seedless!

We like to eat some seeds, but most fruit seeds we throw away. A friend served one of the best apple pies I’ve ever tasted a couple of nights ago; thankfully there were no apple seeds in it. She would have had an easier time preparing that pie if she had seedless apples (apparently there is such a thing, it is just not common; the technical term is parthenocarpic). While seedless apples are uncommon, seedless berries and watermelons are very common.

While we prize the mutant parthenocarpic plant that produces seedless fruit… I wonder what God thinks of seedless Christians, seedless ministries, and seedless leadership. I wonder if we sometimes make our “fruit” so tasty and appealing, focusing on the sweet flesh of it all, that we produce seedless fruit.

I’d have to say that I’ve observed, and even perpetrated, seedless Christianity. There are times when we are so wrapped up in the sweet, juicy indulgence of the flesh of the thing that we produce mutant, sterile, seedless fruit. Such fruit is certainly tasty, but it has no power to reproduce. If Christianity were allowed go “all seedless”, then, like any organism, it would become extinct within a generation.

We need to be sure that the fruit of our leadership has seed in it; our fruit (at least some or hopefully most of it) needs to contain the power of reproduction.

You can make him drink, but you have to lead a horse to water.

2008-10-17T10:59:00.000-07:00

The old saying goes, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” It is a useful colloquialism when it comes to leadership. It reminds us that people are generally only going to do what they want to do… that you can present an opportunity for folk, but they won’t generally take the opportunity in front of them unless they want to.

But a boss can “make him drink.” Managers often have the authority to dictate… to simply make a decision and issue an edict, thus “making him drink.” These dictates, though, often have little lasting impact and may even instigate a backlash (overt or covert). To mangers who lead by dictate I say, “You can make him drink, but you have to lead a horse to water.”

Leaders lead. There are certainly times when there is danger, emergency, or limited opportunity in which a leader needs to invoke the authority embedded in a chain of command, but for most of us, most of the time, the work of leadership has very little to do with dictate. It is about determining, defining, and delivering a better future.

A dehydrated horse nearing death may need to have its head plunged into the trough for survival, but most horses need to be led to the water, shown the way so that they can enjoy the good water for a long happy life.

Partners

2008-06-19T21:10:00.000-07:00

I love this cartoon! It reminds me that in most cases the "headliner" has a partner that is doing the same hard work, but with added burdens. Sure, Fred Astaire was the big star; he got to "lead" and get the biggest share of the credit, but Ginger was right there with every step... but doing it backwards and in high heels.

We who get to be out front have to be sure to remember that there are usually others around us who are doing the same heavy lifting. In many cases it might even be easier to be out leading. We get to "lead," calling the shots, and benefiting from the titles and such... while those around us are doing the work a harder way, without the privilege we often enjoy.

I hope I can do better to appreciate those around that are doing the work "backwards and in high heels." And, when I'm the one doing the work "backwards and in high heels" I'll remember to take some pleasure in getting things handled well in my role.

Servanthood

2008-06-18T17:55:00.000-07:00

I am generally very happy to serve… but detest being treated like a servant.

It seems that there is a certain category of people who are born with a smile; they only have one kind of attitude… a really good attitude. They don’t seem to have to work at it, or even think about it much; they just seem to be naturally optimistic and positive.

Sadly, I’m not in that category. My attitude is a constant project.

Nothing seems to more easily wreck my day than when I feel like I’m being treated like a servant. And then that realization, itself, makes matters even worse for me. First I feel bad about being treated like a servant, then I’m even more bummed out that I care how I’m being treated. The self talk goes something like, “really Dan, aren’t you happy to serve? Don’t you want to serve? Aren’t you at your best when you are serving? Then why all the angst about being treated like a servant?”

Hopefully, as I grow older, I’m learning to get over myself, and overlook these kinds of attitudes from others.

The more important lesson, for me, is assessing how I treat others along these lines.

I wish it was more rare when I realize that I have perpetrated the same sin on others. There are times when I can tell that there is something broken in a relationship and, after thinking about it, realize that I have treated that other person as a servant. Rather than ask, I’ve demanded. Rather than respect, I’ve offered contempt. Rather than appreciating the privilege of the service, I’ve communicated that it would be a privilege to be my servant.

The answer, of course, is not to stop asking for help, but to be sure to look for that help with respect and appreciation. I can always do a better job of making those “tasking” moments an opportunity to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22,23)

MFA the New MBA

2008-06-12T09:34:00.000-07:00

I podcast the Harvard Business IdeaCast. Episode 92 was titled "The MFA is the New MBA." It was an espescially interesting interview; you can listen to it by accessing the MP3 file here. It was drawn from a blog post that you can access here.

A couple of ideas that caught my interest:

The importance of story telling in leadership
Learning how to value criticism as it relates to our work
Learning how to give really good advice and criticism

Served or Followed

2008-04-29T20:45:00.000-07:00

The adage goes something like this: You’re really not a leader if there are no followers.

Leadership is, of course, people business; in really broad brushstrokes, there are two kinds of people in the wake of leaders: those who serve and those who follow. With position often comes a certain amount of service and obedience. With chains of command and titles come staff and subordinates, employees who obey and serve because it is their job. I’ve noticed that some leaders seem to be gratified by the obedience of those who serve. In my view, this really isn’t being a leader; it is simply being a boss.

Leading those who serve is easy; leading those who follow is hard work. Being a boss is a cheap thrill; being a leader takes sacrifice, but the rewards are genuine. Bossing may work for tactics; it takes leadership to make a lasting impact, to see people grow, to cause strategic change, and to leave a legacy.

I’m finding myself entirely dissatisfied with merely being a boss, and increasingly irritated by those who insist on being a boss when they should be leaders (and especially intolerant of pastors who boss rather than lead… but that is probably the subject of another post). I’m working to inspire followers, whether I’m officially their boss or not. And I’m trying to purge any satisfaction that comes from being merely served, but rather find my gratification, and judge my own effectiveness, by the impact of those who may follow.

Slanted?

2008-04-27T21:57:00.000-07:00

We went, as a family, to see Expelled (really enjoyed it… made us both think and laugh). I went to the Seattle Times’ Web site to look up theaters and times (my goto place every time I want to see a movie… which would be about once or twice a year). I wasn’t all that surprised to read the lead line on their unbiased description: “A highly slanted documentary about evolution - or as the movie refers to it, "Darwinism" - and how its proponents have shut off any sort of debate about whether our origins depend, not on random mutation, but a Creator.” Of course it would be slanted; documentaries like these generally have some agenda to push.

Now reflecting on the movie, I no longer agree; I can’t really say that it was slanted at all. No Bible thumping. No jamming any ideas down anybody’s throat, theological ideas or otherwise. The main point of the movie is that it appears that powerful scientists refuse to behave scientifically when it comes to the origin of life.

So… where does the Times get off on declaring the movie slanted? In order to call something slanted, I suppose one ought to have a sense of plumb. And, I suppose that the Times’ writer decided long ago that Darwinism is a perfectly aligned fact of science.

Check out the movie and decide for yourself.

Nonnegotiables

2008-04-06T18:41:00.000-07:00

Sociologists will tell us that social movements (religious and otherwise) take their facts and ologies (ideologies, theologies, ontologies, ecologies, etc.), and turn them into nonnegotiables. These nonnegotiables serve as a powerful unifying force that gives strength to the movement. The nonnegotiables become a filter through which every thought is passed, or rejected.

We religious types are expert in reducing our faith down to facts and theologies.

“We have the truth.” End of story. Not only will we not respond to any questions about our nonnegotiables, or any urging to expand or modify our understanding of nonnegotiables, we will take offense at any questions. If you persist in your questions, you don’t get to be part of the club.

I need to remember that our faith is founded on One who says that truth isn’t merely facts and ideas. Jesus says that He is the Truth. Absolute Truth is a person. We don’t figure out Truth; we are invited to a relationship with Truth.

We need to somehow master ways to hold onto Truth without shutting people out. If we truly believe, we can both have Truth and seek Truth.

In my world, I find that academics, of course, are truth seekers. We can open up ways to better reach, and better mobilize, academics by all being truth seekers together. Nonnegotiables throw up red flags; the typical academic sees nonnegotiables as a sign of intellectual weakness.

Facts and ideas are exhaustible; they can be entirely mastered and contained. But a relationship grows infinitely. Our relationship with The Truth is inexhaustible and uncontainable. This concept of Truth will stand up with academics (and the postmodern mind as well).

There are two definitions of nonnegotiable:

Ideological – that which cannot be questioned
Financial – that which cannot be traded

So far I’ve been dwelling on that first definition, the ideological definition that fits this posture of reducing our ideas and facts into a list of nonnegotiables. But the financial definition is interesting to me too. Think in terms of trying to get a latte at your friendly neighborhood Starbucks with a pocket full of dinars. The Iraqi dinar won’t get you much, especially those older dinar notes with Saddam’s face all over them. They are nonnegotiable; they can’t be traded and they are worthless.

