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 >

Dealing with Neighborhood Transitions in Your Church, Part 1

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Donald McGavran was a third generation missionary child in India and later a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. His unique background provided first-hand observations of both the Indian caste system and mid-twentieth century America, including the rise of suburbia and the perceived superiority of certain classes. Consequently, McGavran became particularly concerned with understanding and overcoming social barriers he saw as preventing people from coming to Christ.

In 1970, McGavran wrote a Church Growth text entitled Understanding Church Growth, in which he presents a somewhat controversial thesis known as the Homogeneous Unit Principle. He purports that people more readily choose to become Christians when they do not have to cross racial, linguistic, or class barriers.

Instead, he explained that people tend to be drawn to a homogeneous unit, a broadly defined term explaining people who share common characteristics. Shared characteristics can include geographical location, political views, ethnic backgrounds, or social class, thus instigating the controversy. Though McGavran was far from a racist, many have viewed his thesis as racist. This is unfortunate because I have to agree with the central premise of McGavran’s thesis– it is an observable fact that people are more often reached in homogenous relationships. Whether that is a GOOD thing is not the same thing as denying it is a TRUE thing.

It’s no great secret that a Korean is more likely to hear the gospel and respond by grace through faith in a Korean church rather than a Haitian church. This is not rocket science. However, the issue arises in light of the massive amounts of change and transition occurring among America’s people and landscape. How do we address these issues when an Anglo neighborhood becomes predominantly African-American or when an African-American neighborhood transitions to a Korean one? How should we think about neighborhood transition in regards to culture and homogeneity (most churches that are transitioning are homogenous)?

On March 31, 2011, The Congressional Research Service published a report, “The Changing Demographic Profile of the United States,” that concludes that the U.S. is getting bigger, older, and more diverse. For example, based on census data and recent research, the report projects that by 2050, the Asian population alone will increase by nearly 220 percent. It also projects that Hispanic Americans will make up just over 30 percent of the population by 2050.

Clearly, this has some implications on both the rapidly changing landscape of our towns and cities and the local church’s role in the midst of transition. When discussing the issue hypothetically or as an outside observer, one can easily say “Here’s what we should do.” For those who have gone through or are currently going through such a transition, however, knowing the best way to respond proves a great challenge due to the multiple factors at work.

As I see it, there are three primary options:

• congregational relocation to a context more in line with their congregation,
• intentional multicultural integration in one congregation, or
• multi-congregational partnership in one building.

I’ll be exploring those options in the next few weeks.

For part 2 of this series, click here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Community Demographics, Ed Stetzer, Kingdom Concept, Local Predicament, Neighborhood Transitions

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Play to the Size of Your Heart, Not the Size of the Crowd

by: Jon Acuff

1

Tweet

A band recently taught me an incredibly simple truth about being awesome.

Their name is Seryn and they’re from Denton, TX. They kind of remind me of Mumford & Sons with more instruments and less British accents. Each member plays approximately 37 instruments and they constantly switch them out in the middle of the songs.

I first saw them play at the Catalyst Conference in front of 13,000 people. I was blown away by the energy they filled that arena with that day. They were unbridled with their passion, as if they couldn’t believe they got to play music in front of people.

I wrote about them on Facebook. A few days later, someone in the town next to ours emailed me. He said, “I saw you liked that band Seryn. They’re playing a house show in my living room. Do you and your wife want to come see them?” We did. So we did.

And it was an awkward experience at first. We just walked up to a small ranch house in the suburbs and knocked on the front door. Everyone there knew each other, except for us. We stood in the kitchen, having one of those really intense conversations you launch into with someone when you’re trying to pretend you’re not uncomfortable.

“What do you think these cabinets are made of? Pressed wood? Is that right? I would have thought they were another kind of wood. Interesting.”

An hour later, Seryn drove in from New York and set up all the aforementioned instruments in Larry’s living room. They tuned everything, had a sip of water, and then launched into their set.

I expected they’d play at a 3 or a 4, whatever the appropriate level of music is for a corner of taupe carpet next to a loveseat. I was wrong.

They didn’t play to the size of the crowd, they played to the size of their heart.

And it’s apparently huge.

