Following up on yesterday’s post that outlined some of the ingredients for Elijah’s burnout, I’m glad it was not the end of the story; I’m glad that Elijah was proven wrong. God had an answer. God had a remedy.
Refreshment (food and rest)
First God attended to Elijah’s most basic needs. What do you need when you are tired and hungry?
Then he [Elijah] lay down under the tree and fell asleep. All at once an angel touched him and said, “Get up and eat.” He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.
The angel of the LORD came back a second time and touched him and said, “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God. There he went into a cave and spent the night. (1 Ki 19:5–9)
I suspect that a lot of you are a lot like me. When I’m desperate to do something extraordinary, I forget to take care of the ordinary. The first to go for me is recreation, then exercise, then nutrition (I didn’t say food… food and nutrition are two entirely different things)… the final thing to go, for me, is good sleep.
I know for others it may be in a different order, but in desperation to do something extraordinary, we forget to take care of the ordinary… and the ordinary usually includes of recreation, exercise, nutrition, and sleep.
When finding ourselves in a state of burnout, we probably need to start with regeneration at the most basic level just like Elijah did.
Reflection
Once getting his basic needs attended to, Elijah had to think. Picking up in verse 9 of 1 Kings 19:
And the word of the LORD came to him: “What are you doing here, Elijah?”
This wasn’t a call for information; it was a call for reflection. Elijah’s response reveals something of what Elijah was wrestling with:
And the word of the LORD came to him: “What are you doing here, Elijah?” He replied, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.” (1 Ki 19:9–10)
An important ingredient in the remedy for burnout is to lay it all out before the Lord. We need to confess our disappointments, and confess our sin. We need to identify how we see things and, even if we don’t see things clearly or even rightly, we ought to lay it before the Lord.
Renewal
Listen to what God says, and does, in response to Elijah’s reflection.
The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave. (1 Ki 19:11-13)
Everything had changed. God fixed it all up and Elijah was able to return home in safety. Well… no… not exactly.
After Elijah had witnessed the powerful wind, earthquake and fire, yet found God in the gentle whisper, that still small voice of assurance heard with the ears of faith, God asked Elijah the very same question. And Elijah, a second time, gave the very same answer.
And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”
He replied, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.” (1 Ki 19:12-14)
I’m sure I’ve read this many times, of course, but when I read it again more carefully in this study, I first thought I misread it. Surely something should have been different in the response after meeting God. But the answer was the same, and the circumstances were the same too.
I think we find ourselves in similar positions, waiting on God to do something extraordinary and fantastic like winds and earthquakes and fire that reduce mountains to rubble. We wait on the sidelines for God to get in there and dramatically change the circumstances before we’re willing to get back into the game.
But God didn’t change the circumstances that day for Elijah; He changed Elijah. Elijah didn’t need God to fix things; Elijah needed to fix his eyes on God. There was no renovation of Israel that day, but there was a rebirth and renewal of Elijah.
Redeployment
God’s final ingredient for the remedy for Elijah’s burnout was redeployment. The answer is the same for all of us; eventually we need to get back to work.
God told Elijah to anoint kings and anoint and train a successor. The circumstances hadn’t changed and the work needed to continue. Elijah never was alone, and God’s call reminded Elijah that he shouldn’t be alone. Kings were to rise up to do their work, there were thousands reserved by God himself that had not bent a knee to Baal, and Elisha would be Elijah’s successor. The work that Elijah thought was his alone would continue with the help of many… and continue after Elijah was gone, living on through his successor.
From our position of burnout, are we merely going to pray from the sidelines and ask God to change our circumstances? Are we going to pray down fire from heaven, like the fire that consumed the sacrifice or the fire that passed by Elijah on Mount Horeb? Are we going to pray for a wind to blow away the mountains in our path, or an earthquake to reduce the mountains to rubble?
Is that the kind of answer we want? Could God do it? Might He do it?
Or could there be something better, something higher? Isn’t the lesson learned here that the certainty of knowing that we are God’s and He is with us, a certainty that comes from the whisper of God heard by the ears of faith, is God’s best?
(This article was adapted from a talk at Pleasant Bay Church 11/30/11 available on iTunes here)
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
Ingredients of Burnout
Burnout has been a recurring theme in my conversations with leaders over the past several weeks. For many it appears to be just the beginning stages, more of a singeing around the edges than full on burnout, but cause enough for some concern.
In one form or another, burnout seems to go hand in hand with leadership; burnout has been around as long as there have been leaders. Here’s an example from about 3,000 years ago from the life of the prophet Elijah.
His words recorded in the Old Testament book of 1 Kings (chapter 19) capture his state of burnout:
He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” (1 Ki 19:4)
I have had enough, Lord… ever heard yourself saying anything like that? Can you relate? Was it enough? Did it get better… or worse? Even though we might not be able to relate directly to Elijah’s specific circumstances, I think we can relate to his state of mind.
“I have had enough, Lord.”
We can learn some important lessons by analyzing what brought Elijah to this point of burnout.
What brought Elijah to this point?
These were terribly dark days. Four generations had passed since the splendor of Solomon’s kingdom. David’s crown passed to his son Solomon, but from Solomon the kingdom was divided; the kings of Judah and Israel failed to accomplish their prime directive: to lead God’s people in righteousness.
In Elijah’s day, Ahab was king of Israel. Here is how he is introduced in 1 Kings 16:
Ahab son of Omri did more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him. He not only considered it trivial to commit the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, but he also married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and began to serve Baal and worship him. He set up an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal that he built in Samaria. Ahab also made an Asherah pole and did more to arouse the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, than did all the kings of Israel before him. (1 Ki 16:29–33)
When God gave His people the Promised Land, he warned them, in no uncertain terms, to keep their devotion to Him, staying away from the religious practices of the other inhabitants. The kings before Ahab erred in mixing in the practices of other religions (syncretism); Ahab move from syncretism to apostasy, leaving Yahweh for Baal and the Asherah poles.
