Showing posts with label Good to Great. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Good to Great. Show all posts

Thursday, December 14, 2006

How to Ruin a Good Church, Part II


How to Ruin a Good Church or Para-Church Organization:
Treat It Like a Business


Note: For Part I, See Previous Post

In 2005, Jim Collins, author of the best-selling Good to Great, penned a brief but time-worthy monograph Good to Great and the Social Sector. His subtitle should say it all, Why Business Thinking is Not the Answer. However, just in case anyone missed his point, Collins’ first paragraph begins with these prescient words, “We must reject the idea—well-intentioned, but dead wrong—that the primary path to greatness in the social sector is to become ‘more like a business’” (p. 1). (Note: All quotes and references are from, Collins, Jim. Good to Great and the Social Sector: Why Business Thinking is Not the Answer. A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great. Boulder, CO: Jim Collins, 2005.)

Issue Three: First Who—Getting the Right People on the Bus, within the Social Sector Constraints

Collins launches his discussion of issue three with a true story that illustrates that social sector “leadership” is not only about the “head” of the organization. In his illustration, a high school science chair turns his fourteen-person department into a great organization. You “can build a pocket of greatness without executive power, in the middle of an organization” (p. 14).

Collins then repeats his findings from Good to Great. “Do whatever you can to get the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people into the right seats” (p. 14).

Since it is harder to hire “great” people in the social sector, at least with money as a motivator, and since it is harder to fire mediocre people in the social sector, especially volunteers, early assessment is the key to getting and keeping the right people in the right seats (p. 15).

Who are the “right” people in non-profit organizations? “Those who are productively neurotic, those who are self-motivated and self-disciplined, those who wake up every day, compulsively driven to do the best they can because it is simply part of their DNA” (p. 15).

Taking It Home

So, how do you select and assess people in the social sector? First, tap into their idealistic passions. The “social sectors have one compelling advantage: desperate craving for meaning in our lives” (p. 16). Purity of mission has the power to ignite passion.

Second, make the selection process selective. The “more selective the process, the more attractive a position becomes—even if volunteer or low pay” (p. 16).

Issue Four: The Hedgehog Concept—Rethinking the Economic Engine without a Profit Motive

The essence of the Hedgehog Concept is “to attain piercing clarity about how to produce the best long-term results, and then exercising the relentless discipline to say, ‘No thank you,’ to opportunities that fail the hedgehog test” (p. 17). In the private sector, this includes three intersecting circles of deep understanding:

1. Knowing what you are deeply passionate about.

2. Knowing what you can be the best in the world at.

3. Knowing what best drives your economic engine.

In the social sector, the third area “shifts from being an economic engine to a resource engine” (p. 18). The question is not, “How much money do we make?” It is, “How can we develop a sustainable resource engine to deliver superior performance relative to our mission?” (p. 18).

The core resource for non-profits is people. People who know what they and the organization are passionate about and who know what they and the organization can be the best in the world at.


Taking It Home

The first key leadership principle is learning how to tie your people (resource) to your passion and your passion to your people. How do we jointly develop a family-sense of shared purpose that everyone is passionate about?

The second key is learning how to say “No thank you” to resources (people) who are not passionate about your passion. In a church, this means taking the risky level five leader step of offending the well-too-do or well-connected in your congregation by not selecting them for leadership positions if they are not passionate about the church’s passion.

Issue Five: Turning the Flywheel—Building Momentum by Building the Brand

In building a great social sector organization, “there is no single defining action, no grand program, no one killer innovation, no solitary lucky break, no miracle moment. Rather, our research showed that it feels like turning a giant flywheel. Pushing with great effort—days, weeks and months of work, with almost imperceptible progress—you finally get the flywheel to inch forward. But you don’t stop. You keep pushing, and with persistent effort, you eventually get the flywheel to complete one entire turn” (p. 23).

You keep this up . . . a hundred thousand times. “Then, at some point—breakthrough! Each turn builds upon previous work, compounding your investment of effort. The flywheel flies forward with almost unstoppable momentum. This is how you build greatness” (p. 23).

