Category: Leadership

  • Jim Whitehurst, President and CEO of Red Hat: Competing as a 21st century Enterprise among 20th century Giants

    Today I'm attending the third day and last day of the Fuqua School of Business & Coach K Leadership Conference. 

    I thought I would post my notes.  Disclaimer.  These are not exact transcription or exact quotes but rather just my rough notes. 

    Jim Whitehurst, President and CEO of Red Hat: Competing as a 21st century enterprise among 20th century Giants

    I want to lay out the problem of 20th century industrial age mentality (intellectual property laws, etc.) If it is free, how are you going to make money?

    People thought: we'll use copyright laws and apply that to software.  This will create scarcity.  I will license it to you but you can't do anything with it. 

    Microsoft and Oracle are the result.  It has created value for society but it has suboptimized the value for society.

    Alternative examples: Wikipedia passed all of the content of every other encyclopedia. 

    Linux runs nuclear submarines and the major stock exchanges.  Everything is built on top of the basic structure. 

    Netflix–anyone who can come up with a better way to recommend movies, would get a million dollars. 

    You get much more, when you make it open.  If we don't find a way to set ideas free, then we will suboptimize the 21st century economy. 

    I am an evangelist for open source. But this also is about creating cultures around innovation, creativity and most importantly–collaboration.   

    I used to run Delta–a 20th century company. 

    Five things that leaders need to think about if you really want collaboration to happen.  These are a work in progress.  If we are right 60% of the time, I'm feeling really good about that. 

    1. You've got to build an architecture of participation. 

    At Delta, we went through a very difficult time for 2 years.  Near the bottom of customer satisfaction and ontime flights but moved to near number 1 in both.  We didn't buy new airplanes.  We told our employees–you can make a difference.  Here are all of the things you can give them: apologize, free drink, free meal, free flights.  We didn't make a manual.  Airlines are military organizations which is good so this was different.  I came come from a consulting organization and we told people, "You go figure it out–here are the general parameters."  Immediately we saw a huge improvement in customer satisfaction.  Velvet rope tour–we talked for 2 hours to everyone about the brand and spirit we are trying to build.  We threw away the script of what they should say and gave them freedom (not the safety video script).  We only innovated with 10%.  90% are the primary drivers that you can't change in the airline business.  The assets are the primary means of production.  In the information age, it is not the same. 

    At Red Hat, we tore up the org chart.  We had no corporate boundaries.  Red Hat contributes 15% to Linux.  We recently called up Microsoft and Novell and worked on messaging. 

    2. We need to find ways to make money around collective collaboration.

    It is very hard to make money when what you make is free.  Red Hat is member of S&P 500.  The main way to make money around free is advertising–Google.  I would argue Red Hat is the second good example.  Wikipedia works on donations.  People still don't know how to make money with Facebook. 

    How does Red Hat make money?  Rapid innovation with thousands of people involved is great but if you are running the NY Stock Exchange, you don't want the operating system to change every day.  You want it to run for 10 years without a change.  But you want new servers, fix bugs, and update security.  This is the more mundane thing that we do.  We're going to support every release for 10 years with an engineering team.  We don't sell technical support on top of Linux.  We are known as the trusted open source leader. 

    But almost none of you use Linux on your desktop even though it is superior platform because there is no profit motive.  Linux is the best and most popular data server operating system.  But how many of you want to pay for 10 years of support for your operating system?  Therefore you can't get iTunes on your Linux operating system.  There is no profit motive.  Finding new business models built on top of freedom and innovation is important. 

    3. You have got to build a culture where the best idea wins. 

    Coming from a 20th century company, let me tell you that it is really hard.  Most of the companies have a hierarchy and the guy at the top wins.  At Delta, there is a very military culture.  People said "Yes sir" and did it.  At Red Hat, when people don't like my idea, they don't do it.  I hear complaints from executives about MBA grads today who don't want to follow orders.  We at Red Hat hire ambitious talented people and we never hear that.  In the 21st century, people want the best idea to win.  In the 20th century, the only way to be recognized is by moving up.  Today people want to be recognized for what they do but that does not mean they want to climb the corporate ladder.  We give people time to do what they want to do but they have to earn it–we don't do it like Google where 20% of your time is for your own projects.  But if you're good, it could be all your time. 

