Profit or Unity

“We are the largest non-profit in the state.” “We are known across the country as an organization of quality and excellence.” “Our leadership has made us what we are today.”

“The leaders of this organization are tough but fair.” “The CEO dreams big and always has a positive outlook on the life of the company.” “We are a solid system and everyone knows what their job is.” “Our leadership communicates with us and keeps us informed.”

“I haven't seen our CEO for a while – I know she is busy.” “Many of us in the company are not sure who we are any more; it seems like the direction of the organization has changed and we aren't who we were when we signed on.” “Our leadership sends us confusing signals or no signals at all.”

These three different perspectives on organizational leadership lead us to examine the role that leadership should play in the life of an institution. But defining the purpose of leadership is a difficult task and not easy to nail down.

Does leadership exist to make money and ensure the financial wealth of the employees of the organization? Is the role of leadership a legal one - representing the stakeholders in matters of contract, commitment, accountability, and integrity? Do the leaders of an organization serve as the generals: planning the strategy and demanding the execution of the plan with excellence? You may decide to answer “Yes” to each one of these questions. Leadership must take hold of important fiduciary obligations. Leaders must enter into legal relationship with others on behalf of the organization. Strategic planning must roll off the desk of organizational leaders.

But how about this one: Does leadership exist to serve others and bring unification to the organization? Well, maybe, but it is more important that the company is making money, meeting its legal obligations and providing a good business model for the future. Or is it? What is the primary focus and priority of organzational leaders?

I have been spending some time reflecting on the book of Ephesians. This incredible letter of Paul provides some deep doctrinal statements as well as some "rubber-meets-the-road" practicalities. One of these pragmatic statements in found in Ephesians 4: 11-13. Paul is exhorting believers to make every effort to maintain unity among themselves (4:3). Then, in verse 11, he turns his attention to the leadership roles within this spiritual organization.

“It was he [Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service....” The leadership within the early church (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors/teachers) was raised up for a common purpose: to prepare....to prepare God's people for service. These appointments of leadership were not instituted to provide status or importance of the positions, but rather to mobilize and train others to serve.

Notice as well the purpose for the service: “...works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up, until we all reach unity...” The service that each member brought to the organization was to build, edify, and support the entire group. Unity was the goal. Leadership existed to assist others to serve and that service existed to strengthen each part of the institution so that a unity might reign within the group.

Paul continues to mention another purpose of the service. “...works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up, until we all reach unity....and become mature, attaining the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Unity and maturity! Who would not like to work in an organization where the leadership was focused on unity and maturity? Unity does not mean always agreeing, but it does mean knowing how to fight in a way that preserves respect, honor, and integrity. It means being determined to resolve conflict by keeping the interest of the entire group as the focus of debates. It means consciously putting aside the agendas of individuals and embracing the call and mission of the organization. Maturity, on the other hand, does not mean perfection or infallibility, but it does mean seeking forgiveness for wrongs, honest communication and honest feed-back, and a commitment to life-long learning.

This passage is certainly written from a spiritual perspective and about a spiritual organization. But for those non-profit organizations (churches and para church institutions), these words seems to be directly applicable down to every spiritual detail. For those organizations that are not founded on spiritual principles, the goals of maturity and unity within the company seem to be blue-chip priorities.

Paul might say that the role of leadership is to prepare others to serve in order to bring unity and maturity to the organization. Just some thoughts to consider.

Programs or People?

Is leadership getting things done or influencing people? Should a leader be more concerned about tasks and results or people and relationships? Is the bottom line defined by profit or discipleship?

The way that you answer these questions will say a great deal about your leadership style and your priorities within the organization. Most leaders will pint to a balance between the two poles; a two-fold emphasis each needing attention – each holding great importance to any company. And although there is great truth in recognizing this needed dualism, most leaders favor one emphasis over the other.

Those natural managers slide to the side of the tasks. Organizing, scheduling, tracking, and checking off the “to do” list float the boat of some leaders. Others have a hard time staying in the office and spending time with their laptops – rather they have to meet people and share their excitement with others. The needs of the stakeholders, the customers, the employees, and the vendors motivate, and often dominate, the thinking of the people-oriented leader.

Although personality has a lot to do with one's perspective on this two dimensional spectrum between people and tasks, it goes beyond personality to one's choice of priorities. Extroverts love being around people and are energized by personal relationships. Introverts will gravitate to the list of important duties to get done before the sun goes down. But it is often the introvert that possesses the skill of listening and the sensitivity to the needs of those around him. Introverts may have great ideas and dreams, but fail to engage others with the idea and thus lack the ability to put arms and legs on tier vision.

