Magic Alchemy and the Biblical Paradox of Greatness
Jim Collins’ books and franchise are very successful. Regrettably, my experience with the Good to Great “framework of ideas” has not been positive. That experience has informed this post.
“Our five-year quest yielded many insights, a number of them surprising and quite contrary to conventional wisdom, but one giant conclusion stands above the others: We believe that almost any organization can substantially improve its stature and performance, perhaps even become great, if it conscientiously applies the framework of ideas we’ve uncovered.”1
Wow, that’s quite a statement, and it caught the attention of both the business world and the church! What are those ideas that take an organization from good to great? Disciplined People: Humble leaders hire capable people, fire those who aren’t and then organize for forward-progress. Disciplined Thoughts: Thoughtful leaders confront the realities of their current situation knowing and believing that they will prevail no matter the circumstances or the cost. Disciplined Action: Active leaders lead toward high performance. It is a “culture of discipline” aided by technology that leads to, “the magical alchemy of great performance.”2
These ideas carry over into Collin’s Social Sector. However, he suggests that the social sector might not benefit from taking on the language and concepts of the business world. Instead, both business and social sector should adopt the language of greatness, operating from a “framework of greatness, articulating timeless principles that explain why some become great and other do not.”3
In some ways, Collins has redeemed himself in writing Good to Great and the Social Sector. I use the word redeem because in my opinion, Good to Great was harmful to the church in these ways. It gave cause for the language of ruthlessness to enter the church’s leadership vocabulary. It strengthened the idea of success based on a cultural construct rather than a biblical foundation. Its principles have not produced sustainable results.
Consider for a moment the ruthlessness in the bus analogy. Not only is it offensive on many levels, but it also carries with it the language of ruthlessness, which has no place in the church. This is not to say that before Collins church leadership has been void of the language of ruthlessness, but Good to Great gave the use another cause—the cause of greatness. Think of it; a level 5 leader gets the right people on the bus (hire the right people), the wrong people off the bus (fire those who don’t belong) and then gets all the right people in the right seats on the bus. I don’t know what this has to do with humility as much as it does with sheer ruthlessness. People have been hurt and the local church negatively impacted by the language of this and similar analogies and metaphors.
The way in which the leaders of a church treat those who work and serve with them may be one of the keys to greatness. It may be that teamwork and leadership development on every level is what leads to greatness. 4 Of course, there are times when tough decisions must be made. However, these tough decisions should be made in the midst of tears and not in rejoicing for the greatness to come. They should be based on the health of the person and the church instead of the goal of greatness.
And what of greatness—it is a relative term most often associated with money, size, gains, and losses, all measurable and admittedly not wrong in themselves. However, even though in Social Sector Collins moves away from revenue based greatness, he contends that measurement is important even if the results are not tangibly measurable. 5 I agree it is good practice to measure, even in the church. The problem with numbers as a measurement for greatness is that they can mislead into thinking that large numbers equate to greatness. I would argue that in the church, health is a better indicator of greatness than numbers. It may not be quantifiable but it can be felt, seen and experienced.
Finally, the ultimate question is, do these principles produce sustainable results? Though Social Sector is much more balanced, the jury is still out on Good to Great. Of the businesses that Collins listed as moving from good to great, some are doing well, others are less than great, and one no longer exists. Collins does attempt to address this in his following— How the Mighty Fall and Great by Choice, but what of those who have been negatively impacted by Good to Great?
Churches are complex and dynamic organisms. Like human bodies, the variables are astronomical, and like business organizations, it is impossible to explain why some grow to mega-size, and others don’t. In any case, I am convinced there is no “magical alchemy.” I am also convinced that health is a better indicator of greatness than numbers. Maybe a more significant question for church leaders is why do we aspire to “meganess?” Why do we choose “meganess” as the standard of greatness? Are we listening to the voices of a cultural construct? Is it Weber’s “Spirit of Capitalism” speaking to our Protestant work ethic? 6 Are we concerned about our legacy, power, money, things? Or, maybe our desire for greatness is God-given, but our cultural voices are misleading.
