My Legacy Marriage

32 years with my Proverbs 31 W0man!

Today we celebrate 32 years of marriage ... and it just keeps getting better!

Throughout this fall season, Laura and I have been teaching the Legacy Marriage material to a group of younger couples.

You may remember my definition of Legacy Marriage:

A Legacy Marriage is a marriage that is a blessing to us now,

and that will be a blessing to others for generations to come.

Our marriage has certainly been a blessing to us. And we sincerely hope that it is a blessing to others!

We will wrap up this session of Legacy Marriage next week. As I was reflecting on our marriage this morning and thinking about what we hope to be teaching and modeling, it occurred to me to ask and answer this question:

What have we learned in 32 years?

1. Marriage is not about me.

2. The main thing is to make your mate the main thing. Focus on meeting her needs. I call this the principle of reciprocity. If I focus on meeting Laura's needs, her response is to meet my needs. And she meets my needs in greater abundance than they would have been met if I had just been focusing on myself. I would like to take credit for this idea, but I can't. It is actually a biblical principle based on Philippians 2: 3-4:

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

3. Its not my job to change my spouse. That's God's job. My job is to be the husband I am supposed to be - regardless of what she does or doesn't do.

4. The greatest inheritance a father can give his children is to love their mother.


Today we celebrate 32 years of Legacy Marriage.

I am looking forward to at least 32 more years!

The Catalytic Mindset

Organizational inertia is the tendency of an organization to continue moving in the same direction until acted upon by some force that changes the direction.

Like individual people, organizations often become creatures of habit - continuing to follow the same routines and the same strategies. The status quo becomes the dominant force and stagnation sets in. Borrowing an image from ecology, when the organization fails to adapt to the changes going on in the environment, the environment will select that organization out.

The catalyst for changing an organization's trajectory is often a leader who recognizes that while changing will be uncomfortable and risky, not changing is an even riskier proposition.

Challenging the status quo in this way is an inherently high-risk position, but this is a differentiating factor between managers and leaders. A manager’s tolerance for risk is often trumped by a dominant need for survival. Leaders, on the other hand, are often temperamentally predisposed to seek risk. They react to the mundane nature of managerial work as to an affliction.

Where managers act to limit choices among potentially acceptable compromise positions, leaders actually seek to develop fresh approaches to existing problems. They seek to open issues to new options that may have never been considered. Leaders challenge long-standing assumptions and raise expectations by casting a vision that appeals to the head and the heart.

Leaders are change agents who change the trajectory of their organizations. They facilitate the adaptive work of their organization and seek to position the organization for long-term sustainability.

Change is always risky because we never have absolute certainty on how it will turn out. Leader's understand this. But they also understand this crucial fact:

If there is cost for changing,

there is a cost -usually an even greater cost - of not changing.

The Moral Mindset

“You came here with a mindful of mush, and if you survive,

you will leave her thinking like a LEADER!”

Those who lead always have people who are dependent upon them. The greater the dependency, the more power a leader has. So, a central question for those who lead is:

How will you handle the dependency of your followers?

Leaders must develop an acute sensitivity to the moral responsibilities inherent in their role.

Recently I had a conversation with a high-potential leader. We were discussing the power inherent in the leadership role. He told me “It scares me to death that I might be in a role where people will do what I ask simply because of my role.”

I responded by saying: “Stay scared.”

As long as leaders are sensitive to the power inherent in their position and realize their own potential to abuse that power, they will be on the right path.

It’s when we lose that perspective that we start down the road of unethical leadership.

So, stay scared.

The Collaborative Mindset

The collaborative mindset is all about appreciating relationships . This is a critical ingredient in leadership.

Leadership is intentional influence that takes place in the context of a relationship.

Because relationships are the primary context for the leadership process, leaders must develop the interpersonal dimension of organizations. The development of this capacity must begin with the leader. The leader must model the way and take the initiative for developing relationships throughout the organization.

Those who rise to leadership positions without cultivating the skills of relationship-building, negotiating, stakeholder coordination, and knowledge management will have limited effectiveness.

So, effective leaders understand the importance of developing emotional intelligence - EQ. Emotionally intelligent leaders are aware of their emotions and use their emotions in a constructive way.

Leaders with a high level of emotional intelligence are also aware of the emotions of others. They display empathy as they help others manage their own emotions.

Leaders who lack the skills associated with emotional intelligence lose their influence and may actually derail their careers.

How's your EQ? Are you cultivating and nurturing your relationship with those you lead?

The Worldly Mindset

Navigating Complex Environments

“You came here with a mindful of mush, and if you survive, you will leave her thinking like a LEADER!”

Contemporary organizations operate in increasingly dynamic and complex global environments. In order to survive and thrive, every leader must wrestle with how to cope and adapt in their environmental context.

Here’s a fancy term to use when trying to impress your friends: requisite variety.

The principle of requisite variety states that the organization’s response to the environment in which it operates must match the environment. So, if the environment is becoming increasingly complex and dynamic, so must the organization. The big idea is matching the structure of the organization with the characteristics of the environment.

When the operating environment is simple and stable, the organization can afford to be more mechanistic, using policies and procedures to deal with the normal operation of the organization.

But, when environmental complexity increases, the organization must be much more organic. In this environment, rules and regulations will not be sufficient to meet the demands placed on the organization. These environments require empowered employees who use their own judgment to respond to customer demands and solve problems.