Extroverts love to talk, but often love to hear themselves talk more than striving to hear the voice of others. Extroverts might blast through the needs of others in order to accomplish their agenda. They are great salesmen but are sometimes more concerned about the product than the customer.

I think the wise leader takes serious inventory of their passion for one side or the other of this spectrum. Once the leader honestly and accurately sees his/her strength on this issue, he/she must surround him/herself with trusted colleagues on the other side of the dichotomy. The task-oriented leader must surround him/herself with a team of people-oriented lieutenants. And those people-centered CEOs must have individuals around them that are performance driven and task-focused.

Unfortunately, task oriented people are most often attracted to other tasks oriented people. The enjoyment of being with kindred spirits tends to mar organizations with cookie-cutter leaders. But balance within the senior leadership team can provide balance throughout the organization.

Take a look around your company – Is there a good equilibrium between meeting the needs of people and accomplishing the tasks for productivity? How about you? Which side do you favor? How do you major on your strengths and empower others to balance your approach?

Communication - Difficult but Critical

So much of leadership is communication. So much of life is communication.

Communication is both a blessing and a curse. How incredible is it that we can express to one another our thoughts and emotions. To articulate ideas, feelings and insights to others is a format that makes sense is a key to relationships and cooperation. Exchanging perspectives, debating issues, and sharing concepts permits collaborative efforts that accomplish great things.

Telling your wife that you love her and putting into words the deep feelings of you heart allows you to communicate on deep levels with individuality and emotion. Communicating with your children in order to express your pride and joy in their accomplishments and character, provides you with vital opportunities to let them know much you value them.

Communication can also be one of the most difficult things to do and the easiest things to mess up. Words that often slip off the tongue can be knives that wound the soul. Comments meant to be humorous can drive discouragement deep within the heart. Ugly words serve as poison in relationships and angry words are left on the table with regret. Conversations can not be taken back or rewound for editing (this is entirely unfortunate).

I have found myself so misunderstand at times. The size of the audience does not seem to matter. One-on-one chats often lead to disappointments because of a lack of clarity. Thinking that I have plainly shared my opinion, I find out later that my wife, friend, son, employee, or boss totally heard something else. I am amazed sometimes that when a conversation concludes, I leave thinking one decision has been made while the other person has concluded something totally different.

Small groups have just as much danger of miscommunication. I have provided many professional development sessions for executive leaders. After presenting my information and sharing my insights, I have a time of questions and answers. Some of the questions that some leaders ask demonstrate that my words failed to accurately communicate my thoughts. Whether it is my words of their ears I am not sure, but it is obvious that all is not well in the communication process.

Have you ever left a meeting with everyone thinking that someone else is responsible of a particular action item? The next meeting rolls around and no one has addressed the issue. Communication is key to execution.

Large group communication is not much better. I have been on both the sending side and the receiving side of a oral presentation that just missed in an accurate transfer of information. I have walked away from a conference plenary session totally missing the point of the main speaker. On the other hand, I have gotten feed-back after making a large presentation only to find that some of the participants have misunderstood my thoughts.

Communication can go wrong in so many ways and yet communication is critical if change is going to take place in an organization. Change is effective when adequate communication has occurred and the members of the company are all on a similar page of understanding. Once the telling of the story has been articulated the personnel of the organization must embrace and “own” the narrative. They must enter into the story as major characters in the change. Will we fail in communicating our hearts and minds? Absolutely! Must we continue to communicate despite our failures? Obviously! Is it imperative that we carefully share and constantly evaluate the accuracy of our story? Without question!

Undercover Boss

Undercover Boss - what a very interesting IV show! CEO's go undercover to see their organizations from the inside out. I found lots of leadership lessons expressed in such a practical way. Although the CEO only spends a day here and a day there in various locations within the company (and only for a total of one week), lots of issues come to the surface.

The second episode (the first one I watched) filmed the CEO of Hooters taking a look at his company from the hard work of the kitchen, to the reputation of the Hooter waitress, to the various approaches to restaurant management, and to the factory worker packaging the cheese sauces for retail sales.

I have never been, nor intend to go to Hooters because of its degrading policies they enforce toward women, but the insights that the CEO received were significant. One manager had a “playboy” mentality toward his waitresses and treated them with disrespect. He had them line up for a physical inspection, played inappropriate games to see who would get to go home early, and talked to them like a sheik with his harem. He deserved to be fired (maybe the TV show would not permits this).

