I want to return to the levels of leadership discussed earlier. John Maxwell's book on Developing the Leader Within You describes various levels of leadership and Collins talks about level 5 leaders. The categorization of leadership into levels seems to be, at least in part, an artificial structure which, while allowing comprehension of some aspects of leadership, may actually limit our understanding by limiting our concepts to the defined structures/levels and causing would be leaders to focus on climbing a stair case ???. What I'm saying is, maybe there aren't different levels of leadership, at least not as has been suggested.

Oh, sure using the level description it is much easier to describe someone by saying "She has only reached level 3 in Leadership." Or, "Now he is a level 5 leader." All of which ignores much of what is . . . and is not happening in the leadership process.

As I have suggested before, Leadership includes initiative and a willingness to take responsibility for decisions. An almost compelling need to exercise initiative. Think about that. It might be said that Leaders who do not exercise initiative are not at a sub-level of leadership but are not leaders at all.

Now obviously, there are individuals who are in positions which are recognized by the world as leadership positions, but that doesn't make the people in those positions leaders, at any level. And what kind of initiative does a leader exhibit? It is initiative toward a goal. The goal may be misguided or well counseled. The goal may be specific or nebulous. However, leaders always take initiative toward a goal. They may have a misunderstanding of the culture, or the factors which may help them achieve this goal, but this is not a matter of a "level" of leadership as much as as maturation and wisdom.

Let's think about leadership in terms of an accumulation of skill sets. The acquisition of those skill sets will enhance the ability of the leader to move the organization toward the goal. Instead, then, of concentrating on moving to a different level of leadership, a better path to effective leadership might be to identify the skill sets needed to be effective, and to acquire those skill sets (which might also include bringing individuals around you who can supplement your weaknesses if the skill set is beyond your ability or would require excessive time to acquire).

What are some of those skill sets? Some of them might be:

• Interpersonal Communications (i.e. people skills)
• Ability to communicate clearly
• Ability to think critically
• Willingness to take risks
• Willingness to make a decision
• Ability to stay focused

You add some more to this list, it's not complete.

In summary, Leadership might be diagrammed better as a center hub with spokes leading to skill sets, instead of a staircase.

Just a thought.

The last chapters of Good to Great focus on the importance of developing a culture of discipline wherein those who comprise the enterprise are disciplined enough to stay focused (i.e. hedgehog concept) and work within that focus for excellence. Couple this with an understanding of the "flywheel concept" indicating that change toward great occurs as momentum is achieved through perseverant effort. The principles from this book have important consequences for those who are wise enough to see their application.

Of course, as has been noted along the way, all of these principles correlate with other leadership principles drawn from other sources. Perhaps the most interesting thing about these principles is the data which supports them. The vast accumulation of this information and the analysis which produced these principles validate many of those principles taught by others.

An interesting deviation might be seen in the leadership principle which comes from those who teach "transformational" leadership. That is, leadership which focuses upon fulfilling the potential of those who are part of the institution, believing thereby that the goals of the organiation will be achieved as well. Although the principles of Good to Great encourage mutual respect and integrity, the emphasis is placed more squarely upon the "right people" who will focus with disciplined energy to achieve that for which they are passionate about.

Do you see the difference? It is in the goal. In transformational leadership, the development and fulfillent of the follower is the goal which ultimately affects the organization. In Good to Great, the focus is on being part of a great vision. For the church, particularly in America, we are easily convinced that the emphasis should be on the person. That the church's role is to fulfill the person, who will then participate in the mission. This practice has led the church into an increasingly self-focused spirial of stagnation. The goal of most churches is not the fulfillment of the Mission of Christ and the effort at Passionately becoming the best in ministry, but upon fulfilling individuals.

This seemingly circular arguent is, I think, at the root of a stagnant church. The focus is upon "me" and "my comfort," instead of Him and His mission. The New Testament church was one of great sacrifice and radical living. Ours is one of "comfortable" existence fiting into a culture which ignores Christian principles and even attacks Christian standards.

What do you think?

Chapter 5 from Good to Great by Jim Collins. In this chapter Collins talks about the "hedgehog concept." He states: "Hedgehogs, on the other hand simplify a complex world into a single organizing idea, a basic principle or concept that unifies and guides everything." (91) Although he avoids using the word Mission or Vision like the plague, the essential concept is the same. What is unique, however, is the three circles, "...a Hedgehog Concept is a simple, crystalline concept that flows from deep understanding about the intersection of the following three circles: 1. What you can be the best in the world at.... 2. What drives your economic engine.... 3. What are you deeply passionate about." (95,96)

According to Collins the overlap of these three circles is the "Hedgehog Concept." Whether these should be seen as circles that overlap or not, the important thing is that these three questions provide a sound starting point for discussion between those "on the bus."

Regarding "What can you be the best at in the world?" Collins writes, "Just because something is your core business--just because you've ebeen doing it for years or perhaps even decadees--does not necessarily mean that you can be the best in the world at it. And if you cannot be the best in the world at your core business, then your core busniess cannot form the basis of yourHedgehog Concept." (99) When applied to churches the guiding mission is often formed without regard to the make-up of the congregation or even the culture and demographics of the the community surrounding the church. Certainly the mission of the church has to be influenced by Matt. 28:19, but just as certainly the individuality of the church itself is important in how Matt. 28:19 is applied.

Regarding "What drives your economic engine?" "...every good-go-great company attained the notion of a single 'economic denominator.'" (104) This one is harder for the church world but boils down to this. What single thing within the organization determines success, and if improved, would show even more success. Of course in the business world, this is an economic factor, however, in the Church world, this question might be better understood as "What produces the greatest number of the deepest disciples?" Each church has to answer this question for itself.

Finally, regarding "What are you deeply passionate about?" "You can't manufacture passion or 'motivate' people to feel passionate. You can only discover what ignites your passion and the passion of those around you." (109) Obviously, for the Church this could be ministry to a specific age group, or other kid of group, or a focus on any aspect of ministry. Often churches are encouraged to look at all the things they do and find something they don't do well and work on bringing that area up to speed, however, Collins' opinion is that a better use of energy is to focus on what you are passionate about - because that is where you will generate the most energy and interest, and do the best job.

As I stated at the first, I think these three questions, if honestly discussed and the brutal facts of the current reality are kept in mind, should provide a solid foundation for a mission statement and focus, which if followed will produce significant results.

The third principle from the book Good to Great, by Jim Collins is that companies/organizations which move from good to great, and stay there, are willing to confront the brutal facts of their environment/cultural/abilities, yet not lose faith. "The good-to-great companies displayed two distinctive forms of disciplined thought. The first, ... is that they infused the entire process with the brutal facts of reality. The second, . . . is that they developed a simple, yet deeply insightful, fame of reference for all decisions. . . . You absolutely cannot make a series of good decisions without first confronting the brutal facts." (69,70) The focus of this principle is to not allow or accept a tepid evaluation which denies reality. By that I mean to continue to say how wonderful we are or how well things are going, when in reality there are indications that things are not going so well. Most would call this "rocking the boat." This type of willingness to confront the brutal truths of the organization and it's environment/culture/abilities and not loose faith is a rare commodity. The ability to stick one's head into the sand and ignore the obvious negatives has allowed many churches to quitely drift into a stagnant, placid pond. Collins writes: " In confronting the brutal facts, the good-to-great companies left themselves stronger and more resilient, not weaker and more dispirited. There is a sense of exhilaration that comes in facing head-on the hard truths and saying. 'We will never give up. We will never capitulate. It might take a long time, but we will find a way to prevail.'" (81) For the church some of those hard truths might include the realiation that their are no families with young children, that senior adults are leaving the church, that the facilities are in such disrepair that visitors won't stay, that the neighborhood has changed and no one from the neighborhood now attends the church, etc. The only way to begin to address the future is to confront the realities of the present.

