In the last two weeks I've talked with two leaders who listened to me talk about some of my experiences and offered their perspectives. In both cases it really seemed like they were looking past my words and eyes and into my soul. That's what the best mentors do.
What's most interesting is that these two are rather different. One is the leader of one of the most prominent leadership development organizations in the world. The other invests himself primarily with drug addicts, prostitutes, and homeless people. One challenges me to explore the outer limits of my potential, the other urges me to embrace my weakness as a means of becoming deeper. One's books quote alcoholic natives and now dead AIDS victims, the other refers to globally known corporate and ministry figures.
I am grateful for both of these men and their willingness to set aside time from their lives to speak into mine.
I need to be drawn into a fuller understanding of both my range of influence and my own core inadequacies. And in truth, both of the conversations included aspects of both. Neither leader is limited to a single theme. In their own lives and in their professional roles they help others to become more complete, from whatever the starting point.
Every leader needs people in their life that can see beyond the surface and challenge them to develop fuller; both in their identity and their influence.
Who's shaping you?
Showing posts with label Mentoring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mentoring. Show all posts
Friday, February 6, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Special Guest
Participants in our Mentoring Program were able to spend a couple hours last Tuesday with Dr. Carson Pue from Arrow Leadership International. It was a privilege to hear from someone who has done as much as anyone in the world to develop excellence among Christian leaders over the last decade. He talked with us about how to put together a personal leadership development plan and answered a pile of questions. (He also has an innovative technique for eating pancakes that you have to see to understand).

Much thanks to Carson for his time and wisdom.

Much thanks to Carson for his time and wisdom.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
The Theology of Goal Setting
Today our mentoring program is really underway. I had initial goal setting sessions with two of our participants.
Goal setting is really the heart of the individual mentoring sessions. It's a pretty simple process, but extremely valuable. The value comes in setting not only annual goals, but monthly targets toward those goals; and meeting monthly to review progress. Lots of people set personal and/or professional goals, but most of us don't track with them deliberately. The result is that the best of intentions show minimal results. As Louis Gerstner (the leader who turned around IBM) writes repeatedly in his excellent 2002 book Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?; people will do what you inspect not what you expect.
After some time spent on the goal setting worksheet we talked about the theology of goal setting that is rarely mentioned.
I believe there is a sincere but inaccurate belief that when followers of God are given dreams they are certain to be realized. It's a slight variation from the health and wealth prosperity gospel. On the surface it seems right to think that God would ensure that these things work out, but ultimately it isn't true, Biblical, or properly helpful. It feeds into some of our desires for self-satisfaction and pulls us away from the kind of faith and relationship with God we're meant to have.
To understand this further it helps to look at a popular chapter in the New Testament, Hebrews 11.
Church people like this passage because it gives quick summaries of the lives of some major Old Testament heroes, and allows us to imagine ourselves demonstrating similar faith and obedience. That is helpful; but it may be misleading.
A more deliberate look at the passage, (particularly verse 13 if you like shortcuts) shows that these heroes didn't get to accomplish the dreams they were given. Looking further down the text, we read of people who's crowning achievement seems to be being sawed in two because of their faith. I've never heard anyone aspire to that kind of spiritual experience.
To wrap this up, it is a good thing for us to set goals and passionately pursue them. What is problematic is when we start to be more committed to the dreams and goals than we are to the one who we believe gives us those dreams.
There is no promise that we will complete the things we aspire to. Often it is when things don't work out that our character, faith, and authentic connection to Jesus become most real.
Goal setting is really the heart of the individual mentoring sessions. It's a pretty simple process, but extremely valuable. The value comes in setting not only annual goals, but monthly targets toward those goals; and meeting monthly to review progress. Lots of people set personal and/or professional goals, but most of us don't track with them deliberately. The result is that the best of intentions show minimal results. As Louis Gerstner (the leader who turned around IBM) writes repeatedly in his excellent 2002 book Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?; people will do what you inspect not what you expect.
After some time spent on the goal setting worksheet we talked about the theology of goal setting that is rarely mentioned.
I believe there is a sincere but inaccurate belief that when followers of God are given dreams they are certain to be realized. It's a slight variation from the health and wealth prosperity gospel. On the surface it seems right to think that God would ensure that these things work out, but ultimately it isn't true, Biblical, or properly helpful. It feeds into some of our desires for self-satisfaction and pulls us away from the kind of faith and relationship with God we're meant to have.
To understand this further it helps to look at a popular chapter in the New Testament, Hebrews 11.
Church people like this passage because it gives quick summaries of the lives of some major Old Testament heroes, and allows us to imagine ourselves demonstrating similar faith and obedience. That is helpful; but it may be misleading.
A more deliberate look at the passage, (particularly verse 13 if you like shortcuts) shows that these heroes didn't get to accomplish the dreams they were given. Looking further down the text, we read of people who's crowning achievement seems to be being sawed in two because of their faith. I've never heard anyone aspire to that kind of spiritual experience.
To wrap this up, it is a good thing for us to set goals and passionately pursue them. What is problematic is when we start to be more committed to the dreams and goals than we are to the one who we believe gives us those dreams.
There is no promise that we will complete the things we aspire to. Often it is when things don't work out that our character, faith, and authentic connection to Jesus become most real.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Kickstart

