Those of you who follow this blog probably already know that I have spent my last posts talking about the Leader’s Tools. This is the fifth and last post of this series, and here I will close by looking at the human factor as the greatest resource in the life of any corporation or institution.
Jim Collins, in his book Good to Great, analyzed a host of factors that turn good people into great leaders. In his framework, Collins identifies five predominant levels where most people in leadership are found. The framework begins at level 1 with highly capable individuals and ends at level 5, where we find individuals focused on building a legacy through the paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. His main idea (found in chapter 3) is that “good to great” leaders, what he calls level 5 leaders, are always aware that having the right people always precedes implementing the right strategy. He cleverly calls this principle “first who, then what.”
Collins’ five levels of leadership (the chart referenced above) are:
- Highly Capable Individual: contributes through talent, knowledge, skills, and good work habits.
- Contributing Team Member: contributes individual capabilities to the achievement of group objectives.
- Competent Manager: organizes people and resources toward the effective and efficient pursuit of predetermined objectives.
- Effective Leader: catalyzes commitment to a compelling vision, stimulating higher performance standards.
- Executive: builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.
For Collins, if you start with “who” before the “what,” you will be able to adapt more easily to an ever-changing world. This is not simply about positioning people to carry out a premeditated strategy. The right people are those with a rigorous work ethic and a high level of insight who will help create adaptive strategies to lead an organization. A level 5 individual does not blindly consent to authority and is a strong leader in his own right, so dedicated and driven that he builds his arena (environment) into one of the best in the world. In this way, any organization that goes “from good to great” will learn to ask “who” questions before “what” questions. It will understand that vision, strategy, structure, and tactics are the result of the right people thinking collectively.
Collins’ “first who, then what” principle is extremely important for churches and other religious organizations. Churches, for the most part, are historically highly hierarchical structures that depend on their senior leadership figures for direction and strategy. The senior figure is typically seen as the one who holds the vision from God and thus communicates it to the rest of the congregation. He or she easily becomes like a prince of the pulpit, or as Collins describes, “a genius with a thousand helpers.” Tragically, some of the most hierarchical organizations belong to the historic denominations that have experienced a great ecclesiological crisis. Due to decades of member disassociation, historic denominations have become regulatory organizations. As such, many have adopted a reactionary leadership style, deploying most of their resources to solve their biggest problems.
Collins’ findings imply that historic denominations must rethink their strategy. According to Collins, regulatory strategies operate predominantly through the “first what, then who” principle. This approach is extremely limited when dealing with foundational and adaptive circumstances like those we see among historic and traditional denominations. Borrowing the language of Heifetz and Linsky, traditional denominations are trying to apply technical solutions to adaptive challenges.
Collins’ principle focuses primarily on high-level management teams in medium to large organizations. His success narratives are largely based on quantifiable units. Numbers, growth charts, and other metrics become of utmost importance. As a pastor and leader, my take on Collins’ principle strays a bit from the performative ideals he indicates. Not all of his findings can be appropriated by the church. That must be why he wrote a book aimed solely at third-sector organizations. His idea that adaptive organizations need to be rigorous in excluding weak leaders simply does not translate into the organizational dynamics of the Kingdom of God. What I believe is translatable is the fact that Collins calls our attention to placing the emphasis on the “subject” rather than the “object” of the mission (first who, then what).
People are the subject, and not merely the object, of God’s mission. Everyone has a part in the mission and should contribute to the growth of the Kingdom. An appropriation of “first who, then what” would then seek to restore the laity as active subjects who are called to participate in the mission. For this to happen, the focus must be on transforming the church into a missional and interpretive community. I see this happening in four movements. First, restore the biblical truth that the laity are also subjects in the mission and not only objects of our ministry. This may involve an ecclesiological restructuring toward an inclusive and participatory model. Second, create spaces where people are encouraged to tell their own stories, thus unleashing a hermeneutical process of collective discernment. Third, allow people to create a collective vision of the future. Leaders then become mere facilitators of discovery as the church finds its role in God’s meta-narrative. Finally, appropriate Collins’ concept of “the right person” and discern who would be the person with the innate abilities to produce adaptive change through new practices and experiments. Following these four movements, a leader may perhaps produce an epigenetic transformation through a structural triple helix of relational, interpretive, and implementation practices.