The third principle from the book Good to Great, by Jim Collins is that companies/organizations which move from good to great, and stay there, are willing to confront the brutal facts of their environment/cultural/abilities, yet not lose faith. "The good-to-great companies displayed two distinctive forms of disciplined thought. The first, ... is that they infused the entire process with the brutal facts of reality. The second, . . . is that they developed a simple, yet deeply insightful, fame of reference for all decisions. . . . You absolutely cannot make a series of good decisions without first confronting the brutal facts." (69,70)

The focus of this principle is to not allow or accept a tepid evaluation which denies reality. By that I mean to continue to say how wonderful we are or how well things are going, when in reality there are indications that things are not going so well. Most would call this "rocking the boat." This type of willingness to confront the brutal truths of the organization and it's environment/culture/abilities and not loose faith is a rare commodity. The ability to stick one's head into the sand and ignore the obvious negatives has allowed many churches to quitely drift into a stagnant, placid pond.

Collins writes: " In confronting the brutal facts, the good-to-great companies left themselves stronger and more resilient, not weaker and more dispirited. There is a sense of exhilaration that comes in facing head-on the hard truths and saying. 'We will never give up. We will never capitulate. It might take a long time, but we will find a way to prevail.'" (81)

For the church some of those hard truths might include the realiation that their are no families with young children, that senior adults are leaving the church, that the facilities are in such disrepair that visitors won't stay, that the neighborhood has changed and no one from the neighborhood now attends the church, etc. The only way to begin to address the future is to confront the realities of the present.

The second principle from the book Good to Great by Jim Collins is: First Who . . . Then What. The premise of this chapter is that it is less important to set a direction than it is to get the right people "on the bus." The "on the bus" concept is used to denote those who are aligned with the nebulous thought of being involved in something great, and who have faith (although I'm not sure Collins would use that word) in the leader.

He states: "The good-to-great leaders understood three simple truths. First, if you begin, with 'who,' rather than 'what,' you can more easily adapt to a changing world. . . . Second, if you have the right people on the bus, the problem of how to motivate and manage people largely goes away. . . . Third, if you have the wrong people, it doesn't matter whether you discover the right direction; you still won't have a great company. Great vision without great people is irrelevant." (42)

Collins' emphasis upon the right people is accurate. It doesn't take much thought to come up with enterprises/ministries which we would consider effective, without also recognizing the importance of the individuals who are part of the team producing that effectiveness. Look at your own life. Consider how much personality plays into effectiveness. Collins states: "If you have the right executives on the bus, they will do everything within their power to build a great company, but not bacause of what they will 'get' for it, but because they simply cannot imagine settling for anything less." (50) Those who invest the most have the greatest likelihood of seeing the best effect, i.e. you get out of anything about the same as you put into it.

Collins' work when applied to the Christian is missing two crucial aspects. The first is calling. God calls into the church a unique blend of individuals which by the world's standards might never be called the "right" people. Herein is the great mystery of God at work in people - His strength is made perfect in weakness. The church has been compared by the Apostle Paul to a body, with the right parts ready to function in coordination and with purpose. That takes us to the second crucial point: spiritual gifts. The gifting of God of divine gifts for the edification of the body (church) is without comparison in the world. The model of these good to great companies who strive so hard to get the right people on the bus is NOT the model of the church. God places the ones HE wants on the bus. Now, as Collins points out sometimes the people on the bus are in the wrong seats and I think this is a definite match to what we see in most churches.

The focus on "who" then "what" is interesting in theory but in actuality, I think it ignores the reality that a certain amount of direction (mission, vision, etc.) has to be in place to attract the right people. Jesus approached some of his disciples and said follow me and I will make you fishers of men. Human nature is drawn to the desire to leave something behind that is greater than themselves. For the Christian and the church the focus of this chapter has to be a realization that God calls the right people - we may not like who he has called and wish for different people, and of course some staff will be hired, but the work of the church is not done by the staff but by the believers who combine their gifts to bring about the mission. The concern then should be focused on an understanding of spiritual gifts and getting the right people in the right seat on this bus going to Great.

Again from the book Good to Great by Jim Collins, one of the principles for those companies which went from Good to Great was the factor of leadership, Level 5 leadership to be exact. The question is, what is Level 5 leadership?