This in turn requires leaders to develop the adaptive capacity of their teams and trust those teams to act in the best interest of the organization and its stakeholders.

Does the structure of your organization match the environment that it operates in?

Are you practicing requisite variety?

Bad Leadership - Part 3

“Watch out now, take care
Beware of greedy leaders
Who take you where you should not go.”

My car has the On-Star navigation system. That’s a really good thing for a directionally challenged guy like me. I can call On-Star, give them the address I’m trying to find, and they provide directions. Of course, I think I know best sometimes and I decide to deviate from the prescribed path. When I do that, a voice comes on and tells me, “You have left the designated path.” To get back on the designated path, On-Star tells me to "make a safe and legal u-turn.”

As leaders, we need people in our lives who will tell us when we have left the designated path. These are people who are not only willing to tell us we’re off the right path, but they move in alongside us and help us make the necessary u-turns.

There is an interesting teaching going around these days. It’s the idea that we are to be loyal armor bearers for our leaders, trusting their vision without questioning.

I am all for loyalty - two-way loyalty that flows both ways: from the leader to the follower and from the follower to the leader. But, I don’t think loyalty requires a whole-hearted endorsement when the leader has left the proper path and is on the road to derailment.

In these cases, the most loyal thing a follower can do is confront the leader.

We all have blindspots in our lives: Areas that are known to others and unknown to ourselves. Others see it clearly when we cannot – or when we refuse to acknowledge it. I want people in my life who love me enough to confront those blindspots and turn me around.

When should we be willing to confront a leader? What are the signs that a leader has left the designated path and needs to make a u-turn? Recently, Chuck Swindoll identified six areas that should cause alarm for us as followers. I have used his list as the basis for the following list of warning signs:

Authoritarianism. Take care when a leader begins repressing your freedom. If there is a lack of a servant's heart, and if the leader doesn’t have a teachable spirit, then pride is in control. Be especially wary of one who seems to have all the answers.

Exclusiveness. Watch out for the "we alone are right" and the "us four and no more" attitudes. Exclusiveness often shows up when people are encouraged to break commitments with long-standing friends. Some leaders actually ban contact with those who left their organization. In extreme cases, employees are terminated because they didn't sever ties with former members of the organization.

Greed. We are told to avoid even the appearance of greed (Ephesians 5:3). When there is a lack of transparency in the budgeting process and accounting for funds and requests for a more open process are stone-walled, beware.

Sensuality. Moral purity is a must if the leader claims God's hand is on his life. A holy life is never optional.

Lack of accountability. Leaders who refuse to be accountable to anyone forfeit the right to be trusted and followed. Every leader needs counsel and occasional confrontation. Many leaders have set up systems of pseudo-accountability to people who operate at a distance. These systems give the appearance of accountability, but the leader is shunning real accountability to anyone who is close enough to observe their day-to-day dealings.

Rationalization. This takes several forms:

• When wrong is justified with a defensive spirit,


• When inappropriate actions are quickly glossed over,


• When scriptural truth is twisted to fit a sinful lifestyle,


• When gray-black facts are whitewashed,


• When behavior is defended using definitional technicalities,


• When tremendous amounts of energy are spent attacking and labeling critics, ...

When any of these things happen, something is deeply wrong.

When these signs first appear, a loyal follower should challenge and confront the leader. If the leader shuns the reprimand and continues on the path, then the obligation of loyalty has been breached. Stop your support.

Jesus Himself said, "Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit." (Matthew 15:14)

"Watch out now, take care ..."

The Analytic Mindset

“You came here with a mindful of mush, and if you survive,

you will leave her thinking like a LEADER!”

Successful leadership of complex organizations requires the development of a “meso” approach that integrates the macro (big picture stuff like strategy and structure) and the micro (the stuff that deals with the individual employee and department of the organization) elements of the organization.


The analytic mindset is developed through the exposure to and application of the analytical tools used to manage specific organizations and to formal approaches that improve managerial effectiveness.

This requires that the concepts of strategy, structure, culture, technology, and human resources be understood in a systematic way that allows leaders to view the process of leading as a melding of science, art and craft. These subsystems are interrelated and interdependent. You cannot address issues in one area in isolation from the others. If you change something in one subsystem, it will impact the others. Ceteris paribus (holding everything else constant) might work in economics, but it doesn't work when leading complex organizations.

Several years ago I was engaged in a consulting project for a large IT department. As part of my assessment I interviewed the executives and directors. I asked each of them this question: "What is the most pressing issue facing your organization right now?" The responses were unanimous. Every one told me that they needed to restructure the organization. I responded to that by asking "What's your strategy?"

They were somewhat taken aback by my new question and wondered why I asked that question. The reason was simple: Until you have clear sense of your strategy, you really cannot determine the appropriate structure.

The key idea in this analytical mindset is alignment. Are the structures, processes, and people aligned with the strategy of the organization?

Let me be somewhat of a contrarian here. Jim Collins says you have to get the right people on the bus. I agree to some extent. You do need to get the right people on the bus – and get some off the bus (But don’t throw them under the bus!). But you cannot determine who the right people are until you have a clear sense of what it is you’re trying to achieve.

There’s an old cliche that gets circulated through Principles of Management courses: “Structure Follows Strategy.”

Indeed, structure should follow strategy. And, processes should follow strategy; and people should follow strategy.

Maybe its time to do an alignment check on your organization.