Shallow Management

by Don Harkey

I'm going to start the week of with one of my rants... I feel OK doing this, since many of you have told me that my rants yield some of your favorite articles.

I am not one of those people who believe that "greed" is what got us into the economic situation we are in today, although it has played a role. I do not believe that corporations are evil or good (they just are) nor do I believe that rich people are bad or good (they just have money). I am a big fan of personal responsibility not only because it encourages people to get less dependent on others, but also because it makes people enjoy their lives more.

However, I am sick and tired of what has prevailed as the corporate, MBA (I am NOT knocking MBA's, but I do criticize the things many MBA schools teach) mentality that seems to infest larger corporations. The management style I am referring to is something I have called "shallow-end of the pool" management or SEP Management.

SEP Management is a style where management from executives all the way down to some front-line supervisors refuse to engage in the work being done by their company. They consider themselves above the work going on around them and say that they need to maintain a high level, professional view of the organization in order to function. They are ready to make the "tough" decisions, although amazingly, the tough decisions tend to be tough only for other people.

Ethics are often thrown out of the window with these types of managers, although not in the way that we are taught in Ethics 101 courses. Let me give you an example...

I recently approached a major author within a major company with a majorly good idea. The idea is really good, and I was ready to execute the idea, but I needed the permission of the author and the company to do so. I managed to find an inside contact with the author (a former teacher of his) and get his direct email. I sent a vague description of the idea after an introduction from my connector. His assistant wrote back that I might be able to get 5 minutes of his time in 3-4 months. She went on... perhaps I should send more information on the idea.

Knowing that I couldn't procede without them, I wrote a quick synopsis of the idea along with how I could execute the idea and promote their company and book with just a simple approval. The assistant wrote back within a few minutes of receiving the email saying that this she would "put it in front" of the author "immediately". A few weeks later, I got an email response from the company. They were "already pursuing" the idea and thanked me for my time and wished me and my company luck.

I have no way of knowing whether or not they were pursuing the idea already or not, although I suspect they were not. I also have no way of knowing what happened inside the walls of the company. Having worked in a corporate environment, I have imagined a fictious meeting in my head between the author and some executives...

Author - "I got this idea from this guy in Springfield forwarded by a former teacher of mine. I really think he might be on to something."

Executive #1 - "That is a good idea."

Executive #2 - "Does this guy have any legal right to the idea? We own the book and its material. The application is open source. Does he have any legal grounds? Do we HAVE to use him if we executed this?"

Executive #1 - "No. He has no legal right to this. We can easily pursue it on our own."

Author - "What should I tell him?"

Executive #1 - "Tell him thanks, but don't give him too much info. He may not have a legal basis, but we don't need to upset him either. We probably would have come up with this concept sooner or later anyway..."

(END SCENE)

I don't know if that is what happened or not, but I have heard about too many similar meetings occuring in meeting rooms (and sat in more than a few of them). The technique is one of dismissal and separation. The question is quickly turned from one of ethics to one of legalities. No one even dares to discuss the "right thing to do" because it has "nothing to do" with business.

This is SEP thinking.

There is good news, however. SEP thinking is not only wrong, it is also ineffective. Managers who treat people the right way do better than those who don't. Companies who reward these types of managers and shun SEP managers do better than those who don't. The free market really does work, but credit for good ideas get squashed from time to time!

Ways to Screw up your Organization - the Cycle of Metrics

by Don Harkey

Are you trying to build a culture of corruption within your business? Here's a great way to do it! (note: IF you are trying to build a culture of corruption, which I do NOT recommend... just wanted to be clear)

Make sure you measure everything and hold your employees to those measurements. Do not accept excuses. The message should be "hit your numbers... or else!". How does this build corruption?

Let's say I have a delivery driver. I want to set some metrics for the driver. First of all, the delivery needs to be "on time". Next, the load needs to get to the client in good condition. Finally, the drive needs to be safe. Good news (for those seeking corruption)... I can measure all 3 of these conditions. Furthermore, I can hold the employees accountable to these metrics!

I will set a target for 95% on time delivery, zero customer complaints, no speeding tickets, and no accidents. Brilliant!

Driver #1 is an ethical, hard working individual. She delivers her loads quickly and efficiently, but always follows the speed limit and is careful to avoid accidents. She records her times accurately and reports all damaged loads and complaints from customers.

Driver #2 is a go-getter. He works hard, but also sees how he will be judged. He speeds when he can get away with it and "settled" with a person he accidentally rear ended by giving the old lady a $100 bill to "fix her bumper". He fudges on his time reports (he is on time most of time anyway, so what's the big deal?) and has been known to even repackage a load to hide damage from the customer. When customers complain to him, he sympathizes with them and tells them that he would get into trouble if they call the office, but that he would be "glad to report the complaint" (he never does).

At the end of the year, which driver will LOOK better to management? Driver #2! Who will management promote for the new supervisor position? Driver #2! BLAMMO! We now have a corrupt supervisor who will continue to manipulate the system promoting more like him (to help make him look good) and getting more promotions himself.

Measure. Rinse. Repeat.

Competition Drives Costs UP

by Don Harkey

Every American knows that nothing drives down costs like competition. The more players in a particular market, the lower the costs will be for the consumer because of the different players will need to drive down costs to compete with the other players in the market. Pretty simple, right? Wrong.

Competition does not always drive costs down for the consumer. Think about an airport that utilizes 4 different airlines. Let's say that each airline operates its own ticket counter, manages its own security check in, its own crews, its own airplane maintenance crew and even its own arrival/departure boards.

First of all, as a consumer, you will see a quality issue in terms of service. If your United flight is canceled, it is unlikely that they will put you on the Northwest flight leaving in a half hour. Imagine running 4 different security lines (all unbalanced because you have to go to the security gate of YOUR airline. Imagine the confusion on switching flights. You have to find your departure board and only people from your airline can help you. What about the costs? The operational costs of these 4 airlines are sky high (pun intended). Instead of one maintenance crew capable of handling the entire airport, they must maintain 4 crews. This means more parts inventory, more people, and sacrificed efficiency.

The point here is competition does not always drive costs down. In fact, the opposite is frequently true. Most of today's most successful companies are constantly looking to their competition for opportunities to collaborate and share resources. As long as price fixing doesn't occur, the value of these collaborations are passed to the customers.

This is also true for people. Competition can inspire people to do great things, but in the end, it is team work that truly makes people more effective and more efficient. Inspiriting competition within your organization in a way that discourages collaboration will lead to increased costs, decreased morale, and inefficiency!

Accounting - Is it Holding Us Back?

by Don Harkey

When I meet with a company who is considering launching a new quality program or implementing a training program, one of the first things I ask is "what are you trying to accomplish?". The most common answer is "we want to reduce our expenses and save some money". They want to improve their "bottom line". That is when I push back.

Here is an interesting hypothesis for you... I am beginning to believe that one of the most dangerous and hindering factors in American business today is Accounting. WHAT?!?

As a profession, accounting seems like a fairly non-controversial entity. Current accounting rules are seldom questioned and are taught like a hard science in many business schools. It is simply the way it is done... and it often leads to doing things wrong.

Companies often make decisions in order to drive their balance sheets. This is understandable as corporations are often judged by their balance sheets. Let me give an example.

A corporation allows its employees to keep a "vacation balance". In other words, employees are allowed to carry over unused vacation days to the next year. During the recession, the company decides to help their balance sheets by telling employees to drive down their vacation balance to nothing by the end of the year. What is the impact on the company? This is a major benefit for the balance sheet. The vacation balances show up as a liability owed to its employees. For example, an employee who makes $20/hour and has 80 hours (2 weeks) of saved vacation is a $1600 liability to the company (the company would "owe" the employee that money if they left). If this represented the average balance for an employee within a company of 10,000 people, cutting the vacation balances would "save" the company $16,000,000! That's a nice sum of money to talk about for the person who made that decision at evaluation time!

Take a second now and think about what the company just did. First of all, during a particularly challenging time in the company history, this response for the company is to send its people home. Rather than innovating, creating, and finding new value for its customers, the employees of this company are spending extra vacation time. This doesn't seem like a good idea.

Secondly, consider the actual impact of this move. The company needs a certain number of hours to make the product or service and run the company. In this example, we cut 800,000 hours of work out of the year. If the company has a decreased demand that requires 800,000 fewer manhours, then everything is balanced. This is seldom the case. If the company requires only 200,000 less hours than normal, then the company must make up the other 600,000 hours in production. The only way to accomplish this is to either hire more people or work overtime. At time and a half, this equates to $18,000,000 in overtime. Whoops!

OK. Yes, if the company had looked at the accounting closely, they would have balanced this out. However, the reality is actually more complex than the example above. Productivity is not linear (production/hour becomes less efficient as it slows down). Yet many companies prefer to oversimplify and send their people home on extra vacation.

The bottom line is that anytime a company focuses on running by the metrics, they make bad decisions. The metrics can be used to help make decisions, but the final decisions must be made strategically with the companies total future in mind.

Networking Gravity

by Don Harkey

Knock knock...

"Hello! My name is Don Harkey and I represent the Acme Vacuum Cleaner Company of Walla Walla, Washington. I notice that your floors are incredibly dirty and..."

SLAM!

Ouch...

Whether you sell stuff for a living or not, successful people know that you are always selling something. How do you sell your "stuff" (or YOU) without getting the door slammed in your face? Does Facebook, Twitter, and other online resources offer opportunities?

Anyone who runs a business or sells "stuff" for a living knows that this door to door salesman technique for getting clients doesn't typically work. It is a little funny that some companies think that it does. The one advantage that we all have in the field of sales and marketing is that we are all consumers. The challenge is that we often don't consciously think about why we buy the things we buy. Ever been walking in an amusement park (like Silver Dollar City) and smell all the great food cooking and just get so hungry that you HAVE to pay $5 for a hot dog. Have you ever considered that the whole place is designed that way?

How many of you own an iPod, iTouch, or an iPhone? How many of the rest of you want one? Do you know why you want one so bad? If you talk to an iPhone owner, they really love the applications that are available. Many of the best applications are free. Are Apple and its developers giving away free software or do is this a way to get you to buy more of their stuff?

Think about yourself as a consumer. My sister-in-law recently told me about her experience buying a car. She went to one dealer who pretty much had her sold. She told him that she was visiting the local Ford dealer before making a decision. "Oh, you don't want to buy a Ford!", he said. She bought the Ford before setting foot in the Ford dealership.

Consumers don't like to feel like they are being sold. 50 years ago, that door to door salesman might be your sole source of information on vacuum cleaners. You would have had to make a decision based on how credible the information presented sounded. Where else would you go?

Today, information is not something that is difficult to come by. If you type "vacuum cleaners" into Google (I don't remember paying Google for their search engine... hmmm....), you will get 7.4 million matches. In the top page, you will see websites of vacuum manufacturers with all of the information of their products. You will also see consumer sights giving ratings. You can even find vacuum cleaner forums where consumers share stories of their experiences. You could probably build your own vacuum cleaner with some more searching if you wanted.

The consumer has been greatly empowered, and this is a good thing for all of us as consumers. As a seller, you have to realize the impact of this empowerment. Where is the consumer going to purchase their product? What are they looking for? The answer is that they are looking for information that is readily available and useful and they will be much more likely to purchase from the person providing that information (or from the person recommended within the information). This is "passive" selling. You aren't selling vacuum cleaners, you are providing the consumers information so THEY can make the decision.

Alan Weiss, author of several great books on consulting, calls this concept a "marketing gravity". This is a powerful concept whether you are selling a product or marketing yourself to potential clients or even within your own organization or to a potential employer. Nobody likes "look how great I am!" or "you need to buy MY stuff!". Much more effective is "let me help you" or "here are the factors you need to consider".

A challenge is how to get in front of people in a "passive" way. Traditionally, the best way is through commercials on TV or in newspapers. However, this is often more of a shotgun approach that targets a large market with the hopes of hitting a few people within the market. Mass mailings used to be considered "passive", but the shear volume of them has changed that. The same is becoming true for mass (unsolicited) emails. What are some "passive" options?

The oldest form of "passive" marketing is simple networking. You get yourself out there and meet people. Most people who do this at the beginning jump to the end of the process and immediately try selling themselves. Imagine going into an interview and trying to immediately tell the interviewer how great you are. It doesn't work. Successful networking is about trying to help others and making high quality relationships. It's a little like dating (I think... it's been so long and I was never really good at that). If you are talking about having kids together on the first date, you might scare her away! Really, the best thing is to listen and then provide resources to the other person you meet.

Online applications give us an opportunity to provide "passive" marketing in the same way. Take a recent example from Twitter. I like to post "thoughts of the day" from time to time. I posted, "Strengthsfinder is a great book that helps you find your top strengths. Send me your Top 5 strengths!". I received a response from a teacher in California who send me her strengths and a short description of how she is using it for her classroom. I returned a quick link to an article on this blog about using strengths to motivate students in the classroom.