Although the CEO never really understood the negativity of his company's image, he was surprised to hear the comments of many made toward the restaurant's reputation. His solution was to make a training video for waitresses – even CEO's miss the handwriting on the wall sometimes.

One major lesson that impressed me about this episode was the importance of personal relationships within an organization – big or small. Those involved in the manufacturing of the Hooter food products had no personal touch from cooperate headquarters. Their feelings of abandonment and disconnect greatly impacted their morale and motivation. Respect, support and encouragement are such keys to job satisfaction. Intrinsic motivation can be energized by a personal touch that costs the organization very little money.

I caught the first episode of this TV series on line. It followed the CEO of Waste Management. He visited many facets of his business: port-a-johns, recycling, land fill, and garbage pick-up. He discovered some great workers with great attitudes along with a few insensitive people and policies. He was fired from picking up trash at the landfill to being invited over to dinner with a worker that multi-tasked four positions.

I appreciated the CEO seeing himself in some of the difficulties facing his company. There indeed were some people (mostly managers) that failed to embrace the spirit of the organization, but the CEO zeroed in on his responsibility and role to make the company better. It would have been so much easier to blame shift the negatives to others, but he was pretty sensitive to his challenges and the changes that he could bring to the table.

This interesting show provides an insightful perspective into the life and workings of real companies. Check it out if you get a chance and evaluate the leadership of the CEOs, mangers and line workers.

Interaction Creates Climate

The culture of an organization can be discussed in terms of an intersection and interaction between three basic elements: People, Program and Paper. People interact with other people – sometimes with harmony and unison; other times with tension and bitterness; other times with ambiguity and apathy, each interaction forming a distinct culture and climate.

Programs interact with degrees of priority and importance; timing and cooperation, conflict and value. Programmatic scheduling and the attention provided to the demands of various programs define a culture that impacts and often defines the organization.

Paper expresses the purpose and vision of the institution. The consistency (or its lack) of the contents of corporate documents provides a structure that calls for a certain culture. From foundational documents to the casual email sent in the name of the organization, paper greatly impacts the culture that is actually practices in the company.

But the catalyst that really defines culture is the interaction between the three basic elements. People interacting with the paper and the program. Program intersecting with people and paper. And paper colliding with programs and people. The triangular relationships that exist between these elements truly define an organization in practical terms.

I remember the first time I entered Dayton Christian High School (over 20 years ago) and there was an atmosphere that communicated community and a great sense of purpose. The interaction between teachers, staff, and administrators echoed the scripture hanging in the hallways. As I began to interface with the faculty and the students, it became obvious that everyone was committed to the mission of the school. Having read some of the fundamental documents of the organization prior to my visit, I was impressed that, at least on the surface, the atmosphere of the school seemed to mirror the philosophy on paper. There was an excitement in the classroom, the teachers' lounge and the administrative offices.

In contrast, I recently visited a large organization as part of a professional field trip. It became obvious as my group took a quick tour of the facilities, that there was a blanket of tension. The personnel was professional but curt and rather “silo”ed in focus. There appeared to be a lack of cooperation and the sense of collaboration was non-existent to the casual observer.

The culture of the organization is created in the crucible of the interaction between people, paper, and programs. Culture is most difficult to create because of the multiplicity of interactions that take place everyday. Most of the interactions are invisible and occur without conscious effort. Although many leaders spend a great deal of time in strategic planning hoping to create a positive company climate, most of culture happens in interpersonal relationships, document interpretations, and the execution of various programs within the organization.

Paper Impacts Culture

The culture of an organization can be discussed in terms of an intersection and interaction between three basic elements: People, Program and Paper. In this post I would like to think about the role that Paper plays in the creation and formation of organizational culture.

One of the aspects that brings stability to an organization is the group of foundational documents created by the company to define its purpose and mission. These documents, written for all stakeholders to embrace, provide many rocks of solidarity. The mission statement expresses the reason for existence; the core values announce the ethical position of a company; the vision statement paints the picture of an anticipated future reality, corporate convictions communicate the ultimate priorities of the corporation. Some organizations adopt a constitution and by-laws that govern the actions and decisions of the group.

Out of these documents flow a secondary paper source that is often less philosophical/general and more practical/personal for employees - handbooks and manuals, contracts and agreements, job descriptions and assessments, organizational charts and lines of authority. Another set of written communication grows out of these employee documents that touch the lives of stakeholders – newsletters, emails, web pages, marketing materials.

