Be Rigorous–Not Ruthless
A while ago I was talking to a professor who does some teaching on leadership, and he said he wasn’t a fan of Jim Collin’s Good to Great because he had seen Collins’ “first who, then what” principle often used to justify laying off talented people from organizations.
I told him that I thought that would indeed be a pretty bad application of the principle, but that these people were misunderstanding Collins. Collins’ principle is sound; but this misapplication of it is not.
I was just recently dipping in to Good to Great again, and noticed that Collins actually deals with this very issue. It comes down to the distinction between being ruthless and being rigorous:
To be ruthless means hacking and cutting, especially in difficult times, or wantonly firing people without any thoughtful consideration.
To be rigorous means consistently applying exacting standards at all times and at all levels, especially in upper management. To be rigorous, not ruthless, means that the best people need not worry about their positions and can concentrate fully on their work.
. . .
To be rigorous in people decisions means first becoming rigorous about top management people decisions. Indeed, I fear that people might use “first who rigor” as an excuse for mindlessly chopping out people to improve performance. “It’s hard to do, but we’ve got to be rigorous,” I can hear them say. [Note: I've actually heard people say that! Pretty bad.] And I cringe. For not only will a lot of hardworking, good people get hurt in the process, but the evidence suggests that such tactics are contrary to producing sustained great results.
The good-to-great companies rarely used head-count lopping as a tactic and almost never used it as a primary strategy. Even in the Wells Fargo case, the company used lay-offs half as much as Bank of America during the transition era.
In contrast, we found layoffs used five times more frequently in the comparison companies than in the good-to-great companies. Some of the comparison companies had an almost chronic addiction to layoffs and restructurings.
It would be a mistake — a tragic mistake, indeed — to think that the way you ignite a transition from good to great is by wantonly swinging the ax on vast numbers of hardworking people. Endless restructuring and mindless hacking were never part of the good to great model.
I would just have one improvement here. Probably few people set out to purposely take a “mindlessly hacking” approach. Most who do so probably don’t even realize it, but instead think they are doing right.
So I think the most helpful point Collins makes here is that the disposition of every organization should be to value and keep its people. Lay-offs are an over-used tactic, especially in downturns, and do not generally correlate with sustained great results (as I’ve blogged on before).
The disposition of a company should be to retain its people (assuming alignment with the values and that they are performing) both because this most aligns with the value of people and because it actually benefits the organization more. For, as Collins points out later on this same page, the ultimate throttle on growth for any company is “the ability to get and keep the right people.”
So the lesson of the “first who, then what” principle is not that people are easily expendable. They are not, and should not be treated as such. The lesson is actually the opposite: people are valuable, and the disposition of an organization ought to be to keep them. Endless restructuring and removing of talented people, even due to changes in strategy, were “never part of the good to great model.”
Is it Biblical to Choose a Job You Love? An Example
Yesterday I argued from the principles in 1 Corinthians 7:39-40 that our own happiness is a legitimate consideration in making major life decisions. This is how Paul sees the choice to marry, and it seems that the same principle carries through to other areas of freedom, such as what job to choose.
Today I wanted to give a helpful example of this. As I’ve argued before, choosing a job that you want to do is typically the path to greater effectiveness. Here’s an example that illustrates that, from William Lane Craig (a top Christian apologist), from his book On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision
Jan and I have found that in our life together, the Lord usually shows us only enough light along the path to take the next step without knowing what lies further down the trail. So one evening as Jan and I were nearing the end of our time at Trinity, we were sitting at the supper table, talking about what to do after graduation. Neither of us had any clear idea or leading as to what we should do.
At that point Jan said to me, “Well, if money were no object, what would you really like to do next?”
I replied, “If money were no object, what I’d really like to do is go to England and do a doctorate under John Hick.”
He goes on to tell the story of writing a letter to inquire about studying with Dr. Hick, getting accepted, how God brought the money together for this in spite of the fact that they were “as poor as church mice,” and how his studies in England turned out to be foundational to the whole rest of his ministry.
This is a great example of choosing a job (or, in this case, the next step along the path) for fundamental reasons rather than instrumental reasons.
In other words, doing what you find meaningful in itself is usually the path to greatest joy and effectiveness, rather than trying to take a lot of steps that you don’t want to take, but which seem “necessary” to get where you want to go. Craig’s story here is as good of an example of that as any — especially since he pursued it in spite of many obstacles in the way, and the Lord provided.
I know that there can be extenuating circumstances for people. But as much as you can, make career choices for fundamental reasons rather than instrumental reasons.
Make Sure to Distinguish Authority and Competence
Andy Stanley makes this point well in Next Generation Leader: 5 Essentials for Those Who Will Shape the Future
Every leader has authority over arenas in which he has little or no competence. When we exert our authority in an area where we lack competence, we can derail projects and demotivate those who have the skills we lack.
