"For if a law had been given that could give life"

I have observed over my years how some parents have placed their children, especially their teens under law. The goal of controlling parents might be to protect their child from harm or to create "perfect" kids so others will see the parents in a positive light. Behind these and most other goals is the need to avoid blame and shame, the parents' own bondage to law. While it is a good thing that children are not harmed and that they grow up to reflect well on their parents, often the result is a child who lacks life. By this I mean that the child's self esteem hits rock bottom, like the gas gauge in the car showing the orange light. Depending on the child's personality they will either develop "learned helplessness" or will openly rebel. Either result is a child who grows into an adult lacking life.

This is what Paul is saying to the Galatians about using the law to guide our path. He goes on to say "then righteousness would indeed be by the law." The "if" suggests that the purpose and power of the law is not to give life.  The point is that a life that has been examined and deemed approved (righteousness) is not determined by following rules. When morality and obedience are used in parental relationships primarily to control children in accomplishing the parents' goal, the child's soul is under judgment and not nourished, and life is sucked out of them.

I am witnessing the destructive consequences of parents who both leave their child to figure life out on their own (leading to a sense of abandonment) and put them in a small box by condemning what they do or dont do. Mainly the parents choose to constantly point out how the child is constantly not measuring up to their standards. Any guidance they give is legalistic. Communication is shut down and alienation results as trust is destroyed. In the name of protection and morality, the parents are producing an adult child who cannot function. More importantly, the adult child is so starved for affection and affirmation that they relate to others in an overly needy way. This drives others away, creating an even greater need for affirmation. Anyone who pays attention to the adult child instantly becomes a "best friend", ultimately driving that person away too.

The effect of legalistic parents on the growth and development of their children is a common example of this Biblical truth. Ironically, this is as, if not more, prevalent in Christian homes.

Every occurrence is sad, but when this happens to those close to us, it becomes "heart break hotel".

But there's always HOPE in the redemptive work of Grace.

Fathers, give your children, especially teens
        favor
        all that is good (that's peace, shalom, btw)
        life

i HOPE i make this putt

Like in golf, people often use the word HOPE to really mean "wish". "i hope it doesn't rain today", "i hope i get this or that for Christmas", and so on. This has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time but I just got home from golf with the guys and I was reminded how much we misuse the word. When a bud said "i hope the opponents are struggling today," I reminded him that we had no assurance that they were messing up so you really have no hope, just a wish.

I then took the opportunity to explain that we make the real notion of hope meaningless because we have chronic misuse of it in our culture.




You may be saying to yourself by now, "what's the big deal?" Well, one reason the Christian faith is irrelevant to the faithless in our world is because the HOPE that is promised doesn't have meaning beyond that of a wish. Its not a very exciting proposition to simply wish God is on our side, or just wish His promises are true or wish He would bless us.

The word HOPE means an assurance or confidence something is. So when we HOPE something is true or going to happen, the probability is 100% that it is or will. The original Webster dictionary says "hope always gives joy whereas wish or desire may produce or be accompanied by pain or anxiety."  Thus when God in His word says your HOPE is in Him, He means you can depend on Him, not just wish He comes through.

I love Abraham's perspective when God said he would be a father of many generations. He was very old and had no heir. Abraham claimed he "in HOPE, without HOPE, believed." In other words Abraham believed the assurance of God's promise even when there was no confidence in what he saw or understood about his ability to father a nation.

When we have 100% assurance we will make the putt, we can say "i HOPE i make that putt." Until then we need to stay with "wish" so that we don't embed in our mind the HOPE we receive from God is only likely. Our joy and freedom depends on how we make sense of HOPE.

Making sense like a Seal

Tonight I heard Thom Shea speak. Thom is a retired Navy Seal and author of the book "Unbreakable: A Navy Seal's Way of Life".

Thom served 23 years with distinguished Valor as a Navy SEAL. During his military career he served in three wars, ultimately leading a team of Navy SEALs into Afghanistan in 2009 where he earned a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Valor, Army Commendation with Valor and his second Combat Action medal. He was hand-selected to serve as Officer In Charge of the famed SEAL Sniper course from 2010 – 2012. During his two year tenure, he transformed the sniper curriculum while successfully increasing both graduation numbers and shooting performance test scores.

Thom currently works with executives and high performance individuals "to achieve the next horizon level results." Instead of just telling interesting stories, Thom shared the mindset of a Navy Seal and how that form of sense-making leads to success as a seal in battle or as an individual in any area of life. Below are just quotes from his sharing with the group that I found self explanatory so I find no need to embellish them, just report them for your hearing.

"Quitting is up to me, nobody else.
When your plan fails, now everything is possible.
I don't have a solution, I'm always in motion til it happens.
Two inches from the point you give up is the solution.
You don;t need permission, just do it - change what's in your way.
I am living the life I created for myself.
Embrace the obstacles.
Quitting almost always makes sense.
Don't decide 9to quit or go on) "here", get to "there" and make the decision.
If you don't give up, it is phenomenal.
No matter how smart you are, if you are not committed to the end game, you cannot win."
It doesn't matter who the boss is, you can always be effective.
It doesn't matter who the enemy is, they are the enemy.
High level performers are always honing their craft.
What if you gave yourself permission not to quit to make yourself better."

Success as a Navy Seal was being transformed by this mindset and living it right in the throws of defeat.

Certainly worth pondering ..... 

"The Theory of Everything"

The recent movie by this title is the story of Steven Hawking, a British physicist noted for his book "The Brief History of Time." The focus of Hawking's development as a physicist was his quest for "the perfect equation." He believed that there existed a single equation that could explain all of life, such as origin of universe and the meaning of time. The word "theory" does not refer to abstraction or "blue sky" as many generally think. A theory is simply explaining the way something is. While some of the fascination with Hawking has been his contribution to secular humanist philosophies, some has been his miraculous initiatives during his dehabilitating illness.

As I sat watching an interesting story, but trying to understand what he really was saying (he has a lot of contradicting positions), it dawned on me that "The Theory of Everything" great minds pursued is not AN EQUATION, but the demand there must be AN EQUATION. What do I mean by this? In my research and studies I have come to the conclusion that the core explanation of the natural world (as evidenced by economics, ecology, physics, religion, and humanity) is the equilibrium imperative. The very fact that everything needs an equation to be properly explained is in itself the basis for everything. The need to have the left side of an equation to be in balance with the right side of the equation is the fundamental explanation of everything. Hawking actually acknowledges this (albeit unknowingly) when he writes, "ever since the dawn of civilization, people have not been content to see events as unconnected and inexplicable. They have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world."

Without ever questioning it, people immediately seek "cause and effect", every outcome must be connected to a cause -

    
Columbine, Katrina, 9/11, price of oil, 2008 financial crisis, and so on. People are obsessed with what's on the other side of the equation, never questioning their assumption that there must be an equation. What explains everything is the requirement for equation (equilibrium).

Hawking found his work especially problematic in dealing with humanity. In his book he states, "If there really is a complete unified theory that governs everything, it presumably also determines your actions. But it does so in a way that is impossible to calculate for an organism that is as complicated as a human being." I find his lack of application for his "theory of everything" in human behavior interesting because my theory of everything does explain human behavior. In the field of humanity the equilibrium imperative is explained by the companion theories of Social Exchange, Equity, and Attribution (as I have written about many times in various forms). BTW, my theory of everything is not really mine, God gave it to all of us in His word.