It has been said that “The values and norms of our society become so deeply ingrained in our minds that we find it difficult to impugn alternatives.” 7 What then is the alternative? To begin, the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. The least are greatest and the greatest the least. It is not magic alchemy, but the application of these biblical paradoxes that lead to health and therefore a “great” church.
- James C. Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap—and Others Don’t. Kindle ed. New York: HarperBusiness, 2011, 5.
- Ibid., 13,14.
- James C. Collins, Good to Great and the Social Sectors: Why Business Thinking is Not the Answer: A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap—and Others Don’t. Kindle ed. Boulder, CO: J. Collins, 2011, 3.
- Michelle Burke, “Teamwork is What Separates the Good From Great Companies.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/teamwork-is-what-separates-the-good-from-great-companies_us_58e3c783e4b09deecf0e1a88 (accessed Sep 5, 2017).
- Collins, Good to Great and the Social Sectors, 9.
- Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Routledge Classics) (Volume 91). 2 ed. Routledge, 2001.
- Donald B. Kraybill, The Upside-Down Kingdom. 5th Updated ed. Herald Press, 2011, 21.
About the Author
Jim Sabella
16 responses to “Magic Alchemy and the Biblical Paradox of Greatness”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hey Jim,
Good to hear your voice again. Missed it :). I pondered this too: “And what of greatness—it is a relative term most often associated with money, size, gains, and losses, all measurable and admittedly not wrong in themselves.” For my life, I like to interpret greatness as revealing the greatness of God in my life, and living to the ideal He has for me. Being a level 5 leader stood out as a humble, servant leader and I enjoyed his description of it. This had an echo of greatness. I hear your concerns too with the principles of business being used on church culture. Interesting to ponder how this might be translated for churches to move from good to great? More service, worship, care for the needy? What are your thoughts?
Thanks Jennifer. I think that church leaders need to move away from the idea of greatness all together and move toward the idea of a healthy community. This is a core principle that attracts people to the community of faith and to the Gospel—forgivness, wellness, wholeness, caring, community, love, respect, not to mention the inherent need for everyone to worship the Creator.
In this, I am not denying the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people and the church, nor am I downplaying the need for strong, excellent, humble leadership. However, I am a proponent of approaching leadership from a “people first” and not “greatness first” perspective. By necessity, the business world needs to approach it from a greatness perspective because their goal is money. It’s not a bad thing at all. Businesses should grow to be great and make a lot of money. Successful businesses help communities and people. However, I would say Collins’ principles are not a good fit in the church world—different reason for being, different goal, different outcomes, different purpose. My 2 cents worth.
Nice start to our new year, Jim!
“I am also convinced that health is a better indicator of greatness than numbers.” Amen and amen, my brother. Health can be measured in some ways (blood pressure, weight, chronic disease, etc.), but not in others (fatigue, for example). But we know when our bodies “feel” healthy. In the church as well, it seems as if the intangibles are imperative to health.
Thanks Katy. I agree.
Great (no pun intended) observations, Jim.
Jim Collins touts Wells Fargo, but just what is success to them? Money, not people.
I have a hispanic friend who started a job at Wells Fargo so she could help their hispanic customers. Sounds good so far. However, if the customers became overdrawn she was instructed to issue them a credit card and put the debt on the card.
Most of these mostly female, non-English speaking customers had no idea of the consequences of the credit card (with 24% interest). My friend only lasted at that job for about a week and said, “Mary, I just couldn’t do it.” She really needed a job but she GOT OFF OF THE WELLS FARGO BUS herself! I was happy for her.
Jim, I agree with you that successful businesses should help people and the community. And the point that we should follow our Savior’s example of leadership is a good one too.
Thank you for being brave enough to post such honest reflections.
Thanks Mary, no pun taken! 🙂
Jim, I appreciate your post and do not wholly disagree with it. As you noted on my post, we looked at this book from different angles. I chose to see what churches MIGHT learn from these principles. Yet, you are correct that a church whose leadership model was totally based on Collins’ work is a church built on sand…not rock.
I would like to comment on the critique of numbers/attendance. When I was in seminary, it was common to hear students criticize a growing church as “they only care about numbers.”
Yet, as I look at Jesus’ “Great Commission” and the teachings of the New Testament (and Old Testament), I see that God seeks to draw people to Him through Christ. His plan to do that is through His church. Churches that are not winning people to Christ are not healthy churches. In the same way, churches that only focus on attendance to a program, but not life transformation are not healthy churches.
Some churches that are winning people to Christ, where lives are being transformed, usually do one of two things… increase their numbers or strategically plant other churches.
As one pastor told me once… “before you criticize numbers, remember that numbers represent people.”
Thanks for your insights Stu. I appreciate your perspective on Collins and I do agree about numbers. That’s why I mentioned health as more important than numbers. I have no issue with numbers, in fact, my wife and I attend a church that would be considered large in numbers but is also very healthy. Actually, numbers don’t matter on either end, I’ve seen churches with small numbers be very unhealthy. It’s the health that matter and not the numbers. Though I prefer that “stratigic planting of another church” over the mega church model, what matters is health. Thanks Stu.
HI Jim
Your statement “They should be based on the health of the person and the church instead of the goal of greatness”.
I would expect that when we invest in the health of the person and the church surely it will lead to the goal of greatness. We would be living what God has taught us, to serve his people and teach them his ways.
Would this be considered our goal serving in the greatness of God?
Thanks Lynda. Yes I agree. I admit the sentence would have been better served for me to choose another word than “greatness” in that context. I was referring to a leader who may have an image of greatness as only one of size and numbers. I see greatness as based more on healthy people and community than on size and numbers. Appreciate your comments Lynda.
Jim, I appreciate your insights. It is interesting to read your perspective on Collins both from the original and the social sector addition. I understand that there is a challenge with determining what defines “greatness”. I also believe that these things can be contextual in nature. What may work for a small business may not work for a large corporation. What may work for a business will not work well in a church organization. I do believe there are some underlying things that do apply to leadership in general–i.e. driving vision, igniting passion and maintaining a momentum that will allow for the organization/mission to go forward.
Thanks Christal. I agree that greatness is contextual and that there are general principles of leadership that work in both business and the church. Appreciate your comments.
Jim, I resonate with your concerns about applying these principles to a church. On the other hand, I have served in too many churches who needed to apply a bit more “ruthlessness” to pastoral staff and board members. Where many businesses practice ruthlessness for ruthlessness’ sake, I think Collins’ key idea is that we (in business an in churches) need to remove people who are not mission focused.
Since you lead a large part of your organization, how do you deal with leaders in your purview who are no longer mission focused or may have become a distraction to the mission?
Thanks Kristin, I hear ya and agree. Sometimes a leader has to make a hard call for the good of the person and for the mission. But it is a last resort via a process and with a great amount of prayer, and consultation with a larger group of leaders. I always keep Acts 15 in mind—it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us. Appreciate your comments Kristin.
Jim – I really appreciated this post and your honest response and critique of Collins work.
We are so quick to run to books like this one (and many that aren’t backed by research or as well thought out as this one) because we long for a clear path, a clear way forward and a promise of success.
But the clear path doesn’t require faith and trusting in God to transform us beyond our own capabilities.
What a great point you make: ‘What then is the alternative? To begin, the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. The least are greatest and the greatest the least. It is not magic alchemy, but the application of these biblical paradoxes that lead to health and therefore a “great” church.’
And maybe we might even add: And what really separates true level 5 leaders is their willingness to open up their live to be filled, led and transformed by the Holy Spirit of God.
Thanks for your comments Chip. And I add an Amen to your addition. 🙂