Andy Rowell

Church Leadership Conversations

  • On starting and stopping hobbies and interests

    Over the last few years, I have done little explorations through podcasts and YouTube and books into: baseball analytics then baseball scientific training, basketball coaching philosophy, investing in stocks, marathon running, and weightlifting.

    Reflections on hobbies:

    1. It is fascinating how these are all little circumscribed worlds. They have their experts and heroes. But 95% of people know almost nothing about the topic. Normal people can have a happy life and know nothing about this topic.

    2. There is a mix of genuine fascinating new insights and artificial hyping of the same old things in these hobby worlds. When I am new to the topic, I'm astounded at how much I didn't know. But as time goes on, I hear the same assertions repeated over and over.

    3. Honest moments eventually pop up in podcasts where the host admits their disillusionment or boredom with the absurd repetitive focus on this topic. "We always talk about this and let's face it, it's a waste of time." Even the expert admits this topic is not that important.

    4. Other friends get into other hobbies and interests: cooking, interior design, knitting, fantasy football, golf, biking, travel. Others watch many TV shows. (When you have young kids, they often take that hobby time until they're in middle school and want their own time).

    5. Morally,
    (a) I think there is learning here in hobbies and it can be used for good, to help others, children, etc. Some of these within moderation can be defended as prudent (financial stewardship, physical health) but often the pursuit is far beyond minimal responsibleness.

    Or (b) it may be mostly harmless, a balm, relaxing, healthy. Most businesses and hobbies are not altruistic but are on net a positive outgrowth of human curiosity and physicality and creativity. I don't think we should be overly critical of humans being human.

    But (c) there is also some line at which an interest has the effect of being a destructive addiction, harmful to loved ones. Not just wine and gambling but any of these pursuits can be pursued to the extent that there is not time or money for those who need us.

    6. For me, I've thoroughly enjoyed these jaunts into these areas of human culture and learning and practice. I'm amazed at the learning and ingenuity. But eventually I come to see that at some point it is unwise to spend more time on this relatively insignificant area.

    I realize I need to grow and learn in other areas or use my time and money in ways that are more useful and loving. So I stop listening to those podcasts and those YouTube videos and read some more books of substance or pursue things of more benefit to those around me.

    But I still take pleasure in those old areas when they come across my path because I now know something about them. It is a joy when I can comprehend something because I delved into the area a bit in the past. And I may even dip my toe back in to see if there's something new.

    I don't view it as having had too many interests that I somehow couldn't follow through with. But rather that I intentionally stepped back from that interest because it was not worth so much time and money. Hopefully the learning from that pursuit spills over into other areas.

    In conclusion, I think hobbies, interests, things that strike your fancy, areas you get fascinated by, are a wonderful part of life. You're human and it is healthy to have interests. But is also wise and good to change course and say "that has taken enough money and time."

    Final thought: The good life is not just discipline and perseverance and grit and deliberate practice but also curiosity, exploration, learning, and moving on to other things richer than you were before because you learned something about that esoteric topic.

    Originally tweeted by Andy Rowell (@AndyRowell) on January 4, 2022.

  • Theological reflection when there is little hope for change

    As I hear about troubled organizations, people ask, how will reform come? The theological answer is the Spirit. Perhaps it is the breath whisper of the fluttering of a sheet as in Acts 10:11. Or perhaps it is like the gusts of wind of a storm that cause shipwreck in Acts 27:15.

    I'm specifically thinking of people dismayed because they have little power. The Christian claim that there is a need for the Spirit to work is not surrender to passivity. God's people continue to act. But they also ask for and look for the Spirit's quiet or drastic intervention.

    As the Spirit moves, the hardened heart of the powerful gate-keeper is awoken to exclaim "I see now that I was wrong!" and the chained outsider is welcomed and freed.

    Originally tweeted by Andy Rowell (@AndyRowell) on December 25, 2021.

  • Listening rather than experimenting or commanding in leadership

    Long thread here articulating some thoughts on leadership:
    The definition of leadership is helping a group work toward a common goal. See Northouse image👇
    So, leaders are the people who push a group to do what they themselves wanted done but the group hadn't done it yet.

    Therefore, theoretically, the work of leadership need not be coercive or violent or manipulative. The group wants something done but has needed someone to coordinate and organize the action. The group should be grateful for and cooperative with someone taking the initiative.

    Often, happily, leadership involves progress toward common goals without much downside. There are often "low hanging fruit" or "easy wins" or "win-wins." "We all agree this should be done so let's just do it!" Common sense solutions—that is the ideal.

    But there are also many difficult challenges where there is not a consensus about how to proceed and there are various negative ramifications. This is where leaders often make mistakes by failing to listen.

    Leaders have learned from previous leadership successes that as the person coordinating, encouraging, and organizing, they should expect to hear minor complaints from people who are generally on board with the common goal. "We're too tired." "Why now?"

    So leaders listen for important objections but often ignore what seem to them to be minor objections. The leaders thinks the reason the problem remains unaddressed is because of inertia and excuses so they give little weight to these minor objections.

    Then leaders push through an attempt at a solution. "Let's try this!" "Let's experiment with this!" Why not? What do we have to lose?" This approach has worked in the past for them. It has helped a group make progress toward a common goal which others had allowed to fester.

    But what if disregarding those "minor complaints" ("We're tired. Why now?") and pushing ahead with a bold new initiative ends up breaking people (so that they leave the group entirely) and the initiative fails? The group ends up beaten down, flogged, exhausted, and resentful.

    The leader had thought "What do we have to lose?" but they did not consider that in fact their initiative or reorganization may destroy morale. There was in fact an opportunity cost to the initiative. There were hidden costs that came back to bite them.

    I see this in microcosm with regard to "action items" in meetings. People avert their eyes from the leader because they don't want to volunteer to do what the group agreed should be done. This is a sign that more discussion needs to take place.

    It is possible that they just need to break up the task into smaller manageable pieces so that someone can accomplish it without undue burden. Or maybe there needs to be a reward attached to the task. But there may also be real doubt whether the task is really the right solution.

    Some leaders in meetings sense intuitively and relationally and socially that if people don't volunteer to do a task, we should let sleeping dogs lie. Annoyingly, the same issues pop up meeting after meeting and no progress is made.

    Other leaders in meetings are determined to see follow-through and efficiency. They cold-heartedly insist people volunteer to do the task and then they also follow up. But forcing people to work on tasks they don't believe in fosters resentment fast.

    Meetings with angry outbursts, finger-pointing, and sharp criticism of others are the inevitable consequences of a leader ordering people to do things they doubt should be done by them or even done at all.

    The only solution to inaction or internal rebellion is better dialogue and conversation and discussion and collaboration about what is to be done. To review, sometimes this is mercifully brief. There is low-hanging fruit, easy wins. But often the way forward is complicated.

    The "Let's try this. It is worth a shot. Hail Mary pass. Why not?" seems to most leaders like the way forward with such challenges. They think that is "casting vision" or "leading." But it often has many "unanticipated costs" that others *can* predict if the leader would listen.

    Along the same lines, leaders do not often question their own ideas even if they are failing in practice. They blame the problem on poor execution by their underlings. "People are just not following through with the action items they were assigned."

    But the truth is the leader shoved the idea down their throat. The other group members knew there were potential problems with the leader's suggested solution but their questions were dismissed.

    The better way is to facilitate a free exchange of ideas upfront rather than taking a stab in the dark or bullying people into executing a flawed idea.

    A leader will need to figure out how to get that good honest, feedback and information. It may not come just by demanding it in a meeting. "HERE IS MY IDEA. GIVE ME YOUR HONEST FEEDBACK!" It may have to be in less stressful, more informal settings.

    Originally tweeted by Andy Rowell (@AndyRowell) on December 22, 2021.