STRATEGY CENTRAL

I’m a sucker for a good way of saying it.  That’s probably one of the reasons that I love Peter Drucker’s writing.  Very clear.  Very direct.  He had a distinctive way of saying things.

I tripped across this paragraph today in an article over on John Maxwell’s Leadership Wired.

"Popularity and productivity sound
like fraternal twins, but in reality they can look as different as
Paris Hilton and Warren Buffet. If productivity is a Honda Civic, then
popularity is a Lamborghini Diablo with a bad transmission. In
leadership, substance trumps style—every time."

How’s that for language.  "A Lamborghini Diablo with a bad transmission."  You can almost hear John Maxwell saying it, can’t you?

The Church Report is out with their 2007 America’s 50 Most Influential Churches report.  Very interesting stuff.  If you’re wondering how they came up with the list, here’s what they did:

"The 2007 survey was
emailed to leaders of more than 2,000 of the largest non-Catholic
congregations in the nation in April-June. Participants were asked to
recommend up to 10 churches they considered to be among the nation’s
most influential."

How’s that sound to you?  I guess that’s as sound as you’re going to get it.  I really wish they were required to show why they recommended them.  Is it just name recognition?  Is it that they hold a conference?  Is it that the pastor is an author?  Not sure.  Still…it’s a fascinating list.  Several I’ve never heard of and will have to check out.

As usual, Kent Shaffer has a very informative take on some of the other lists that these churches are on.  Here’s the link to his post: 50 Most Influential Churches. 

I don’t know if this is real…or not, but it is an interesting picture.  It looks like Snoop is reading How Good Is Good Enough? by Andy Stanley.  I tracked the origin of the picture back to GenerationPost by Jason Berggren.  Love Jason’s question: "the real question is why is a guy with so much bling riding in coach?"

One of the first blogs that I checked in on regularly back in the day (mid 2004) was Lisa Haneberg’s Management Craft.  Still check in.  Good stuff and adds a nice twist to my own take.  Today Lisa’s got a link to a poll being run to determine The Best Leadership Blogs of 2007.  I had only heard of 3 of the 10.  I have 2 of those 3 in my feedreader.  I’d say they’re good…but not great.  The third I deleted because it didn’t post frequently enough.  I did pick up a new feed…LeadershipNow by Michael McKinney.  Looks good.  Not sure about great.  We’ll see.

Hard to find great.  Or engaging.

Just this morning I was thinking about rare it is to find a really engaging post.  Not sure why that is.  Wondering if it is that the daily drive to put up something new waters down the intensity of what is written.  I know in my own case I’m always looking for a way to put up something good every day.  But I wonder if that weakens StrategyCentral?  Makes it less engaging?  What do you think?

How do you identify, recruit and develop new leaders in your organization?  There are lots of ideas on this one.  Some would say that leaders are born.  That they are what they are and you really can’t develop an ordinary person into a leader.  Others would say that you can take someone with the raw DNA of a leader and then help them develop their capabilities…but first you’ve got to be able to identify them; pick them out of a crowd.

What’s your take?  I really think that there are some who are natural leaders.  They’re born that way.  I also believe that there are some who are born with an undeveloped leadership potential.  They’ve got the raw DNA for it, but really need someone to recognize it and then help them develop it.

In an earlier post on getting the right people in the right seats we talked about the understanding that all of our people have some capacity but there are some who have greater capacity.   Tony Morgan has a great post today about the 6 Dealbreakers of Leadership Development (Wow…that may be the very first time I’ve improved on one of Tony’s blog titles!).  Take a look at the six:

• Leaders can’t be recruited from the platform. We have to challenge them one-on-one.
• Leaders won’t be fulfilled performing tasks. We need to give them responsibility.
• Leaders don’t follow doers. We need to make sure they’re connected to another strong leader.
• Leaders don’t want to be micromanaged. We have to eliminate the
  tendency to control the process and, instead, hold people accountable
  for the outcomes.
• Leaders won’t commit to ambiguity. We need to offer a clear vision. (And, it better be big.)
• Leaders don’t just show up. We have to be intentional about leadership development.

What he’s talking about is an important insight into how leadership development happens in a rapidly growing environment.  You can read his whole post right here.  While you’re over there you should tell Tony that my title for his post is better

By the way, Todd Rhodes wrote today about a survey that revealed the characteristics most associated with unsuccessful pastors and the number one characteristic was the inability to identify, recruit, train, and deploy workers and leaders (95%).  Interesting…

I’ve been thinking a lot about the questions that surround getting the right people in the right seats on the bus (Jim Collins’ very compelling argument in Good to Great).  Collins’ idea is that you begin by getting the right people on the bus (recruiting the right people to your team).  That, he insists, is actually more important than where you’re going.  He refers to this idea as “First Who, Then Where”.  Simply put, if you end up with the right people on the bus first, they won’t want to get off the bus if you choose a different destination after they’re on board.  That’s first.  But that’s not what we’re talking about today.

Second is what we’re talking about right now…and that has to do with making sure that you’re helping the team end up in the right seats once they’re on the bus.  And that is also tremendously important.  And believe it or not, it’s not a new challenge.  It’s as old as the hills…or at least as old as Jesus.

You need to hang with me on this one.  Regardless of your persuasion, just hang with me.  It will be worth it.

Jesus tells a story in Luke 19 that really has a lot to say about why this is an important topic.  In the story he tells about a powerful man who left for a journey and as he was leaving entrusted each of his servants with the task of managing a chunk of money (about three months wages).  When the man finally returned he held a meeting and asked for a progress report.  One of the men had taken the chunk and multiplied it 10 times, a 1000% return on the money!  Another had produced a 500% return.  And one had been afraid to do anything for fear of losing the initial investment…and simply returned the money.

What does this have to do with the right seat on the bus?  I think you find the answer in a combination of what is said to the three servants and what can be read between the lines.  The first two men both receive the same performance review.  They hear “great job!”   Let’s just say the third guy hears something that let him know he blew it.  But think about the first two.  They both are commended…and commended equally.  This is where we need to read between the lines just a bit.  But first, a little extra background information.

Throughout the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament of the Bible) Jesus uses a couple phrases that shed some light on the “between the lines” part here.  The first phrase is “thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times.”  Another phrase he uses is “each according to his ability.”  Both are used multiple times and in a variety of stories.  And I think both of them have to do with what I call, “the relative capacity of people”.  The story behind thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times is that when seed is planted, the size of the harvest depends on the relative capacity of each individual plant.  Make sense?  Each one has an individual potential.  They don’t earn it or become more fruitful.  In a sense, each plant is what it is.

The second phrase is “each according to his ability.”  You can probably see where that line comes in.  Back to the story in Luke 19, you’re only held accountable for what you should produce…according to your ability.  Both lines really are about the “relative capacity of people”.  And both are helpful when it comes to reading between the lines of Luke 19.  Follow me on this one.

If you think back to the guy that returned 1000% and the guy that produced 500%.  If they each had a level of capacity (ability) and they both heard “good job”, then the assumption must be that they actually produced “according to their ability”.  Here’s the question when you read between the lines.  What if the 1000% fold guy had only brought back 500%.  Would he have heard, “good job?”

Would he have heard, “good job?”  I think not.  I think they both heard “good job” because they both returned “according to their ability”.  If they had not returned what they were individually capable of, they would have been underperforming.  And they would have heard a different response.

This is important.  What it says is that you’ve got people who are hundred fold people in your organization and you need to be sure that they’re in the right seats on the bus…because those are the only seats that will enable a return that is consistent with their ability.  In a sense, you are stewarding their talent.  Interesting, don’t you think?

Here’s the question: “Do you have the right people in the right seats on your bus?”

So you’ve worked hard to make sure that the right people are on the bus.  With all the pressures of an organization like yours, how can you make the decision to move people from one seat on the bus to another?  Actually, this is a time when you cannot make any other decision…and still succeed.  Carl George was right when he said, "Leaders allocate the finite resources of the organization to the critical growth path."  There’s a lot in that statement.  First, only leaders are able to make the right call.   Hesitation, second guessing, and blinking in the face of confrontation…is not the realm of leadership.

Second, resources are always finite.  Whether you’re talking about funding or the right people, they’re always in limited supply.  It’s a zero sum game.

Last, there really is a single critical growth path.  That is not an overstatement.

Tough spot isn’t it?  That’s why it’s called leadership.

How do you make the decision to step into leadership?  Or do you?  Is it only a gift that some have?  And the rest are simply followers?  I’m really finding True North to be both compelling and disturbing at the same time.  Both in a good way!  Compelling because it asks some great questions.  Disturbing for the same reason!

A basic premise of the book is that "you can discover your authentic leadership right now."  And all of us have some of it in us.  Not just the super charismatic, hard-charging, type A people that we all naturally know as leaders.

So how do you know where you can begin to use that undiscovered leadership element?  The first step might be to identify an area that you really care about.  Then, in considering whether to step up and lead authentically, you need to ask yourself these two questions:

• If not me, then who?
• If not now, then when?

Interesting isn’t it?  You may already be there.  You may have already asked yourself questions like these.  But think about all of the people, on your team and others, that may need to be asked the question! 

What do you find yourself focusing on…problems?  Or opportunities?  Think about the kinds of things that draw your attention…and your best people.  Where do you find yourself spending your very finite energy?  If you’re like many of us, and you’re honest, you’ll have to say that you’re actually spending more time solving problems than you are capitalizing on opportunities.  Dohhhhhhhh!

After a great discussion last week about the importance of having the right people in the right seats I threw Good to Great into my bag for review.  I know you’ve probably read Jim Collins’ work, but if you haven’t looked it over lately…it may be time.

Here’s what I found today.  Collins discovered that Good to Great companies put their best people on their biggest opportunities…not their biggest problems.  Hmmmmm.  Is that what we do?  Collins also found that his comparison companies failed "to grasp the fact that managing your problems can only make you good, whereas building your opportunities is the only way to become great (p. 59)."

We’ve talked a lot about the fact that there are no problem-free solutions.  Here’s another reason it makes more sense to simply choose the problem set you’d rather have…and then put your best people on the opportunities within your reach.

So…are you focusing on your problems?  Or on opportunities?

Tripped across an interesting podcast today; an interview with Bill George, author of Authentic Leadership.  He’s out with a new book that looks great, True North: Discover Your Authentic Leadership.  You can check out the interview right here.  I think you’ll be hearing more about this one right here.