Catalyst interviews Malcolm Gladwell on David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants
Gladwell’s answer to this question sums up his aim in the book:
What do you want people to take away from David and Goliath?
I want people to understand that much of what is beautiful and important in our world comes from adversity and struggle.
Last summer I had the privilege of discussing my upcoming book on the gospel and productivity
Part two is now posted, where we talk about:
(You can also find part one here.)
I cracked up watching this interview between Justin Taylor and Kevin DeYoung regarding Kevin’s new book, Crazy Busy: A (Mercifully) Short Book about a (Really) Big Problem
I’ve been reading Crazy Busy
Here’s the highlight video from the 2013 Global Leadership Summit.
Note also that, though the live event is over, the Summit is actually just getting started! This is because “in the months ahead 350+ cities in 100 countries will host the Summit—which is translated into 45 different languages.” This would be a great item for prayer. “Please pray with us as we watch what God does this year around the world.”
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of interviewing Brad Lomenick, president of Catalyst, on his book The Catalyst Leader: 8 Essentials for Becoming a Change Maker
Brad is a model of the leadership qualities he talks about and it was a lot of fun to talk to him.
And here is also an edited transcript of the interview, in order to provide a shorter summary for people who prefer to read. (Note that the transcript is really a paraphrase of both him and me, because that’s the easiest way for me to summarize things. For any who compare the two, you might have an enjoyable time of comparing what goes in to my head with how I actually understand it and restate it!)
Here’s the transcript:
Brad, tell us first of all what Catalyst is and what you do for Catalyst?
I’m the president of Catalyst. Sort of the key strategist and key visionary. We’re a really small team so I’m really involved in the program of the events we put on as well.
We do leadership conferences. If anyone is familiar with John Maxwell, John is the one who started Catalyst along with a number of other leaders. We really have a heartbeat for younger leaders — for those in the first half of their career life. We are a Christian leadership movement and conference. We have a heart for Christians who are in the marketplace as well as who are working in roles connected to the church.
We see our role as creating an opportunity to connect, inspire, equip, and then release the next generation of leaders who are in the first stage of their career. They are out of college, but still in the first half of their professional life. That’s our heartbeat, and we’ve been doing this now for almost 14 years.
Atlanta is our flagship gathering every October, where we will have 13,000 leaders gathered this year [note: next week!]. But we do many other conferences throughout the year as well, including Catalyst West, a Dallas event, and Catalyst One Day.
Why did you write this book?
That’s a great place to start. I just turned 40, so I felt like part of the stewardship of the role I’ve had for the past several years meant that it was time for me to pass on a lot of what I’ve learned. I wasn’t planning on doing this; at least for me, my perspective had been “I’m just the guy behind the scenes; I’m a practitioner, not a thought leader, not a voice.”
But I had some friends who really challenged me on that. They said “you do know some things and you do have some things to pass on to the next generation. You aren’t just the guy behind the scenes. You need to be a wise steward of the way God has given you the opportunity to be around so many great leaders and you need to pass on what you have learned.”
The ultimate reason for me, though, is that I’m looking around at a lot of my peers who are starting on the rocket ride and having influence very early in life, and are coming up against roadblocks in their leadership because they haven’t been fully equipped. With our generation, so many of us are stepping into leadership roles earlier than in prior generations, sometimes before we are ready. We are leading now, but we also need to lead well. And the way we finish well in life and in our leadership is to lead well now.
That’s the essence of this book. I want my generation to lead well now, and to be able to look back on things 40 years from now and say “we took the baton that was given to us, and we ran the race well.”
This is one of the best quotes ever. It’s by Theodore Roosevelt and has been put back in the spotlight again by Brene Brown’s excellent book Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause;
who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.
It seems like the world is full of critics who are not actually skilled at doing anything — other than covering up for their lack of ability by hurling criticism at others. Don’t fall into that trap. Don’t be one of those small people “sitting on the sidelines and hurling judgment and advice.” Dare to show up and take action.
Even at the risk of being criticized.
In a research study that he carried out for his book The Catalyst Leader: 8 Essentials for Becoming a Change Maker
What’s the solution? We need more leaders, for casting vision is the task of the leader.
It might sound a bit odd for me to say we need more leaders. For sometimes it seems as though everybody thinks they are a leader. And it has almost become cliche to hear people say “we don’t need any more books on leadership. We already have far too many.” Don’t we have plenty of leaders, and far too many resources on leadership?
No.
We have far too few leaders, and far too few good resources on leadership.
The reason people have not noticed the acute need for more (and better) leaders is because we have failed to understand what leadership actually is.
So the first step in undoing the dearth of leadership in the church and in the world is to get back on track in understanding what leadership is in the first place.
One of the most helpful ways to understand what leadership is comes from understanding what it is not, but is often confused with: management. Brad Lomenick captures the essence of the difference very well in The Catalyst Leader
Managers work on things that are right in front of them. They manage the e-mail inbox, respond to staff crises, sign checks, pay bills, and then drive home to relax at night before they have to do it all over again. Manage, rinse, repeat.