According to Collins one of the key traits of Level 5 leadership is: "ambition first and foremost for the company and concern for its success rather than for one's own riches and personal renown. Level 5 leaders want to see the company even more successful in the next generation, comfortable with the idea that most people won't even know that the roots of that success trace back to their efforts." (25, 26) This placing of the interests of the company above self evidently is an unusual trait. It seems that many of those who are willing to step into leadership do so because they are interested in leaving a legacy which can be directly traced back to their wise leadership. When discussing this with my daughter, she thought the Level 5 leader might be characterized by an individual whose concern for those who work for them, those they lead, is genuine and interested in their best as well as the company. She also postulated that the Level 5 leader might also be one who does not see themselves as the lynchpin of leadership, and often are unaware of their own ability. These facts about Level 5 leaders is born out in the book.

Collings also states that: "...Level 5 leadership is not just about humility and modesty. It is equally about ferocious resolve, an almost stoic determination to do whatever needs to be done to make the company great. ... Level 5 leaders are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce results."(30) The ability to make decisions, often hard and unopular decisions, is not as prevalent as one might assume. Even harder is to stay a course which for the short-run seems as if it will have a irrecoverable effect. Level 5 leaders are able to analyse the data and trends, face the hard truths of the reality and make decisions which keep the company focused and successful.

Finally, "Level 5 leaders look out the window to apportion credit to factors outside themselves when things go well (and if they cannot find a specific person or event to give credit to, they credit good luck.) At the same time, they look in the mirror to apportion responsibility, never blaming bad luck when things go poorly." (35) This is entirely opposite of most leaders who look to blame something or anything for their failure. Now we come full circle back to a concept which Collins refutes, but his research supports (in my opinion): i.e. everything rises and falls on leadership. You probably thought I would come back to this and you were right. The Level 5 leader is aware that what happens can be reacted to, either to blame (wallowing in a victim mentality) or to see the opportunities (moving forward).

See, my take on this Level 5 leaderhip thing can be summed up on these points:

1. Everything rises and falls on leadership - leaders take responsibility.
2. Leaders care about those they work with, wanting them to realize their potential
3. Leaders want results, NEED results, and don't care who gets the credit. (this last part is definitely descriptive of a different kind of leader)
4. Leaders want the best for the company and for things to be better AFTER they leave than even it was when they were there.

Let's think about this

I have just finished what I think may be one of the best books I have ever read. I know, I know, you've heard that before. I am starting through this book again and have already applied some of the principles in my life and in my conversations and consulting work. The book is Good to Great by Jim Collins. One of the remarkable things to come out of the book is the concept that GOOD is the enemy of GREAT. The book looks at various companies which have made the transition from good to great based on clearly defined statistics. Those companies are then examined in the light of other companies equally as good which did not go to great and then principles are pulled from the data. I won't go into the specifics in this post except to say that the concept of GOOD being the enemy of GREAT is almost enough to prompt a reading of the book itself.

Let's face it, "good enough" is as American as apple pie. We are good people who live good lives, work at good jobs and go to good churches. The problem with most of our lives is that they are GOOD. What a statement! Sounds a little like Queen Esther (from the book in the Bible by the name Esther). Our good enough lives and good enough churches/worship have made complacency a religion all of its own - because the anthesis is the one who rocks the boat, invites in chaotic risk and dreams the ridiculous. That sounds almost scary enough to quit rocking and risking and just go with the flow - back to good enough.

Functional Structures

Functional Structures: What are they?
Every organism has some kind of structure which defines it and makes its existence possible. Structure groups cells of various kinds together and not others, making a unique entity. Structure combines elements in ways that produce various compounds, but eliminates others. In some cases, the structures dominate, in others, the structures are all but invisible. In almost every case there are structures within structures, just as within the shape or structure of a leaf, there are structures which dictate photosynthesis, structures which boundary cells, structures which allow nutrients to come in to the leaf, etc. Thus, while we see only a leaf, were it not for the structures which allow it to function, there would be nothing. Every organism, then, not only has some kind of structure which defines it, but that structure itself is composed of other structures, giving it the possibility of functionality.

Systems Background
Probably one of the most freeing concepts to come from Natural Church Development is the truth that we are not responsible for producing fruit. This freedom allows the focus to be placed on areas which are within our ability to affect. By interacting with the eight characteristics of a healthy church we effectively, care for and intentionally enhance the environment so that, as God allows, fruit will come.

