Thousand Yard Stare

After a few months of experimenting, I've consolidated ThousandYardStare and my pastoral blog back into one site.

You can reach it at joshdix.wordpress.com

jd

Someone (not from my own organization) asked me this question over the weekend:

"From a leadership perspective, what do you think about someone who gets all the most difficult work because they do their job well, but it also reflects the weaknesses of others on the team?  On one hand, the person doing their job well should feel good that the organization sees their abilities, but it's also frustrating if that's only because others can't help carry the load.  What do you think?"

(By the way, I love it anytime someone starts a question for me with "From a leadership perspective....")

The answer is not as simple as "reward the high performers and route out the low performers."  Some great leaders have adopted this maxim, and while there are certainly some giant truths in it, leadership is never that simple.

Here are some guiding questions and principles I responded to this question with:

• As a general principle, you do want to reward your high performers.  If you reward your low performers with time, attention, job security and tons of coaching, it most definitely will communicate to others that the bar is set pretty low.  In fact, you will likely lose your high performers if you do this.
• I challenged the person asking this question to think about what it is they really want to see happen.  "Do you want easier work?  Do you want the lower performers to carry more?"  In essence, I'm asking: "What does it mean to reward a high performer?"  Does that always mean more money?  Some jobs don't allow for that.  Low performers carrying more weight can mean disaster in some cases.  And rewarding a high performer with easier work is no solution.  Those kind of achievers will get bored, and again, you communicate a very low standard if you do that.  But thinking about these rewards is an important part of leading your best people.
• In this case, the person and I talked about scope.  A reward might be a smaller but deeper and still challenging scope of work.  Fewer but still more challenging tasks.  Others could take the easier tasks/responsibilities and have more of them without much loss.  Sometimes it may mean the opposite.  The reward might be more scope, with less actual responsibility.  Basically, you need to decide whether this high performer is a deep specialist with a narrow scope, or a leader with broad influence and less responsibility.  
• How are you handling low performers?  Are you coddling them or holding them accountable?  Do you have a way to do that?  Do you have structure and leadership in place to make sure people are doing what they're supposed to be doing?  This accountability could be as simple as a better and clearer job description, goals, and regular meetings.
• A mentor of mine recently told me that a general principle of teams are that they break into an 80-10-10 bell curve.  The top 10% of the people are on board.  They don't need a ton of coaching, just encouragement, rewards, and rising challenges to keep them engaged.  The bottom 10% will really never make it, never really buy into the vision, and suck time and energy from the organization that tries to keep them engaged.  The middle 80% is where most of our energy should reside.  These people waver with the tides.  They're good performers.  They see value in the vision and mission of the organization.  But they need continual coaching and help to stay in the game.  This 80% is where leadership can get the most bang for its buck.  

Leaders, there are no simple answers.  You just need to have a bias for action and get engaged in what's happening through the ranks.  If you're not sure, sit down today and make a plan to get in the game and lead.  If you do know what's happening, think about where you're investing your time and resources and what all of it communicates to those you lead.  Are you creating a haven for people to coast and repelling those who want to soar?  Or are you creating the standard you really want and perpetuating it in everything you do?

jd

Someone recently told me I needed to ask this question of myself: "What is it like to work for me?"

I sighed.  I don't like that question.

I've been sitting on it for awhile, and have resolved not to make this post another leadership confession.  Rather, I think I'll share with you the questions that come to mind as I ask that question.

Influence happens through Authority, Relational Trust, and Expertise. Ask this: 

• In terms of authority, what is implied in my positional authority?  What expectations by those around me go along with the power given to me by those above me?  When it comes to tone, communication, accountability, resources, care, availability, and my track record, how am I leading to the measure of my authority?  Am I?
• With expertise, do I use what I know and know how to do as a resource for others, or as a crutch for my own self-worth/self-preservation/self-aggrandizement?
• Does relational trust become something I use to feel needed by others?  Conversely, do I use relational trust as a tool just to get people to do work?  

Let's ask again:  What is it like to work for me?

We have many resources as leaders.  Ask this:

• If you work for me, how do you feel about the tools we use to get the job done?   
• When people work for me, how do they feel about the systems we have in place?  Are they messy?  Unwieldy?  Laborious?  
• Is working for me an anxious experience because I don't have the right talent in the right spot?  Do I reward low performers and ignore high performers?  Do I have a leadership deficit in my team/organization?  What is the impact of that?

Reflect again with me:  "What is it like to work for me?"

Then make some changes.  What structures do you need in place to lead better and create a better team climate?  What support is going to create an environment for you and others to flourish?  What challenges are going to call you to higher expectations?

jd

This post can also be found on http://journeyon.net.

Do the people you surround yourself with tell you hard things?  And what about you?  Are you a friend, or just a fan?

Allow me to contrast a couple stories.

There were a few friends with whom my wife Miranda and I used to spend a lot of time. We enjoyed hanging out and going to barbecues, ballgames, and parties together. But when it came to dysfunction in the relationships, which was clearly visible even on the surface, nothing was to be said (at least not directly to one another. . .gossip was permitted).

One night over dinner an issue arose with a few of these friends. As gently as I could, I asked a question about someone’s behavior, and my question turned out to be a litmus test. The results were hardly surprising. We’ve only seen them a handful of times since. We were free to talk intimately so long as it was positive and not challenging.

We weren’t friends. We were just a fan club.

Contrast that story with this example from my marriage. The other night Miranda and I were riding in the car when she asked me, “Do you think I help you enough?” I asked what she meant. She said, “I mean do I do a good job of challenging you to be a better person?”

 Her comment was also a litmus test.

Miranda is not concerned with being in my fan club. She is concerned with making me a better man, and she knows the two are different. Miranda was also inviting me to help her by opening herself up to honest feedback and displaying humility. She doesn’t just want to challenge me; she’s inviting me right there to challenge her.

What’s implied in this exchange is something deeper, not easily swayed, and replete with the kind of peace and rest that comes from trust. She models this peace for me, and in doing so, she doesn’t just test the sinews of our relationship – she invests in and strengthens them.

It is this kind of relationship I desire. Yet for whatever reasons — be it fear, distrust or a lack of belief in others’ desire for the same — we choose fan clubs over deep friendships.

What is the difference in real terms between true friends and mere fans?  Friends will challenge you and keep you honest.  Fans show unbiased support, even if they know they shouldn’t.

The roots of true friendship grow deeply.  They have to be watered regularly and thoroughly to keep the roots strong so that when storms come, they are not easy swayed.  Care and depth keep them strong in the face of hardships.  On the other hand, fans keep things on the surface so that when things get tough, they can slip away or offer easy advice.  Because the relationship of fans is shallow, it doesn’t take much to maintain the status quo. 

Leadership means confronting problems.  Leaders don’t settle. They want to see things grow and deepen. It is often the leader’s job to say the hard thing. Consider the example of my wife again. Part of how she displayed leadership qualities in that story was in her courage to take the hard first step of confronting an issue on her heart. What made it sing was the context of trust between us.

People need you to invest more deeply in them. Your friends need your courage to lean into hard conversations and difficult situations with both truth and grace. And often they will need you to start by inviting them to challenge you — just like Miranda did with me.

Proverbs 27:6: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.”

This post can also be found on http://journeyon.net

I left a meeting the other day when I received a call from one of our elders who had been in it. He began to tell me how after leaving, something had been nagging him. After praying, he realized he'd sinned against me. He apologized, explaining that he'd undermined me unintentionally. I forgave him and told him it hadn’t bothered me at all.

The conversation continued, but I was thinking about the lesson I was learning from my brother on the phone:

• He knew the prompting of the Holy Spirit
• He wasn't too busy to pray for God's direction
• He submitted to that direction, repenting of his sin
• He sought unity through forgiveness

I thought about what the opposite looks like in my own behavior: I often leave meetings with a nagging feeling, too. I may think about what someone said or did to make me feel that way. I externalize it and find someone to blame. I make note of their possible wrongdoing and remember it. I say nothing about it. I distrust them in the future.

Good spiritual leaders repent frequently and authentically. They build trust through forgiveness by submitting to the work of the Holy Spirit. They are transparent and honest because they know their positional power will only be attenuated--not accentuated--through hiding, avoidance, self-protection and blame. Ultimately, they have more faith in Christ than in themselves.

I thank God for my brother in Christ and the lesson he taught me by following Jesus. His wisdom exceeds my own. He is not just writing about being a good example--he is actually living it and modeling it. Repentance is not just a leadership tool for him. It is the fruit of the Spirit in his life, drawing him closer to Christ and restoring relationships with others.

The evidence fits with what I see in Galatians, where the description of the fruit of the Spirit is posited against a host of interpersonal traits that distance us from one another (strife, enmity, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalry, dissension, and division). But like my brother in Christ, as we submit to the work of the Spirit in our lives, we find a different result: Peace. Patience. Gentleness. Kindness. Joy. Love.

I pray that same fruit for you and for me.

jd