But leaders are fixated on the next day, the next goal, the next project. While managers are tending the grass, leaders are peering over the hill. Sure, they respond to what is in front of them in the here and now, but they are also brainstorming about tomorrow. They exert energy to invent the future. Unlike a manager, a leader lives in the tension of the now and the next.
If you want to lead, you need to be focused more than just on doing what’s in front of you. You have to set your focus on what’s next — not predicting what’s next, but creating what’s next. Leaders are almost obsessively focused on the future — on creating change by inspiring and motivating (not controlling) people to make that change happen together.
So leadership is not first about good process and creating efficiencies. It is about casting vision, setting direction, creating clarity, and giving people hope that things can be better. Leadership, more than management, taps into the side of human beings that is of the spirit. The realm of inspiration and passion. In fact, leaders are often willing to tolerate chaos and messiness in process when it is necessary to fully understand a problem and arrive at the true, long-term solution.
As long as we equate “smooth running processes” (as important as they are) with leadership, we will continue to have a massive leadership shortage in the church and society.
Real change is often messy, and you cannot manage your way to it. It takes leadership, which is a distinct skill in its own right. (This is one reason the path of redemptive history sometimes seems so all-over-the place: God is not just a manager, but also a leader, and guiding his people to the restoration of all things is a leadership task, not just a management task.)
If you want to learn more about the difference between leadership and management, here are three helpful things worth reading:
, Marcus Buckingham’s book that nails the distinction between leadership and management — and shows you how to be effective in each.This is something we continually need to be reminded about. I am amazed by the militant commitment to mediocrity of so many people — including in the church. Brad Lomenick gives us a great exhortation to continually seek to be better than average.
Sometimes people argue that we should not help those in need when the need is a result of “their own fault.”
This is a deadly view. For example, imagine if Christ had said that about us? “I will not go help them and deliver them from their sins — they brought their misery upon themselves by their own disobedience. I will give to the good angels instead.” To refuse to help someone on the grounds that they “did this to themselves” is a denial of the gospel itself.
This view, however, is not just deadly; often, it has just plain misunderstood the situation.
Sometimes a person’s situation is indeed a result of their own sin or poor choices. But very often when we think the person has brought their difficult situation upon themselves, our assessment is actually incorrect. What looks like “their own fault” is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
The great 18th century pastor and theologian Jonathan Edwards brings this out very well in his sermon “The Christian Duty of Charity to the Poor.” In answering a set of “objections to giving to the poor,” one of the objections Edwards takes up is the objection that “he has brought himself to want by his own fault.” Edwards’ response is incredibly insightful:
In reply, it must be considered what you mean by his fault. If you mean want [lack] of a natural faculty to manage affairs to his advantage, that is to be considered as his calamity. Such a faculty is a gift that God bestows on some, and not on others; and it is not owing to themselves.
You ought to be thankful that God has given you such a gift, which he has denied to the person in question. And it will be a very suitable way for you to show your thankfulness, to help those to whom that gift is denied, and let them share the benefit of it with you.
This is as reasonable as that he to whom Providence has imparted sight, should be willing to help him to whom sight is denied, and that he should have the benefit of the sight of others, who has none of his own….
Edwards’ point here is deepened by modern research, which now has found that “being broke saps mental bandwidth.” A recent study has found that “just being broke, in and of itself, damages abilities to make good decisions in a way roughly equivalent to losing 13 IQ points — or constantly losing a night of sleep.”
In other words, in many cases “rather than the poor being poor because they make bad decisions, they make bad decisions because they are poor.”
This shows us just how important it is that we take Edwards’ counsel here. If some of those who are poor seem to be making bad decisions and we refuse to help lest we fear that we will be “aiding and abetting” their “bad decisions,” we will actually be making the problem worse. Hence, the solution is to get off the high-horse of our superiority complex and actually help tangibly, financially, and concretely. Counterintuitively, giving financial help in spite of the appearance of some bad decisions is often the way to help restore good decision-making.
This study also helps guard us from one mistake we could make in applying Edwards’ point. Though it would be totally contrary to what Edward’s is saying, one mis-application we could make is to begin setting ourselves up as judges of people who are in need who continually begin to stereotype the poor by too quickly saying to themselves “this person must intrinsically lack the ability to manage their finances well.” As Edwards’ points out, of course, there are some people that simply have less ability in this area. However, as this study helps us see, there are some people who are suffering not a permanent lack of ability in that area, but a temporary lack, simply because that can be the very effect that poverty has on a person.
What is the solution? The solution is not to set yourself up as the person’s superior, because you are “wise” and they are “unwise” and clearly in need of your superior understanding and guidance. The solution is not to begin giving the person advice. The solution is to stop being afraid of actually giving money to the poor, and to stop tying so many conditions to it. The solution is to have an approach to helping the poor that is based on respect for the individual, dignity, and empowerment. It means we need to see those who are in poverty as capable individuals. This means being willing to give money, among many other things, to help those who are poor get out of the condition of their poverty and, among those who may be experiencing this phenomenon, thereby enabling their decision-making faculties to heal back to normal.
In other words, sometimes the solution to poverty is not to seek to educate the person so that they can then get themselves out of poverty, but rather help them get out of poverty first, in which case we will find that the problem the whole time was not lack of decision-making skills at all, but simply the nature of poverty itself.