In the realm of ideas, our nonnegotiables are often nonnegotiable.

When we cheapen Truth to a list of nonnegotiables, we make our positions worthless in today’s market of ideas. Our faith is not only big enough to stand up to all questions; it is expanded, enhanced, and strengthened by questions.

For a bit more of my thoughts, check out today's talk at The Chapel at http://www.cedarpark.org/thechapel/services

Rule - Govern - Lead

2008-01-25T11:46:00.000-08:00

I’ve been thinking about these three words for the past few days: rule, govern, and lead. They caught my attention a few days ago when I heard a commentator say of a presidential candidate that they appeared to “want to rule, rather than govern.” I found that to be an interesting turn of a phrase.

With some candidates, it seems that they’ve been waiting all their lives to rule. They have all the answers, they’ve worked hard, people like them, and they deserve the power. Other candidates seem to be motivated more by governing. They demonstrate respect for the rules (constitution) and other legitimate authority structures; they seem to have a sense that they have a role to play within a complex system.

Initially, I thought that I wanted a leader who would govern… but after thinking a bit more about it, there are times when we need a ruler too.

I think that one of the best leadership skills may be in knowing when to rule, and when to govern. It seems that some of the biggest leadership mistakes are made when leaders choose to rule when they ought to govern and when they choose to govern when they need to rule. Ruling and governing are both important leadership postures.

When disaster strikes, ruling may be better than governing. To build a system to best handle disaster before it strikes, governing may be better than ruling.

I wonder if the electorate knows the difference. I’m concerned that when given ballots for these kinds of things, we tend to think that we’re choosing a ruler. When candidates speak in terms of governing, eyes glaze over and the electorate takes a nap. Ruler talk can inspire fantasy; we believe that someone just might have all the right answers.

Presidential politics is an interesting case study, but these issues of governing and ruling apply in all sorts of arenas. The same principles apply to CEOs, pastors, managers, and even coaches.

Is there more here? What do you think? I’d love to see your thoughts in a comment.

Leaders Lead

2007-12-04T21:03:00.000-08:00

As an 11-month old Christian, sitting in my first class at North Central Bible College, I heard Dr. Don Meyer say, “The cream always rises to the top.” I understood it then as a way to help us understand an important theme in the Pentateuch. After hearing him say it from time to time in the years that would follow, I understood that he was meaning to teach an important lesson for life and leadership.

The cream always rises to the top.

Others have said, perhaps more simply, “leaders lead.”

I don’t mind admitting now that I misunderstood these axioms. Earlier in my career I didn’t get it, thinking that what was meant was more along the lines of “organizations will recognize leadership potential and then promote people into positions of authority so that they can then lead.” I thought that leadership had mostly to do with position, authority, responsibility and resources. Leadership can have a great deal to do with those sorts of things, but I know now that leadership has even more to do with influence, inspiration, perspective, opportunity, and followership.

Many of our core ideas about leadership come from outmoded models such as the military, athletics, and old style command-and-control industry. Such leadership ideas may work in controlled situations where information is limited, or at least containable, and objectives are clear and static. But these days information is generally available to all and usually enters our systems from every portal; rather than information flowing in and down from the top, the best information usually flows in at the point of service and flows up in an organization. And while a good organization has a mission and vision that flies above the fray, tactical goals are often a moving target; rather than making every tactical call, today’s most effective leaders in upper management often find out about tactical gains after the fact.

Simply stated, leadership systems need to be more distributed (shared leadership throughout the system) and more nimble (leadership needs to be able to happen quickly and with flexibility so as to capture opportunity).

In the institutions that I serve today, a mere organization chart is an insufficient instrument for identifying leadership. We simply can’t only rely on those with titles to lead; deans, directors, pastors, managers, vice presidents and presidents are great, but leadership needs to come from more than just the title holders. It may already seem like a trite and tired saying, but it is true… everyone is a leader.

That may seem easy to say, but it is not always easy to do. How does one lead without authority? How do we lead colleagues, or those who may outrank us? How do we lead in areas that are outside of our departments or areas of responsibility? How do we lead our boss, or our boss’s boss?

I’ve noticed that, in the same organization, some employees seem to be able to get all sorts of things done while others seem stymied by the system. Some are able to make a way for themselves and their programs and others are entangled by bureaucracies (both real and perceived).

It seems that one of the big differences between the can-do and the can’t-do people is leadership. More specifically, the can-do people realize that leadership has little to do with position, and far more to do with influence. Can’t-do people long for the imaginary future when they will be in charge and call the shots. Can-do people apply their influence creatively, leading people to solutions whenever and however they can.

When an organization needs to fill a leadership post, they typically go to the can-do people. Nobody is impressed by those who stand on the sidelines pointing out what is wrong, waiting for their opportunity to be the boss so that things can finally be done right. Strong organizations recognize the leadership being provided by the can-do people, enabling the leadership that is already being demonstrated by providing positions of greater authority and responsibility.

It turns out that good leaders know that titles and positions are a handy tool, but it takes a leader to lead and it is influence that transforms people and organizations, not titles.

Here are some tips on how to be a leader, regardless of title or position.

Recognize that each of us have unique perspective, gifts, and opportunity. I’ve noticed that can’t-do people often complain that their leaders don’t see or do what is obvious. Can-do people realize that what is obvious to them may not be obvious to anyone else. It may be that the reason you notice something that ought to be done is that you are supposed to get it done… or at least see to it that it gets done. I’ve often told people that work with me, “The only thing that will get you in huge trouble with me is if you come to me too late saying I could have told you so.” Leaders trust their instincts. They are at peace with the notion that they see things that others don’t see and can do things that others might not be able to do.
Sometimes it is our job to make ourselves hearable. When we know that we need to lead, but people are not following, we need another approach. I’ve watched can’t-do people say the same thing the same way and get more frustrated the more they keep saying the same thing the same way while nobody seems to hear. We need to be creative in finding the best approaches so that people can, and will want to, follow. If nobody is following you, you are not leading.
There are no excuses for abdicating responsibility. First off, when we do have specific authority in an organization, that simply must be our primary focus; we can’t let our responsibility suffer by putting our work down to pick-up someone else’s work. But we can’t simply say, “That isn’t my job” either. We aren’t being leaders when we allow any important work to go undone; we aren’t being leaders when we knowingly allow others to suffer, especially if we allow failure just so we can make our point.
We have to be tough and teachable. Leadership is risky business, especially when we dare to lead without titles and authority. How does the old saying go? “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” Leading from the inside, alongside, and even underside is an art form that sometimes needs to be learned by trial and error. Sometimes the errors leave bumps and bruises, but with the right attitude they will heal… and it is worth it.

Institutions need to change, too, in order to allow leaders to lead, regardless of title or position. I’m finding that in the organizations I lead, I need to continually allow for, and encourage, flexibility, forgiveness, and teaching. Rather than being threatened or bothered by leaders trying to lead, we need to help leaders lead. Sometimes that means we’ll have to overlook minor offenses; other times we’ll need to provide correction and training. And sometimes we’ll have to step in and clean up a minor mess. But it is worth it. When an organization allows leaders to lead we find out that there is no such thing as too much leadership. When leaders lead we find that there are more opportunities and we all benefit from bigger and better successes.

Charette on Servant Leadership

2007-11-11T16:27:00.000-08:00

Readers of this blog know that we've been kicking around themes of servant leadership. For a Biblical basis for servant leadership, listen to what Dr. Blaine Charette presented in our church this morning. Although not necessarily the main focus of his talk, Blaine brought solid fundamentals on the topic from the Gospel of Mark. Check it our at http://www.cedarpark.org/thechapel/services

Is Level 5 Leadership Servant Leadership?

2007-11-04T19:29:00.000-08:00

Most of us are familiar with Jim Collins’ work Good to Great. Just before the book came out, Collins wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review that focused on one of the book’s key concepts: Level 5 Leadership. I read the article again tonight, asking myself the question, “Is Level 5 Leadership Servant Leadership?”

I think the simple answer is yes. The article says “Level 5 leaders blend the paradoxical combination of deep personal humility with intense professional will.” It goes on to ask, “How do Level 5 leaders manifest humility? They routinely credit others, external factors, and good luck for their companies’ success. But when results are poor, they blame themselves. They also act quietly, calmly, and determinedly—relying on inspired standards, not inspiring charisma, to motivate. Inspired standards demonstrate Level 5 leaders’ unwavering will. Utterly intolerant of mediocrity, they are stoic in their resolve to do whatever it takes to produce great results—terminating everything else. And they select superb successors, wanting their companies to become even more successful in the future.”

In the simplest terms:
Humility + Will = Level 5
Servant + Leadership = Servant Leadership

I think the Level 5 model is most useful to CEOs and other executives. I’m not sure that it is all that scalable, which leaves it a bit lacking as a tool to encourage Servant Leadership throughout an organization… but a very useful tool for CEOs, other executives, and others who enjoy studying such things.

At the end of the article, Collins discusses the question “can Level 5 be learned?” Without providing a direct answer, he seems to hint that Level 5 is more of a spiritual thing. Even though it can be imperially observed and verified (in the case of his research, he wasn’t looking for it but it could not be ignored) it is far more than a skill set or credential. It is an attitude, a set of characteristics, a life philosophy. It comes less from an MBA and more from sanctification.

When I first encountered this article almost seven years ago, I think I thought “I could probably become a Level 5 leader.” Today I find myself less confident that I’ll ever be a Level 5 leader, but I also know that I’m a lot closer, a great deal closer, to being a Level 5 leader today than I was seven years ago. Weird.

Servant Leadership

2007-10-29T13:09:00.000-07:00

I’ve been hearing and seeing this phrase “servant leadership” more frequently over these past weeks. Some have called for more of it, others want to define it and understand it better, and I’ve even heard some folk really misuse it (at least from my perspective). Last week I even had some good friends agree that I was doing a good job of demonstrating it (Just how is one to take that? It strikes me that if someone receives a commendation for servant leadership it somehow negates the whole business.). I’m looking forward to working with this vitally important concept, servant leadership, with colleagues in the coming weeks.

Here are a couple of random things that are running through my head on the subject today:

Servant Leadership Isn’t Necessarily Flat – I’ve noticed that sometimes when people call for servant leadership, they also call for a more flat organizational structure. It is as if servant leadership and hierarchical organization structures don’t work well together. I think they can work very well together, and it might be that servant leadership works best within good organizational structures and hierarchies. It seems to me that when we approach our organizational system building asking questions like “who should work for me so that I can get my work done?” we set ourselves up for a crummy display of servant leadership by focusing on the leader’s needs rather than the followers’ needs. A better question might be “who would serve this person/group/department best as a leader/resource.” With a focus on which leader would best serve the followers, we begin to set ourselves up for good servant leadership. That sort of approach then leads us to good hierarchical structures since one of the considerations in answering such questions is “who has the talent, time, resources and attention to give leadership in this circumstance.” Flat organization structures may set us up for crummy displays of servant leadership because they spread leaders too thin. Jesus fed 5,000, but washed the feet of only 12.
Servant Leadership is Leadership – I’ve noticed that sometimes when people call for servant leadership, what they really seem to want is a servant, not a leader.
Servant Leadership is More Walk Than Talk – Especially in the Christian ministry circles in which I operate, talk works really well for a while. But it takes servant leadership in action, over the long haul, to really make the difference. We need to resist settling for talk, and probably work a little harder to notice walk.

What do you think? Post a comment if you’d like to get in on a conversation.

From One Hand to Another

2007-09-06T10:21:00.000-07:00

Here's a brief follow-up on my "No Hand Backs" post from 3/28/07.

We need to resist the urge to broadcast a hand off. You've probably exepienced this: someone identifies a problem or wants something done, so they type up an email and task several people. It could be that they aren't sure who to task, so they just put as many people in the "to:" line as they can.

I've noticed that this often results in:

Several people chasing after a solution, which is horribly inefficient and sometimes results in complications, or
Nobody picks up the task. Sometimes when we make something everybody's problem, we inadvertanly make it nobody's problem.

So go ahead and push the hand off metaphor. When handing off, don't just toss the ball at a clump of running backs, hoping that someone will get the ball and run with it.... purposefully hand the ball to one person, and try not to let go until you know they have it.

If you haven't seen it, check out http://leadershipcommentary.blogspot.com/2007/03/no-hand-backs.html

Surprises

2007-07-09T19:44:00.000-07:00

Some of the best stuff about being a pastor/leader is found in the surprises.

You find out what you are made of when dealing with the surprises of life. Crisis is often the crucible in which leadership skills are revealed and refined. Plan as we may… we are never immune from the come ups and curve balls that require us to improvise a solution.

Then there are the surprises of Jesus that Don likes to talk about. Our Lord seams to delight in blowing us away by showing up in our circumstances. Like any father, our Heavenly Father is happy to make us happy.

Today I was surprised by a story of the extraordinary goodness of some of the guys in our church. It appears that Steve cooked up a plan to have Mark join him on a ministry trip to medical facility that is hosting one of our senior-most members, Kay. I’m pretty sure that Kay has filled out the paperwork to have Mark officially installed as the fourth person of the Trinity… mostly due to the way Mark plays the piano. When Mark took control of the approximately-in-tune piano in the community room for an hour, Mark literally brought a bit of Heaven to Kay and all those who gathered.

When I called Mark, I left a message on his voicemail saying, “I don’t know when I’ve been more proud to be anyone’s pastor.” I suppose it is one thing to have someone say “good sermon, pastor” on Sunday morning while we stuff ourselves with coffee and cookies after the service, but there is an entirely different level of gratitude and satisfaction that comes from hearing reports of Christlikeness displayed by members of our church outside of our walls, seven days a week.

What’s in a Name?

2007-05-25T15:37:00.000-07:00

Our Leadership Council (deacons and pastors) have been kicking around the idea of a name change for our church. The circumstances of founding our church were so unique that we didn’t really give the name a great deal of thought at first. Since we were so blessed to have so much in place for us, due to our partnership with Cedar Park, we were able to go from idea to implementation in just a few short months. Who had time to think about a name?

Now in our sixth year of existence, The Chapel at Cedar Park wonders if the name of our church should be a bit more than the name of the building in which we worship.

Every so often you hear about parents who wait a while to name their children. The rationale is simple: they want to get to know the kid before affixing a moniker. In like manner, our church has grown up and we have gotten to know it… maybe it is time for a better name.

As we’ve been thinking about characteristics that might be reflected in a name, several things have come up in conversation: warm hospitality and fellowship; appreciation for tradition; reverence for scripture and value for biblical, even exegetical, preaching; and commitment to God’s mission to save people in our families, communities, and around the world.

We’ve even talked about recent trends that produce clever names for churches… names that sometimes don’t even reveal that the place/organization is even a church at all. The motive seems to be a good one; this kind of approach indicates a bias for outreach. It is a good approach, but it doesn’t seem to suit us. Those who seem to find our church most helpful are specifically looking for a church.

The name that the Leadership Council keeps coming back to is Redeemer’s Fellowship. One of our deacons brought a verse of Scripture that provides a good basis for this name: God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Corinthians 1:9). He also referenced 1 John 1:3 and Hebrews 10:24,25.

We like the word Fellowship as it reflects our commitment of care to one another. Our church has distinguished itself as a warm, inviting, community in which people genuinely love each other… and even really like each other. It expresses our understanding that we are called to serve together, that God calls us to be members of one body; more than merely a gathering of persons, we are a people.

Redeemer’s seems to suit us well too. It could be that the most important part of that word is the apostrophe, that little punctuation mark that indicates that our fellowship is in the possession of our Savior. We understand that we are His… that any right standing that we have before God and creation is only because we have been redeemed by Jesus.

So these days we’re looking for feedback. Nobody feels that change is absolutely necessary; The Chapel at Cedar Park has served us well. But it could be time for change. Do you like that idea? Do you have a better idea? Should we just keep The Chapel as is? Let us know what you think.

Foot Washer

2007-05-08T11:02:00.000-07:00

It would, of course, be a great mistake to think of Jesus as primarily a foot washer. Of course he did, at least on one occasion, wash feet (John 13:1-17)… but we don’t label him by this humble act of service.

I wonder if it would also be a great mistake to assume that Jesus only washed feet that one time to make a point. If one were to ask Bible scholars “how many times did Jesus wash feet?” I would imagine that most would simply answer “once.” But I wonder… is that really the Spirit of Jesus? Just washing feet once to make a point?

When I think of Christians, especially those who I understand to be Christian leaders, in regard to this quality of humble service, there are a couple of categories.

Those who occasionally perform acts of humility for effect, and
Those who consistently perform acts of service out of their humble nature.

I’ve always seen more Christlikeness from those in camp #2.

There are those who give lip service to their willingness to help with simple things. These are the types who say “oh, you’re finished? I was intending to help.” Or “I’d try to help but I’m afraid that I’d get in the way.” You know these types… the ones who arrive late, linger at the refreshment table, and leave early.

Then there are those that fly under the radar and just get the work done. No fanfare. Little recognition.

I think I am most impressed when the humble service requires great skill. My pal Merlin is a great example. He serves as one of the VPs at the University with me. As an example, while the rest of us VPs were participating in the pomp and pageantry of commencement just a few days ago (see http://www.northwestu.edu/media/photos/galleries/index.php?id=123) Merlin ran around with cameras in hand. He is an excellent photographer and his work with a camera is famous in some circles… but he is so much more than merely a photographer. Other VPs of Marketing eschew seemingly menial tasks like photography, especially when there are more dignified things to do (like wear a girly robe and funny hat)… but not Merlin. For him, photography is a bit of foot washing. Highly skilled foot washing.

