How well do you know where you serve?

All humans end up displaying some primal and tribal identification and affiliation tendencies. Simply said, we group together and favor our groups! And knowing the meaning of those groupings can be pretty important to understanding where we are, and more importantly, whom we serve.

This map is a labor of love built on the tribal soccer ("football" for the initiated) loyalties in London, England. Does this all matter, you may ask? Well, it seems to matter to those involved. And if you want to test my thesis, the next time you are in London, might I suggest you go a pub in any of the non Arsenal areas on this map and simply yell, "Go Gunners!" It will be an exciting way to make new friends and probably have conversation that otherwise would escape you.

When the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local," he was pointing to this very human sense of affiliation. We can know deeply those whom we are privileged to serve. And knowing them well allows us to serve them more deeply.

Are we listening to those we serve and are we learning about them?

A system of systems

When many of us think of IBM we think of computers and possibly other electronic machines. In reality, IBM has re-birthed itself as a service company that looks a problems (sometimes huge problems) and then tries to solve them. This link is to an IBM Executive Summary that measures the waste in the various macro-systems on our planet ( e.g. healthcare, transportation, education, communication, etc). IBM's estimate is that inefficiency costs us at least 25% of all we produce. That's staggering!

This IBM paper proposes changes based on what they call a "system of systems" approach. A "system of systems" approach looks at things from the micro point of view to understand what it happening locally but then zooms out to the macro level and looks at things up to a global level. Instead of focusing internally on just improving a local value chain, it asks, "what's the basic need or want here?" and then shares that information so that the solution is not only a local solution but a global one as well. They go on to share that the great enemy of system of systems thinking is a "silo mentality." A silo mentality lives in a closed space and wants to keep it that way. It wants solutions for problems inside the silo and could care less how that effects life outside the silo. In fact, it's likely to resist solutions from outside the silo because, "we don't do it that way here."

What would happen if we all began to look at what we do with a system of systems perspective? How can seeing ourselves being inherently interconnected lead us to better understandings and better solutions as well as greater service? What are our inefficiencies?

Do we have the courage to tackle all of this?

"From Visionaries to Operators to Caretakers"

In a December 13, 2008 NY Times op-ed piece, Tom Friedman says, "The auto consultant John Casesa once noted that Detroit’s management has gone from visionaries to operators to caretakers."

Hmm, visionaries to operators to caretakers. Visionaries see what is not and create it. Operators manage what is for optimum performance. Caretakers take care of that which is in decline, possibly ready to expire. That cycle is not limited to the current auto industry. What is sometimes referred to as the Organizational Life Cycle is very prevalent. And while no one sets out to be a caretaker, that is exactly what many end up doing.

So, what separates a visionary from an operator and a caretaker. Is it a matter of "risk-taking?" Is it an unusual capacity to see things that are not as though they are? Luck? Divine favor? All of the above?

I'll leave parsing that out to wiser parsers. What I will say is that conformity is what will insulate you into being carried along in the Organizational Life Cycle. Maybe wanting to insistently and consistantly ask, "Why is it better if we keep on doing it that way?" is a step towards keeping you leaning towards innovation and envisioning.

Yesterday's logic or today's "playing around?"

Peter Drucker said, "The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday's logic."

We are creatures of habit and our tendency is reach for the known as we face turbulence. Yet history shows us that doing the same old thing "one more time" can lead to catastrophic failure.
As our world seems headed into continual turbulence or, as Peter Vaill first termed it, "permanent whitewater," what does leadership look like and what does leadership do?

The Center for Creative Leadership had a blog post last June entitled, "Leadership in permanent whitewater: Playing with the metaphor." It suggests some interesting lessons for leaders from whitewater canoeing such as:

• Chaos in organizations is not random. Organizational turbulence is full of patterns. There are almost unimaginable layers of order enfolded within chaos. The nature of the order can be quite surprising, and is sometimes invisible to conventional wisdom. Turbulence can be an enormous aid, rather than an impediment, to prediction and control. Find new ways to learn the patterns--to "read the river." The development of this kind of perception is a core competency, not a frill.
  
• Play is essential within organizations if people are to develop an eye for patterns within chaos. Play is essential for action and innovation within chaos. Being consistently rule-bound is crippling. Serious play is a vital supplement to traditional learning. Organizational play requires safe places in which to break rules, make mistakes, and recover--and then try it again, and again. Find the higher-order rules which govern breaking rules with relative safety.
  
• Fundamental innovation can come from serious play at the fringes of organizations. Groups of mavericks busy violating common sense aren't all that bad. Making sense of chaos is ultimately a community venture including both the center and the fringe. Make room in the community for both the center and the fringes (and make sure any "skunkworks" are not in exile from the community).

Hmm, what do you think?

How to do a successful start-up

You can sometimes find life wisdom in unusual places. CNET has a summary of Scott McNealy's main points from a talk he gave at the recent Plug and Play Expo in Sunnyvale, CA that's focused on how to do a successful start-up. Who's Scott McNealy? He and some dudes started up Sun Microsystems. If that's not enough help, Google it.

Try these on life/start-up wisdom rules:

1. Have a controversial strategy
2. Break the rules of business, but don't lie cheat or steal to do it. [NOTE: he could have just said, "Innovate - don't repaint and call it innovation!"].
3. Get a little money, but not too much.
4. Have a cause.
5. Just do it, but marry well. [Scott delayed marrying till 39].

Is God calling you to a start-up of some kind? If so, what do you think about Scott's start-up rules?

And if you want some good PR help for your start-up, chk here.

LifeChurch and online community tools

There's an article at ReadWriteWeb, one of top web watchers, on how LifeChurch in Edmund, OK (but with 12 video-venue sites in different states) is leveraging the web thru online tools.

LifeChurch is attempting to get their church engaging online together using a variety of web tools such as Internet campus evites, Tweets (using Twitter) and a live video stream thru Mogulus. Additionally, they are partnering with RaggamuffinSoul.com.

When you check this all out, you'll see it represents a rich environment to both build community and grow out beyond the community.

What does this look like when it's global ?

"Abstractly Evocative"

What is more compelling and persuasive? Something that is concrete and clear like the typical "head shot" photo or something that demands that you tease out its meaning?

I heard an artist say that his organization strives to be "abstractly evocative." And I can't get that phrase out of my head. So, I Googled a web search and suprisingly, only 53 hits came up. Most had to do with art directly or something in literature that appealed to something that was sensual. When did the same on images, only 3 hits came up. One that I found particularly interesting is "Anchored in Perath," a musical score based on the Apocalypse: http://www.buckthornstudios.com/shop1.html.

Part of my questions then roam to whether God is at times "abstractly evocative" in his communication with me/us. Are the Gospels a "head shot" of Jesus or are they "abstractly evocative?" [cf. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the word..."]

Finally, am I/are we "abstractly evocative" enough or often enough in my/our communication?
Do I draw people into meaning or am I so concerned with clarity that it's impossible that it would interest them.