Archive for leadership
John Maxwell: Relate First…
Posted by: | CommentsTeaser from his upcoming book…
Try to learn as much as you can about your people and do your best to win their hearts. If you first find someone’s heart, they’ll be glad to offer you their hand…
The Shape of Creativity…
Posted by: | CommentsI spent some time today with an abstract artist that describes his personality as a “bubbly circle.” For someone who is 15, he is pretty amazingly self-aware. We spent some time talking about personalities, how we work together… and how we have conflict and it reminded me of a sort of unscientific personality assessment that I heard about a few years ago…
Now, for the record, I think that ALL personality assessments are unscientific… So, this one has the benefit of taking about 10 seconds, as opposed to the Meyers-Briggs that takes half a day…
Pick the 2 most appealing shapes from the following:
The most appealing shape is your primary type… the second most appealing is your secondary type…
You have now completed the assessment.
Squares, Rectangles and Triangles are convergent personalities. In other words, they tend to move in the direction of their goals. They are generally systematic, logical and like specific and finite activities.
Rectangles are task oriented and relational. They like to work in groups to solve problems, complete projects and accomplish tasks. Squares are task oriented but not relational and prefer to work alone. Triangles like to take charge, set goals and make sure that the goals are achieved.
Circles and Squiggles are much more interesting to creatives… since we tend to fall into one of these categories and find the convergent types rather boring.
Circles and Squiggles are divergent personalities… our tendency is to move outward from the current paradigm or structure. Finite goals are uninteresting to Circles and Squiggles, who would much rather spend their mental energy trying to get OUT of the square, rectangular or triangular box that our bosses want to squash us into…
By the way, you might as well come to terms with the fact that Circles and Squiggles tend to be employed by Squares, Rectangles or Triangles…
Circles and Squiggles are also extroverted, creative and intuitive… and tend to be asystematic and undependable…
Circles are relational. They are social and communicative. Give a Circle a task to complete and he will talk about it. I once worked with a pastor who would talk a project to death. After one particularly long meeting, our administrative assistant looked at the two of us, shook her head and informed us that “talking is not the same as working.” She was a Rectangle.
Circles also like for everyone to get along… Harmony is essential to their work environment… They don’t generally recognize structure as essential to harmony, but are not averse to the idea of adding structure as long as it doesn’t cut into their Facebook time…
In case you didn’t see this coming, a Squiggle is an off-the-wall creative. Give him structure and he will invent creative work-arounds so that he can do things his own way. Squiggles are people that get described with metaphors about “different drummers” and are often complaining about how boring their jobs are.
If you give a task to a Squiggle, he will generally come back to you with a counter-proposal. The current paradigm is ALWAYS too restrictive…
There is certainly more to be said about these types, but that’s it in a nutshell… So, what shape are you?
LeadershipIssues: When to Collaborate…
Posted by: | CommentsMy wife and I were talking about project management last night… In my defense, she brought it up… And she said something very insightful that I thought was worth sharing:
All good leaders have 2 ways they like to lead…
The first is collaborative… Get the team together, brainstorm, find the best solutions. After all, maturity teaches me that I don’t have ALL of the good ideas…
The second is authoritative… Get the team together, give them instructions and send them off to do their part… After all, I am the leader because I know what I’m doing…
The trick is knowing when to be collaborative and when to be authoritative…
Because I’m a creative and because I generally work with creatives, I tend to lean towards the collaborative style… but sometimes, I have a clear vision and I don’t want to be forced into a creative compromise…
Because sometimes I believe that compromise undermines the objectives and goals of the project…
And (honestly) because sometimes I like to be in charge…
And since creative ventures are intrinsically subjective, there’s almost never a conclusive right or wrong way to implement them…
With a few (occasionally significant) exceptions, I know my team. I know their strengths and weaknesses. I have come to anticipate the kinds of suggestions and ideas they have…
So sometimes I don’t ask for ideas…
Maybe that’s bad, but sometimes the old adage is true:
Too many chefs DO ruin the soup…
I used to work for a guy that had a blended approach… but it was all wrong… He liked to have “brainstorming” sessions where he flagrantly discarded every idea that didn’t align with his own… At one retreat, the entire staff seemed to have ideas that ran afoul of his… That was particularly frustrating for everybody…
He would have been better off making authoritarian decisions and selling the outcomes rather than asking for our opinions… We might have hated his decisions, but instead we grew to hate him personally…
If we had been volunteers, we would have abandoned that ship at the first opportunity… Some of us did anyway…
If you work with creatives, you’ll already recognize that they like to be heard… They like their ideas to count…
One of our great artists at church approached me with an idea for a project… I like the idea at face value but I have some concerns about the impression that it might leave with a particular group of people that our church is trying to reach. It’s not poorly conceived or poorly motivated, it’s just poorly timed…
But I hate to put people off… I don’t know a single creative that likes to hear the word “wait”…
This is a great opportunity for collaborative leadership: Can we work together to find an outlet for this idea?
Here are the talking points I like to use in a decision about whether to collaborate:
1. Can I do it better by myself? I have a pretty broad artistic capacity, but I wouldn’t claim to be “the best” at much of anything. In many cases, though, my efforts are good enough. When I really want a project to be outstanding, I need collaboration.
2. Will collaboration negatively impact the goals of the project? When I’m putting together a program, I often have a vision for the emotive impact that I want the program to have. When people want to add elements that don’t contribute to that emotive impact (or worse, distract from it), I want to take a more authoritarian position.
