unbridledsubmission.com

***Discalimer, the presentation uses offensive language. It is also very good.***

I am a huge fan of Twitter, Facebook, StumbleUpon, etc.  If it’s socialmedia related I probably love it.  However I was even dumbfounded how popular it really is.  Actually perhaps better said, how influential it is and how devasting it can be to a company, non-profit, church, etc if not used properly.

I know this isn’t new, but perhaps new to you. I think this slideshow explains it better than anything else I have seen on social media.

***DISCLAIMER #2***

Excuse the title, and the “**” out language. This isn’t my slideshow but yet it is probably the best explanation of the reach and influence of social media currently online. So please don’t miss the message.

So, does your church have a social media policy yet?  If yes, please share, because ours doesn’t yet, but I’m working on it.

“Generation F” is a designation that Gary Hamel used in his Wall Street Journal Blog Management 2.0. For some, you may already be familiar with the term, for others not familiar with it, it stands for the “Facebook Generation.”  While not a surprising definition their expectations of their ideal work environment may be.  Generation F has become incredibly familiar with everything social media.  For those not sure of what social media is or how powerful it has become check out this incredible slideshow by Marta Kagan.  Generation F has fully immersed itself with social media.  Not only has social media become a way to communicate and interact for this generation, it has become the frame work for life and work.

Gary Hamels says it even better. “The experience of growing up online will profoundly shape the workplace expectations of “Generation F” – the Facebook Generation. At a minimum, they’ll expect the social environment of work to reflect the social context of the Web, rather than as is currently the case, a mid-20th-century Weberian bureaucracy.”

This is incredibly crucial for organizations and especially the church to understand.  Gary discusses 12 crucial elements that organizations must grapple with in order to attract, retain and engage the facebook generation. The full article can be found in Gary’s March 24, 2009 Management 2.0 blog posting

1. All ideas compete on an equal footing.

2. Contribution counts for more than credentials.

3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed.

4. Leaders serve rather than preside.

5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned.

6. Groups are self-defining and -organizing.

7. Resources get attracted, not allocated.

8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it.

9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed.

10. Users can veto most policy decisions.

11. Intrinsic rewards matter most.

12. Hackers are heroes.

Some questions in closing.

So how does a church begin to interact and dialogue about these points?  How do churches engage Generation F that are attending their churches in light of the above points. Can congregants veto decisions, are groups self defining and organizing..what implications would this have to the standard small group model? Most churches struggle with serving and finding volunteers. What would happen if people just chose what they wanted to do, what impact would that have on ministry? Would we (the church) be ok “dropping” some ministries because people were choosing not to serve there. i realize it can be easy to go to extreme examples, but perhaps that’s another question. Are we willing to go to the extreme?

What questions would you have with Gary’s points?

Have you seen some churches excel at some points mentioned above? Or at least think they are on the right path?

You should follow me on Twitter here

I’ve been musing on a quote by Tony Blair. Recently I heard him speak on leadership and the importance of a leader knowing what his or her “irreducible core” is.

Irreducible Core defined: (as per Tony Blair)

• The thing about leadership is that you have make a decision inside of yourself that there will be things you will stand on and be faced with the fact other people might not like it.
• Part of leadership is having an inner core, an irreducible core, the thing that cannot be chipped away at.
• You cannot yield on what is at your core.

So, I started wondering what my irreducible core is. Intuitively I think I know what it is, but I want to be able to define it in one sentence.  In sales terms an “elevator speech” of who I am. To me when I hear about an irreducible core I not only think of what I won’t compromise on, but also what motivates me, challenges me, holds me accountable and simply excites me like nothing else. Simply, who I am.  When I describe my irreducible core I want it to release an electrifying charge of passion and potential from deep within me. Intuitively I know what it is, but I want to be able to define it.

My plan of attack: Get some initial feedback from friends and colleagues, and then spend some time creating a one sentence definition of who I am, my irreducible core.

Have you ever created a one line bio about yourself?  If so, I’d love to hear it.

Not only do I think it’s fun to have a vivid definition of oneself, but I actually think it is quite useful.

