structure is determined by unique design

i could go on for days about organizational leadership. i've learned about this stuff, have done this stuff, & have created & implemented this stuff (as have many others @ hillside).

the structures/models & corresponding delivery systems are ultimately endless in flavor/combo. you could take/gleen from any number of models & even make your own.

i have found, though, that when the primary focus of any organization, company, institution, church/ministry is on the structure, model, or form- you have/get problems.

in any of the above mentioned organizations, there will be (should be) a driving force behind why they do what they do. it may be profit, clothing/feeding the needy, educating people, loving on people, sharing Jesus w/ people, and so on..... so, you build a structure/model/form that consists of people/leaders/servants that are talented/gifted in the areas you deem important & you create a structure w/ delivery systems (which have processes- which have functions- which have tasks, blah/blah/blah) in them. some of you know what i mean by delivery system, but some may not. think of a delivery system of how you get done what you said or wanted to get done. so, my structure consists of who is doing what, who "reports" to who, who oversees who, who trains who, who serves who, who assists/helps who, & the list is endless. now that i know who's doing what part, i can use already existing or create methods/processes/functions in which we can deliver a product/desired result/etc...

so, if my "deliverable/product/goal" is to feed & clothe the hungry, then my structure would have people w/ huge compassion/mercy for doing this type of ministry, but also my structure would have people that balance them & also would have people that do support, admin, logistics, & practical things. basically, i would have a driving force of the compassionate ones (because that's why we exist), then i have others that think about the other things. a group of compassionate people w/o any other types works for about the first outreach event (maybe). sometimes not even that far, w/o people that had wisely planned & performed the logistics of doing it w/ excellence. the compassionate individual hurts for the hurting, but doesn't always think of all the planning & "mundane" logistics that goes w/ it. hope this is making sense.

ultimately, any structure/model/form can be utilized that best fits the mission/vision of its organization. usually, the people already in that organization that have relationship & invested time- have the best way of deciding on a structure that gets them where they want to go. there is enough brain-power, right in our midst, to construct any model/form to better do what we were created/focused to do.

so, whether you have a "top-down, horizontal/sideways, or inverted" organizational chart or maybe even a continuously "morphing" organism chart/model- there are elements of that structure that never change: there has to be accountability, verbal/written reports, performance reviews, goals, vision, incentive, rewards, & the reason for the existence of that function. w/o some type of "order", chaos, is soon to ensue.

so, so far, i've noted/mentioned that organizational structures are good, if constructed by its people, & it serves the purpose. the delivery systems in those structures will need to be well thought out & effective/efficient. i should never create or continue a structure or delivery system that doesn't meet the end result. whatever the result may be, to continue or stay in a non-working/unsuccessful "form" is dumb. it's like a church that decides that they want to reach the younger generation by putting video games in a youth/college room; however, the preacher still preaches fire & brimstone- & the music worship is non-instrumental & done out of a hymnal. that example may be over-simplified or exaggerated, but i think you get my point. what's the target & how do we build a structure w/ delivery systems that hit the target?

personally, i've been an organizational leadership student, organizational leader, served in the military, & served in churches. i have usually found myself being involved @ some point when it comes to strategy of vision, mission, & the implementation of systems that achieve a certain goal(s). i have been able to create organizational/computer network/ministry/etc.. systems w/ processes, & i've learned a few things along the way:

• in any organized/structured environment there will be the potential for: positional leadership (dictator, lording over) who often look to move up a ladder of success to achieve power. for whatever reason, some people need to be approved/affirmed through their performance & obtaining higher "rank/position" is believed to be a way to achieve that.
• it is rather easy to fall into the trap of "self-importance". from personal experience, i have, in the past, looked to compete w/ others to achieve & get authority. once in that perceived spot of importance, then the "lording/controlling/manipulating" attitudes become the driving force. it wasn't the structure/model/system that was the issue- it was me & my way of looking @ things.
• sometimes, okay often, some "leaders" don't communicate well or just don't get along very well. who ends up suffering are the people whom we've targeted to serve. it also affects the people serving in a ministry that aren't leading it.
• sometimes our systems get too large/complicated to maintain & the focus is forgotten. for example, there's too many people to report to & i'm not able to get my primary task(s) done. in essence, one spends more time reporting on what they've done, than doing what they should be doing. it's like putting on your report to your supervisor that you worked on his report. :-) (i've actually had to report on my report that i had spent time reporting!)
• the focus of relationship & serving the customer/client/etc., gets lost in doing the "system'. the system becomes the customer & it's like a monster that feeds off of itself. doing the "system" better becomes the main focus, when the valued/most important focus is being neglected. for example, when a church becomes over-aware of its system (obsessed), being a loving/shining/kind/sharing individual starts to be neglected. the "system" must be done above all & we end up missing the God moments w/ all kinds of people that he puts in our paths. this often comes in the form of being too preoccupied/busy to acknowledge or spend time w/ the people we love & serve.
• every organization wanting to serve someone w/ excellence needs organized structed & delivery systems. i'm pretty sure that the Apostles had "logistics" types preparing/planning for money, food, housing, & whatever goes along w/ going somewhere & doing it w/ excellence. we can't just show-up to places & hope that it works out. structures allow for optimal planning & serving.
• not every "form" is going to work for everyone. "forms" should, in my opinion, be created/constructed by people w/in the church/company to best serve their vision & how they get there.
• the list goes on, but this post is getting a tad long already....

WHAT AM I TRYING TO SAY IN ALL OF THIS?

1. Building loving relationship is priority # 1 & can't be faked. It must be a "REAL", authentic love-, & that can't be created by any system! You either have a heart for those you're trying to reach or you don't. Be love & love will be the driving force. The system/structure is only created to love w/ excellence- NOT to be a cool, highly functioning business. there's a balance of love & business practices that are priority appropriate & they make an awesome combo/duo.
2. The words "top-down, heirarchal, dictatorial" with regards to orgnizations (not governments) refer more to an individual's attitudes/issues than it does structures/systems/forms. no matter what kind of organization you're trying to run- it has to have some type/sort of order. Forms can come & go, mostly dependant on who your target people are, but loving relationship is the foundation. Whether it's side-to-side, bottom-to-top, top-to-bottom, or a morphing organism- structure is only what you make it for the sole purpose of loving on people better (w/ excellence). it's like someone saying that a computer is evil or doesn't work right. usually/most often the computer can only do what a human has programmed it to do. likewise, a organizational structure/system only does what it's designed/programmed to do. if loving on people in excellent/effective ways is waning, change the structure/system/form to be more relevant/effective.
3. an organization can become programmatic/system focused & will keep trying the next bext thing that someone else created. the cookie-cutter or overlay approaches can be ok as a foundation for someone needing a lot of help, but in most cases, an organization needs to be unique. a leader w/ minimal organizational experience will probably benefit from prescribed systems, but will still need to identify the unique vision of his/her organization.
4. a structure/system/model is a tool to make things better. if stuff isn't working it's not the tool's fault. the tool was made by humans & only does what it can do (by design). i would never say that shovel was to blame for not digging deep enough. the shovel is only as good as its design & how i handle it. maybe, it's time for a new tool, different tool, but the fact still remains: i need a tool to dig dirt (effeciently that is).

whew! i haven't said all that i want to say on this subject & have probably forgotten some really good points, but the 10 mts. i gave to write this, will have to do for now.

love ya,

jay