An interesting object lesson embedded in Hawking's story is his wife. Falling in love with Steven as a Ph D student before his illness, she decided to marry him when she found out about his illness and "committed her life" to helping him through his challenges, given she thought he would only live two years. After many years of tremendous courage (3 children with Steven) and sacrifice of her own pursuits for a Ph D, she eventually succumbed to the pressure of a seemingly one-way relationship. At some point what was on the left side of her equation denoting benefits of relationship with Steven didn't balance with her sacrifices and lack of self satisfying life experiences. So the marriage ended and she sought to live her life with another man. Disequilibrium seeking equilibrium explains the behavior of his wife. Although she was a member of the Church of England, her Christianity had not transformed her from being subject to the governance of her humanity.

This is where the "Theory of Everything" runs into a problem, even mine. Hawking's and my theory on the equilibrium imperative explains only the natural order of life. Lets call this the kingdom of this world, governed by equations. God tells us that He has a Kingdom and it is different. Grace, not equilibrium, explains how this Kingdom is governed. We are told that His Kingdom is eternal and invisible, while the kingdom of this world is temporal and visible. Jesus would often say, "The Kingdom of heaven is like this...", to emphasize another Kingdom.

Thus we have a problem with a theory for everything, there are two worlds, which are distinctly different. So different that the core theory for each are completely contradictory (incompatible). Maybe this is why Hawking kept finding a need to contradict himself. He was anchored in one kingdom but occasionally receiving glimpses of the other Kingdom.

That's how the movie made me ponder ......

Justice makes u feel equal - Grace makes u feel special

There has been much made of the Ferguson Mo incident as it relates to the current state of race relations in the US. The dominant theme of protest is injustice done to blacks by the law enforcement community, which is seen as collateral damage from a bigoted society. There is a significant perspective in the American church that Christians have failed to do their part in society to enhance the justice afforded the African American community. This criticism generally stems from the assumptions about the connection of social justice and the Gospel.

I have long been critical myself about the view of Christians in the US I call "the social gospel". I must make the distinction between the role of Christians to carry out their faith in a fallen world, to be salt and light, and the idea that the central theme of the Gospel and the main concern of Jesus is justice.

Justice is grounded in man's need for equilibrium - get what u deserve or equal distribution of wealth, etc. Despite the problem that fairness has multiple norms, such as equity, equality, and need, and is therefore impossible to get society to agree on what is fair, justice is man's need, not God's plan of redemption.

For instance, in Matt 20 Jesus explains what the Kingdom is like. He describes workers who labor all day but get the same reward as those who work only a few hours. Social justice advocates ask, doesn't this mean that justice is equality and central to the Kingdom? No, Jesus says that the Kingdom operates at the discretion of the King, that He does what he wants and that His desire is to bless kingdom dwellers as He pleases (Grace, substantiated in much of the New Testament). Those individuals that demand justice (btw, justice is the equity norm of fairness), can't face the Grace of the Master and leave. "The first shall be last and the last first" is not in any form a statement of justice as the prevailing norm of the Kingdom.

Pointing others to justice is NOT pointing others to Christ. Treating others fairly may make them feel equal, but treating others with the Grace that flows through us makes them feel SPECIAL - a more excellent way.
      
certainly worth pondering and is explained in more depth in

"Obedience Applied"

This is the title of a recent sermon on Philippians 2: 12-13 (some of my favorite scripture). Those of you that know me can speculate on how I must have cringed at this title. My issue is not with "obedience" itself (although I do struggle with rules), but with the perspective that "obedience" is not the heart of the Gospel. Being obedient is not the "good news". Grace is. Immediately I wished the title of the sermon was "Grace Applied."

I generally do not take exception to my pastor's theology of "obedience", just the central focus of it. He defines "obedience" as "faith in action", unlike the notion of rule following as many other preachers do. However, the ears of parishioners are tuned into rule following as the meaning of obedience. partially because our flesh demands legalism (equilibrium imperative) and partially because this is what the word actually means. Obedience is the somewhat automatic, demanded response to authority. The seas and the demons "obeyed" Jesus because of His authority over them. Obedience in scripture has a military context, soldiers have to obey their authority or they no longer remain soldiers.

When the basis of the Christian life is tied to this notion of obedience, behavior conforming to the law or God's commandments, then there is no joy, hope, and significance. This is a futile treadmill. This is why so many Christians live this side of eternity with a "grin and bear it" posture, looking for deliverance at our biological death. It is true that we do in some ways moan for our full redemption, but our life here and now should expect the outcome of the good news. Jesus came so that we may have joy, abundant life. Is that only for later? I don't think so.

A song by Aaron Senseman includes these lines,

"There is truth in His body, raised the third day.
There is joy in a stone rolled away.
There is hope pouring out of the tomb where He lay,
pouring out, pouring out over the grave."

The Incarnate Christ, conquering sin and death, on our behalf is our joy, hope and significance - here and now. Christmas is about Jesus' obedience not ours, creating the disequilibrium of Grace, FOR US.

To fully enjoy the reason for the season, we must find the freedom in Grace, not to do anything we wish, but to live in thanksgiving, without the shackles of our STINKIN THINKIN

  

"The Ascent of Humanity"

Recently a friend of mine, who has a very different background from me, asked if I had read the book, "The Ascent of Humanity"? Being I find reading lots of content (600 pages in this case) challenging because of how much time I spend reflecting on every thought, I said I had not but would be interested in reading it based on the appeal of the book to him. His comments to me were focused on how man has used technology and culture to advance civilization, but the world is in as big or bigger crisis than it has ever been. The point that grabbed his attention was the author's conclusion that technology and culture has progressively separated mankind from nature and in that mankind has lost the beauty and rhythm nature affords.

I began reading the book, which is thoughtful and well written, looking for the author's core assumptions. My assumption going in was that he has not discovered anything new, but has found a new application for or approach to ageless philosophies of life. The book starts with the futility of the notion of progress

“Yet as the environment continues to deteriorate, as job security evaporates, as the international situation worsens, as new incurable diseases appear, as the pace of change accelerates, it seems impossible to rest at ease. The world grows more competitive, more dangerous, less hospitable to easy living, and security comes with greater and greater effort. And even when temporary security is won, a latent anxiety lurks within the fortress walls, a mute unease in the background of modern life. “

But there is "good news"  (I was taken with his choice of words here)

“Underlying the vast swath of ruin our civilization has carved is not human nature, but the opposite: human        nature denied. This denial of human nature rests in turn upon an illusion, a misconception of self and world.  We have defined ourselves as other than what we are, as discrete subjects separate from each other and separate from the world around us. In a way this is good news:”

Here are a few paraphrased exerts from the book that present the solution:

Human nature has misunderstood itself and simply needs to return to its truest form. Humanity needs to be more human!!

Reconceptualizing our self as a part of a whole (other humanity and nature) rather than as separate beings is our answer.

Technology is our assault on nature, seeking to defy its boundaries for self interest. This is the age old assumption that basically mankind and nature are good (not fallen) and that we must just rediscover that goodness.  

We believe we are bad because the world has told us we are bad in order to control us.

Our solution is to trust in our goodness to guide us and we will find freedom from having to control our world to make us feel good. 

