What we know, think we know and don't know

Most of us believe we know more than we actually do – which is a dangerous position to be in. In fact, the greater our ability the greater the risk that we confuse what we know with what we think we know and minimize what we don’t know.

Jim, ranks as one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. Yet, he rarely makes a key decision without bouncing it off of a few key advisers who are in a position to tell him exactly what they think – some from outside of the organization he leads. With all of his skills as a leader, Jim wants to make the right call, not simply the call he thinks is right. In his use of a few key advisers in whom he has great trust he minimizes the risk of a bad call. It also demonstrates great humility and EQ.

There is a massive third category: what we truly don’t know! Here is one of the key distinctive between leaders with good EQ and real humility: those with it acknowledge on numerous occasions that they don’t have the answer and seek wisdom from those who might while those without it pretend or believe they have the answer and pay for that foolishness dearly.

I know many leaders who believe that they must have the answer and that their internal compass is always right. Thus, not only do they not solicit feedback or wisdom from others (with the exception of those who would agree with them) but they consistently get themselves into trouble with others because they went it alone (of course it is never their issue). It rarely occurs to these leaders that they don’t actually know what they ought to do. The result is that in a universe of possible solutions on any one topic, they are stuck in the small prison of what they actually know – or think they know.

Humble and healthy leaders do not assume they know the right course of action or that they can figure it out by themselves. In fact, they are by nature curious, always asking questions, desirous of knowing what others are doing and approach issues with an open mind that invites the best thinking to the table. They do not doubt their ability to get to where they need to go in the end but they are humble enough to realize that in the world of possible solutions, they know only a few and if there is a “game changing” solution they want to know about it.

For this reason, humble leaders rarely make quick decisions but “think grey” and solicit the opinions and ideas of the best people they know – in the area where they need to make a call. Often, they bring multiple voices together at once to think through an issue.

In the process they learn a lot – one of the reasons they are truly good leaders and they develop a cadre of highly competent people who they add to their circle of friends that they can call on in the future. Ironically, their history of making good calls my seem brilliant but if you peel back the process you realize that they did not make them in a vacuum but through their willingness to engage other bright people in the process and admit that they did not have the solutions themselves.

In contrast, prideful leaders – those who cannot admit their need for the wisdom of others either copy someone else’s solution (it may have no context in their case) or trust their limited wisdom never realizing how small their world of knowledge actually is!

One such leader that I know, believes that leadership is all about “making the directional call” and ensuring that everyone knows that they are in charge, in control and “the leader.” He actively resists the input of others and rarely solicits input. He lives with the allusion that he is a great leader when in fact, his ability to lead is seriously impeded by his pride and lack of openness to the feedback and wisdom of others. People around him are not fooled by his lack of wisdom - only he is. 

What we don’t know is a powerful stimulus to living with a spirit of humility. The more we understand what we don’t know the more open we are to soliciting the input and wisdom of others. And the more we learn from other bright people, the better our own leadership and decision making. Wisdom does not come to the insecure and prideful but to the secure and humble.

Attitudes of grace

There are few more important themes in Scripture than that of grace. One of the hallmarks of Christ is that He was full of "grace and truth" (John 1:17). The gospel is all about the grace of God applied to our lives, His unmerited favor given freely to us not only in salvation but on a daily basis!

As one reads the gospels, one sees Christ interacting with graciousness with all, with the exception of the Pharisees who were hypocrites. There was always truth in His conversations but it was a gracious truth.

Organizational leaders set an example and monitor the culture of the organization or team that they lead. In the Christian world, one of the hallmarks of our ethos should be a graciousness in our interactions with one another.

There are many attitudes that do not exude grace: gossip, cynicism, mistrust, assuming the worst rather than the best, anger, and impatience. These are often encountered but they do not reflect the character and attitudes of grace. In fact, they are the opposite of grace: ungracious judgement of others.

This does not mean that we cannot address questions, issues or press into dialogue on difficult subjects. Just the opposite should be true and Jesus certainly did not dodge the difficult conversations or issues. What it does mean is that as we interact with one another, the grace that Jesus gave to us ought to be evident in our interactions with one another. His grace to us ought to be our grace to one another. To not show grace to one another is to deny God's grace to us.