On any given Sunday morning, I have the authority to walk into our video control room and start barking out orders. The fact that I don’t know the first thing about what’s going on in there does not diminish my authority. Eventually the crew would do what I asked them to do. But the production would suffer horribly. If I were to do that Sunday after Sunday, our best and brightest volunteers would leave. Eventually our paid staff would start looking for something else to do as well.
There is no need to become an expert in, or even to understand, every component of your organization. When you try to exercise authority within a department that is outside your core competencies, you will hinder everything and everyone under your watch. If you fail to distinguish between authority and competence, you will exert your influence in ways that damage projects and people.
Is it Biblical to Choose a Job You Love?
It’s almost silly to even ask that question. It’s like asking “Is it biblical to chose a spouse that you actually want to be with?” Yes, of course it is. Why would you marry someone you don’t want to marry? Likewise, if you have the choice (and we do much more often than we realize), why would you chose a job you aren’t excited about?
In fact, Paul’s teaching on marriage is actually a helpful analogy here, because it gives us a principle. In regard to marriage, he says: “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39). So marriage is an area of freedom — marry whom you want (as long as they are a Christian). In other words, what you want to do is not only a legitimate consideration; you are free to make your choice on that basis.
In fact, Paul goes further: “Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God” (v. 40). Now, at first it doesn’t sound like he’s going further, because he is actually recommending in this case that a widow not remarry. He’s not forbidding remarriage, but just recommending against it in this case. My point here is not to discuss whether it is better to marry or not. Rather, here’s the important point: Paul’s reason for his advice here is that she will be happier if she remains as she is.
In other words, your happiness is a valid and legitimate consideration in making life decisions. Paul is suggesting that she actually would be happier not to remarry. Again, the issue of whether someone should get married or not is not my point here. My point here is that, remarkably, Paul considers happiness a fully legitimate consideration in making the major life choice of whether to marry and whom to marry. In fact, it actually seems to be the primary consideration in the decision, since his entire reason for recommending singleness here is that this path would, he argues, result in greater happiness.
If happiness is a legitimate consideration in choosing a spouse, then it would also seem to follow that happiness is a legitimate consideration in making other life decisions as well, such as where you work and what you do for a living.
I’m not saying that there aren’t more things to take into account. But enjoying your work and having a job that suits you is a right and good and significant consideration in choosing your work.
Tomorrow I’ll give an example of what this looks like.
Willow Creek’s Global Leadership Summit Featured in Fast Company
Last December, Fast Company did a story on Willow Creek’s Global Leadership Summit. It’s a good article and worth your time. And I commend Fast Company for doing an article that features some of the excellent leadership development that is going on in the church right now.
I’ve been to the Summit twice, and it is fantastically helpful. In fact, the Summit often includes many of the leadership thinkers I tend to quote on this blog, such as Jim Collins, Chip and Dan Heath, Marcus Buckingham, and others. It has been a great experience to see some of them in person.
Here’s a great comment from Hybels on the importance of good leadership in the church:
The summit sprang from Hybels’s conviction that church leaders lacked leadership training. “I’d been trying to help churches train pastors, and I kept asking myself, Why do some churches flourish and others languish? Is it location? Denomination? Urban versus rural? Rich versus poor?” Hybels says. “I could think of an exception to every theory, until I realized that every thriving church was not just well fed but also well led. It was a potent combination of great teaching and great leadership.”
I agree with Hybels: churches need to be well taught and well led. For too long we’ve tended to create a dichotomy between the two. But good theology and good leadership belong together, and mutually serve one another.
Sometimes the Summit is criticized for bringing in secular thinkers (a criticism which would also apply to this blog!). I don’t think that criticism holds water; maybe I’ll talk about that issue sometime. I am grateful and excited for what the Lord is doing through the Summit to help teach his people more and more about effective leadership. It would be worth attending if you are able.
Excellence is not the Opposite of Failure
Marcus Buckingham states this well in Go Put Your Strengths to Work
The radical idea at the core of the strengths movement is that excellence is not the opposite of failure, and that, as such, you will learn little about excellence from studying failure.
This seems like an obvious idea until you realize that, before the strengths movement began, virtually all business and academic inquiry was built on the opposite idea: namely, that a deep understanding of failure leads to an equally deep understanding of excellence. That’s why we studied unhappy customers to learn about the happy ones, employees’ weaknesses to learn how to make them excel, sickness to learn about health, divorce to learn about marriage, and sadness to learn about joy.
What has become evident in virtually every field of human endeavor is that failure and success are not opposites, they are merely different, and so they must be studied separately. Thus, for example, if you want to learn what you should not do after an environmental disaster, Chernobyl will be instructive. But if you want to learn what you should do, Chernobyl is a waste. Only successful cleanups, such as the Rocky Flats nuclear facility in Colorado, can tell you what excellence looks like.
Study unproductive teams, and you soon discover that the teammates argue a lot. Study successful teams, and you learn that they argue just as much. To find the secrets of a great team, you have to investigate the successful ones and figure out what is going on in the space between the arguments.
Well said.
Spiritual Leadership in 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12
1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is all about leadership, though it is often overlooked as a leadership passage in the NT.
