Visioneering: Competent Inversion
Can a desire for self-improvement, as well as, a desire to deal with the pressures of a stressful job lead to impacting some of the most influential leaders in America? It can if your name is Shane Parrish a former cybersecurity expert for a Canadian intelligent agency. His desire to learn how to improve his decision-making skills and reduce job pressures has drawn the attention of Wall Street.[1] In his book The Great Mental Models Volume 1 he unfolds his great desire for helping people see problems through multiple lens to hopefully avoid unnecessary mistakes by exposing the reader to the “Great Mental Models”.
When discussing the “Circle of Competence” Parrish states “When ego and not competence drives what we undertake, we have blind spots. If you know what you understand, you know where you have an edge over others. When you are honest about where your knowledge is lacking you know where you are vulnerable and where you can improve.”[2] The model explains that the best place to operate and make decisions is within a circle of competence. Why is this the case? According to Parrish this is because we have an understanding of the things we don’t know. This allows us to press into what we do know because of the years of experience we have gained through mistakes and seeking better solutions. What if we have failed to learn from our mistakes, does this shrink our “circle of competence?” There is a different in having 20 or 30 years of experience and having 1 year of experience lived 20 or 30 times! What validates the experiences that increases our level of competence? Does all experience add to our competence?
In 1968 Laurence Peter published a best-selling book entitled The Peter Principle which was intended to be a satire of how people advance in life. This principle though based on fictitious data basically stated that everyone rises in business to their level of incompetence. Meaning that people can only succeed to the level where they are competent and can’t go beyond that, due to reaching their point of incompetence. Though the book was humorous in nature the truth of the satire became apparent over time. 3 professors of the University of Minnesota looked at data provided by 214 American Companies between the years 2005 and 2011 of over 53,000 sales employees. Over the 7-year time frame there were 1531 sales reps promoted to management positions. What they found was that the best salesmen don’t always make good managers. Many of those promoted lacked the abilities needed to be good managers but had what it took to be great sales reps.[3] After spending 27 years with the same company I can attest to the truth of The Peter Principle. Some of the best engineers I know made the worst managers. I found it interesting that the criteria needed to be a good engineer and the criteria to be a good manager though obviously different didn’t seem make a difference to upper management. I remember asking a good friend who was a very accomplished engineer if he was happy as a manager. His reply was not surprising. He explained he became an engineer because he related to numbers and complex problems, as well as, enjoyed the challenge behind designing solutions to fix problems. He then stated that solving people problems and finding ways to cut the budget was an entirely different issue for him. Bottom line he wasn’t happy but thought that climbing the corporate ladder was what was expected. I do believe it is possible to increase our level of competence to move us forward on the Peter principle process. But all the competence in the world doesn’t replace the need for a personal mission and vision. Just because we have the ability to advance in the workplace, should we? Should we sacrifice peace of mind and happiness for money and position? Does taking a position for just money become a form of prostitution?
What if we incorporated Parrish’s inversion tool by flipping the process and thinking backwards? Could this help us avoid making choices we would regret later? “Using inversion to identify your end goal and work backward from there can lead to innovation.”[4] By looking into the future and envisioning a desired outcome it opens our minds up to creative possibilities that can assist us in setting goals, making action plans and avoid the unsuspected pitfalls and potholes of bad choices. There are risks! Looking forward into the end goal isn’t perfect, but it is affective. This is a common practice used in coaching to assist a client to come up with creative innovative strategies that can provide possible solutions that may otherwise be overlooked.
A common bible verse that leaders often quote is Proverbs 29:18 “Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law.” (NASV) Part of visioneering is the inversion process. By looking and focusing on the vision our ability to see and make present day decisions is enhanced. We often willingly place restraints on our choices by only saying yes to those opportunities that will forward us toward the future vision. We even gain a level of joy as we see the vision begin to unfold in our lives despite that sacrifices that may have been made in order to move forward. Working from a “circle of competence” can also play a vital role in the visioneering process, just as incompetence can hinder it. I wonder how the inversion process affects our competence levels. Does it broaden the size of the circle? Can it speed up the learning curve and increase the process of gaining solid experience? The power of our choices today often dictates the fruits of tomorrow.
[1] “How a Former Canadian Spy Helps Wall Street Mavens Think Smarter”, NYTimes https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/11/business/intelligence-expert-wall-street.html
[2] Shane Parrish, The Great Mental Models Vol.1 (Ottawa, On, Lattice Publishing) chap. 4, loc 568 of 2056, kindle
[3] “New Evidence The Peter Principle is Real and What to Do About It”, Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/roddwagner/2018/04/10/new-evidence-the-peter-principle-is-real-and-what-to-do-about-it/#4cb7576f1809
[4] Shane Parrish, The Great Mental Models Vol.1 (Ottawa, On, Lattice Publishing) chap. 4, loc 1574 of 2056, kindle
About the Author
Greg Reich
Entrepreneur, Visiting Adjunct Professor, Arm Chair Theologian, Leadership/Life Coach, husband, father and grandfather. Jesus follower, part time preacher! Handy man, wood carver, carpenter and master of none. Outdoor enthusiast, fly fisherman, hunter and all around gun nut.14 responses to “Visioneering: Competent Inversion”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greg,
As a female, lay leader in ministry, I have seen men be given paid positions for roles that mirrored ones women were doing as volunteers. The rationale was “Men can’t be expected to volunteer. They need to provide for their families.” In those roles, they were not always effective or even competent, yet they were given the role anyway. I have wrestled with this reality for a few years, and have even noted how women are basically “ministry whores” where we give away the goods for free. None of us would ever think that, because we serve others sacrificially out of our love for Jesus. But when systems differentiate and validate the roles of men and women in ministry in such a way as to ascribe monetary value to men and not for women, I have to wonder who is being pimped out?
Yet, your comment, “Does taking a position for just money become a form of prostitution?” has me thinking that the reverse could also be true. Are those men who are accepting a paid position they are clearly unqualified for and have little competency in just ministry “prostitutes”? Are they, in a way, selling their soul to the devil or to the corporate ministry machine?
But more importantly, how do we invert and envision innovative solutions so that neither circumstance exists? Is it possible? What is the future goal? And how do we work creatively and in reverse to accomplish that?
Darcy,
These are powerful questions that I believe should be looked at and answered. Sadly to say I was one of those who worked for the money and glory more the calling or ministry toward my fellow man. I woke up one morning and realized the only thing I regret leaving was the money. I didn’t miss the people, the work or anything else, just the money. I didn’t realize I was prostituting myself to the company until I left.
The lack of balance and equality between women and men especially in the church is a travesty. I believe a place to start is with a true understanding of a Theology of Vocation that removes the dichotomy between secular and sacred. All we do is for the glory of God and His kingdom no matter what the career. Career choices shouldn’t be made on prestige or money but on calling, what meets the great need and what brings the greatest glory to God.
I’ve certainly seen pastors in my systems who were effective in one context be sent to another with the expectation of replicating their previous success. Some are able to adapt and find success in new places. Others get stuck when what worked in one place doesn’t work at the next. Looking at the mental models, it seems to me that those who are able to succeed in more than one place do so by their mastery of multiple models and ability to apply knowledge in different situations without assuming each situation is the same. How have you seen the latticework of mental models work together to help you in your success?
John,
Now that I am 60 I am realizing the importance on excelling on the things I do well and surrounding myself with people that strengthen my weaknesses. I also think we need to relook at our understanding of success in the American church model and the church growth mindset.
I am a studier of leadership thought as well as mental models so I loved the book. But I do see that I natural gravitate toward certain models over other. Much like a mechanic I see the need to have specialty tools in my tool box. If all I have is a hammer I will tend to see everything as a nail so the more tools I can gain the broader I can see things. BUT I do have my preferences!
Greg, while we were in Oxford a couple of us were discussing the notion of redefining what success looks like in the church. What do you think that redefinition should/would/could look like? How would you use the process of inversion that you mentioned to look at the end goal and work your way backward?
Dylan,
As a coach I have struggled with this same question. In some ways cultures play a huge part in our understanding of success. Apart from that I think each individual needs to define success for themselves in the area in which they live. For example: I have a good friend who pastors an intercity Church of God in Christ congregation. Washington is made up of 6% african americans. His denomination is oriented around the african american pentecostal experience. Short of changing the denominations focus He will never be a large church. Does this mean he is a failure or successful? Success in some way needs to be measured by what we are compared to what we can become. Simply stated “Are we growing to our God given potential?” One person’s potential differs from another. I have the potential to throw a baseball and so does Randy Johnson. The difference is my potential fully sharpened and trained will never match Randy Johnson’s. Does that mean I am a failure and he is a success? No, as long as I am striving to my greatest potential I will consider myself a success.
As Christians we use inversion all the time without realizing it. I do not know of any person of faith that does not have an eschatological view of how this thing we call life ends. Depending on our view of the end it often dictates how we live. If your view is more stoic and you think the world will be destroyed and we all end up in place called heaven you could possibly care less about how we treat the earth. If you believe that we will rule and reign on earth upon the return of Christ your modern day life choices may be different. It is similar if you believe in predestination (only the chosen come to Christ) or free will (all can choose to come to Christ). Our beliefs usually dictate our actions as well as define our success. The Apostle Paul shows this in using the hope of the resurrection of all believers at the return of Christ to bolster faith of the church in his letter to the believers in Corinth.
You wrote, “By looking into the future and envisioning a desired outcome it opens our minds up to creative possibilities that can assist us in setting goals, making action plans and avoid the unsuspected pitfalls and potholes of bad choices.” I would guess this could be effective if one knew better their unique capacities and could communicate the basic inspiring outcome one desired to see.
