7 Elements of a Strategy for a New Leadership Position

by: Ron Edmondson

0

Tweet

I am a month on the job in my new church. It’s been challenging and fun at the same time. I’ve met so many wonderful people, but there are more opportunities than time it seems. I believe this is going to be a great ministry assignment. Thank you God for the opportunity.

Several have asked what my strategy has been in the opening days. If you know me at all you know that I’m pretty strategic. I promised earlier on this blog to walk though this process publicly. I hope it helps others who are in or will be in times of transition. I’m happy for you to learn from my mistakes.

Here are 7 elements of my strategy for the beginning days:

Get to know key leaders – I am trying to get to know the staff and key Influencers in the church. I believe God uses the influence of others to build His church, so I want to know who I will be working with in the days to come. Think of it this way. If Moses was implementing the Jethro method, his primary energy would need to be communicating and investing in those leaders he enlisted to lead others. I’m using that approach. If I hope to make any substantial changes I’ll need these influencers support.

Let people get to know me – For an introvert it’s been exhausting, but I’ve been very visible in the early days. In fact, in my ministry I’m usually always very accessible, just as I am online. I have written before that I may not always be available but I can always be accessible. I want them to feel comfortable with me and trust my leadership, so I think they need to see me frequently, even more so in the beginning days of my pastorate.

Set my initial vision – People want to know where I am going with my leadership. I set an initial 7 part vision for the people. I really wanted 3 or 4 initial initiatives, but I landed on 7. They are all things I’m passionate about implementing. Some will gets started faster than others, but the church seems anxious to get behind all of them.

Identify quick wins – I’m looking for some things I can immediately impact and change for good. These are things I believe everyone can agree with, don’t require a lot of resources or long debates. There were a few minor paperwork nuisances that impacted staff were happy I changed, for example. I invested some energy in some areas of ministry that never received a lot of attention. Those areas are especially excited.

Do the unexpected – It seems like such a small deal, but I roam the balcony on Sunday morning. It takes a little more time, but it has proven to be a big deal. I talk to the person who will be changing my slides on the screen prior to the service. That’s been a surprise to them. They say it’s never happened before, but it’s proven to be a big deal. I’m roaming the halls of the offices during the day, walking into people’s offices, and allowing drop ins to my office when I’m available. All unexpected, but bringing very positive feedback.

Pace myself – I realize I’m only one person and although everyone wants some of my time right now and there are more ideas than we could ever accomplish, I know I will burnout if I don’t pace myself. That’s meant I am saying no to some things…really many things. It isn’t easy to say no to such eager people, for me or them, but I know it will prove best in the end if I’m able to last for the long run.

Move slowly on the biggies – Being honest, there are some big items I’d like to change now. I am wise enough, however, to know that some changes are too big to launch quickly. I could. I’m in a honeymoon period. I could probably “get away with them”, but the people don’t really know me yet. I may win a battle, but lose the war. (Not that there is a battle. Just using a cliche. Why do I even have to say that?)

Read more from Ron here.

Tags: Hiring, Ron Edmondson, Staff, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Laypeople and the Mission of God – Killing the Clergy – Laity Caste System, Part 1

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

“Laypeople” is a common word we use around churches but I don’t like it. The word actually can be applied to any non-professional population as it relates to any profession (doctors, lawyers, etc.). But most often it is applied to church, including its primary definition. Today I begin a blog series laypeople and the mission of God. I hope at the end of the series you will see and do things differently for His mission.

The image that such terminology creates is of two classes of people inside the church. The first class (emphasis on “first”) is the professional clergy, referred to as “ministers” by some churches. The second class (I meant to say that) is the laypeople. I also see something that is not only unbiblical but I believe it sabotages the mission of God intended for ALL God’s people and teaches “lay people” that they are the ones who do nothing or are worth very little.

A closer look at the origin of the word “laity” reveals an issue at the root of the word itself. The word comes from a French word that comes from a Greek word that is pretty common to some of you. “Laos” was one of the first Greek words we learned, for those of us forced to study such in seminary. You know what it means? . . . “People.” Now, the laity that we have made second class citizens over the years strikes back. So, if we call our non-clergy “people” I guess the clergy would be called . . . not people? You get my point, I hope.