The same joy I saw them dominate a stage of 13,000 people with weeks before was on display that night in a room full of 60 friends and two weird outsiders who seemed inappropriately interested in the cabinets. It was like Seryn couldn’t help to play that way. That was what was inside their heart.

Awesome doesn’t let the crowd determine the size of the performance. Awesome gets up for 2 people or 200. Awesome writes great books even if no one is going to read them. Awesome sweeps store floors when no one is looking.

Awesome can’t help itself.

Awesome has a huge heart. And that’s what it always plays too.

The size of the crowd doesn’t matter.

The applause of the audience doesn’t matter.

The money you make singing doesn’t matter.

And I hope you get all those things. I hope you have huge audiences and screaming fans and more money than Scrooge McDuck in his money bin. But, long before any of that, I hope you’ll learn the simple lesson Seryn taught me:

Play to the size of your heart, not the size of your crowd.

More from Jon Acuff here.

Tags: Awesome, Jon Acuff, Leadership Engine

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Is Church Design and Construction Just a Commodity?

by: Tim Cool

0

Tweet

“We have a local builder that builds warehouses, how different can that be to a church?”

“We want a ministry space specialist to help us plan and design our new facility, but any contractor can build it.”

” We are going to bid it out and just take the lowest price.  All contractors and architects do the same thing.”

These are all comments that I have heard over the years.  I understand how people formulate these perceptions….but I am convinced they are flawed.  As a rule, the construction industry is seen as a commodity…and that is a shame as the best projects (quality construction, relationship, scope, value/cost) are almost always done in a collaborative environment with experts in their fields.

Let me ask you some questions:

1. If you are having an issue with your heart, are you going to rely on your Family Physician to be responsible for all of your care? They’re all doctors…Right?

2. If you drive a high performance European car, are you going to get it serviced by the corner gas station that usually only works on Fords? It’s just a car…Right?

3. When you need a professional audio/video/lighting package, do you call your local music store to get your HD cameras and to “fly” your subs? Aren’t we just getting some microphones and speakers?

You get my point…the answer, most of the time, to the above is NO…we call an expert in their field.  OK…but isn’t any doctor an expert in all things medical?  Why would you want a cardiologist vs. a general internist to care for your heart?  Why do churches call WAVE and other similar firms when they need the best AVL systems to meet their ministry objectives.  Why would you hire Plain Joe Studios to develop your branding, way-finding and environmental graphics? Same answer.  And we could go on and on and on.

So, why do we think the local commercial architectural design firm or the local general contractor that builds houses, retail and warehouses is the best choice for our church development project?  Where does the above logic go “off the reservation” of hiring an expert? Do we really think that all designers, architects and builders/developers are created equal?

Let me take it even one step further.  You might have a local cardiologist who is “pretty good” at what they do. They may do several procedures a year and have a good reputation.  But when you have an important situation…or are not sure your local resources can meet your goals and desires, you would most likely go to John Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic or you would go straight to the number one rated hospital for Cardiology & Heart Surgery which is the Cleveland Clinic (according to U.S. News).

Seems like a an interesting dichotomy.  But I assure you….not all designers, builders, developers, AVL designers, car mechanics or doctors are created equal…nor do they all have the same expertise, specialization and experience.  So get the RIGHT EXPERT to meet your needs…don’t settle and don’t look at them as a commodity, unless you only want a commodity product/service.

More about Tim Cool here or visit his website here.

Tags: Collaboration, Facilities, Tim Cool, Visioneering Studios

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Environments >

Choices and Your Announcements

by: Eric Geiger

0

Tweet

Tags: Attention, Communication, Eric Geiger, Less is More, Next Steps

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Communication >

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 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 >

Branding Talk Isn’t Helping Your Company. Here’s What Should Replace It

by: Brian Millar

0

Tweet

Last week, WPP brought out its league table of the world’s most valuable brands. It values Apple at $183 billion and McDonald’s at $95 billion. Meanwhile, over at Omnicom’s Interbrand, they reckon that the Apple badge is worth a mere $33 billion, whereas McDonald’s is worth $35 billion. So who’s right? Neither of them. I don’t think that you can value brands, because they’re just a convenient fiction. Once they were a useful way of looking at the world. Now that such a massive industry has developed around them, they’re actually distorting the way companies do business. Is it time to stop talking about brands and branding altogether? I think we should all have a try.

