Vision - Look Behind You

I am increasingly convinced that a key to crafting direction, for organizations as well as individuals, is to look into the past. With few (if any) exceptions what we will become at our best is rooted in things that have been true since our beginning.

When I work with individuals on figuring out their best context it is invaluable to spend 45 minutes hearing stories from earlier in their life of things they enjoyed doing and felt they did well. Reflection on those things makes figuring out next steps much easier.

The same is true for organizations. Dr. Carson Pue of Arrow Leadership International shares his thoughts in his latest To The Point e-newsletter:

...the board of directors and I devoted a year to listening to God and seeking His guidance as to the future vision for our organization. We had seasons during this pursuit that drained us, so we asked a friend and strategic partner to come and facilitate a board vision meeting. It was during this day that I heard from him one of the most profound statements I have ever heard on vision. Here it is…
“The seeds of your future are found in what you have already been doing.”

Futurist John Scharr affirms this as well reminding us that, "The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating.” We have already been creating our future! So we spent a half day reviewing what we have been doing over the past 18 years – made a list of these and our ‘vision’ popped out at us. It is a grounded vision - and has lots of traction. As a result our team is energized, committed and filled with meaning.

Maybe it is time to ground your vision?

The visioning process is draining and unpleasant when we get bogged down in concepts and semantics, but it is quite invigorating when we turn our attention to the best of our past to see the best of our future. Try it.

Character, Complexity, and Controversy

Yesterday I had lunch with David Sweet, Member of Parliament for the riding of Ancaster/Dundas/Flamborough/Westdale (where I live). He is a Conservative backbencher and the former CEO of Promisekeepers Canada. In the interest of honesty I should say that I have never attended a Promisekeepers event and I did not vote for Mr. Sweet in the last federal election, I voted Green.

I wanted to talk to Mr. Sweet not primarily about policy issues, though we did cover a few over the 90 minutes we spent together, but mostly about being a leader in two organizations that are well known for having contentious perspectives and more than a few controversially outspoken adherents. Beyond that, my riding is one of the most complex in the country with agricultural, academic, industrial, and suburban residential all co-mingling in a sometimes tense balance.

To my pleasure, Mr. Sweet was very sincere in our conversation. He spoke openly about the tensions of competing priorities between constituents, party loyalty, and personal conviction. He described the difficulty of becoming effectively knowledgeable on an enormous range of topics in very limited time. And he admitted to the difficulty involved in making decisions that have enormous impact on the lives of Canadians, particularly in military matters.

There are a number of issues (though fewer than I thought) on which David Sweet and I hold significantly different views. That said, I believe the thing that makes him able to navigate the challenges and complexities of his role is relatively simple: he has some fundamental convictions about which he strives to be very consistent. He admits to being an incrementalist, change takes time and compromise is often the way forward. But at a core level he demonstrates a strength of character that I find admirable.

At Catalyst we talk about leadership having three key aspects: Competence, Character, and Context. Based on my observations of David Sweet in his campaigns since 2004 and as an MP since 2006 I have to say that there is much to commend about him in all three aspects. His background (personal and professional) gives him a diverse and valuable skill set, he has integrity and has largely earned trust, and he is in a role which seems to bring out the best in him with deep passion.

Two closing thoughts:
1. I am still surprised that Mr. Sweet hasn't been given a cabinet post. He and Hamilton deserve better.
2. I know some people who have a significant disdain for David Sweet for a variety of reasons. I don't know how legitimate or spurious their complaints are, and I am not advocating for him politically (or for his party for that matter). I am simply saying that as a leader David Sweet is someone worth listening to.

A Most Dangerous Question

Is your organization redundant?
If you were being totally honest and no one else had to hear what you said, could you convince yourself that what you are currently doing couldn't be done as well or better by someone else?

The way you answer this question is pretty revealing. If you can't quickly point to some strategic niche or unique approach there is a good chance that you aren't fulfilling your needed role in the big picture of nonprofit/ministry work.

That's not to say you should delete the website and shut down the office, but you should invest some effort in figuring out what it is that you are uniquely ready, willing, or able to do.

Within ten minutes of my home there are at least fifteen Protestant churches, and to my knowledge none of them are full. In Canada there are at least 3 organizations working to provide specific leadership training to the particular market of Christian women. At any given university there are multiple campus organizations committed to expressing the truth and grace of Jesus. Ontario has dozens of Christian summer camps. There are multiple emerging leader programs, church planting groups, intensive ministry leadership programs, microfinance providers, and granting foundations. Someone has to ask if all of them are truly needed.