My fear is that we have created a class system in the body of Christ comprised of the “called” and the “not so much called.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The ministry assignment of the laypeople is not to simply “lay” around and tell the called what they should be doing. Laypeople are not to be customers of religious goods and services served by the storekeeper clergy. We are all called although our current assignments may vary dramatically.

Jesus said to an ordinary group of people, “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (John 20:21). These were not professionals, with the exception of professional fishermen and a professional tax collector. And if we hope engage and evangelize the world with the gospel, we cannot possibly rely on professionals to do it.

Laypeople often think that this means their job is to pay, pray, get out of the way. To make sure we are not communicating a low, irresponsible view of laypeople one thing is critical. We must create an atmosphere of expectation.

In all of our research on churches, people in transformational churches were taught that they were responsible for the ministry of the church. This was a recurring theme that they perceived, rightfully so, that they were the owners of the ministry.

To do this, we must begin by declaring the two class system of ministry dead– we may even have to kill it. A new level of ownership must be given to the people of God, and the people of God must embrace what they are given. God’s desire is to have a church made up of every day Christians living like missionaries.

The clergy-laity caste system is killing churches and hindering the mission of God. Let’s kill it.

Next time I will talk about why some pastors should resign and become full-time Christians, but in the mean time, how is your church empowering ALL God’s people “for the training of the saints in the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ” (Eph 4:12 HCSB)?

Read Part 2 of this series here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Clergy-Laity, Ed Stetzer, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

The 3 Lenses of Visionary Leaders

by: Tor Constantino

0

Tweet

Good leaders create a vision, passionately articulate the vision, and relentlessly drive the vision to completion.”

Before we look at organizational vision, consider the literal example of vision and the human eye. Very few people have perfect 20/20 vision. According to the National Eye Institute (of America):

• More than 12 million Americans can only see things clearly at a distance (farsighted);
• More than 32 million can only see clearly those things or people who are close by (nearsighted);
• While a full third have blurry vision due to a less than perfectly round eye surface (astigmatism).
• More than 150 million Americans use corrective eyewear to improve their sight.

There are corrective lenses for each of these conditions, enabling people to improve their sight. This principle has application to visionary leaders as well.

Here are three lenses you need to apply to your organization in order to create, articulate, and drive your vision forward. Think of these metaphoric lenses as perspectives or filters if it helps.

Diagnostic Lens. Before a vision can be created, you need to clearly understand what’s worked and what hasn’t. It’s also critical to recognize the current position of your organization and use that as a starting point. Additionally, you also need to identify existing obstacles, procedures, and personalities that may undermine your vision at various stages. These may be difficult for you to see, especially if you’ve been with the organization a while.Why? You may have developed an institutional “blind spot.” (Eventually, this happens to every leader.) If so, this may require you to solicit input from a “fresh pair” of eyes—an unbiased insider or an external consultant.Once you have completed your diagnostics and you have a clear view of the organization and its needs, you need to incorporate your findings into the overall vision.

Innovation Lens. Innovation is often “hiding in plain site.” It requires you to cultivate a specific perspective in order to enable it to jump into view.For example, consider the challenges of trying to innovate the following commoditized products: paint, glass, and duct tape – pretty dull and boring at first glance with little opportunity. For decades, industry leaders did not see anyway to innovate on those products and increase their revenue. Yet:

• Sherwin-Williams developed a square, stackable, pourable paint container that revolutionized the industry.
• Corning innovated away from cookware, to fiber optic cables, flat-screen TVs, and biotech lab tools.
• Duck Brand duct tape breathed new life and profitability into the category with fashion-focused line extensions in a rainbow of patterns and colors.

In each case, the opportunity for innovation was always there. But it took visionary leaders to create an environment where others within the organization could see the opportunity that was right in front of their eyes, articulate it, and bring it forward.

Unseen Lens Ultimately, as a visionary, you are going to have to lead your organization down a path it’s never been before. This requires the use of the “unseen” lens which will set the course for the desired future state.

• Christopher Columbus had to apply this lens when he set off to find the new world, at a time when everyone thought the world was flat.
• President Kennedy had to apply this lens when he pledged to put an American on the moon in the 1960s.
• Steve Jobs did it time and again when he challenged Apple to launch the iPod, MacBook , iTunes, and iPhone.

As a visionary leader, you need to be your organization’s eyes into the future, driving it’s performance down a pioneering path.

In order to be a positive, transformational leader you need a clear vision if your organization is going to survive and thrive. But you and the vision are indistinguishable. Without a clear vision, you won’t last. And without a visionary leader, neither will the vision.

Read more from Tor here.

Tags: Leadership Engine, Structure, Tor Constantino, Vision

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Senior Pastors Roles Change as Churches Grow

by: Warren Bird

0

Tweet

Twenty-two years ago, when Tim Harlow became the senior pastor of Tinley Park Church of Christ, the following newspaper ad was considered the cutting edge of church marketing.

Senior pastors who have been at the same church for any length of time can most likely complete this exercise: Think back through some of the stages of your congregation’s development, and take note of how your role as a senior leader had to shift during those various stages.

For Parkview Christian Church, Orland Park, IL, and Senior Pastor Tim Harlow, this time travel challenge takes him back through 22 years with the congregation—a time span in which he:

– Broke through growth barriers as an aggressive young pastor in an established and plateaued church—“I made a lot of people mad,” he says.

– Created a new vision and developed structure to make it happen—“It was about rallying the troops around the idea of what God could do instead of what God had done.”

– Pushed through a downturn and a period of burnout—“Much of my leadership through these times comes from a God-given stubborn, sometimes clueless, leadership gift.”

– Started to think about the next generation and who would take the leadership baton—“Where do I go next? My wife and I have recently become empty nesters,” Tim says.

Do any of those phases sound familiar? You might have different labels for the development stages of your church; but there’s a strong chance your role has also shifted along the way to adapt to your congregation’s leadership needs—and it’s probably still changing.

Tim’s certainly did.

Breaking Through Barriers

For Tim, it’s always been about removing barriers for lost people to have a chance to find their way home—even after nearly three decades in the same place with barriers that cropped up during his watch. “Do we really think that there is anything difficult about connecting people with their loving heavenly Father? It’s the easiest job in the world,” Tim says. “It becomes difficult only when those on the inside forget about what it’s like on the outside.”

In the early days of taking over a congregation founded 40 years prior to his arrival, that commitment to connect with outsiders meant “being stubborn and continually fighting against the ‘we’ve-always-done-it-that-way’ mindset and the fence that has been keeping people out,” Tim says.

The good thing for Tim at this stage was he “didn’t have a problem being aggressive,” as he voices it, when it came to setting direction for the church. That was also his downfall at times. “The unfortunate part was the lack of wisdom and the inability to choose the right battles,” he says.

But there were—and still are—battles worth waging. “Every existing church comes with deeply entrenched barriers that current members don’t even realize exist,” Tim says. “Once we become a part of the inner workings of any organization we stop seeing what it looks like from the outside, and we have to keep breaking through those barriers.

Creating New Vision—and Building For It

Once he laid a foundation, Tim felt it necessary to sound a new rallying cry that included relocation, staff changes and fundraising.

“I grew through this stage by engulfing myself with the people, education, and inspiration that would help me cast an accurate and articulate vision,” Tim says. “If I hadn’t known what I was talking about by this stage and didn’t have some level of credibility, no one would have listened.”

This stage was at least five years in the making, and moved Tim to figure out what he was best at, and what he needed to pass on to others because they were better at it. “I had no aptitude for organization; I’m the leader not the manager,” says Tim, who guided the church to change its name, among other changes. “My growth in this stage was about recognizing my limitations and surrounding myself with people who could help me.”

Downturn and Burnout

Parkview was seven years into its turnaround when a tipping point came. Relocation was on the table, but the church’s bylaws required a congregation-wide vote to move forward. The congregation voted 56-44 in favor of the move.

“It’s all we needed to get it done,” says Tim, who in more recent years has seen Parkview become one of the fastest-growing churches in the nation. “But it was taking a big chance to move forward with only half the congregation’s support.”

Then came the inevitable. As Parkview moved into its new facility with four weekend services, Tim was completing doctoral studies and his three daughters needed more time from him. Trying to juggle all these concerns, he hit the wall. “It was a very perfect storm,” Tim says. “And it was a great thing, because it forced the church and mostly forced me to realize that I had to concentrate on the things that only I could do.”

Next Up, Next On Deck

Which brings Tim—and maybe you, too—to the point of considering who will take the church on the next leg of its development after his ministry race is finished?