    4. You have to be a catalyst in communities. 

    Red Hat motto: To be a catalyst of communities . . .

    Sustainability.  When I speak about the power of information and participation, executives think: I can get others (like Tom Sawyer) to paint the fence.  The problem is: they will do it once but not twice.

    We do have a desktop team of 10 engineers.  It is because we want to give back.  I have very long arms–IBM and Oracle are both pulling me in opposite directions.  They are like: put it in the operating syste. We say "we don't control Linux but we influence it."  Because we are a good steward, they let us lead by example and build credibility.  We don't screw everyone else and please our customers.  We are not a leader of communities, we are a catalyst for communities. 

    5. When all else fails, hack the system.  

    All open source, is a hack.  The GPL (G. Public License). It is copy left not copy right.  If you make any changes, you also have to redistribute those changes.  Not free as in cost but free as in freedom. 

    Google and Microsoft have patent warfare.  If you sue me, I'll sue you.  At Red Hat we have bought lots of patents with lots of other companies (Open Innovation Network)–which is a hack to the system.  It is not what we want to do but what we had to do. 

    Why is USA so far ahead in software?  Sandhill road–venture capitalists–is the hack to the financial system.  They give to ideas.

    It is not that companies needed the money but rather because it was monetization.  [I the notetaker didn't understand this sentence or concept].              

    Not Chris Anderson's book Free–that is interesting idea but we are talking about freedom.

    For society, we are going to squander a tremendous amount of potential if we do not tap into collaboration. 

    Questions and Answers:

    a. What is your solution to problematic legal system of patents? 

    We are advocating for patent reform.  There used to be no patents on software.  This is an arbitrary use of the patent system.  Let the market compete between Microsoft's ideas and Linux's ideas.  But what if you came up with something on your own, but someone else came up with it before, you can't use it. 

    Don't go public.  Trust me.  This is not something to look forward to.

    b. Free is not necessarily free–that was good.  How are you giving incentives to your employees?  Anything different? 

    No, we are not doing anything different.  We use the regular incentives.  We are trying to recognize people.  Many people want recognition in their communities outside the company.  People should earn their free time.  Our best and brightest work on what they think is important.  It seems to work. 

  • Why pastors should be both goal-setting fanatics and cynics

    I decided to post this again because today I came across a vigorous debate in the business world about "goal setting gone wild."  The post below originated as a lecture to Christian ministry students at Taylor University about the benefits and dangers of goal setting. 

     Original post: June 24, 2006

    319512_2478 

    Part I: Four reasons why goal-setting is indispensable to pastoral ministry:

    1. Without clear goals, we will often end the day having accomplished nothing important.

    The youth pastor textbook Youth Ministry Management Tools includes this nugget of wisdom:


    “You’re almost guaranteed trouble if you come to the office without a plan for the day. It’s amazing how time slides by and, to your dismay, you discovered you haven’t accomplished anything close to six hours’ worth of results from your day’s activities. Ministry is not about us simply putting our time in at the office” (Ginny Olson, Diane Elliot, and Mike Work, Youth Ministry Management Tools. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. p. 73).

    Without thinking through goals, we will have no criteria by which to sort through the demands upon us. We will need to instantly analyze whether we should do what someone asks us to do. These rushed decisions will produce mistakes. I often feel angry at myself for not accomplishing more in a given day.

    2. Without clear goals, our fellow workers in ministry will not know which direction we are going.

    Have you ever tried to “caravan” – drive with a number of different vehicles to the same location? What happens is that people have to go through red lights to keep up with each other. The lead car often has to pull over in unsafe places for the other vehicles to catch up. Safety experts say the safest approach is to give each car a set of directions and to communicate by cell phone if someone gets lost. In the same way, it is very difficult for our fellow workers to keep up with us if they don’t know where we are going. It is better to give them the map ahead of time. Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman, authors of the book First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently (Simon & Schuster, 1999) which is based on 80,000 interviews, believe one of the most important things managers can do is “define the right outcomes” for the people they are working with. We don’t need to supervise every little detail someone is doing if we have described to them the final destination.

    3. It makes sense to focus on a few things because we can’t do everything.

    Rick Warren gives this illustration in his book The Purpose-Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message & Mission (Zondervan, 1995, p. 157).

    “Imagine what would happen to a commercial radio station if it tried to appeal to everyone’s taste in music. A station that alternated its format between classical, heavy metal, country, rap, reggae, and southern gospel would end up alienating everyone. No one would listen to that station!”

    Pick something and do it well. Every 6 months, I need to articulate a new set of challenges to keep me motivated. You probably will too. I often list a whole bunch of ideas and then have someone help me to narrow them down to a few that I should focus on.

    4. With clear goals, extraordinary things are possible.

    Practice makes perfect. It really does. If you work at something steadily, you can accomplish extraordinary things.

    Anders Ericsson’s work, “compiled in the The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, a 900-page academic book that was published last month [June 2006], makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated . . . ‘I think the most general claim here,’ Anders Ericsson says of his work, ‘is that a lot of people believe there are some inherent limits they were born with. But there is surprisingly little hard evidence that anyone could attain any kind of exceptional performance without spending a lot of time perfecting it’” (Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt, “Freakonomics: A Star Is Made,” NY Times Magazine, May 7, 2006).  See also How to Grow a Super Athlete in Play Magazine, February 2007.

    When I was a kid, I wanted to be a major league baseball player. I loved throwing a ball against the back of our house. It would bounce back to me and I would practice fielding it. I would even try to throw the ball to my right and left and practice diving plays. I did this thousands of times. From the time I was six, I was known as a good infielder. The more I was affirmed, the more I practiced. I ended up playing baseball through college. On the other hand, I disliked playing the piano. I would practice the 15 minutes per day that my mother required but not one minute more. Because of my minimalist approach to practice, my recitals were traumatic. I was always surprised at how badly I did. When I would sit up there on stage, I would expect to do well but I would always get lost and mess up. The point is simple: what we like to do, we do often and thus get good at it.

    Pastoral theology author Eugene Peterson entitled one of his books, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction: Discipleship in an Instant Society (InterVarsity, 2000), based on Friedrich Nietzsche’s quote which reads: "The essential thing in heaven and earth is . . . that there should be a long obedience in the same direction; there thereby results . . . something which has made life worth living" (Beyond Good and Evil, 1907, section 188.)

    When I reflect on these reasons for goal-setting, I am inspired to dream a little. What do I want my life to look like in 10 years? What kind of person do I want to be? What do I hope my ministry is doing? . . .

    Now, how can I break that end goal into small parts? And what can I do today to take a small step toward those goals?

    Goal-setting keeps us focused, effective, inspired, and fruitful. Four cheers for fanatical goal-setting. And now . . . why we should be very suspicious of goal-setting.

    Part II: Four reasons why we should be suspicious of goal-setting in pastoral ministry:

    1. We are often fooling ourselves to try to set long term goals.

    “Precise long range planning isn’t difficult. It’s impossible!” says Jim Plueddemann, professor of missions at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School at his blog. My 21 year old students often have trouble picturing what ministry they will be doing in ten years. I’m sympathetic to them because I don’t know either. I like being a pastor and being a professor. Will I be doing one or the other or both or neither in ten years? What should I be planning for?

    Consider again Rick Warren’s quote that we cited above.

    “Imagine what would happen to a commercial radio station if it tried to appeal to everyone’s taste in music. A station that alternated its format between classical, heavy metal, country, rap, reggae, and southern gospel would end up alienating everyone. No one would listen to that station!” (The Purpose-Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message & Mission. Zondervan, 1995, p. 157).

    What Warren does not say is that there are huge ramifications when one narrows one's audience–many which are unintended.  [I have written more about Warren's approach at: A wider target: Deconstructing and redeploying the Seeker Sensitive Service planning of The Purpose Driven Church and Strengths of the Purpose Driven Church and Sober Advice For Those Considering the Megachurch]. When we specialize too quickly, we may miss the richness of learning a bit about the other genres of music. People donate to NPR (National Public Radio) stations precisely because they are not driven by commercial interests but rather play a variety of jazz, classical, news and talk in an attempt to edify the listener.

    When a church decides to “target” ministry to married upper-middle class businessmen, often the poor (or “underresourced”), single, and disabled are subtly treated as inconvenient to the programming. A church may be better off intentionally having a more general focus.

    Similarly, a student may be better off cultivating a number of ministry skills in a small church (including teaching, administration and pastoral care to a variety of age groups) as opposed to immediately specializing in a large church by being the director of small groups to single men who are between the ages of 21 and 25.

    Setting goals helps us to focus and narrow down. But sometimes intentionally keeping a broad scope reflects the fact that we cannot know the long-term. Sometimes it is better to keep our options open.

    2. Goals that focus on the A, B, C’s, (attendance, buildings and cash) are not God’s primary goals.

    I tease my students that anyone can come up with an instant “vision” for any ministry. If they say they are interested in inner-city basketball ministry, I say: “I have a vision of (a) thousands of kids streaming into a (b) gorgeous 20-court basketball facility in downtown Chicago and (c) hundreds go to college with money donated by NBA players.”

    Another student is interested in family wilderness ministry. I immediately throw out a “vision” of (a) thousands of families going to a (b) 500,000 acre park where they can whitewater raft and mountain climb and (c) there is a staff of 300 full-time trained Christian guides.

    In each case, I am illustrating that anyone can articulate “a vision” in terms of attendance, buildings and cash. Jim Plueddemann says it this way: “If you have precise, predictable goals you are aiming at something of secondary importance.” There is nothing wrong with these ABC goals but we must realize that they are secondary. Pluddemann goes on to say: “The most important goal is to glorify God and help others come to Christ and progress in their pilgrimage toward Christlikeness. Such goals are imprecise.” Glorifying God and helping people grow in him are our primary goals. It is also difficult to precisely measure them.

    Therefore, if we have accomplished our ABC vision, but have not glorified God, we have not accomplished anything. If our goals are ABC-oriented, let’s make sure they don’t get in the way of our primary goals.

    3. Written vision statements are overrated. You can still have vision without them.

    Thom Rainer did a study of churches that went from “good to great.” He calls these churches “breakout churches.” He and his researchers found that formal “goal-setting” and “strategic-planning” processes did not play a role in these churches becoming more effective.

    “Our research team did not hear any of the leaders of the breakout churches mention any efforts to discover vision. Yet they all have a clear and compelling vision today . . . What these thirteen churches had in common was a vision that ‘discovered’ them rather than a painful search to find out God’s specific plan . . . The Vision Intersection Profile is when the Leadership’s Passion, Community’s Needs, and Passion/Gifts of the Congregation intersect” (Thom Rainer, Breakout Churches: Discover How To Make The Leap. Zondervan, 2005. pp.112, 113, 114).

    Some people are already focused and inspired. They don’t need some goal-setting mechanism to get them going. These bureaucratic processes can sometimes drain energy from the really passionate people instead of inspiring the unfocused. Writing down your personal goals or articulating a mission-statement may actually lead to a subtle feeling that the work is now over!

    “We found a lack of written vision statements among the breakout churches. Conversely, we found written vision statements in more than 70% of the comparison churches. The leaders of the comparison churches seem to think that, if they could just get an idea in writing before the congregation, the people would follow. The breakout leaders discovered vision long before any statements were written, if they were ever written.” (Thom Rainer, Breakout Churches. p.115).

    4. It is more important to fan your passions and riskily attempt action than to articulate your goals.

    Tom Peters, author of the book In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies, writes:

    "Plans? Goals? Yes, I admit that I plan and set goals. After I’ve accomplished something, I declare it to have been my goal all along. One must keep up appearances: In our society “having goals” and “making plans” are two of the most important pretenses. Unfortunately, they are dangerous pretenses — which

    repeatedly cause us to delay immersion in the real world of happy surprises, unhappy detours, and unexpected byways. Meanwhile, the laurels keep going to those mildly purposeful stumblers who hang out, try stuff with reckless abandon– and occasionally bump into something big and bountiful, often barely related to the initial pursuit” (Peters, T. The Bookstore Journal. Feb. 1991 quoted by Plueddemann).

