unbridledsubmission.com

Read Time: 10 Minutes (Please share your comments)

So I have been thinking about this idea of “experience.”  Culture is seems obsessed by it actually. And by experience I mean feeling some kind of ownership in the process, the conversation regarding the topic at hand. One of the reasons why facebook and Twitter have emerged so rapidly is because they provide not only a voice, but an opportunity for dialogue. Not just messages but conversations. I think of those auto response emails one gets online saying, “don’t respond to this email because no one will read it.” While there are definite times and reasons for these kind of emails to be used, but the example is indicative of what culture does not want. Don’t send me a message, lets dialogue about this. This value has played out most recently in the area of management training, team building training, etc. There have been countless books on how to lead well, how to create trust, team building, most of which centers on creating an environment where an employee feels as if they are heard and responded to. The difference today vs 5-10 years ago is that now culture as a whole not only wishes for this but is starting expect it as well. ie the it’s not just the employees that need this, customers now do as well, and I believe more so as we head farther into the future. Personally I believe this is a good thing. Primarily because I love change, but there is always value to me in action stemming from dialogue. While thinking about my desire for action, I realize that I think there is some ambiguity around the word and expectation of experience. When talking about creating an “experience” sometimes people are talking about different things. Primarily I believe there are two important factors and many subsets of considerations, but two things are paramount, in my opinion.

1. Don’t Send me a message, have a conversation. The old model of communication was a monologue. The position of authority was given the “right” to speak. If you weren’t in that position, you had the “right” to listen. I realize that is overly harsh, but am just trying to make a point comparing differences years make in how we communicate, feel worth and feel engaged, which ultimately comes down to being valued as an employee, customer and ultimately human being. I recently read a quote defining “dialogue” on one of the most read articles about social media currently on the web. It said, “Dialogue is transparent, inclusive, authentic, vibrant, consumer-driven. It is Not, controlled, organized, exclusive, product-driven, and on-message.” Simply put, participating in dialogue, as defined above, creates valued “experience” for your colleague, employee, customer and fellow neighbours. And as a side not, but a very important one, transparent means that others can view, comment and join the conversation at any time. Why is that, because millennials, Gen Y’ers care very much what their friends think.  While one on one, intimate conversations are still very important, the credibility to have those conversations comes out of the global transparent conversation.

2. Share the activity. This is what well run organizations and leaders have done well (for the most part) over the past many decades. What I believe is great is that organizations, leaders who engage in the above point of having vibrant, transparent conversations now have the right to call people to action. But as more and more companies, non-profits, etc are finding out that it is becoming harder and harder to call people to action without first having the dialogue. A dialogue that empowers people in the process and outcomes.

Next Steps and Comments.

Some of these next thoughts are borrowed from the presentation Gary Hamel gave at Leadership Summit.

• You’re either going forward or backwards, you’re not standing still. Most organizations end up shackled to one model, when it atrophies so does the organization. (Are you changing how you communicate and create experiences for your audience? If not are you slowly dying?)
• An organization often misses the future because its unpalatable. Deal with the future by facing the facts. Learn from the dialogue, acquire a new taste. One can still eat healthy even if you are cooking with different spices. (I’m not saying to change your values, doctrine, mission, etc. How you deliver, from generation of ideas to implementation most likely could use a facelift)
• Listen to the renegades. Humility is not only a virtue it is also a survival strategy.
• Look at everything you do and ask, “What hasn’t changed in 3-5 years.”

As you know, I am a pastor and besides being passionate about leadership and faith i am passionate about the local church. I absolutely love it. However a common knock on “church” is that it often lags the change process by approximately 10 years. I realize there are different opinions on if the church should change, how fast, etc, etc. I’m all for solid, conservative Christian doctrine, but I am all for trying new ways to engage not only culture but the people sitting in the pews week in and week out. In my own context we are trying to push the boundaries, it is a process that does take time, must be walked out carefully as change is always a process. However i am passionate about unleashing the shared creativity and generating innovation on a large scale and dialogueing about what could be.

So here are some comments from Gary regarding church specifically. Agree or disagree?

• Every organization is filled with orthodoxies. We’re in a race to uncover and challenge our orthodoxies. if they stand up great, if not what will you do?
• If things haven’t changed in 3-5 years is it because we have explored other options or because we are stuck in tradition.
• Compare yourself to other churches. Are you doing things differently (unique to your culture) or are you doing the things the same.
• Why is church a lecture not a discussion? (how do you see a discussion taking place?)
• Top down structures will not last.
• God expects us to be unconventional in how we do His work.
• Every idea gets a fair chance (is this a reality in your church?)
• Participatory, open source need to be the norm.
• The early church was institutionally weak, we need to try disorganized communities. (I would argue this needs to be part of the organized movement. ie how does a mega church adopt this? Not just have it be a cell model?)
• Our churches need to be the most vibrant, resilient and adaptable institutions in the world. God doesn’t have a plan B. The church is it.

So as a pastor, a leader, a humble servant of Christ. How are you playing this out in your life. I’d love to hear on what you disagree with. Examples of how this does or does not work, both personally, organizationally, etc, etc.

I do have some reservations on some of the points above, but overall in my opinion I’m all for trying something new. Then again, i always have been. Personally, as a leader wherever you are, do you feel like you lose some “power” in the above model. If I’m honest, I feel a sense of “loss” when I think of some of the potential outcomes. I would argue that is the selfishness inside of me. Yet I am very excited about the potential gains. A last thought from Gary.

“The leaders job today is less vision, command,and control and more focused on mobilizing, connecting and supporting.

Honestly the above comment played out makes me feel like “less” of a leader. Perhaps that is the problem, leaders actually like the power. The greatest leader, Jesus said, “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve…” Matthew 20:28

You should follow me on Twitter here