By focusing on your passion, you produce results. Those results, in turn, attract resources, which you use to build a stronger organization which delivers even better results, which attracts greater recourses . . . Success breeds support which breeds greater success.

It’s fascinating to see this process at work, for good and for bad, in a local church. Often times, a pastor will serve faithfully for years, leading the cranking of the flywheel. For reasons known only to God, the pastor senses a call elsewhere. The new pastor on the block inherits an already-cranked flywheel. The flywheel takes off. The new pastor claims all the credit, indicating that he is not a true level five leader. Clogs develop in the flywheel, and it grinds to a halt.

Had the new pastor rightfully honored the way the previous pastor had built a strong, self-sustaining organization (one that could thrive without him because he had equipped the people to be leaders), then the flywheel could have continued to fly on into the future. This is the essence of a great church with a great level five leader.

According to Collins, in the social sector, the key driver that keeps the flywheel flying is brand reputation which he defines as tangible results and emotional share of heart. That is, potential supporters believe not only in your mission, “but in your capacity to deliver on that mission” (p. 25).

Taking It Home

Social sector leaders constantly keep the flywheel going by doing good for the world but only good if it fits with the core passion, and refusing to be diverted to other good things (p. 27). Stand firm behind your core passion delivered with uncompromising excellence. Build a pocket of greatness.

Do not let outside or inside problems stop you. Follow the Stockdale Paradox: “You must retain faith that you can prevail to greatness in the end, while retaining the discipline to confront the brutal facts of your current reality. What can you do today to create a pocket of greatness, despite the brutal facts of your environment?” (p. 30).

Greatness

As Collins concludes, on his back cover, “Greatness is not a function of circumstance. Greatness, it turns out, is largely a matter of conscious choice.”

How to Ruin a Good Church, Part I

How to Ruin a Good Church or Para-Church Organization:
Treat It Like a Business


In 2005, Jim Collins, author of the best-selling Good to Great, penned a brief but time-worthy monograph Good to Great and the Social Sector. His subtitle should say it all, Why Business Thinking is Not the Answer. However, just in case anyone missed his point, Collins’ first paragraph begins with these prescient words, “We must reject the idea—well-intentioned, but dead wrong—that the primary path to greatness in the social sector is to become ‘more like a business’” (p. 1). (Note: All quotes and references are from, Collins, Jim. Good to Great and the Social Sector: Why Business Thinking is Not the Answer. A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great. Boulder, CO: Jim Collins, 2005.)

What does Collins have in mind with his term “social sector”? He’s picturing churches, para-church organizations, elementary schools, high schools, colleges, seminaries, non-profit organizations, hospitals, social services, charities, the arts—any non-business, any non-profit organization.

When Collins says that social sector organizations should not function like a business, is he saying that they should function in shoddy ways? Absolutely not. “We need to reject the naïve imposition of the ‘language of business’ on the social sectors, and instead jointly embrace a language of greatness” (p. 2).

What Collins provides in Good to Great and the Social Sector is a research-based framework for greatness that articulates timeless principles that explain why some social sector organizations become great and others remain mediocre. He defines five issues of vital importance to non-profits:

1. Defining “Great”—Calibrating Success without Business Metrics

2. Level 5 Leadership—Getting Things Done within a Diffuse Power Structure

3. First Who—Getting the Right People on the Bus within Social Sector Constraints

4. The Hedgehog Concept—Rethinking the Economic Engine without a Profit Motive

5. Turning the Flywheel—Building Momentum by Building the Brand

Issue One: Defining “Great”—Calibrating Success without Business Metrics

Collins’ first “take-away” states that “In the social sectors, money is only an input, and not a measure of greatness” (p. 5). In other words, for a social sector organization, greatness must be assessed relative to mission, not financial returns. For non-profits, the critical question is, “How effectively do we deliver on our mission and make a distinctive impact, relative to our resources?” (p. 5).

Of course, in non-profits, great goals can seemingly defy measurement. Still, leaders are to ask a simple question, “What do we mean by great results?” (p. 7). Even when you cannot quantify results (specific measurable numbers) you can ask qualitative (quality-based) questions.