    The secret of an effective life is not how to do SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely). Rather, it is closer to what Rainer discovered in studying great church leaders.

    “Breakout church leaders understand the incredible brevity of life. They desire to make a difference for the glory of God in this short period. And they trust in a God of miracles for whom all things are possible” (Thom Rainer, Breakout Churches. p.127).

    Conclusion:

    So do we set goals? Yes! We use goal-setting to keep us focused, effective, inspired, and fruitful. But goal-setting must be done with humility, depth, passion and trust.

    This should be our prayer. God, show me what kind of person you want me to be in 10 years. God, show us what kind of church you want us to be in 10 years. We want to glorify you. We want to see people grow to know you more. We will risk because we trust you. What step do you want me to take today?

    Update May 20, 2009

    There was a lively debate about goals in
    The Academy of Management Perspectives
    Issue: Volume 23, Number 1 / 2009
    (Not available for free online).

    There were two opposing articles:

    "Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting" pp. 6 – 16
    Lisa D. Ordóñez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky, Max H. Bazerman

    "Has Goal Setting Gone Wild, or Have Its Attackers Abandoned Good Scholarship?" pp. 17 – 23
    Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham

    Now you can read one of the camps' response.

    "On Good Scholarship, Goal Setting, and Scholars Gone Wild"
    Lisa D. Ordóñez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky, Max H. Bazerman
    Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
    Working Paper 09-122

    This group wants to be cautious about goal-setting.  Here are two good quotes from their working paper.

    "There is mounting causal evidence linking goal setting with a range of behaviors including a shift in risk taking (Larrick, Heath, & Wu, in press), greater unethical behavior (Schweitzer, Ordóñez, & Douma, 2004), and a narrow focus that draws attention from other important elements of the problem (Staw & Boettger, 1990)." p. 5

    "As financial crises, Ponzi schemes, and the collapse of the automotive industry demonstrate, the combination of unethical behavior, risk-taking and poor judgment can be toxic. We are not implying that goal setting was the primary cause of the current crises. Instead, we suggest that we should develop and sharpen our understanding of those contextual factors that produce harmful behaviors." p. 8

  • How to Read Hybels: Book Review of Axiom by Bill Hybels

    Axiom by Bill Hybels

    Bill Hybels started Willow Creek Community Church in 1975. It is probably the
    most influential church in the United States and also one of the largest with a
    weekly attendance of some 23,500 people. In Axiom: Powerful Leadership Proverbs, Hybels
    gives 76 leadership tips and briefly describes each in 2-3 pages. Most will find
    the book inspiring and thought-provoking. But this is a book that will be
    incomprehensible to others and revolting to a few.

    If you sense that churches are too often poorly managed, their programs
    shoddy, their staff aimless, and their efforts mediocre, you will love this
    book. Hybels's father expected him to take on the family business but instead
    Bill decided to plant a church and he has managed it better than most
    businesses.  Hybels sees no reason why the doing things well is inconsistent
    with God's work.

    But, if you think the pastor's role is to be a nurturing shepherd and that a
    church should never grow beyond the size where the pastor can know everyone's
    name, then Hybels's advice will be incomprehensible to you and likely disgust
    you. The kindly parish priest—who preaches, administers the sacraments, and
    visits the sick—Hybels is not.

    The insights of Hybels—many of which assume a large paid staff—will apply
    best to the pastor of a church with 500 or more weekly attendance because at
    this size it is difficult for the pastor to oversee everything and his or her
    role begins to entail significant staff supervision. According to Duke
    sociologist Mark Chaves in Congregations in America, in 1998, "71
    percent of [U.S. congregations] have fewer than one hundred regularly
    participating adults" (p.17-18). The size of the church radically changes the
    way a pastor functions. (See also his post Congregational Size). Roy M. Oswald writes in "How to Minister
    Effectively in Family, Pastoral, Program, and Corporate Sized Churches"
    of
    the smallest size of congregation,

    This small church can also be called a Family Church because it functions
    like a family with appropriate parental figures. It is the patriarchs and
    matriarchs who control the church's leadership needs. What Family Churches want
    from clergy is pastoral care, period. For clergy to assume that they are also
    the chief executive officer and the resident religious authority is to make a
    serious blunder. The key role of the patriarch or matriarch is to see to it that
    clergy do not take the congregation off on a new direction of ministry. Clergy
    are to serve as the chaplain of this small family.

