Wednesday, September 28, 2005

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.

Saturday, September 17, 2005

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.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

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.

Saturday, September 10, 2005

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.

Friday, September 02, 2005

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