It was a dangerous time to be a prophet of Yahweh… especially one named Elijah (translated: Yahweh is God).
Elijah confronted King Ahab as it is recorded in 1 Kings 17:
Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, “As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.” (1 Ki 17:1)
It was an age old way for God to get His people’s attention, control over the elements. Elijah pronounced a drought over the kingdom… a long drought that would only be broken at his pronouncement.
The backdrop of Elijah’s burnout was the incredible opposition he faced. There is no doubt that his work was hard work.
Exhaustion
Elijah had been through a lot. After learning lessons about God’s faithfulness, power and provision, Elijah returned to confront Ahab with a showdown. Not merely a showdown between Ahab and Elijah, but a showdown between Baal and Yahweh.
When he [Ahab] saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?”
“I have not made trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the Lord’s commands and have followed the Baals. Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.” (1 Ki 18:17–19)
The account of the showdown is spectacular.
Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”
Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”
Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention. (1 Ki 18:22–29)
Elijah wasn’t the only one that was exhausted. The truly religious exhaust themselves regardless of the truth of their religion. Their exhaustion didn’t impress their gods, as if there was any god to impress… as if there was anything that could be accomplished with their spectacle.
Then Elijah came to take his turn…
Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” With the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs of seed. He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”
“Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.
“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”
Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench. (1 Ki 18:30–38)
As if it would not have been remarkable enough for God to provide the fire for the sacrifice with just a spark, Elijah made it certain that this was something only Yahweh could have accomplished. With all the water poured on the wood and the sacrifice, no mortal could have quickly produced such an all-consuming fire… a fire so hot and great that it consumed even the water in the trench, as well as stones and soil.
With the contest completed and so convincingly won by God, there were still two practical matters at hand. First the prophets of Baal needed to be dealt with, and their defeat at the altar was sealed with their defeat by the sword at the hand of the people who were so convincingly turned against them. Second, there was the matter of the drought.
Elijah said to Ahab, “Go, eat and drink, for there is the sound of a heavy rain.” So Ahab went off to eat and drink, but Elijah climbed to the top of Carmel, bent down to the ground and put his face between his knees.
“Go and look toward the sea,” he told his servant. And he went up and looked.
“There is nothing there,” he said.
Seven times Elijah said, “Go back.”
The seventh time the servant reported, “A cloud as small as a man’s hand is rising from the sea.”
So Elijah said, “Go and tell Ahab, ‘Hitch up your chariot and go down before the rain stops you.’ ”
Meanwhile, the sky grew black with clouds, the wind rose, a heavy rain came on and Ahab rode off to Jezreel. The power of the Lord came on Elijah and, tucking his cloak into his belt, he ran ahead of Ahab all the way to Jezreel. (1 Ki 18:41–46)
A miracle, a battle, another miracle, and a run… Elijah was, of course, exhausted. And it seems that there is no exhaustion as potentially dangerous as exhaustion that comes from overextending ourselves for righteous causes.
Naivety
Elijah must have thought that his great victory was the end of things and everything would have been set right in Israel. He must have thought he had one the war, but it was merely a significant battle in an unending war. He declared “mission accomplished” but the enemy did not agree, had not surrendered, and was still powerful.
It has been noted throughout history that the most dangerous generals are those who rise up more fierce and determined after defeat; conversely Elijah, like most of us, are often most vulnerable after the thrill of victory. Elijah’s burnout came when he was overwhelmed with the realization that the war was not over.
Perfectionism
Elijah revealed his state of mind when he made his complaint to God.
I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” (1 Ki 19:4).
Elijah had determined that he was a failure; it probably started by thinking he was some sort of success at Mount Carmel. Maybe it wasn’t so much perfectionism as it was pride and self-reliance. Elijah wasn’t evaluating things on what God was doing through Elijah; Elijah was focused on his performance and comparing his success (and failure) to other people (his ancestors).
He took credit for the plan that he so successfully executed on Mount Carmel, and now that there was still opposition he wanted the penalty for the failure.
Isolation
Elijah repeatedly made the mistake of separateness. On Mount Carmel he proudly declared that he alone was left to stand up for God, forgetting about Obadiah and the hundred prophets he had hidden away in caves. Later God would reveal that there were thousands who had not bent their knee to Baal.
Willful independence is a common ingredient in burnout. We determine to go it alone as we chase success, and we are left to spiral down alone with nobody around to help catch us and lift us up.
Elijah determined that his cause was futile… and now alone in the wilderness there was nobody around to point out his error and talk him out of his lowly state.
I’m glad that this isn’t the end of the story; I’m glad that Elijah was proven wrong. God had an answer. God had a remedy.
Tomorrow I’ll post the remedy God provided for move Elijah out of his burnout. (If you just can't wait, check out my talk from Pleasant Bay by clicking here)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one form or another, burnout seems to go hand in hand with leadership; burnout has been around as long as there have been leaders. Here’s an example from about 3,000 years ago from the life of the prophet Elijah.
His words recorded in the Old Testament book of 1 Kings (chapter 19) capture his state of burnout:
He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” (1 Ki 19:4)
I have had enough, Lord… ever heard yourself saying anything like that? Can you relate? Was it enough? Did it get better… or worse? Even though we might not be able to relate directly to Elijah’s specific circumstances, I think we can relate to his state of mind.
“I have had enough, Lord.”
We can learn some important lessons by analyzing what brought Elijah to this point of burnout.
What brought Elijah to this point?
- Opposition
- Exhaustion
- Naivety
- Perfectionism
- Isolation
These were terribly dark days. Four generations had passed since the splendor of Solomon’s kingdom. David’s crown passed to his son Solomon, but from Solomon the kingdom was divided; the kings of Judah and Israel failed to accomplish their prime directive: to lead God’s people in righteousness.