What are your touchpoints for collaboration? What sorts of situations make you want to “take charge”?
Worship That Connects, Part 5: Like a Sloppy, Wet Kiss…
Posted by: | CommentsOk, if you don’t get the song reference from the title, you can watch the video…
I have mixed feelings about this song…
On the one hand, the verses are virtually impossible to sing the first several times that you hear it. It’s lyrically poetic, maybe too poetic for the average midwestern Joe that we meet in our church, but rhythmically awkward. The first three or four times that different worship leaders pitched this on to our church, it struck out. No one sang along…
On the other hand, the chorus is so strong and connects with people’s hearts so poignantly that it gets very emotional responses, particularly as it builds in intensity towards the end.
In fact, the emotive aspect of the song is SO powerful that it completely hijacks the visually bland performance on the video… If you can stand to watch it long enough to get to the chorus, without getting bored watching the Kim sway and stagger around with her eyes closed, you’ll see what I mean…
The truth is that a LOT of the modern worship songs that connect are ME-focused… Like this one: it’s kinda about God and the intimate aspect of his nature, but it’s mostly about how much we are loved by God.
Introduce that idea in an emotive way to a group of people who haven’t been still since they sat in the same spot at church last Sunday… It’s bound to connect at a very visceral level with a few of them.
But is it really worship? Or is it just a sloppy, wet sentiment?
A pastor-friend of mine derides this kind of music as “Jesus-is-my-boyfriend” songs…
And then there’s the en vogue idea, out there in worship-leader-land, that emotive songs don’t connect with the manly blokes…
I don’t mean to endorse either of these ideas… They just represent the other extreme on the continuum…
There certainly is a place in the life of the church for sloppy, wet worship… because it does CONNECT with people who live in a world where intimate relationships are ended via text-message. The message that God loves them intimately is life-giving and true.
But, I fear, if that’s all we have, we end up with men and women in church that connect with a sugary, milk-toast god (small “g”) that falls pathetically short of being the real and powerful One that they desperately need…
So… mix it up…
Next time: God-Centered worship songs connect too…
Worship That Connects, Part 4: Communitcating From The Platform
Posted by: | Comments
Is this thing on?
I wanted to come back and talk more about the benefit of using performance tools to connect with audiences in worship… I think this is important, and it’s not just because I’m comfortable on stage with a microphone in my hand…
It’s important because it is one of the primary tools in bridge building…
Leaders (read: the entire worship team) have the responsibility to bridge the gap between God’s presence and the people in the audience. It’s not enough to just play songs or even play them well…
The Audience is Ignorant…
If you read my blog much at all, you’ll be aware that I’m a big fan of Tom Jackson, a live-music producer. He does the circuit of artist development conferences and I try to catch him whenever I can.
Tom teaches that audiences are ignorant… They don’t understand music or audio or that yellow box on the floor that your guitar player keeps stomping on.
Here’s an example: As I have been increasing my leadership role in worship at my church, I’ve received a lot of (mostly unsolicited) input from people in the church. The musicians among them like to give me tips on audio equipment that will revolutionize our sound by adding nuances and tone.
The non-musicians have a different perspective. They tell me that no matter who is leading, everything sounds the same to them…
Being an insider, I know that the previous leader spent a huge amount of time, energy and money on equipment to nuance the tone. He is very good at that and very committed to it. Every guitar effect was carefully crafted, meticulously dialed-in, for the expressed purpose of adding variety to the sound. The past and current leaders (myself included) spend a lot of time in rehearsal working on dynamics within songs and throughout sets… There is absolutely no way that any 2 songs sound the same on a given Sunday…
So, why is that the perception of the non-musicians?
What the Audience Knows…
Tom says that if all the songs look the same, the audience will perceive that they all sound the same…
A guitar player understands his nuanced tonal differences, the musician understands subtle dynamics and the audiophile understands a good EQ… a soccer-mom just sees a band that never moves while playing songs that all look the same… She’s becomes easily distracted and starts wondering where she can buy Gatorade on sale this week…
It doesn’t help in our church at all that the platform is small and the center area is devoted to the pastor’s MacBook.
The other thing that the aforementioned soccer-mom understands is human behavior…
If the worship leader and all of the musicians are focused on their printed music, or their equipment, or even their own experience of worship, it sends a non-verbal message to her that they’re not interested in connecting with her. It may just mean be that they’re nervous or afraid of making a mistake or that the suffer from the misguided ideas that we talked about in Part 1 or Part 2… And so she doesn’t connect with them…
An effective leader can alter the dynamic in a number of ways, but the simplest way is to unchain himself from the instrument… Even if it’s just for one song in a set. He can make eye contact, encourage people to clap, raise hands, smile… just by doing those things himself… The other members of the team can do the same thing… It brings freedom to the audience when the leaders are free.
Toll Bridge or Troll Bridge…
Worship leaders (and again: every member of the team is a worship leader) bridge the gap between God’s presence and the people in the pews… but building bridges is an expensive undertaking. And leaders pay the price of transit for the church they lead.
Purposeful connection (which is the goal of good leadership and performance) by the leaders is required to get people over the bridge. When we refuse or neglect to be purposeful, we end up being road blocks… Metaphorically, we stand in the middle of the bridge and declare, “None shall pass.”
Reach out to the church you lead, with your eyes, with your hands, with a smile, or by taking a step toward them… you can call it “ministry” instead of “performance” if it makes you feel better, but it’s really both and that’s the balance that makes all the difference…
