Tuesday 30 October 2007

More on LEADERSHIP

Sent by friend in USA from 'slow leadership' blog



Maybe corporations do get what they deserve

management matrixThe German World War II general Erich von Manstein is said to have categorized his officers into four types.

The first type, he said, is lazy and stupid. His advice was to leave them alone because they don’t do any harm.

The second type is hard-working and clever. He said that they make great officers because they ensure everything runs smoothly.

The third group is composed of hardworking idiots. Von Manstein said that you must immediately get rid of these, as they force everyone around them to perform pointless tasks.

The fourth category are officers who are lazy and clever. These, he says, should be your generals.

Discovering this information set me to wondering how General von Manstein’s categories might apply to business organizations today.

The lazy and stupid ones

Most organizations have some managers within them who are lazy and stupid—at least, that has been my experience. Although they claim they try to get rid of any employee who is found to be lazy, let alone stupid as well, they don’t seem to be so successful, judging by the number who are left—some even in fairly exalted positions.

Maybe one reason for this is that lazy and stupid people rarely do much active harm. The harm they do is more often based on missing opportunities and stifling the creativity of those who report to them. Bad enough, but not always easy to turn into clear grounds for dismissal—especially if the person in question is protected by someone powerful. Still, my guess is that even lazy and stupid people today realize that the best route to self-preservation is at least to appear busy and active.

The hardworking and clever ones

Von Manstein’s next group is made up of hardworking, clever people. Organizations mostly want as many of these as they can get, for obvious reasons. But you’ll notice that the general seems to confine them to the military equivalent of middle management: jobs that are aimed at making everything run smoothly.

I suspect one reason is that such people do make excellent administrators. They can take orders from above and turn them into practical ways of achieving the desired results. Some are so useful in these roles that they are never allowed to rise higher. Others maybe want to progress, but lack something that—at least in von Manstein’s view—is essential to become a good general. That something, it seems, is laziness. He wants the choice of generals to be made from people who are clever, naturally, but also lazy. Why should that make them better top executives?

The lazy and clever ones

One reason might be that laziness is the principal spur to creativity. Lazy people are always looking for easier, simpler, and less arduous ways to do things. If they are also clever, the chances are that they will find them, and make them available to everyone else.

Lazy people are also natural delegators, and find it very attractive to let their subordinates get on with their work without interference from above. Lazy, but bright, generals would be likely to make sure they focused on the essentials and ignored anything that might make for unnecessary work, whether for themselves or other people. In fact, it’s hard to see why you would not want your top managers to be as lazy as they are clever. It would indeed make them great strategists and leaders of people.

The hardworking idiots

Now to the last group: the ones von Manstein said that you should get rid of immediately. That group is made up of people who are hardworking idiots. He says such people force those around them into pointless activities.

I don’t know about you, but I suffered from several bosses I would unhesitatingly put into precisely that category. They were extremely hardworking—and demanded the same from their subordinates—but what they set others to work on (and what they spent their own time in doing) was mostly worthless.

Today’s fast-paced, macho style of organizational culture creates, and then fosters, the hardworking idiot. Indeed, I think it takes a great many sound, useful, hardworking, and clever people and turns them into idiots by denying them the time or the opportunity to think or use their brains.

If you don’t look busy all the time, you’re virtually asking for a pink slip, never mind what it is that you are doing—or whether it is actually of any use to the organization or its customers. It’s all so rushed and frenetic. If all that matters is “meeting the numbers” and getting things done (whatever those things are), managers will be forced into working hard at projects that they know make no sense.

The dumbing down of organizations

The dumbing down of organizations isn’t caused by poor educational standards or faulty recruitment. It’s due mostly to the crazy pace that is set, and the obsessive focus on the most obvious, rigidly short-term objectives. The result is a sharp increase in hardworking idiots: people who are coerced into long hours and constant busyness, while being systematically forced to act like idiots by the culture around them.

Don’t ask questions. Don’t cause problems by thinking, or waste time on coming up with new ideas. Don’t think about the future, or try to anticipate problems before they arise. Just keep at it, do exactly what is expected of you, and always get the most done in the least amount of time and at the lowest cost. If von Manstein is correct, the result will be that more and more employees will be used to perform essentially pointless tasks. Isn’t that exactly what we see?