I agree with author in the futility of technology and culture to resolve man’s quest for freedom, significance, joy and hope. I do not agree that we have denied our human nature and therefore must return to being one with each other and with the natural world to restore the well being of our soul.  I believe we are inextricably bound by our human nature and that's our problem. The author recognizes the basic yearning in our soul for what can and should be and the futility of our control over our world to deliver. I agree fully there, but he finds the answer in our relationship with the Universe, not God. The author's quite extensive treatise in Chapter Two seems to point to the notion that at its core, our nature desires intimacy (my words not his). The Apostle John said something similar when he said "this is eternal life, that we know the only true God and His son whom he sent." The word for "know" means "to have deep intimate experience with." So while the author has done well to point human kind to its greatest source of well being, his solution is union with the cosmic universe and not the creator of it.

This book is just more humanistic theology - man is basically good and the answers to a significant and wonderful existence are found in a collectivist society and our unity with nature. Man must  cease to separate himself from others and nature, and the world will be a better place. The power is in each of us to do this.

An opposing viewpoint and case for our human defect that makes it impossible for mankind to create his own Utopia is found in my book  

"what is the right thing to do?"

Most of us throughout our life have found this to be a fundamental question we ask in many situations we find our selves. Philosophy (ethics) or Religion tend to be the source of choice to inform us of "what is the right thing to do?" Since my thought life and writings have focused on the distinction between the carnal mind and the Kingdom mind, I'll use this dichotomy of sense-making to provide my perspective on this question.

If we are dealing facts right means "correct", but this question deals with behavior. The carnal mind will anchor "right" as somewhat a synonym of "fair." Thus, what is "right" tends to be defined by what is "fair." Webster's original dictionary defines "right" as "just, equitable, according to the standard of truth and justice." This is an 1828 version of human thi nking about "right." The current view of "right" has not varied much but would include in addition to fair and just the notion of moral and ethical. "Fair" (equitable) is based on maintaining the idea of equilibrium of the ratio of what is the deserved outcome one receives to what is provided by the one receiving the outcome with some standard or expectation. What is ethical refers to actions we take (behavior) that "fits" society's standards so we can exchange our behavior for favor of those in the society we belong. These ideas of "right" are consistent with the equilibrium imperative I describe as the "carnal mind" in my book Stuck in Stinkin' Thinkin'. In this frame of sense-making, "doing the right thing" is an imperative humans have in order to act in a way that we receive from society the "good housekeeping seal of approval."

In Religious terms there is basically no variance of sense-making in what we get from Philosophy. We simply replace society's favor with God's favor. It is still an equilibrium imperative in which we behave in order to receive something from outside our self that provides us some aspect of well being. When society or God does not "do the right thing" back, we become disgruntled at them and withhold our affection and further actions we might take on their behalf.

The Kingdom mind (which is not religion BTW) is based on Grace and not equilibrium. In this case the "doing the right thing" is not based on equity or morality, but thanksgiving. "The right thing" has nothing to do with reciprocity or obligation, but rather a desire to share with others and God from the blessing we have received from God. Its more of a "pass it own" idea where "it" was freely given to us in the first place by God, whether "it" is time, money, abilities, possessions, or even our life itself. "Doing the right thing" is playing out what God has put in us, in faith and free of expectation of consequences.

Let's take a simple example. Suppose you are in a Christian group that meets periodically and the hosting of the meetings are not defined or follows no formula. Any member just notifies the others that he/she will host the next meeting. When a member of the group says, "I'll host next time" they can be motivated either by the carnal mind or the Kingdom mind. The carnal mind says, "its my turn" or "its only fair that I do my share of hosting." The Kingdom mind would say " I love to share my home in hospitality with my friends." While the behavior is the same, both satisfy A definition of "its the right thing to do", which motivation would bless the group the most?

Just something to ponder .......

Making sense of the "Ice Bucket Challenge"

The Ice Bucket Challenge is a social phenomenon that many say will change the face of marketing for non profits in significant ways. For the one or two of you that are not aware of what the challenge is, here's a brief explanation. The challenge is from one person to another to dump an ice bucket over their head, video the event and post on social media. What does dumping ice bucket over one's head do for anybody?

The purpose is to bring awareness to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). ALS "is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and the spinal cord." It is not very common but very aggressively destructive to the human condition. The ALS Association has been a around for 30 years to fight ALS in every way possible. Its a non-profit that provides advocacy and funding for programs of treatment and research. The need for ALS Association's services have been real and known for years, raising $15 to $20 million in recent years through normal non-profit marketing means.

In less than one month The Ice Bucket Challenge raised approx $23 million for the ALS Association. People by the millions have been motivated to video themselves dumping ice on their head and post on social media to challenge friends and colleagues to do the same. How do we explain the behavioral impact of this phenomenon so that we can transfer learning to. organizations who wish to increase economic response from the public to their products and services?

The answer is found in what we learn about making our products and services salient to those that make up our market. Too often campaigns to help people understand the need or value of the product/service is the focus of the message. Its very common for people to know that a product/service can satisfy their need without ever acting on behalf of acquiring the product/service. Knowledge and need are necessary for behavior but not sufficient. SALIENCY is what ultimately moves or motivates a person to act. Saliency is the least familiar and less understood facet of motivation, but absolutely critical is we are to be successful motivating people to behave as we wish (such as purchase our product). What can we learn from The Ice Bucket Challenge about saliency?

The Ice Bucket Challenge creates disequilibrium and then establishes legitimacy, the way to make something salient. Disequilibrium can be created in many ways. In this case its the combination of entertainment and challenge. These interrupt our status quo, producing an open mind via emotional stimulus. This is why motivational speakers, pastors, coaches, etc. use stories that make us laugh or make us cry. They create emotional disequilibrium, allowing the message to get our attention.    

The Ice Bucket Challenge uses a medium that carries legitimacy via social contagion. the fact that a friend, or otherwise respected person, challenges us gives the behavior legitimacy. I am not "weird" if I do it. In fact I may be considered "weird" if I don't. "Everybody's doing it" is the power of contagion. 

People do the challenge, thereby drawing attention to ALS, because its attention getting and its cool. Aflac did this with the duck. nothing changed about their product, but an entertaining, well presented duck changed Aflac's awareness and attraction ten fold. 

 I think the message here is that while organizations of all kinds focus mainly on the need they meet and the message of knowledge to others about how they meet the need, they too often fail to focus on and understand how to make their product/service salient. Its a difficult concept, but those that get it right have extraordinary success.

The Ice Bucket Challenge - making saliency salient!!

Certainly worth pondering ..... 

making sense of stewardship

"moreover, it is required in stewards that one be found faithful."

I have found STEWARDSHIP to be one of the most misunderstood concepts within the practices of Christian churches. In many mainstream denominations "stewardship" is code for financial campaigns. Stewardship is the time in the fall when pastors preach so that parishioners will give. Its the context by which the financial needs of churches have been met over my lifetime.

When criticized that preachers just want people to give more money, terms such as 'whole life stewardship" have been adopted to divert or dilute attention on the financial giving aspect of stewardship. BUT, everybody knows what's going on :-)

I went thru a period where I was particularly "turned off" by the emphasis on "sacrificial giving." This was code for " give til it hurts." It seemed that underwriting this idea was the notion that what I had belonged to me and that I was being sacrificial if I gave "my money" or "my time" to the church instead of spending them on my own needs and interests.

I believe there has been a great deal of damage done by the way people have been led to make sense of stewardship. I believe the proper way to view stewardship is not in determining what part of my stuff do I need to give to God but to understand that I own nothing in the first place. Stewardship is seeing my "stuff" and time not as my possession I am giving partially away, but seeing everything as a gift that I caretake for a period of time.

The Apostle Paul goes on (after saying the quote above) to say some very profound truths -
"For who makes you different from another? and what do you have you did not receive? Now if indeed you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?"

The secret to making sense of stewardship is acknowledging that everything we have is God's gift of Grace to us. Stewardship is about what we do with gifts we have received. Do we "brag" about what we give as if we produced it and it is intended for our benefit or do we freely nurture and share in thanksgiving that which has been given to us because it was entrusted to us for His benefit and Glory?

I believe the way we make sense of stewardship is directly related to the degree Grace has transformed our soul. Even our view of stewardship is a gift ........ How about that!!

You need more than need to make a sale

Almost every business exec thinks that if their products or services meets people's needs then they should be successful selling them. Yet, the same business executives are frequently and constantly frustrated with how much better their products and services are than their competitors, but people still choose to buy and use competitive products.

What's the issue? Why is it so difficult for business strategies to create more sales?

I believe that traditional sales and marketing practices are focused on product features and price and creating more knowledge for customers and consumers so they would choose their products. While all of these are important tenets of strategy, they are necessary, but not sufficient to convert someone to a customer.

Ultimately for someone to buy your product or service if they have not before or to buy more than they have in the past, the customer must behave differently than they previously have. Sales is the product of volume and price and volume is the product of penetration, frequency and transaction size. Other than raising price, increased sales can only occur when someone buys that hasn't before (penetration), buys more often than they have before (frequency), or buy more when they purchase than they did before. If increased sales is primarily a behavioral change event, why don't business executives view their strategy through the lenses of behavioral change.

This would involve realizing that no matter how much one knows that a product will meet their need, if they are not willing to abandon their status quo, they will not change. This willingness is the first step to changing behavior and is called "unfreezing" (Lewin's change model).

Therefore, for sales to increase through increased penetration, frequency, or transaction size, customers have had to be willing to do something different than they are currently doing. What causes this desire to change (unfreezing)?

"Unfreezing" is about willingness, which is a motivational process. At the heart of motivation is valence and saliency. Valence is the degree something is important to us. This is in a sense "the need". However, valence is not sufficient for someone to change their behavior. The behavior and its associated outcome must not just meet a need, but be salient. This aspect of behavior often escapes sales and marketing practices. Most businesses just think their products must be important and have value (meet a need) to someone for them to become a customer. NOT SO!!!

Many people know that eating better and exercising more would make them feel better and add to the quality of their life. However, obesity and diabetes is rampant. Is this because people do not feel a need to feel better and live longer? I have met with several insurance salesmen recently. After they give me a spill for how their products meet people's needs for protecting income and/or saving for retirement, i ask why doesn't everyone buy? Everyone has the need. To what degree do people really shop around for anything but term insurance? The failure to sell retirement or savings oriented products is rarely that the individual bought someone else's product but that they did not buy at all. Why?

Retirement or savings are not usually salient to the customer. What makes something salient? A behavior is salient when the outcome is urgent and can't be delayed. It is salient when the outcome is likely, practical, and normal (legitimate). Change occurs when someone believes the status quo is riskier than the new. Saliency occurs when the new behavior "must" be engaged. Saliency is often prompted by disequilibrium occurring in the status quo. For instance the stock market drops significantly or interest rates take a sudden rise. The need is not in the value of the outcome but in the risk avoidance of the outcome (this is what gets the individual's attention). For someone to take income from today and invest it for the future must realize that the risk of losing today in creating net worth is greater than the risk of not spending for today's pleasures. I do not find insurance salesmen, even the best, focusing on this risk assessment. they usually focus on the need to retire and knowledge of "time value of money". Those are important to people but often not made salient AND sales often fail to occur.

One note about customers. they are the ones who purchase the product or service. They are usually concerned about price and the service experience (convenience, "top of mind" awareness, ease to obtain and accessibility). These will be the purchase criteria unless the consumer controls the purchase. the consumer is concerned more about psychological and physical attributes of the product. Price is more about fairness and value and usually is not a factor unless price is prohibitive. Product features inform the consumer's experience associated with the outcome from using the product (trust, quality, pleasure, legitimacy, social and personal identity, ease of use).

The customer's risk is that there is a better deal otherwise or that the product will not meet the consumer's desired experience. These risks must be eliminated for the customer to buy. The more the consumer influences the customer (even if it is the same person), the less the risk there is for the customer to purchase. Consumer's risks are generally reduced the greater the social and personal identity and legitimacy (acceptance by others) and the greater the trust and dependability (reputation) of the product.

There's a lot here but you can read more about it in "Winning in a Hostile Environment", available at Amazon.com  

more on conflict

A common perspective among people is "I avoid conflict like the plague." Many feel there is a social stigma to creating conflict. The way you perceive conflict can have significant influence on your behavior. When you see conflict as negative, you will often not challenge others even though you think they are wrong. Similarly, if you avoid conflict, you will not stand up to challenges from others to your own ideas. Unfortunately, the belief that conflict is always negative and that you should avoid it is misguided. Many organizations fail to innovate in a constantly changing world because members of the organization avoid conflict.

The fact is that conflict is inevitable in organizations and provides a force for positive change. "Inherent in all organizations are divisions of labor (differing goals), interdependence (people need other people), and scarce resources" (Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 2011). There is a natural need for units in organizations to work with other units that have conflicting goals, such as sales and manufacturing. Solving the natural conflicts is in the organization's best interest. Systemic failure to approach conflict results in "functional silos". When organizational units isolate themselves to avoid dealing with other units, the organization experiences a fundamental disengagement with its strategic initiatives. The same can occur among employees within a unit when each one’s goals do not have an overall purpose and employees become individualistic.

Therefore, one difference between managing and leading is to see conflict as an opportunity to advance the organization’s chances to win in the future. Leaders encourage their employees to see conflict as positive. Leaders give employees permission to challenge others when they believe they are wrong and to appropriately defend their own positions when they believe they are on sound ground. How an employee perceives and responds to conflict within the organization may not only have a significant impact on how well the employee performs their assignment(s), but also the degree the employee will act positively on behalf of the organization beyond their assignment.

Play the Whole Game

When i was a young man, companies would try to tell me about my retirement benefits when recruiting me. I somewhat arrogantly shunned their attempts because retirement was so far away it was totally irrelevant to me. When I was at my peak earnings, articles in WSJ, seminars and conversations ultimately focused on the question, "how much do you need to retire?" People would talk about how they couldn't wait to retire so they could travel more. It seemed that retiring early was almost a "badge of courage" for Baby Boomers.

I have come to realize that the notion of retirement is destructive to the human soul. It denotes a time in which we "pull out of the mainstream", we no longer see ourselves or are seen by others as contributors. This does not discount people who have retired from their career only to have a productive life as a volunteer. However, volunteering is more of a "giving back" than a sense of "contributing to." Don't misunderstand me, volunteering is a good thing and giving is an admirable aspect of our character. The point is it does not nourish our soul to "resign" to a life of volunteering when we feel that we have much more to give. People of age have experience and wisdom beyond what they provided at the peak of the contributions from their careers. People of age still have aspirations to impact others, not just provide helpful, but simple tasks. Especially when the have a high need for achievement. However, the social orientation of retirement seems to constrain what older people may expect of themselves and what others may expect from them.  

This may lead to some frustration and even sadness in the hearts of the aging Boomers. The anecdote - PLAY THE WHOLE GAME!! Perceiving the end of the game as the end of life rather than the end of one's career can restore lost energy and passion that may have been lost at retirement.

One more thing, retirement may be a psychological state versus a time in life when one no longer works for a living. We used to joke that my dad "retired" in his job 10 years before his retirement. Anyone is susceptible to dropping out of the game at any point, willing to accept the score as it is at that time. The fact is our story continues to be told as long as we are on this side of eternity. Playing the whole game honors our story. After all, our story is HIS story.

"Dont make waves"

I've been sitting on the beach for several days now and noticed there just are no waves. I thought to myself (which I am prone to do), that is not a good operating philosophy for an ocean catering to tourists. Surfers and active ocean dwellers benefit from waves.



I thought more about this (as I am prone to do) and realized that this often describes the culture of organizations. This operating philosophy makes for a safe, predictable working environment. However, millennial professionals, high achievers, natural change agents (all of which organizations need engaged) feel bored and frustrated, eventually losing interest. Moreover, while organizations desire and need levels of disruption to innovate and adapt to a changing, hostile environment, a "make no waves" culture can be the greatest obstacle to sustained success.

As "make no waves" makes for a safe trip to the beach, it results in unengaged ocean dwellers. Of course, high and chaotic waves from a hurricane can be destructive. Thus, while making waves can be beneficial, there are limits. BUT, being afraid of the destruction and desiring "no waves" may have similar devastating consequences.

Something to ponder, both as an individual and as an organization ......  

whilst or after? it does matter

The Heidelberg Catechism Q32 answers the question, "why are you called a Christian?", this way - "because I am a member of Christ by faith, and thus am a partaker of His anointing, that I may confess His name and present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to Him ...." This is very good and the catechism should stop RIGHT HERE, but it doesn't. It goes on to add, "and that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and Satan in this life and AFTERWARD reign with Him eternally over all creatures."

What's your impression of this last part? Is our role as a Christian to "fight against sin and Satan?" Is that how you see your life? How does that role compare to the life of testimony to His name, of Thanksgiving and of fellowshiping with His anointing? Doesn't the joy, hope, freedom and significance kinda get stomped on as I see myself in a fight and the reward is after I die? Is this what we too often receive from the pulpit? I have often heard the preacher say, "fight the good fight on earth so that when you die, you'll go to Heaven."

Ay yi yi yo yo - sounds like an exchange to me. Is this what Jesus says to us in His word? I don't think so. He says "I have come so that you may ahve joy and that your joy may be full". He says "do not fear for your Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom." He says I am the truth and the truth shall set you free." NOW, not LATER.

Apostle Paul tells us that yes we are 'in Christ", NOW, not LATER. "old things have passed away and behold all things have become NEW." NOW, not LATER. Paul said "but God ..... made us alive together with Christ and made us sit together in the Heavenly places in Christ Jesus. " NOW, not LATER.

Don't let well intended but ill informed pastors convince you of the last part of this catechism. Ask him to please stop after the first part. The Christian resides in the Kingdom, NOW, not LATER. While Satan and our flesh sometimes constrain us from experiencing the blessings of Grace, the fight has been won. NOW, not LATER. The joy, freedom, significance, and hope of a Christian is not in his fight, but in his faith. Our eternal reign is not AFTER we die, but NOW as we live.

Don't let bad doctrine rob you of the blessings of God. Paul says "Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every Spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ."  The first blessing is our adoration and worship toward God (we "Bless God"). The second "blessed" is that God has "bestowed" on us - blessed us with what? "EVERY Spiritual blessing in the heavenly places", which is all the provisions and privileges of the Heavenlies. Paul is not saying AFTER you duke it out here with Satan and die, you can have this. He says this is NOW your reality as a Christian.

IN thanksgiving, live this reality out, right where you are - NOW, not LATER.

something to ponder .......

Making sense of inspiration

Leadership is about inspiring employee behavior as an alternative to inducing it (that’s managing). The challenge organizations face is how to motivate employees beyond the job description and performance objectives associated with compensation. This is the point of the obsession organizations have with leadership.Historically organizations have tried practices, such as “stretch goals” and bonuses, to obtain the “extra effort” they desire from workers. However, these are simply derivatives and extensions of managing, providing employees with extrinsic exchanges, which predefine and limit the effort of employees.

The desire for leadership is to tap into the intrinsic motivation of workers so they put forth effort for the benefit of something beyond the personal exchange of behavior for extrinsic reward. At the heart of leadership is inspiration. People use the word “inspire” often, but it’s common to hear the comment “you cannot inspire ….” (fill in the blank, “students”, “cashiers”, “factory workers,” “salesmen”, "teenagers", and so forth).   To inspire someone is not magic or charismatic - there are basic elements of motivation that make something inspirational.

For example, in the movie “Miracle”, where the US hockey team defeated the Russians in the 1980 Winter Olympics, there is the locker room scene where the coach Herb Brooks “inspires” the team immediately prior to the game. Some may try to immolate the coach’s speech to inspire others, or some may claim it was the coach’s personality that inspired and one either has that trait or they do not. The fact is if we analyze the speech looking for basic motivational principles, we see that the speech included practices that result in inspiration. Let’s examine some of these:
1. Saliency – the coach put the players in the moment, “one game”, “this is your time”
2. Efficacy – he strongly reminded them of their capabilities as hockey players, “we shut them down because we can”, “tonight we are the greatest team in the world”
3. Purpose – he appealed to their intrinsic sense of destiny, “you were born to be hockey players” and “you were meant to be here”
4. Challenge – the coach called upon them to essentially take the mountain, do what seemed impossible, “go out there and take it’
5. Social identity - a member of the US Olympic Hockey team

We see that the coach’s inspirational behavior was not restricted to a unique personality or some magical formula, but basic aspects of human motivation. The work place is not a one off event but a day to day grind against many odds. However, workers can be inspired to work for something beyond their own extrinsic rewards when managers also lead and provide saliency, enhance efficacy, and stimulate the intrinsics of meaning, purpose and enjoyment for their workers.

LMX Concierge is an affordable coaching resource that embeds inspirational practices to enhance worker motivation and remove obstacles employees need for accomplishing their assigned goals

making sense of employee engagement

The term employee engagement is the current term in the historic progression of the notion of employee morale and job satisfaction. This generally represents the degree employees are positive about their organization, their supervisor, their co workers and their job and thus willing to commit themselves to some degree towards their success. The consequences of high job satisfaction are not so much the effort one puts on their job tasks as it is the employee’s psychological attachment to the organization, less job stress, and helping behaviors towards co workers.  This leads to less turnover and absenteeism for employees and the desire to be proactive for the benefit of their team and organization.

Low morale on the other hand will result in employees leaving the organization when given the opportunity and withholding effort beyond what is minimally necessary to keep their jobs. Employees with low morale are less likely to trust management. Lower trust results in resistance to change and employees withholding information from management and other units within the organization. Most importantly, low morale affects customer service as employees who engage customers feel no need to represent the company favorably to them. In that respect low employee engagement can result in declining performance of an organization through lack of collaboration, creative ideas and problem solving efforts required for innovation, and contributing to a positive image for customers.