I just finished reading Kickstart: How Successful Canadians Got Started. It was written by three young recent university grads who weren't exactly sure what to do with their lives. They decided to contact dozens of prominent Canadians in a wide variety of fields and ask them how they reached their status of significance. It's a very worthwhile, quick, and rich read. T|hey also have a companion website you might want to check out.
Interesting reflections from the book:
-Diversity: The figures in Kickstart don't only represent fields as varied as politics, business, athletics, academia, and the arts; they also have taken widely different paths to their achievements. There is no one way to success.
-Mentors: Almost all of the profiles included recognition of someone (often generally anonymous) who was admired by the subject and who at a key point offered them the encouragement and/or challenge that inspired them.
-Childhood: Almost without exception the people profiled in Kickstart are able to link their ultimate prominence to interests, experiences, and patterns from their childhood years. We are wise to refer to that in our own lives when seeking direction.
-Boldness: Not only are the subjects people of nerve; but the authors took the risk of essentially cold-calling these influential figures and asking for interviews. To their surprise, most of the people they called were please to do so and some went far beyond that in response.
It has been my experience that even prominent people will often make time for someone who approaches them for interaction if the approach is clear, well prepared, and specific in nature.
Kudos to Alexander, Paul, and Andrew for this book and the ancillary projects and events that are springing from it.
Friday, May 9, 2008
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.
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.
Labels:
Catalyst,
churches,
Context,
leadership,
Mentoring
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Mentoring Program
I am very excited to be getting our mentoring program underway in the next several weeks. There are some amazing developing leaders I'll be connecting with as they pursue the things they consider themselves called to do.
For a basic outline of our mentoring program click here.
For a basic outline of our mentoring program click here.
Friday, February 22, 2008
How leaders develop
One of the aspects of our foundation that excites me most is the development of a mentoring program for developing non-profit leaders. In my previous work as a pastor there was little that I enjoyed more than connecting regularly with young people who aspired to fulfilling their spiritual calling with boldness and wisdom. Having the chance to continue that kind of work is amazing.
When I look on my own experiences with significant mentors it is not difficult to identify some aspects of the relationships that made it valuable. Sincere personal interest, a developing sense of mutuality, willingness to extend beyond the primary topic of reference, vulnerability, respect, discerning use of books or other resources; they all make it work. But most of those are "soft" qualities that are difficult to program or systematise. I've been able to replicate them to varying degrees with some people in the past and it has made for a rich time of shared learning. But it doesn't happen with everyone.
Now I need to develop an effective mentoring program to employ with some developing leaders for our foundation. I want it to be more than worthwhile for the participants; I want it to be transformative. How do I take what seems to be an organic strength in my experience and develop a structure that maximises the likelihood of that transformation?
Here are some of my thoughts along the way, I'd love to hear from others...
-An element of community is crucial. When a group work together it reduces the risk of me projecting my own expectations or struggles onto someone else.
-A small group aspect also helps maintain a humble authority and accountability.
-There needs to be enough structure to ensure that even if there isn't an easy natural mutual affinity, there is value for people to participate.
-there need to be times of active application of what we're discussing together, as well as times of personal reflection.
-the program must be flexible enough to adapt to individuals but rigid enough to have some predictable outcomes.
-There needs to be encouragement to find additional mentoring specific to areas where I or the group lack the expertise to advise.
-I need to be a facilitator and advisor rather than an instructor.
-There needs to be a buy in from the participant's supervisor or organisation to the value and expectations of the program.
-There needs to be an expectation that those who participate will likewise be involved in mentoring others.
Thoughts?
When I look on my own experiences with significant mentors it is not difficult to identify some aspects of the relationships that made it valuable. Sincere personal interest, a developing sense of mutuality, willingness to extend beyond the primary topic of reference, vulnerability, respect, discerning use of books or other resources; they all make it work. But most of those are "soft" qualities that are difficult to program or systematise. I've been able to replicate them to varying degrees with some people in the past and it has made for a rich time of shared learning. But it doesn't happen with everyone.
Now I need to develop an effective mentoring program to employ with some developing leaders for our foundation. I want it to be more than worthwhile for the participants; I want it to be transformative. How do I take what seems to be an organic strength in my experience and develop a structure that maximises the likelihood of that transformation?
Here are some of my thoughts along the way, I'd love to hear from others...
-An element of community is crucial. When a group work together it reduces the risk of me projecting my own expectations or struggles onto someone else.
-A small group aspect also helps maintain a humble authority and accountability.
-There needs to be enough structure to ensure that even if there isn't an easy natural mutual affinity, there is value for people to participate.
-there need to be times of active application of what we're discussing together, as well as times of personal reflection.
-the program must be flexible enough to adapt to individuals but rigid enough to have some predictable outcomes.
-There needs to be encouragement to find additional mentoring specific to areas where I or the group lack the expertise to advise.
-I need to be a facilitator and advisor rather than an instructor.
-There needs to be a buy in from the participant's supervisor or organisation to the value and expectations of the program.
-There needs to be an expectation that those who participate will likewise be involved in mentoring others.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
