What's Best Next

Hybels: You address it the minute you see a pattern developing. And then there are 30 days to address it. A bad attitude is a 30 day issue, because the damage someone can do when they spread radioactive fallout throughout your organization is breathtaking.

“Help us understand why you’re carrying a pitchfork around the office and poking people with it?” The rest of us are working hard to build an infectious, optimistic attitude in our culture. Let us know how we can help. But Fred, you need to know this has to be resolved in 30 days.”

Notice: Hybels is not saying you just get rid of the person out of the blue. You talk to them about it and address it specifically. Then, they have 30 days to rectify the situation.

Hybels: “We need to build a team of fantastic people with fantastic energy to serve our fantastic God. The key to our future is unquestionably tied to our ability to attract and retain fantastic people.”

Yes. And the leader sets the tone — if he is over challenged, the rest of the organization will likely try to keep up an unsustainable pace as well.

On the other hand, you can also under challenge your organization. That fails to develop people and is a disservice to them.

Hit the right target:

OVERCHALLENGE

CHALLENGE

UNDERCHALLENGE

The danger here is not to your health, as over challenge is.

The danger here is to organizations: people that are continuously underchallenged usually end up leaving.

Don’t under challenge your people.

Fantastic, fantastic points right now by Bill Hybels.

First, he pointed out that if we underchallenge ourselves, we don’t grow. We need to challenge ourselves and be rigorous at that. That’s how you grow.

But if you over challenge yourself, you break down. Think of weight lifting. You stretch yourself and that causes the muscles to break down, and then the muscles regenerate and come back stronger. But if you over do it, you injure your muscle.

When we over challenge ourselves, we lose our ability to be replenished. A three-day weekend is no longer sufficient to recharge you. You could keep taking three-day weekends and it won’t help, because the issue is not that you just need some rest, but that you are over stressing and over challenging yourself.

Studies have shown that, upon trying to sustain being over challenged for too long, your performance doesn’t simply drop; it drops to negative. It doesn’t just decrease your productivity to over challenge yourself; it leads to negative productivity.

The lesson is: Work hard and challenge yourself. But maintain the discipline of replenishment, and avoid the realm of overchallenge that becomes ultimately destructive.

Bill Hybels is talking now, and just said (slightly paraphrasing): “This conference is unapologetically Christian. Yet, when it comes to who we invite to teach, we seek to learn from everybody — people in the church, people in the business world, people leading in all walks of life.” (The first interesting paradox, by the way, is why Christians don’t just act and do, but also worship — see the previous post.)

I think he’s reflecting here something true and essential for Christian leadership. First, if we are Christians, we need to lead as Christians. We need to think about leadership from a Christian perspective and lead for the good of others and glory of God.

Second, we need to be willing to learn about leadership from all people, not just Christians. There is some really solid and helpful and true teaching on leadership outside the church. Christians should not neglect that. It is a matter of humility to say “I’m going to learn what I need to learn from any source that is speaking truth and making helpful, winsome, solid observations.” And the speakers that are invited to the Summit reflect some of the best of this thinking, both inside and outside the church.

Some might be skeptical about the value of Christians learning about leadership from non-Christians. But let me just list three theological reasons that it is right and necessary and helpful to learn about leadership from non-Christians as well as Christians:

1. The doctrine of vocation affirms the validity and helpfulness of the insight and work of people in all areas of life, both Christian and non-Christian. The issue is whether something is true.
2. The doctrine of common grace affirms that there is truth in creation that is accessible and discernable to believers as well as unbelievers. To deny that Christians can learn about leadership from non-Christians is to unwittingly deny the doctrine of common grace.
3. The Summit isn’t inviting non-Christians to teach theology. I’m not saying we should look to non-Christians to teach the Bible. But, in accord with the doctrines of vocation and common grace, there is value in learning from non-Christians about life and the world, and this includes leadership. We need to think through everything from a biblical point of view, but we shouldn’t commit the genetic fallacy by rejecting something just because the person who came up with the idea or made the observation is not a Christian.

I’m still not entirely sure of my strategy today — whether I will do one long post with notes from each session, and then some overall reflections at the end, or a bunch of shorter posts as each session goes along.

As I think about it now, I’ll probably do some version of the latter.

Let me know any of your preferences, if you have any.