There can be many reasons employees do not feel engaged. To increase employee engagement organizations focus on their internal practices, such as reward systems, benefits, workplace facilities, employee picnics and recognition policies. However, research has found that what organizations do is not as important for employee satisfaction as how they do it. The way organizations do what they do influence the sense of fairness and uncertainty among employees.

The main principle of improving employee engagement is to drive fairness up and uncertainty down. This requires that, regardless of what choices management makes, organizational practices be characterized by procedural justice. Employees respond better, regardless of the outcome, when they are provided advanced notice, are allowed to provide input, are not surprised by management with a decision, are given a rationale for the action and are treated with respect.

When an employee’s supervisor includes coaching activities, such as those provided by LMX Concierge, employees will begin to see they are more included and have more perceived control of their destiny. This perceived control occurs when employees feel the organization, and especially their supervisor, cares enough about the employee to listen to them and to support them with effective feedback and counsel. The ultimate outcome of bosses becoming leaders is that employees perceive the organization to be fair and they are likely to have more certainty about their career with the organization.  

"Jerusalem, Judeah, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth"

This morning we were studying Acts 1 and focused on the command to be a witness. This raised a few questions, "what is our witness?' and "where are these places for us?"

My response was this:
      our witness is being faithful to play out what God has put in us and doing so without concern of what the world thinks, says or does
      our Jerusalem is the immediate place God has put us, people we can directly serve and influence right where we are

The notion of "Judeah, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" takes a bit more thinking. The obvious interpretation was Jesus' admonition that the Gospel knows no bounds and His disciples should expand their witness to the greatest extent possible.

I have been thinking recently about what it means to do things that are scalable. That means, that one action has many, maybe an unlimited impact. Nassim Taleb calls this "Extremistan," where single acts have extreme and unpredictable consequences. For instance, when we dig a ditch, one action has one consequence. When we make a movie, the one action of making the movie has many viewings with each viewing having consequences in the viewer that the producer could never imagine. Maybe Jesus' reference to this growing concentric geographic circle notion of our witness was saying our witness is to be "Extremistan."

For instance, when I am teaching a class at University, I have 30 some odd students that receive the message where I have a given expected outcome I can see through the grading practice. However, when I blog or write a book, an unpredictable number of people receive the message God has provided me with an unpredictable outcome. I have no idea who reads it or what the consequences of these ppl reading it are. The audience for my book or blog is like "to the ends of the earth". I have no idea who reads them, where they live, or what they may learn from it. Just in the last week there have been ppl in over 10 countries and 3 continents that have read my blogs. Is this "shall be a witness to the ends of the earth"?

Making a movie, blogging or writing books are not the only scalable activities. For example, as I traveled through eastern Europe and met the young ppl there, i was taken back by their enthusiasm for life and their optimism and hope. Yet, I was reminded that they are the first generation in centuries in these countries (Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovokia, etc) where the masses have been free with bright futures. My thoughts then went to my son who is an executive with ING insurance (soon to become NN). While his leadership team's immediate focus is the financial work needed to complete an IPO, soon he will be turning his attention to managing the company for the long haul. It just so happens that NN operates insurance companies in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, among others. While my son's obvious objective is the financial success of NN, this is fairly "Mediocristan," actions that have predictable limited outcomes. However, he is in a position, because of his career success, to intersect the lives of many, many of these young ppl from these eastern European countries. He has so much wisdom and Grace to give them, providing them with a vision of truth. His Christian witness as an exec who influences many ppl, most he'll never know, is scalable, "Extremistan." Through what could be viewed as a job only for self interest and limited economic gain, "shall be his witness to all the ends of the earth."

So it is with all of us, the influence we have on ppl through our witness in the positions God has put us in (our Jerusalem) will go forth in those ppl beyond our Jerusalem, for they go on to Judeah, Samaria, and yes, even to all the ends of the earth.

certainly worth pondering ......

Can You Face Grace?

a friend of mine leads a couple of men's small groups (different ages and stages) that weekly investigate Biblical principles as a foundation for life's journey. Each is studying the parable of the workers in Matthew 20. My friend wishes for the men to fully grasp the message of this parable and not pass over it with just head knowledge. Since I had preached from this scripture (twice actually) and the parable is central to the theme of my recent book, "stuck in stinkin thinkin," he asked me to share with him some insights that may help bring the men to a deeper understanding of the parable. So here goes .....

The parable, like many Jesus tells, is describing what the Kingdom of God is like. This one and the preceding story of the Rich Young Ruler are especially focused on contrasting God's Kingdom to the earthly kingdom. The contrast is that our human nature conditions us to live based on the principles of exchange and equity (carnal mind). The rich young ruler saw the use of his money as a way of finding favor with God. The workers in the field who went out at the first hour saw wages for work (rewards from the King) to be dependent on hours worked (equity). Jesus is explaining that the Kingdom does not operate on principles of exchange and equity, but on the goodness of the King, which is the desire to bestow on his Kingdom dwellers all the privileges and provisions of His Kingdom at His discretion. Jesus says in Luke, "do not fear little flock because your Father has CHOSEN GLADLY to GIVE YOU HIS KINGDOM."

Both the rich young ruler and the first workers could not appropriate this reality and walked away. I like to say they could not face grace. The operating principle of God's Kingdom for them was nonsense (made no sense).

"The first shall be last and the last first" = NO EXCHANGE, NO EQUITY

The redemptive work of the cross and the resurrection power of Grace transforms us in such a way that Grace informs how we make sense of ourself and the world around us. While we can be saved by the resurrection power, the degree we stay stuck in carnal mindedness is the degree we live beneath the provision and privileges of the Heavenlies.This is evidenced by the degree we continue to allow exchange and equity as the basis for of well being. To examine ourselves on this, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

"To what extent do we ....."
     ".... seek our self esteem from our performance or otherwise how others see us?"
     ".... allow our emotions to be affected by the acceptance or rejection of others?"
     ".... worry?"
     ".... get our feelings hurt?"
     ".... want to use giving to get something we want?'
     ".... feel uncomfortable receiving from others and feel we need to repay them somehow?"
     ".... find fear or guilt controls us?"
     ".... seek our identity in our job?"
     ".... feel we get what we deserve and so should everyone else?"
     ".... say, 'that's not fair'?"
     ".... demand our rights?"

and I am sure there are many more questions like these. The point is that the degree we answer "yes" to these questions is the degree that we cannot face grace. Being different as a Christian not only means we have been saved through Grace (by faith), but that we also live in the power of that Grace (by faith). The power of Grace removes from us the principles of exchange and equity and instills in us a working reality of the fantastic gift that our well being has been established by God, not what we can get from others - it is certain, cannot be taken away or destroyed.

If we believe this, then why don't we use it to make sense of ourselves as we live in a world that is actually hostile to our well being, where exchange and equity is futile.

goal setting is about who bears the risk

Goals are motivational because they heighten one’s focus on a desired outcome (make behavior and outcome more salient). Goals are most motivational when one is committed to the goal, usually occurring when the goal is specific, self set, and challenging.

Goals can be oriented toward either behavior or performance. Behavioral goals refer to only the action the individual must take to accomplish his/her goal. Performance goals refer to the outcome one produces by their actions.

