Walter Isaacson is frustrated. Reviews of his Steve Jobs biography have focused mainly on what he wrote about Jobs’ weirdness: his faults, flaws, rough edges, idiosyncrasies, extreme emotionalism, etc.

Jobs did not deny his weirdness, and in fact instructed Isaacson to write it into the book. (Maybe he didn’t think Isaacson would take him so literally!)

However, Isaacson wants people to focus on Jobs’ focus; his ability to cut out not only bad things, but even the good things, in order to focus on the great things. Two examples:

When Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, it was producing a dozen versions of the Mac and a random array of numerous peripherals:

After a few weeks of product review sessions, he’d finally had enough. “Stop!” he shouted. “This is crazy.” He grabbed a Magic Marker, padded in his bare feet to a whiteboard, and drew a two-by-two grid. “Here’s what we need,” he declared. Atop the two columns, he wrote “Consumer” and “Pro.” He labeled the two rows “Desktop” and “Portable.” Their job, he told his team members, was to focus on four great products, one for each quadrant. All other products should be canceled. There was a stunned silence. But by getting Apple to focus on making just four computers, he saved the company. “Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do,” he told me.

Jobs also took his top 100 people on retreat every year. In front of his beloved Whiteboard, he would ask, “What are the 10 things we should be doing next?” When the group came up with their top 10, Jobs would slash the bottom seven and announce, “We can only do three.”

Near the end of his life, Jobs met Google CEO Larry Page, and in a rare display of goodwill towards his great rival, he told him to pick five Google products out of Google’s smorgasbord and focus on these alone.

Focus is one of the hardest things to achieve in ministry and in Christian service. Whether we are pastors, elders, deacons, or church members, there is not only so much to do; there is also so much opportunity to do it. There is such huge need around us, and we could (and often do) attempt to supply each and every need to some extent.

We try to do way too much and end up doing nothing really well. We end up like Google instead of Apple.

When Martyn Lloyd Jones heard the much-loved Scottish Pastor Douglas Macmillan preach, he sought him out afterwards and said, “Douglas you are a fine preacher. Keep off the committees!”

As Steve Jobs said, “Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do.”

Want to learn how to empower others rather than how to command them? Here’s a summary of Gary Burnison’s tips on how to Learn the softer side of Leadership. There’s only one of these that I would want to adjust or for pastoral ministry. Which one? Take a guess.

1. Leaders are the mirrors for the entire organization.  If the leader is down, the organization will follow. If leaders reflect optimism and confidence, the organization will rise.
2. Leadership is taking charge to help others execute.  A leader does not tell people what to think or do, but rather guides them in what to think about.
3. Leadership is awareness of what you’re not hearing.  People won’t tell you what you really need to know, only what they think you want to hear. To keep from being isolated, you need to be out there and engaged with customers and employees.
4. Leadership should be humbling.  Humility is the grace that constantly whispers, “It’s not about you.” Humility means that you know who you are, where you’ve been, and what you have accomplished. With that knowledge, you can get out of your own way and focus on others.
5. Leadership has an endpoint–organizations should not.  Leaders must recognize the endpoint of their leadership is not the endpoint for the organization. Just as leaders took over from someone else, so others will follow them as successors.
6. Leadership is all about how you make other people feel.  Your achievement as a leader is measured in the success of others…Leadership conveys and embodies the enduring purpose and deeper reasons for an organization’s existence.

You can read the whole post here.

Dr Ruth Simmons has been President of Browns University for the past 11 years. She is stepping down at the end of this academic year and will continue as a professor of comparative literature and Africana studies.

Adam Bryant of the New York Times conducted a fascinating interview with Dr Simmons, in which she shares many insights into human nature. Here are the quotables for me:

• Ultimately, I came to understand that I could achieve far more if I worked amiably with people, if I supported others’ goals, if I didn’t try to embarrass people by pointing out their deficiencies in a very public way
• I had some bad experiences, and I don’t think we can say enough in leadership about what bad experiences contribute to our learning.
• It’s very important in a leadership role not to place your ego at the foreground and not to judge everything in relationship to how your ego is fed.
• So my lesson to my students is you have to be open and alert at every turn to the possibility that you’re about to learn the most important lesson of your life.
• As you’re trying to help people, you can give very honest criticism, but if you do it in the context of genuinely wanting to help them, it makes all the difference in the world.
• [In job interviews] I like open-ended questions that give people an opportunity to go in the direction they want to go, because you learn a good deal more when you do that. You learn what’s important to people. So if I say to you, “Tell me about your experience growing up,” you get to choose anything you want to talk about. If you reach down and talk about something that is deeply meaningful to you and not intended to impress me as a future employer, that’s what I care about. That helps me see what your character is, what you’re made of, how you were formed as a human being. You’re trying to get at whether they will be a good member of the team. You’re trying to get at whether they will care about people. You’re trying to get at whether they will have very high standards for their job, or whether they will just be trying to please people.
• I look for people who are supremely self-confident, very secure, but also profoundly interested in other people. And I look for signs of that. How curious are they about other people, and about new things outside their own area of specialization? If I’m hiring for a central role in the administration and I’m interviewing a physicist, I want to know whether the physicist reads poetry. Or perhaps they are interested in opera. I think something outside of their immediate sphere of interest would be very important for me to know.
• You would be surprised at the number of interviews I’ve done where the person never stops talking. If I’m interviewing someone and if they never stop talking, I will never hire them, no matter how qualified they are. If you cannot listen, you can’t be the site of welcoming, nurturing, facilitating new ideas, innovation, creativity, because it really is ultimately only about you. So I look for people who listen well and can respect the ideas of others.
• I look for people who are strong enough to be critical of things that are not very good. And more than being critical of things that are not very good, they have to have the capacity to tell people that. Because many people are critical, but they can’t sit in a room and look someone in the eye and say, “This idea is not very good.” In senior positions, you have to be able to do that.

Steve Tobak identifies three kinds of managers who should not be running anything:

The Smartest Guy in the Room
This is the guy who has all the answers and can never, ever be wrong. He doesn’t just breathe his own fumes or drink his own Kool-Aid, he makes and mass-markets it, as well. He wants everyone to agree with his grandiose vision of how things should be and makes sure of that by surrounding himself with yes-men and women and ruthlessly beating down dissenting views.

It’s All About Me
Some people never grow up but get stuck in one phase or another of human development. They look just like normal adults, but inside, they’re petulant, narcissistic children with oversized egos. Since their overriding goal is to get attention, to be adulated and worshipped by all, they’re often charismatic and charming, almost chameleon-like in the way they appeal to all sorts of constituents. And their positions and strategies can flip and flop from one day to the next based on one data point, meeting, or conversation.

The Has-Been
Peter was once effective and successful; at least it appeared that way. But the situation had a narrow set of boundaries and variables and now, things have changed and Peter is out of his depth, beyond his level of competency. Perhaps he was promoted, the company grew, the market changed, or he’s now in a new position in a new company. Regardless of the circumstances, Peter is no longer effective and his inability to see or believe it renders him toxic to the organization.

Read the rest here. I’m sure there aren’t pastoral equivalents, are there?

Is your perfectionism helping you or hindering you?

Jeff Szymanski helps you find out:

Characteristics of healthy perfectionism:

• Striving for high but achievable standards that result in feelings of satisfaction and increased self-esteem
• Matching your time and energy to tasks that match your strengths and interests
• Having a sense of what you value and what your priorities are and devoting the lion’s share of your time and attention to these areas
• Reaping payoffs from your efforts that are greater than your costs

Characteristics of unhealthy perfectionism:

• Repeatedly setting goals for yourself but never achieving them
• Constantly competing to be the best at everything in order to avoid feeling like a failure
• Giving in to the feeling that all mistakes are catastrophic
• Getting stuck in believing that one particular strategy must pay off, instead of trying others

Agree/disagree?

Last Spring, the students and staff at PRTS were hugely blessed by the visit of Ligonier’s Chris Larson who gave three excellent lectures on leadership. Here’s the first, and I’ll post the other two next week.

As many of you will know, Chris was recently appointed President of Ligonier Ministries, giving great joy to Ligonier’s many supporters and students in the confidence that RC Sproul’s wonderful teaching legacy will be maintained and developed in good and godly hands.

Leadership Gleanings, Part 1 from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.

Over at the Harvard Business Review, Thomas Delong has written an excellent piece calling upon businesses to Stop Ignoring the Stalwart Worker. I couldn’t believe how apt it was for churches as well. I’ve reproduced the post below in slightly edited form – basically all I’ve done is changed “organization” or “business” to “Churches,” “employees” to “Christians” or “members,” and “CEO” to “pastor.” The changes are in italics. Have a read and see if you recognize yourself or your church.

There’s an unnoticed population of Christians in churches today. Strangely enough, they’re also the majority.

The diagram below illustrates the labels that churches often use (knowingly or unknowingly) to classify their members. The y-axis focuses on how a member is measured in acts of church service and ministry. The x-axis centers on how the member measures up to moral standards and values.

In each of the four corners, we find the Stars, Sinners, Low Performers, and Saints. For now, I want to bring to your attention those falling in the middle of the diagram — the Stalwarts.

These solid citizens make up the majority of Christians in most churches. The odds are you may find yourself among the Stalwarts at some point in your church life, no matter how high-revving your internal drive is. If so, you probably will find yourself questioning your significance.

That’s because, despite the number of Stalwarts in a church, these good, solid citizens go largely unnoticed. Few pastors think about the motivation, inclusion, and explicit spiritual development of the solid performers. One church leader said, “I thought that it couldn’t be true that so many Christians are systematically ignored through no fault of their own (except for the fact that they may not be politically astute or they don’t draw attention to themselves). But the more I reflected on my own church, the more I realized that I spend all my time worrying about the high performers and assume that everything is OK with everyone else.”

So what exactly is the Stalwart temperament? Perhaps the defining characteristic of Stalwarts is their aversion to calling attention to themselves — even when they need to. They are like the proverbial wheel that never squeaks — and, consequently, gets no grease. The quickest way to identify Stalwarts is to list the people who make the fewest demands on the pastor’s time. Such reserve is utterly alien to most Stars, who make sure that they squeak loudly enough to get the attention they want.

The other signature trait of Stalwarts is their deep loyalty to the church. They are responsible and care deeply about the church’s values, and they generally steer clear of risk. Stalwarts are intrinsically motivated by the service they can render for the good of the church, and they let their own talents and ministries take a backseat to the church’s well-being. They feel that they have accomplished something if the church is running like a well-oiled machine.

If you’re an pastor or leader who manages Stalwarts, it may be time to reexamine the way you perceive your Stalwart members.

(Delong then goes on to look at five myths about stalwarts, and concludes with this paragraph – with my changes again in italics)

Stalwarts bring depth and stability to the churches they serve, slowly but surely improving both the church’s ministries and resilience. They are always there as quiet yet powerful reminders to high performers obsessed with themselves or as examples to low performers terrified of failure. They will never garner the most revenue or publicity, but they are also less likely to embarrass the church or flunk out. They know intuitively how to stay grounded even when their footing may be unsure. And while pastors often take this amazing ability for granted, it brings real value to churches day after day. In times of crisis, Stalwarts can be a church’s saving grace.

Read Delong’s whole piece here.

Prominent Christian leaders have a great privilege; they also have a great responsibility. Because they have been given the privilege of speaking in the name of the Lord to a wide audience, of guiding and of influencing many of God’s people, their words are especially watched by the Lord and will be more strictly judged by Him (James 3:1). God requires much greater verbal carefulness from those to whom He has given the privilege of a national profile or platform.

There are two areas in particular that all Christian leaders, but especially national Christian leaders, need to bear in mind.

1. Remember that some of your followers will take your emphasis further than you wish.
When we come into a congregational situation or a particular context that requires we “over-emphasize” a certain theme or direction to re-balance a previous ministry or cultural emphasis, we must remember that people (especially young people) who grow up under such teaching will themselves be unbalanced unless there is very careful explanation of what we are doing and why, with suitable and clear qualifications. Without such, those who follow us will not only be un-balanced but will usually go much further in the direction we titled towards.

2. Remember that your influence extends far beyond your own immediate context.
Some of the recent blog posts about the imperative/indicative debate have argued that: “Well, the context I’m ministering in requires overemphasis of the indicatives to re-balance previous teaching and misunderstanding of the Gospel.” Others might argue: “Because my congregation have over-dosed on theology and doctrine, I need to call them to faith and action more.”

Our particular contexts will, of course, impact our choice of texts and the unique emphases of our sermons. However, well-known preachers and teachers must also remember that, with modern technology, their sermons are going much further afield than their own congregation and context. Within minutes or hours their sermons are being heard by Christians in very different situations. That calls for a much greater and wider sense of responsibility.