I’ve copied the passage below and inserted some comments in italics as I go.
For you yourselves know, brethren, that our coming to you was not in vain, but after we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition.
So leadership is willing to proceed amidst much opposition, and is bold.
For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit;
So leaders are truthful, open, and straight talking. They don’t try to hide or conceal or trick people or spin things, or try to “justify” such measures as “necessary politics.” Leaders also speak truth, not error—that is, they should not even be unintentionally mistaken about critical issues, especially the gospel. Neither should their motives be for their own gain or otherwise impure.
but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men but God, who examines our hearts.
Leaders seek to please God, not men. This shows the necessity of pure inward motives, for God examines the heart.
For we never came with flattering speech, as you know,
Again, leaders don’t “spin” things. They don’t give people a sense that they’ve been “sold” or that they aren’t stating the whole truth. They don’t flatter, which is to give insincere compliments or compliments for the sake of personal gain. They lead through the truth, not manipulation.
nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness—nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others,
Again, leaders don’t lead for the sake of enriching themselves or receiving glory from people. This is because (see above) they seek the approval of God, not man, and God knows and examines the heart.
even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.
Leaders do not by default seek to exert their authority. Their aim is to serve and build up the other, not lord it over those whom they are leading (cf. Matthew 20:25-28). They seek to primarily lead through influence, not the direct exercise of their authority.
But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children.
Leaders are not overly critical, and they don’t tear down their people. They exercise gentleness and are encouraging and upbuilding.
Having thus a fond affection for you,
Leaders love their people!
We were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us.
The notion that leaders should not be friends with the people they lead is pretty bad. Since leaders love their people, they also share their lives with them.
For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.
This echoes the fact that Paul was not out for gain. He worked so as not to require support from them.
You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers;
Leaders have integrity and are upright and of high character.
just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children,
Again, leaders exhort and encourage primarily, rather than control. Paul’s leadership is not authoritarian. It is not about making the leader look good, but rather building people up. He leads primarily through influence, not control. He doesn’t motivate through fear and guilt, but through exhortation and encouragement.
So that you may walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory.
The goal of spiritual leadership is that people are built up and living lives that reflect the gospel and the greatness of God. Leadership also points people to the future, which is ultimately the coming of God’s kingdom in its fullness and the restoration of all things.
What Killed Myspace
The cover story for the latest issue of Businessweek is The Rise and Inglorious Fall of Myspace.
There are a lot of reasons, obviously, for the massive decline of Myspace. But here’s something that especially stood out:
“There was lot of pressure to drive revenue. There were things that we knew would be more efficient for the user that we didn’t act on immediately because it would reduce page views, which woul dhave hurt the bottom line.” — Shawn Gold, Myspace’s former senior vice president for marketing and content
In other words, the pursuit of profit was placed ahead of the user.
Deadly. Just deadly.
There’s a lesson here, which I’ve blogged about often: You have to put your user/customer/constituents before revenue.
If your organization places higher priority on money than the people it serves, you are already on your way down.
Sometimes people say “but if we don’t put revenue first, we won’t make enough money to survive.” But this has it backwards. If you do put revenue first, you will likely undercut the very things that actually produce revenue — things like goodwill, generosity, genuine service, and remarkability. The way to ensure that you have enough revenue to survive and thrive is to not put revenue first.
Profit matters, obviously. But the best companies put something other than profit first — and, paradoxically, become more profitable as a result.
Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty
Here’s a book I’m looking forward to reading more of: Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty
I don’t know if I will agree with everything — or even most — of what I read here. In general, the main way I assess a book is to see whether it gets the core issue that goes to the heart of the subject. If it gets that core issue, it is usually extremely helpful. If it doesn’t, it usually less helpful (and sometimes, completely unhelpful). I haven’t read enough of this one yet to know which category it falls in, though much of what I have read so far has been helpful.
Here’s a key idea from the first chapter that seems extremely useful: One effective way to fight poverty is to break poverty down into several component parts, and then use experiments and evidence to identify which solutions work best in each case.
At the very least, that’s an extremely helpful tool. It helps identify, for example, whether aid is a good idea or not. The authors don’t seek to give an answer to whether aid is good or bad in general; rather, they argue that the question is whether particular instances of aid can do good or not. I think that’s a critical point.
To think about this from a Christian perspective: The biblical passages on generosity to the poor, for example, would seem to imply that aid is indeed an important component in fighting poverty. But we also know that aid alone cannot lift the poor out of poverty, because, for example, it can create dependence. And authors such as William Easterly have made an effective case that aid often makes things worse (see his The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good
The solution, I would argue, is not that aid has no place, but that it needs to be embedded in the proper framework and suited to the particular situations where it is the best tool. I think this is biblical, and we also tend to think this way in our own lives. If a friend hits hard times, for example, most of us can discern when aid would indeed be important and useful, and when it wouldn’t. You have to use judgment. Sometimes it really would be helpful and essential component to helping him get back on his feet. And sometimes it wouldn’t. It is the same, it would seem, in the cause of global poverty.