In Elijah’s day, Ahab was king of Israel. Here is how he is introduced in 1 Kings 16:
Ahab son of Omri did more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him. He not only considered it trivial to commit the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, but he also married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and began to serve Baal and worship him. He set up an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal that he built in Samaria. Ahab also made an Asherah pole and did more to arouse the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, than did all the kings of Israel before him. (1 Ki 16:29–33)
When God gave His people the Promised Land, he warned them, in no uncertain terms, to keep their devotion to Him, staying away from the religious practices of the other inhabitants. The kings before Ahab erred in mixing in the practices of other religions (syncretism); Ahab move from syncretism to apostasy, leaving Yahweh for Baal and the Asherah poles.
It was a dangerous time to be a prophet of Yahweh… especially one named Elijah (translated: Yahweh is God).
Elijah confronted King Ahab as it is recorded in 1 Kings 17:
Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, “As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.” (1 Ki 17:1)
It was an age old way for God to get His people’s attention, control over the elements. Elijah pronounced a drought over the kingdom… a long drought that would only be broken at his pronouncement.
The backdrop of Elijah’s burnout was the incredible opposition he faced. There is no doubt that his work was hard work.
Exhaustion
Elijah had been through a lot. After learning lessons about God’s faithfulness, power and provision, Elijah returned to confront Ahab with a showdown. Not merely a showdown between Ahab and Elijah, but a showdown between Baal and Yahweh.
When he [Ahab] saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?”
“I have not made trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the Lord’s commands and have followed the Baals. Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.” (1 Ki 18:17–19)
The account of the showdown is spectacular.
Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”
Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”
Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention. (1 Ki 18:22–29)
Elijah wasn’t the only one that was exhausted. The truly religious exhaust themselves regardless of the truth of their religion. Their exhaustion didn’t impress their gods, as if there was any god to impress… as if there was anything that could be accomplished with their spectacle.
Then Elijah came to take his turn…
Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” With the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs of seed. He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”
“Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.
“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”
Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench. (1 Ki 18:30–38)
As if it would not have been remarkable enough for God to provide the fire for the sacrifice with just a spark, Elijah made it certain that this was something only Yahweh could have accomplished. With all the water poured on the wood and the sacrifice, no mortal could have quickly produced such an all-consuming fire… a fire so hot and great that it consumed even the water in the trench, as well as stones and soil.
With the contest completed and so convincingly won by God, there were still two practical matters at hand. First the prophets of Baal needed to be dealt with, and their defeat at the altar was sealed with their defeat by the sword at the hand of the people who were so convincingly turned against them. Second, there was the matter of the drought.
Elijah said to Ahab, “Go, eat and drink, for there is the sound of a heavy rain.” So Ahab went off to eat and drink, but Elijah climbed to the top of Carmel, bent down to the ground and put his face between his knees.
“Go and look toward the sea,” he told his servant. And he went up and looked.
“There is nothing there,” he said.
Seven times Elijah said, “Go back.”
The seventh time the servant reported, “A cloud as small as a man’s hand is rising from the sea.”
So Elijah said, “Go and tell Ahab, ‘Hitch up your chariot and go down before the rain stops you.’ ”
Meanwhile, the sky grew black with clouds, the wind rose, a heavy rain came on and Ahab rode off to Jezreel. The power of the Lord came on Elijah and, tucking his cloak into his belt, he ran ahead of Ahab all the way to Jezreel. (1 Ki 18:41–46)
A miracle, a battle, another miracle, and a run… Elijah was, of course, exhausted. And it seems that there is no exhaustion as potentially dangerous as exhaustion that comes from overextending ourselves for righteous causes.
Naivety
Elijah must have thought that his great victory was the end of things and everything would have been set right in Israel. He must have thought he had one the war, but it was merely a significant battle in an unending war. He declared “mission accomplished” but the enemy did not agree, had not surrendered, and was still powerful.
It has been noted throughout history that the most dangerous generals are those who rise up more fierce and determined after defeat; conversely Elijah, like most of us, are often most vulnerable after the thrill of victory. Elijah’s burnout came when he was overwhelmed with the realization that the war was not over.
Perfectionism
Elijah revealed his state of mind when he made his complaint to God.
I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” (1 Ki 19:4).
Elijah had determined that he was a failure; it probably started by thinking he was some sort of success at Mount Carmel. Maybe it wasn’t so much perfectionism as it was pride and self-reliance. Elijah wasn’t evaluating things on what God was doing through Elijah; Elijah was focused on his performance and comparing his success (and failure) to other people (his ancestors).
He took credit for the plan that he so successfully executed on Mount Carmel, and now that there was still opposition he wanted the penalty for the failure.
Isolation
Elijah repeatedly made the mistake of separateness. On Mount Carmel he proudly declared that he alone was left to stand up for God, forgetting about Obadiah and the hundred prophets he had hidden away in caves. Later God would reveal that there were thousands who had not bent their knee to Baal.
Willful independence is a common ingredient in burnout. We determine to go it alone as we chase success, and we are left to spiral down alone with nobody around to help catch us and lift us up.
Elijah determined that his cause was futile… and now alone in the wilderness there was nobody around to point out his error and talk him out of his lowly state.
I’m glad that this isn’t the end of the story; I’m glad that Elijah was proven wrong. God had an answer. God had a remedy.
Tomorrow I’ll post the remedy God provided for move Elijah out of his burnout. (If you just can't wait, check out my talk from Pleasant Bay by clicking here)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, October 7, 2011
Tension and Compression on Leadership Teams
Leadership teams are like suspension bridges...
needing both tension members and compression members.
I was a mechanical engineering major for a while at Purdue for long enough to have one of those classes where you apply what you learn about force vectors to a shoe-box-sized bridge made out of balsa wood. After you design it and glue it all together, the final exam includes putting it on a contraption that adds incremental units of stress until the whole thing snaps into splinters. Some of our bridges buckled under the pressure (compression members couldn't take it), and others pulled apart (tension members couldn't hold it together).
I've observed that good leadership teams have both compression members (those types that are sort of solid and can handle work getting piled on their shoulders) as well as tension members (those of us who are happy to be stretched and pulled as we respond to various conditions). A lot of us, of course, have to function in both compression and tension roles. We're like the common 2X4s in a house; some are there to be pushed on (like the ones holding up the ceiling) and others are there to be pulled on (like the ones holding the trusses together in the attic)... and yet others are both pushed on and pulled on depending on conditions.
When building teams and thinking through the various roles on teams, it is vital to design both compression and tension members into the scheme.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Agreement
What does it really mean to be a member of a team? A defining characteristic that has emerged and been helpful in my conversations is agreement.
It might be helpful to first be a bit more specific about what we mean when we say team, since team is one of those words we throw around with few boundaries. For the purposes of this discussion, I am meaning a work team that:
Mere democracy is not agreement. If a group operates according to “majority rule,” whether it is a small committee or a large country, it is not a team. That isn’t a bad thing at all, just a different “thing” than a team. There are all sorts of circumstances where “majority rule” is the best solution, it simply isn’t a team.
The rule of agreement takes into account that team members posses varying perspectives as well as differing amounts of influence. This is an important distinction from a democratic process in which every vote has the same value in every decision. Members of a team should acknowledge that each team member brings different things to the table. Each has a unique perspective, and some perspectives are better suited for various tasks and decisions than others. Some may have various levels of authority and responsibility that impact how agreement may be reached. While it may seem that more influential/powerful members of the team are less agreeable, it could be that their responsibilities require them to be more deliberate in a process toward agreement.
Blind obedience or unswerving allegiance is not agreement. A productive team should not allow for members who are simply “yes men.” It is often the most loyal thing one can do to help members of a team avoid a mistake, or insist on making a good idea a great success. On the other hand, those who only think of their role in terms of being a contrarian or antagonist are not productive members of a team.
Agreement should be neither political or protectionist. Reaching agreement should not be a matter of trading votes (“I’ll support you this time if you support me next time”). It should also not be a matter of giving in to simply protect a position, role, or job. The best team members often approach their work as being “self employed,” not so desperate to protect their job that they give in to anything that might threaten their position.
When agreement is not possible there are at least a couple of potential conclusions. It could be that the work at hand is not suitable for the team, or any team. Or it could be that there needs to be a change in the membership of the team. If a team is intent on operating with agreement, then there may be times that call for difficult decisions.
One of the markers that indicates that a work group has become a real team is when the members consider each other trusted colleagues that “have your back.”
I'm happy to have your feedback!
It might be helpful to first be a bit more specific about what we mean when we say team, since team is one of those words we throw around with few boundaries. For the purposes of this discussion, I am meaning a work team that:
- Operates with a specific charter and agenda,
- Is comprised of members who have specific roles and the ability to contribute as a team member, and
- Has the authority and resources to meet the demands of the agenda.
Mere democracy is not agreement. If a group operates according to “majority rule,” whether it is a small committee or a large country, it is not a team. That isn’t a bad thing at all, just a different “thing” than a team. There are all sorts of circumstances where “majority rule” is the best solution, it simply isn’t a team.
The rule of agreement takes into account that team members posses varying perspectives as well as differing amounts of influence. This is an important distinction from a democratic process in which every vote has the same value in every decision. Members of a team should acknowledge that each team member brings different things to the table. Each has a unique perspective, and some perspectives are better suited for various tasks and decisions than others. Some may have various levels of authority and responsibility that impact how agreement may be reached. While it may seem that more influential/powerful members of the team are less agreeable, it could be that their responsibilities require them to be more deliberate in a process toward agreement.
Blind obedience or unswerving allegiance is not agreement. A productive team should not allow for members who are simply “yes men.” It is often the most loyal thing one can do to help members of a team avoid a mistake, or insist on making a good idea a great success. On the other hand, those who only think of their role in terms of being a contrarian or antagonist are not productive members of a team.
Agreement should be neither political or protectionist. Reaching agreement should not be a matter of trading votes (“I’ll support you this time if you support me next time”). It should also not be a matter of giving in to simply protect a position, role, or job. The best team members often approach their work as being “self employed,” not so desperate to protect their job that they give in to anything that might threaten their position.
When agreement is not possible there are at least a couple of potential conclusions. It could be that the work at hand is not suitable for the team, or any team. Or it could be that there needs to be a change in the membership of the team. If a team is intent on operating with agreement, then there may be times that call for difficult decisions.
One of the markers that indicates that a work group has become a real team is when the members consider each other trusted colleagues that “have your back.”
I'm happy to have your feedback!
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Learning the New, Unlearning the Old
I’m working on a Master’s Degree, and the final step will be writing a 100-page thesis. (A daunting task for a guy who has spent large chunks of his life writing three-paragraph ads, 30-second television commercials, and 60-second radio spots. Much of what I’ve written has taken just one page.)
There’s actually a class on Research Methods, which helps us learn how to define the subject, do the research, organize the material, and write the paper. Reading one of the textbooks the other day (Your Guide to Writing Quality Research Papers by Nancy Jean Vyhmeister, which is actually – surprisingly – interesting) I came across this quote from Ellen White, written in 1892: “We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn.”
That sentence caused me to pull out my yellow highlighter. As did the one a line or two later: “Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view… will be disappointed.”
I usually think of education as learning new stuff, to pile on the mound of things I already know. But what if some of the timbers in my intellectual foundation are outdated, or insufficient, or flat-out wrong? It may only be a matter of time before there’s some sort of collapse. At best, it could be embarrassing; at worst, a disaster.