I know a pastor who was accused by someone in his congregation of “preaching to his SermonAudio.com audience more than the people right in front of him.”  Well, if online listeners are more important to a preacher than the flesh and blood preachers in front of him, then obviously there’s something very wrong. But, if a preacher who broadcasts his sermons online takes no account of listeners who are facing exactly the opposite danger he’s addressing, and provides at least some careful qualification and nuancing of his message, then he is being irresponsible.

And, of course, when Christian leaders blog on such subjects, and blog without thinking about how their words will be read by people in a very different context, that’s not only irresponsible, it’s also extremely frustrating and demoralizing for local pastors who are battling the opposite problem.

In this post Maurilio Amorim argues that way too many churches and Christian ministries blame God or Satan for mismanagement rather than take right and decisive action.

Maurilio says:

Borrowing more money than you should, hiring the wrong person for the job, mismanaging people, failing to do due diligence on a deal, are not spiritual issues. They are management and leadership problems.

We don’t need to pray about firing an employee who has stolen from the organization, but leaders often agonize about letting people go who don’t perform, are not loyal, and who steal from the ministry by constantly robbing everyone by their lack of contribution or negative attitude. There’s a big difference between being ruthless and uncaring and being passive, fearful or disengaged.

But it’s not just churches, ministries, or companies that do this, is it! We’re all prone to this over-spiritualization of problems in our personal and family lives too.

And, in fact, I’d have to disagree with Maurilio that “these are not spiritual issues. They are management and leadership problems.”

They are definitely management and leadership problems. But they are also reveal deeper spiritual problems. What such fearful and fatalistic passivity reveals is a lack of true spirituality.  And a lack of true prayer.

Have a look at this entertaining infographic and see if you can identify your meeting manners:

1. Bill the Deflector: keeps out of the conversation by deflecting all questions to other workers

2. Linda the Jargonmeister: Uses colorful buzzwords and “business speak” to navigate the questions to which she doesn’t have any real answers

3. Paula the Artful Dodger: Escapes answering as many inquiries and requests as possible

4. Martin the Boomerang: Throws everyone off guard by answering questions with questions

5. Conrad the Oldtimer: Knows the ins and outs of the game and only speaks up when a voice of reason is needed so that he can get out of the room as fast as possible

6. Agnes the Realist: With the possibility of promotion dangling in front of her like a carrot, she is determined to get everything done, no matter how long it takes – much to the chagrin of everyone else present.

7. Jerry the Big-Leaguer: Schedules meetings when he knows he can’t attend. It’s a powerplay of sorts that he thinks makes himself seem important.

8. Susan the Pacifist: Does everything in her power to keep everyone as happy as possible; conflict only makes the meeting drag on.

While on the subject, have a look at “The Modern Meetings Revolution.” 

Marshall Goldsmith is a world-famous executive coach. His main emphasis is that “after you put the technical aspects of business aside, everything else is about people.” He has identified 20 behaviors that will ensure that you lose friends and influence no one. And they are not just true in business but in church and family life too.

Goldsmith then gives four ways to start winning friends, influencing everyone and achieving breakthrough measurable results. Click here to read how.

A recent Dutch study of Research and Development Engineers investigated how task attributes, job characteristics, personality characteristics, and time management competence were related to the completion of their planned daily tasks.

The study found that only 73% of their planned daily tasks were completed by the end of each day.

The main reason? Interruptions. An average of 96 minutes worth of them every day.

Other findings:

• Attractiveness of the task was not related to completion.
• Less important tasks were usually completed rather than more important tasks.
• Tasks that are both important and urgent are more likely to be performed, but tasks that are only important and not urgent are unlikely to be completed.
• Personality—conscientiousness and emotional stability—and time management skills, were the most consistent factors in task completions.
• Time management training was most highly related to task completion of the variables included, even though only five people reported having gone through a program, and that was more than three years before.

Read the whole study here (pdf): Things to do today.

Something that every Elder’s Meeting/Deacon’s Board/Presbytery should purchase: The Talk-o-meter.

When switched on the iPhone App, Talk-o-meter, will separate different voices and at intervals of 1, 2 or 5 minutes it presents in different lengths of red and blue bars what percentage of time each speaker was talking.

“Nobody has to be unpleasantly exhorted – from time to time everyone will have a cursory glance at the Talk-o-Meter and adapt if he is talking too much. Gentle biofeedback works!”

Might also save your marriage! (Or destroy it)