Promoting Constructive "Insubordination"
I had been scrolling through a leadership book recently. One of the sections was quite refreshing to me.
It began with the well said statement that “if both of us are always agreeing, then one of us is redundant.” When everyone agrees, especially just for the sake of getting along, we’re unlikely to achieve the best outcomes.
Researchers asked fifty groups of students to solve a murder mystery. They found that groups of people who had the most diverse social backgrounds and experiences were the most likely to solve the case. Not only were the homogenous groups more likely to be wrong, they were also more likely to express greater confidence in their answers despite being wrong!
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin tells the story of how Abraham Lincoln consciously and willfully assembled a cabinet made up of the very men that he had defeated in the election. She stated that it spoke of Lincoln’s political genius revealed through his extraordinary array of personal qualities that enabled him to form friendships with men who had previously opposed him.
If Abraham Lincoln could manage to lead a team of rivals (former rivals) under the challenges of the Civil War, we should certainly find it within ourselves to manage the conflicts we face, modest as they are by comparison to his.
The section concluded that leaders have to make it possible for people to argue with each other – up, down, in, out and sideways – if we are to realize the best from our very diverse and talented team!
I hope that this would help all of us to be even better leaders in every arena of our lives.
It began with the well said statement that “if both of us are always agreeing, then one of us is redundant.” When everyone agrees, especially just for the sake of getting along, we’re unlikely to achieve the best outcomes.
Researchers asked fifty groups of students to solve a murder mystery. They found that groups of people who had the most diverse social backgrounds and experiences were the most likely to solve the case. Not only were the homogenous groups more likely to be wrong, they were also more likely to express greater confidence in their answers despite being wrong!
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin tells the story of how Abraham Lincoln consciously and willfully assembled a cabinet made up of the very men that he had defeated in the election. She stated that it spoke of Lincoln’s political genius revealed through his extraordinary array of personal qualities that enabled him to form friendships with men who had previously opposed him.
If Abraham Lincoln could manage to lead a team of rivals (former rivals) under the challenges of the Civil War, we should certainly find it within ourselves to manage the conflicts we face, modest as they are by comparison to his.
The section concluded that leaders have to make it possible for people to argue with each other – up, down, in, out and sideways – if we are to realize the best from our very diverse and talented team!
I hope that this would help all of us to be even better leaders in every arena of our lives.
posted by Jeff Chong at 4:50 pm
9 Comments:
Wow! Let's apply and start with some Adults Group leaders forum!
I'm sure alot of good feedback would bounce off for us to move forcefully forward as a church.
"The section concluded that leaders have to make it possible for people to argue with each other – up, down, in, out and sideways – if we are to realize the best from our very diverse and talented team!"
Just a suggestion for the above to happen =)
Thanks Ps Jeff, think this is very helpful to me in knowing how to support my leaders better... (not to argue anyhow lah) but to help them look for better alternatives and/or potential blind spots they may have...
Hi Andrew, you are a very opportunistic person. I love it!
Good suggestion. Perhaps you can help me think of some possible forum topics for discussion. Do also share with me on some possible avenues for us to do this...
Appreciate that greatly!
Hey Yeu An, need to differentiate bettwem constructuve and destructive "insubordination". There is also difference between disagreeing vs being disagreeable.
May God gives us the insight to know the difference and to choose the right one way to contribute :)
hello pastor jeff. nice blog. :D
Hmmm... Maybe we can take our cue from our government.
Acknowledging that fellow day-to-day Singaporeans are equally enthusiastic in contributing to Singapore's progress as a country, they have official avenues thru the Media- online portals such as http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx or print thru Strait Times to provide suggestions and to have a feel what is happening on the ground.
Other avenues can also be diagolue sessions like how our grassroots conduct Meet-the-people sessions and Parliamentary Meetings for the grassroot leaders/MPs.
So in our context, we might need an avenue for online or alternatively a magazine. Best is both.
For events, we can first start with a quarterly session for the leaders to share things that are happening on the ground so that the pastoral leadership will have a better grasp of the needs so that relevant initiatives can be implemented swiftly and appropriately.
I think all these are necessary avenues given the size of our congregation is. And especially so if we aim to grow. These are also wineskins or infrastructure that needs to be in place.
Furthermore, this allows involvement and free-flow of healthy interaction and communication as a community to be vibrant and alive to grow.
But of course, I understand our limitations of doing this right away. However, we need to at least get this on the right direction and start with baby steps.
I think your blog is a good example, but it still your personal avenue and not the church.
Thanks Andrew for the reply. Let's meet up some time after Easter and we can work on some of these ideas together before I bring it up to the leaders.
I agree with you on timing (how much should we do for now) and implementing some baby steps along the way.
Sure! Looking forward to that! =)
how about having a simple 'suggestion box' that is looked into weekly? and members can slot in comments with names or anonymously? of course, it can be made clear that the leaders may not respond to every note but that at least they will look into it weekly.
sometimes, the simplest ideas work. this is non-time-consuming, simple and allows free airing from people from all levels (new believers, members who are not core team, etc.) We may be surprised to get some of the insights we will receive. Often times, we may be so used to our way of doing things that it takes an objective third party to point out certain things.
My office top boss initiated this in the office and boy! she was surprised at some of the feedback received. Of course, some were only anonymous personal attacks attacking her. (IF this is a church context, i guess church leaders have a way to deal with this kind of hurt -- pray before reading!:) )
But there were other pieces of feedback that were honest & good feedback from the ground that (to her credit) she brought up to the rest of her leadership team and they implemented changes & improvements based on the feedback.
My boss even read out some of the constructive feedback and the corresponding changes made to the staff.
To make it work, all comments must be taken into consideration at least every few days. and the suggestion box not become a "white elephant".
Allowing people to be anonymous is important where people fear reprisal or being labeled bad-spirited or having leaders come after them (whether the fear is justified or not, it will exist. Why are people afraid of speaking up too frankly to the government, to the office bosses, to the church leaders and so on?)
thanks anony... I will give your suggestion more tought after Easter. Thanks for giving thoughts to this...
Post a Comment
<< Home