Learning, as Ms. White points out, should force us to unlearn as well as learn.
That can be difficult, for two reasons. First, we cherish the “truths” we already have gained, through study or experience. It’s hard to let them go, even when new discoveries and new situations render them false or irrelevant. But second, and quite insidiously, we sometimes don’t even recognize the building blocks of our own intellectual infrastructure. They are comfortable, assumed, unexamined. In the same way that fish don’t know they’re wet, we don’t recognize the assumptions and biases that we’ve acquired along the way.
So how do we unlearn?
Perhaps it takes an attitude and an action.
The attitude would be just a touch of humility. Just a glimmer of an admission to ourselves that we don’t know it all, and that some of what we know might be outdated or incomplete. We keep our ears slightly cocked to hear the warnings that there might be some creaking or sagging in our foundation.
The action would be to force ourselves to encounter information from different sources. Here are just a couple examples. In my work in advertising, I’ve noticed that companies tend to pay attention to the efforts of other entities in their same category – car dealers notice the ads of other car dealers, churches pay attention to what other churches are doing, etc. One secret is to cross-pollinate. Look at the ads outside your industry (after all, your customers are). When I ran the marketing for a Christian university on the west coast, our efforts at a new web design started with looking at many of the sites our prospective students might visit. We looked at the sites of other Christian universities in our category, of course, but then, step by step, we widened the net, step by step. First, bigger universities, state universities, and universities in other areas. Then we looked at Pepsi, Scion, ESPN, even Hollister and Abercrombine and Fitch.
Here’s another example. In my personal life, as a follower of Jesus Christ, I want to avoid the cultural myopia that can sneak up on us. In addition to reading contemporary authors from my home country, the United States, I also try to read authors from other countries and from other centuries. (Often, you can get two birds with one book. Try, for example, something by St. Augustine. He lived in Africa in the fourth century, and today is highly regarded by Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.)
So, thanks, Ms. White, for pointing out that “unlearning” can be just as important as “learning.” It makes sense. Adding new software requires deleting the old. You have to find, cut out, and replace the rotten timbers on your sailing vessel before it’s again seaworthy and can be trusted to embark on your next voyage.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
U.S. News College Rankings
Warning! This post will likely be a bit too "inside" for most readers of this blog... but this is what I'm thinking about this afternoon, and some may find it interesting.
As imperfect as they are, I'm looking over the U.S. News rankings today and noting that Northwest University cracked the top ten in their category, ranking #9 among regional colleges in the West.
Having invested 13 years in Northwest, I'm really gratified to see NU continuing to be recognized as a great place.
I remembered that I did some really rudimentary analysis a few years ago of peer schools, including a number of schools that "compete" with NU for students (we call them "crossapps" schools that also receive applications from our new students). I spent a few minutes and updated the rankings from the current report.
I think a lot of people think that Northwest "competes" most with other Assemblies of God schools, but the truth is that most crossapps are at schools that are in our region, and in more prestigious categories (those shaded in yellow above). Northwest continues to move up in the category, and it is hanging in there with national universities and regional universities.
As Merlin and I are looking forward to serving other organizations, I'm glad that we can point to experience like this... evidence that we've had a hand in greatifying a place like NU.
As imperfect as they are, I'm looking over the U.S. News rankings today and noting that Northwest University cracked the top ten in their category, ranking #9 among regional colleges in the West.
Having invested 13 years in Northwest, I'm really gratified to see NU continuing to be recognized as a great place.
I remembered that I did some really rudimentary analysis a few years ago of peer schools, including a number of schools that "compete" with NU for students (we call them "crossapps" schools that also receive applications from our new students). I spent a few minutes and updated the rankings from the current report.
As Merlin and I are looking forward to serving other organizations, I'm glad that we can point to experience like this... evidence that we've had a hand in greatifying a place like NU.
Monday, September 12, 2011
What Makes an Organization Great?
This question isn’t as simple as it looks at first glance. I think the answer will come in two parts: 1) what are the criteria for defining a great organization? and 2) what are the components – the ingredients, principles and processes – that make an organization great?
Criteria: How do you define – or recognize – a great organization?
Let’s deal with the criteria first. Until you define the qualities of a great organization, you won’t recognize one even if you’re in it, nor will you be able to form, reform, or transform your organization into a great one.
How about size? Is a large organization a great one? Is the largest organization in its category the greatest one?
What about automobiles? Is Toyota the best car company in the world because it builds the most vehicles? Or is Mercedes-Benz the best, based on its reputation for engineering and quality? How about Rolls-Royce, based on its reputation for elegance and prestige? Maybe the winner is Lamborghini, which claims to be building just 20 of the most expensive cars in the world, the Sesto Elementos. Competing for the same honor – most expensive car – is Bugatti, whose Veyron 16.4 Super Sport has a top speed of 253 miles per hour. Maybe the best car company in today’s world should be the one that produces the “greenest” cars: those that are the most environmentally friendly.
What about computer companies? Is Microsoft the greatest computer company, based on ubiquity of its office software? Or is it Apple, based on the popularity of its iPod, iPhone, and IPad? Is it Google, the leader in search engines, or Facebook, the leader in social media?
What about churches? Is Lakewood Church in Houston the greatest? According to Church Growth Today, it’s the largest and fastest growing church in America. It meets in the largest venue, and Pastor Joel Osteen’s weekly sermons are viewed in almost 100 nations. Or is it Redeemer Presbyterian in New York City, whose pastor, Tim Keller, has become the inspiration and mentor for a new generation of ministers who want to engage the culture with a biblically centered, intellectually vigorous exploration of the Christian Faith? With its “Redeemer City to City” structure, it hopes “to build a global movement of leaders and practitioners who build upon and adapt our ‘DNA’ to create new churches, new ventures, and new expressions of the gospel of Jesus Christ for the common good.”
