What happened?
It's been over a week now since I last blogged on here, and the main reason for this is that i wanted to try to digest some of the stuff I've been reading before I went on any further.
And here's some of my thoughts...
I fully agree with the whole idea of level 5 leadership, and the idea of putting together a team who have the right attitude and personality to take an organisation further toward its goal. I also think that the idea of encouraging your team to discuss the stuff that's going well (or where improvements need to be made) is really valid.
My issue though, is that I know leaders at both ends of the spectrum - those who clearly show level 5 leadership in the way they build a team and mobilize them to "play to their strengths", and those who can clearly see where God is calling their organisation and can pretty much inspire anyone to get on board and run towards the goal without necessarily thinking through the whole strengths and personality issues discussed in "good to great".
So where does that leave me?
I guess, the big question in my head at the moment is - "if you work on the whole level 5 leadership and playing to strengths ideals, then won't you end up with a vision based on doing what the people on your team happen to be good at, rather than having a clear focus for the organisation as a whole that everyone will throw themselves into?"
Any thoughts on this would be gratefully received. But as for now, I guess it's back to the book.
And here's some of my thoughts...
I fully agree with the whole idea of level 5 leadership, and the idea of putting together a team who have the right attitude and personality to take an organisation further toward its goal. I also think that the idea of encouraging your team to discuss the stuff that's going well (or where improvements need to be made) is really valid.
My issue though, is that I know leaders at both ends of the spectrum - those who clearly show level 5 leadership in the way they build a team and mobilize them to "play to their strengths", and those who can clearly see where God is calling their organisation and can pretty much inspire anyone to get on board and run towards the goal without necessarily thinking through the whole strengths and personality issues discussed in "good to great".
So where does that leave me?
I guess, the big question in my head at the moment is - "if you work on the whole level 5 leadership and playing to strengths ideals, then won't you end up with a vision based on doing what the people on your team happen to be good at, rather than having a clear focus for the organisation as a whole that everyone will throw themselves into?"
Any thoughts on this would be gratefully received. But as for now, I guess it's back to the book.
1 Comments
Leave a comment
Stats Counter
Powered by Visitor Stats
Sorry it's taken me so long to get round to reading your blogs. I was just getting interested and they have come to a halt - level 5 leaders don't go 3 weeks without blogging! lol
But seriously, you seem to be grappling with many of the issues. The problem with vision and mission statements is that everyone has a different definition - one man's mission statement is another man's vision statement. What they are called doesn't really matter, what you do need is a clear idea of where you are heading and how you plan to get there. Putting that into some descriptinve prose, bullet points or a slogan can be very helpful.
Personally I think a vision statement is likely to be more detailed, describing your "preferred" future, as someone has called it. The mission statement needs to be a bit more succinct and punchy to keep people focussed.
Interesting quandry about whether your people should shape your vision. I have always believed God will provide all the resources we need - including human giftings, but that doesn't mean we won't have to discern them in people or pray or recruit them in.
If you allow the known gifts to shape the vision I guess it would be pretty limiting.
That's all for now.
Martin