Just some initial thoughts. Looking forward to dipping into this book more.
Earthen Vessels: Why Our Bodies Matter to Our Faith
Matthew Anderson’s book Earthen Vessels: Why Our Bodies Matter to Our Faith
The body is a much neglected subject in evangelicalism, and Earthen Vessels helps fill this gap well. It is filled with insight, while being a very accessible read. Beyond that, Matt is an excellent, excellent writer writer. Earthen Vessels is a joy to read not just because of what he says, but because he says it well.
Here’s the description from Amazon:
Our bodies matter. Christians today sometimes forget this, dangerously ignoring the importance of their physical selves when it comes to technology, sexuality, worship, and even death. Anderson’s book will help readers learn what the Bible says about our bodies and grow to appreciate the importance of embodiment in our spiritual lives. It will also explore generational differences when it comes to how we perceive and use our bodies. Just as Christ’s body was crucial to our salvation, our own bodies are an important part of the complete Christian life.
And here’s a blurb from Justin Taylor:
“What does Christianity have to say about the body? Much more than you might think. Matthew Lee Anderson—one of evangelicalism’s brightest young writers—is a serious student of God’s Word and God’s world, and in this book he patiently and insightfully explores a theology of the body from numerous angles. Rightly seeing the body as a gift from God for our good and his glory, Anderson insightfully shows us what a biblical worldview has to say about the body in relationship to community, pleasure, sex, sexuality, tattoos, death, prayer, and the church. Anderson’s arguments deserve careful consideration. I suspect that many of us will think differently—and more biblically—about the body as a result of this very fine work.”
You can also download two sample chapters of the book at Matt’s blog, Mere Orthodoxy, as well as watch a trailer for the book, read the rest of the endorsements, and more.
Don’t be a Squelcher
Richard Florida is talking about community leaders here, but his point applies to all forms of leadership, including leading and managing in organizations:
Unfortunately, leadership more often than not works in the opposite direction by squashing civic energy. Jane Jacobs once told me that communities everywhere are filled with creative vigor, but that some of them are run by squelchers. Squelchers are control freaks who think they know what’s best for their city or region, even as their leadership (or lack thereof) causes a hemorrhage of bright, talented, and creative people.
Squelchers, he said, are the kind of leaders that use the word “no” a lot. They constantly put roadblocks in the way of community energy and initiatives. I’ve seen firsthand how these squelchers drain the life and energy from their communities. The respond to new ideas with phrases like “That’s not how we do things here”; “That will never fly”; or “Why don’t you just move someplace you’ll be happy?” (From Who’s Your City?: How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life
)
The Virtue of Inefficiency?
Sometimes, the quest for efficiency is a red herring. Consider the example of the first light bulb, described in The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy
Thomas Edison’s first light bulb wasn’t at all efficient. One 1905 observer complained that “the incandescent lamp is an extremely poor vehicle for converting electric energy into light energy, since only about 4 percent of the energy supplied to the lamp is converted into light energy, the remaining 96 percent being converted into heat energy.” And the power plant that Edison built to light his bulb didn’t convert even 10 percent of its heat into electricity.
But the end-to-end losses of over 99 percent seemed worthwhile to produce such a wonderfully clean, compact, cool, and safe source of light. Efficiency was beside the point. As Jill Jonnes recounts in Empires of Light, gas and oil lamps didn’t stand a chance against such a superior alternative.
Sometimes a concern for efficiency undercuts what really matters. To have said “96 percent of the energy that goes into the light bulb produces heat, not light, so let’s get rid of this thing” would have missed the most important thing: we have light. And this is way better than oil lamps.
It’s often the same way in organizations. An organization often starts out vibrant and energetic and full life. Things are getting done, and people love what they are doing.
But then someone says “we need to get this organized better.” So they bring in the efficient organizers, and the life and spirit of the organization is efficencized right out of it.
Of course, organizing is a good thing. The problem is in treating it as the main thing. Or, which is the same thing, sacrificing the things that create the life and spirit of the organization to the perceived need to “have control” and be efficient.
Don’t be an efficient organizer — someone who cares about cost-cutting and efficiency as though they are more important than the mission and goals of the organization. Put the mission first. Be efficient where you can, but don’t let that become the point.
Develop Your Leadership Potential
Alex Chediak has an excellent article over at Boundless on developing your leadership potential.
His three points are:
- A leader must strive for excellence
- A leaders must think clearly
- A leader must combine humility with boldness and realism with optimism
Here’s an excerpt from his first point:
Remember that God’s timetable may be different from yours, and be faithful with what He’s given you right now, while also striving to be a wise steward of your current growth opportunities. The Bible says that whatever your hand finds to do, you should do with all our might (Ecclesiastes 9:10). And that in everything you do, “work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Colossians 3:23–24). That means that in serving your “human masters” (your bosses or professors) you are actually serving Jesus Christ. So do it with excellence, as best you can.