Here’s the dilemma that I’ve pondered on and off for years… do these acts of foot washing discredit our roles? In Merlin’s case I watch it happen over and over again; even though his business card says Vice President, he is often referred to (and even worse treated as) the photographer. I’ve experienced it too… since I’m willing to do various technical or mechanical things (Web pages, PowerPoint, ghost writing, etc.) I’ve sometimes been labeled as more of a manager or technician than a leader.

So… back to Jesus. I don’t think He was a foot washer merely for effect. I tend to think that Jesus served the best He could on a moment by moment, situation by situation basis. So if that meant that feet needed washing, He washed feet… or healed blind eyes… or fed hungry mouths… or hungry souls for that matter.

If that is the case, then our responses ought to include:

When serving, serve not merely for effect, but really serve, even if it requires finely honed skill, and
When we observing someone serving, let’s resist the ease of stereotyping the one serving. Let’s appreciate the humble act of service without mindlessly sticking someone into a menial category.

Just because Jesus washed feet (I’m guessing on several occasions) doesn’t make him a foot washer.

No Hand Backs

2007-03-28T17:43:00.000-07:00

I’ve noticed in my dealings with various companies that one of the significant factors that impacts my satisfaction is the manner in which I am moved through an organization’s bureaucracy. So, for example, I deal with a couple of financial firms who work with me on a number of levels in different ways. In some cases I am a personal client, in others I am a corporate client. With a bank, for example, I might have different kinds of accounts including a checking account, credit card, and mortgage, and I may deal with the same bank through my work. Inevitably, it seems, I start by calling the wrong person or department. A couple of years ago it seemed that SOP (that is standard operating procedure) was to give me the phone number for the right department… “I’m sorry Mr. Neary, you need to speak with someone in the mutual funds department… they can be reached at 1-800-blah-blah-blah.” That was good service because usually the person on the other end of that call (Ok... really it would be the person I would eventually get to after responding to several automated prompts) could help me.

These days it seems that SOP is that, rather than giving me another number to call (thus handing me back my problem), organizations are more carefully handing customers off to those who can solve problems… “I’m sorry Mr. Neary, you need to speak with someone in the mutual funds department, please hold… hi Joe, I have Mr. Neary on the line, he needs you to help him with his mutual fund account… you should have his information on the screen… I know that you can solve his problem.”

Hand offs are far superior to hand backs.

An organization in pursuit of superior customer service should adopt a no hand backs policy. No matter what, once a customer (student, parishioner, patient, constituent, influencer, etc.) presents you with a problem, you don’t get to give it back to the customer. It is either yours to solve, or you need to thoroughly hand off the problem to a colleague. No hand backs, only hand offs.

This approach could help fix some common misconceptions including:

Customers understand and appreciate the fine lines of delineation that exist in our organizational structures. If I were a bank employee, for example, I might better understand why the mutual fund representative can’t answer questions about a money market account… but I’m not an employee and all the problems, as well as all the various customer service representatives, look the same to me. We can’t expect our customers to be all that skilled in navigating our bureaucracies.
Getting involved in another department’s work is the unpardonable sin. I think that most people most of the time do hand backs not because they are uncaring or lazy, but because they are afraid to touch another department’s business. Once the problem is solved, the customer will likely go merrily along their way… but I have to work with Joe in accounting for ever! For the sake of our customers, and ultimately for the sake of our organizations, we need to get over our fascination/fear of our organizational structures.
It is bad form to dump problems on others. I get that; we call them wet babies in my office. If we hand back, we might be able to do so anonymously; hand offs tend to implicate us in the problem. Again, we need to get over ourselves. Besides… if we do a good job of handing off, helping to identify the problem and getting good communication going, we are already more a part of the solution than part of the problem.

This is all pretty rudimentary stuff, I know, but it seems pretty important.

I’m thinking about making a no hand backs rule in the organizations that I have a part in leading. Think it will work?

Creatio Ex Nihilo

2007-03-20T15:42:00.000-07:00

There are so many mysteries that accompany our walk of faith. Like Winnie the Pooh, I walk this path of faith realizing that I am a bear of very little brain… so I can only handle one, or maybe a few, of these mysteries at a time. So as I deal with one mystery, I have to let the others take a back seat in my mind; it is a simple tactic in pursuit of some measure of sanity.

I think the mystery that lingers at the forefront of my mind more often than the others is this: Why does God choose to accomplish most of his work in partnership with the likes of us? There are, of course, those instances in which God completely and sovereignly overwhelms a situation, changing the course of things with a dramatic miracle. But the usual way that God accomplishes his purpose is through His people. Why does God degrade His work by mixing his perfect and powerful ways with our flawed and puny ways? Why risk it on us? If I were God I would likely do it all myself.

Yet, His primary mode of operation is to accomplish His work through people. I think it probably has something to do with God’s mission not only being about what he accomplishes through us, but maybe even more importantly, His mission is also about what He accomplishes in us. Furthermore, I believe it is at the forefront of God’s mission to not only accomplish His will in us and through us merely individually; He desires to work in and through us corporately as His people. More than just a vast number of persons, we are called to be His people. God’s mission is to accomplish His work and will, both through us and in us, as what the New Testament describes as the Body of Christ. God’s plan is to work through His current, bodily representatives on earth, that is the Church.

So with that theological framework in mind, I press a bit more into the mystery by asking: What kind of work would God be doing through His Body/Church/People? To answer that question, we are forced to get to know God, which leads us to His Book. If we start with the first words of His Book, we read, “In the beginning God created.” God as creator may not be the most important theological understanding, but it is certainly one of the first (actually, I think it is the second since the first theological understanding is the preexistence of God stated through the first three words “In the beginning”).

It is a pretty easy jump for people to understand that the Church ought to be creative. Creativity is a God-like quality that should mark the Church. But what about the kind of creating that is referenced there in Genesis 1:1? What about creatio ex nihilo? The standard view is that only God can create out of nothing… that creatio ex nihilo is what distinguishes God from us; creation out of nothing is off limits for us mere mortals, even off limits for the Church.

But I wonder if creatio ex nihilo is really off limits for the Church. I’m not proposing that we suspend the laws of conservation of matter or conservation of energy, but are there real areas in which these laws do not apply? I think that wealth is one area in which the laws of conservation do not apply. Creation of wealth is more than the sum of its parts. A productive enterprise should create more wealth than the sum of the values of components and natural resources, even more than the component values of soft resources like knowledge, skill, and even labor. When business works like it should, there is some part of wealth that comes from nowhere… creatio ex nihilo!

Could it be then that the Church ought to be more intentional about the intersection of our faith and business activity? Could it be that the creation of wealth is a Christian endeavor, especially when we are approaching this all with a proper view of stewardship?

Meetings Make Us Dumber

2007-02-23T20:12:00.000-08:00

One of the greatest things about working in higher education is lunch. Really… lunch is great at the University; you can count on great conversations. It is a real privilege to work with so many smart people.

Today I brought up the story I saw posted yesterday on MSNBC titled Meetings Make Us Dumber, Study Shows. It turns out that the headline was more interesting than the article. The basic gist of the article was that “people have a harder time coming up with alternative solutions to a problem when they are part of a group.” Sorry MSNBC, this is not big news.

Our lunch bunch agreed. Group think is rarely good at coming up with good solutions. So, we asked, should we ditch all the meetings we attend? No… but why? I think we correctly identified that meetings are great for two vital tasks:

Identifying problems and opportunities, and
Making good solutions better

That gave us a model that we’ve all seen work:

Use groups and teams to identify problems and opportunities. Meetings are great for identifying problems that need attention, or noticing opportunities that might be seized.
Look to individuals or small teams to formulate, and document, a solution or a few solutions.
Use groups and teams to counterpunch with the proposal. Again, meetings are great for taking good solutions and making great solutions.

Marketing’s New Idea or the Church’s Old Idea?

2007-02-14T17:08:00.000-08:00

An ancillary comment delivered by Dr. Brian Stiller in his concluding talk in a lecture series here at Northwest University got me thinking about something I heard recently on the HBR IdeaCast. The current issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR) includes their annual survey of emerging ideas under the title Breakthrough Ideas for 2007.

Breakthrough Idea #3 introduces the idea of cohort marketing. The brief article explains that “the typical brand manager is an ageist.” There are, of course, all sorts of ways to segment markets, but breaking markets up into generations is probably the most common and effective. So, a brand manager targets a generation and then manages the brand by attracting those who are aging in at a rate equal or greater to the number of those aging out. As middle aged men move from Polo to Brooks Brothers, brand mangers drag young men away from Abercrombie and move them into Polo. This is a tried and true method; it is marketing conventional wisdom.

The HBR, with new idea #3, urges consideration of a different approach. A cohort branding approach dictates that once a brand manager selects a generation, the work then becomes managing the brand in such a way that it matures with the cohort. This is a strategy aimed at nurturing brand loyalty. Rather than counting on customers moving from Ford Mustangs to Lincoln Continentals as they age (risking the loss of the customer in the transition), the strategy would be to let a brand segment morph and age with the consumer. The model they offer is the Harry Potter brand; the series is primarily targeted at kids who are the same age as Harry and they all, Harry and customers, are aging together. The strategy certainly has limits (anybody interested in an Oscar Meyer filet mignon?), but it is an interesting idea.

I contend that the Church has been doing cohort marketing for years, although sometimes without intention. In our contemporary churches it is not uncommon for a ministry to age, often times right along with the founding pastor. So a church might start young and hip, but then the nurseries get upgraded when the leaders start having kids, then children’s church becomes a major focus and maybe even a Christian school, followed by youth groups, and so on. Other aspects of cohort marketing in church contexts drive us to keep things the same. Music tastes, for example, often don’t change as we age; so a cohort strategy for churches would be to lock in to one music style and hold on to it through the years.

In a more macro sense, entire denominations seem to follow this cohorting pattern. Something new happens, an organization forms, and it develops and matures along with its leadership. But somewhere along the way the organization’s rate of change slows, or even stops, and organizational forces are then applied to holding on to an era, at which point the organization faces the risk of becoming irrelevant.

A simple approach to cohort marketing has an obvious fatal flaw: cohorting puts an expiration date on a brand. A church that follows this simple path will eventually die with its leadership.

But if we would come to grips with cohorting, it could unlock a path to increased effectiveness. I think I can make a case that individual churches should cohort. The local church is the best expression of the Body of Christ. Sure, Jesus saves and the Holy Spirit indwells individual believers, but persons are saved and filled to not merely remain persons but to become a people, the church, God’s cohort of believers knit together to worship, serve, and witness.

Many small group strategies work in this sort of cohorting fashion. A church could embrace this too, as long as it could manage several cohorts. In the corporate world, cohort marketing only works over time if there are new (or possibly renewed or recycled) brands introduced on a periodic basis. In the church world, leaders would need to intentionally manage a range of cohorts through multiple services. I understand the rationale behind a strategy that simply duplicates a one-size-fits-all worship service a few times on a Sunday morning, or even several times throughout a week, but I think applying this cohorting strategy could increase impact. If congregations were encouraged to cohort, it could result in deeper meaning, stronger service, and more loyalty.

A successful denomination or church organization needs to resist cohorting for the whole group, but rather intentionally lead a multi-cohort strategy. The difficulty here could be that organizational leaders may mistake cohort distinctives as what ought to distinguish the whole, which would likely lead to getting stuck in an era and eventually becoming irrelevant. There needs to be more of a big tent mentality, lots of different expressions of style that are bound together around unifying goals and principles for the good of all.

I’m interested in feedback from readers. Does this make some sense or is it wrongheaded? Do you have examples of how this does work in the church world, or how it has failed? I’d like to hear from you; use the comments option below.

Lost Sheep

2007-02-10T20:28:00.000-08:00

At least half and up to two-thirds of our kids will step away from their faith while attending non-Christian colleges and universities. This is the most startling statistic distributed in recent reports published by Christianity Today based on studies by Dr. Steven Henderson. Dr. George Wood, General Secretary of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, goes on to report this statistic in terms of our sponsoring church when he says, “nine years from now, as many as 189,000 of our 315,000 youth could be drop-outs from the faith.” Dr. Wood’s report has been circulated among our faculty and leadership at Northwest; you can access it here http://www.danneary.org/blogstuff/agu.pdf

University
At our University, we are grateful for the nearly 1,300 students that are in our care this year, but we are also mindful of these 189,000 potential lost sheep.

Reports like these remind us of our stewardship responsibility. The years that students spend at our University are often among their most important years of formation as they become Christian adults. While here at Northwest, students are challenged to think deeply about their faith, employing academic rigor and critical analysis tools in ways that are likely new to their Christian experience. We may challenge them to ask questions they have never asked before. What makes our Faculty members different from their counterparts in secular institutions is that their goal is to drive students toward their faith, not away from their faith. The faithful stewardship of this trust demands that we nurture our students’ faith, building a solid foundation that will stand up against the inevitable attacks they will face throughout the rest of their adult lives.

We are mindful of the lost sheep when we do our work in recruitment. Even though our work shares some of the trappings of marketing campaigns and sales tactics, we know that there is so much more at stake. Our recruiters are motivated by a very real sense that they are dealing with God’s plan and calling in the lives of our prospective students. Recruitment, at least for us, isn’t merely about closing a deal with a student, it is about helping a student answer God’s calling and preparing for a life of service.

Reports like these also increase our burden for fundraising. Cost certainly is not the only barrier that keeps a student from attending our University, but it is one of the toughest barriers to face. Every dollar we can raise that helps keeps our costs low, is a meaningful step toward reaching lost sheep.

Church
This report impacted me as a leader in Christian Higher Education as it reminded me of important principles that have guided my work over the years, but this specific report impacted me even more as a Pastor. For nearly 20 years I have been involved in drawing students to Christian higher education because I know, firsthand, what a difference a place like Northwest University can make in the life of a student. For the last 5 years I have also been involved in sending students to Christian higher education as I have been serving as pastor. As I read the reports from my perspective as a pastor, it occurred to me that this is not merely about the impact of a Christian university on a student, but it is also very much about the way a church like mine disciples students so that they will be apt to choose a Christian university. I need to be more purposeful about leading my church in such a way that the young people under my care are the kinds of young men and women who want to choose a place like Northwest. My church needs to help lead these students to this important choice.

The reports also reminded me how important churches like mine are in supporting Christian higher education with prayer, influence, involvement, and finances. There are all sorts of agenda being advanced at universities across our country by organizations that stand in opposition to the Church. Even our governments advance positions that are contrary to our Christian stance through support of their universities. I need to lead my church in such a way that we are advancing our cause and providing for our church’s future leadership through support of Northwest University.

Home
Beyond the impact on me as a university administrator and pastor, the impact that hit closest home was on me as a dad. My oldest son Alex will be making his choice of a university in just a few short years; his 11 year-old brother Donny will be making his choices soon after. I’m glad that they are already planning on making that choice Northwest, and that I will be able to support them in that choice. A lot can change, of course, as my boys grow up and the crucial time for their decision approaches. As a dad, I know that I will serve my boys best by helping them understand the weight of that choice and providing them with a clear view of the value of choice for a Christian university.

I Do My Own Stunts

2007-01-25T10:43:00.000-08:00

I’ve been thinking about this little phrase over the past couple of days.

Occasionally we’ll hear the really macho actors brag that they do their own stunts. I think they want us to appreciate how tough they are, and how they don’t look to someone else to do their dirty work.

Should we admire those who do their own stunts? Or, rather, should we marvel at their stupidity? I don’t think many A list actors do their own stunts. Is it because they are chicken or lazy? Or is it because they realize that by doing their own stunts they jeopardize their most prized assets? George Clooney can’t make the big bucks with a smashed face or paralyzed legs. An A lister needs to be careful not to get too scuffed up.

I get the feeling that President Bush does many of his own stunts, and I wonder if that is part of his PR problem. He is leading in such a way that he doesn’t have anyone else to blame. It could even be that he’s so scuffed up and rattled that he can’t do a great job as “communicator in chief.” It seems that some of his predecessors, especially the more eloquent communicators that are in our recent memory like Regan and even Clinton, made sure that others were doing the stunts.

I think I’m a do-my-won-stunts-kind-of-guy. I’ve also been a stuntman from time to time; it comes with the territory of being in supporting roles, especially when those roles include marketing manager, ad guy, ghost writer, and problem fixer. Sometimes I wonder if doing my own stunts is an asset or a flaw. Does this approach to life and work hobble me?

I don’t think I’ll be making any changes along these lines; I can’t even conceive how I would make that change. Besides, when I think about the kind of leader I want to continue to be, I identify the specific leaders that I want to emulate… and they all seem to be do-their-own-stunts people.

Maybe the one’s we should admire the most are those who do their own stunts but are never heard bragging about it.

Change

2007-01-14T17:20:00.000-08:00

Toyota has been making the news a lot recently because they are expected to become the world’s largest auto maker this year, passing GM’s sales and bumping GM from the world’s largest perch that GM has held for the past 75 years. Even though many of those Toyotas are designed, engineered, and built by Americans on American soil, this is a big deal. The US has dominated the world auto market as long as cars have been around, and now a Japanese firm is going to take a turn as the market dominator.