In our world of technology and connectivity, there continues to build an abundance of attempts to establish relationships. Because a document can be sent to thousands all at the same time by the push of a button, it is imperative that the many words of an organization agree. For example, the newsletter sent out by the third grade teacher must reflect the guidelines found in the parent/teacher handbook; and those guidelines must accurately interpret the administrative policy manual which, in turn, must be firmly based on the corporate convictions of the institution.

Contradictions and conflicting statements issued by the same organization can cause havoc with stakeholders within and outside of the institution. Paper and practice must be two sides of the same coin. An organization must act on its statements and accurately state its actions. A disconnect between documents adds to confusing and even damaging decisions.

Culture is created amidst the interaction of documents. Agreement and consistency between documents creates a solid and stable culture. Tensions between documents breed a lack of trust and confidence. Great care needs to be taken to review existing documents and to craft new communication reflecting a consistency to the mission of the organization.

Programs Create Culture

The culture of an organization is defined by the intersection and interaction between three basic elements: People, Program and Paper. In this post I would like to think about the role that Program plans in the creation and formation of organizational culture.

Each organization has a reason for existence. Most companies have a mission statement that clearly and concisely describe its purpose. This mission or purpose usually has a programmatic element designed to accomplish the goals of the organization. The various activities, structures, and traditions that make up the programs of the organization define in pragmatic ways the mission and ministry of the company. There are often tensions within the programmatic elements of an organization even if they are all aligned with its vision. Sales can conflict with marketing which can be in debate with manufacturing.

In the context of education, the tension is often found in the focus of the ministries of the school. Schools have curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular programs designed to transform the educational process into reality. But often the activities of the extra-curricular program (football practice, cheer leading tryouts, musical rehearsals, and science fair participation) and the curricular demands (homework, class projects, unit tests) fall in a collision course.

“I can't believe that the Government teacher is giving a major test the day after Opening Night! My cast can't concentrate with that pressure.”

“Rain outs have resulted in four baseball games being scheduled this week, when are the students supposed to get their schoolwork done – they are students first and then athletes second, right?”

There are even tensions within major activities: both the musical and the softball team need to use the gym on a rainy day – who gets priority? The science fair need all the tables in order to set up the projects, but the Middle School needs the tables for the Mother/Daughter Tea. The large meeting room has been double booked by the Mother's Prayer Group and the Fine Arts boosters.

All of these conflicts, and so many more, happen in every school in the country. Every organization has its own set of programmatic tensions. These conflicts do not result in the creation of culture as much as how the organization deals with and resolves the conflicts. The critical role of leadership involves the methodology and process used in addressing the interactions between and among programmatic elements. Tactful, loving confrontation can result in an atmosphere of openness and honesty. Friendly debate and dialog that focuses on problems not people can result in a culture of innovation and collaboration.

People Create Culture

The culture of an organization can be viewed as the interaction between and within three elements: People, Program and Paper. It is this dynamic interaction that serves as catalyst for culture. There will be conflict and tensions between and within these elements and the resolution of these interactions create a climate and a culture that permeates and defines an organization. Let's look at an example of this culture forming interaction in the area of People.

In a typical organization there are levels of management (leadership) through which authority flows. The lines of authority are often straight and clean with the “chain of command” obvious; But often the lines are blurred and the interactions between people occur at various levels. The avenues of verbal exchange and emotional interactions lead to a multitude of relationships.

The dynamics of relationship between the CEO and Middle Management are critical for creating positive culture, but the interaction within Middle Management can destroy or edify that culture. A superintendent might have positive, encouraging and collaborative channels with his/her principals, but if there is in-fighting, political positioning, selfish ambition and/or petty arguments between principals, the collegiality established at the highest level is rendered useless by the middle management.

When conflict arises between members in the workforce (whether in a faculty or in a work team) the method utilized by management to resolve that tension, sets a climate throughout the organization. No matter what the organization, conflict will present itself. Culture is not created by avoiding conflict, but by how the conflict is resolved. Because of the nature of man, personality differences and individual perspectives will create tensions and disagreements. In fact, for innovation and creativity to thrive there needs to be a healthy tension and exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Culture is realized as the organization sets out to resolve those points of debate and disagreements.

The people of an organization are a mixture of the extrovert and the introvert; the sanguine and the melancholy, the passionate and the compliant; the bold and the shy. Those with a strong resolve and an articulate tongue can easily offend the sensitive soul. The lion can intimidate the dove. The loud and fail to listen to the wise. The power and the dangers of personal relationships can build or crumble an organization. The dynamic of the interactions between/among the personnel of a company can define its success or failure. A great product, and outstanding program, and solid business plan can all go up in smoke if the people are out of step with one another.