For example, if a restaurant manager wishes to increase the number of desserts sold, he/she may set goals for the waitress/waiter as behavioral goals or performance goals. Behavioral goals for the server would be to always take the following actions: mention to customers early in meal to save room for desserts and ask customer at end of meal if they wish to order dessert, mentioning or showing them some of the delicious options. Performance goals for the server would be to sell desserts to 75% of customers.

The difference in terms of goal effectiveness (positively affects effort) is the degree the individual has control over situations that may also influence the outcome, namely number of desserts purchased. Often outcomes depend more on situational conditions beyond the server’s control, like the amount of food in the main course, the quality, selection and price of desserts, all determined by actions of someone other than the server. The more situational factors outside the control of the server affect outcomes, the more likely the goal will not motivate the server because he/she believes the effort they put forth will not result in goal accomplishment.

In organizations behavioral goals put the risk of performance on the collective behavior of the organization, while performance goals put the risk of performance on the individual employee. It is important that leaders be cautious of performance goals for employees who have little control over situations that materially affect the outcome because the goal will actually be demotivating, instead of motivating.

the ole blame game

A major factor in human behavior is the judgment individuals make concerning why something happened as it did (called causality or attribution). Research has found that when a negative outcome occurs, the individual will typically blame the situation, but others will blame the person. When something positive occurs, the person (the actor) generally claims he/she is responsible for the outcome, while others (the observers) may claim he/she was fortunate (lucky). This bias may not occur when the observer has an overall favorable opinion of the actor. When the observer is the actor's manager and this the halo effect exists, the leader may transfer his/her overall favorable opinion of the employee to judge the cause of the specific outcome so that negative outcomes are judged to be the result of the situation and positive outcomes the result of the individual.

Recognizing the human tendencies that affect how leaders and employees make sense of the employee’s success and failure is critical to the quality of the interpersonal exchange. Leaders must first recognize their halo prejudices about their employer or their attribution tendencies - to blame an employee for failure or attribute success to the situation while the employee is doing the opposite.  This requires the leader to be especially open to the possibility that both the leader's and the employee's judgments about the cause of success or failure is biased and seek to objectively probe the contributors to the outcome, helping the employee do the same.

Challenging natural assumptions on causality and overcoming biases enhances listening and is an important element of building trust and loyalty.

making sense of "I'm Lost"

None of us really like to find ourselves "lost". We diligently plan so that our journeys produce what we feel we want. Occasionally, in spite of best laid plans, we find ourselves somewhere else.

Recently a couple showed up at a local produce stand near our house. They declared, "we are lost, but we're glad." How can that be? Well, it seems they discovered a produce stand with all kinds of goodies they wanted. It appeared they bought some of everything offered and were delighted at their find. They never planned to go to this produce stand, didn't even know it existed, but were blessed by it even if they were "lost".

On our recent trip to Europe I had to plan several flights and hotels. I tried to reserve those that met our needs the best. The night before leaving for Budapest I received an email saying there was an issue with our reservation and that we had been relocated to a "comparable place." Upon arriving at the new location by taxi, we were astounded. Instead of being in the middle of Center City where I HAD PLANNED, we were 25 minute walk from the city center in an area that looked like "bombed out Beirut." I was definitely taken back and didn't know what to do with this surprise. We put our bags in the most horrible room we have ever seen and started walking toward town. i decided we could find another hotel and take a taxi back to retrieve our bags.

We were in a strange place with no idea what we would find. We were more and more perplexed as we came to the center city that we saw no hotel. Finally, we come to The Buddha Bar Hotel. It was an exquisite looking boutique hotel (which meant it looked expensive). We decided to try it and they had a room available. They were so nice, apparently noticing that we were "freaked out" and lost. I would have paid 1000 eu per night, but it was only 200 eu (to our surprise). They even upgraded us to a better room at the same price. They made a great dinner reservation for us at a non tourist spot up on the hill above the Danube.

I would have never booked this place because I knew nothing of it in my planning. It did not fit my idea for the trip. Yet is was perfect, one of the best experiences we had on the entire trip. Totally UNPLANNED, totally BLESSED. One of the worst moments (being lost) turned into one of our best moments.

I am sure you have had similar experiences. Then why do we make sense of "being lost" with some horrified look? Maybe "being lost" is God's way of saying, "the sense you have that you are in control is an illusion."
I have plans for you that you can not even imagine.

Expect Blessing in "being lost"!!  certainly worth pondering .......

making sense of idioms

An idiom is a collection of words and phrases that illustrate a point figuratively,  absent the literal translation of the words and phrases. On my recent visit to Passau, Germany, the guide pointed out the origins of several words and phrases that she claims came from the area.

Here is a pic of a door in a small alley in Passau, Germany. the door has a small door in the middle of it that opens to the outside. The legend is that during the black plague of 1693 the doctor would pass through the streets and open the little door at homes with the plague. Once open the doctor would step back and with a 10 ft pole, would extend bread and water to the person in the house, staying safely back away. Thus, we get the saying "I wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole."

"saved by the bell" - often when someone would die from the plaque, they might not be really dead. They found this when they opened coffins (they would bury more than one person in a coffin) and saw scratch marks on the inside of the lid. thus, they began putting beels on the fingers and toes of the deceased, wait three days. If they heard nothing, then the person was indeed dead. if they heard a ring they would open the coffin to a live person.

"bless you" - a symptom of the plague was sneezing. thus, when a person would sneeze, others would say, "bless you", placing a prayer of favor on the individual in hopes it would ward off the plague.

"the walls have ears" - the rooms of gathering for royalty were heated by coal and wood burning furnaces in the walls of the rooms. To reduce the soot and filth from the fire, there was a walk way between the walls that servants could walk to place the fuel. Often they would overhear conversations among the royalty, fueling gossip and rumor among the common people.

"not worth your salt" - the first known outpost of the Roman army that paid their soldiers a salary was in Passau, a part of the Salzburg region. Salzburg means salt fortress and was the most prominent source for salt. Thus, salary is from the same root ("sal") and is derived from the practice of paying with salt.

Whether these explanations of these idioms are in fact accurate is beyond me, but it is always intersting to ponder the source of our most used sayings ....

"Ars Donandi"

"the art of giving was described asa successful strategy to create and maintain social, political, and economic relationships"

           from the Russian jewelry room in the History Museum in Vienna, Austria (which included an exhibition of the Faberge' eggs)

I found this quote interesting because it shows the historical practice of social exchange as the main behavioral strategy for relationships. As you know by now I write and teach extensively about this human imperative and the role in plays in how mankind has from the fall (original sin) been sentenced to pursue their well being (happiness) by exchanging their behavior for favor from others.

The destiny of this human imperative guarantees our anxiety and eventual despair because we depend on others to act in a way that provides us acceptance and esteem.

This is in a sense being "stuck in stinkin thinkin"

making sense of the stages of life

In the book "plant a Wlanut tree" the author references four stages of life. I like his idea but add my own little twist. between the two of us I kinda see life in these four stages:

1. exposure
2. accumulate
3. leverage
4. spread

Exposure is the early stage of life when we experiment with various paths. We try a number of different things and begin to see exactly what scratches the itches of our soul. We call this "finding our self."

Accumulate is the time in our life where we add knowledge, skill, and experience to our unique abilities and calling. We study, learn, and perform duties that build competencies.

We leverage our competencies as we accept responsibility for leading others toward mutual accomplishments. In this stage we generally personally benefit by acquiring wealth and respect for our commitment to lead others for the overall success.

The last stage is the time for eldership, not leadership. Here we no longer seek personal gain nor group accomplishment. We simply spread around to others, who may be in any of the earlier stages, wisdom, insight, and encouragement to their paths.

Its probably difficult to argue much with these stages. The question remains, however, what causes these stages to be more or less productive and satisfying for different individuals, at all stages. I believe there are at least two forces at work in individuals' lives.

One is the ego, which is the self. There is nothing wrong with one's ego, it just means we aware of self. Egotistical means that we structure our life around our ego. We make sense of ourself and our world around us based on how it affects us. Being egotistical at each stage stunts or constrains our development, and we do not fully become and display our true self.

Another is institutional imperatives. These are the forces of organizations we belong to along the way that require us to behave a certain way to be accepted. Our institutions are families, employers, schools, and broader culture. Trading off our calling to conform to to others in exchange for acceptance stunts our growth, development, and contribution.

Freedom from egotism and institutional imperatives all along the journey produces the life we were meant to live. These are some thoughts for those looking forward from one looking primarily back. take it or leave it but at least u should ponder it ......

Beyond Leadership?

I met with a lady named Dorothee recently in Amsterdam. She is a colleague of my son whose role is organizational effectiveness. I met with her because of the similar interests, although we are a generation and continent apart. When I left she gave me a book entitled, "to plant a Walnut tree." She never said why she gave it to me. As I started reading it, I began to see what she was seeing that I ahd been thinking about myself but could not put it into words.

The book really deals with the question, "what is beyond leadership?" The book introduces a term i had heard often, but within specific contexts, especially the church. The word is "eldership." The author captures his life's journey, which is similar to mine. He had lived a full life, much of it as a leader, building and implementing courses for others to take in conjunction with his own aspirations. While society purposes retirement as the late life stage, he, like me, is questioning whether we were really meant to retire, or to take on a different role "beyond" leader, since we had mostly moved passed our positions of authority in organizations.

The book claims elders are those "who are respected, not for a life of perfection, but because of their gravitas, their wisdom, their ability to rise above everyday and see the bigger picture." Elders are no longer focused on work and achievement, but rather they are interested in the climate and environment in which members of organizations live. which affect the members effectiveness and growth. While "eldership" may be the answer to "what lies beyond leadership?", it is an age old notion that has rarely been explored contemporarily.

The book provides a number of qualities of an elder that I found interesting as I reflect over my own life.
1. They themselves have made the "journey of life" - there is little that they have not seen or experienced and very little surprises them. they value life's story.
2. They operate off of an internal compass - the elder is driven by his/her intrinsics, they do not sway by demands of the world around them and do not act in exchange with their environment
3. They haven't avoided suffering - suffering builds patience and forces one to focus beyond the little stuff.
4. They are advocates for the "middle voice" - they are not activists associated with a personal agenda nor passive, uninterested in issues, but active in seeking collaborative perspectives that bring people together.
5. They have a servant's heart - they listen, they wait on others, free to not have issues be about them, free to take risks with loving others, avoid placing blame and admit "I was wrong"
6. They are holistic thinkers - emotional intelligence, critical thinker, include many perspectives
7. They are passionate about wisdom - an aspiration to see others applying truths well (appropriately and consistently) in their life.

Personally, I have sensed that I am at a pinnacle of what I have to offer others and at a trough with regards to seeking personal gain. yet, our society seems to want to set aside "elders" in favor of the more current thinking young leaders. While I once saw myself at this stage of life as a professor guiding students, i have become more aware of the role of elder in which i find myself more about coaching the coaches.

Thanks Dorothee for your insights gathered from just a one hour time of connecting with each other and for the initiative of putting this book about growing walnut trees into my hand.

worth a little pondering by us all .....

"Be Holy": flawed practice vs. absolute truth

Across the centuries countless peeps have been set back in their Spiritual journey because the church has been subject to flawed practices. It is quite common for me to be engaged with young people who have walked away from Christianity because they have been disillusioned or hurt by the failures of the church in difficult times in their life.  I am not chastising the church because its not perfect, but I am calling out to individuals to not be drawn away from God's Truth because the messenger is not perfect. Do not reject Truth because the practice is flawed.

My pet peeve example is what I believe to be the church's Institutional Imperative to preach "progressive sanctification." The idea that one must collaborate with God to complete "sanctification," to advance in Holiness, is not the Gospel truth. Verses like 1 Peter 1: 15 where we are exalted to "be Holy as God is Holy" takes on the progressive nature because pastors are stuck in this box about us needing to "grow in Christ."  I know it feels like the Christian walk is a work in progress, but when did "feeling like" define truth. The result of preaching "progressive sanctification" is not freedom, joy and hope. It keeps Christians wondering what's wrong with them, why can't they get free from sin, why can't they be more joyful, why so much despair?

Suppose "definitive sanctification" explained "be Holy"? Maybe "be Holy" simply means be what you are, not become something you aspire to be. It seems to me Jesus goes to great length to explain to us the privileges and provision of His Kingdom. He wants us to know we are IN when we receive Him. We don't have a training period where we have to grow to receive ALL He has to offer. Why does the church have to make us feel that way?

Its not because pastors and theologians are stupid or are intentionally trying to deceive the flock. Its because the human imperative of Social Exchange has so much influence on human sense-making that without us knowing it, it is so difficult to explain to others that Grace completely transforms us. Nothing left for us to do but live it out. "Be Holy" is not a goal to attain, it is a statement of Truth about us encouraging us to be what we are.

To "be Holy" is to in faith appropriate the sanctifying Grace we have been given, not to partner with God to beat the sin out of us, to become something we have yet to attain.

My hearts desire is for Kingdom Dwellers to live from the privileges and provisions of an adopted child of God, not to be constantly feeling like the orphan they used to be. Anything that constrains our joy, freedom, significance, and hope is flawed practice. Truth produces good fruit.

Testimony of a "Disrupter"

A new book out on finding one's 5%, which is our Intentional Difference, the unique us made to make a difference, is an interesting context to reference an experience I had this week. I was meeting with an old colleague from the 1990's. I had moved on in 1999 to other things, never really looking back. He was sharing with me how several ideas I initiated in the 1990's in Coca-Cola Consolidated, which were totally disruptive then, are now dominant practices 20 years later. In fact the market-based pricing system, which replaced the industry norm of cost plus pricing and transformed the ability to grow sales and margin simultaneously, is now common practice throughout the entire Coca-Cola bottling network in the US. The company (which raised many eyebrows then) i started in early 1990's to support these initiatives is a thriving mainstay in what is now considered normal my thousands of peeps.

In reflecting over those years I also remember how Forest Hill Church had struggled in the early 1990's with strategic decisions of building a new building and planting churches. After several years of watching the leaders postpone the tough decisions, I became Clerk of Session. In that year under "disruptive" leadership the Session initiated steps to build a new sanctuary and to plant 5 churches. Both of these help define the present nature of the Church.

Neither of these impacts I had on organizations have benefited me personally, either economically or in public acclaim. I never sought either. I think the lesson from my life looking back to those who feel compelled to lead from their 5% (iDiff) is that we are not to expect an exchange of our 5% with the world for personal gain. The benefit of leading from the 5% is the joy we receive from being faithful to playing out what God has put in us.

Faithfulness not worldly significance is the fruit of Grace and the message of