Paul gives us an example of godly striving — an ambition to accomplish much for Christ. He made plans to go to Rome and then Spain and to continue his church planting among the unreached (Romans 15:20–24). He spoke of being zealous for good works (Titus 2:14) and said this zeal should mark us all. In the Parable of the Talents, the mere preservation of one’s talent brought scorn and reproof. The Master, it turns out, expected an increase, a return on investment (Matthew 25:14–30). To whom much is given, much is expected (Luke 12:48).
So go ahead and aspire to achieve great things for God’s glory. Don’t equate humility with mediocrity. There’s a subtle, yet significant difference between seeking to make a name for yourself and seeking to make a name for Christ. When we’re obedient, diligent and fruitful stewards of the gifts and opportunities God gives us, we honor God. Titus 2:10 talks about our lives adorning the gospel message — making it look beautiful in the eyes of others. Christians are called to excellence in all that they do. Excellence is both attractive to others and inherently valuable. Therefore, those who excel are often placed in positions of authority or influence (so they can motivate others to excel).
Low-Trust Cultures vs. High-Trust Cultures
Stephen Covey outlines the differences very well in First Things First
Supervision
In a low-trust culture, supervision is associated with words like control, monitor, hover over, and check up. In a high-trust culture, people supervise themselves according to the agreement. The criteria are clear, the consequences are set. There’s common understanding of what’s expected. A manager, leader, or parent becomes a source of help — a facilitator, helper, cheerleader, adviser, counselor, and coach — someone to remove the oil spills and get out of the way.
Evaluation
In a low-trust culture, you’re into forced ranking, external performance evaluation, and judgment. In a high-trust culture, the judgment goes into the performance agreement before the fact instead of after the fact. People judge themselves. Their evaluation is not just a function of measurement, but also of discernment. “The numbers are looking good, but I feel a concern about this particular area…” People are much more aware of the issues that affect their performance and success. [Note: The "discernment" here should not devolve into subjectivity. It needs to be anchored objectively in the mission and values of the organization.]
Span of Control
In a low-trust culture, the span of control is small. It takes time and energy to hover over, to check up. You can only control so many people. In a high-trust culture, you don’t need to hover over and check up. You aren’t trying to control but to release. Instead of one to eight or ten, you have one to fifty, one to a hundred, one to two hundred.
Motivation
In a low-trust culture, you’re into “the great jackass theory of motivation” — the carrot, out in front, the stick behind. In a high-trust culture, people are internally motivated. They’re fueled by the fire within. They’re driven by a sense of passion about fulfilling a shared vision that’s also a co-mission, a synergy between their own mission and the mission of the family or organization.
Structure and Systems
A low-trust culture is filled with bureaucracy, excessive rules and regulations, restrictive, closed systems. In the fear of some “loose cannon,” people set up procedures that everyone has to accommodate. The level of initiative is low — basically “do what you’re told.” Structures are pyramidal, hierarchical. Information systems are short-term. The quarterly bottom line tends to drive the mentality in the culture. In a high-trust culture, structures and systems are aligned to create empowerment, to liberate people’s energy and creativity toward agreed-upon purposes within the guidelines of shared values. There’s less bureaucracy, fewer rules and regulations, more involvement.
It isn’t my point in posting this — my point is to encourage you to keep building a high-trust rather than low-trust culture in your organization because it is intrinsically right and better for people — but Covey next makes a connection to personal time management. And his connection is this: high trust cultures save a lot of time, because you don’t have to spend so much time controlling, monitoring, checking up, supervising, coming up with hokey motivational programs, creating (and enforcing) pointless rules, and sorting out the communication problems that result from low-trust environments.
He concludes:
We spend an incredibly inordinate amount of time dealing with symptoms of low trust, but learning how to deal with the symptoms faster is not going to make a qualitative difference.
“First things first together” is a function of empowerment. It’s the ultimate way of moving the fulcrum over from the “one to one” ratio to a “one unit of effort to one thousand units of results” ratio. There’s no time management technique that can even begin to approach the results. And that’s why empowerment is at the heart of Quadrant II [that is, true personal effectiveness and effectiveness within organizations].
Does it Matter Where You Live? Part 2
Richard Florida again, in Who’s Your City?: How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life
Finding a place that makes us happy has a powerful effect on our “activation.” Such places encourage people to do more than they otherwise would, such as engage in more creative activities, invent new things, or start new companies — all things that are both personally fulfilling and economically productive.
This kind of activation, Tiagli found, stems in large part from the visual and cultural stimulation that places can provide — parks and open space, cultural offerings, things she calls “symbolic amenities.” This creates a regenerative cycle: the stimulation unleashes creative energy, which in turn attracts more high-energy people from other places, resulting in higher rates of innovation, greater economic prosperity, higher living standards, and more stimulation.
Does it Matter Where You Live?
Yes.
The ability to work from anywhere can make it seem that it doesn’t matter where you live, since you can connect with anyone and work with anyone wherever you are through technology.