The church isn’t pursuing a formal succession plan yet. “I think it’s too early, and I’m planning on being here 15 more years or maybe more. I’ve seen too much frustration with long-term succession plans,” he says. But the next generation of leaders, and what Tim will leave them with, is very much on his mind.

“I believe that a large part of my ministry now at this stage of my life is about training the next generation of leaders—whether that’s here or elsewhere,” says Tim, who turned 50 in 2011. “I have to be about 2 Timothy 2:2.”

That emphasis on training others also includes plans to expand Parkview’s auditorium. “I don’t wonder what I’ll do as my next step at Parkview. But in light of the economy and current trends in Christendom, I wonder about raising $14 million in the next few years,” Tim says. “Does my kids’ generation need a larger auditorium? It’s an anxiety of not knowing what’s going to happen next in our culture.”

The Constants

Even through all the stages of personal and corporate growth and change, Tim recognizes some mainstays: a heart for “lost sheep” and solid preaching.

But he would change one thing: using that platform to grind an axe at times. “I sometimes ran people off through my preaching—on purpose,” Tim says. “They needed to leave, but I could have been more graceful. Using the pulpit to say things is the same as sending an email. It’s better to have a discussion with someone individually and in person. There is a difference between casting vision and playing politics.”

“The most important thing I’ve done well is preach,” Tim says. “People will put up with a lot of things if they are getting fed. You can be the greatest church leader in the world, but if the preaching is not a priority, it’s not going to work. I am far from original, but I always spend plenty of time preparing and preaching the Word.”

Read more from Warren here.

Tags: Senior Pastor, Staff Leadership Roles, Structure, Warren Bird

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Design Your Ministry for Results

by: Mark Howell

0

Tweet

Small group ministry struggling to meet the objectives you’ve set?  Ending the ministry year and falling short of the goals that have been set for you?  Although there are a number of possible explanations, the most likely reason is that your ministry isn’t actually designed to accomplish the goals and objectives you’d like to reach.  If you want that to change, you need to design your ministry for results.

An Important Disclaimer: I realize that God makes things grow.  And you should, too.  This is not about that.  This is about our role in designing the ministry for results (and we do play a part).

Design your ministry for results.  Sounds more complicated than it really is.  Here’s what I mean.

First, understand the direct link between your results and your ministry design.  Don’t miss the fact that design and outcome are absolutely related.  Can’t find enough leaders?  Don’t blame the culture or the times.  In the same way a field of corn onlygrows according to a farmer’s goals and objectives when the conditions are right (rainfall, sunshine, rich soil, temperature, etc.), your ministry will only grow when environmental conditions are right.

Second, carefully analyze each of the environmental elements that affect small group ministry.  Here are a few of the most important elements:

• Choice: If there are multiple options for the next step, don’t be surprised when unconnected people are indecisive.  Research has shown that there is a negative impact to too many choices.  Watch Sheena Iyengar’s TED talk on choice overload for more on this topic.  Prescription: Start a “stop doing list” and make a commitment to purposeful abandonment.  ”To call abandonment an opportunity may come as a surprise.  Yet planned, purposeful abandonment of the old and of the unrewarding is a prerequisite pursuit of the new and highly promising.  Above all, abandonment is the key to innovation–both because it frees the necessary resources and because it stimulates the search for the new that will replace the old”  (p. 33, Inside Drucker’s Brain).
• Priorities and emphasis: If your culture is designed to promote every option equally, don’t be surprised when your most connected people are confused and overcommitted and your least connected people are unresponsive.  Fuzzy priorities delay action.  Prescription: Choose which option gets promoted.  Demand intentionality.
• Expectations: We’re living in a time that would be completely foreign to our great grandparents.  Schedules.  Cost-of-living.  Mobility.  Extracurricular activities for children.  If you’re waiting for unconnected people to make the first move, adjusting their way of life to fit yours…you’ll be waiting a long time.  Prescription: Make it possible for a baby step in the right direction as a first move.  Remember, when youthink steps not programs you’ll design easy, obvious and strategic.

Third, make the changes you know must be made.  Once you understand the design issues that are determining your results, begin implementing.  Don’ t underestimate the tendency to search for a problem-free solution.  How should you implement change?  Fast?  Slow?  All at once?  Over time?  Your culture and history will determine that.  The key is to move forward.