We know why Toyota is doing so well; they make really good cars. Specifically, they make better cars than GM. Actually they made better cars than GM… these days GM and Ford are getting rated well, right in the mix with Toyota and Honda, when it comes to quality. Unfortunately bad is worse than good is good, and US automakers have to overcome a couple of decades of making some really crummy cars in order to win back customers.

I saw part of an interview with one of the executives at GM that made it clear that they know what they are facing. He explained that they know that they can’t merely be as good as a Toyota to take back the lead; they have to be better than Toyota to get customers to come back to GM (actually, he said they have to be more Catholic than the Pope… which made me laugh). It is going to take ongoing improvements that have been underway for the past several years, but it appears that they will endeavor to stick with the change that is underway and take back the lead. As a kid from the Midwest who grew up in the shadows of smokestacks, I’m rooting for them.

Although in miniscule proportions when compared to GM, I’ve been around positive organizational change. I’ve happened upon problems in which everyone seemed unhappy: Board, customers, leaders, influencers, and employees.

In all of the reports I have seen on the Toyota story, I have never once heard anyone say that Toyota’s advertising has much to do with their overall success. Everyone understands that good marketing and advertising is important, and Toyota couldn’t be where they are without it, but it is something else that makes the difference, especially in the long haul.

This is one of the lessons I’ve learned, the hard way. I’ve found myself convinced that I could change an institution from the outside in. So, with little regard for the insiders, I worked hard to change perceptions. We had some success, real success that we could measure in revenue… but we were running into problems that had little to do with our PR and marketing efforts. We had internal relationships and systems that needed to be fixed before we could see any further successes.

Our changes in governance have not only made people feel better about their place in the organization; these changes have made it so that people are working smarter and making more meaningful contributions to our strategies that will shape our future. Our systems have changed, and so have our attitudes and approaches. Our relationships inside the organization are better, stronger, and more productive. It is working.

GM, although obviously way larger and more complicated than any organization of which I have played a part, is on the same path. Their old ways of treating employees like part of the machinery are out moded; today they know that the experiments they started with Saturn must overtake the whole organization. They’ll retake the lead from Toyota as they continue to change the way they work with their own people. Maybe, in some ways, they’ll be more Japanese than Toyota.

Mormon in the White House

2007-01-11T12:01:00.000-08:00

Former Massacheusetts governor, Mitt Romney, took initial steps to get his presidential campaign rolling. At a recent kickoff fundraiser, his supporters expressed their enthusiasm for his candidacy with a whopping $6.5 million. He seems like he is on his way.

Prominent Evangelicals (like Dr. Dobson) have speculated that Romney would not receive support from Evangelicals because he is a Mormon. I'm wondering about that.

Laura Ingraham asked Romney about it yesterday morning; there is a clip of this portion of the interview availble by clicking here. (If you'd like more of the interview, you can access it by clicking here).

Romney's reply makes a lot of sense, as did the rest of his interview.

I'm wondering if people are really serious about Evangelicals shunning him because of his faith. What other candidate would they support? The other early frontrunners seem to be fairly secular. Currenlty we hear Obama and HRC refer to their faith more than McCain or Giuliani.

Do you think faith matters much in the 2008 presidential race? Do you think that Romney's faith will hurt him with the Evangelical Republicans?

Work to Rest

2007-01-08T17:02:00.000-08:00

We gather together on Sunday mornings in church for worship… so really we shouldn’t start by thinking of us and what we want or need from church. We start all this with the goal of worshiping God… of expressing our thanks and devotion to Him.

But with that said, I do want people to receive something at my church each Sunday morning.

Hope for those who can’t see a way out of their present troubles
Answers for those who are struggling with life’s biggest questions
Peace for those who are tormented
Encouragement for those who are getting beat up by life’s blows
Joy for those who are low
Safety for those who don’t know where to turn
Rest for those who are striving to make life better

We come to worship God, and when we meet Him in times and places like these, we are not left the same.

I have colleagues, pastors like me, who think primarily in terms of what a sermon will mean to those in the congregation… that the main way anybody gets anything out of a Sunday morning is through the preaching. They structure the service in such a way that everything leads up to the focal point, which is the message they’ve prepared. I’ve even heard them speak of everything else as ancillary or preliminary to main event… the preaching.

I don’t really have any big problems with that line of thinking. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament reveals that preaching is a vital part of church life as we proclaim the Gospel and build up believers. We take preaching seriously.

But my experience teaches me that there are all sorts of ways that our needs are met on any given Sunday morning. Many from my congregation tell me from time to time how important the sermon was, but there are other times when other parts of the service pack the punch. On a given Sunday, the sermon may have been just fine for any of us, but what really made the difference was something else (singing, words shared by others, choir, something that someone said over coffee and treats after the service). Sometimes we just sort of endure one part of our service because another part is just that good.

For me, what is often the most meaningful isn’t any one thing, but the confluence of several things. I love it when a plan comes together. Sometimes it is the result of our careful planning; we are intentional about how the various elements of our worship services focus on a theme. Other times the confluence is outside of our plans and appears to be the Holy Spirit’s work as God moves people and ideas and events and circumstances into place in powerfully meaningful ways.

I think we may have experienced one of those wonderful confluences on 1/7/07 at my church, with the confluence of:

Christian Lindbeck’s sermon last week
Hebrews 4 – This passage scheduled in our series
Communion – Remembering Christ’s work on our behalf
Epiphany – The historical celebration of the revelation of Jesus
o To the Magi or Wise Men
o Through His miracles
o Up through His baptism in the Jordan River by John the Baptist. That moment when Jesus commenced His ministry, submitting Himself to baptism, where the Trinity was revealed as the Son was identified by the Father in an audible voice, and the Holy Spirit came down, as a dove according to the Gospels, and remained on Him.

Even though I was there the previous Sunday, and paying attention, I went back and listened to Christian’s sermon again. It was one of those that I knew would be good to review. As I listened again I was able to deepen my understanding of the solid Truth Christian delivered. He spoke to the ever present and frustrating problem of sin. He reminded us that we are broken and that we face real, spiritual opposition. And He also reminded us that God knows us, cares for us, Has provided for us, and that we can continue on. Although this is one of those that we didn’t intentionally plan, I think Christian’s sermon provides a great lead in to this passage that comes to us via our series in Hebrews.

Let’s run through this passage.

We can recall that the main theme of Hebrews is that Christ is superior. Reading the three chapters that have gone before reminds us that Christ is superior to angels and Moses, and that Christ offers superior salvation and superior atonement.

Since the Book of Hebrews was written first for the benefit of Jewish believers in Jesus, it is natural that the writer of Hebrews would differentiate Christianity with the ways of the Old Covenant. And not just the ways or beliefs of the Old Covenant, but the Book of Hebrews also calls to mind the history of the Hebrew people, calling these Jewish believers to proceed differently than there own ancestors. In this case, we are specifically called to remember that wilderness generation… our own ancestors in the faith that were called by God out of slavery, delivered from their enemies… yet would not move in to the fullness of God’s promises and the rest He prepared for them in Canaan, the land of promise.

So in the beginning of chapter 4, the Book of Hebrews is saying to us simply this: that just as there was promise waiting for that wilderness generation, there is promise waiting for us. We are called to enter into that promise, rather than allow our fears to keep us out of the promise, resulting in our continued wandering in the wilderness.

We ought to think a moment about this word rest that we see in the passage and contrast it with the story of that wilderness generation. After God had performed extraordinary miracles, they made their way out of slavery in Egypt. God again saved them from Egypt’s armies by providing escape through the Red Sea. He met with His people, making them His covenant people at Sinai, all the while leading them to the edge of His promise. Moses dispatched spies into the land and their reports came back so very positive that God had brought them to a wonderful place… but, the majority report was that they could not conquer those who inhabited the land that God had promised. Instead of faith, there was fear. They believed they would be beaten in war… that they, coming from one captivity, would find themselves in another captivity. They couldn’t do the work, so they turned their backs on God’s promises and choose the wilderness instead.

The problem here is that they understood the next step into God’s promise as work, not rest. Even though God had led and provided every step of the way, they viewed this next step as their step, their work, and they rightly surmised that they couldn’t do it. They were right; they couldn’t do it. They were wrong in not moving forward, don’t misunderstand, but they were right in understanding that they could not prevail. Where they were wrong was in misunderstanding that God was not calling them into work, but rest.

The point is this: If God, the Creator of heaven and earth everything seen and unseen, comes to a point where He speaks that things are finished and rests… AND He calls us into that rest, what more can we do than obey?

The wilderness generation disobeyed, and did not enter that rest. Even though they eventually entered the land, under Joshua’s leadership, they did not enter rest, but continually faced fierce opposition. That opposition continues even today.