It doesn’t take long to realize the size may not be the best criterion – or at least the only one – for determining greatness. And there are many other criteria, including customer satisfaction, employee workplace satisfaction, stock price, market valuation, and reputation.
Two things seem to come to the front. First, your organization will need to establish its own definition of what it means to be great. Your mission and priorities will determine what will make your group great. Second, you will likely find that your organization’s standard of greatness will be a blend of several criteria. You don’t want short-term profits at the loss of customer satisfaction, for example, or your success will be short-lived. You will probably need to establish your own matrix of standards and benchmarks to define what greatness will look like for your organization.
Components: What do you need to create a great organization?
There’s no simple answer to this question, either. But it seems to me the answer lies more in the intangibles than in physical factors like location and capitalization.
Here are five things that you need to create a great organization.
Purpose. You need to have a goal. A target. Something you want to accomplish. And this usually involves taking advantage of an opportunity or meeting a need (even if, or especially if, it’s a need that no one else perceives).
Plan. You need a road map for reaching your goal. With, of course, the full realization that you will encounter roadblocks and detours along the way that will force you to revise your map.
Passion. Everybody else in your industry or category is competing hard. If you don’t give it 100%, you’ll be left in the dust. If you’re going to do something, do it well and do it with passion. As the ancient wisdom in the book of Ecclesiastes (9:10) reminds us: “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might...”
Patience. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Neither was Amazon.com. But in a culture that’s wants instant results and even-sooner gratification, it’s difficult to be patient.
Organizations that yield to the pressure (from Wall Street analysts, for example) may have a successful quarter, at least in terms of profits, but won’t see long-term success.
At the same time, you can’t let patience become an excuse for lack of progress. The secret is steps. Incremental steps. Set short-term goals that can be quantified and achieved, abut that still lead toward your long-term purpose. Achieving each successive short-term goal will energize your organization for the next step towards the ultimate goal.
Persistence. Here’s the bad news. Two pieces of bad news, actually. First, it’s ferociously hard to get your organization to greatness, and second, it’s impossible to rest on that particular mountaintop. The only constant is change. If you do get your organization to a place where people are calling it great, you can expect something to change, and the process of Purpose-Plan-Passion-Patience-Persistence can start all over again. Organizations are like life, I guess. It’s not the destination. It’s the journey.
-----
So what makes an organization great? In terms of “what” -- I can’t tell you. Probably no one can. You have to decide for yourself how you define greatness. And in terms of “how” – I can’t give you specifics here either. Probably no one can. Again, you’ll have to determine for yourself how your organization will pursue greatness.
I doubt that anything written here is new to you. But as C. S. Lewis pointed out, most people don’t need to be taught, they need to be reminded. So take a minute, step back and look at your organization with fresh eyes. Maybe there are new ways to define what greatness would look like for your organization. And maybe there are news ways to achieve that greatness.
And maybe we at GREATIFIERS can help. Sometimes you just need someone to ask the questions you’ve forgotten or suggest the routes that you don’t see.
Criteria: How do you define – or recognize – a great organization?
Let’s deal with the criteria first. Until you define the qualities of a great organization, you won’t recognize one even if you’re in it, nor will you be able to form, reform, or transform your organization into a great one.
How about size? Is a large organization a great one? Is the largest organization in its category the greatest one?
What about automobiles? Is Toyota the best car company in the world because it builds the most vehicles? Or is Mercedes-Benz the best, based on its reputation for engineering and quality? How about Rolls-Royce, based on its reputation for elegance and prestige? Maybe the winner is Lamborghini, which claims to be building just 20 of the most expensive cars in the world, the Sesto Elementos. Competing for the same honor – most expensive car – is Bugatti, whose Veyron 16.4 Super Sport has a top speed of 253 miles per hour. Maybe the best car company in today’s world should be the one that produces the “greenest” cars: those that are the most environmentally friendly.
What about computer companies? Is Microsoft the greatest computer company, based on ubiquity of its office software? Or is it Apple, based on the popularity of its iPod, iPhone, and IPad? Is it Google, the leader in search engines, or Facebook, the leader in social media?
What about churches? Is Lakewood Church in Houston the greatest? According to Church Growth Today, it’s the largest and fastest growing church in America. It meets in the largest venue, and Pastor Joel Osteen’s weekly sermons are viewed in almost 100 nations. Or is it Redeemer Presbyterian in New York City, whose pastor, Tim Keller, has become the inspiration and mentor for a new generation of ministers who want to engage the culture with a biblically centered, intellectually vigorous exploration of the Christian Faith? With its “Redeemer City to City” structure, it hopes “to build a global movement of leaders and practitioners who build upon and adapt our ‘DNA’ to create new churches, new ventures, and new expressions of the gospel of Jesus Christ for the common good.”
It doesn’t take long to realize the size may not be the best criterion – or at least the only one – for determining greatness. And there are many other criteria, including customer satisfaction, employee workplace satisfaction, stock price, market valuation, and reputation.
Two things seem to come to the front. First, your organization will need to establish its own definition of what it means to be great. Your mission and priorities will determine what will make your group great. Second, you will likely find that your organization’s standard of greatness will be a blend of several criteria. You don’t want short-term profits at the loss of customer satisfaction, for example, or your success will be short-lived. You will probably need to establish your own matrix of standards and benchmarks to define what greatness will look like for your organization.
Components: What do you need to create a great organization?
There’s no simple answer to this question, either. But it seems to me the answer lies more in the intangibles than in physical factors like location and capitalization.
Here are five things that you need to create a great organization.
Purpose. You need to have a goal. A target. Something you want to accomplish. And this usually involves taking advantage of an opportunity or meeting a need (even if, or especially if, it’s a need that no one else perceives).