Read more from Mark here.

Tags: Discipleship, Mark Howell, Multiplication, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >

Design to Handle the Exception – Not for the Exception

by: Stephen Shapiro

0

Tweet

While going through security at the airport the other day, I was reminded of an important design and innovation concept.

Things were going smoothly until a bag was flagged during the X-ray procedure. The luggage was held on the conveyor until an authority could conduct a manual inspection. At the same time, a similar problem arose on another line. Everything ground to a complete halt. Although it took only 5 minutes to get the lines moving again, during rush hour that was all it took for the queues to grow out of control.

Many years back, a supervisor shared with me a design principle I still use 25 years later: design to handle the exception, not for the exception. That is, don’t design your business model around the most complicated case. Instead, design it so that the exceptions can be addressed, even if their efficiency is impacted.

When designers try to make one process cover every situation, no matter how rare or unusual, the result is usually greatly increased complexity and diminishing returns for everyone.

Using my supervisor’s mantra, this airport dilemma differently would be solved by pulling off the bags that need manual inspections (the exceptions) into a separate area. Even if those bags would have to wait longer to be processed, they wouldn’t impact the bulk of the customers and would significantly speed up average wait times. Those travelers with the exception bags may be more inconvenienced than they are today, but perhaps knowing that you will be significantly slowed may encourage people to be more careful with what they put in their luggage.

How can this be applied elsewhere?

A major life insurance company found that its claims handling was slow and expensive. What they discovered was that every claim was being processed using the same rigorous procedures. But all claims did not need to be treated equally.

To improve efficiency, they scaled down the process and segmented claims according to their level of complexity. A simple version was used for straightforward cases. More robust versions were used for more complicated cases, while the full process was reserved only for the most difficult and time-consuming cases.  The most skilled and expensive specialists would resolve these complex claims while generalists handled the easiest ones.

What they found was that 60 percent of their cases could be handled using the simplest process with the least expensive resources. Thirty percent received the mid-level procedure, while only 10 percent needed the original full treatment. The result? Processing costs were reduced by 40 percent while average processing time was greatly reduced. Service levels also increased.

So how does this apply to your business?

Look at your customers. Which customers account for the bulk of your business? Which customers account for the bulk of your profits? Design your business to meet their needs. If you have other, less frequent needs, find a way of handling them outside of your standard processes, even if the cost is greater (to you or the customer) and the convenience is lower.

If you run a restaurant and 80 percent of your customers order the same five menu items, make sure you can inexpensively and efficiently cook those meals. For patrons who want items less frequently ordered, maybe they can pay a premium or wait a bit longer. Additionally, instead of keeping perishable ingredients in house for those rarely ordered meals, maybe you can find a nearby store where you can buy them just-in-time when needed.

If you run a call center, handle the most frequent calls efficiently without hand-off. Have generalists address the bulk of your calls. For the more complicated and less frequent issues, forward the call to a specialist. Even if the customer has to wait or be called back, it will significantly improve your overall call processing time and costs.

If you run a supermarket and someone purchases alcohol, they need to be approved by someone who is 21. If the clerk is not of age and needs to call for backup, the lines will be slowed for all.  Instead, you could require anyone buying alcohol to use special lines manned with cashiers who are all 21 or over, since they’re the exception.

Figure out what happens most frequently. Design your business for those scenarios. Identify the less frequent occurrences and make sure you can handle them, recognizing that an increase in time and/or cost for these exceptions may be necessary.

Have you inadvertently fallen into a “one-size-fits-all” mentality? Instead, consider applying the “design to handle the exception, not for the exception” philosophy and keep your business running smoothly.

Read more by Stephen here.

Tags: Design, Organization, Stephen Shapiro, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Managing Innovation is About Managing Change

by: Braden Kelley

0

Tweet

Innovation is about change. Companies that successfully innovate in a repeatable fashion have one thing in common – they are good at managing change. Now, change comes from many sources, but when it comes to innovation, the main sources are incremental innovation and disruptive innovation.

The small changes from incremental innovation often come from the realm of implementation, so the organization, customers, and other stakeholders can generally adapt. However, the large changes generated by disruptive innovation, often come from the imagination, and so these leaps forward for the business often disrupt not only the market but the internal workings of the organization as well – they also require a lot of explanation.