I think that even a fairly cursory look around most organizations today would confirm the accuracy of this observation. Consider all the time wasted in unnecessary meetings. The obsessive emphasis on staying in touch, regardless of need. The torrents of e-mails, most of which are simply copies of documents of no direct relevance to the people to whom they are sent. The constant collecting of data for no clear reason. Management by numbers and motivation by numerically-based performance measures. Trust replaced by obsessive control and leadership by forced ranking of subordinates against vague criteria determined by committees with no idea of the specific circumstances.

You do not need ethical insight or human understanding to operate a machine, and machines are how many of today’s leaders see their organization: machines for making quick profits, not civilized communities of people working together to a common end. We can only hope some organizations at least see the error of their ways before the hardworking idiot becomes the commonest creature in the hierarchy.

It’s no fun to be forced to deny your own intelligence on a daily basis. We can still reverse the trend, but only by dropping the current out-dated dogmas, dangerous half truths, and total nonsense that disfigure management thinking. Let’s do it before it is too late.

Sunday 28 October 2007

"going troppo - the way of obedience"

Bonhoeffer believed that the only way to truly comprehend the revelation of God in scripture is by approaching it with the pre-commitment to obey it. For those interested in weird theological terms, he calls this ‘tropological exegesis’ or simply ‘tropology’. Bonhoeffer can therefore speak of discipleship as a ‘problem of exegesis’ and goes on to say, “By eliminating simple obedience on principle, we drift into an unevangelical interpretation of the Bible.” So, if we never obey God we can never understand or follow him. Simply believing right doctrine is not enough. As followers of Jesus, we have to start obeying long before we know and understand much of Him whom we obey. More than that, if we take obedience out of the equation, we cannot even hope to truly understand the bible. Calvin can claim that true knowledge of God is born out of obedience, and to obey takes us to the path of action, of praxis, of goodness.

We are saved by grace, not by works. Hence we cannot glorify works. Yet doing them is indispensable, for they are prepared in advance by God, they are in his ‘plan,’ and we are created to do them (Eph.2:10). In Paul, then, practice (praxis) is the visible criterion that we have seriously received grace and also that we have entered effectively into God’s plan. For Paul, as for Jesus, practice is the touchstone of authenticity. “We are in the presence here of something that is constant across the centuries (J.Ellul, Subversion of Christianity, 5).

(sent from the blog of Alan Hirsch)

Thursday 25 October 2007

Patience

“Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions”
Rainer Maria Rilke
When you “live the questions,” you start on a path to true learning. Questions are so much more useful than mere answer —especially if those answers are based on convention, dogma, or supposed authority. No one ever learned much from answers. Only time spent wrestling with the most demanding questions can produce real insight and wisdom.

Saturday 20 October 2007

The God Who Loves You


I came across this poem by the Pulitzer prize-winning poet Carl Dennis.

The God Who Loves You

It must be troubling for the god who loves you
To ponder how much happier you'd be today
Had you been able to glimpse your many futures.
It must be painful for him to watch you on Friday evenings
Driving home from the office, content with your week—
Three fine houses sold to deserving families—
Knowing as he does exactly what would have happened
Had you gone to your second choice for college,
Knowing the roommate you'd have been allotted
Whose ardent opinions on painting and music

Would have kindled in you a lifelong passion.
A life thirty points above the life you're living
On any scale of satisfaction. And every point
A thorn in the side of the god who loves you.
You don't want that, a large-souled man like you
Who tries to withhold from your wife the day's disappointments
So she can save her empathy for the children.
And would you want this god to compare your wife
With the woman you were destined to meet on the other campus?
It hurts you to think of him ranking the conversation
You'd have enjoyed over there higher in insight
Than the conversation you're used to.
And think how this loving god would feel
Knowing that the man next in line for your wife
Would have pleased her more than you ever will
Even on your best days, when you really try.
Can you sleep at night believing a god like that
Is pacing his cloudy bedroom, harassed by alternatives
You're spared by ignorance? The difference between what is
And what could have been will remain alive for him
Even after you cease existing, after you catch a chill
Running out in the snow for the morning paper,
Losing eleven years that the god who loves you
Will feel compelled to imagine scene by scene
Unless you come to the rescue by imagining him
No wiser than you are, no god at all, only a friend
No closer than the actual friend you made at college,
The one you haven't written in months. Sit down tonight
And write him about the life you can talk about
With a claim to authority, the life you've witnessed,
Which for all you know is the life you've chosen.