I didn't "sell" anything. All I did was helped out this teacher in California. In the meantime, several others on Twitter saw this conversation. I began to establish myself as an expert in this field and a potential resource. If I were to repeat that in their eyes, they would start to think of me when problems arose and it might just turn into work. I am creating a "gravity" slowly pulling potential clients in. In the meantime, it is very satisfying to help people out on a regular basis with miscellaneous issues that arise! (This is called a "Win-Win"!)

This is a longer article than normal, but it is the crux of beginning to understand the potential of these online social networks. Business is all about relationships. Maybe... just maybe... Facebook or Twitter has more potential than telling the world that you are about to water your lawn!

Try it out! Take a moment to set up a free account on Twitter (www.twitter.com) and follow me and see if I provide anything useful for you (twitter.com/donharkey).

Social Networking... What?

by Don Harkey

I'm not that old, but the age of online social networking is counted in dog years. In other words, online applications developed only 3 years ago are really 24 years old in networking age. I am defining an "online social network" as an internet tool designed to bring people together. Let's review a brief history...

When I was college in the mid 1990's, access to the internet was not yet universal, but it was possible. I had access through my work (relatively fast access for the time). The social network of choice at that time was the "chat room". There were countless chat rooms around all sorts of topics. Anyone could post anything either anonymously or not. The problem with it is finding people who know what they are talking about (this is an ongoing problem). Also, there were LOTS and LOTS of rooms and getting to relevant information was very challenging. Early chat room sites included Geocities (1994) and Tripod (1995).

An early paradigm shift occurred with the launch of Classmates.com (1995). Classmates focused on connecting "real" people with past classmates. You can register (for free) with Classmates.com and connect with others from your high school. Basically, you end up with a longer Christmas card list and maybe an interesting email or two.

In 2003, MySpace was launched borrowing heavily from features of other social networking sites. MySpace allowed users to create their own "profile" pages detailing all kinds of personal information and sharing them with friends. MySpace was popular mostly in U.S. amongst college students.

In the same year, LinkedIn was launched targeting business clients. With a more "professional" flavor to it, it allows users to recommend and "introduce" connections with each other. Several other business networking sites have followed Linked including Xing and others.

In 2006, Facebook was launched with to larger target market (the world) and with the option of using some applications (typically games or quizzes) developed by people not associated directly with Facebook. It quickly became the largest site in the world.

Perhaps the fastest growing application is Twitter (2006). Twitter has a few simple and unique features. First, it is much simpler than Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. Users enter what could be considered a "micro-blog" (called "tweets") which are 140 characters or less (ex: "Got up this morning and my coffee maker was broken" or "Just gave a seminar on leadership and continuous improvement"). The real innovation from Twitter is that it is public and its information is readily accessible from other applications. This means it is searchable. For example, I might be visiting Branson, Missouri and post "I'm in Branson looking for golf partners". Others searching "Branson" and "golf" might see your post and respond to you setting up a group to play.

Of course, I haven't even talked about Blogging as a form of social networking. A Blog is basically a website that is updated frequently with articles. The articles might be random or centered on a specific topic. There are all types of blogs (including this one!). By the way, for Springfield, Missouri blogs, you can visit www.SGFblogs.com.

OK... that is a general history (and I left a LOT out). Here is the question of this week for organization leaders. What is the implications of all of these online applications? Can these be used by businesses and business leaders or are they just "time suckers"? Which applications have great business potential and which ones are wastes of time?

If you fall in the "waste of time" category, you should consider a few things. Facebook, the largest networking site, currently has 175 million users, many of whom check their accounts daily. It is widely known that newspapers are struggling worldwide as many people get their "news" from blogs and other online resources. The fact is that people go to the internet for their information which gives companies an opportunity to position themselves as an "expert". Applications like Twitter allow for focused searches allowing people to target a local market (my iPhone can show Twitter users with a radius of my current location).

Another key thing to consider... few people understand what the next steps are. Technology and internet availability have finally collided giving a new opportunity that has yet to be understood. Is it and opportunity worth exploring?

At least for the rest of this week it is! Stay tuned!

We the People

by Don Harkey

The feedback from the articles this week has been tremendous! I have gotten a few questions about why I chose this topic on a blog that is written for leaders. The quick answer is that our country needs some great leadership right now. The other answer is that its a topic that I (and many others) feel pretty passionate about right now.

When it comes down to it, I think the thing that really urks me is how little faith our government has in "we the people". Both parties spent a lot of time talking about "combating greed" in all of its forms while discussing policies centered on "saving" the American people. I hear it everyday. "We must make sure that we have an American auto industry." "We must make sure that Americans have jobs."

That is very, very wrong.

The spirit of America is not only alive and well, it continues to thrive. I talked to a coffee shop owner ("The Buzz" in Springfield, MO) yesterday who started her shop in December of last year, in the middle of the economic crises. My friend asked her if she was nervous starting up a shop in the middle of a recession. She responded, "at least I have control of my destiny". She then told us about the homemade baked goods and other foods. The carrot cake was incredible!

Also this week, a friend of mine forwarded a link with information on a new electric car that is being made by the American auto industry. Who is it? Ford? GM? Chrysler? Nope. Tesla Motors.

Today, I'm visiting with the owners of a recently started and growing cabinet company called "Cabinet Concepts by Design". Isn't the housing market down? They are focused on innovative custom designs presented in a way that every homeowner can see (in a 3D computer model).

A couple of weeks ago, I attended the ribbon cutting at "Swing Right Golf". Sean Saunders has been working on his PGA license while building his business, all in the middle of this poor economy. Read more about Sean on the "Move Blog".

Last month, I met James Olson who owns "Oaxcafe Coffee Company" who roasts coffee in Springfield for many of the local coffee shops. In these tough economic times, is James holding onto his profits to ensure his survival? No. Instead he regularly goes on mission trips to Mexico and India.

Yesterday, I talked with Kent who directs "Therapeutic Riding of the Ozarks", an agency that gives special needs children the chance to ride horses. The therapeutic effect on the kids is dramatic. He further reaches out to children by using at risk teenagers to work with the kids changing the lives of everyone involved. He works 18 hours a day keeping his operation going which is funded by grants and donations.

It is time that the government stop treating the American People like victims. It is time that we remember that these people are the ones who will lead us out of these economic times. While it is true that stupid decisions by a few overpaid executives and government officials can lead us into a recession, it is also true that our system of government allows the people to pull us out of it.

The United States leads the world economically, not because of government policies, but because of the freedom enjoyed by the entrepreneurs and "do-ers" of this country. These people innovate, create value for society, and are rewarded for doing so. In fact, we are all rewarded by these people.

My suggestion is this... turn off the news, donate to your favorite charity or church, go get a cup of coffee and think about all of the opportunities that living in this country offers you. Think about what others have done with that opportunity and then imagine what YOU will do with it. Don't surrender your destiny!

When is Big "Too Big"

by Don Harkey

We've had some really great articles this week. Rob and Ray are very articulate and did a great job outlining the free market philosophy. I want to take this opportunity to "drill down" a bit into some of the current issues. Let's try to apply some of the philosophy.

I mentioned earlier in the week that George Washington despised government, but he saw that it was necessary for certain things. He called it a "necessary evil". Any service provided by the government could be considered against free market principles, although not many free market advocates are anarchists. The central issue then is "what is the role of government?". Where is the line?

Let me give you some "thought examples". I think most people agree that providing for the common defense is a good role of the government. The national military has proven much more effective than the scattered militias that were common in our early years as a country. What about police and fire fighting? Most Americans are content with leaving these services to the government, and this approach has seemed to work.

Moving on to health care. Should we have socialized medicine? Do we currently have "free market" medicine? Imagine a man who makes $10,000,000 per year and refuses to pay for insurance. He throws his money around like crazy and has nothing to show for it. He has a heart attack and goes to the hospital. He has no insurance and does not intend to pay his bill. Do you let him die?

Take the example of a family who loses their jobs and has their house foreclosed. They have no source of income, no local family, and have no place to go. Do you let them be homeless?

The answers to these questions do not yield the answer to the choice between socialism and a free market. A socialist might believe that a "free market" answer might be "yes, let them die, let them be homeless". A free market person might believe the "socialist" answer is "heal them, house them, clothe them, and give them expanded basic cable". These are the debates we are having in the media and its not healthy or productive. This is where conservatives become "cold-hearted" and where liberals become "tree-huggers". For the majority of people, neither is true.

Let's assume that most people would not let the greedy man die on the hospital floor. We would help the man. The real question is "HOW?". Most people would want to help the homeless family. How?

Do we establish a government health care system to save the lives of anyone regardless of their financial means? Do we carry out Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty" as a nation?

Do we allow people to keep more of their money to donate (voluntarily) to organizations like Crosslines or The Kitchen. Do we call out FEMA to the next natural disaster or do we find homes for over 200 families in a nearby city simply by calling on local churches to help (as was done in Springfield after Hurricane Katrina)?

Let's talk about some of the largest corporations and organizations in the United States. What would have happened if the government had allowed Bear Stearns to fail? AIG? Chrysler? GM? Both President Bush and President Obama believed that the country could not withstand the failures of these companies. As a good friend of mine says, the answer to this scenario is "above my pay grade".

However, if the answer is that our economy would, then we are faced with the next question. If a single organization can make some bad decisions and cause the potential collapse of the United States or even the World economy, then how do prevent this from happening again? The answer from President Obama is clear... regulation and government intervention.

Should we prevent companies from growing that large in the first place? It wasn't long ago when banks were not allowed to cross state lines. This is not without significant implications. Where is the line? Is it possible that the "people" would determine that a company is not acting in the best interest of the "whole" and act accordingly? Should we intercede and "tweak" WalMart's health care policies? Should we prevent WalMart from entering towns of less than 10,000 people?

Maybe the whole thing is blown out of proportion. Maybe if Bear Stearns, AIG, Citibank, GM, and Chrysler all failed, maybe the economy would be hurt, but maybe the country and the world would come out more healthy. Maybe the banks SHOULDN'T be lending out more money to people. Maybe this is NOT a good time to take out a car loan. Maybe mortgage companies SHOULD demand 20% down on a house.

At the heart of the question... should we be more concerned about big corporations or big government?

Biblical Property

by Ray Smith

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.” John Adams (June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson)

We have forgotten some of the basic foundational beliefs that drove our founding fathers to create our government in the manner they did.

All the earth is owned by God – He is the Creator. (Genesis 1:1, Psalm 50:10-12)

God has given man dominion over His earth and all that is on it. This makes every person personally responsible to God for what he does with everything he possesses. (Genesis 1:28-30, Genesis 9:1-7)

God ordained this responsibility which we call private property which is clearly evidenced by the fact that two of the Ten Commandments – the 8th and 10th respectively – deal with stealing and envy or coveting. (Exodus 20:15,17). As a matter of fact, in the explanation of the civil laws against stealing God instructed that restitution of up to 5 times the original value of what was stolen should be made and that force – even lethal force – could be used in the defense of one’s property. (Exodus 22:1-14).

The responsibility people have to work and invest of their resources and to add value as they do so is biblical.

Consider what Jesus taught on this subject in the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30. He said that people are directly accountable to God for all that He has given them, that they are obligated to add value by wisely investing all they have been given and that this increase pleases God.

The founding fathers understood this so well, that they designed a system of government that protected the rights of individuals, private property and making a profit.

But Americans have apparently forgotten these truths. Too many people are happy to let the government do everything for them. By adopting this attitude, people have rejected their responsibility to be good stewards of God’s resources. We have become a nation of wimps who are unwilling to compete in a free market and accept that there are risks in any life that is worth living.

Our current leaders want to regulate the rights of individuals supposedly for their own good – even the amount of water your toilet flushes! They are ignoring the protections of private property through contracts and increasing government seizures which they prefer to call take-overs. They are favoring certain businesses over others by using public funds to profit only selected companies within any given industry. They call these favors bailouts. They are punishing those who are successful at making a profit through outrageous taxation and are even willing to use the IRS to punish anyone they think is getting too much. And finally, instead of living within the confines of a balanced budget, they are willing to pass massive debts on to future generations which is nothing more than taxation without representation for our children and grandchildren.

Whatever the government officials deem necessary they are planning to do with or without the consent of the governed. We are, unfortunately, heading toward tyranny.

You cannot read the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Bible and find justification for where we are today! This is a dangerous time for America.

Free Men, Free Markets

by Rob Catlett
Springfield, MO

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Barack Obama, October 16, 2008

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the US Constitution, 1794

The two quotes are from statesmen at diametrically opposite ends of American history and political philosophy. The core issue here is the role of government to provide for the common good. Should government redistribute resources to reduce inequalities in wealth distribution, or should free markets be the arbiter of value? When one looks at the history of the world, what economic and political system has best moved man from grinding poverty to improved health care, medicine, security, and leisure activities?

I say unequivocally that the existence of free markets has led to the greatest explosion of wealth the world has ever seen. Free markets are characterized by several key factors: voluntary win-win exchanges, personal property rights, and equal protection under the rule of law. Looking at countries around the world, there is a direct relationship between these factors and the prosperity of the country. Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Russia all confiscate personal property on a whim, control free speech, plan their economies, and as a result their standard of living suffers. Ireland and New Zealand are at the other end of the spectrum and benefit from their open societies.

Think of all of the parts that make up your computer, certainly there are thousands. Consider all of the companies involved, the various countries, diverse religions and ethnicities of the workers, and yet somehow a shiny computer sits on your desk, performing the tasks that you need. No government dictated that the computer be built, designed a chip, or did market research. It was an incredible amount of voluntary, win-win exchanges among thousands that brought this computer to your desk. An outcome of those many transactions was the creation of personal wealth by those who exchanged their time and energy for money. Their profits are then used at their discretion to purchase food, health care, savings, iPhones, or whatever suits them best. For these voluntary exchanges to take place, one must have control of private property.

Let us contrast win-win exchanges against the government sponsored programs for the common good. The corn farmer and ethanol producer are content to receive their subsidy; however that confers an obligation upon all other citizens to pay extra for their food and gasoline. This is a win-lose exchange for the citizens. Individually, the subsidy may not be onerous, but the list of obligations subjected upon citizens by our government is almost never ending. The taking of private property and giving it to others is a trait minimized in flourishing nations, and promoted in areas that continue to struggle.

Historically, wealth was amassed by invading, plundering, stealing and enslaving. Over the past two centuries, we have witnessed the explosion and broadening of wealth with governments having a critical role. The critical role however is to protect private property, and making clear the rule of law that protects all, and to minimize wealth transfers. Capitalism, with all of its warts and imperfections, still provides the best way to provide for the common good. To surrender free speech and property rights to the government for bureaucrats to decide how best to serve the common good goes against the lessons of history, and certainly does not align with the vision James Madison had for our country.

Free Markets or Greed

by Don Harkey

Wall Street is out of control! Greed has overtaken our country and caused a split in our society between the "haves" and the "have nots". Now we are paying for the bad decisions made on Wall Street while those who made the decisions are living like fat cats. It's time for the government to step in.

Did I do a good job of summing up what we are hearing on the news? Is it really this simple? Can a free market really work or is heavy regulation and control needed? When a company becomes large enough to have a dramatic impact on our nation's economy, should it be left alone, heavily regulated, or prevented from getting that large in the first place?

This week, we will be talking about free markets. Regardless of your political leanings, the government is certainly leaning toward more regulation as a whole. Republican Orrin Hatch (Utah) is presenting a bill to call the college football BCS system an "antitrust violation" while a Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin (Maryland) is working on a bill to allow newspapers to gain a "non-profit" status. Taxes are being applied backwards to bonuses collected by executives within "bailout" companies. There is serious discussion of limiting the compensation of all corporate executives as well as professional athletes and actors. Are these good ideas?

What type of government do we have in the United States? I would hazard that a majority of citizens today would answer "a Democracy". It would surprise many that the term "democrat" (not related to the current political party) was considered an insult in the days of our Founding Fathers. Do you know the history?

Early America in the late 18th century was a unique time. Government was a favorite topic of many of the best minds in the America and the men who became our Founding Fathers spent hours debating and discussing various forms of government looking for a form of government that would really work. The quick answer at the time would have been to form a democracy where people vote for everything. However, they quickly realized that this type of system is impractical and not prudent. People will vote themselves more and more specific benefits and react too strongly to current events. A democracy is not sustainable.

Of course, a monarchy was not desirable either. Many Americans didn't despise the monarchy as we think of it today, but they saw where the system failed. The system is only as good as its leader and how much information the leader gets. So what were we to do?

Our Founding Fathers realized that they were not out to set up a "perfect" government. They saw the government as a potentially dangerous, "but necessary" entity (or "evil" as Washington called it). So they set out to create a "more perfect" government. They designed a Republic (again, no reference to the current political party). The system is designed to have representatives of the people to serve as a buffer between the currents of public opinion and to ensure that the "best" people were making decisions. The system is designed to allow the government to sometimes make decisions against the will of the people.

The Colonists were also huge believers in a Free Market. They were participating in one of the biggest "free market" experiments in the history of the world. They had come together from multiple countries, often under different (or multiple) flags and set to work making out their own living. The early colonists didn't have a "national" government designed to organize and develop a complex system of trading. It just happened based on supply and demand.

Fast forward to 2009. Can this system still work today? That's the topic of this week!

Missouri vs Memphis Overturned!

by Don Harkey

In a surprise move today, the NCAA has announced that it is going to intercede and overturn the results of the Memphis vs. Missouri basketball game last night. Missouri beat Memphis 102-91 in Sweet 16 action last night ending Memphis' 27-game winning streak.

"These are clearly unusual times which call for unusual measures.", quoted one NCAA Official. "First of all, Memphis has won the last 27-games in a row. This type of long history of success cannot be ignored when determining a National Champion."

The unprecedented move by the NCAA represents the first time in any major sporting association that a game outcome was overturned to protect a team generally believed to be superior. "Memphis is simply too good a team to allow them to slip out of the tournament. An NCAA tournament without Memphis is simply unacceptable. If a team that wins 27 games in a row isn't qualified to win the National Championship, who is? The credibility of our whole system is at stake."

When asked how the remaining tournament would be structured, another NCAA Official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, admitted that their would be some hurdles to overcome. "We don't want to penalize Missouri for playing Memphis, so we now have 9 teams playing for one spot and that presents us with some obvious challenges. We are exploring all options on the table including looking at some other teams that have lost to inferior teams as well as looking at teams that were unfairly excluded from the tournament in the first place."

"These actions are absolutely necessary to preserve the future of the sport of basketball and really all sports in this country", commented the head of the NCAA. "When a team's future is decided by a few shots, we all lose. Starting today, we are going to examine extensive policy changes in the NCAA regarding all sports. We are going to develop a comprehensive solution to this problem to ensure that all sporting events are fair and that no team falls pray to a random loss."

Members of Congress have been quick to applaud the actions of the NCAA. "I think the actions taken by the NCAA are very appropriate!", commented one Congressman from Tennessee. "Memphis deserves better and the American people deserve better. We are actually watching the NCAA plan with great interest as a possible model for restructuring future congressional elections."

Missouri officials were not reached for comment.


The above story is true, although the names and faces have been changed to protect the... well... to protect the author.

Old Dogs and New Tricks

by Don Harkey

I want to start today by first apologizing for not writing yesterday and then to apologize for today's title. I don't mean to call anyone a dog and I don't mean to call anyone old. That's my disclaimer for the day!

When I was little, my parents got me our first video game system, one of the old Atari systems. I immediately went to work playing games like Space Invaders, Combat, and Canyon Bomber. My Dad was certainly the best at these games when we first started playing but over time (about an hour), I quickly lapped him in my video game ability and never looked back.

Fast forward almost 15 years... I'm in college living in a rental house with 2 roommates. The Mario 64 games is on and we're having great fun with the first person 3D gaming experience generations beyond the days of Combat. I thought I was getting pretty good at the game until my roommates cousin, who was roughly 8 years old, came by and showed us how to really play. He didn't have to pause and think before jumping from cloud to cloud (or whatever we jumped on).

Today, if I have a question the computer, I will go to the youngest person I can find (I can still outdo my 6-year old, but he is gaining on me fast). I think I stay up on computer and internet technology fairly well, but it is amazing how my abilities pale to those who grew up using the internet.

These observations lead to a lot of the discussion on the differences between generations. When we are young, are brains are actively making new connections. As we get older, we have more existing knowledge from which to draw, but our new connections are much more difficult to put together.

I once read about a study of NFL quarterbacks and how they have to "hardwire" their brains to do their jobs. Think about it. "Hike". You now have just a few seconds to drop back, look at receiver #1, look at receiver #2, look at receiver #3, and throw, all while watching the blitzing linebacker and acknowledging the defensive end who dropped back into coverage. Studies show that for a normal person, this process is simply too fast. The only way it can be done well is to do it so many times that the brain becomes literally hardwired to assess the situation quickly and make the decision. The greatest quarterbacks in the game are successful because of practice. I'm not talking about having a great summer training camp... I'm talking about having a career where you get to play A LOT of football. The best current example is Peyton Manning, who started 4 years at Tennessee and was immediately the starter with the Colts who put up with a few horrible years (and lots of Interceptions) before enjoying their more recent success.

Within an organization, leaders must work hard to create an environment where their people can be successful. This means learning and practicing new skills as well as utilizing skills that have already been "hardwired".

For example, when I am giving a seminar, I am constantly reading the room. I know who is engaged in the discussion and who is getting lost. I know who is skeptical about the information presented and I know who is really absorbing the information. I can tell when the room is energized and I can tell when the room really needs a break. I adjust the tone, content and style of my presentation accordingly. I can do all of this without consciously thinking about it. It is hardwired into my brain from years of experience in performing and speaking in front of people.

Now take someone who has never spoken in front of a group before. I could coach them and tell them to watch individuals and body language and adjust material accordingly, but they will struggle with that. They might be focusing on some more basic speaking principles like talking loudly enough, using good inflection, and remembering what material is coming next.

As a leader, you must identify the strengths of different people. Generational influences are often times just issues of what type of experience people have. Generational differences is a hot topic today because of the acceleration of technology. I am perfectly comfortable communicating with text messages, "tweets", and emails. Others are less comfortable. Some are more comfortable.

Consider the experiences of your people and put them in positions to be successful. Remember what skills require "hardwiring". Give the "old dogs" opportunities to use some of their "old tricks"!

Leave it to Beaver

by Don Harkey

Are you imaging the opening theme of "Leave it to Beaver"? I am more than imagining it right now. What a different time! Even though it was just a TV show, it does highlight a different view people had on the life of an American family. Compare that to a relatively modern view of family presented in the show "7th Heaven". Now imagine a workplace where you must work with both Reverend Camden and Ward Cleaver.

A couple of years ago, I saw a speech by Dr. Cal LeMon, of Executive Enrichment Inc, entitled "Ending the Generation Wars at Work". The presentation focused on the differences between the generations and how each should be managed. In short, this is what he said...

Baby Boomers believe in growth/expansion, enjoy being 'on stage', are optimistic, have a developed social conscience, practice teamwork on the job, pursue their own gratification, are too political, and are workaholics. According to Dr. LeMon, the shrine to the average Baby Boomer is a Country Club. How do you "motivate" boomers? Listen to their stories, give them public recognition, provide perks, remind them of the power of their name recognition, and involve them in decision making. (Remember from past articles that motivation is driven by a person who feels competent, autonomous, and related to a given task)


Generation X people are what Dr. LeMon calls the "Xterra Generation" (after the SUV). They want to balance their career and family, don't want to "pay their dues", are materialistic, are cynical, are impatient, interested in lots of things, and are not committed to their jobs. How do you "motivate" a Generation X person? Give them constructive criticism, allow them to have fun at work, use technology, utilize mentoring and give them lots of things to do (they can multitask).

Generation "Next" or "Nexters" are called the "Best Generation in 100 Years". They have a rare combination of being technically savvy and have great verbal skills. They spend lots of time reading (video games actually replaced TV time, not reading time according to studies), are optimistic, passionately ethical, goal oriented, and work well in teams. They are "motivated" by being given plenty of orientation, ignoring typical gender roles, working in strong teams, good training programs, and mentoring.

Perhaps just as telling as the above information are the photos Dr. LeMon chose for each generation when summing up the presentation. The Baby Boomer shows a well dressed professional woman sitting in a nice symmetrical office at a nice desk with her hands crossed neatly on the desk. The Generation X person stands with a scowl on his face, arms crossed in defiance, starring intently at the camera. The Nexter is smiling and listening to an MP3 player while looking off camera as if looking to the future.

I think there is some interesting information and insight in this analysis, but overall, I think it is a Baby Boomer view of the generations. Imagine the domesticated hippy evaluating the life of the grunge fan who grew up watching Ronald Reagan. If you look at the "motivating" factors for each generation, you will see a pattern. Competence, Autonomy and Relatedness. Of course the issue is "what is a generation competent at?" and "what does a generation relate to?".

A good friend of mine who happens to be a Baby Boomer, recently left me a message on my phone. In my voicemail greeting, I ask the caller to leave their name and a brief message and offer the option of sending a text message for a potentially faster response. He joked on his message, "I'm surprised you ask people to 'Tweet' their response to you" (using Twitter, an online social networking application). This isn't really a generational thing, its more of a competence thing.

I grew up with computers. In grade school, our classroom had an Apple IIE and by junior high, we were taught to program in Basic. By college, I had my own computer and began using email. Today, not only do I blog, I also use Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter (follow me at http://twitter.com/donharkey) as well as the full suite of Google products. I own an iPhone and text message regularly. I do these things as tools for my work and as a way to balance my life.

As we grow older, we tend to stick with the things that have always worked for us and learn new technologies a little slower. I don't think Baby Boomers are anti-technology, I think they just haven't been submersed in it. In fact, I know a few Baby Boomers who use Facebook and Twitter... they see the value in it.

The point here is that generations do have differences based on the world they grew up in. They have different experiences that give them a variety of competencies. However, they are motivated by the same things... competence, autonomy, and relatedness... just in different ways!

...and just for the record... I think Generation X gets a bad rap!

Generations at Work

by Don Harkey

You hear a lot about Baby Boomers, Generation Jones, Generation X, Millenials, and the current "yet to be named" generation. How does society impact the social and work habits of each generation? As a professional, how do you deal differently with each generation?

What about the apparent existence of "micro-generations"? Its a fact that many of the most influential computer pioneers were born within a year of each other (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, James Gosling, and Bill Joy were all born within 11 months of each other). Its also a fact that of the 75 riches people to have ever lived, 14 of them were born within 9 years of each other in the United States (in the 1830's). Both of these examples come from Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers: The Story of Success".

What about the book "The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy" by William Strauss and Neil Howe that suggests that there is a pattern to history that cycles with various generations?

In the workplace in 2009, there are workers who keep calendars on their walls and still send out handwritten letters to people. There are also workers who communicate through Twitter, text messaging, instant messaging, email, and Google calendars. Technology certainly highlights generational issues.

What about the end goal of each generation? Does the view of the "perfect life" vary between generations? Is it true that the younger generations demand a more balanced life? Is our society getting lazier?

All of these issues will have a huge impact on the world as the largest generation ever to walk the planet nears retirement age and the younger generations begin to take the reigns. What differences will be seen in this transition?

This is the subject of this week's articles. Again, my goal is to apply the universal principles of organizations to the concept of generations and see what applies and what doesn't apply. Are different generations motivated differently? Should different generations be managed differently? Stay tuned!

The Economic Engine of a Church

by Don Harkey

I want to use my "Free For All Friday" to talk about a few important concepts we have learned in our Vision and Mission journey at Messiah Lutheran Church. We began our journey almost 6 years ago and are continuing today (its a continuous process!).

This week, we talked about what drives an organization. Is it profit or passion? The real answer is both. Great organizations know their passion and understand what drives profits. However, profits is not really the right word here. The right word is resources. Great organizations know their passion and understand what drives resources to their organization. This is true for profit companies and for non-profits.

So what drives resources to a church? The old model is that members of a church will give "X". To get more money, you need to get more members. If you ask for money for something new, you'll need to take away from something old. When money runs low, you ask the congregation for more. If you can keep pressure on the responsibility of being a good congregant, your members will keep giving.

The new model is that members will give when they see a need. To get more money, you show the members the need and get them to buy into it (or not). If you ask for money for something new, you will get extra money as long as the congregation agrees and sees the need. When money runs low, you show the congregation all of needs being filled by the budget or collect enlist most of their involvement in determining the needs to be filled and how to fill them. If you maintain a focus on the mission of the church, your members will keep giving.

This is a subtle, but extremely important difference. If your congregation is spending its time talking about internal power struggles or trivial issues, the church isn't communicating the need for funds and resources will be driven away. If your church spends its time talking about its mission and how it will fulfill its mission, the church will get the resources it needs.

The best example I can give is at Messiah Lutheran Church. 6 Years ago, the annual budget for the congregation was just under $400,000 per year. The church had paid off its mortgage and had just started its mission process. The church was full and knew it needed to expand to grow, but the congregational leadership wasn't sure how to do it. How do you get the resources to grow with a $400K budget already stretched tight?

Once the Vision and Mission of Messiah was defined, the path became clearer. Growing the church was necessary not only to serve our existing congregation, but to serve others and support all of the existing and new ministry opportunities. The congregation charted a course toward growing the church at its existing site, not just to grow, but to fulfill its mission. More than 80% of the congregation voted in favor of the project.

A capital funds campaign was launched to collect 3 year pledges. The congregation, with an annual budget of just over $400K per year at the time, collected almost $1,000,000 in pledges. Over the next 3 years, the church would collect almost every dime. The construction on the $2.7MM expansion was begun and is scheduled to be completed by early summer. The discussion in the church continues to be about fulfilling our mission using these gifts. What happened to our church budget (giving)? It swelled to over $500K per year! The congregation gave more to the project AND more to the operations budget!

While the economy is down, our giving increase slowed a bit, but the congregation continues to stay focused on its mission. The congregational leadership took several steps to control the budget to show good stewardship, but in the midst of what could have been a crises, the congregation continues to stay focused on its mission. This lead the church to the Lighthouse Ministry (read the blog from 3/18/09 for info). This is a $250K ministry that the church is taking on... and the church continues to find the resources to fulfill the mission!

The "economic engine" of the church is when its members have a common mission or purpose. A friend once asked me during our first campaign (we are currently launching a 2nd campaign to pay our debt from the project) how we ask members for money. I told him that we don't ask for money, we ask for mission.

There is a lot to be learned from this experience and I pray that other churches take this to heart. I also pray that businesses look at the lessons learned here. Passion is truly productive!

Scooby Snacks

by Don Harkey

Its 3:20PM and I am running home. I want to get home in time to grab a cupcake for a snack and catch Scooby Doo at 3:30PM. By the way, I'm in the 3rd Grade... or at least I was.

I used to really love Scooby Doo. I would try to guess who the villain was before he or she was unmasked at the end by those "meddling kids". Hanna-Barbera certainly had a formula and within that formula was always a scene where "the gang" needed Scooby to do something dangerous or scary. Scooby would always refuse until someone whipped out the conveniently branded "Scooby Snacks". "Would you do it for a Scooby Snack?" "Would you do it for two Scooby Snacks?" Eventually, Scooby (and sometime Shaggy) would find their price point and decide to take on the task in exchange for the Scooby Snacks.

Many people believe that in business, the "worker" works for their own form of Scooby Snacks. A management professor told me once that his students thought that the only two ways of getting a worker to do something was to "reward them or punish them". No one wants to be the bad guy, so management prefers the reward. If you can hit your targets, I'll give you a bonus.

Many people also believe that profit is what drives a company. It's time to launch that new product line. Would you do it for a Scooby Snack? Would you do it for $140,000 in revenue? So companies and people have a lot in common with Scooby Doo. They trip through life looking just looking for a snack. (Hint: I am being sarcastic here!)

What about non-profits?

The very existence of non-profit organizations challenges our "Scooby Doo View" of people and organizations. Yes, some people get paid to work for a non-profit, but often times the pay is significantly less than they could get doing similar work for a "for profit" company. Churches do most of their work using volunteer labor working for nothing more than a cup of coffee on Sunday morning. What's going on here?

The fact is that while people can be motivated by money, money is a poor motivator. While this may seem counterintuitive within our TV society, it is actually very intuitive if you apply it to your life. What is truly most important to you? If you could do anything right now, what would it be? Are you saying this because of the money you would make?

Consider a person who is paid $50,000 to change diapers, clean up puke, and wait hand and foot on another human being who cannot take care of themselves. Now consider a parent who does the job for nothing (actually at a significant financial cost). What is the difference?

The difference is that people want to have a purpose. The 3 needs that drive motivation are competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The first two are common for people in their jobs. You were probably hired because somebody thought you were capable. Hopefully, you know that you have a choice to go to work or not. However, how do you relate what you do with the others around you and with your core purpose?

"For-Profit" business can learn a lot by looking at Non-Profits. Many of these organizations have low budgets and struggle continuously for resources. However, these same organizations have a clear vision (like Erica at Lighthouse or the great folks at Messiah Lutheran Church) and do amazing things. People are willing to bend over backward when they feel "called" to do so.

The challenge for businesses is to find this purpose. What is higher mission (higher than profits) that makes them special. The story of Pixar is a great example. The people at Pixar have a great passion for making great movies out of great stories. They have a remarkable track record of success. The reason is that they are focused on great stories rather than target markets and projected profits.

Find your purpose and your profits will come!

Same Goal, Same Passions

by Erica Harris
Lighthouse Child and Development Center
Springfield, MO

According to the most recent Community Report Card for Springfield, MO, more than 11% of the general population and at least 20% of Springfield children are living in poverty in our community. No one wants to think that young children are going without food, clothing, and shelter – but they are. In this tough economic time, more families will be moving into uncharted territory, struggling to make ends meet. Who wouldn’t want to change these statistics?

At Lighthouse Child & Family Development Center, we are changing this statistic. We’re working with a passion to increase self-sufficiency in the Springfield community. We are accomplishing this through holistic programming that includes intensive family case management, parent and child education, quality and affordable childcare, along with significant volunteerism. Lighthouse is changing lives.

When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, we run this non-profit like a successful business – the real difference: our desired outcomes. Most for-profit businesses are focused on a monetary profit; Lighthouse is passionate about profiting the community we serve. If we reach our goals, our community will reap the benefits. Like any business with a true vision, we are group of people that are working together toward a common purpose.

Lighthouse staff, board, families/clients, volunteers, and community supporters like those at Messiah Lutheran Church all understand that we are striving to enrich lives, and we’re in this together. Messiah will soon host their own Lighthouse program to educate and support 34 additional children and families in a journey toward self-sufficiency. When two organizations with a similar vision can join forces, the impact is exponentially greater.

We succeed and fail together. We celebrate and lament together. We are a Lighthouse family, and we believe we will reach our goals together. It’s amazing what a group of committed and motivated people can do when they are focused on the same goal. That’s true to for- or not-for-profit organizations.

Vision and Mission

by Don Harkey

It is estimated that there are over 300,000 churches in the United States. This makes churches the most common non-profit organization in this country, and probably in the world. Most people have been to a church at some point in their lives, but have you ever thought of a church as an organization or even as a business?

About 6 years ago, Messiah Lutheran Church in Springfield, Missouri hired a consultant. The consultant interviewed many members of the congregation to assess the overall health of the organization. The results were presented in a report. The report did not contain any earth shattering news. The congregation was healthy, but stagnant. There were no major rifts in the church... no issues that threatened its existance... only a steady attendance record over its 45 year history.

The report contained one critical piece of advice; develop a Vision and Mission. Where are you going? What is your purpose? Why are we here? These were the question posed before the congregants of Messiah Lutheran Church only 6 years ago.

6 years later, the congregation is transformed. It is still the healthy congregation with a strong culture of family that existed during the study. However, today, the church is alive with excitement about the future. This summer, the church will complete a $2.7 million building project at its existing site in Springfield, for which its congregation raised almost $1 million over the previous 3 years.

Almost 100 members of the church spent almost 2 years working on the answers to those original questions and the resulting answers lead to the new energy. The congregation learned a lot about itself in its Mission Statement.

"Guided by the Gospel we: Welcome All to Worship, Make Disciples, Hunger for Ministry, Nurture Youth, Gather Resources for Growing Ministries, and Offer Healing and Care to All in Need"

This simple Mission statement is said after every worship service and is repeated in congregational meetings, team meetings, and anywhere where a little vision is needed. The organization is focused on utilizing its people to find its mission. It knows that its "economic engine" is members of the church who see that the church is fulfilling a need.

Would this type of process work for a "for profit" business? Would it be benefitial for leaders within a business to sit down and discuss the answers to questions like "why are we here" and "what is our purpose"?

The answer is "absolutely"!

As Jim Collins pointed out in "Good to Great", a company that knows what it is passionate about is more successful than companies who focus too much on their dashboards. This is intuitive to anyone who has ever worked with people. People are much more creative and energetic when they are working together toward a common purpose. Remember that "relatedness" is a major factor in personal motivation. Within an organization, profit or not, understanding the passion and common purpose is critical.

Still... non-profits are very different entities. There can't be too much more in common... can there?

Want to learn more about Messiah Lutheran Church? Visit www.messiahmo.org.

Non-Profits vs Profits

by Don Harkey

Most of us are involved with a non-profit organization somewhere in our lives. Whether it's a church or a charity organization, non-profits are everywhere. Yet in the world of organization behavior, non-profits are often considered to be "second-class" organizations. Do the same principles of organization apply to non-profits like they apply to profits? What about principles of motivation and management?

Jim Collins felt compelled to address this issue after publishing his groundbreaking book, Good to Great. Good to Great outlines the common traits of organizations who make a jump from being very good at what they do to being great at what they do. The natural question for leaders of non-profits is, "does this apply to us?". One of the principles of the book, for example, is the "hedgehog concept". It says that great companies know the answers to 3 questions.

1) What are we the "best in the World" at?
2) What are we passionate about?
3) What is our economic engine?

Organizations of all types have great difficulty answering these questions. The buzz from the non-profit leaders came from the 3rd question. What is the economic engine of a non-profit? The "economic engine" of a profit organization is a good understand of what drives profits to the company. For example, Walgreens discovered that the key to its profits comes from the number of times a customer visits their stores. Kimberly-Clark learned that its profit comes from the number of consumer brands they carry.

What is the "economic engine" for a church? What is the "economic engine" for the United Way? This spurred a quick spin off monograph from Jim Collins called "Good to Great and the Social Sectors". The booklet changes "economic engine" to "resource drivers" and contains the statement "why business thinking is not the answer". Do the rules really change from non-profits to profits?

This is the question we will be exploring this week. We'll talk about specific non-profit entities and see how they are similar and different from profit organizations. This knowledge will help us better understand profits and non-profit organizations! Enjoy!