But this would actually be a mistaken inference because of what Richard Florida calls “the clustering force.” Here’s what he says in Who’s Your City?: How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life
It’s a compelling notion, but it’s wrong. Today’s key economic factors — talent, innovation, and creativity — are not distributed evenly across the global econonomy. They concentrate in specific locations. It’s obvious how major new innovations in communications and transportation allow economic activity to spread out all over the world. What’s less obvious is the incredible power of what I call the clustering force.
In today’s creative economy, the real source of economic growth comes from the clustering and concentration of talented and productive people. New ideas are generated and our productivity increases when we locate close to one another in cities and regions. The clustering force makes each of us more productive, which in turn makes the places we inhabit much more productive, generating great increases in output and wealth.
Google and Amazon on The Importance of Taking the Long-Term View
It is noteworthy that two of the companies that have made the greatest impact over the last ten years, and continue to do so, have explicitly rejected the common approach of focusing on the short-term over the long-term.
They have both done this in spite of the fact that, when becoming public companies, the pressure from Wall Street is precisely to focus on the short-term. Many companies give in to this, and thus fail to become great. Google and Amazon stated from the start that they would resist this temptation and continue to think long-term, in spite of the pressure. This is a good lesson that is applicable to all areas of life, and is essential to effectiveness: take the long-term view, even when it is challenging.
Here’s what Google had to say in its founding IPO letter:
Our goal is to develop services that significantly improve the lives of as many people as possible. In pursuing this goal, we may do things that we believe have a positive impact on the world, even if the near term financial returns are not obvious. For example, we make our services as widely available as we can by supporting over 90 languages and by providing most services for free. Advertising is our principal source of revenue, and the ads we provide are relevant and useful rather than intrusive and annoying. We strive to provide users with great commercial information.
We are proud of the products we have built, and we hope that those we create in the future will have an even greater positive impact on the world.
As a private company, we have concentrated on the long term, and this has served us well. As a public company, we will do the same. In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations. Sometimes this pressure has caused companies to manipulate financial results in order to “make their quarter.” In Warren Buffett’s words, “We won’t ‘smooth’ quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you.”
If opportunities arise that might cause us to sacrifice short term results but are in the best long term interest of our shareholders, we will take those opportunities. We will have the fortitude to do this. We would request that our shareholders take the long term view.
And here’s what Jeff Bezos had to say in Amazon’s 1997 founding IPO letter (to get to it, just scroll down beneath the 2010 letter):
It’s All About the Long Term
We believe that a fundamental measure of our success will be the shareholder value we create over the long term. This value will be a direct result of our ability to extend and solidify our current market leadership position. The stronger our market leadership, the more powerful our economic model. Market leadership can translate directly to higher revenue, higher profitability, greater capital velocity, and correspondingly stronger returns on invested capital.
Our decisions have consistently reflected this focus. We first measure ourselves in terms of the metrics most indicative of our market leadership: customer and revenue growth, the degree to which our customers continue to purchase from us on a repeat basis, and the strength of our brand. We have invested and will continue to invest aggressively to expand and leverage our customer base, brand, and infrastructure as we move to establish an enduring franchise.
Because of our emphasis on the long term, we may make decisions and weigh tradeoffs differently than some companies.Accordingly, we want to share with you our fundamental management and decision-making approach so that you, our shareholders, may confirm that it is consistent with your investment philosophy…
Among the many lessons from these, here’s one of the key ones: The path to effectiveness is often unconventional. The conventional approach is often the easy, risk-free, uninspiring path of low impact. It often seems safer, but actually isn’t. Organizations that make a difference are those that, in the words of Mavericks at Work: Why the Most Original Minds in Business Win
Are You Over Managing Your People?
In the last 100 years, we’ve become accustomed to the idea of the manager as “boss.” The popular notion is that the manager — or, worse, the leader of the organization — is the one who “knows best,” and that it is his role to make sure everybody carries out his wishes. People can have some freedom, but really the manager is the “expert,” and the role of employees is not to think for themselves, take initiative, and direct themselves, but rather to take a “wait until told” approach to their work.
I shouldn’t say this is necessarily the popular view. It’s certainly not popular in the sense of “well-liked”! And lots of people and organizations think differently and more accurately. But it is a common view, and it’s one of the reasons — whether they know it or not — that many people don’t like their jobs.
Now, managers and overall leaders in an organization ought to set direction – they ought to know where they are going, and inspire people to go there. But the popular notion has gone beyond that, seeing the manager as the primary source of ideas and as someone who carefully monitors people to carry out his or her will in detail.
This view stems primarily (but not exclusively) from two false assumptions. First, it stems from the assumption that work by definition is drudgery and not enjoyable. As Dan Pink puts it in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
Second, it stems from a false assumption about human beings. It assumes that people are generally inert, not very competent, and wanting to avoid responsibility as much as they can. Hence, the only way to get performance out of people is to closely monitor them and exercise detailed control over them. (And in a very strange twist, the “manager” often, ironically, sees himself as an exception to this view of people. Somehow, “most” people are generally incapable of self direction, but he isn’t. That’s ultimately elitist, in my view — and not to mention wrong. In fact, and I hope this isn’t too blunt, in my observation, many of the managers that think they know best really don’t know what they are doing at all!)