Repetition is expensive. When it adds no value it is also wasteful.

Organizations and individuals would serve all of us well by having a very raw consideration of what they uniquely bring to the community and whether they are meeting real needs or just sustaining the incomes or egos of their staff and leaders.

I suspect that in reality there is need for more, not less, in most areas. The needs in our society and around the world are enormous and varied.

What is not needed is mindless mimickry and pointless sameness.

One of the values we hold highly at Catalyst is synergy. On a weekly basis we review how we have been able to bring together separate entities for the betterment of all. It's hard to do that if the separate entities are essentially identical.

A challenge: Ask your organization's leaders to (in five minutes or less) articulate clearly what it is about you that is distinct from other similar organizations and why things would truly be worse if you ceased operations.

The responses to that exercise will tell you more about where you should invest time, money, and energy than almost any strategic consultant.

Unique is the point

Too often we get the impression that leadership is a topic or skill set that can be learned in isolation from other things. I know of more than one "leader" with outstanding credentials who are making significant, obvious, and damaging blunders with stunning frequency.
As we're nearing the end of our pilot project of the Catalyst Leadership Program at Abbey Park High School in Oakville, I am more aware than ever that leadership can't be developed independently from action. There must be a cause, group, or effort you are currently pursuing for their to be meaningful benefit to leadership training. Context is crucial.
That belief may be the distinctive of our program. We begin by trying to help the students identify their own dream, the thing in this world that they are uniquely able to address. Often they find that the seeds of their purpose have been in there lives since childhood.
Only after identifying that dream can they get the real benefit of the rest of the program where we dig into how we can and must develop our Competence, Character, and Context in order to bring about our desired change.
This week I saw some of the students "get it". Somehow a little light went on and they began to see that there are certain things about them that are truly unique, and that it is in those things that their dream should be found. I loved connecting with a few of them after class to explore what that might mean.
When I was in high school one of the classrooms had a poster with a stanza of that famous poem:
Two roads diverged in a wood
And I took the road less travelled by
And that has made all the difference
One of my friends thought that was an expression of regret rather than a victory cry. I consider his response tragic.

Scaleability

One of the factors we consider in evaluating grant applications is whether the proposal and the organization are scaleable. By that, I mean is there the possibility for the same system to be repeated either larger or smaller, ultimately serving and reaching more people.
That might simply mean making it possible for Catalyst to fund a portion of the requested funds allowing the organization to pursue their vision to a reduced degree initially; but ideally it means that what is being done can flex and grow with minimal costly restructuring.
This article talks about the realization by an American mega-church pastor that what works in developed urban centres in the Western world isn't scaleable in most places; and the way it has affected him and his organization.

Scaleability is rooted in the development of multiple leaders and simple, effective systems. It usually involves a return to the central historic origins of the vision and the willingness of the power brokers to open their hands and lead through influence rather than control.

Context as Culture

Lunch today with Darrell Winger, Community Development Pastor at The Meeting House; one of the fastest growing and most intriguing churches in Canada. I blogged about a previous with their Teaching Pastor recently. I wanted to understand more about the uncommon leadership culture they have developed.
Darrell (whose role makes him essentially the bishop of the multi-site church) affirmed that there really is no predominant leader in their inner circle. They truly do function as a mutually submissive team, respecting one another's strengths and roles.
A lot of our conversation was about how they bring in new leaders who have established themselves in a more common hierarchical leadership system. Essentially, it is a matter of introducing them to a new culture, not unlike what happens when we travel internationally. Newcomers have to become familiar with both the formal published systems of The Meeting House, but also the subtle nuances of tone, jargon, and relationship that make up the heart of the way things are around here.
Some newcomers are able to embrace that change, others can't. The challenge is to discern which is which before giving someone a leadership role.
In Catalyst's approach to leadership we talk about these as aspects of Context. Someone may be remarkably skilled (Competence) and have high integrity (Character), but be fundamentally unsuited for a role because they don't, can't, or won't adapt to the particulars of the culture.
Our hope, through our mentoring and high school leadership programs, is that we can help promising leaders sort through where they can fit in most effectively. It is more an art than a science, and as people progress in life their fit may change. It takes insight and sensitivity to help someone with matters of context.