A communion precursor

The first time this story was told
they gathered around a table
a ragged collection of people –
sinners
betrayers
power-hungry
fragile
lost
lonely.

The first time this story was told,
Jesus promised that it was for all time
that whenever the bread was broken
and the wine was poured,
wherever the story was told around the table
he would be there.

Today we tell the story
as its been told a thousand times over;
we break the bread,
and we pour the wine;
sure, as we do,
that we belong at this table
and that Jesus is here with us.

On the night Jesus was betrayed…

[I’m writing communion liturgies as part of a collection of liturgies for using in the prison. one of the things we try to emphasise in worship is the connection of the community of faith in the prison with communities of faith throughout history and across the world today. Cheryl Lawrie]

"We will not comply ... We pledge allegiance"

With governments that Kill...we will not comply.
With the theology of Empire...we will not comply.
With the business of Militarism...we will not comply.
With the hoarding of Riches...we will not comply.
With the dissemination of Fear...we will not comply.

But today, we pledge our ultimate allegiance to the Kingdom of God...we pledge allegiance.

To the peace that is not like Rome's...we pledge allegiance.
To the gospel of enemy love...we pledge allegiance.
To the kingdom of the poor and the broken...we pledge allegiance.
To the king who loved his enemies so much He died for them...we pledge allegiance.
To the least of these, with whom Christ dwells...we pledge allegiance.
To the transnational Church that transcends that artificial borders of nations...we pledge allegiance.
To the Refugee of Nazareth...we pledge allegiance.
To the homeless Rabbi who had no place to lay His head...we pledge allegiance.
To the Cross rather than the Sword...we pledge allegiance.
To the Banner of Love above any flag...we pledge allegiance.
To the One who rules with a towel rather than an iron fist...we pledge allegiance.
To the One who rides a donkey rather than a war horse...we pledge allegiance.
To the Revolution that sets both oppressed and oppressors free...we pledge allegiance.
To the Way that leads to Life...we pledge allegiance.
To the Slaughtered Lamb...we pledge allegiance.
...
In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...Amen.

(Shane Claiborne)

Friday 19 October 2007

Monday 15 October 2007

Re "Leadership" - again!

Sent to me from the great blog of Alan Hirsch. Very serious pondering required!


I have long believed that leadership, or the lack of it, is a significant key to either the renewal, or the decline, of the church. If this is true, that leadership critical to our success or failure, then we must ask the question as to why we are in our current state of demise, and then seek to remedy the situation. This is of strategic importance. And if we pursue this a little further, we must in the end center our attention on the agencies and people that have been responsible for the training and endorsing of a leadership that has overseen the massive decline of Christianity in the last two centuries. Some hard questions must be asked about the way we train and develop leadership.

Perhaps the single most significant source of the malaise of leadership in our day comes from the way, and the context, in which we form leaders. For the most part, the would-be leader is withdrawn from the context of ordinary life and ministry in order to study in a somewhat cloistered environment for up to seven years in some cases. During that period they are subjected to an immense amount of complex information relating to the Biblical disciplines, theology, ethics, church history, pastoral theology, etc. And while the vast majority of this information is useful and correct; what is far more dangerous to discipleship in that setting is the actual socialization processes that the student undergoes along the way. In effect, they are socialized out of ordinary life, and develop a kind of language and thinking that is seldom understood and expressed outside of the seminary. Its as if in order to learn about ministry and theology we leave our places of habitation and take a flight into the wonderfully abstracted world of abstraction, we fly around there for a long period of time and then wonder why we have trouble landing again.


Please don’t get me wrong, we need serious intellectual engagement with the key ideas of our time, what is truly concerning is that such engagement largely takes place in the largely passive environments of the classroom. To love God fully with our whole being, leadership development must inculcate in the disciple the lifelong love of learning but this must be done in a way far more consistent with the ethos of discipleship than the ethos produced in and through the academy.

Friday 5 October 2007

Breath of God

Apparently from a shop window in London. Strange or ..?

Wednesday 3 October 2007

"Local Maximum"

It would appear that most manifestations of church have reached a "local maximum". The particular processes that moulded them and nudged them certain ways toward their styles of worship and modes of being actually originated in small country churches hundreds of years ago. The churches developed to meet the needs of the 'Industrial Revolution' and have continued to seek out higher ground, but we in the post-Christian West, as is Australia, are beginning to see, and are being told by some 'emerging church' "types" that this "animal is now unfit for its environment". However having said that we continue to build & plan for a form of 'if we do it they'll come". However I believe the model we 'be been using, and the 'tweaking' we are trying to do is at a dead end. There is no more room for improvement. In a sense the church cannot advance further along the branch that it's on - there is no more branch! The systemic faults that are actually the root of the problem remain unchanged.
(A good reference is James Fowler "Stages of Faith: The psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning")

"The Chapel" - R.S. Thomas

A little aside from the main road
becalmed in a last-century greyness
there is the chapel, ugly, without the appeal
to the tourist to stop his car
and visit it. The traffic goes by
and the river goes by, and quick shadows
of clouds too, and the chapel settles
a little deeper into the grass

But here once on an evening like this,
in the darkness that was about
his hearers, a preacher caught fire,
and burned steadily before them
with a strange light so that they saw
the splendour of the barren mountains
about them and sang their amens
fiercely, narrow but saved
in a way that men are not now.


There is a sadness about it that this happened once, but it has now gone – the glory has departed and the chapel is empty but that doesn’t mean it was now once real. The image of the preacher who ‘caught fire’ here is just right. It doesn’t say who he was, or draw attention to his gifts, preparation, or anything – just that the Spirit once fell here, the fire of heaven touched earth the word of God gripped him and he just burned before them. That describes revival perfectly, when a person in a particular place is consumed by God in worship or preaching or praise. We just have to be in the right place with the right heart for when it happens.

For reflection

From the SACC email list



I will not die an unlived life.

I will not live in fear

of falling or catching fire.

I choose to inhabit my days,

to allow my living to open me

to make me less afraid, more accessible

to loosen my heart until it becomes a wing,

a torch, a promise.

I choose to risk my significance,

to live so that which came to me as seed

goes to the next as blossom

and that which came to me as blossom

goes on as fruit.

‘I will not die an unlived life” by Dawna Markova, published Conari Press, California, 2000

Reality

Picked this up from Craig Mitchell's blog

Controlling Voices: Intellectual Property, Humanistic Studies and the Internet by TyAnna K. Herrington, Southern Illinois University Press, 2001.

A quote from Herrington's book:

“Reality exists only in shared perception, and this perception depends on information developed through the process of creating knowledge. Those who have access to knowledge and control its use and dissemination thus control what we perceive: ultimately our shared reality.”

Tuesday 2 October 2007

"Leadership is an extension of discipleship"

Was sent to me by a friend from the blog of Alan Hirsch.

If this is not already obvious by now let me say it more explicitly: the quality of the church’s leadership is directly proportional to the quality of discipleship. if we fail in the area of making disciples we should not be surprised if we fail in the area of leadership development. I think many of the problems that the church faces in trying to cultivate missional leadership for the challenges of the 21st century would be resolved if we were to focus the solution to the problem on something prior to leadership development per se, namely that of discipleship first. Discipleship is primary, leadership is always secondary. And leadership, to be genuinely Christian, must always reflect Christlikeness and therefore…discipleship.

If we wish to develop and engender a genuinely missional leadership then we have to first plant the seed of obligation to the mission of God in the world in the earlier and more elementary phases of discipleship. This seed should be cultivated into full-blown missional leadership later on. And this is not being coercive and manipulative, but simply recognizing that as disciples we are active participants in the Missio Dei. We can’t merely create missional leadership when the DNA of missional leadership was not first laid down in the seeds of discipleship. And this is exactly how Jesus does discipleship: he organizes it around mission. As soon as they are called He takes the disciples on an adventurous journey of mission, ministry, and learning. Straightaway are involved in proclaiming the Kingdom of God, serving the poor, healing, and casting out demons. And it is active and direct disciple-making in the context of mission. And all great people movements are the same. Even the newest convert is engaged in the mission from the start; even he/she can become a spiritual hero. If we accept that Jesus forms the primary pattern of disciple-making for the church, then we must say that discipleship is our core task. But if disciple-making lies at the heart of our commission then we must organize it around mission because mission is the catalyzing principle of discipleship. In Jesus they are inexorably linked.