Both of these assumptions are false. Sure, some work is dreary. But that doesn’t mean that most work is, or that somehow it ought to be — that you don’t have a “real job” unless it is largely unpleasant. And sure, some people do avoid responsibility. But most don’t. Most people are highly talented and creative and capable, and will far surpass your expectations if you give them high expectations and trust them. This is not only true to observation, but has actually been shown again and again through actual studies and research, such as that of Douglas McGregor (who wrote The Human Side of Enterprise way back in the 50s).
There is sometimes a place for detailed direction and a reliance on extrinsic motivation — namely, when you are dealing with rote, repeatable, non-creative tasks (and even there, the “manager knows best” paradigm is ultimately off in many ways). But most work these days is not like that. We are in the knowledge economy, and most of us are doing knowledge work. This requires a fundamentally different approach to managing people than society became accustomed to during the industrial revolution (and which continues to hold sway in many organizations to this day).
So don’t manage your people like a white collar factory. It’s not your role to “motivate” and closely supervise people, but to hire people who are self motivated, make sure they know the purpose of their role, make sure they have the knowledge they need, and make sure there are some helpful (but not overbearing) structures and systems that provide a context for the work. And then let them direct themselves.
Dan Pink summarizes this all very well in Drive:
As organizations flatten, companies need people who are self-motivated. That forces many organizations to become more like, er Wikipedia. Nobody “manages” the Wikipedians. Nobody sits around trying to figure out how to “motivate” them. That’s why Wikipedia works.
Routine, not-so-interesting jobs require direction; non-routine, more interesting work depends on self-direction.
One business leader, who didn’t want to be identified, said it plainly. When he conducts job interviews, he tells prospective employees: “If you need me to motivate you, I probably don’t want to hire you.”
What the Sermon on the Mount Does Not Mean
Lloyd-Jones, in Studies in the Sermon on the Mount
What, then, are the characteristics of the true Christian? Put positively, it is that he “does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Our Lord says: “Not every one that says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” “Therefore whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, I will compare him to a wise man.” What does this mean?
The first part of the answer is to make clear what it does not mean. This is most important. Obviously it does not mean justification by works. Our Lord is not saying here that the man who is truly a Christian is the man who, having listened to the Sermon on the Mount, puts it into practice and thereby makes himself a Christian.
Why is that interpretation impossible? For the good reason that the Beatitudes make it quite impossible. At the very beginning we emphasized that the Sermon on the Mount must be taken as a whole, and so it must. We start with the Beatitudes, and the first statement is: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” We can try from now until we are dead, but we shall never make ourselves “poor in spirit,” and we can never make ourselves conform to any of the Beatitudes. That is a sheer impossibility, so it cannot mean justification by works.
Then take the great climax at the end of the fifth chapter: “You must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” That again is quite impossible to man in his own strength, and proves further that this passage does not teach justification by works.
Were it to do so it would contradict the whole message of the New Testament, which tells us that what we have failed to do, God has sent His Son into the world to do for us — “with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” No man shall be justified by the deeds of the law [including obeying the Sermon on the Mount], but only by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
That is a critical point: It would be an utter abuse and misunderstanding of the Sermon on the Mount to think that we become Christians or right with God by putting it into practice. Instead, you cannot put it into practice unless you have first been set right with God apart from your works and adopted into his family.
This is not only the teaching of the NT in general (Romans 3:19-20;8:3-4; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5; etc.), but is also made clear right at the entry of the Sermon on the Mount. For to be “poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:3) is to despair of your own efforts in being accepted by God and to look to Christ only for your acceptance before God. This is also part of the meaning of being one who “hungers and thirsts for righteousness” (5:6). Notice also how Jesus is talking to people who have God as “Father” throughout the sermon (6:4; 6:6; 6:32) — that is, he is addressing Christians.
Don’t Pull a Jim Marshall
Jim Marshall was a defensive player for the Vikings in the 60s who is known for his famous “wrong way run.” In a game against the San Francisco 49ers, he recovered a fumble and returned it 66 yards the wrong way into his own end zone. Thinking he had scored a touchdown, he then threw the ball in celebration, resulting in a safety for the 49ers. This is considered by many to be “one of the most embarrassing moments in professional sports history.” (The video is below.)
If we try to obey the Sermon on the Mount as a way of seeking acceptance with God, we are pulling a Jim Marshall. We are doing the exact opposite of what the Sermon on the Mount actually requires, and what God requires. Such “obedience” does not really count, because it is not actually obedience. It might look like it in a sense — just like Jim Marshall’s run looks almost exactly like an ordinary touchdown. But it’s actually going the wrong way, and in the end not only doesn’t count, but scores for the other team.