But there remains rest for the people of God, a Sabbath-rest, a rest that is God’s rest, a rest that is a result of God’s promise (Hebrews 4:9-11). It is a rest that is more than merely a day that we honor and keep holy as a Sabbath. We can start there; it isn’t that this passage isn’t about a Sabbath day, but it is about so much more

The point here is that God has provided rest for His people and He is calling His people into that rest… superior rest. This superior rest is provided for by the work of the Son. It isn’t merely about ceasing the work we perform for our livelihoods for a day; it is about ceasing our work for salvation for an eternity. The point is that God is calling us to be His and that He has done the work. He is calling us to hear His voice and obey; He is calling us to believe in the power of Christ to be our work for salvation.

There is a really peculiar turn of a phrase here in verse 11. Do you see it?

Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest[1]

Every effort to enter rest? It seems like an oxymoron doesn’t it… work to rest?

I’m reminded of a conversation that I had with a friend this week who has a family vacation in Hawaii scheduled to begin next week. He was complaining, yes complaining, about how much stress he was under to get all his work done before vacation… saying he wasn’t even sure if it was worth it. Of course it didn’t take him long to shake that off; of course it is worth it. Now we don’t have to feel sorry for poor Jim who is heading off to Hawaii, but we can understand what he was getting at. It usually takes some work to rest and relax.

The point in the passage is that it does take effort to discipline ourselves to obey God and receive the rest that He promises.

The rest of this portion of Scripture reminds us that when we are on God’s side, we are on the right side. We’re reminded that we have God’s Word to guide us in His ways. Furthermore, His guidance through His word is more than just superficial, more than surfacy sort of trappings, but it is penetrating guidance. We have more than just a map to guide our steps, but guidance that that penetrates to our thoughts and attitudes.

God guides us fully and knows us fully. I suppose this could be a scary thing, that we can’t hide from God. But really we should, rather, take great encouragement! Our God, who knows us better than we know ourselves still bears with us, still guides us, still loves us, and provides salvation so that we can live these lives in worship to Him, and enjoy His presence forever.

We would do well to apply this passage to opportunities that could be part of our worship together this: Communion and Epiphany. These observances can help us seal the point of this passage.

Communion should always be a reminder of God’s work on our behalf. The bread and the cup of Communion remind us of the price that was paid for our salvation. Work is required to provide for our salvation… but it is work that we are unable to perform. Strive as we may, we are not equipped to secure our place in heaven. Work as we might, we cannot please God in this life.

Communion reminds us that we were purchased, that God sent His Son, Jesus, to be our way. Jesus gave did the work on our behalf so that we may enter into God’s rest. And not just so we can enter His rest on Sundays in church, but His rest is for us each and every day. We may start our workweeks again tomorrow, but the work that brings us peace with God is never ours to pickup again. Jesus paid it all and we are called into God’s rest.

Epiphany gives us opportunity to reflect on the revelation of Jesus. Epiphany gives us opportunity to commit ourselves to both seeking deeper revelations of Jesus, to see Him and experience Him more fully, and also to reveal Him to others through testimony and good work.

You see… the more we realize that Jesus has indeed accomplished eternity’s most important work on our behalf, then our work is turned to honoring, serving, and revealing Him. And this is a work of the Holy Spirit.

As we reflect on Epiphany, we think of the revelation of Jesus at the time of His baptism. Mark 1:

At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him. [2]

Specifically, we recall the Father’s identification of Jesus by a great voice from heaven, identifying Jesus as God’s Son in whom He is well pleased. And we recall that the Holy Spirit rested upon Jesus as He came out of the waters of Baptism.

Later in His ministry, Jesus would breathe that same Holy Spirit into the lives of His followers, and throughout this present age of the Church the Holy Spirit works in us and through us.

So on Epiphany, we ought to look to God for anointing and filling and leading by His Holy Spirit.

The audio version of this post is available on the 1/7/07 entry at http://www.cedarpark.org/thechapel/services

[1] The Holy Bible : New International Version. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Heb 4:11
[2] The Holy Bible : New International Version. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Mk 1:9

Politics Grid

2006-11-01T14:06:00.000-08:00

My oldest son asked me a good question a number of weeks ago: "what is the difference between Democrats and Republicans." I thought about it for a minute and gave him my views in terms of this grid.

It seems to me that we can define our political stance by asking ourselves two questions:

Do we think most people are inherently good or bad?

Do we think most people are generally smart or dumb?

If you think that most people are generally good and smart, then you are a Libertarian. You think that the best outcome is that we should have a really small government so that all the good and smart people can do the right thing. We don't have a lot of Libertarians. It could be because not many people think that most people are good... or not many people think most people are smart. Most Libertarians that I come across seam sort of selfish, so I wonder if most
Libertarians simply think that they are good and smart and to heck with everyone else.

If you think that most people are dumb and bad, then you are a Fascist. The best possible outcome is found through controlling the dumb, evil public. We don't have a lot of Fascists around either... for which we are all thankful.

If you think that most people are generally smart, but if left to their own selfish desires they'll do bad things, then you are a Republican. We (yes we) think that you need enough government to keep us all honest, but that we're smart enough to help ourselves. That's why, for example, we believe in free markets. Build a free system with as few controls as possible and market forces will provide good solutions because the people in the market are generally smart and will make good choices.

If you think that most people are generally good but are just not all that smart, then you are a Democrat. You think that good people aren't reaching their potential because they haven't been given sufficient opportunities to let their goodness shine. You think that people just need more help from a few smart people (you, of course, likely consider yourself to be one of those few smart people).

This view leads me to all sorts of observations... here are just a few:

When Democrats blow it, they rationalize; when Republicans blow it, they resign.

Republican politicians generally don't present themselves as better or smarter than their constituents; Democrats often portray themselves as better and smarter.

I'll probably write some more along these lines in the coming days... what do you think? What is wrong with this approach? What am I missing?

Term Limits

2006-10-10T21:01:00.000-07:00

I’ve always liked the idea of term limits for elected officials and have supported term limits for members of congress. I used to think that term limits were important for the minority party… the basic idea being that it is so hard (and expensive) to unseat an incumbent that the minority party doesn’t get a chance.

I’m still in favor of term limits… but now for I’m thinking it is good for the majority party too. It seems that it is nearly impossible for incumbents to act selflessly; their focus moves from representing their constituents to maintaining their power. They move from pursuing ideals to protecting their seats.

I’m a Republican and I generally vote for Republican candidates. Sometimes I wish I had a better choice, but there is hardly ever another choice when my party has an incumbent. Usually the Democrat is not a choice… so I settle for supporting the least offensive candidate. I’d like to have a choice, and I want that choice to be in the primaries. The only way I’m going to have a choice in the primaries is if there are term limits.

12 years and you’re out (2 terms in the senate or 6 terms in the house).

Unintended Consequences

2006-08-24T12:17:00.000-07:00

Systems Thinking 101 introduces the idea of unintended consequences... the encouragement is always to think carefully about how solving one problem doesn't create another (maybe bigger) problem or set of problems. There's a great example of unintended consequences in today's news. The Seattle Times reports that Washington State's new law that gives special protected status to sexual orientation is being tested in an interesting way. The suit being filed is coming from a straight woman who is suing because she is being discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. The argument goes like this

Her employer offers health benefits to unmarried partners who are of the same gender
She wants health benefits for her live-in boyfriend
The company is discriminating against her by denying her request based on her sexual orientation (if she was shacking up with a woman, the company would gladly pay)

Makes sense to me. Problem is, a ruling in favor of this plaintiff could establish a precedent that would throw most employers in the state into significant financial distress.

I collected signatures to get a referendum on the ballot to get rid of this misguided law... but enough signatures were not collected so now HB2661 is the law of the land. Many characterized us who signed the petition as closed minded, homophobic, bigots. Maybe a few people will now see that at least some of us who signed were just thinking a bit about the larger systems (you know the systems of marriage and family that have served our society well for thousands of years).

IdeaCast

2006-06-26T20:04:00.000-07:00

I podcast the HBR IdeaCast. The current broadcast is among the better ones so far. There are usually two articles. This time the first is on networking and negotiating within organizations, the second puts customer surveys in perspective. At the University we do a fair amount of surveying... I wonder how much of the criticism applies to the survey work we do. I need to heed the advice to simly work harder to talk directly to customers. You can get to the HBR IdeaCast here: www.hbrideacast.org

Axiom #4

2006-06-15T12:23:00.000-07:00

Leadership teams are like suspension bridges...

needing both tension members and compression members.

I was a mechanical engineering major for a while at Purdue... long enough to have one of those classes where you apply what you learn about force vectors to a bridge made out of balsa wood. After you design it and glue it all together, the final exam includes putting it on a contraption that adds incremental units of stress until the whole thing snaps into splinters. Some of our bridges buckled under the pressure (compression members couldn't take it), and others pulled apart (tension members couldn't take it).

I've observed that good leadership teams have both compression members (those types that are sort of solid and can handle work getting piled on their shoulders) as well as tension members (those of us who are happy to be stretched and pulled as we respond to various conditions).