Grace and truth is a powerful combination that creates a unique and God honoring ethos in any organization. Leaders model it and call others to it.

It is policy

Last week I stayed at the Hilton Mexico City Reforma (yes they deserve to be named in this blog and I have kindly forwarded a copy on to them). On my first morning I was sitting with a colleague in the lobby with my eyes closed as we waited for our friends to arrive for the day. All of a sudden I was prodded by a security guard who proceeded to lecture me in Spanish for some unknown infraction. It turned out I was not allowed to “sleep” in the lobby which I was not in fact doing. Just because one’s eyes are closed does not necessarily constitute sleeping. My colleague will attest there was no requisite snoring.

Once I understood what he was adamant about I went to the front desk to share my unhappiness regarding my treatment.  The answer was, “It is policy sir.” I asked for the front desk manager, told her what happened and was told, “It is policy sir.” She knew that I wanted to talk to the hotel General Manager but he was unavailable and we left for the day.

Inexplicably, the General Manager did not attempt to leave a message for me although he had been told of the situation so I called him later that afternoon to dialogue with him about my treatment as a guest at his hotel. “Sorry sir, it is policy” he said. “We have had people from the street come and sleep on our chairs so we have this policy. It is unfortunate but it is our policy.”

I suggested to him that it would be fairly evident that I was not a homeless individual from the streets of his capital – I was wearing professional clothes including a white dress shirt, had a camera and was sitting with a colleague but that seemed to make no difference. After all, he said he had not met me personally so he could not make a judgment on that. Policy is policy. And this is the hospitality industry and I was paying to stay in his hotel. 

I asked him why I should consider staying in his hotel again for which he had no answer nor seemed the least bit concerned: So much for “hospitality.”  Incidentally, I have Diamond Status with Hilton which seemed to make no difference in any of the three conversations.

Now I stay in a lot of hotels around the world each year and this has never happened to me although I have had many adventures in lesser hotels – which is to be expected. When I shared this with the manager he just said, “I am sorry, but that is our policy.”

It got me thinking about policies. It is easy to write policies but harder to write policies that get the right outcome. In this case, in an attempt to stop street people from sleeping in their lobby the hotel developed a policy that disenfranchised their own guests. They were also evidently unable to differentiate between a street person and a hotel guest. How dumb is that? Yet we do the same thing in organizations all the time, especially when we write policies to solve problems that could and should be solved in other and better ways.

Following his lead, I will never stay at his hotel again. It is my new policy! I learned from the best. What policies do you have that are counterproductive to what you are trying to accomplish?

Measuring our hearts against God's heart

There is nothing that challenges me more than to understand the amazing heart of the eternal God and then measure my heart against His. Think about this:

While I find it so hard to forgive at times, He forgives easily and quickly because He does not want to live out of fellowship with us.

While I can tolerate injustice small and large, His heart is broken by the injustices that are so much a part of our fallen world.

While I can become deeply engrossed in my own ministry, His heart is for all ministries - His is a big and generous and non-parochial heart.

While I quibble over fine points of doctrine, He is driven that all men and women and children hear the Gospel and find a relationship with  Jesus.

While I am loyal to my denominational brand He cares for His whole Bride.

While I pray for my own needs, His heart is for the needs of a world gone wrong through sin with all the brokenness that comes with that fact.

While I can marginalize some people who are not like me, He sees every human being as made in His Image and equally worthy of His love. His heart never marginalizes anyone.

While I like to hang out with people who are respectable His heart is for the unrespectable as well - just look who He hung out with in the incarnation.

While there are people I would pass by, there is no-one He would pass by.

While I am impatient, critical and condemning of those who don't meet my standards, He is patient and gracious and forbearing.

Take a moment this week and consider where your heart is against His heart. His greatest goal for us is that His heart would become our heart. 

We do solutions, not complaints, blame or excuses

In any organization or team there is plenty one can complain about. People and life and circumstances are not perfect which is why there are no perfect organizations. Unfortunately there are always those who enjoy complaining about what goes wrong or what could be better and those who cover their own issues with excuses.

My mantra is that "we do solutions, not complaints or excuses."

Actually, finding deficiencies is a good, not bad thing, as it allows us to get better. However, what one does with those deficiencies is the key.

If I complain, I am putting the onus of the issue on others which may make me feel good (it is not my issue) because it is someone else's issue to solve. That of course puts the one we perceive as responsible on the defensive with gets us no-where except into the realm of bad feelings.

If I cover up my own deficiencies with excuses, I am also usually blaming others because I have to find someone or something to excuse the fact that I did not deliver on something. Someone or something got in the way of my being able to deliver so it is not my fault. Again we enter the real of blaming others.

Both complaining and excusing are off limits in a healthy organization or team. What is encouraged is to find places where we need to do better and then work to find solutions. Solutions are not about blame, criticism or complaints but about solving problems. And problem solving is a positive exercise while the previous tactics are negative exercises.

Which do you allow in your organization? Complaints, excuses and blame or solutions?

Churches and group think

I have recently run into a number of situations where pastors of churches got into trouble with their boards and senior pastor when they disagreed with them or spoke their minds (in appropriate ways). 

In both cases, at least at the leadership level there was a high degree of group think with any deviation from the specified allowed thinking patterns labeled as disloyal, sinful and in fact grounds for punitive action. In both cases, the punitive action was to be kept "secret" and the staff members were not allowed to talk to anyone about the issues at hand. Nor were they given a proper hearing by leaders who demanded absolute loyalty.

These are obviously highly dysfunctional churches and border on cult like practices. In cults there is an absolute mandate to take the party line, no place for either dissent or independent thinking and when someone starts to think independently they are strictly warned of the consequences. There are also "secrets" because these are not open systems, secrets and lack of transparency are high. 

Paul obviously felt free to disagree with Peter in the early church. Unity in the church (a word that gets bandied about often in group think churches) does not mean that we all agree on everything. It does mean that we agree to work together - and the best working together happens when there is honesty, grace, transparency and the ability to speak one's mind. It never happens when these elements are missing.

Interestingly, in the latest example, the church in question is moving significantly downward in its attendance, there are secret board meetings taking place regularly, absolute loyalty being asked for, dissent being punished and and secrecy of all these issues from the congregation. My prediction is that the church will continue its downward spiral until it's leaders either get out of the way or choose a different leadership culture. 

Group think in the church is never healthy. Or in any organization and in some churches it comes very close to if not over the line into cult like practices. 

Building efficient systems

Every ministry is made up of systems for the various things that they are engaged in. Each of those systems has the potential to be efficient and scaleable or, inefficient and unscaleable. When they are efficient you save time, money and frustration but when they are inefficient they cost you more time, money and frustration. Thus it makes sense to pay close attention to the systems we use.

One of the issues to remember about systems is that often they were put in place in a much earlier day when the issues were different than they are today. To say nothing of technological changes. Often our systems represent a different day that had different concerns which is why regular evaluation of our systems is so important.

How does one evaluate their systems? It can be done in several steps. Step one is to identify each of the major phases in the process under consideration. For instance, I travel a great deal and my air travel can be seen in 5 distinct phases: ticket purchase, check in, security, boarding process and deplaning.

Once you have the major phases it is helpful to walk through every step within each of the phases. Identifying every step brings to light a number of issues: clarity of what you are doing; steps that are not needed; steps that should be different; steps that should take place at a different time in the process and places where there may be better cooperation between parties. 

After identifying each step, give every step a color: Red, green or yellow. Red means that we are not doing that step well at all, yellow that we could do it better and green means there are no issues. Looking at the process visually gives one a good picture of  where there are issues. 

The final step is to ask what we should do differently in order to be more efficient. Certainly the yellow and red steps need to be looked at carefully. Often in this process you will find places where the system is broken or needs to be modified. Remember the goal is to save time, money and frustration and to develop scaleable systems.