What I find interesting is the beauty of the connections. We see it everywhere in nature. The flowers are dependant upon the soil, the water, the air, the sunlight, and even the insects for pollination. Anyone of these factors can drastically affect the flower, and yet in harmony they produce great beauty. Scripture repeatedly uses the body as analogy for the church. I think that’s a wonderful picture into the intricacies of how even a small congregation is connected.
Our bodies truly are carefully and wonderfully made. Composed of cells and linked through a complex system of veins, arteries and nerves, over a structure of bone and cartilage, moved by muscles and independent thought, the body is marvelous. What is amazing is that even with all the complexity, it works wonderfully well. Yet, there are times when the body’s ability to function is impaired through accident, disease, age, etc. Its ability to function in a broader context is hampered by the impairment of function in a smaller context, e.g. sore throat, broken leg, toothache, etc. When this happens, even though only a small part of the body is primarily affected, the entire body’s ability to function is hampered or even destroyed (e.g. the world class skier who suffers an injury which makes it impossible to ever ski again).

In systems theory, all parts of an organism are perceived as connected and have the ability to affect the other parts. From the smallest cell to the defining boundaries, each part affects the whole. Interestingly, according to systems theory, although the strongest part gets recognized and valued, it is the weakest part which has the greatest power within the system. Natural Church Development recognized this truth with its focus upon the “minimum factor.” Regardless of the high levels of performance realized by any of the eight characteristics of a healthy church, the church’s true health depends upon the characteristic with the lowest level. Thus, while a church might have truly inspiring worship and appear healthy to the casual observer, it is the level of the lowest characteristic that dictates whether or not there is real health.

Structures which are Functional
Although “functional structures” is listed as one of the eight characteristics of a healthy church in its own right, it should also be observed that each of the other characteristics either has, or does not have, structures which are functional. Actually, it is the functionality of the structures within each characteristic which determine the health of that characteristic. Let’s look at some examples:

Empowering leadership is leadership which consciously seeks to empower others to their fullest potential. By giving away leadership to individuals equipped to accept responsibility and accountability, God’s work is multiplied. However, for this to happen there must exist structures which identify potential leaders as well as effective training method.

Gift oriented ministry is the heart of lay involvement and true edification of believers. For gift oriented ministry to become a reality there must exist structures which not only help identify gifts, but equip individuals to use their gifts and provide avenues for the use of those gifts.

“Holistic small groups” is considered one of the most important characteristics, yet the existence of these groups, and especially their health, depends totally upon structures which provide the right material, meeting parameters, and equipped leaders.

Inspiring worship seems to flow in the Spirit and brings the congregation into contact with God. What is not seen is the structures which include practice, music selection, and preparation, without which the flow becomes disjointed and distracting.

Loving relationships even require some structure. At the personal level relationships can become so static that without structures which motivate individuals to reach out to others, newcomers will feel excluded and unwanted. At the larger level, structure enables the church to effectively show the compassion which is part of its heart.

Need oriented evangelism is totally dependent upon structures which not only define the needs to be address but the methods of addressing those needs.

We would like to believe that at least passionate spirituality would be exempt from the need for structures. But here as well the need exists. The constant reminders of the prophets to the nation of Israel emphasize the fact that without structure people have a tendency to slip into spiritual apathy. In fact, it might be argued that one of the primary functions of the church itself is to provide the structure which motivates passionate spirituality. Yet, even within the church it doesn’t happen unless there are structures which point to the importance of consistent spiritual formation.

The characteristic of functional structures as used in NCD refers more specifically to the operational structures of organization and leadership, of resources and assets. In this are, at least, it is obvious that structure is imperative.

