Yes, of course, leadership is stewardship. We should all get that idea rather quickly. But have you ever thought of it from the angle of stewardship being on of the greatest gifts ever given to us - therefore making those who are in positions of leadership in a place of great joy and responsibility?
I've observed many leaders over the years in work, home, and other environments miss this completely. The question must be ask... if you're given a position of leadership, why wouldn't you want to run with that well?
Leadership is a responsibility of stewardship and those of us given that opportunity need to take full advantage of the perspective in that role. And may we never forget that all stewardship is temporary - that's why it's called stewardship. We are entrusted for a season to lead something well and to pass it along to the next team/person well.
May we run well with leadership as we recognize that we are entrusted with it only for a season - there is great strength in realizing our time is limited.
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Monday, October 5, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Fight It, Fund It
I was listening to a leadership session and heard Andy Stanley's phrase here which really stuck with me.
"Fight It or Fund It"
That's the decision many of us will face on a daily basis. It's really quite interesting in scope of when market innovations will be birthed and influence culture - they are always from younger and more innovative people. This starts with the assumption that we need to be humble to allow others, and especially younger people, to have a say in the future. Here's whats true regardless - what those people are doing is going to happen anyways - it always has and always will!
That's where we have the decision to either fight it or fund it. The concept is simple. Where will you land? Will you be one who is fighting for old methods and systems that are out of date or will you challenge even your own comfort and allow fresh method to be launched? Funding someone else's idea may be your greatest legacy... don't miss the opportunity.
"Fight It or Fund It"
That's the decision many of us will face on a daily basis. It's really quite interesting in scope of when market innovations will be birthed and influence culture - they are always from younger and more innovative people. This starts with the assumption that we need to be humble to allow others, and especially younger people, to have a say in the future. Here's whats true regardless - what those people are doing is going to happen anyways - it always has and always will!
That's where we have the decision to either fight it or fund it. The concept is simple. Where will you land? Will you be one who is fighting for old methods and systems that are out of date or will you challenge even your own comfort and allow fresh method to be launched? Funding someone else's idea may be your greatest legacy... don't miss the opportunity.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Learning from Experience
There's a common and true belief that we learn from our experiences. For the most part this is a very true and accurate statement. The enemy of this statement is time. In short bursts of time it's easy for us to learn from our experiences both good and bad. It's easy to reflect on what's happened and navigate how to move forward. But as time moves along we forget the decisions that lead us to various ends. This is the old phrase of "those who do now know the past are doomed to repeat it". But how does all of this effect us in our organizations?
The challenge is make the best decisions possible with the best desired outcome in mind while honoring all those involved and effected by our decisions. The challenge might be to properly capture the reasons by the decisions we made so that as time moves along we can and others can learn from the motive and the result.
We are all aware that most of the decisions we make today in business most likely spread their wings of influence in the years that follow. How many of us can remember the motive behind a decision that's now years old? Not many of us.
The goal here is to be intentional, the plan well, and the share wisdom as best possible with those who will come up after us. We have a great opportunity to share and coach others in this area as they are making decisions and mapping a future path for their efforts. May this be a challenge to us all that we alone are not savvy enough to learn from our own experience and that we desperately need external forces to help up learn those valuable lessons.
The challenge is make the best decisions possible with the best desired outcome in mind while honoring all those involved and effected by our decisions. The challenge might be to properly capture the reasons by the decisions we made so that as time moves along we can and others can learn from the motive and the result.
We are all aware that most of the decisions we make today in business most likely spread their wings of influence in the years that follow. How many of us can remember the motive behind a decision that's now years old? Not many of us.
The goal here is to be intentional, the plan well, and the share wisdom as best possible with those who will come up after us. We have a great opportunity to share and coach others in this area as they are making decisions and mapping a future path for their efforts. May this be a challenge to us all that we alone are not savvy enough to learn from our own experience and that we desperately need external forces to help up learn those valuable lessons.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Baseline of Excellence
I was working through a strategy plan for an organization and realized something quite simple yet often ignored in organizational culture... what do we measure ourselves on?
