{"id":5543,"date":"2015-09-03T15:52:21","date_gmt":"2015-09-03T22:52:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=5543"},"modified":"2015-09-03T15:52:21","modified_gmt":"2015-09-03T22:52:21","slug":"from-fad-to-discernment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/from-fad-to-discernment\/","title":{"rendered":"From Fad to Discernment"},"content":{"rendered":"

When Good to Great<\/em> came out in 2001, the hype of the book extended all the way to a growing church in Gig Harbor, Washington. Our Executive Pastor who loved all things Patrick Lencioni, Stephen Covey, and John Maxwell decided we, as a staff, needed to read the Jim Collins\u2019 book together. The concepts of the hedgehog, the flywheel, and Level 5 leadership became the common language in our culture as we looked at programs, desired number growth, and effective staff interactions. Much good came out of the conversation in defining \u201cgreat\u201d within a church context (even prior to the \u201cSocial Sectors\u201d monograph which Collins added later) with an atypical disciplined approach. The grappling forced us to look at what was important and distinct for our local environment.<\/p>\n

However, I will confess to a distinct distaste to what the continued conversation from Good to Great<\/em> created over time with \u201cgetting people off the bus.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Some staff seat positions were rearranged with changes that needed to occur. But what broke my heart, and eventually ended up contributing to my decision to leave the church staff, was the overconfidence effect that came into play as the Senior and Executive Pastors began to systematically remove staff members because they weren\u2019t the \u201cright fit.\u201d Those on the bus had to agree with the definition of effectiveness developed through the process. \u00a0To be exact, effectiveness became predicated on the number of new\u00a0parishioners, superseding the focus on how to deepen relationships with God and others. The \u201cgreat\u201d became a question of quantity, not quality.<\/p>\n

Over the next five years, staff changes created a revolving door whenever a staff member chose to disagree, or even simply ask for a longer period of time to decide, with an upper level decision. While a staff needs to work together for a culture to function well, disagreement with how things are done does not mean the culture is being undermined, rather it can create a healthier culture.<\/p>\n

I do not blame Good to Great<\/em>, especially in light of how Collins took to evaluating the value of his concepts for the Social Sectors. Rather, this type of book, as well as others along the way, serves as a reminder that fads can actually harm if discernment is based only on the \u201cnew best thing.\u201d Even as Collins learned along the way, it is better to \u201cinvest more time being interested.\u201d[1]<\/a> During that season while on staff, our desire for being cutting edge was to be interesting\/exciting, instead of listening and pausing around what the whispers of the Holy Spirit were offering.<\/p>\n

In retrospect, I appreciate my simultaneously required\u00a0(through my Masters program) reading from\u00a0Paul Hiebert\u2019s anthropological work on \u201cbounded sets\u201d vs. \u201ccentered sets.\u201d[2]<\/a> Bounded sets by definition are static, about the boundaries of who is in and out. Centered sets are dynamic where the movement is toward the center, rather than focusing on the boundary.[3]<\/a> Hiebert\u2019s description of how missionary work effectively draws in others appeals me to me with the focus on the center of what\u2019s most important. I am drawn to that focus of being centered, rather than defining who is on and off the bus. I recognize the need to make those hard decisions when there isn\u2019t a \u201cright fit\u201d appreciating Collins\u2019 words on eliminating a culture of \u201cniceness\u201d[4]<\/a> that can undermine the purpose of an organization. However, when the focus is only on who is in and who is out, or \u201cin or off the bus,\u201d something is lost in the desire for quantity over quality.<\/p>\n

On another curiosity note, I\u2019m wondering if\u00a0there is a correlation between Collins\u2019 book and his monograph for the Social Sectors with a movement towards\u00a0social entrepreneurship. \u00a0From that time and subsequently, there is an increasing number of businesses and non-profits from different ends of the spectrum looking at what it means to be a social entrepreneur type of company\/organization \u2013 focusing on purpose versus the bottom line financially or numerically. \u00a0For the non-profit with the possibility of making money, the advantage of using the Collins’ principles requires an honesty about finding an economically sustainable system while still centered on its main objective. \u00a0For the business, the financial ends can be replaced by purposeful passion that measure with a more holistic approach and outcome. \u00a0Just curious.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> James C. Collins, Good to Great and the Social Sectors: Why Business Thinking Is Not the Answer<\/em> ([Boulder, Colo.?]: J. Collins, \u00a92005), Author\u2019s Note.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Paul Hiebert, \u201cConversion, Culture and Cognitive Categories,\u201d Gospel in Context 11:4<\/em> (October 1978): 24-29.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> http:\/\/www.westernseminary.edu\/transformedblog\/2014\/01\/17\/whos-in-and-whos-out-christianity-and-bounded-sets-vs-centered-sets\/<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Collins, 32.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When Good to Great came out in 2001, the hype of the book extended all the way to a growing church in Gig Harbor, Washington. Our Executive Pastor who loved all things Patrick Lencioni, Stephen Covey, and John Maxwell decided we, as a staff, needed to read the Jim Collins\u2019 book together. The concepts of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[267,664],"class_list":["post-5543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-collins","tag-hiebert","cohort-lgp5"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5543","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5543"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5543\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5554,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5543\/revisions\/5554"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}