    But one need not confront the family of the church antagonistically, one can
    learn to thrive as a pastor of a smaller congregation by soaking in the rich
    work of Eugene
    Peterson
    , enjoying the delightful little book The Art of Pastoring by David Hansen, and learning
    from the example of the wise Father
    Tim
    in the fictional Mitford series by Jan Karon.

    Another complication besides size for some readers will be that many
    denominations closely define the role of the pastor and the local church with
    policies and committees. Hybels had the freedom and danger of making these
    structures up as he went along as the founder of an independent
    nondenominational church. I would recommend the writings of Will
    Willimon
    , Patrick
    Keifert
    , Alan
    Roxburgh
    , and Mark
    Lau Branson
     for advice about navigating leadership and effectiveness issues
    in an established small denominational church.

    Finally, there are those who argue that a church with 500 plus weekly
    attendance and multiple staff loses much of the intimacy and flexibility of what
    a church should be. To Alan
    Hirsch
    , David Fitch, Neil Cole and Frank Viola, Hybels's tips would
    probably be evidence of the corporate, cold, impersonal and bureaucratic dark
    side of the large “attractional model” church. However, even they might find the
    insights of Hybels valuable in their efforts leading large church planting
    organizations.

    Despite the disclaimer that pastors of small churches, ministers of
    denominational churches, and critics of large churches may be turned off by this
    book, let me praise this book for what it is: candid insights by an extremely
    capable church leader. A sign of Hybels's considerable leadership ability is
    that he could not help but start a huge consulting arm called the Willow Creek
    Association and a widely-acclaimed annual leadership conference The Leadership
    Summit—there was huge demand for his advice.

    The 57-year-old's tone is intense. He sounds like a drill-sergeant, a CEO, or
    a tough football coach. This week Connecticut
    basketball coach Jim Calhoun
    was hospitalized for dehydration. A nurse asked
    him, "Are you type A?" to which he replied, "What's beyond that?" I thought of
    Hybels. Hybels writes, "Those who know me well know that I'm intense and
    activistic. For me, the bigger the challenge, the more I like it. I've always
    pushed myself hard to solve problems, raise the bar, and make as many gains for
    God as I possibly can" (142). Hybels's personality reminds me of the apostle
    Paul, the Puritan Richard
    Baxter
    , Methodism founder John
    Wesley
    and the energetic Dietrich
    Bonhoeffer
    —they are all driven and intense. Out of the 76 tips, all but
    about a handful suggest the need for harder and more strategic work. Still,
    Hybels tells of a few ways he has learned to soften his approach and slow down
    his pace. See for example, 9. "The Fair Exchange Value," 58. "Create Your Own
    Finish Lines" and 75. "Fight for Your Family."

    The 2-3 page tips and stories are a great medium for his thoughts. He
    illustrates and explains his ideas clearly. It is an easy read. If you liked
    this book, also read the 99 practical hints in Simply Strategic Stuff by Tim Stevens and Tony Morgan.  Both these books give the
    uninitiated and naive church leader a glimpse of the nuts and bolts of the
    dreaded "administrative" part of pastoral ministry.

    If you are not turned off by Axiom, perhaps you belong serving in a
    larger church where these leadership and organizational skills are highly
    valued. Chaves points out that more and more people are attending large churches
    so it is not correct to see them as an anomaly: "the median person is in a
    congregation with four hundred regular participants" (p.18). Or you may resonate
    with Hybels and play the thankless but necessary reforming role in the small
    church. Or you may take his insights and apply them to the pioneering
    entrepreneurial work of a new church plant.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to hear the candid thoughts as over a lunch
    conversation from one of the most important American church leaders in the last 25
    years.  Hybels may eventually write an autobiography but much of what is
    fascinating about him he has generously already shared in Axiom.