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.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Monday, November 17, 2008
Keep Your Ideas to Yourself
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?).
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?).
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Rose or Cabbage?
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.
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.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Parthenocarpic Leadership
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.
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.
Friday, October 17, 2008
You can make him drink, but you have to lead a horse to water.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Partners
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.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Servanthood
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)
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)
Thursday, June 12, 2008
MFA the New MBA
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:
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
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Served or Followed
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.
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.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Slanted?
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.
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.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Nonnegotiables
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:
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
Friday, January 25, 2008
Rule - Govern - Lead
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Leaders Lead
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.
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.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Charette on Servant Leadership
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
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Is Level 5 Leadership Servant Leadership?
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.
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.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Servant Leadership
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:
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.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
From One Hand to Another
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:
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
Monday, July 09, 2007
Surprises
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.
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.
Friday, May 25, 2007
What’s in a Name?
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Foot Washer
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)