You should follow me on Twitter here

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

Barack Obama is considered by some as the most persuasive person currently alive. Whether he is or not I’m not sure, but persuasion and being persuasive is definitely a unique ability.

The more I read the more I realize I love books backed up by analytical research. The more I read those books, the more I am drawn and extremely intrigued by the psychology of how and why people act and how that relates to leadership and real world application.  Just like Barack Obama, natural leaders are often considered to be very persuasive.

To persuade means “To induce to believe by appealing to reason or understanding. To convince.” While reading recently I found a tip on how to be persuasive as per Benjamin Franklin. What I found out was quite interesting. Namely that one doesn’t have to “convince or even appeal to reason” to be persuasive in some instances. For many of us this is good news. Let me explain.

Benjamin Franklin is considered by many to be a genius. He excelled at almost everything including being a publisher, scientist, inventor and politician to name a few. But it might be how he handled opposition, hostility from other politicians a so called enemy you could almost say that was perhaps his best “genius” moment. Like all breakthroughs it is the courage and plain old guts to approach a situation differently that produces different results. Franklin describes the situation with his political nemesis, his adversarial opposition and how he “won” him over:

I did not, however, aim at gaining his favor by paying any servile respect to him, after some time, took this other method. Having heard that he had in his library a certain very scarce and curious book, I wrote a note to him, expressing my desire of perusing that book, and requesting he would do me that favor of lending it to me for a few days. He sent it immediately, and I returned it about a week later with a note expressing my deep sense of the favour. When we met next in the House, he spoke to me (which he had never done before) and with great civility; and he ever manifested a readiness to serve me on all occasions, so that we became great friends, and our friendship continued to his death. This is another instance of the truth of an old maxim I had learned, which says, “He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged.”

I found this quote extremely interesting. Especially in the beginning were he says he didn’t pay him any respect (now I don’t agree with that, I think one should always be respectful) however his approach at becoming persuasive, at shifting the relationship from hostile to ally was by asking him for a favour. I think this tactic goes extremely against our natural inclinations. Example, when was the last time you asked for a favour from an “enemy” from a hostile relationship with someone with whom you never speak with. Bizarre approach, but yet it worked. So, as I mentioned earlier I love analytical research so where is the study to back this up? Well Jecker J. and Landy D. researched this in 1969 called ” Liking a person as a function of doing him a favor. (Human Relations 22:371-78)

In the study participants won some money from the experimenters. Group A was immediately asked to return the winnings because the experimenter was poor and was using his person money. (Interestingly, virtually everyone agreed to return the money, but thats for other studies) Group B was not asked anything after the experiment. Afterwards all participants were anonymously surveyed about “How much they liked the experimenter.” Amazingly, the findings proved Franklins assumption. Those who were asked to do a favour for the experimenter, even though it cost them their winnings, viewed the experimenter much more favorably than those that did not have to do any favour. Why one might ask?

Other studies show strong connections between peoples actions, their behaviours, and their attitudes. Noah Goldstein in his book on scientifically ways to be persuasive says, “People are strongly motivated to change their attitudes in ways that are consistent with their behaviour.”

There are many possible outcomes and real life applications from this study. Being a pastor who is in charge of facilitating community and creating environments for dialogue and interaction I find this study fascinating. Fascinating because “making friends” resolving perceived conflict or hostile opposition is perceived as such a difficult thing to do.  Franklin shows us that one of the easiest ways to make a friend of an enemy, or even simply a friend, is to ask a favour of them. Often people delay asking anything of a perceived “enemy” or opposition member, or a yet unknown person because of the idea that it will make the situation worse. We will somehow be annoying the more. Politically, what are some potential implications of real world enemies? Could some issues perhaps be resolved just by asking a favour. Could it really be that simple? My gut says no, but then again have we even tried such a simple, “illogical” idea? How about hostile board members? How about in your neighbourhood or new work environment? People often find it difficult to start relationships. Instead of stressing about it next time, just ask them for a favour. Selfishly, you get help, of some sort, and the strong potential for friendship, even life long friendship as was the case with Benjamin Franklin.

Just some thoughts…what you think?

You should follow me on Twitter here