Plan. You need a road map for reaching your goal. With, of course, the full realization that you will encounter roadblocks and detours along the way that will force you to revise your map.
Passion. Everybody else in your industry or category is competing hard. If you don’t give it 100%, you’ll be left in the dust. If you’re going to do something, do it well and do it with passion. As the ancient wisdom in the book of Ecclesiastes (9:10) reminds us: “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might...”
Patience. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Neither was Amazon.com. But in a culture that’s wants instant results and even-sooner gratification, it’s difficult to be patient.
Organizations that yield to the pressure (from Wall Street analysts, for example) may have a successful quarter, at least in terms of profits, but won’t see long-term success.
At the same time, you can’t let patience become an excuse for lack of progress. The secret is steps. Incremental steps. Set short-term goals that can be quantified and achieved, abut that still lead toward your long-term purpose. Achieving each successive short-term goal will energize your organization for the next step towards the ultimate goal.
Persistence. Here’s the bad news. Two pieces of bad news, actually. First, it’s ferociously hard to get your organization to greatness, and second, it’s impossible to rest on that particular mountaintop. The only constant is change. If you do get your organization to a place where people are calling it great, you can expect something to change, and the process of Purpose-Plan-Passion-Patience-Persistence can start all over again. Organizations are like life, I guess. It’s not the destination. It’s the journey.
-----
So what makes an organization great? In terms of “what” -- I can’t tell you. Probably no one can. You have to decide for yourself how you define greatness. And in terms of “how” – I can’t give you specifics here either. Probably no one can. Again, you’ll have to determine for yourself how your organization will pursue greatness.
I doubt that anything written here is new to you. But as C. S. Lewis pointed out, most people don’t need to be taught, they need to be reminded. So take a minute, step back and look at your organization with fresh eyes. Maybe there are new ways to define what greatness would look like for your organization. And maybe there are news ways to achieve that greatness.
And maybe we at GREATIFIERS can help. Sometimes you just need someone to ask the questions you’ve forgotten or suggest the routes that you don’t see.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Communication Networks and Decision Structures
I'm thinking again about an interview in which Ed Catmull, president of Pixar, reflected on a September 2008 article he wrote for the Harvard Business Review about fostering collective creativity. One of the key quotes from the interview went something like this, “we need people at Pixar to recognize that we are highly organized, but the organization structure and the communication structure are two different things.” I downloaded the article; here’s how he stated it in print: “Everyone must have the freedom to communicate with anyone. This means recognizing that the decision-making hierarchy and communication structure in organizations are two different things.”
Organization structures and communication networks need to both be leveraged to their maximum potential in collective creativity and decision making.
The skilled leader will keep both the structures and the networks in harmonious tension. It is easy to err by failing on either side.
In my experience, we don’t need to do anything to create the communication networks; people talk. Our task is really to better acknowledge the networks and leverage them to their maximum potential; we can do more to enable the networks. Managers err when we build a culture that causes the networks to go underground, failing to acknowledge and encourage open communication. The extremes, with awful consequences, are those that attempt to forbid or punish open communication.
The opposite error is to fail to acknowledge the organization structure for decision making. We commonly forget that an open communication network does not negate what Catmull calls a “decision-making hierarchy.” Short circuiting, or even the perception of short circuiting, an organization structure generally results in chaos that includes poor decision making, bruised relationships, and damaged communication networks.
For a while now, we have adopted a vernacular for three stages of decision making:
Collective creativity and sound decision making generally is best served by open discussion that may or may not involve the organizational structure. This is the early stage in the process characterized by brainstorming, floating of ideas, and what I often call swirl.
Deliberation ought to involve the networks and must consider the structure. This is the stage when operable plans come together. Productive deliberation should reflect the work of networks, and consider the structure in such a way that it results in a proposal that is actionable by the structure.
Decision, then, should be well informed by the networks via the previous stages, but entrusted to the organizational structure. The best decisions will include a feedback loop that demonstrates the value of the networks, especially when there is respectful disagreement.
If only it were this simple. Models like these are easily thrown by distrust and insecurity. Those in the communication networks may not be able to trust the organizational structure, even when open communication is enabled and thoroughly considered. Those in decision-making hierarchies may be so insecure that open communication is threatening, discouraged or disregarded. Then there are the added complications that might include legal constraints, confidentiality issues, and the various competing goals and perspectives of all involved. Nevertheless, sometimes a simple model like this helps, even in such complexities.
.
Organization structures and communication networks need to both be leveraged to their maximum potential in collective creativity and decision making.
The skilled leader will keep both the structures and the networks in harmonious tension. It is easy to err by failing on either side.
In my experience, we don’t need to do anything to create the communication networks; people talk. Our task is really to better acknowledge the networks and leverage them to their maximum potential; we can do more to enable the networks. Managers err when we build a culture that causes the networks to go underground, failing to acknowledge and encourage open communication. The extremes, with awful consequences, are those that attempt to forbid or punish open communication.
The opposite error is to fail to acknowledge the organization structure for decision making. We commonly forget that an open communication network does not negate what Catmull calls a “decision-making hierarchy.” Short circuiting, or even the perception of short circuiting, an organization structure generally results in chaos that includes poor decision making, bruised relationships, and damaged communication networks.
For a while now, we have adopted a vernacular for three stages of decision making:
- discussion,
- deliberation, and
- decision.
Collective creativity and sound decision making generally is best served by open discussion that may or may not involve the organizational structure. This is the early stage in the process characterized by brainstorming, floating of ideas, and what I often call swirl.
Deliberation ought to involve the networks and must consider the structure. This is the stage when operable plans come together. Productive deliberation should reflect the work of networks, and consider the structure in such a way that it results in a proposal that is actionable by the structure.
Decision, then, should be well informed by the networks via the previous stages, but entrusted to the organizational structure. The best decisions will include a feedback loop that demonstrates the value of the networks, especially when there is respectful disagreement.
If only it were this simple. Models like these are easily thrown by distrust and insecurity. Those in the communication networks may not be able to trust the organizational structure, even when open communication is enabled and thoroughly considered. Those in decision-making hierarchies may be so insecure that open communication is threatening, discouraged or disregarded. Then there are the added complications that might include legal constraints, confidentiality issues, and the various competing goals and perspectives of all involved. Nevertheless, sometimes a simple model like this helps, even in such complexities.
.
Friday, September 9, 2011
I Didn’t Smell the Potatoes
“I didn’t smell the potatoes,” said Laurie a few days ago; it was an important lesson I’ll categorize under greatifying the home office.
Here’s the back story…
Laurie knows that I have freakish olfactory memory; I have a good nose and my nose knows. If I’ve smelled it once, I can usually identify it again. Furthermore, a smell often brings up an entire host of memories. I know that for some folk a song or colors or some other trigger can put them right back in a memorable place and time. For me, it is a smell.
For example, I got on the elevator early one afternoon last month and immediately recognized a smell that I hadn’t detected in years. It was so out of context, just to satisfy my curiosity, I stepped out of the elevator and asked the receptionist if she remembered who came through moments before. The aroma took me back to the company which employed most of my family during my teenage years. It was the after lunch fragrance of the owner (we called him “the old man”); he didn’t always eat the same lunch, but he did always drink the same lunch. I’m confident that whoever was last in that elevator had a whiskey or two at lunch. And while I wouldn’t trust my nose to this level of detail, I would further guess that it was a double Chivas Regal on the rocks.
So, while I sat at my makeshift desk in our dining room earlier this week, Laurie asked, “When you have a minute, could you come smell this pantry? Something is not right.”
On my next walk to the coffee pot, I stopped by the pantry and put the knowing nose to work. I called up to Laurie saying “there’s an old potato in there somewhere.” Sure enough, some renegade potato had escaped its bag some time back, finding refuge in a dark corner of our pantry. Case solved; problem eradicated.
One of the side effects of my “transition” from Northwest was that we had to move out of a small windowless office that our church was using for an office. It served as storage, workspace and a meeting spot for the church, and Laurie used it several days each week as an office. With the end of my duties at Northwest, Laurie had to move her office back home too.
Here’s the back story…
Laurie knows that I have freakish olfactory memory; I have a good nose and my nose knows. If I’ve smelled it once, I can usually identify it again. Furthermore, a smell often brings up an entire host of memories. I know that for some folk a song or colors or some other trigger can put them right back in a memorable place and time. For me, it is a smell.
For example, I got on the elevator early one afternoon last month and immediately recognized a smell that I hadn’t detected in years. It was so out of context, just to satisfy my curiosity, I stepped out of the elevator and asked the receptionist if she remembered who came through moments before. The aroma took me back to the company which employed most of my family during my teenage years. It was the after lunch fragrance of the owner (we called him “the old man”); he didn’t always eat the same lunch, but he did always drink the same lunch. I’m confident that whoever was last in that elevator had a whiskey or two at lunch. And while I wouldn’t trust my nose to this level of detail, I would further guess that it was a double Chivas Regal on the rocks.
So, while I sat at my makeshift desk in our dining room earlier this week, Laurie asked, “When you have a minute, could you come smell this pantry? Something is not right.”
On my next walk to the coffee pot, I stopped by the pantry and put the knowing nose to work. I called up to Laurie saying “there’s an old potato in there somewhere.” Sure enough, some renegade potato had escaped its bag some time back, finding refuge in a dark corner of our pantry. Case solved; problem eradicated.
One of the side effects of my “transition” from Northwest was that we had to move out of a small windowless office that our church was using for an office. It served as storage, workspace and a meeting spot for the church, and Laurie used it several days each week as an office. With the end of my duties at Northwest, Laurie had to move her office back home too.
So… now to the point of greatifying the home office. When Laurie said, “I didn’t smell the potatoes,” she was saying that there was something great about physically leaving the house and going to the office. For most of our nearly ten years of serving our church, the church office has been our home office. But for the past year, since moving the church to Northwest’s campus, we have had use of that little office. Laurie found it an enormous help since when she is at home, she simply cannot not smell the potatoes. It didn’t matter that there was church work calling, knowing that the panty needed attention downstairs meant putting aside the church work to handle what appeared to be more urgent in the kitchen.
Saying “I didn’t smell the potatoes when I wasn’t using the home office” was an admission that the urgency wasn’t real; the renegade potato could certainly wait.
Nearing the one month anniversary of my makeshift home office, I know that I have to develop disciplines to greatify my home office. While I can actually let the potato wait, there is a potentially long list of other distractions that could easily take me away from my work. It seems to me that steps ahead for me to greatify the home office include:
- Establishing office hours and a routine (So far, it still feels like every day is a Saturday; I need a weekday routine for the home office.)
- Making the office less makeshift and temporary (I need to get stuff into drawers and out of boxes).
- Getting a more comfortable setup, espescially a desk chair (I think we purchased the one I’m using twenty years ago and it is time to be retired).
- Establishing a way to collaborate with others in the home office (my real office has always been a place for my work alone, but more importantly my work with others; the home office has never been a place for meetings).
These are some of the ways I’m starting. Got any other great ideas?
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
You Can't Steer a Parked Truck
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.
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 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.
So it is with this new venture. Greatifiers isn't "all buttoned up" and we're not exactly sure where this path will take us... but we are rolling and we are excited to see what is in store.
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.
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.
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 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.
So it is with this new venture. Greatifiers isn't "all buttoned up" and we're not exactly sure where this path will take us... but we are rolling and we are excited to see what is in store.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)