Steve,
I am a true believer in mission and vision! Part of mission is knowing one’s self. it is important to know our strengths and weaknesses. What positive core values drive us and what negative core values cause us to blow by our positive core values. We need to understand our purpose adb calling before we can understand our mission and we need to have a clear vision of what it looks like to live the mission. It is vital to have a clear a vision as possible because the clearer the vision the easier it is to navigate the present. Jesus had a clear vision of His ultimate purpose and the destination of the cross. When detours were offered in one fashion or another we are told “he set His face like flint toward Jerusalem.”
I have found a lot of truth in what you’re describing. We have an issue in our organization where people overly aspire to the role of a team leader. While there is great opportunity to impact at that level, we shoot ourselves in the foot by taking some of our best campus ministers off the field, or at least greatly reduce their time with students, because we don’t know how to affirm and challenge the non-team leader staff. Do you have any insight here?
Shawn,
I often try to get people to understand a 360 degree leadership model as well the power of a team leadership model. I am never ceased to be amazed how much can get accomplished when people finally realize it doesn’t matter who gets the credit. As a manager when things turned sorrow I owned it even if it wasn’t my fault, when things were going well I refused to take the credit I gave it to the team. Why is it that we see a ton of stuff on leadership with the mind set of sitting in the first chair but very little about the importance of the second or third chair? A symphony would sound pretty weird if the only instrument that played were those in the first chair. It is the second and third chairs that carry the brunt of the work often times. It has taken me a long to time realize that I am willing to be second and satisfied. I long to let young innovative leaders like you to stand on my shoulders and go well beyond where I could ever go myself. If I can serve you in any way let me know.
One of the recent lgp students did his research and writing around “leading from the middle” to your point.
It seems, unless we are very lucky, our jobs stretch us in ways that distract us from leaning into the kind of stretching we know would be beneficial to our own personal development. Thus, the difference between personal and professional development. How can there be some continuity between the two? Perhaps our work stresses can develop us personally as well. Circle of competence. Finding application between the two for both Personal and Professional growth.
Static and Dynamic environments. The challenge on both ego and competence comes in the flow of continuous change. Our Circle of Competence constantly needs encouragement and adjustment and new information and new input in the context on our constantly changing, dynamic environments.
For example, right now I may know what I understand. That can all change in a second. However, my depth of knowledge in what I understand right now can inform what in a moment may shift to be something that I don’t understand.
Further, humility. When I know what I understand in this moment is different to others. How do I respond when others are professing to know what they understand of something that I knew what I understood yesterday but today I have grown to know to understand something different of it. Progression? Or, hands open for the revelation to learn and to let go, to allow the process to happen for others in their time. To share and to grow; to let go and to learn!
Thank you Greg. Appreciate your thoughts and way of explication!
Greg. Thanks for this thoughtful post. Reading through the comments was also very insightful for me.
In your original post, you wondered if the opportunity to advance is one worth pursuing, especially if ones calling, skill, and competency are better suited for the role that they are currently in.
That wondering resonated deeply with me as I’m currently working with a number of large churches that are hemorrhaging people. It hasn’t taken copious amounts of analysis to recognize that the hemorrhaging is, in part, due to the deficiencies of the leaders who, to a person, were remarkable leaders of smaller churches.
How would you coach a successful small church pastor who is considering a large church role to discern the way forward? How would you help them consider their sense of personal mission/vision and invite them to examine how that mission/vision could be compromised or embodied were the shift to occur?
Jer,
Churches hemorrhaging people for a lot of reasons but leadership plays a role is everyone of them. People not only have to buy into the leader they need to buy into the vision. Every good leadership decision is like a deposit into the life of the church, every bad decision is like a withdrawal. If the leader makes more withdrawals than deposits people leave. People also tend to exit because they don’t find meaningful relationships that keep them there. The larger the church the greater the challenge it is to connect people outside of Sunday. I attend a church that has 6 services a weekend. At best without being intentional and attending a small group as well as men’s events we could easily be strangers.
My coaching advice to pastor of small churches who aspire to be larger: First the church’s mission and vision needs to be birthed out of your mission and vision. If there is a conflict between what you sense God is calling you to do and the direction the church needs to go there is a problem. Second, a pastor is only as effective as those around him. To me a pastor’s primary job description should be teach the word, cast vision and equip and raise up leaders in the church. Most everything else can eventually be delegated away. Empowering people to minister is key to growth. One of the reasons small church pastors fail as the church grows is because they don’t like giving away control. Church growth statistics state that 1 pastor can only effectively shepherd 300 people by name. I could ramble but let me end with this thought. I believe part of the struggle inside the church is the church fails to assist believers in understanding God’s mission and vision for their lives and show them how the church can not only equip them to live it but how they can assist the church in fulfilling its mission and vision alongside them as well. Both need to happen! When is the last time you saw a church that was just as concerned with assisting a member living their mission and vision outside of Sunday church as they were trying to get them to support the inner church programs? How would the church programs differ if the church was truly concerned with equipping people to be successful in their jobs and their calling during the week?