By “don’t want to lead” I mean that they’re reluctant and choose the times and places they step up wisely. Why? Because they know leadership comes with a price tag – it’s not all stages and great speeches. It’s serving. It’s blood and sweat and tears. It’s giving a damn day after day. It’s smiling when everyone’s crying and offering hope when there’s none left. It’s speaking life into people when they don’t want to hear it. It’s trying and failing and trying again. It’s listening. It’s exhausting. It’s existing for the good of other people – to help them win. It’s a life poured out. Period.

If someone is begging to lead – don’t let them. I don’t care how smart, well spoken, or ambitious they are. I don’t care what previous positions or titles they’ve had – they’ve never lead. They’re begging because they’re in it for themselves (ego, insecurity, etc.) or they’re stupid. Either way they’ll fail.

Great – but reluctant – people are who you should look for. Leaders you have to beg and cajole. People who fully realize the price they’ll pay – but do it anyway.

The way I see it we have two options.  1. We find a bigger space to meet.  2. We split into two groups.  I think we’ll probably end up going with option #1 for now but #2 is probably inevitable.  That makes me sad.  Growth is great but it also sucks.

In the modern era logic, science, and the idea of “pure reason” were in. Philosophers spent most of their time reasoning and deducting. Scientists were objectively experimenting. Newton was forming his solid and unchanging “laws” of the universe and the gospel was boiled down into “four spiritual laws” as well. Religion was on trial for claiming “super” natural phenomena. Theologians were systematizing their theology. The arts were struggling to be taken seriously. People like Spoch were highly respected: rational and unemotional. “Don’t give me any experiential mumbo jumbo” was a phrase you might hear some wise person utter. We loved shows like Dragnet, with agent Joe Friday saying “just the fact’s ma’m, just the facts.” The great thinkers and writers of the day were confident that we were creating a better world. At the turn of the 20th century a popular saying was “every day, in every way we are getting better and better.” Science, technology, and reason would lead us there.

However, two world wars and a great depression were enough to begin the eroding of peoples faith in the modern experiment. Was the world really getting better and better? Was there even such a thing as “pure reason” or being truly “objective”: the way the scientist claimed to approach his experiment or the philosopher claimed to arrive at his deductions. Some people began to think these premises might be questionable, and it followed that the idea of something “after” or “post” modern was birthed. These were people who lived through the modern era, and experienced it so deeply that they were changed by it, and became something else entirely: postmodern. On this basis postmodernity isn’t necessarily “antimodern” or “better than modern” just “emerging from modern.”

In a postmodern world it’s not that logic and reason are out, but are rather taken off their pedestal, and placed alongside story, imagination, and experience in the search for truth. It’s not that science is out, but instead is humbly placed in the context of a very mysterious universe with a very “other” God that we have trouble wrapping our tiny brains around.

The implications for this new way of thinking are far reaching. The arts are being revitalized as a legitimate voice in the search for truth. Mystery is not sneered at, but celebrated. The arrogant humanism and individualism (think of our hero’s spock or the lone ranger) that modernity birthed are being replaced by a profound sense of “we” and a desire for relationship and community. Science is one of the voices, as opposed to the only voice. Supernatural things aren’t disregarded on the spot. The bible isn’t approached the way a skeptical detective approaches a crime scene, but is instead approached in a more relational and humble manner.

In many ways the Wizard of Oz serves as an appropriate metaphor for the rise of the postmodern world. In the story our friend Dorothy becomes the unlikely hero, journeying through an unknown world with imperfect friends. While the almighty Oz (confident, know it all, and loud) is revealed as a fraud. He is, and has been all along, only a humble seeker like them.

I hope this at least gives you a taste of what postmodernism may be. Hopefully it launches you into your own study of where our world has been and where it may be headed.

For a long time I was a vision maniac. I wanted to know my vision and I wanted to know your vision. It was normal for me to ask human beings, “so, what’s your vision?”

However, over the years my faith in the power of a vision has faded.

I think this has been for a number of reasons. First, there were times when I would actually put my vision down on paper, only to reread it months later to find that I had lied. Some of the vision we had pursued, other parts had faded for one reason or another: wrong timing, failure to get buy in, but probably the most popular reason was that a huge portion of it simply wouldn’t work. This sounds like a complete disaster, but to my knowledge it really wasn’t. In fact I never had a team member come up to me and say, “Hey, remember that vision talk you gave a few months ago? Do you recognize that the thing we are doing now is different in significant ways?” It was almost as though, despite what every book on leadership taught, we were guided by something other than what was written down as our “organizational vision.”

So where exactly does this leave us as people and organizations? If a rousing vision isn’t the fuel for our rocket, what is?

Honestly, I don’t have a good term yet, but I’m thinking of “it.” “It” is that thing that just oozes out of a leader and his/her organization. They don’t have to talk about it or write it down. It’s simply who they are, and who their organization becomes.

For my youth ministry “it” was these things: organic and relational. Whatever we did had to flow from those things. It didn’t matter what was written down on as our vision. If it didn’t line up with those things… somehow we knew, “this just isn’t us.”

Another example of this inner guidance is my current company Fuor. We don’t actually have a vision. In the early days I kept asking “what is our vision, what is our vision, what the heck is our vision?” All the guys would just kind of look at me, hang their heads, and keep silent. I wanted clarity, by golly! I wanted to know all the details of what we are going to be about. But, you know what I’ve realized? We don’t know those things and that’s okay. However, mysterious as it may sound, when I start thinking about Fuor these ideas and concepts just come to my mind. We are all about quality and creativity. Whatever we do is going to be the best. Nothing second rate. Also, we can’t stand boredom, so it has to be creative and interesting. Right now “it” is primarily channeled into designing and developing websites. But, you know what? That may change. Building websites doesn’t best describe Fuor. Creativity and Quality does.

So what about your organization? Don’t tell me your elaborate plans for the future. Don’t try and pump me up with your word pictures.

Just describe to me your “it” and that should do the trick.

I have a hunch that “it” goes by another name called “core vales.” But that revelation has only now come to me as I write this post, so I’ll have to think it through.

More on this topic to come. I think we are on to something here.

Peter’s writes, “Simple, as I see it. There is an Enemy of inestimable power—moreover, power growing by the day. Incidentally, the same Remorseless Enemy that brought McDonald’s to the brink a decade ago. Namely, itself-themselves. I “like,” in a fashion, “the Starbucks case.” The company does not have an external enemy worth talking about, or to blame the decline on. And its stock is surging South. Ergo, its enemy must, necessarily, be Starbucks. And if a company that is unchallenged in conventional terms is in a pickle, that bodes poorly for all of us. In fact, it’s downright scary.”

This has gotten me to thinking about organizations and those people at the top responsible for it all: leaders. What can we do in the face of such horror? The whole “being our own worst enemy” is a bit cliche.  Yet so stunningly true that we can’t ignore it.

Which is why I believe that a leader’s title should be “chief destroyer.”

Every day in our organization people are making decisions. This isn’t wrong. In fact, all of them make sense at the time and seem innocent enough.

However, over time, almost imperceptibly, all those decisions start adding up and things start getting weird and bogged down. The “vibe” at the office just isn’t the same. New ideas start getting shot down. Things start taking longer. People who fall in line are rewarded, while those who stir things up, are canned. Security is in, and risk taking is out.

The organization is no longer this entrepreneurial, lean, quick striking, gorilla warfare type unit… it’s more like Jabba the Hutt.

This is when the leader must get his/her “destroy” on: chopping and hacking left and right, asking the hard questions and then taking alarming risks.

Granted, some may say “This all seems a bit over the top.”

However, I would argue that in this crazy/hyper paced world, where you can be “in” one second and “out” the next, it may actually be the most “sane” thing you can do.

Also, if your organization is going to die, why not go out in a blaze of controversy and courage.  As opposed to a 5 year slow, painful, wheezing death by mediocrity and the status quo.