The Power to Overlook

It seems to me that some of the happiest people appear to have powerful abilities to overlook. It may be that they are oblivious or blissfully ignorant… literally not seeing the faults in others; one cannot be bothered by what one does not see. Could be… but I think it is something more noble.

It seems to me that some of the happiest people chose to overlook. They chose to not see minor offenses. They accommodate faults. With them, there is abundant mercy and grace.

A study of conflict resolution reveals a range of activities. On one end of the scale is the sort of conflict resolution that requires professionals, the sorts of things that require lawyers and courts, or possibly professional mediators or arbitrators. On the other end of the scale is overlooking. The ability to overlook is the frontline of conflict resolution… when the conflict and the resolution occur near simultaneously, and the conflict is resolved all on the part of the overlooker.

There is a lot of power in the ability to overlook, or put another way… we should not overlook the power to overlook.

If we are going to be in any sort of relationship, we simply must determine to overlook. Whether it is a close personal relationship, a professional relationship, a distant relationship, or even a relationship with an organization, nobody is perfect. There are tradeoffs. We take the good with the bad, enjoying the meat and spitting out the bones.

We overlook the small stuff because we choose to see something more important, possibly even in the distance. We remember that small things can obscure big things. Like our tiny moon can occasionally eclipse our enormous sun, the small things we bring close to our view can block our sight of the bigger, better, more important things beyond.

Overlooking certainly does not fit every situation; it can be abused. I’m not suggesting that we allow ourselves to be doormats. But in cases where we can overlook, I’m suggesting that we should. Overlooking is not powerlessness, it is taking up our power and using it by determining to overlook.

The power to overlook is especially helpful to the hyperaware. Some of us simply see more details than others, quickly noticing what others may not ever see. For some, we are hyperaware about most everything, others are hyperaware along specific categories (maybe an area of expertise, or a particular sense). Without developing a high capacity to overlook, the hyperaware can be among the grumpiest, most miserable people among us. 

Would you like more happiness in your life? Perhaps we can make a little more space for overlooking. Chose to overlook. 

Advice: We Usually Get What We Pay For

There’s an old story; I can’t remember when I first heard it, so I have no way to give it proper attribution. But I think it is helpful, so here it goes.

A landlord had an old, downtown building. It had charm so the tenants overlooked the lack of modern amenities, even the antiquated boiler system for heat… that is until it stopped working. The landlord couldn’t get it going, and the usual vendors were no help either. Someone told the landlord about Old Pete, saying “if anyone can get this thing going again, it is Old Pete.”

Old Pete came out, looking like he came straight from central casting… grubby overalls, grime stained hands, tools hanging from a tool belt. He wasn’t a particularly pleasant fellow, not mean or unpleasant, just seemingly not all that concerned with landing a powerful first impression.

He looked things over for about 15 minutes, approached the boiler, pulled a well-worn pipe wrench from his belt, made a few simple adjustments and the boiler fired up. Good as new.

The landlord was thrilled… until he got the bill in the mail: $20,000. He was immediately as hot as his boiler. He got Old Pete on the phone to deliver a few choice words. “Are you kidding me? You were here for less than an hour. You didn’t even break a sweat. It wasn’t even Sunday or a holiday! I expected to pay you for an hour; are you trying to tell me that a few cranks with your wrench is worth $20,000?”

“No sir,” replied Pete. “Turning the wrench is worth a plumber’s rate of around $100 an hour. Knowing what to do with the wrench, on your boiler, that’s worth $20,000.” The landlord couldn’t argue that… and paid the bill.

We don’t always get what we pay for… but we almost never get more than what we pay for. I think that may be especially true when what we are really buying is expertise. We all pay for expertise from time to time; lawyers, doctors, consultants, financial advisors and such. I’ve spent a lot of my own money for expertise, and way more of someone else’s money on behalf of the various organizations I’ve served. Sometimes it hasn’t been worth it, but usually it is. Looking back, my regrets are mostly associated with not seeking and paying for good advice, rather than regrets about the times I paid for advice that didn’t prove to be all that valuable.

Now when I say “pay for” I think of that in pretty broad terms. Of course the most pure transactions involve invoices and checks, or payroll. But sometimes the payment is a matter of relationship. For example, I work with a lot of volunteer boards. Their advice is worth a lot; their “payment” is transacted in the relationship with the organization and cause.

There are also subtle ways of getting paid. Take a blog for example. I monetized this blog a few days ago. I doubt anyone noticed or cared that I made some space for ads. It took me a while to get qualified, but now Google has some space on my blog to post ads. If you click on an ad, I get paid (so if you want to reward your favorite bloggers, click on an ad from their pages every once in a while… just seeing the ad isn’t enough, you have to click it).

Maybe you think I sold out, and would prefer to not have ads flashing on these blog pages, but consider this. There are plenty of times when I’ve sought out free advice. Here’s what I’ve found: free advice is often worth precisely what we pay. Thus, ad-free blogs are worth less than blogs with an economic engine (oversimplified, I know… but there is some truth in it).

I do a bit of consulting through my company (Greatifiers)… so I occasionally get paid for my expert advice. I’m not ashamed to admit it, the advice I get paid for is worth more than the advice I give away for free. When it comes to the paid advice, I work harder at it; I’m more thorough and thoughtful. And when it comes to the free advice… well, I don’t give the best stuff away.

So when it comes to advice, whether it is active advice in consultation with a pro, or passive advice we might get from a blog, I’d say two things:

1. Be glad to pay for good advice, and 
2. Be suspect of the real value of that which seems free.

Oh... and be sure to click an ad before you go :-) 

Guys: Not Gender Neutral

Forgive me, sisters, for I have sinned.

I have never been all that formal in my speech. I grew up a blue-collar kid. I’ve had mostly white-collar jobs, earned the whitest-of-collar degree (MBA), and even qualify to wear a clerical collar (ordained)… yet in my heart I am still pretty much a blue-collar guy. I think I usually write like a white-collar guy, but I often talk like a blue-collar guy. I can certainly be formal, but I prefer to be informal.

For years I have used the word “guys” as a gender-neutral term. I cannot count how many times in meetings (usually meetings that I was running, or had a great deal of influence) when I would announce: “when I say guys, please understand that I mean guys in a gender-neutral way.” I meant it as a term of endearment. “Come on guys, let’s get this done. Would you guys like to join me for lunch? How are you guys doing? Did you guys have a good weekend? See you later guys.”

The apologetic clarification revealed that I knew the word was not gender-neutral, regardless of what the dictionary says (most dictionaries allow the word to be gender-neutral as a secondary definition).

Nobody called me on it. Nobody seemed to mind. What were they going to say? I was the boss.

One day several years ago I decided to try to break the habit. I’m not sure why. I guess it was a mixture of politeness and an effort to show proper respect to my female colleagues. It was a hard habit to break, and I’m sure I still blow it from time to time, but I think I’ve pretty much got it under control. And I’m really glad I made the effort.

I don’t know that anybody noticed. But it seemed to make a noticeable difference. Maybe it was all in my head, but I found my relationships with female colleagues to be just a bit more productive.

When I pick up the occasional job in the corporate world, I rarely hear a man use the word guys in a gender-neutral way. I don’t think anyone would get in trouble for doing so… they would just run the risk of being marginalized. It could be perceived as a sign of ignorance or insensitivity; such a man would not be taken as seriously as he would like.

I do, however, hear the term used a lot in the church world. I am confident that nobody does so with intent to harm; they likely are just being lazy like me. 

If you are one of those guys (and by guys I certainly mean men) I want to encourage you to break the habit. If you do, I’m confident that you too will notice a difference.

For me, this isn’t a matter of political correctness; it is just correct.

I’ve asked women about this. Generally speaking it doesn’t really seem to bother them much… but they do notice. The term doesn’t usually carry much impact, but it does at least slightly impact the relationship, and it is always negative impact… usually just a little bit of caution or negativity. They usually easily overlook the minor offense. But why would we want to waste the energy, causing that bit of friction, for our lazy, outdated speech?

So what are we to do? One thing not to do is add something to the term. I was recently in a meeting of ministers of my ilk, mostly evangelical pastors, mostly men, but not exclusively men. One of the featured speakers, a genuine expert on the day’s topic, caught himself addressing the crowd as guys. Then he “corrected” himself by saying “guys and gals.” Seriously… guys and gals? He might as well have addressed the women in the crowd as “little ladies” or “dear.” It was clumsy… easily overlooked, but clumsy and it degraded his credibility a little.

I’ve never been a fan of doing the he/she or his/her thing. I guess in some cases it is unavoidable, but I’ve found that, with a little effort, I can usually write and talk in such a way that simply refers to people as people. We can be inclusive by specifying women and men… but it is most inclusive to simply talk about people, leaders, colleagues, and friends.

It seems that this is most important when we are in any kind of leadership. As leaders, our choice of words is closely scrutinized. When we use a term like this it can be interpreted and misunderstood in all sorts of unproductive ways.

I know that women sometimes use the term guys in a gender-neutral way; some women I know use the term regularly. That is fine for them, but it doesn’t give men license to use the term. This certainly isn’t the only term that a group of people uses in reference to themselves that is off-limits to those not in the group.

So, if you are a guy like me… come on guys, work a little harder and discipline yourself to not burn any goodwill on clumsy outdated language.

Beware: The Word Processing Department

It is hard to imagine that there is such a thing as a Word Processing Department today.

When I was an IT Director many moons ago, I found a sign like this (full disclosure, this is a reproduction… but I wanted one for myself). It went back to a day when my predecessor supervised the Word Processing Department. It was 30+ years ago and they discovered word processing software (a Data General product called CEO that ran on their MV 4000) and the HP LaserJet printer. They had one of the first LaserJets; it apparently cost around $5,000 and I was recently told “it was worth every penny.” Since they were sharing the one LaserJet printer at the College among 30ish administrative employees, they consolidated their resources in the Word Processing Department.

When there were letters to be distributed to donors, prospective students, alumni, students or other big lists, they looked to the Word Processing Department to format, mail-merge, and print. It is hard to imagine a day when it took a third-party with special skills and gear to produce a letter, a day when folk would schedule a walk between buildings to get to the one shared laser printer on campus.

At some point, before I arrived on the scene, the Word Processing Department became obsolete. People gained expertise with the software, and the software got way better. The gear got cheaper. And people invented new ways to exploit the technology. Eventually the day came when people did not need the Word Processing Department any longer.

I imagine that there was a season of frustration that preceded the demise of the Word Processing Department.

• Fellow employees served by the Word Processing Department (internal customers) likely did not always agree with the priorities and schedule. I suspect that internal customers wanted faster turnaround, and I suspect that there were some who considered their work the most vital, and thus should always be bumped to the beginning of the queue. 
• I suspect that the folks in the Word Processing Department were frustrated too. It could be that folks would seldom work according to procedure, not getting work to them on time or in the proper form. 
• There were likely rogue units in the organization who did not play according to the rules and found ways to work around the Word Processing Department, maybe even getting their own unauthorized gear.

In this specific case, I don’t know how it all shook out… whether the Word Processing Department died slowly, clinging to the perceived value of centralized resources (and control) or they were glad to distribute the tools widely as soon as possible.

Like I said, with Microsoft Word on my iPhone and three printers at home, it is hard to conceive of a Word Processing Department these days. But I suspect there is often something like the Word Processing Department in a lot of organizations.

These days, in part of my work, I’m seeing something along these lines when it comes to Web. When it comes to Web, organizations easily see the outward-facing value and develop their Web presence. When the Web was getting started it was common for the IT Department to be the first to manage things, not merely providing infrastructure, but also designing the site and developing content (it is on computers after all, so it must be an IT thing). Before long that gets frustrating for the organization and management of the Web (still mostly outward facing) moves to a unit more aligned with the marketing functions of the organization.

Then the organization realizes that even though the website may be designed to be outward facing, the internal customers use the site a lot… so much so that it may seem like the internal customers are among the most important customers (they are the customers with faces, the colleagues we bump into in the break room). So meeting the demands of the internal customers becomes a priority, all the while the internal customers invent new ways to use the technology. It is great for efficiency… but may not be as great for effectiveness as folk turn inward, neglecting the vital outward-facing work.

Eventually we realize that there isn’t anything all that mystical about the technology and the tools are distributed. It could be as simple as a bifurcation, splitting between internet and intranet, or it could be distributed among several outward-facing and inward-facing strategies.

I’m also seeing a similar sort of thing happen with video. A marketing department develops expertise in producing outward-facing video, and then the organization determines that the same tools could be powerful for internal communication.

I am very much in favor of powerful and efficient internal communication. And I am in favor of collaboration and cross-pollination in such ways in which, for example, a marketing department would serve as a resource to help more inward-facing initiatives ramp up.

But my concern is that it easy to lose focus, allowing powerful internal voices to draw marketing departments away from their main thing. The perceived efficiencies gained by centralizing resources and control are not worth the price of neglecting, or even diluting, outward-facing work.

Do you have any Word Processing Departments in your organization?

• Units where resources are centralized, controlled and rationed (even though they are really not all that scarce any longer)? 
• Areas where internal customers are competing with external customers, pulling time, talent, and treasure inward that ought to stay focused outward? 
• Policies and procedures that seem to generate a lot of friction (energy that generates heat but no motion) that could be elevated by simply distributing technology or resources? 

This is a cross post to my article on Leadership Commentary; check out that blog for articles more focused on organizational issues. 

Accreditation: A Significant Step

I was paging through my Twitter feed a few days ago when I noticed a report of a faith-based college receiving their regional accreditation. With lots of years serving in Christian Higher Education as an administrator, I’m a bit wonky about such things… so I took notice.

Accreditation is a significant step for a school. I first started to think about it when I transferred to North Central Bible College from Purdue in 1986. NCBC had just received their accreditation a few years prior… and I was glad. When I first attended, I wasn’t sure if I would stay for more than a year; accreditation meant that my credits would likely go with me should I choose to transfer again. Now, nearly thirty-years later with a lot of administrative experience, I understand the importance of accreditation in a variety of ways including funding, reputation, recruiting, and partnerships.

I wondered how this faith-based institution was navigating the waters. Experience has taught me that there were likely divided factions among their constituencies.

The progressives among their constituents were likely happy that they are moving forward in such a significant way. They would be glad for the doors it opens for their students, faculty and graduates. It would likely lead to more funding opportunities for students, faculty, and programs. Accreditation is a significant achievement, and a real signal of approval from the academic community. And such a step indicates engagement of their faith with the culture.

The fundamentalists among their constituents might not be so happy. Accreditation might be equated with worldliness. Seeking the approval of man is juxtaposed with seeking the approval of God… another step toward the dying of the light. Some of the fundamentalists might pull their support; they might no longer fund the institution, influence prospective students to attend, or hire their graduates. They might just look for another institution to support… or maybe they’ll just start their own.

Here’s the thing about this particular story… the faith-based institution is Zaytuna College. Apparently Zaytuna College is now the first accredited Muslim college in America. Starting as an institute nearly twenty years ago in Northern California and adding a seminary program along the way, Zaytuna is now located in Berkley with undergraduate students studying in the recently-accredited, liberal-arts curriculum.

I wonder what people of my ilk think about the first accredited Muslim college in America.

I imagine that there are some fundamentalists (fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist patriots) who are reacting negatively. Should we legitimize a Muslim college with regional accreditation and thus recognition by the U.S. Department of Education? Should students be able to earn their Bachelor of Arts in Islamic Law and Theology (the only degree offered) while being funded by state and federally funded grants? 

Progressives among my ilk will welcome Zaytuna to the academic community, with the expectation that Zaytuna’s perspective will add something valuable to the dialog, and with the expectation that the academic community will impact Zaytuna, and thus influence Zaytuna’s constituencies.

I’m pretty much on the side of the progressives on this one. I’m surprised that, until now, there were no accredited Muslim colleges in the United States… so I am glad that there is at least a first. It seems to me that too much of Islam is stuck in pre-modern ages. From where will the Muslim leaders emerge who will continue to bring Islam through the modern ages and into our post-modern age? It seems far more likely that such leaders will come from places like Zaytuna in Berkley rather than some cloistered, unaccredited madrasa hidden in the backwoods.

This story is interesting on several levels, but maybe most interesting to me in regards to how steps like accreditation impact an institution’s relationships with its constituencies. Accreditation is just one example; other steps might include:

• name change (from institute to college to university),
• addition of programs (such as when school consisting of mostly ministry degrees adds major in business or liberal arts, or other professional programs like nursing),
• expansion of scope (such as adding graduate degrees, branch campuses, or online degrees), 
• partnerships with government, business, or other organizations, 
• receiving funding from new sources, and 
• loosening of affiliation requirements (accepting students from other traditions, bringing in board members from outside, or hiring faculty from other traditions who maintain those ties).

I’ll be talking to a group of leaders about such things in the coming days. Some of the questions I have in mind include: 

• What are other steps that might be perceived as an institution stepping away from its core constituencies? 
• Are there good examples of institutions stepping back toward its core constituencies?   
• Is a faith-based institution primarily a ministry to the sponsoring church, of the sponsoring church, or by the sponsoring church?  
• What are the strongest means of an institution’s bonds its core constituencies? (mission, style, culture, proximity, finances, theology, worldview)  
• Does leadership primarily come from the church to the academic institutions, or does leadership primarily flow from the academic institutions to the church?   
• How is an institution’s affiliations to the core constituencies best communicated to the members of the core constituency?   
• What are the downsides to fully embracing an institution’s affiliations to the core constituencies? Do the downsides matter? 

Any other good questions or observations come to mind? Feel free to comment. 

Christianism

Christians, we have the answers… but it is not likely just a matter of shouting the answers. Our world doesn’t need another ism. Have you noticed that the shouting is generally over isms? We identify a position and label it as an ism… racism, feminism, conservatism, progressivism, etc. … and then we shout for or against an ism.

Friends, the world does not need Christianism. People who are certain, angry, and loud… people who merely shout their answers and conclusions. Jesus did not come to bring Christianism; Jesus came to serve. Jesus is the wisdom that comes from heaven.

The wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness. (James 3:17,18)

Jesus did not come to bring Christianism; Jesus came to transform lives, and then transform others (even societies) through transformed lives.

When we see injustice, we are called to not merely identify it and shout at it; we are called to serve. We are called to follow the example of our Savior and serve, standing up for those who cannot stand for themselves. Giving, and helping, and caring. Not standing idle by clucking our tongues, certainly not standing by in judgment, but stepping in and serving whenever possible.
 
 
This is an excerpt of my message 12/7/2014, available in its entirety here.

Christmas Dissonance

Last Sunday, the first Sunday of Advent, our choir at Pleasant Bay sang O Come, O Come, Emmanuel. I don’t have an exact count, but I would imagine it is the fourth or fifth version of this song our choir has sung in the dozen years of our existence. We sing it, in one form or another, every year at this time; it sets the tone for Advent.

Funny thing… the tones are minor. While O Come Emmanuel has been arranged innumerable ways in the 1,200 or so years of the hymn’s existence, it is almost exclusively set with a slow tempo in a minor key. It doesn’t sound like most Christmas songs; it doesn’t sound happy.

We don’t sing it because we want people to be sad at Christmas. The slow tempo and minor key don’t necessarily have to be sad; O Come Emanuel is not a sad song. But there is dissonance (especially to our western ears).

I think we do well at the beginning of Advent to acknowledge, even marinate in, the dissonance.

It is a popular notion that Christmas is essentially the birthday of Jesus (or at least the celebration of the birthday of Jesus; reasonable people disagree about the exact date). Christmas is generally thought of as a birthday party, and all that leads up to it is part of the celebration. Christmas is a celebration of the birthday of Jesus… and it is so much more.

More than mere prelims to a birthday celebration, Advent prepares us again for the coming of Immanuel. It starts with that powerful name: Immanuel (which means “God with us”). We need go no further to find dissonance. God with us. The holiness of God in the midst of the lowliness of us. The Creator in all His Majesty coming in the way a mere human would normally come… a poor human at that. Just the name Immanuel, when more fully apprehended, should create dissonance in our minds and hearts.

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here,
Until the Son of God appear.
Rejoice ! Rejoice ! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

While the original Latin text was likely penned around the year 800, the words reminisce the generations prior to the first Advent of Jesus, yet after the clear promise of his coming by Isaiah… so the 600 years or so before the birth of Jesus. For us, Christmas is history; but for the faithful before the birth of Christ, it was only a promise, a promise longed for… and that longing is conveyed well by the slow tempo and minor tone of O Come Emmanuel.

Advent presents us the opportunity to embrace that same kind of longing. We need ransom. While our salvation is sure and our eternity secure, we are in lonely exile here; we are in the world, yet not of it (when at our best) and we are often of the world too. And there is dissonance.

We need the Son of God to appear. We need His presence. We make too little room when what Emmanuel demands and deserves is everything… every space and all our ways.

We rejoice. We know the Promise is true. We have more than just the Promise, we have history, and testimony, experience, and faith. We rejoice because we know that our longing will be satisfied, and Emmanuel shall come, has come, does come.

I’m very much in favor of happy songs at Christmas (even the festive songs that celebrate the season without acknowledging Christ). And I’m in favor of embracing the dissonance in a carol like O Come Emmanuel.

You can hear a version of the carol we did several years ago with our choir by clicking here.