“Essentially all models are wrong,” said George Pelham-Box, one of the most influential statisticians of the 20th century, “but some of them are useful.” Let’s remember that branding is only a model of the way that consumers think about products and services, so by definition, it’s wrong. But that doesn’t mean it’s not useful–so long as we don’t get carried away by imagining it’s the truth.

Was the Think Different campaign really a branding coup? Or just the outcome of deeper change?

Think of maps: A simple map pretends that the Earth is flat, and that’s fine for getting you across town. But if you try to navigate a plane across the Atlantic on that principle, you’re going to get a big surprise when you come in to land. (That’s why the route your long-haul flight takes looks like a curve on the seatback map.) All these “brand valuation” metrics are doing something similar: treating a flat earth theory as if it’s the truth. And they’re landing in the wrong place.

“BRANDS WERE, HE MAINTAINED, A BY-PRODUCT OF HAVING GREAT PRODUCTS.”

I used to work with Orange Telecom, a late-starter in the cellular market that became one of the biggest consumer brands in Europe. Hans Snook, its eccentric founder, would happily talk all day in his office about science fiction, colonic irrigation, or feng shui. Only one topic was taboo: the Orange brand. Brands were, he maintained, a by-product of having great products and communicating them well to people. Power stations that generate a lot of electricity probably have a lot of steam coming out of the chimneys. That doesn’t mean to say that the engineers stand around working out how to make more steam.

In his recent book, (excerpted recently on Co.Design), my old colleague Ken Segall describes Apple’s “Think Different” advertising campaign. But ask yourself: When was the last time Apple did a pure brand ad? Fifteen years ago? Apple went from a challenger to a leader when it stopped focusing on its brand and made its products the heroes of its communications. (“I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” were product ads. Trolls who beg to differ, please scroll down. I will be with you shortly.)

If you promise something clearly, deliver on that promise, and repeat the process, you build strong emotional links to your company with certain consumers. But that’s where the value resides: in my head and your head, and your mother’s head. And the stuff inside my head is my property.

If brands exist at all, they exist in the minds of consumers. I can switch my brand of search engine at a moment’s notice. Bank accounts and makes of automobile are a bit more hassle to discard, but I can still change my mind about them. But that’s not how brand valuation models see them. They act as if our thoughts are a company’s property, like a factory, or a warehouse full of boxes. The brand model, once a wrong but useful way of looking at the world, has become the product. A study by Interbrand and JP Morgan concluded that brands account for about a third of the average public company’s valuation.

After so many years focusing on pure branding, Coca-Cola has embraced design thinking. Guess what? The brand is improving.

“THEY ACT AS IF OUR THOUGHTS ARE A COMPANY’S PROPERTY, LIKE A FACTORY, OR A WAREHOUSE FULL OF BOXES.”

Some smart people have begun a backlash against companies that seem to exist to build brands as an end in itself. Management guru Gary Hamel has repeatedly criticized Coca-Cola, accusing it of concentrating on shoring up the Coke brand at the expense of exploring new markets and keeping up with changing consumer tastes. As a result, Coke had to play expensive catch-up games as its market was squeezed by bottled water, new-age herbal drinks, smoothies, energy drinks, and iced tea. But when you’re Coca-Cola, and you’re told that your most valuable property is your brand, then you’re going to concentrate enormous energy into building it–even if that means that you ignore what customers actually want to drink.

In his excellent Obliquity, John Kay explains how the richest people are not those who set out to make money first and foremost, the most profitable companies don’t think too hard about their profits, and great discoveries are often made by people who are looking for something else altogether. Many of the world’s most valuable brands are created by people who don’t ever talk about branding.

So I’d like to propose an exercise where your company bans the word “brand” and the idea of brand building from your meetings for a month. Who knows what you might achieve in that time instead. You might even start to build a great brand.

Read more by Brian here.

Tags: Brand

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Communication >

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 >

What’s Your Mission?

by: Dave Ramsey

0

Tweet

Tags: Clarity, Dave Ramsey, Mission, Mission Statement

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >