Richard St. John interviewed attendees to the TED conference (a bunch a very successful people) to hear what they had to say were keys to success.

What I love about his presentation is that it is simple, compelling, intuitive AND short. About 3 minutes (see the bottom).

8 Secrets to Success

1. Passion
2. Work
3. Focus
4. Push
5. Ideas
6. Improve
7. Serve
8. Persist

Some of mine include:

1. Honesty (to others) telling the truth (about myself)
2. If I can’t do it at home it really doesn’t work elsewhere
3. Goals that make a difference
4. Work and more work
5. Friendship and loyalty
6. Cultivating a broad and deep network
7. Finding a need that no one has addressed or wants to address
8. Learn and recover quickly (from failure)
9. Find the continuity in my life and build on it
10. Know myself, my talents and my boundaries (stay close to God)
11. Persistence

What are yours? Send them and we’ll post them.

One pastor asked a good and obvious question.

“I can see why this is important for businesses but as the Church, we’re all about the why. So, how does this apply to me?”

When a church grows it needs more room. Without more room it can’t reach more people (so we sometimes think). We’re called to expand the Kingdom of God – so how difficult can the “why” be?

Simon Sinek compares Dr. Martin Luther King’s presentation of civil rights compared to many of his contemporaries. Most were far more established in the movement. Dr. King frames the “why” not in language about the reasons for the cause or the plan. Mr. Sinek describes that it was NOT the “I have a plan” speech but instead, the “I have a dream speech.”

What is the dream? What is the end of the journey look like? What do we become because of the journey? How is our effort an expression of grace, mercy or unconditional love? How will our neighbors receive our vision? Will it be an expression of good news or just another church creating traffic problems and congestion for the weekend?

This goes against our training and wiring. We see needs, conduct feasibility, solicit commitments and go and do.

Instinctively we know that we should start with why move to how and then to what. This order, however, gets reversed when our plates are full, we’re stretched and the urgency of each day competes our time to truly listen and hear the heart of God. It is too easy to assume we know what that is or that once we think we know then, “I can take it from here.”

Toyota has a discipline to rein in that natural tendency to plan and do. It is called the “5 Whys.” When there is a problem or an initiative the group will ask why and discuss that reason. They will ask for the why behind the first answer and so on. By doing so they unearth an understanding of root causes or drivers but also the essential inspiration behind taking action.

Again, we know these principles, yet, they can get lost in the details of running an organization and certainly become diluted through the different layers of our churches.

Once you have viewed this video I would like to hear if brings any new light to how you approach new initiatives or a building project.

I am a businessman with a degree in theology and communications. I have spent the last thirty years researching social change through the lens of communications. Our business works exclusively with organizations that are growing or changing, so I’ve seen organizations attempt to integrate changing technology into their structures and cultures. I have viewed, from the inside, many of the leading companies of the new economy and have worked to support their efforts to anticipate and adapt to their roller-coaster industries. I have also worked with some of the bulwarks of the old economy and watched them convulse over the transitions they have had to face.

Over the past forty years or so, churches have gravitated toward adopting more business and entrepreneurial models. However, the average lifespan of corporations, including Fortune 500 corporations, is between 12.5 and 40 years.  The traditional institutions of the Church, some lasting centuries, are declining. At the same time our rapidly growing nondenominational churches have neither stood the test of time nor do they exhibit the qualities of enduring communities.

Here’s an example of the kind of scenario the church is facing drawn from the business world. During the 1980s, Dutch Royal Shell— one of the largest corporations in the world—found themselves at a crossroads. Their core business, oil and gas, had a questionable future. After a little over one hundred years of business they saw their future threatened. Where could they turn for applicable lessons of how to redefine it and remain vital during future radical transitions? They looked for companies that were equally large and had been around longer. They found only forty companies, and of those only twenty-seven provided relevant comparisons.

Four critical elements defined how these twenty-seven companies prospered during times of economic, social and technological restructuring:

1.     Social and Economic Integration: These companies were externally integrated into the social and economic context of the times. This connection provided them with the kind of radar that guided their ability to adapt.

2.     Cohesive Identity: These companies “were cohesive, with a strong sense of identity.”2 In other words, they were relationally connected as a cohesive community. “Case histories repeatedly showed that strong employee links were essential for survival amid change.”

3.     Risk Takers: They understood how to take the kind of risks that allowed them to adapt. “These companies were particularly tolerant of activities on the margin: outliers, experiments, and eccentricities within the boundaries of the cohesive firm, which kept stretching their understanding of possibilities.”

4.     Financial Stability. They were financially conservative and maintained the kind of cash reserves that gave them “flexibility and independence of action.”

So what is the relevance for the church? Six new problem areas rise to the surface immediately.

1.     Isolation: Most churches and denominations are isolated from the realities of their community and the larger culture. In fact, many work hard at building support services and a culture cut-off from the larger community. The strong reactions against society some of these churches exhibit are opposite of the cultural sensitivity that has allowed the companies Dutch Royal Shell studied to remain vital.

2.     Fragmentation: Most churches I am familiar with lack cohesion. They are so fragmented and activity driven they have little opportunity to develop strong relational bonds. Many will even critique themselves as running a mile wide and an inch deep. One strong indicator of this problem is the churn rate churches experience.  Churn rate is a business term that calculates the number of people who enter, leave or change roles within an organization.  A company with a yearly churn rate of more than 15 percent has a serious and quantifiable problem. Many high tech companies exceeded this rate especially during the later part of the 1990s. I would not be surprised to see many churches with an annual churn rate of well over 20 percent.3 What does it mean to have a completely new church every five years?

3.     Lack of Identity: Part of this lack of cohesion stems from a lack of clear identity. Community and corporate identity are not the same as being purpose-driven or having a mission statement. Leaders and members have to spend time together in meaningful fellowship and service in order to develop both identity and cohesion. Once a week on Sunday or hit-and-run activities do not provide the context for building community.

4.     Lack of Innovation: Most churches do not tolerate fringe or eccentric elements. One reason they don’t is their one-dimensional focus on the Sunday event. You would no sooner introduce some fringe expression of faith on Sunday than serve sushi to your Italian in-laws on their first visit to your home. However, you might create a venue of a progressive dinner for your extended family with an international theme and see what people like and reject. In the same way, churches can provide forums and permission for people to try new things, and then begin to incorporate those elements that not only show promise but also have enough time to become polished.

5.     Central Leadership: Another reason churches resist adaptation is the leadership structure. Most churches maintain a tight reign on what gets approved and rejected. They operate like a central command post, but would benefit from a more decentralized and federal form of governance.

6.     No Margin for Error:  Most churches are not fiscally conservative although they may be tight. Running lean and running conservatively are not the same. Most churches are so highly leveraged with both their time and their finances that they have little margin for error or any flexibility to change directions.

Each of these conditions corresponds to one of the four criteria for long-term sustainability. If your church faces any of these, consider this as a warning from your doctor. If you don’t change your lifestyle, your chances of living a long life—let alone survive a major crisis—are slim.

What is your church doing to engage these challenges?

The premise goes something like this:

Employees who do well get promoted until they finally reach a level outside their competency. Once reached – they stay put. That leaves companies filled with people who have reached their level of incompetency.

Over the last few years we have plenty of examples of failed plans, policy, corporations and our entire financial system. The Peter Principle offers an easy explanation. However, something more profound may be taking place.

When the mindshift consortium looked at the frequency of late construction projects they ran into a brick wall with this line of assessment. As hard as they tried to find a clear culprit – architect, contractor, sub-trade or owner – it was never that simple.

Then the light bulb turned on – the system for design and construction has reached ITS level of incompetency. They took a system that was clearly successful 50+ years ago (the design-bid-build approach) and kept promoting it to more complex challenges. Eventually the complexity of the challenges outstripped the system’s ability to cope.

One member said, “The current system causes good people to do bad things.”

It is time to revise The Peter Principle so that it addresses the deeper source of incompetency – systemic dysfunction.

