There have been a confluence of experts suggesting we pay more attention to cultural fit than to skills when hiring. That's often hard to discern in our usual hiring processes: application, resume, phone interview, in-person interview, maybe another interview or two. The lower the position is in the typical organizational chart the fewer steps there are in the process. Yet character is just as important at the bottom as at the top.
Tony Dungy tells about not drafting skilled players because of their character. Even in a finite game like football and the team needed to compete, character flaws in one person will have long-term effects on the organization. How much more so for infinite game organizations like businesses? [Brief description of an infinite game: there is no end zone or time limit; competitors change frequently; regulations change frequently; outside the 'game' influencers appear (like coronavirus), etc.]
Collins talks about character in Good to Great: level 5 leadership and getting the right people on the bus. Lencioni talks about this in The Advantage and The Ideal Team Player and, of utmost importance for the top dog, in The Motive. You can find lots of others. Even books that tout leadership teams should be like jazz combos suggest character is important, because jazz combos aren't successful if they can't play together--no maestros wanted. Only business books that focus on results ignore character. Those methods will have gain in the short-term but will not create a legacy of success.
One aspect of character is personally developing. Abraham in the bible had his flaws. It took him a couple of times to learn that he shouldn't lie about his wife, Sarah, by saying she's just his sister. He shouldn't, perhaps, have tried to accomplish God's plan by naming his heir, Eliezer, or sleeping with his wife's maid, Hagar. Likewise, King David--"a man after [God's] own heart"--was nearly fatally flawed as a leader. We know his tremendously regrettable incident of adultery with Bathsheba and conspiring to kill her husband. He also ignored family turmoil and scandals. Yet he had a character that led military operations and had loyal followers. He turned a nation around. He set a role model of believing in the best. Paul the evangelist had trouble getting along with other people: he cast off John Mark despite Barnabas' encouragement; after he left, churches in the region around Jerusalem had peace and prosperity; he caused turmoil in many cities he visited. Yet many assemblies were started and developed.
If we looked at the CV's of many of our spiritual forefathers, we might not hire them to lead our churches. We'd see flaws. We'd see a lack of results often. We might see a lack of fit.
Maybe this is why we need to trust God to point to the people we need to hire.
2 Corinthians--a Very Misunderstood Epistle
Many commentaries focus on Paul's defense of his ministry. Paul's main purposes have little to do with defending his ministry. The most common themes are: 1) reconciliation--between us and God, between fellow believers within the church, and between Paul and the Corinthians; 2) exhortation to ministry--Paul has been steadfast and uses his example to spur the Corinthians to look beyond their petty squabbles and reach out to the world, no matter how difficult it will be, because we have God and the rest of the world needs to be in relationship with Him. Be bold, be brave, get out of the pew!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment