One correspondent asked, in response to a comment I left on his blog:

You say, “At the same time, Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life”, selling a million copies a month steadily for two years, shows that “giving it straight” also has its place.”

That’s amazing. What do you think it is about this book that’s making it sell like that?

Well, on one level this book speaks to the deepest felt need of our generation, and any other, because it speaks to the soul about its eternal relationship with God, and it does so using the language of the people that it addresses.

That’s always going to be a winner, as you already know.

Apart from being aligned with universal principles in its content, and culturally relevant in its presentation, the marketing of the book was done in alignment with universal principles. You can listen to the audio of Pyromarketing, a book on marketing written by the man who headed publisher Zondervan’s marketing campaign for The Purpose-driven Life, Greg Stielstra, for free, over at his website www.pyromarketing.com.

I’m sorry to have sat on this information for so long - I found it at the beginning of January, but the time seems right now to release it.

So, you’ve seen the power of Rick’s preaching in “The Purpose-driven Life” through Geoff’s presentation. Now find out how they have gotten a million copies a month of this bad boy in people’s hands for the past two years.

Reading Our Srila Prabhupada A Friend to All has been nice. Here are another couple of reflections from the book.

First of all, it’s really great to hear about how much time and energy Srila Prabhupada put into his chanting. A number of people remark on this aspect of his behaviour before coming to the West. One person related how he would chant 64 rounds a day. The Holy Name is the first and last line of defense.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati spent 9 years chanting in solitude before beginning his preaching. Srila Narottama das Thakura, a 16th century missionary of Krishna Consciousness spent time chanting with his guru Lokanath Goswami. They were chanting one day when a householder came to request some water from them. Lokanath Goswami continued chanting and did not break his meditation to speak with the man. The man was begging them to please give him some water, and Narottama took pity on him. He stopped chanting and gave him some water. Afterwards his guru Lokanath Goswami was very displeased and ordered him to leave telling him: “You have no faith that by pleasing Krishna everyone will be pleased. You should go away and get married, make some money and give charity to people. Then you will be happy.”

Narottama begged to be allowed to stay, and after some time Lokanath Goswami relented and allowed him. There is a very powerful lesson in this. The unexpected guest is considered to be a representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and should be served as such. If you read the Pancaratra-pradipa, a recent compilation of guidelines based on the Vedic culture, it recommends postponing activities of worship to receive an unexpected guest.

In another case a great sage engaged in meditation did not receive a guest. He was Samiki Muni, and he did not arise from his meditation to give water when requested by King Pariksit, who arrived unexpectedly. The King became angry with the sage for not doing this, and this lead to a chain of events that ended with the King cursed to die within 7 days.

So the two sides are there, and the appropriate rule to apply is a matter requiring discrimination. As we hear in the Mahabharata from the lips of Bhismadeva, “Dharma, or proper action, is not black and white, but composed of many shades of gray”.

Anyway, chanting the Holy Name and meditation, spiritual development is important. Service to others is also important.

In Our Srila Prabhupada A Friend to All many people comment on Srila Prabhupada’s dedication to chanting the Holy Name.

It’s very nice for me to read about this, because it reinforces my understanding of the role of chanting and its relationship to preaching.

In 1998 one high profile leader in ISKCON experienced some difficulty and lost faith for some time. He made some public comments which include stating that “I was with Srila Prabhupada a lot of the time and I watched him, and he did not chant 16 rounds a day!”

At the time I dealt with that by thinking:

“Well that’s all good and well - and when I can sleep two hours a days and spend my nights translating Sanskrit scriptures and my days travelling internationally and preaching, I’ll do the same!”

At the first initiation of Western disciples in the 60s, Srila Prabhupada gave names and japa mala (chanting beads), and said: “Now you must chant 64 rounds a day”. One round is composed of 108 mantras of

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna
Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama
Hare Hare

A round takes between 5 and 15 minutes to chant, depending on the time of day, your attentiveness, how warmed up you are, and your experience.

So 64 rounds would take 320 - 960 minutes, or 5 1/4 - 15 hours.

Actually, I tried it for one month after I read about this in Hare Krishna Explosion by Hayagriva das, and it would take me between 4 1/2 - 6 hours to do it.

Anyway, the disciples responded by saying: “64 rounds? That’s impossible! We don’t have time to chant that much!”

Srila Prabhupada considered, and said: “Alright, you may chant 32 rounds.”

Still they protested - 32 rounds was too much!

So Srila Prabhupada said: “Alright! 16 rounds a day - minimum!”

That’s what I call “The First Order”.

Anyway, there was another thing I wanted to share, more backstory nectar that I read (someone I met in South America is in there), but that will have to wait.

Tonight is the Grand Opening of Atma Yoga, so I have to be off to prepare for that.

16 rounds and counting….

Today I’m sitting the RHCE exam, in ten minutes in fact.

I’ve been reading “Our Srila Prabhupada - A Friend to All: Early Contemporaries Remember Him“.

It is a very interesting book. It is a collection of interviews with persons who knew Srila Prabhupada before he left India to preach in the West. From reading this book and hearing their appreciations I’ve gained a greater appreciation for the point of view of Srila Prabhupada’s godbrothers, the Gaudiya Math, Srila BV Narayana Maharaja, and other persons who hold a different angle of vision than I have.

Even within ISKCON everyone has a different angle of vision.

Reading this book I can understand and appreciate why Srila BV Narayana Maharaja sees things the way he does. That doesn’t mean that I abandon my own unique perspective, but I can appreciate the difference. The ability to simultaneously accomodate diverse, and sometimes contradictory viewpoints is important. The whole Vedic culture is based on this, and the inability of modern Western academics to appreciate this aspect of it leads them to interpret it as a confusion or collection of competing systems. In fact, there are many different people in society, each with their own unique and valid experience.

The Vedic culture recognizes and honours this by constructing a situation where these people can coexist and pursue their own self realization and spiritual evolution in such a way that the impact of their angle of vision on others with a different angle of vision is minimized. This is done by the guidance of brahmanas, spiritually adept persons who are able to accomodate and appreciate multiple angles of vision and interact with people in terms of their mentality.

A lot of the time people of different mentalities are encouraged to stick to their own concerns, and ignore others around them, as they will find the plethora of mentalities and realizations confusing, and will react by either becoming attracted to something that they shouldn’t, or condemning something that they shouldn’t.

The Srimad Bhagavatam describes this principle of multiple angles of vision:

“Steadiness in one’s own position is declared to be actual piety, whereas deviation from one’s position is considered impiety. In this way the two are definitely ascertained.”

SB. 11.21.2

His Holiness Hrdayananda Goswami, commenting on this, says:

In actuality, virtue and fault are not absolute but are relative to one’s particular platform of advancement. Remaining fixed in the type of discrimination suitable to one’s level of advancement is good, and anything else is bad.

So people are encouraged to focus their attention on cultivating their own progress, and not to give much attention to what other people are doing, which can often lead to misunderstanding, and offense.

In the case of Srila Prabhupada and his disciples, they were encouraged to be busy about their own work, so much so that they didn’t have time to poke their nose into what other Gaudiya Vaisnavas were doing. This was Srila Prabhupada’s practical way of “keeping the children apart”.

How easy misunderstanding comes about is described in one pastime I read last night (I’ll get the reference later).

Many of us are familiar with Srila Prabhupada’s eulogy to his sannyasa guru,Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja, who left his body while Srila Prabhupada was in America.

What we didn’t know was the back story. Srila Prabhupada was writing letters to Trivikrama Maharaja, Srila Kesava Maharaja’s disciple, asking him why he wasn’t sending the mrdangas he had promised to send. Trivikrama Maharaja and the other disciples were of course dealing with the impending departure of their gurudeva. They had written to Srila Prabhupada to inform him of Srila Kesava Maharaja’s condition, but those messages had not reached Prabhupada.

Srila Prabhupada is left wondering why these guys are not lending support, and they are left wondering why Srila Prabhupada is so insensitive to the condition of his dear Godbrother and the situation there.

Aspersions are made and things are said which remain for years afterwards, even after the misunderstanding has been cleared up. This book helps to bring some of these things into the light.

There are a number of other incidences where the backstory is explained and the whole situation is laid out. A lot of frictions simply arise from different angles of vision, incomplete understanding, and an inability to hold on to our own understanding while honoring another who has a different understanding.

This book is helping me to understand the perspective of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers, and to understand Srila Prabhupada’s policy of separation. It is in fact necessary to “keep the children apart”.

I’m not about to run off and join the Gaudiya Math (as if it were one homogenous thing and ISKCON were another homogenous thing), but I feel that I have a deeper appreciation for our wider heritage from reading this book, and a deeper appreciation for Srila Prabhupada from other angles of vision.

In an article entitled: “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve” Jim Collins summarizes some of the findings of his study published in Good to Great, specifically relating to the kind of leadership character found in the most highly successful organizations in the US. You can read a summary of that article here, courtesy of the US Coast Guard.

The greatest leaders combine the paradoxical personal qualities of extreme personal humility and an iron professional will. This is in stark contrast to the currently popular notion of the strong leader as the boastful, outwardly aggressive personality. Famous captains of industry such as Lee Iacocca (Chrysler) and Jack Welch (GE) fall into the category of Level 4 leaders - good, but not great. The difference is in the legacy that they leave. A great leader is not defined by what happens when they are around, but what by what happens after they leave. A good leader creates excellence. A great leader creates a culture of excellence.

I’ve been thinking about this lately, from another angle. Recently Alison gave a class as part of the “Live to SERVE” series at the Sunday Feast here, entitled: “Engage with Detachment”, speaking about the paradox of engaging with detachment. We are used to engaging with attachment, or disengaging when we are not attached.

This idea of detached engagement is at the crux of Level 5 leadership. The Level 5 leader has a paradoxical relationship with their service. They are at once completely detached from it, and prepared to walk away at a moment’s notice, and totally committed to it, prepared to give everything else up for it.

We’re used to people who are so attached that they will never give it up (some wags joked that Iacocca stood for “I Am Chairman Of Chrysler Corporation Always), or else so detached that they don’t put in anything approaching 100% effort.

Understand one thing: a Level 5 leader is a necessary ingredient for a great organization. In every good to great organization Collins’ team discovered a Level 5 leader quietly at the helm. They didn’t start out looking for leadership as the common denominator, in fact Collins initially told them to discount leadership as an explanation as it was too neat, and “don’t all organizations have leadership?”

In fact, good to great organizations have a special type of leadership that distinguishes itself from the leadership found in other organizations that do not reach to greatness.

You can see that Srila Prabhupada embodied this paradox. In fact I read an exact description of this in the latest Transcendental Diary the other day. Hari Sauri prabhu was relating Prabhupada’s pastimes staying with a family in India (I forget where - Agra? family called Agra?). He tells how a group of people came and heard Prabhupada speaking in his room, and that they were impressed by his simultaneous unbreakable conviction in what he was preaching and his own personal humility. Personally humble, professionally fierce - as Prabhupada himself described the ideal preacher: a lion in the chase, a lamb at home.

In Good to Great and the article mentioned above, Jim Collins admits that while they were able to detect and describe the Level 5 leaders and the qualities of Level 5 leadership, they were unable to explain satisfactorily the process of developing Level 5 leadership. The best they could do was to postulate that some people have the potential for it, while others do not, and that the seed of that potential could sprout due to life’s circumstances, resulting in a fully fledged Level 5 leader.

One of the impetuses that Collins postulates as a trigger for Level 5 leadership is a spiritual experience.

I have one story to illustrate this. I saw it on a video about Christian preaching. One preacher was sent to a small town to become the pastor there. He arrived in the afternoon with his wife and children and they checked into a motel. His wife turned to him and said: “Don’t bother unpacking - we’re not staying”. The town was riddled with gangs and methamphetamine production. The streets were in disrepair and the buildings were covered with gang tags.

That night that preacher prayed and prayed, and he felt the Lord telling him that his life’s work was to be there in that town. The next day he went to the local cemetery and purchased a space for his body to be buried in.

I’ve always found that to be an inspiring example. There is one ISKCON preacher in South America who embodies for me this example - His Grace Omkara Krishna Prabhu.

Anyway, at the heart of the Chowpatty temple you find His Holiness Radhanatha Swami, who is well known for his extreme personal humility. And something that is repeated again and again in the booklet that accompanies “The Simple Temple” - you just have to keep trying. They relate how they started and restarted programs various times before they finally got off the ground. That fierce organizational resolve is the influence of a Level 5 leader.

Knowing precisely which programs to commit to with that intensity is something else, and another organizational characteristic described by Collins and modelled in Chowpatty temple…

It’s a hefty download, but it’s worth it - it’s the 50 page pdf book “Steps to a Simple Temple“, that accompanies the Simple Temple DVD. Buy this DVD now! This DVD shows a wonderful model of a Krishna conscious community based around the temple in Chowpatty, India.

I’m re-reading this book again at the moment, and it is very good. The beginning discussion of the brahmacari ashram demonstrates one of the principles discussed in Good to Great that distinguishes all great organizations from good or not-so-good ones - they have an emphasis on getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats before they leave the station.

The section on counsellors discusses starting a counsellors program. It makes the point that they had no model to follow, and had to feel out each step. It may be that others trying to emulate their system by following the exact footsteps that they did will not have the same success, due to having a different set of environmental conditions, which must be dealt with in a different way.

We shall see more clearly as more successful models of this type are created which are the essential principles, and which are the details of implementation. Especially the way in which they developed their program from scratch (they discuss the evolution) may be different in different places due to differing resources.

Definitely the rigid adherence to the fundamentals - what powers their resource engine (the Holy Name), what they can be best in the world at (caring for people) - and the elimination of everything extraneous to this (concentration means elimination), also a factor discussed in Good to Great, is a major contributor in their success.

The clarity of the vision is also a major contributing factor in their success. There may be a number of different ways to eat a mango, but you have to have one, and you have to be clear about what it is. I am sure that everyone there knows what the program is.

As Jack Welch puts it, “the leader defines the situation”. Without a clear vision things will just muddle along. This book gives a crystal clear vision.

The presence of a “Level 5 leader”, a personality completely sold out to the mission above their own ego gratification, has also been identified in Good to Great as a precondition for sustained organizational excellence. I believe that His Holiness Radhanatha Swami is such a personality, and the success there in Chowpatty demonstrates this.

What they are successful at: creating a Krishna Conscious community, is a result of their spiritual focus. The same principles they model here can be used for material or spiritual success. If you get up early and do the same thing every day you’ll advance in it, for example. Whether that thing is spiritual or material depends on you. The principle is universal.

Simply “being spiritual” is not enough. We have to be intentional, and if we want it to be successful on a large scale, we have to be strategic. That’s not material, and it’s not thinking oneself the doer. It’s simply “putting in our one inch of the rope”. Our effort plus God’s grace is the winning formula.

The difference between the two, of course, is that God’s grace alone can be sufficient, whereas our effort alone never can be. However, sitting at home waiting for an honorary degree (krpa-siddhi) is not the recommended strategy.

If you don’t have this DVD, get it now. Buy another copy to give to someone for Christmas.

Have you ever been in this situation?

You’re put in charge of a restaurant that is underperforming. There is a team of people working in that restaurant already. Morale is low. Everyone on the team is either unsatisfied with the way things are going, or else taking advantage of the situation to their own benefit.

Everyone you talk to has their own idea of what should be done to fix the situation. You’re dealing with several problems. One is the economic issue - the restaurant is the economic engine of a temple, and the temple is pulling out all the available cash, so you have no capital to work with. At the same time, the temple is putting pressure on you to put out more, as the production of the restaurant is too low.

Another problem is the problem of the personnel. Because things have been left for some time a culture has developed, and there is resistance to changing it on the part of some people. They don’t mind change as long as everything stays the same for them. You don’t have a lot of good will to experiment with, so your changes have to be spot on or you will generate a massive backlash. You can’t easily replace them either, because you have to hire practitioners of Krishna Consciousness. Finding devotees who want to work in this particular job is not easy. The existing employees are aware of this and leverage it to maintain the status quo.

Sound familiar?

What’s your recourse? Do you pull out the book “ISKCON Leadership and Management Series: What to do with a struggling restaurant”, which is filled with case histories and lessons learned, discussions of underlying principles and how they should be applied in different circumstances?

I couldn’t find that book either, but don’t worry - you are not alone. I experienced this a few years ago, and I have a feeling that this is quite a common scenario. (If it sounds familiar it’s not because I’m describing your situation, that’s a direct description of the circumstances I found myself in four years ago. I suspect that this is not a unique occurrence).

Or how about on the other side of things (I haven’t been there, but I’ve seen it): you’re an upper level manager, and you put someone in charge of the economic engine of your temple, the restaurant, which is not doing as well as it could, and they start making changes, seemingly at random, knocking customers and staff around. I mean, you wanted things to be improved, but you weren’t imagining that the restaurant was going to become a laboratory for experimentation. Where’s an “ISKCON School of Leadership and Management” graduate when you need one?

I went out and tried to find some books that dealt with these issues and that could give me some guidance. One of the books that I stumbled across was “Good to Great” by Jim Collins. It is a review of an academic study of high performing organisations. It took me a few years to absorb the information, which was not quick enough to be of use in my restaurant situation, but I’m no longer completely in the dark about the principles involved in organizational excellence.

Anyway, I bring this up because of a post over at Tony Morgan’s blog, introducing a recently released supplement: “Good to Great and the Social Sectors“, which deals with volunteer and religious organizations.

Actually, I’ve been thinking about it, and the majority of people will get little or no benefit from reading this book. There are a small number of people who can actually process the contents. If those people can do so, and put these principles to work in the service of the sankirtan mission, then they can write further books which explain these principles and their application in the context of Krishna Consciousness. I’ve found one of those books, and I’ve reviewed it above.

I’m still waiting for that book to be written, the “ISKCON Leadership and Management Series: What to do with a struggling restaurant” one. Collecting case histories and interviewing managers needs to be done. While I was there in Peru I was crying out for a book on management set out like Nectar of Book Distribution, where different devotees come out and recount their experiences: “I did this for five years, then I discovered this, now ten years later I realize this…”

I have been for some time with the idea of generating some questions and interviewing experienced leaders in the Krishna Consciousness movement, and collating their responses into something along those lines. Perhaps that’s a task that could be undertaken by the Bhaktivedanta Leadership Institute. I’ve never been able to do such a thing due to lack of qualification. Whenever I have the opportunity to spend some time with experienced leaders I always ask questions about their experience and realizations in their service for my own edification. If that could be codified more for wider benefit, that would be from good to great.

Anyway, in the meantime, Good to Great represents a study of successful organizational principles that can be understood and then applied in a Krishna Conscious setting. We have to utilize anything and everything, and ultimately depend completely on Krishna.

The ISKCON Management and Leadership course taught in Mayapura is a good collation of principles presented in a Krishna Conscious framework. If I were in a position to do so, I would send my potential leaders to this course (or at least some). Failing that (time and laxmi are not unlimited resources), and while we wait for a more distributed educational program and books written from a specifically Krishna Conscious perspective, Good to Great is a cutting edge book on the principles that underlie organizational excellence. I highly recommend it for persons who have the additional bandwidth to absorb it.

Whatever may be there is alright, simply add Krishna and it becomes perfect.

A really great book is Brahmana and Vaisnava by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. I don’t pretend that I understand any more than a few percent of what is in there, but I return to it time and time again because the construction of his argument is brilliant. It is a paragon of Vedic debate.

The encounter that the book arises from is the stuff of legends.

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s father, had been invited to an expository debate with the Smarta Brahmana community (the hereditary priestly class in India), as a representative of the Vaisnavas.

Bhaktivinode Thakura begged off the encounter and sent his son in his stead.

First the Smarta Brahmanas spoke (think Pharisees for all those from a Christian background). They quoted many scriptures that proved that they were the representatives of God and the most holy.

The next day, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta spoke. He began by glorifying the brahmanas, and quoted even more verses, and made an even more compelling argument than the Smarta Brahmanas themselves had been able to make. In other words, he conclusively demonstrated to all present that no only did he understand the position of the Smarta Brahmanas, he understood it better than they did!

After gaining credibility and acceptance from all present, he then proceeded to present his own argument, that while brahmanas, the official priestly families, are undoubtedly holy and worthy of respect, the pure devotees of the Lord, regardless of their social class and the family they appear in, are holy and worthy of respect. And that one who is born into the family of brahmanas, but does manifest a character that is holy and worthy of respect, should be respected for his heritage, but should be understood to be off the mark.

The book is amazing because of the substance of the argument, which is the same argument that has been made by all teachers of spiritual essence, from Jesus Christ through Lord Caitanya, through to Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, and also because of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s amazing depth of scholarship and prowess as a communicator.

It was declared a flawless victory, and this book was produced from the speech that he gave.

I took the opportunity to read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point while I was at the hospital. Catalyst bloggers mentioned the book and Malcolm’s presentation at Catalyst, which drove me to it. Another of his books, Blink, seems to be on the executive reading list at work.

The book is very interesting, and it’s obvious that Andy Stanley and his leadership team have read it, as crucial concepts surface in the Drive 05 conference material.

Perhaps for me the biggest eye opener was reading about Sesame Street. Now I don’t know where I read about this, but I was laboring under the impression that research had shown that Sesame Street was actually counter-productive to children’s learning and literacy. The Tipping Point, however, tells exactly the opposite, and contains an exhaustive report on the show explaining the relationship between attention and learning, and how Sesame Street, rigorously designed to grab children’s attention, functions as an effective medium.

If you think about it, if grabbing people’s attention and entertaining them did not contribute to communicating your message, then television advertising would not be able to pay for all that programming that you get for free.

Gladwell then goes on to talk about the son of Sesame Street: Blue’s Clues. This was made by people who left Sesame Street to go even further. The format is a radical departure from Sesame Street, and shows a thirty year evolution of understanding of attention, engagment, and learning.

The points that are in there are all very good for helping to construct engaging environments for communicating Krishna Consciousness.

This is a great book by a deeply devoted and passionate career preacher, Bill Hybels. Bill Hybels is a man who has a deep love for people, and a heart for serving them.

The main contribution of this book, among many contributions, to me at this point, is an expansion on the four leadership aptitudes explained by John C. Maxwell. In this book Hybels explains no less than 10 different leadership aptitudes. These aptitudes are a combination of skills or styles, and situations. For example: one leadership aptitude is that of recovery or turnaround leadership, rescuing a crashing ministry and executing a turnaround. Another is start-up leadership, initiating a new project. When I read this section and began to look at myself, I could see that I function best in this situation.

Hybels also has deep insights into what it takes to be a leader over the long haul, discussing his experiences, failures and realizations about doing the necessary / working within your strengths, balancing ministry and family commitments, and developing others. As one reviewer said: “Hybels writes with a confidence born of successful leadership…but is at his best when admitting his struggles and mistakes.”

I also read Hybels’ Volunteer Revolution, which I will write up later. There are many nectarean things that have come from that book that I would like to share with you.

Good to Great companies have a clearly defined concept that defines their core strength, and they do not stray outside this core of operation at all. They know what they can be the best at, and they do that, and only that.

They do not waste energy doing things that are not part of their Hedgehog Concept, which is named for the philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who divided the world into hedgehogs and foxes, based upon an ancient Greek parable: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.”

A Hedgehog Concept is not a goal to be the best, a strategy to be the best, an intention to be best, a plan to be the best. It’s an understanding of what you can be the best at. The distinction is absolutely crucial.

A Hedgehog Concept is a simple, crystalline concept that flows from the intersection of three circles:

1. What you can be the best in the world at (and, equally important, what you cannot be the best in the world at). This discerning standard goes far beyond core competence. Just because you possess a core competence doesn’t necessarily mean you can be the best in the world at it. Conversely, what you can be the best at might not even be something in which you are currently engaged.

2. What drives your economic engine. All the good-to-great companies attained piercing insight into how to most effectively generate sustained and robust cash flow and profitability. In particular, they discovered the single denominator—profit per x—that had the greatest impact on their economics. (This is referred to as resource engine in “Good to Great and the Social Sectors“.)

3. What you are deeply passionate about. The good-to-great companies focused on those activities that ignited their passion. The idea here is not to stimulate passion but to discover what makes you passionate.

To quickly grasp the three circles, consider the following personal analogy. Suppose you were able to construct a work life that meets the following three tests. First, you are doing work for which you have a genetic or God-given talent, and perhaps you could become one of the best in the world in applying that talent. (“I feel I was just born to be doing this.”) Second, you are well paid for what you do. (“I get paid to do this? Am I dreaming?”) Third, you are doing work you are passionate about and absolutely love to do, enjoying the actual process for its own sake. (“I look forward to getting up and throwing myself into my daily work, and I really believe in what I’m doing.”)
If you could drive toward the intersection of these three circles and translate that intersection into a simple, crystalline concept that guided your life choices, then you’d have a Hedgehog Concept for yourself.

To have a fully developed Hedgehog Concept, you need all three circles. If you make a lot of money doing things at which you could never be the best, you’ll only build a successful company, not a great one. If you become the best at something, you’ll never remain on top if you don’t have intrinsic passion for what you are doing. Finally, you can be passionate all you want, but if you can’t be the best at it or it doesn’t make economic sense, then you might have a lot of fun, but you won’t produce great results.

This was a big, profound revelation for me.

First Who, then What.

The classic idea of a leader is that of the Level 4 Leader, a powerful, capable personality, who acts as a genius with a thousand helpers. He generates a vision, and then enlists highly capable helpers who help him to realize this vision.

The Level 5 Leaders of the Good to Great companies, however, acted in a completely different way. They first strove to get the very best people that they could, and situate them in the right positions, building a superior executive team. Only then did they decide what to do.

The geniuses seldom build great management teams, for the simple reason that they don’t need one, and often don’t want one. If you’re a genius, you don’t need a Wells Fargo–caliber management team of people who could run their own shows elsewhere. No, you just need an army of good soldiers who can help implement your great ideas. However, when the genius leaves, the helpers are often lost. Or, worse, they try to mimic their predecessor with bold, visionary moves (trying to act like a genius, without being a genius) that prove unsuccessful.

As Akrura das put it in one issue of the Bhaktivedanta Leadership Newsletter, the leader of the past was a genius with a thousand helpers. The leader of the future will be a helper of a thousand geniuses.

This emphasis on who went right through the company, with an extreme emphasis on getting only the best people for the job. Great pains were taken to fill vacancies with the right person. These companies prefer to travel with an empty seat than to settle for less than the right person in that seat.

My realization from this is to put all the energy into getting the right people. When you put 80% of your effort into getting the right people, the other 20% can be spent giving them facilitation that further increases the value of their work. If you only put 20% of your effort into getting the right people, the other 80% is spent fixing up their mistakes and dealing with the problems they cause.

I’ve personally wasted too much time doing it, and seen too many times the results of settling for “anyone, just anyone”. Get the right person for the job, and only the right person - no-one else.

Here is an audio clip of Jim Collins explaining how you are wasting your time “trying to motivate” the wrong people. The right people don’t need to be motivated. They are genetically coded for the task they engage in.

The other point is to get rid of this model of an “omniscient leader” surrounded by sycophantic followers. These organizations never become more than a person with a loud voice yelling through a megaphone. Someone with some innate leadership ability - the ability to cast vision, unbreakable determination, clarity of purpose - is able to attract some people to their cause and engage them in that, and people call that leadership. Sure it is, but it’s a low level of leadership. It’s directly related to the strength of the leader himself, in a linear way, and it rests squarely on them personally.

Encouraging this type of leadership simply limits the long term success of the organization.

To add growth, lead followers. To multiply growth, lead leaders. To sustain this into the future, create a culture of leadership reproduction.

Good to Great Companies and their leaders face the brutal facts head on. They do not try to pretty things up or avoid the raw brutal truth. They have the ability to look in the mirror and say: “We suck.”

At the same time, they possess what Collins and his team came to refer to as the Stockdale paradox - the ability to simultaneously face up to the brutal truth, and at the same time never lose their unshakeable confidence that eventually they will prevail.

There is no: “We should always look at the positive”, “We shouldn’t be negative”, no trying to defend why things are the way they are with excuses. Simply the brutal truth.

“We do not have significant traction in the wider society. We are not producing devotees. We are not reproducing our manpower. We are not significantly affecting change in large numbers of people. In many cases we are not even significantly affecting change in small numbers of people.” - that sort of thing.

Once the good to great companies got a realistic assessment of the situation they set to work to deal with it. Other companies went along with rose tinted glasses on, and were not able to address the things that they needed to address. Vested interests within the company, taboos about things that were not to be challenged, a culture of admiring the Emperor’s new clothes, an inability to critically examine the weaknesses and shortcomings of the business all conspired to ultimately defeat them.

Companies that can face up directly to the brutal facts of the situation with an undefeatable will to eventually overcome them, prevail.

Companies which do not face the brutal facts become increasingly irrelevant.

Companies that cannot face the brutal facts without losing their will to live, deserve to die….

and that folks, is a brutal fact.

Jim Collins was a self-confessed “leadership agnostic” - he did not buy into the black box explanation for anything that was not understood: “Oh, it must be leadership.”

All companies have leaders, he reasoned. Good to Great companies have leadership, comparison companies have leadership. Big deal. He specifically told his research team that he did not want them focusing on the leaders.

However, after some time they pushed back - “Jim, we’re looking at the data and there is something different about these leaders.”

One of the interesting findings of the study was what the team came to call a Level 5 Leader. The executive summary, “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve” provides a portrait of this leader, who embodies two contradictory qualities - extreme personality humility, and unbreakable professional will.

High powered “Level 4 Leaders”, the classic image of a larger-than-life celebrity leader, a super charismatic individual, do not create sustained greatness in organizations because while they are themselves larger-than-life, they are not capable of becoming larger than themselves.

We eventually came to call these remarkable people “Level 5 leaders.” The term “Level 5” refers to a five-level hierarchy. Level 1 relates to individual capability, Level 2 to team skills, Level 3 to managerial competence, and Level 4 to leadership as traditionally conceived. Level 5 leaders possess the skills of levels 1 to 4 but also have an “extra dimension”: a paradoxical blend of personal humility (“I never stopped trying to become qualified for the job”) and professional will (“sell the mills”). They are somewhat self-effacing individuals who deflect adulation, yet who have an almost stoic resolve to do absolutely whatever it takes to make the company great, channeling their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It’s not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious—but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution and its greatness, not for themselves.

All the 11 companies had Level 5 Leaders.

How you become a Level 5 Leader is not something that the study was able to resolve, but Collins theorizes that some people have the “seed” or potential to become Level 5 Leaders, and through nurturing of this seed it develops. This can come about through a life transforming experience such as a religious conversion, deep spiritual practice, a terminal illness, or some other profound event.

This book by Jim Collins, who is rated number 10 in Amazon’s 10th anniversary list of top 25 authors, is practically the defining work of its genre at this point in time. It is the result of a six year study by a Stanford research team lead by Collins to identify the essential elements necessary for an organization to go from good to great.

The study focused on publicly-traded corporations for a number of reasons, among which are:

• Well defined measures of success that could be used to compare different organizations with each other
• Large amounts of available data on measurables

The principles that were identified are universal however, and can be applied to any organization, including non-profit or religious ones, as you’ll see as I review books later that have been written about the results of applying these principles in these organizations.

Collins and his team set a high standard for what constituted a “great” company. After tracking the industry average for some time (a “good” company), it had to trade at over 3 times the average for its industry for 15 years from the transition point. After analyzing the data of the New York Stock Exchange over a 30 year period, the team could identify only 11 companies that met this criteria - thus this study represents not a statistical sample, but the entire set of companies that have made the transition “from good to great”, according to the standard Collins set.

Let me first of all share with you my relationship with this book, and then I will break down the major points of the book in separate posts, so that those of you with short attention spans (not looking at anyone in particular) will be able to read them (thanks for the advice… )

While in South America I was given responsibility for a number of facilities. It was when I hit my second restaurant, on top of a book publishing company, two preaching centers, the first restaurant, and an ashram, that I started to feel a little challenged, to say the least.

The problem was that I was no longer able to directly manage the facilities either personally or with my existing team, who were already fully loaded. I had to manage through other people - that’s a leadership function, although I didn’t know this at the time. The “other” restaurant that I had picked up was the flagship of the yatra, and the main economic engine. It was in trouble. Morale was low and the economic situation was bad and getting worse.

I had no idea of what to do, or how to do it, nor did anyone else really, although everyone had their idea of what should be done. I was pretty certain that actually no one knew what to do, or they’d be doing it, but there were a million ideas and opinions and I had no idea how to discriminate between them.

In terms of what I now know, I was at a loss as to the vision that I should cast in order to mobilize the existing people, nor did I have sufficient knowledge of the business to be able to recognize the “right person for the job”.

So it was in this situation that I started looking around for books to capacitate myself in business administration.

At random I picked out books, mainly related to leadership and people management, such as emotional intelligence for leaders, neurolinguistic programming, and one called: “Empresas que sobresalen” (Businesses That Stand Out).

This book turned out (later) to be Good to Great.

In terms of getting things together over there in Peru I wasn’t able to do a miraculous turn around. I staved off failure in all areas and created excellence in one, the book publishing, but even in that arena I wasn’t able to create an organization that continued at the same level after I left. Anyway, live and learn. I could do better now, and that’s the important thing.

When I came to work at Red Hat, I spent time with one of the managers here, Paul. He was telling me about a book on the executive reading list, Good to Great. As he started to describe the contents I exclaimed: “I’ve read that book!”

I then bought the Level 5 Leadership executive summary from Amazon.com, which is basically a summary of the key concepts in the book. After reading through this and watching how Red Hat is being run, I could understand that the upper levels of leadership in this company are attempting to consciously and systematically apply the principles discovered in the Good to Great study to this company.

Then as I began to study successful preaching organizations I found that they too had read the book and were consciously applying the principles.

I added a five CD set of Good to Great being read by Jim Collins to my leadership library, and invested the six hours needed to listen to it going to and from work on my bicycle.

I have to say that when you have a clear understanding of the principles underlying organizational success you can apply them with greater consistency and effectiveness.

Description from Krishna Culture: “The Simple Temple / Chowpatty (video) and Simple Steps for a Simple Temple (book) by Radhanath Swami. The video shows the famous Chowpatty temple amidst the materialistic chaos of metropolitan Mumbai. The book explains the principles behind the temple’s success, including brahmacari and grhastha asrams, preaching programs, rotating temple president, grhastha counselor system, marriage board, children’s committee, etc. Video: 1 hour;”

Manjulali devi dasi in Sydney lent me this DVD. Tri Yuga, Alison, Prahlad and I watched it this morning before I headed into work. Prahlad absolutely loved it. It was very sweet and very inspiring. I am interested to see the book.

In terms of Leadership Aptitudes, His Holiness Radhanath Swami is obviously a very strong team building leader.

Here is a pdf file entitled “The Aryan Maori”, examining the links between the indigenous people of New Zealand and the ancient Vedic culture centered in India.

An interesting read when you have some time.

Get Everyone in Your Boat Rowing in the Same Direction: 5 Leadership Principles to Follow So Others Will Follow You is another great book. I don’t have a copy of this, having borrowed it from the library, but it is going on my “to get for the library” list.

Author Bob Boylan gives a very clear cut and very practical explanation of the process of generating shared vision. Leadership, in the words of Marcus Buckingham, is all about “emphasizing the universal”. Boylan’s book is broken down into simple concepts, accompanied by very practical exercises that can be carried out to explore and implement those concepts.

The subtitle of the book is “5 Leadership Principles to Follow So Others Will Follow You “. One of the chapters is about knowing what to talk about. A leader should constantly emphasize shared values and the common vision. This will generate organizational cohesion. If a leader emphasizes a message that involves values or vision that are not shared by some in the organization, those people will be alienated.

Shared vision is generated in two ways, it is either created, or discovered. One way of thinking of values and vision is to think of the destination sign on a bus. The vision part is the final destination (where we are going), the values part represent the route (how we are going to get there).

You can think of the function of the leader as being that of the driver. He or she gets onto the bus and there are then a number of options, depending on whether there are already people on the bus or not. If the bus is empty, the driver can put up a sign with a destination and route on it, and then wait to see who gets on. The driver could wait for people to get on and then ask them where they want to go, then put the sign up. If the bus already has people on it, the driver can ask them where they want to go, then put the sign up, or the driver could simply announce to the people where the bus is going.

Shared vision is created when a leader announces the vision and then looks for people who share that vision. Shared vision is discovered when a group undertakes a process of discovering their values and vision and looking for the common ground.

Let me give some examples from my personal experience.

I have already previously spoken about the difference in my level of influence from my time in Wellington to my time in Peru. In Wellington I was there from day one, and had long standing relationships with the team members. I had invested time and energy in many of them, and in reciprocation for that there was a high level of trust and the concession of influence. People agreed to allow me to have influence on them (exercise leadership) due to these relationships.

When I was made a leader in Peru, however, my leadership was positional, in name only. I did not have established relationships with people as I had had in Wellington. My sphere of influence was considerably reduced. Of course, this is not something that was clearly explained to me at the time. That’s a function of two things, my particular style of learning, and a lack of availability (awareness) of appropriate resources. I had to learn all these things through hard experience, and it is only doing a review with the help of literature such as this that I am able now to understand what happened. As Maxwell says, experience is not the best teacher - evaluated experience is.

In Wellington basically those who were attracted to the vision and values that we established from the beginning joined the organization, so there was a high degree of alignment. Maneuvering the organization was easy. In Peru it was like steering the Titanic - trying to make a slight adjustment was nearly impossible.

I was able to achieve a lot with the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust there because I worked with my team that I travelled with from New Zealand and a family who were happy to work on the same platform of vision and values. I announced the vision and values, and it was harmonious with them.

In another sphere I was put in charge of an inner city temple. I called a community meeting to do some exploration of the vision and values of the people. Understand that I wasn’t following any kind of procedure or really deeply understanding what I was doing, because I had had no formal training. I was winging it. I have a degree of natural ability and intuition with leadership, but that only takes you so far….

The meeting was really a combination of two things, looking back on it. Basically I wanted to discover the vision and values of the existing members of the organization, and to look for the common ground with my own. Based on the commonalities, I would construct a platform to move forward.

What I discovered was a high degree of disparity between the vision and values of the existing members. Some people thought we should do one thing, others thought another. Some thought it should be done this way, others another. At the same time, people were not really clear about the differences, or really in touch with themselves and their values. People did not understand the positions of others. There wasn’t any clear direction to align with, what to speak of alignment!

What I should have done is spent a lot of time from this point forward working on discovering people’s values and their vision, helping them to really connect with their values and refine their vision for themselves, then discover what the common platform was.

What I did instead is basically construct a platform based on my own vision and values, incorporating some of the elements that I could detect as common from everyone else, and then start implementing it.

The result of this, predictably, returning to our bus analogy, is that a number of people realized that the bus wasn’t going their way or to their destination, and got off. Others, in true South American style, and again predictably, tried to seize control of the wheel.

I ended up fighting a massive rearguard action, with little support (those with something concrete to lose will fight hard, those with only potential gains won’t). Progress was frustratingly slow. Alienation and attrition were high. Motivation was low, obstructionism was rife.

OK, so chalk that one up to experience. Round two. I was put in charge of another inner city temple / preaching center. At the same time. I was also put in charge of another restaurant. Let me deal with the restaurant experience in my review of Good to Great, because that lead me to purchase that book.

In terms of the other preaching center (this one had no people living in it), I moved a little more slowly, having gained some expensive experience at the first place. I spent a lot more time trying to build trust and a common platform. Again however, I ran into the same problem. You see, if you get on the bus with people already on it, you have basically two options. Find out where they want to go and go there, or go where you want to go, and deal with the fact that at least some of those people on that bus are not going to want to go there.

My realization at the end was that I was not getting any love this way. Remember that previously I revealed that in my personal value structure progress ranks over harmony? I’m not the harmonizing team-building leader of Maxwell’s Leadership Aptitudes explanation. I’m a Directive / Strategic Leader. If this bus ain’t going somewhere, and at a decent speed, then I’m on the wrong bus, not matter how much fun everyone is having. It’s not right or wrong, it’s just the way it is.

I got off the bus.

I had attracted a number of people who were of a similar mind - similar value structure - and who had faith in my leadership. I had faith in them. With similar values a common vision is more easily constructed - a picture of the future and the path to get there. These were all foreigners. Harmony is valued over progress in the standard Peruvian value structure.

We find that as people mature they go from being progress over harmony to harmony over progress. From pioneers to community builders. It’s a natural progression. Putting the right person in the right job allows that person to utilize their talents and propensities effectively, and happily. I suffered intensely for three years there in Peru, and I caused a lot of suffering for others. It was all for a good cause though, and now afterwards we’re all the better for it. After I left others who opposed me tried their hand at it and ran into the same problems, learnt the same lessons, and now we correspond with each other, fellow graduates of the school of hard knocks.

When I came to Australia from Peru I stopped off in Auckland, New Zealand, for the opening of the new temple. Before I left New Zealand for South America I had gone to Sri Sri Radha-Giridhari and prayed to Them: “Please, never let me go”.

Somehow they mystically arranged everything so that my time in Peru ended right on schedule for me to be present at the opening of Their new temple. I continue to serve Them in separation.

Anyway, at the opening of the temple I ran into Tirtharaj das, who had “head-hunted” us from Peru. My Guru Maharaja gave me some indications of his desires, and based on that I made the choice to come to Brisbane. Really it was easy. We were flat broke after three years in South America and had no way of getting back. Tirtharaj offered to front the money for our tickets so it was pretty clear where the path forward lay.

At the opening of the temple Tirtharaj came up to me and said: “Our temple president just resigned.” I started to get a little nervous. I was hoping to be able to work in with some kind of stable, compatible situation. I knew that Tirtharaj had faith in, if not me, at least in the recommendation of my spiritual master, who would encourage him to give me some scope to act. “Who is going to take over?” I asked. Tirtharaj’s hand descended onto my shoulder, accompanied by a big smile: “That’s where you come in!”

Anyway, I dropped that like a hot potato.

Here in Brisbane I have started with an empty bus. My vision is not completely formed, but I have a direction, and my values are clear to me, and becoming clearer. I am attached to working in a particular way and I’m out of the closet about it. I am not about to go through years more of suffering, and put others through suffering at the same time. Let those who wish to work with me and work in this way do so, and let others have space to do as they wish.

I am trying to balance my life using the 80/20 principle, something that I picked up from Simply Strategic Volunteers. 80% in your strength zone, 20% outside. It’s not just about self-actualization and to hell with everyone else, but it’s not about twisting yourself out of shape and burning out either.

As we go forward and our particular organizational unit becomes successful and develops, I will have the ability to compromise on other points and contribute to platforms where, while I can appreciate the values and vision, it just doesn’t do it for me. As long as my own need to work in a particular way is taken care of I won’t become frustrated.

People are getting on, and because it is clear from the outset what the values of this particular platform are, it’s either what they want to do, or they don’t get onboard. As a result alignment is high and very easily we generate a shared vision. Spiritual life is not about impersonalism or homogenity. Within a wider community there are many groups, and when people’s needs are being met in a way that doesn’t threaten others they are able to respect others who have different needs.

We don’t all have to think the same way, be the same way, or do things the same way.

Being attached to working in a particular way is a product of the modes of material nature. Being aware of that, and familiar with the particular nature of that way, and recognizing it, not as an absolute truth that all others must abide by to be “right”, but merely as an expression of your own particular nature, is a product of the sattva-guna, or mode of goodness. Knowing what your adhikara is and acting according to that will call your progress, and it will enable wider organizational harmony.

When people confuse their own nature with absolute reality and demand that others work in that way or get out of the organization it creates a difficult situation. It’s not “all or nothing”, or “my way or the high way”. In the house that Srila Prabhupada has built there are many rooms.

Conclusion: Be yourself and make a contribution. If you want to do it with others, read this book to get some clarity on how to help yourself and others to discover and connect with their values, and be able to recognize what will, and will not work in terms of organization of people into functional teams that can deliver results and fulfil the needs of the members.

I just finished reading this book, The Secret - What Great Leaders Know — and Do, by Ken Blanchard and Mark Miller.

Ken Blanchard co-authored “The One Minute Manager” with Spencer Johnson, the author of “Who Moved My Cheese?“. These three books fall into the category of “business fiction”, fictional narratives of a contrived scenario with the principles that the authors wish to share communicated through the dialogue of the characters. As John Maxwell says about communication: “Principles fade, stories stick”. This is the same format used by Vaisnava author and thought-leader Bhaktivinode Thakura.

John Maxwell wrote the forward to this book, and he is quoted within it. I’ll speak a little more about the relationship between these authors in another post.

I’ve read The One Minute Manager. I found a lot of useful things in it, especially the resolution of the apparent dichotomy between results and relationships through the idea of valuing both results and relationships, however I thought it could easily lead to an undue emphasis on technique over transformation, due to not emphasizing the necessity of leaders to work on their character, and be before they do.

In this book Blanchard strikes the right balance, I feel. He introduces the SERVE model through the illustration of an iceberg. The 20% above water represents a leader’s visible leadership. The 80% below water represents their character, poignantly illustrating the principle summarized in US Army Leadership Training materials as the mantra “Be-Know-Do”. Blanchard urges us to consider whether we are serving leaders, or self-serving leaders.

The story of The Secret is that of Debbie, a floundering executive who is doing everything wrong. In fact I winced when I read the description of her perceptions and her leadership in the first chapter, mainly because I recognized myself - but let me save that for the next review, as I had planned. Debbie enrolls in the company’s mentoring program as a last resort, and winds up being mentored by Jeff, the CEO.

He introduces her to the SERVE model of leadership (developed at the company that author Mark Miller works at), and reveals what each letter stands for in successive monthly meetings, which are punctuated by Debbie’s attempts to put the principles into practice, and her experiences and realizations doing that.

Here is the SERVE model of leadership:

S - See the future

Leaders have to have vision, to see the bigger picture. They need to make sure that “Heads Up” work is done, defining direction, in addition to the indispensable “Heads Down” work of implementation.

E - Engage and Develop Others

Leaders need to make sure that the right people are situated in the right position, and they need to take an interest and make an investment in developing those people. As one article put it in a recent edition of Building Church Leaders, it’s not about finding people to fill roles, it’s about finding roles to fulfil people.

R - Reinvent Continuously

Yesterday’s formula for success is today’s recipe for mediocrity and tomorrow’s risk-free path to failure. Leaders need to continuously reinvent on three levels:

1. Personal

   Leaders need to engage in continuous self-development and education.

   Quote: “I believe that personal reinvention should be one of a leader’s highest priorities because we have a stewardship responsibility to maximize our God-given talents. We can only do that as we continuously learn and grow.“

2. Process

   Leaders need to stimulate the reinvention of processes, how the work is done, in order to drive continuous improvement.

   Quote: “Leaders must also work to instill the desire for improvement into the people doing the day-to-day work.“

3. Structural

   Leaders need to constantly re-examine the structure of the organization.

   Quote: “Many people assume that an organizational structure is permanent. In many cases, the organizational structure no longer serves the business - the people are serving the structure. Great leaders don’t change the structure just for something to do. However, they understand that their organizational structure should be fluid and flexible.“

V - Value Results and Relationships

Sometimes leaders may be driven by the “bottom line”. However, an exclusive focus there paradoxically brings diminishing returns. The reason is that it is the contribution of the people of the organization that generates the bottom line, and people are all about relationships. So a leader values both results, and relationships, investing time in cultivating and maintaining them.

E - Embody the Values

By embodying the values a leaders gains credibility and creates trust.

A chapter is dedicated to speaking of leaders who model servant leadership, and Jesus of Nazareth makes an appearance there, as well as a little later, as the ideal of a servant leader. Both Blanchard and Miller are Christians, with Miller participating along with Maxwell in the Million Leader Mandate, a project to train and equip 1 million leaders worldwide to lead the church in its future expansion. Maxwell is also part of Billion Soul.org, a project with the motto: “No One Left Behind” (playing off both the US military mentality of “Leave No-one Behind”, and the wildly popular right-wing Christian apocalyptic fiction series “Left Behind“).

The book ends with a quote from Martin Luther King: “Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.”

I feel that this small book (115 pages - easily digested in a week even for a slow reader) would be a worthy addition to any leadership library, and would even be good as “the only book you ever read on leadership”. It gives a concise and easily remembered model that captures the essence of leadership principles. I would definitely recommend reading this to get the wider context before (or even after, if that’s the situation now) reading The One Minute Manager.

Here’s why I feel it beneficial to explain why my name is written the way it is, and not in the form that members of the Hare Krishna movement would find most natural:

An excerpt from the book “The Leadership Lessons of the U.S. Navy SEALS : Battle-Tested Strategies for Creating Successful Organizations and Inspiring Extraordinary Results”.

“Organizations have rituals because those rituals are part of how the organization does business. Wearing a tie may represent profitability and reliability, which is important when dealing with certain customers. A regulation haircut may signify adherence to a professional culture. Using an accepted memo format may signify familiarity with accepted regulations. Repeating a simple phrase may strengthen feelings of membership.

By maintaining its rituals, an organization is communicating the idea that a system or culture is in place. By adhering to its rituals, you are confirming that you belong to the organization. If you buck the system, you are not simply rebelling against formal suits and orthodox memos; you are questioning the organization, strategies, and processes they represent. You are questioning the company you work for.

So get over it. It’s not just about you. A client that has hired the company you work for isn’t just hiring you. It’s hiring everything that your company represents. And if you don’t believe in what your company represents, then why are you there? When it comes time to promote someone, whom do you think the company is going to want as a leader? Someone who believes in what the company’s about, or someone who’s just along for the ride?

This isn’t about being a suck−up and doing what someone else wants. It’s about working for a company that you believe in—through and through.”

I believe in the organization and its values through and through, and so I would love to demonstrate adherence to those values in the matter of writing my name, and every time I write to someone within the organization using a form that is not the form that they would find most natural it grates on me. However, I remember a point that was hammered into me during my training: “This place is not to make you feel comfortable, it is to make the guests feel comfortable. Any service establishment is focused on the needs of the customers primarily, not the staff.” So I am sure that all staff members of the organization will not feel uncomfortable with an unconventional way of writing my name when they understand the process that lead me to this spelling.

A strong customer focus is itself a core value of our organization (”Preaching is the Essence”).

From Simply Strategic Volunteers: Empowering People for Ministry

“This may sound counter-intuitive, but we don’t ask for help at Granger. You won’t see a bulletin ad indicating a need for volunteers. You won’t hear one of the pastors talk about the shortage of worker’s in the children’s area. You won’t see “help wanted” signs posted on the church bulletin boards.

Now, to set your mind at ease, this isn’t because we’ve found the magic formula for for recruiting volunteers to fill every single role that could ever exist in our ministry. We can always use more volunteers. We don’t need volunteers and we don’t ask for help because we’ve learned that most people will not jump onto a sinking ship. When you beg for volunteer help, you might be admitting: “I have no compelling vision for this area of our ministry and, therefore, no one willingly serves. So I’m going to try to guilt you into helping out.”

Of course there are some people in your church who will respond to your plea for volunteers. Understanding that ministry sometimes involves sacrifice, they’ll serve in order to keep the ship from sinking. But when people end up serving a ministry that isn’t in line with their gifts and passions, they will likely become frustrated and burned out. Then you will have created a vicious cycle: a ministry with no compelling vision and a bunch of people who’d rather not be serving it in. Oh boy! Where can I sign up for that ministry team?

Instead of telling people who you need, tell them how you can help them use their gifts and experiences. Explain how they can find purpose and fulfillment. Communicate the mission and vision of the ministry, and then tell them how they could influence the lives of others by filling a particular role….

We still post volunteer openings in our bulletins. Instead asking for help, however, we offer opportunities for people to contribute to the lives of others. The focus isn’t on the ministry role; it’s on the person who’s interested in finding a ministry. The emphasis isn’t on the service that needs to be performed; it’s on the people whose lives are affected by the servant.”