Les Welk has a presentation that runs right along these lines of thinking that he calls "Leading in the Midst of Tension." I've linked it up on my podcast, available at http://www.danneary.org/podcasts

Axiom #3

2006-05-18T15:13:00.000-07:00

A lot of the time
you have to explain to people what they really want.

A little riff in Jamie Smith’s book (page 78) goes right along with this thinking:

Worship should be an event of cross-cultural hospitality. Consider an analogy: When I travel to France, I hope to be made to feel welcome. However, I don’t expect my French hosts to become Americans in order to make me feel at home… I’m expecting things to be different; indeed, I’m looking for just this difference. So also, I think, with hospitable worship: seekers are looking for something our culture can’t provide.

Then Jamie pulls an illustration from a Perspectives article (the article is a quick read, found here) that proves the point through Starbucks’ success. For a number of years I’ve been using this quote from Howard Schultz’s biography:

First, every company must stand for something… Second, you don’t just give customers what they ask for. If you offer them something they’re not accustomed to, something so far superior that it takes a while to develop their palates, you can create a sense of discovery and excitement and loyalty that will bond them to you. It may take longer, but if you have a great product, you can educate your customers to like it rather than kowtowing to mass-market appeal.

Isn’t this just a really straightforward definition of leadership? Leadership is more than just asking people what they want and giving it to them, and it is certainly more than deciding for people and forcing it on them. Leadership holds out a better destination and makes a way to get there.

So… our churches fail when we simply try to christianize what might be popular on television, or in a night club, or in the marketplace, or at a concert or sporting event. We have something better; we have something much better… and if it takes a bit of time and education to “develop their palates” so people can see what they really want, then so be it.

Axiom #2

2006-05-16T19:13:00.000-07:00

I think axiom #2 might be:

God saves us individually, yet saves us to be a people.

I’m about 50 pages into Jamie Smith’s “Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism.” What he wrote on pages 29 and 30 really resonated with me:

… there simply is no Christianity apart from the body of Christ, which is the church. The body is the New Testament’s organic model of community that counters the modernist emphasis on the individual.
The church does not exist for me; my salvation is not primarily a matter of intellectual mastery or emotional satisfaction. The church is the site where God renews and transforms us – a place where the practices of being the body of Christ form us into the image of the Son.
… Nothing is more countercultural than a community serving the Suffering Servant in a world devoted to consumption and violence. But the church will have this countercultural, prophetic witness only when it jettisons its own modernity; in that respect postmodernism can be another catalyst for the church to be the church.

Who knows if it is wiring or training… but modernity comes naturally for me. I’m a fact guy, I crave solutions, and I most easily think more as an individual than as a member of a community. I can find myself in a worship service and be focused entirely on my own consumption of spiritual goods, experiencing no more connection with those around me than the connection I might have with fellow consumers in a random Wal-Mart.

But when I approach the New Testament honestly and understand what it says, I have to agree with Jamie when he says that there is “no Christianity apart from the body of Christ.” We don’t need the church for salvation; we only need Jesus. But in order to live this Christian life, for Christianity, we need to be the church.

I’ve heard a number of Christians say “I don’t need to go to church.” And I’ve heard lots of people explain that they need to go to church for Bible study, and discipleship, and fellowship… we need the stuff we can get at church. Bah! We don’t need to go to church… we need to be the church. When God saves us He saves us individually; yet He saves us to be His people. The only way to be an obedient Christian is to be an active, integrated, caring, useful member of the Body of Christ, in a church.

Seriously

2006-05-12T14:53:00.000-07:00

There are a handful of axioms by which I try to live and work. It could be that axiom #1 is this:

I take my work very seriously,

but I don't take myself seriously.

It isn't that I'm not confident, or don't like myself, or don't care... it is just that I see so many people bogged down in taking their positions, or ideas, or reputation, so very seriously. I'm glad that I have meaningful work, and I'm really glad that I know how lots of other people could do this work... probably better than me. So I work hard and laugh a lot. I bring everything I can to the work, but always realize that there are lots of right ways to do most jobs.

Megachurches Report

2006-03-13T19:41:00.000-08:00

Check out the Megachurches Report, published by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, at http://hirr.hartsem.edu/org/megastoday2005summaryreport.pdf .

I found a few things espescially interesting, including:

The section on eleven misconceptions explored (page 16) is a great list of busted myths. For example, the vast majority of megachurches belong to a denomination (6% are AG).
Washington state is ranked 12th among the states, with 30 megachurches (appendix A, page 20). That is particularly interesting to me since we're told, a lot, that Washington is unchurched. Don't try to tell that to the 37,000 people who show up to worship in those churches next Sunday.
As the education levels of the pastors decrease, the rates of growth of these [mega]churches increase (page 15).
It seems that these days, the musical instrument that indicates the difference between contemporary worship and traditional worship is the piano. The word organ only appears once in this 27 page document.

Vacation

2006-03-01T17:52:00.000-08:00

I habitually underestimate the power of vacations.

I have had a sense that my brain is working better this week (no real proof that my brain is working better this week... just a feeling that my brain is working better). It occurred to me it is probably due to the 5 days and nights I spent with my family over President's Day weekend at Sun Peaks. I think a vacation like this benefits my leadership ability along a couple of lines:

Rest - That's the obvious one, right? I've heard a lot of people say that it takes them weeks, even a month, to really disengage and relax. I think I can disengage and relax in as little as 3 days; I must be lucky. Or it could be that I have really good people around me that can handle whatever comes-up in my absence. I'm also a guy who is glad for technology, as long as I know I can be reached in an emergency, I can easily let the cares of work stay at work. I don't think I ever realize the magnitude of cumulative fatigue until after I'm able to shake it off with real rest.
Connection - I really like my family, especially the four of us in my immediate family. Laurie, the Boyz, and I genuinely enjoy one another's company. We enjoy every bit of vacation, even the long rides in the car. The solid bonds of connection that are strengthened on vacation provide a foundation for everything else I do.
Fresh Perspective - A few days away gave me opportunity to step away from a few projects that were stalled on my desk. When I came back to them, it was a cinch to move them along. It is so easy to get bogged down from time to time.

Successor Story

2006-02-01T22:07:00.000-08:00

I talked with a leader today inside an organization going through a CEO transition. In their case, the current EVP will become President and the President, after a sabbatical, will assume limited responsibilities as Chancellor. There were several points in the story that interested me:

There was certainly success in the organization. Over the past dozen or so years, the size of the organization has increased by a multiple of ten. Their current budget exceeds $125 million.

The current President seemed to initiate the process, signaling a number of years ago that the Board might want to prepare for a transition. They created an EVP position and hired someone to fill the position that could be a successor.

After some time had passed, it was apparent that the EVP could serve as President. The EVP was appointed President-elect for some months.

The new President is now poised to build on the trend of success, while having the former President serving in the organization as Chancellor. The Chancellor will have opportunity to shepherd some favorite projects, continue in fundraising, and transfer key relationships to the new President.

The axiom, to which I referred in the last post, goes “there is no success without a successor.” This case emphasizes that all of this starts with
success. The Board, in this case, was motivated to continue the clear success in the organization. They were motivated to continue the vision of the CEO through a successor, and they were motivated to continue the current president’s influence in a different role.

I think it is easy to see how a similar approach could work in a church situation. Given the right circumstances, including an open minded Board and a secure and self-aware pastor, a transition like this could work. If a pastor is leading a church with success, there's no reason that a pastor couldn't work with a Board to bring-up a successor, and that pastor continue to have some influence in an emeritus role.

P.S. - Check out this article on Bootstrapping (http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/01/the_art_of_boot.html) it is a must read

Success and Successor

2006-01-21T09:12:00.000-08:00

A friend picked up a copy of Ethix, a newsletter/journal for The Institute for Business, Technology & Ethics. In it I found an interview with Mike Volkema, chairman of Herman Miller. In response to a question about his transition from CEO to chairman, Volkema said "my personal belief is that there isn't success without a successor." Many attribute the proliferation of this axiom to Peter Drucker.

I've been thinking about how this little truism applies to church leadership. Some of the questions that come to mind include:

How could this axiom work within the context of my denomination's polity and folkways?

What role should the current pastor have when working with a board?

Do we choose, rather, to say "there is no success without succession"? Is that a better posture?

Should a pastor be limited to working to replicate leadership in general, mentoring leaders for other (or new) churches, or could a pastor have a hand in selecting and mentoring a specific successor?

Is the axiom biblical? It certainly seems to be described in the context of the ministry of Moses, Jesus, and Paul... are these instances merely descriptive or are they prescriptive?

In the coming days I'll post some of my thoughts along these lines. Feel free to chime in with comments.

A New Blog

2006-01-20T18:33:00.000-08:00

I'll keep my Xanga (http://www.xanga.com/evpastor) for more personal blogging... I'm setting this up to do blog specifically on leadership and governance topics.