Identification Process
Since structures underlie each of the characteristics, how do we identify those structures, and whether or not they are truly functional?
After determining the characteristic with the “minimum factor” it is time to begin analyzing its underlying structures. In its most simplistic form, the steps to this analysis are:
1. Pray for guidance is selecting an analysis team
2. Call the team together and:
a. Pray together more than a simple prayer for God’s direction and guidance.
b. Appoint a recorder to record the information. This might seem obvious but this is VERY important.
c. Brainstorm together ONLY focusing upon those structures which currently exist to support that characteristic.
d. Work down the resultant list one by one discussing each point’s functionality. This is not the time to resource change, so stay focused. Place a triangle next to items which are not considered functional and a star next to items which are considered functional.
e. Send the team home with instructions to pray and meditate upon structures which will make this characteristic more functional.
f. At the next meeting begin again with prayer.
g. It is probable that this step may consume more than one meeting. Depending upon the size of the team it might speed things up to divide the team and assign each one certain points to discuss and come back with recommendations, which will also have to be discussed and modified before a consensus is reached.
3. Implementation of any recommendations MUST occur within the functional structures of the church as a whole and with the full knowledge and support of leadership.

Cautions
There are no formulistic solutions to church health. Two things which all solutions will have in common is prayer and a willingness to look objectively at what is and what might be.
Change, although inevitable, is studiously avoided by the church in general and can be threatening. The mere identification of a “minimum factor” will seem like heresy to some and a personal attack to others. Leaders would do well to understand the dynamics of influence and their own personal investment in relationships before challenging the security of entrenched pockets of power.

On May 11, 2004 I wrote that Leadership could be defined by two characteristics: Leaders participate and Leaders take responsibility. These two characteristics, are foundational to the nature of a leader . . . and both can be learned. Participation is the will to become involved. The will to choose to enter into the task at hand. Leaders will participate. They choose to contribute their skills and abilities to the mission, even to the defining of that mission and the strategic planning AND EXECUTION of those plans. Leaders Participate by choice. For some that choice may seem to be a natural expression of their personality, however, anyone can choose to participate and discipline themselves to enter into the fray. Whether it is the discussion in a classroom, participation in a local church project, or heading up a major project at work - those who participate are more likely to become involved in the leadership of that activity than those who sit back and wait.

Along the same lines is taking responsibility. Let's face it - most of the world is looking for someone else to take responsibility. Not the leader. She is willing to accept the responsibility for the success or failure of a project because she knows the gifts and abilities she brings to the table and is confident in her ability to succeed. The willingness to take responsibility characterizes those who are unwilling to simply allow and accept mediocrity. When her world slows to a stagnant point this leader will take responsibility for her own actions and move forward to a better place and a better solution.

Of course this conversation leads us to observe that there ARE gifts and abilities which are also part of the Leaders quiver. This will be the subject of another post.

So, I'm talking with a friend today who was basically lied to by his boss about why a certain component of his salary package could not be offered, only to find out it had been offered to the previous person to hold the same position. He was understandably upset and thwarted in his desire to confront the "boss" because the boss was out of town for a couple of days.

I asked him what he wanted as a result of the confrontation. He said that he wanted the boss to promise to be truthful in the future. I shared with him the story of the scorpion and the frog and suggested that a promise from a scorpion is worth exactly nothing if it runs contrary to the nature of the scorpion. So, now what do you want from the confrontation; an apology? an increase in your salary package? what.

The bottom line is that confrontation without a clear purpose is usually a matter of salving the ego as much as it is about justice. And if it is about ego, then one has to examine one's motive for the work. If your motive is because this is your calling - then confrontation only has value as it secures justice, not just to make you feel like you stood up for yourself. This is not a philosophy for the individual with insecurity issues. Can you rise above your own ego to pursue the best path for the organization? Yet, even in calling there is a line where one cannot turn away from situations which require a stand to be made. How one makes that stand, however, IS within your power and many do not take into account the power of their words, nor the long term effect of a hastily spoken word. Judgement as to another's motives is always risky at best and often puts you in the position of the pot calling the kettle black. Thank you very much Mr. Pot. You are welcome, Mr. Kettle.

However, if your motive for being at the organization is NOT a calling but merely a step toward a personal goal, confrontation may be of greater necessity, yet again, the choice of the wording is crucial to a satisfactory resolution. It seems that some people have an uncanny knack of selecting words which cause others to respond with anger and a desire to hurt back.

Coming back to the issue cited at the beginning of this post. Integrity in leadership cannot be overstated. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and let what you say be the truth.