The predicament I observed is that we often we default to a scale that looks like this three stage model:
Poor - Status quo - Excellence
Now, I would imagine that most of us would agree that we desire to achieve excellence in our work, projects, programs, leadership, relationships, etc. But we fail to measure off the right index.
Most charters will begin with the baseline of excellence... this is where we hope to reach. But what happens is that as we grow there's a gap in leadership accountability and our baseline shifts from excellence to status quo and all of the sudden all our efforts begin looking great because of our baseline for measurement.
Lesser leadership will gravitate toward presentation of performance based on the status quo. Great leadership will always strive toward measurement on excellence. You can recognize this leadership in vision, challenge, hope, excitement, and engagement.
This is our challenge as leaders... to identify the core of excellence in our field (an ever changing goal) and draw our teams to this end. Much like Kouzes and Posner note in The Leadership Challenge, leaders must challenge the process.
The predicament I observed is that we often we default to a scale that looks like this three stage model:
Poor - Status quo - Excellence
Now, I would imagine that most of us would agree that we desire to achieve excellence in our work, projects, programs, leadership, relationships, etc. But we fail to measure off the right index.
Most charters will begin with the baseline of excellence... this is where we hope to reach. But what happens is that as we grow there's a gap in leadership accountability and our baseline shifts from excellence to status quo and all of the sudden all our efforts begin looking great because of our baseline for measurement.
Lesser leadership will gravitate toward presentation of performance based on the status quo. Great leadership will always strive toward measurement on excellence. You can recognize this leadership in vision, challenge, hope, excitement, and engagement.
This is our challenge as leaders... to identify the core of excellence in our field (an ever changing goal) and draw our teams to this end. Much like Kouzes and Posner note in The Leadership Challenge, leaders must challenge the process.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Benchmarking Breakdown
Many organizations have fallen into an unhealthy trap in their view of benchmarking. Just as there are many great resources in business development... there are just as many ways to use them improperly. I've noticed organizations using benchmarking as a technique for their strategy and product development. Benchmarking was never intended to serve that purpose. This is a tool that helps organizations understand their market landscape and to learn other's best practices in certain pieces of their market. But the tool should stop here... this is not a means for determining strategic direction.
But why isn't it a tool for strategic direction? Simple. Strategic direction should strive to be unique, customized to clientele, principle-aligned, and specific to markets in a given time. Benchmarking starts with someone else's strategy and deducts from that point. Great vision is never a deduction. Great vision is always pioneering in method.
Where is benchmarking most useful? I would suggest that the most beneficial means for benchmarking is to explore principle, because principle never changes. But we must strive for what's unique and specific to our market - we'll never get that from someone else. In large part, this is our calling and our responsibility... to bear the image of our Creator in how we create and innovate for the future.
Fresh method and unique vision are both some of the greatest points of blessing given to us. May we never lower leadership to the deduction of benchmarking as a foundational practice. The people we serve deserve far better than that.
But why isn't it a tool for strategic direction? Simple. Strategic direction should strive to be unique, customized to clientele, principle-aligned, and specific to markets in a given time. Benchmarking starts with someone else's strategy and deducts from that point. Great vision is never a deduction. Great vision is always pioneering in method.
Where is benchmarking most useful? I would suggest that the most beneficial means for benchmarking is to explore principle, because principle never changes. But we must strive for what's unique and specific to our market - we'll never get that from someone else. In large part, this is our calling and our responsibility... to bear the image of our Creator in how we create and innovate for the future.
Fresh method and unique vision are both some of the greatest points of blessing given to us. May we never lower leadership to the deduction of benchmarking as a foundational practice. The people we serve deserve far better than that.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Change Without Compromise
I was fortunate to have some time with Brad Powell earlier this week, the pastor of NorthRidge Church in Michigan. I loved hearing his heart and passion for change, truth, and leadership. It was obvious to see the profound depth of perspective he has in leading change and challenging other to do the same.