Here’s the video of Jim Marshall’s run:
One last thing: This is not the end of the story. The Vikings ended up winning the game 27-22 on a touchdown that they scored off a fumble that Marshall caused when sacking the 49ers quarterback. I say this here because I don’t want to give the impression that I’m picking on Jim Marshall here! But it’s also a fitting completion to the analogy, because it means if we have sought acceptance with God by our obedience, we aren’t stuck. We can repent and trust him for acceptance apart from works so that then, in turn, we can truly do the good works commanded in the Sermon on the Mount.
The Well Educated Person
Piper, in Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God
The well-educated person is the person who has the habits of mind and heart to go on learning what he needs to learn to live in a Christ-exalting way for the rest of his life — and that would apply to whatever sphere of life he pursues.
Holiness is a Promise — Not a Threat
Mike Horton, in Christ the Lord
As Christ is the answer to our guilt and condemnation (through justification), so he is the answer to our bondage and corruption (sanctification). He takes away not only the verdict, but also the slavery. To justify us in the heavenly court without giving us the gifts that, by virtue of that heavenly verdict, belong to us would be cruel and unjust on God’s part. No, he does not simply put money into our bank account and then leave us stranded along the side of the road, beaten and bruised.
Holiness is not an option for the Christian. But hold on — I can hear the hearts racing: “Holiness, the impossible dream?” To be sure, “but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). Holiness is not an option; it is a requirement.
But this is not a threat. It’s a promise. What God began he will finish (Phil 1:6). In Christ we are already holy, righteous, sanctified, reconciled (1 Cor 1:30). Now we are called to live what we are, not to become what we are not yet.
The Objective Nature of the Work of Christ
I love this quote from Mike Horton’s The Gospel-Driven Life
On Good Friday, at about noon, all of those whom God had chosen from every tribe and nation across the millennia of human history became legal beneficiaries of heaven, coheirs with Christ.
The Counterintuitive Nature of the Gospel
CJ Mahaney, in The Cross Centered Life
Do you see any traces of [a sense of] condemnation in your life? Don’t be surprised if you do. But don’t keep carrying the burden! Because of the gospel’s power you can be completely free of all condemnation.
Not mostly free; completely free.
Don’t buy the lie that cultivating condemnation and wallowing in your shame is somehow pleasing to God, or that a constant, low-grade guilt will somehow promote holiness and spiritual maturity.
It’s just the opposite! God is glorified when we believe with all our hearts that those who trust in Christ can never be condemned. It’s only when we receive his free gift of grace and live in the good of total forgiveness that we’re able to turn from old, sinful ways of living and walk in grace-motivated obedience.
What is Pride? (And What is Humility?)
I find these definitions from CJ Mahaney’s book Humility
Humility: Honestly assessing ourselves in light of God’s holiness and our sinfulness.
Pride: Aspiring to the state and position of God and refusing to acknowledge our dependence on him.
Christians Should Not be Boring
In Creed or Chaos?
In other words, many thought that Christians were dull, judgmental, and lacking passion. Caring more about not rocking the boat and being safe than anything else.
Sayers argues that this perspective (along with several others on various doctrines that she humorously delineated) is wrong. But the fault lied with the Christians, not with the world:
I cannot help feeling that as a statement of Christian orthodoxy, these replies are inadequate, if not misleading. But I also cannot help feeling that they do fairly accurately represent what many people take Christian orthodoxy to be, and for this state of affairs I am inclined to blame the orthodox.
Whenever an average Christian is represented in a novel or a play, he is pretty sure to be shown practicing one or all of the Seven Deadly Virtues listed above, and I am afraid that this is the impression made by the average Christian upon the world at large.
Perhaps we are not following Christ all the way or in quite the right spirit. . . .
Somehow or other, and with the best intentions, we have shown the world the typical Christian in the likeness of a crashing and rather ill-natured bore — and this in the Name of One who assuredly never bored a soul in those thirty-three years during which He passed through this world like a flame.
I think that as Christians, we have gotten much better in this regard since Sayer’s day. But this is still a good reminder.
Perhaps we can put it like this. Many people, such as John Piper, have done a good job of pointing out that God is not boring. Some, like Russell Moore, have gone so far to point out that boring preaching is basically a sin. I think both of these points are exactly right. And we can go further: If preachers shouldn’t bore people with their preaching, then Christians shouldn’t bore people with their lives, either.
Since God is not boring, neither should we be boring. To live dull lives that lack passion is, I would argue, to give people the wrong idea about God. It is to imply that the God whom we serve is boring, just like us. So we shouldn’t be boring. In fact, to be a boring Christian is probably a sin — the sin, as Sayers points out elsewhere, of sloth. For “sloth” doesn’t ultimately mean laziness, but rather means living a life without passion and energy.
So be diligent not to be a boring, overly timid Christian. Avoid the sin of sloth.
About Matt Perman
Follower of Christ. Husband of one, father of three. Director of strategy at Desiring God. This blog exists to help equip Christians in good works, because that's what productivity is really about.
Learn more Contact me Friend me on Facebook Follow me on Twitter
Keep Updated
Subscribe by email