Taking It Home
As I’ve reflected upon Collins’ emphasis, I’ve integrated them with my own MVP Organizational concepts.

M Stands for Mission: The universal calling of the organization.
V Stands for Vision: The unique dream of the organization.
P Stands for Passion: The unmistakable obsession of the organization.

Combining my thoughts and Collins’, I would suggest three types of guiding questions.

Mission Questions: What does superior performance look like in our organization given our mission statement? In what ways are we “delivering” on our mission?

Vision Questions: What distinctive impacts are we making that align with our organizational vision? If we were to disappear, what hole would we leave that could not be easily filled by any other organization on the planet?

Passion Questions: What lasting, enduring statement about the meaning of life are we making that advances our organizational passion? What eternal principle drives us and how are we sharing that truth in love everywhere, all the time?

Questions such as these, altered and specified to “fit” specific non-profits, can become diagnostic indicators. Collins explains, “What matters is not finding the perfect indicator, but settling upon a consistent and intelligent method of assessing your output results, and then tracking your trajectory with rigor” (p. 8).

Relative to these questions, social organizations must make a relentless commitment that drives them to ever higher levels of performance and impact. In this regard, Collins makes a simple but profound point about the difference between goodness and greatness. “No matter how much you have achieved, you will always be merely good relative to what you can become. Greatness is an inherently dynamic process, not an end point. The moment you think of yourself as great, your slide to mediocrity will have already begun” (p. 9).

Issue Two: Level 5 Leadership—Getting Things Done within a Diffuse Power Structure

Social sector leaders do not normally have concentrated executive power. However, they have the power of influence, the power of inclusion, the power of language, the power of shared interests, and the power of coalition.

Thus, executive style leadership is impractical in the social sector (p. 10). This is why many business executives fail when they move into the social sector.

It is also why, as I have witnessed repeatedly as a consultant and a pastor, many “lay leaders” (such as elders, board members, etc.) fail miserably when they attempt to bring their “business savvy” and workplace style of leadership into the local church or para-church.

Collins concludes that there are two types of leadership skill:

1. Business Sector Executive Skill

Here, the leader has enough concentrated power and structural authority to simply make the “right” decisions.

2. Social Sector Legislative Skill

Here, the leader relies upon persuasion, political (people) currency, and shared interests (shared MVP) to create the right conditions for the “right” decisions to happen (p. 11).

Level five leaders are “ambitious first and foremost for the cause, the movement, the mission, the work—not themselves—and they have the will to do whatever it takes (whatever it takes) to make good on that ambition” (p. 11). In the social sector, the Level five leader combines personal humility and professional will to create legitimacy and influence (p. 11).

As an aside, though Collins resists the term “servant leader,” I personally embrace it. Collins fears that the “servant” part of the phrase implies the lack of a strong will (the inability to do whatever it takes to advance the MVP of the organization). Biblically, Christ, Moses, Paul, Joshua, Debra, and all other godly leaders, combined person humility with “ministry will.”

In the social sector, what does level five servant leadership require? It necessitates that the people know the leader’s heart so well that they are convinced that he or she has the greater good of the organization in mind, not him or herself (p. 11). Otherwise, why should those over whom a leader has no direct power give themselves over to a decision that they view as primarily being about and advancing the leader, rather than the organization’s mission, vision, and passion?

Collins brilliantly illustrates the difference between the practice of leadership and the exercise of power. “If I put a loaded gun to your head, I can get you to do things you might not otherwise do, but I’ve not practiced leadership; I’ve exercised power. True leadership only exists if people follow when they have the freedom not to” (pp. 12-13).

Taking It Home

What are my take-aways from this? Social sector leadership:

1. Requires a shared commitment to the MVP, jointly developed and embraced.

2. Requires the “sharing of life together” so that people see into the leader’s heart enough to confidently entrust themselves to his or her leadership.

3. Requires the wisdom to apply change-management principles. Legislative leaders do not force change. They shepherd people who then voluntarily enact change because they have discerned the wisdom of the change and been given a voice in the change discussion.

Note: See Next Post for Part II