Unfortunately, we’re trained like heat seeking missiles to find culprits.

Does the same principle apply to churches? Growth can be a two-edged sword.

Pastor Robert Morris, Senior Pastor of Gateway Church, recently shared that as churches (or individuals) grow or expand they must be careful of how they mix with the world. If leaders are not careful their growth becomes a nesting place for the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. This is a common biblical reference to an infestation of worldly and pernicious influences and powers.

It’s a subtle but real shift. In the book The Millennium Matrix, I talk about how our strategies and tools can grow from effective servants to demanding masters. In other words, the tail wags the dog.

Size and complexity can lead to the same unfortunate end. We come to rely on these tools, specialists and strategies instead of relationships and sense of the spirit. The unfortunate part is that it sneaks up on any organization and by the time it is obvious – its too late. Business writers recognize the same tension and warning exhorting to “think big but act small.”

In business this dysfunction is captured in the Peter Principle. Perhaps it should be called the Peter Principality.

Warning signs include:

1. Tight budgets
2. Tired staff
3. Little time for building relationships with the congregation or with other staff
4. Pressure to keep elevating weekly performance
5. Lack of leadership development
6. Passive or unengaged congregations
7. Greater reliance on experts and specialists (professionals) to develop and perform ministry
8. A shrinking percentage of the budget going directly to ministry (buildings projects and staff budgets don’t count)

One way to check and realign is to make sure that the organization does not outgrow the natural gifting and calling of the people carrying out ministry.

Tools, like glasses or a microscope, can also help us see underneath the complexity and find the disconnects. When people are forced to function outside their gifting or calling they eventually lose sight of where and how they fit into the larger purpose of an organization.

The Gallup organization has measured just how easy this disconnection becomes for corporations. Their statistics show that 54% of employees are not engaged in the organization’s purpose and 29% that are actively disengaged. That leaves 17% who are really making a difference for the organization.

How would you break down your organization? Churches also have an additional layer of complexity. The congregation should also be factored into this equation.

If your organization falls into this 20/80 ratio or worse then ask two questions:

1. Do our people know their talents and giftings and how to apply them in their role?
2. Does our structure make it easy or difficult for people to take initiative and engage?

I worked with an organization a few weeks ago dealing with both issues. Two years ago they went through their near-death experience and consequently brought in a new leader. After stabilizing the church has been able to get back on track with most of the same leadership core. With 33% growth and a major expansion planned for 2010 the senior and executive pastors were feeling the stress of an organization bogging down but without insight as to why.

Over two days we looked at the talent configuration of each leader, their current role, the logic of that role and the aggregate talent configuration of the team. We then plotted these against the anticipated needs of a larger and more complex organization. For our purposes we used the book Living Your Strengths to uncover the natural talents/giftings of the leadership core. It is an easy book to work with and does not require a high level of expertise to ask if current responsibilities play off one’s natural talents or if one has to function outside one’s natural talents.

For this team we also used a tool developed by CoreClarity.  This allowed us to see clearly that the organization’s growth had moved into a new phase requiring greater Strategic and Execution capacity. The current leadership core had been performing at a very high level of ministry but would need to increase their strategic capacities and ability to execute and coordinate among themselves.

The additional stress on the two lead pastors was manifesting in the form of lack of follow through, details overlooked, coordination issues and missed deadlines. It became clear that the core leadership had talents well suited for what they were currently doing but not for these new needs.

Relief – The senior pastor could clearly see that the source of frustration was not his team but a qualitative structural shift. He was able to avoid going down the typical path of adding more demands, expectations and even corrective action and look at his challenge and opportunity differently. It was liberating.

In simple terms – he had a football team with a strong offensive line but no wide receivers. Instead of forcing one or more of his team to play a wide receiver he could now look for the talent set he needed to fill the gap.

If you would like to find out more about this alignment process let me know and I’ll send a sample executive summary adapted from one of the organizations I’ve recently worked with.