The change injected into organizations by innovation ebbs and flows across the whole organization’s ecosystem.

Let’s explore the change categories visualized in this framework using the Apple iPod as an example:

Read the rest of “Managing Innovation” here.

Tags: Braden Kelly, Change, Innovation, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Where’s Your 10X Performance Improvement?

by: Tim Kastelle

0

Tweet

1969 was a pretty interesting year for the Swiss watch industry.

That was the year the Omega Speedmaster became the first watch on the moon. Meanwhile, back on earth, there was a serious race to make the first automatic match that included a chronograph. Jeffrey Stein retells this story in International Watch magazine, and it’s really interesting.

The short version is that Zenith, Heuer, Omega and Breitling were competing fiercely to be the first to bring this innovation to market. Work started in the early 1960s, and by 1969 several versions of automatic chronographs were ready to go.

Zenith was the first to show a prototype of one of these watches in January, and they called their movement the El Primero to mark the occasion.

However, the El Primero was not production ready. The first automatic chronographs on the market came from a collaboration between Heuer, Breitling and Hamilton-Buren. They showed more than 100 prototypes at the Basel Watch Fair in April, and they hit serial production in the summer.

The El Primero made it into production in October. Interestingly, even though the El Primero was third into production, it was still a first – it was the first automatic watch to have the chronograph directly integrated with the movement.

In addition to competing on innovation, the Swiss watchmakers also competed on accuracy. Zenith is an interesting brand here too. From their beginning in 1865, they won more than 1565 first-place precision awards. This is primarily due to more innovation – Zenith figured out how to get their automatic watches to run with a frequency of 36,000 alternations per hour, as opposed to the standard 28,800.

So in the early 1970s, the Swiss watchmakers were competing on precision, innovation, and customisation for particular markets. Breitling focussed on aviation, making chronographs that were well-suited to piloting, Heuer was the dominant chronograph in car-racing circles, and so on.

And then everything changed with the introduction of this:

That’s a quartz watch movement. It’s not nearly as beautiful a piece of engineering as that El Primero, is it? And yet, right from their introduction, quartz watches were 10 times more accurate than the most precise mechanical watch. And they cost 1/10 as much, or even less.

Today, out of the more than 1 billion watches sold per year, about 80% are quartz analog watches, about 17% are quartz digital, and 2% are mechanical watches like the El Primero. In terms of volume, the dominant watch brands almost instantly became Seiko and Casio. This was a hugely disruptive innovation.

There are several innovation lessons here:

1. There’s always a gap between having the idea, and making it real. The Swiss watchmakers started working on making an automatic chronograph from shortly after the point when automatic watches became widely popular in the 1950s. It took them more than 10 years to turn this idea into reality in 1969.
And in fact, automatic watches show the typical s-curve for innovation diffusion as well. There were plans for an automatic watch drawn in the middle of the 18th century. They didn’t go into production until the 1920s, and they didn’t become widespread for over 25 years.

This gap between the idea and making it real is an important reason why managing the innovation process is a challenge.

2. Great ideas usually occur to many people at once. In many respects, it doesn’t matter who had the first automatic chronograph – they all showed up at basically the same time. And these breakthrough innovations are almost always the result of collaborations, like the Chronmatic alliance between Heuer, Breitling and Hamilton-Buren.

3. If you are going to make a head-on attack in an established market, you need to have at least a 10X improvement in performance. Quartz watches are one of the few disruptive innovations that didn’t start out in a small niche. The disruptions that go big fast need to have at least a 10X improvement in performance, as quartz did over mechanical watches. When Canon and Ricoh disrupted Xerox with their cheap, small photocopiers, they had a 10X improvement in cost.

One way to disrupt a market is to come up with a 10X improvement. What would that look like in your industry? In other words, what would be equivalent to a quartz watch for you?

And if you’re not working on developing that yourself, who is? And what are you doing to get ready for it?

Where’s your 10X performance improvement?

Read more from Tim here.

Tags: Improvement, Staff, Structure, Tim Kastelle

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

10 Principles for Good Design

by: Dieter Rams

0

Tweet

Design is normally thought of as applying to things – which it does. But design also applies to systems, structures, and communication tools. Dieter Rams, one of the most influential designers of the last 40 years, has developed 10 principles for good design. Though they are illustrated with objects here, the principles apply to what you as a leader “design” every day.