Brad's theme is "Change Without Compromise" which should be an encouragement to us all. This theme sums up so many great points, especially the division of two things that certainly scare many people... change and compromise. Truth is, we can make epic changes without compromising our beliefs and foundations. Matter of fact, we are commanded to as Image-Bearers of God. Change, creativity, fresh look, innovation - this should be our market and one of our strongest abilities.
It was a great joy getting to talk to Brad about how his church has shifted in demographic and age, how he is almost more comfortable working with younger leaders than older now because of passion he has for their development, about principles that never change and the means to exegete them, and his perspectives on current models of ministry many of us have become familiar with.
There is great hope for us all... for churches and organizations alike. We must seek out change without compromise and we must have the leaders to take us there. This is our calling, this is our duty... to advance our work even further in means that engage the hearts and minds of people. The opportunities are rich...
Check out Brad's book Change your Church for Good - The Art of Sacred Cow Tipping on Amazon
http://changewithoutcompromise.com/
Brad's theme is "Change Without Compromise" which should be an encouragement to us all. This theme sums up so many great points, especially the division of two things that certainly scare many people... change and compromise. Truth is, we can make epic changes without compromising our beliefs and foundations. Matter of fact, we are commanded to as Image-Bearers of God. Change, creativity, fresh look, innovation - this should be our market and one of our strongest abilities.
It was a great joy getting to talk to Brad about how his church has shifted in demographic and age, how he is almost more comfortable working with younger leaders than older now because of passion he has for their development, about principles that never change and the means to exegete them, and his perspectives on current models of ministry many of us have become familiar with.
There is great hope for us all... for churches and organizations alike. We must seek out change without compromise and we must have the leaders to take us there. This is our calling, this is our duty... to advance our work even further in means that engage the hearts and minds of people. The opportunities are rich...
Check out Brad's book Change your Church for Good - The Art of Sacred Cow Tipping on Amazon
http://changewithoutcompromise.com/
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Delegation Misconception
Very interesting to me how the idea of delegation is so poorly defined and used in today's world. I believe we mistake the idea of delegation and simply passing off work and assigning it to others. We go even further to reward people who can "delegate" well and consider them leaders.
This is all very systemic in our poor definition of leadership in today's world. Our role as leaders is never to delegate work, but to equip and prepare those people around us. Do leaders share work? Of course, but there's an intent at hand. Great leaders see all sharing of work and good delegation as an opportunity to equip, enable, empower someone.
The greatest investment we can ever make is in people; and we all know that we can't hold on to people forever. So why not make them the best we can while we have them - as a principle of good stewardship.
Delegation is an opportunity to lead and to lead others well - but it must be in terms of equipping them with the tools to be successful and the heart to see them succeed. True delegation is the sign of a great leader. Poor delegation is a sign of no leadership at all.
Take an inventory of your engagement of your team members and consider if you are simply passing off tasks or truly working to equip them well.
This is all very systemic in our poor definition of leadership in today's world. Our role as leaders is never to delegate work, but to equip and prepare those people around us. Do leaders share work? Of course, but there's an intent at hand. Great leaders see all sharing of work and good delegation as an opportunity to equip, enable, empower someone.
The greatest investment we can ever make is in people; and we all know that we can't hold on to people forever. So why not make them the best we can while we have them - as a principle of good stewardship.
Delegation is an opportunity to lead and to lead others well - but it must be in terms of equipping them with the tools to be successful and the heart to see them succeed. True delegation is the sign of a great leader. Poor delegation is a sign of no leadership at all.
Take an inventory of your engagement of your team members and consider if you are simply passing off tasks or truly working to equip them well.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Manage Around - Leading Through
Well, back at it with some postings - ready for another good run of topics!
I would like to discuss the ideas of managing around people and leading through people. This may sound odd, but rather quite simple. Here's the principle - we can do one of two things with those we work with/for... work around them or lead through them. I'll unpack each one separately here...
By managing around someone, this is where someone simply doesn't fit for one reason or another in an organization and rather than making the right decision to move that person, we simply manage around them.
Leading through someone implies that we lead, that we work through the situation, and that we make the necessary changes that may be needed.
Honestly, it's easier to manage around people. We don't have to worry about disappointment, letting people go, disrupting things, etc.
But that's not what's lost - what's most likely lost is the respect of our best people. See, here's what happens. When you're best people see the weak links being "managed around" it translates as direct disrespect to them, whether they acknowledge it or not. And in so being, many times we lose our best because we don't make the hard decisions.
It all comes back to respect. The best way to respect the people who are not doing a great job might be to let them go. The best way to respect your best people is to provide them the best team possible.
Consider who you might be managing around and seek advice on how to make the necessary changes. I'm not saying they need to be let go; simply not ignored. Everyone wins if we don't mess this one up.
I would like to discuss the ideas of managing around people and leading through people. This may sound odd, but rather quite simple. Here's the principle - we can do one of two things with those we work with/for... work around them or lead through them. I'll unpack each one separately here...
By managing around someone, this is where someone simply doesn't fit for one reason or another in an organization and rather than making the right decision to move that person, we simply manage around them.
Leading through someone implies that we lead, that we work through the situation, and that we make the necessary changes that may be needed.
Honestly, it's easier to manage around people. We don't have to worry about disappointment, letting people go, disrupting things, etc.
But that's not what's lost - what's most likely lost is the respect of our best people. See, here's what happens. When you're best people see the weak links being "managed around" it translates as direct disrespect to them, whether they acknowledge it or not. And in so being, many times we lose our best because we don't make the hard decisions.
It all comes back to respect. The best way to respect the people who are not doing a great job might be to let them go. The best way to respect your best people is to provide them the best team possible.
Consider who you might be managing around and seek advice on how to make the necessary changes. I'm not saying they need to be let go; simply not ignored. Everyone wins if we don't mess this one up.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Productivity or Control
Do these two words create a dichotomy in the work place? Can you have both? Or are they mutually exclusive?
I'm just asking the question here but allow me to paint the picture. If we have an environment that maximized productivity, then do we have to relinquish control of that environment to reach that high level of fresh productivity? If we desire an environment of high control (or any control for that matter) then are we diminishing the opportunity for higher productivity?
I believe the solution is quite simple, but the ideologies surrounding this are difficult to accept. What do we believe are the benefits of control? Have we ever measured higher productivity because of controlled environments? Maybe we should ask it like this... are we honoring people well in creating controlled environments?
The goal here is really quite simple... it is the productivity of our team. That's the goal or at least it should be for our companies. But we're forced to ask two very difficult questions. (1) Does control actually give us any greater productivity results? (2) Are we more concerned with control (as a measure of productivity) over true productivity?
I'll ask again... productivity and control... are they mutually exclusive?
I'm just asking the question here but allow me to paint the picture. If we have an environment that maximized productivity, then do we have to relinquish control of that environment to reach that high level of fresh productivity? If we desire an environment of high control (or any control for that matter) then are we diminishing the opportunity for higher productivity?
I believe the solution is quite simple, but the ideologies surrounding this are difficult to accept. What do we believe are the benefits of control? Have we ever measured higher productivity because of controlled environments? Maybe we should ask it like this... are we honoring people well in creating controlled environments?
The goal here is really quite simple... it is the productivity of our team. That's the goal or at least it should be for our companies. But we're forced to ask two very difficult questions. (1) Does control actually give us any greater productivity results? (2) Are we more concerned with control (as a measure of productivity) over true productivity?
I'll ask again... productivity and control... are they mutually exclusive?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Maintaining Constructive Relationships
Maintaining constructive relationships is vital for work place encouragement and respect. Let’s look at each of the three words individually first.
Maintaining requires a constant motion toward something. It’s an action and an intention that must be pursued.
Constructive directs us toward a positive outcome and intent. It’s keeping the end goal in mind.
Relationships are our meaningful interactions with other people on a constant basis.
The beauty of this principle is the combination of these three words. We must proactively work toward bettering each of our working relationships. Relationships require work and they require opportunity to be challenged to make better. Discussion with each other should be constructive as we seek to honor those we work with. And we must always be proactive to reach these goals for the benefit of others.
On the opposite side; we all can relate to the frustrations of not being respected well and with conversations that were not constructive to us or to our development. Our goal is not how we’ve been treated… rather it’s how we can best serve and honor those around us.
This raises the bar for a much greater opportunity for success and encouragement of people. Give it a chance to work for you…
Maintaining requires a constant motion toward something. It’s an action and an intention that must be pursued.
Constructive directs us toward a positive outcome and intent. It’s keeping the end goal in mind.
Relationships are our meaningful interactions with other people on a constant basis.
The beauty of this principle is the combination of these three words. We must proactively work toward bettering each of our working relationships. Relationships require work and they require opportunity to be challenged to make better. Discussion with each other should be constructive as we seek to honor those we work with. And we must always be proactive to reach these goals for the benefit of others.
On the opposite side; we all can relate to the frustrations of not being respected well and with conversations that were not constructive to us or to our development. Our goal is not how we’ve been treated… rather it’s how we can best serve and honor those around us.
This raises the bar for a much greater opportunity for success and encouragement of people. Give it a chance to work for you…
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Focus on the Situation/Issue/Behavior
A friend and mentor spent time with me a while back explaining some very simple principles, but principles that ended up shaping much of the way I approach life and work environments.
One of these is the principle of focusing on the situation/issue/behavior and not the person.
I write about such principles not because people don’t know them but because people fail to apply them.
This principle is simple as well but extremely important. We must work to do just that… focus on the situation, issue, or behavior… that’s the issue at hand. Yes, there is always a person or group of people behind things but it’s the foundational issues that we as leaders are responsible to extract.
Remember this… it’s the belief that’s most important to address, not the behavior. Behaviors, issues, and situations all stem from beliefs and understanding. If you’re able to address the foundation then the behavior change is simple.
Shifting belief is no easy task. But it is the leaders responsibility to invest well in people and helping them see these foundations is doing just that.
The other key point of this principle is the charge for the leader to pull out the core issue from the person. This is healthy conflict. This is also honoring to the person. It creates a level of separation between the action and the person. Criticism is difficult for many people to take and there is a healthy/honoring way to go about doing just that.
Simply give yourself a moment to process before address issues on your team and think how you might address the situation/issue/behavior without attacking the person.
One of these is the principle of focusing on the situation/issue/behavior and not the person.
I write about such principles not because people don’t know them but because people fail to apply them.
This principle is simple as well but extremely important. We must work to do just that… focus on the situation, issue, or behavior… that’s the issue at hand. Yes, there is always a person or group of people behind things but it’s the foundational issues that we as leaders are responsible to extract.
Remember this… it’s the belief that’s most important to address, not the behavior. Behaviors, issues, and situations all stem from beliefs and understanding. If you’re able to address the foundation then the behavior change is simple.
Shifting belief is no easy task. But it is the leaders responsibility to invest well in people and helping them see these foundations is doing just that.
The other key point of this principle is the charge for the leader to pull out the core issue from the person. This is healthy conflict. This is also honoring to the person. It creates a level of separation between the action and the person. Criticism is difficult for many people to take and there is a healthy/honoring way to go about doing just that.
Simply give yourself a moment to process before address issues on your team and think how you might address the situation/issue/behavior without attacking the person.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Debating Character
I hesitated writing on this subject but it's been weighing on me for sometime now.
I have found the presidential debates quite interesting in recent weeks. Sure, I have my political biases, but leaving that aside for the moment I would like to take notice at what's addressed and what isn't.
I find it ironic that each of these candidates espouses a plan for change and what they intend to do once elected. It doesn't take a brilliant person to determine that each of these men did not actually sit down and write their own plan... but rather a team of people wrote these plans for them. Of course, the plans do reflect policy positions of each respective person, but let's be honest. The greatest driver in content for these plans is political and for the purpose of persuasion.
Now, are these plans well written and potentially worthwhile for this nation? Sure, they very well may be. But let's address the next issue. How many presidents actually get to implement their plan? Is that the role of the US President by terms of our Constitution? It's not.
So then, why are we debating a plan that has little relevancy to who these men truly are?
We've completely missed what's most important. Character. Character is what draws us to people to follow them in the long run. Character is what determines how we will act in response to things that aren't "planned". Character is what sets us apart from others and positions us to lead others well. And character is the foundation for any person to truly follow another.
But we don't discuss character. How come? It seems as though the American people don't care that much about it? Or do they? What if we could have a debate on character? What if we could see who these men are for their character and understand how they will respond to situations?
I'll leave with this thought. Think on times in your life where you've been most willing to follow someone. The times when you've found it easy to follow someone. What stood out? Was it their charisma or their character? Which of those traits most concerns you for someone you would trust and consider a friend?
Why don't we try debating character next time?
I have found the presidential debates quite interesting in recent weeks. Sure, I have my political biases, but leaving that aside for the moment I would like to take notice at what's addressed and what isn't.
I find it ironic that each of these candidates espouses a plan for change and what they intend to do once elected. It doesn't take a brilliant person to determine that each of these men did not actually sit down and write their own plan... but rather a team of people wrote these plans for them. Of course, the plans do reflect policy positions of each respective person, but let's be honest. The greatest driver in content for these plans is political and for the purpose of persuasion.
Now, are these plans well written and potentially worthwhile for this nation? Sure, they very well may be. But let's address the next issue. How many presidents actually get to implement their plan? Is that the role of the US President by terms of our Constitution? It's not.
So then, why are we debating a plan that has little relevancy to who these men truly are?
We've completely missed what's most important. Character. Character is what draws us to people to follow them in the long run. Character is what determines how we will act in response to things that aren't "planned". Character is what sets us apart from others and positions us to lead others well. And character is the foundation for any person to truly follow another.
But we don't discuss character. How come? It seems as though the American people don't care that much about it? Or do they? What if we could have a debate on character? What if we could see who these men are for their character and understand how they will respond to situations?
I'll leave with this thought. Think on times in your life where you've been most willing to follow someone. The times when you've found it easy to follow someone. What stood out? Was it their charisma or their character? Which of those traits most concerns you for someone you would trust and consider a friend?
Why don't we try debating character next time?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Think Steps, Not Products
Andy Stanley has a brilliant phrase, "Think Steps, Not Programs"
I'm going to build on that idea, but change it a bit according to the consulting world.
Here is the principle... we have to approach working with clients and groups as leading them through steps toward a goal and not trying to deliver just a product.
In many ways, anyone can deliver a product, walk away, and call that a success. But if we are to truly deliver value to our clients then we need to lead them closer to their defined goal.
Yes, these still come out as products, but the great "products" are much more than than... they are leading clients toward this greater goal.
Think of it like this. If I were to take you climbing a mountain our goal most likely would be to summit that mountain. You employ me to help you achieve that goal. Now I could help lay out a great plan or I could hike with you and lead you in the right direction to achieve success.
Just remember that it is always best for us to think steps and not product. If we succeed in leading our clients through the proper steps then we should also succeed in leading them to successful products.
Challenge: Think Steps, Not Programs
I'm going to build on that idea, but change it a bit according to the consulting world.
Here is the principle... we have to approach working with clients and groups as leading them through steps toward a goal and not trying to deliver just a product.
In many ways, anyone can deliver a product, walk away, and call that a success. But if we are to truly deliver value to our clients then we need to lead them closer to their defined goal.
Yes, these still come out as products, but the great "products" are much more than than... they are leading clients toward this greater goal.
Think of it like this. If I were to take you climbing a mountain our goal most likely would be to summit that mountain. You employ me to help you achieve that goal. Now I could help lay out a great plan or I could hike with you and lead you in the right direction to achieve success.
Just remember that it is always best for us to think steps and not product. If we succeed in leading our clients through the proper steps then we should also succeed in leading them to successful products.
Challenge: Think Steps, Not Programs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