1. Project Initiation
2. Wild Enthusiasm
3. Disillusionment
4. Chaos
5. Search for the Guilty
6. Punishment of the Innocent
7. Promotion of Non-Participants
8. Definition of Requirements

Its the 40th anniversary of the book The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong.

The premise goes something like this:

Employees who do well get promoted until they finally reach a level outside their competency. Once reached – they stay put. That leaves companies filled with people who have reached their level of incompetency.

Over the last few years we have plenty of examples of failed plans, policy, corporations and our entire financial system. The Peter Principle offers an easy explanation. However, something more profound may be taking place.

When the mindshift consortium looked at the frequent failure of late construction projects we ran into a brick wall with this line of assessment. As hard as we tried to find a clear culprit – architect, contractor, sub-trade or owner – it was never that simple.

Then the light bulb turned on – the system for design and construction has reached its level of incompetency. We took a system that was clearly successful 50+ years ago and kept promoting it to more complex challenges. Eventually the complexity of the challenges outstripped the system’s ability to cope.

One member said, “The current system causes good people to do bad things.”

It is time to revise The Peter Principle so that it addresses the deeper source of incompetency – systemic dysfunction.

Unfortunately, we’re trained like heat seeking missiles to find culprits.

Dysfunctional systems AND getting the right people in the right chair require NEW leadership skills.

I worked with an organization this week dealing with both issues. Two years ago they went through their near-death experience and brought in a new leader. After stabilizing they have been able to get back on track with most of the same leadership core using the existing structure. With 33% growth and a major expansion planned for 2010 the organization’s leader was feeling the stress of an organization bogging down but without insight as to why.

Over two days we looked at the talent configuration of each leader, their current role, the logic of that role and the aggregate talent configuration of the team. We then plotted these against the anticipated needs of a larger and more complex organization. Using tools developed by CoreClarity we were able to see clearly that the organization had moved into a new phase requiring greater Strategic and Execution capacity. The current leadership core had been performing at a very high level as specialists for their area.

We were able to avoid a common and often tragic error of pushing these leaders higher into Strategic and Executive requirements that they had previously not functioned in. We also had a tool that showed us exactly how to prepare these leaders to make the move if that is where they thought they could perform at their best.

Organizations confronting strong challenges in today’s economy will need to do more than wait this one out or work harder with what they have. It will require a dispassionate look at whether the system that got you here is suited to take you forward. It will take tools to provide an evidenced based understanding of what your organization is naturally good at. It will take coaching and training to reconfigure and better align with current realities.

If you would like to find out more about this alignment process let me know and I’ll send a sample executive summary adapted from one of the organizations I’ve recently worked with.

This video from Jim Rohn provides a key to adding value – to yourself, to your organization.

Global Media

Prior to this tool Campus Crusade estimated that approximately 6000 people per day were giving their lives to Christ through their different international ministries. This tool told a different story. The number is close to 30,000 per day.

This is just one example of leveraging the power of data in a Web 2.0 world.

In one of his sessions and in the book “Think Outside the Box” he describes 4 paths to creativity:

• Invention/Invention: the thing(s) before the thing is invented – i.e. silicon chips (with integrated circuits) before portable computers.
• Invention/Extension: plusing or enhancing the original concept – i.e. laptop computers.
• Invention/Devention: an invention that “uninvents” another – i.e. cloud computing may one day make accessing information in a dedicated hard drive obsolete
• Functional Substitution: an invention that replaces another with a better application – i.e. texting as a preferred means of communication over email for those under 30.

I like to listen to musicians because the good ones embody all 4 of these paths. The video below presents two artists, Rodrigo y Gabriela. Their new album Eleven Eleven is a tribute to 11 different heavy metal artists. If you are a fan of Hendrix, Santana, Pink Floyd or Shakti – this is a variation on a theme worth listening too. And if you’re not a fan – all the better – you’ll enjoy it.

Each paths brings a fresh new experience to a product, service or idea. Those new riffs create high returns; enjoyment, results, revenue!

This video is a great example of Invention/Extension – extending heavy metal creativity to new domains. It is also a great example of Functional Substitution – classical Spanish guitar fusion.