First who...then what

We're temporarily (through December or January) in a town that has a great public library. Actually, it has 3 of them and 1 of the branches is just a mile from us. Last week I checked out Jim Collins' "Good to Great: Why Some Corporations Make the Leap...and Others Don't" (Harper Business: New York, 2001).

This is another one of those great business books that has some useful applications to ch&rches & parach&rch organizations. It is based on principles, rather than gimmicks or charismatic personalities.

Chapter 3 is titled "first who...then what."

The executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there. No, they first got the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it. They said, in essence, "Look, I don't really know where we should take this bus. But I know this much: If we get the right people on the bus, and right people in the right seats, and the wrong people off the bus, then we'll figure out how to take it someplace great." (p. 41)

The good-to-great leaders understood three simple truths. First, if you begin with "who," rather than "what," you can more easily adapt to a changing world. If people join the bus primarily because of where it is going, what happens if you get ten miles down the road and you need to change direction? You've got a problem. But if people are on the bus because of who else is on the bus, then it's much easier to change direction: "Hey, I got on this bus because of who else is on it; if we need to change direction to be more successful, fine with me." Second, if you have the right people on the bus, the problem of how to motivate and manage people largely goes away. The right people don't need to be tightly managed or fired up; they will be self-motivated by the inner drive to produce the best results and to be part of creating something great. Third, if you have the wrong people, it doesn't matter whether you discover the right direction; you still won't have a great company. Great vision without great people is irrelevant. (p. 42).

I have been struck as to the amount of prayer Jsus put in before choosing His 12 disciples out of the group of followers around Him. I wonder if part of the reason is linked to these principles. Certain as the 2nd Person of the Tri*nity, He was present when the world was created. But if these principles are timeless & true, then Jesus was part of establishing them from the beginning of time.

Jesus certainly knew where He was going, unlike the CEOs of good-to-great companies who need to try to figure that out. However, the priority of choosing team members who will be faithful to the team and its direction seems like it was important back then, as it still is now.

In the University of Michigan football locker room, there is a banner or poster that says, "Those who stay will be champions." Part of creating a great team is getting people who will count the cost and stay committed to the team and each other through thick & thin.

This chapter also talks about being "rigorous, not ruthless" regarding personnel.

The good-to-great companies probably sound like tough places to work--and they are. If you don't have what it takes, you probably won't last long. But they are not ruthless cultures, they're rigorous cultures. And the distinction is crucial. (p. 52)

To be ruthless means hacking and cutting, especially in difficult times, or wantonly firing people without any thoughtful consideration. To be rigorous means consistently applying exacting standards at all times and at all levels, especially in upper management. To be rigorous, not ruthless, means that the best people need not worry about their positions and can concentrate fully upon their work. (p. 52)

To let people languish in uncertainty for months or years, stealing precious time in their lives that they could use to move on to something else, when in the end they aren't going to make it anyway--that would be ruthless. To deal with it right up front and let people get on with their lives--that is rigorous. (p. 53)

Collins makes 3 practical disciplines regarding "how to be rigorous." They are:

1. When in doubt, don't hire--keep looking.
   
   Those who build great companies understand that the ultimate throttle on growth for any great company is not markets, or technology, or competition, or products. It is one thing above all others: the ability to get and keep enough of the right people. (p. 54)
   
   
2. When you know you need to make a people change, act. (Corollary: First be sure you don't simply have someone in the wrong seat).
   
   The good-to-great companies showed the following bipolar pattern at the top management level: People either stayed on the bus for a long time or got off the bus in a hurry. In other words, the good-to-great companies did not churn more, they churned better. (p. 57)
   
   It might take some time to know for certain if someone is simply in the wrong seat or whether he needs to get off the bus altogether. Nonetheless, when the good-to-great leaders knew they had to make a people change, they would act. (p. 58)
   
   
3. Put your best people on your biggest opportunities, not your biggest problems. (Corollary: If you sell off your problems, don't sell off your best people).
   
   If you create a place where the best people always have a seat on the bus, they're more likely to support changes in direction. (p. 59)
   
   Managing your problems can only make you good, whereas building your opportunities is the only way to become great. (p. 59)
   
   Indeed, one of the crucial elements in taking a company from good to great is somewhat paradoxical. You need executives, on the one hand, who argue and debate--sometimes violently--in pursuit of the best answers, yet, on the other hand, who unify fully behind a decision regardless of parochial interests (p. 60)
   

It is vital to choose wisely the members of a team. As in sports, there are some players who add greatly to the team through their locker room demeanor. I find the last 2 paragraphs of this chapter to be significant.

Members of the good-to-great teams tended to become and remain friends for life. In many cases, they are still in close contact with each other years or decades after working together. It was striking to hear them talk about the transition era, no matter how dark the days or how big the tasks, these people had fun! They enjoyed each other's company and actually looked forward to meetings. A number of the executives characterized their years on the good-to-great teams as the high point of their lives. Their experiences went beyond just mutual respect (which they certainly had), to lasting comradeship.

Adherence to the idea of "first who" might be the closest link between a great company and a great life. For no matter what we achieve, if we don't spend the vast majority of our time with people we love and respect, we can't possibly have a great life. But if spend the vast majority of our time with people we love and respect--people we really enjoy being on the bus with and who will never disappoint us--then we will almost certainly have a great life, no matter where the bus goes. The people we interviewed from the good-to-great companies clearly loved what they did, largely because they loved who they did it with. (p. 62)