Good design is innovative

The possibilities for innovation are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for innovative design. But innovative design always develops in tandem with innovative technology, and can never be an end in itself.

Good design makes a product useful

A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy certain criteria, not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic. Good design emphasises the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could possibly detract from it.

Good design is aesthetic

The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products we use every day affect our person and our well-being. But only well-executed objects can be beautiful.

Good design makes a product understandable

It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product talk. At best, it is self-explanatory.

Good design is unobtrusive

Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user’s self-expression.

Good design is honest

It does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.

Good design is long-lasting

It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today’s throwaway society.

Good design is thorough down to the last detail

Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the user.

Good design is environmentally-friendly

Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimises physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.

Good design is as little design as possible

Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials.

Back to purity, back to simplicity.

Learn more about Dieter Rams here.

Tags: Brand, Design, Dieter Rams, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Communication >

Serving the Second Chair

by: Sam Rainer III

1

Tweet

Whether it’s a paid or unpaid position, formal or informal, most churches have a strong leader serving under the lead pastor. In smaller churches, this person can be a prominent lay person. In larger churches, the position is often an executive pastor. Numerous titles describe this position, including associate and administrator. Other church leadership positions can be second chairs as well, such as a worship pastor. In this article, I refer to the position simply as the second chair.

The second chair position is paradoxical for two reasons. First, a second chair involves the tension of submitting as a subordinate to the first chair while at the same time leading with a high level of influence. Second chairs maintain a dependence on the first chair while at the same time managing the significant amounts of freedom found near the top of the chain of command. The second paradox involves being in an ever-changing role that is difficult to define while at the same time trying to add structure to the vision of the first chair. Second chairs often find themselves in the unenviable position of being the Jell-O others are trying to nail to the wall.

While I do not claim to represent all second chairs, I have served in both a first chair role (currently) and a second chair role (at a previous church). This post is about second chairs, but it is directed to first chairs. How can lead pastors serve those whose main job description is to serve them?

Serve first; lead second. All church leaders should take on the posture of serving first and leading second, but a personal example is not enough. First chairs cannot assume second chairs (and other staff members) will follow the example of servant leadership if it is simply lived out and never taught.

First chairs must do more than encourage others to serve; they must teach others how to be servant leaders. First chairs should direct second chairs and staff to be aware of more than just what they should do, but also who they are in Christ. Servant leadership is more than a list of positive and negative traits. Servant leadership is more than a list of helpful or unhelpful actions. Being a servant leader like Jesus is an identity. This identity has a biblical foundation, and it must be taught.

Create a partnership, not a dictatorship. Living servant leadership and teaching servant leadership are important to creating a culture of servant leadership. But this culture is unsustainable (as is just about everything else in the church) without a partnership. Treating second chairs and staff as partners rather than employees will help sustain a transformational environment of servant leadership. A first chair’s goal is to create a partnership and not give directives. This partnership of servant leadership can be fostered in with transparency.

A senior leader must be transparent about the inevitable consistency of being a first chair leader in the church. Senior pastors have two personas: one the church sees and one the staff sees. They will act differently around people they work with for hours each day as compared with the people they are tasked to shepherd. This dichotomy will be especially true of a second chair.

A first chair will likely spend more time with a second chair than anyone else in the church. This inconsistency is not necessarily a sign of poor leadership, but it becomes problematic if first chairs love on the people of the church while mistreating the second chair and staff. Such a scenario places the second chair in the awkward position of detesting the senior leader the church loves.

Balance authority and responsibility. The temptation for a first chair is to seize power and authority from the second chair. In the hierarchy of command, it is easier for a first chair to pull authority from a second chair than it is for a second chair to take it from a first chair. One of the ministry tensions of the second chair is leading and adding value to the church without the positional authority of the senior pastor. A subordinate leader can only influence upward if the senior leader gives him or her the corresponding authority to do so.

One of the first chair’s primary responsibilities is serving the second chair. Nothing invalidates leadership like abandoning a servant’s heart. A first chair’s relationship with a second chair is one of a partnership, not a dictatorship. In this partnership it is the first chair’s obligation to grant a second chair a high level of authority to accomplish the tasks of his or her responsibility.

Read more from Sam here.

Tags: Leadership Development, Sam Rainer, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >