Albert O. Hirschman in his book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, starts out by stating that all organizations “are subject to lapses from efficient, rational, law-abiding, virtuous, or otherwise functional behavior.”[1] The reason for the faltering can be anywhere from self-inflicted to all kinds of accidental reasons. Hirschman argues for the importance that a “society must be able to marshal from within itself forces which will make as many of the faltering actors as possible revert to the behavior required for its proper functioning.”[2] This sounds logical, but as Hirschman points out “economists have paid little attention to repairable lapses of economic actors.”[3] Hirschman provides two reasons for why economists have been neglectful in this regard. “First, in economics one assumes either fully and undeviatingly rational behavior or, at the very least, an unchanging level of rationality on the part of the economic actors.”[4]

According to Hirschman, “economists have typically assumed that a firm that falls behind (or gets ahead) does so “for a good reason”; the concept – central to this book – of a random and more or less easily “repairable lapse” has been alien to their reasoning.”[5] Secondly, from the economist’s point of view, the “recovery from any lapse is not really essential. As one firm loses out in the competitive struggle, its market share is taken up”[6]  by someone else.

Hirschman points out how the above mentioned perspective from the economist fails to take into account the intrinsic worth of those affected by the lapse and the consequences. He argues that, “mechanisms of recuperation would play a most useful role in avoiding social losses as well as human hardship.” [7]

Generally speaking people respond to an organizations lapse in performance in two ways. Hirschman names these two responses  “exit” and “voice”. The “exit” (economics) response simply includes leaving an organization – discontinuing a relationship. The “voice” (political) response implies staying and expressing displeasure – verbalizing frustration.

Both responses “exit” and “voice” to an organizations failure can help the organization improve. However, the more difficult and often neglected option is the “voice” response. The third concept that Hirschman introduces, “loyalty”, becomes important at this point.   Hirschman states that, “as a rule, then, loyalty holds exit at bay and activates voice.”[8]

In response to this reading, I could not help but to think of the church and church conflict. How often do we use the exit strategy when the going gets tough? What about choosing the more difficult route of “voice” of speaking the truth in love and “talking out” our problems? What about Christ’s loyalty to us and our loyalty to Him and to each other? It seems that restoration of a lapsed organization or a lapsed person should always be the goal (I have to think of Matthew 18). I also have to think of how Jesus is in the business of restoration and not giving up on people who have “lapsed.”

Gilbert W. Fairholm in his book, Perspectives on Leadership: From the Science of Management to Its Spiritual Heart argues that the leadership style of leaders in the 21^st century needs to include a focus on spirituality. Fairholm argues that, “today people are hungry for meaning in their lives. They feel they have lost something, and they don’t remember what it is they’ve lost. This has left a gaping hole in their lives. To fill this void, some are trying to blend their spiritual with their everyday work lives.” (xxii). In his research Fairholm has identified the need for integrating the spiritual with everyday work lives. Without this integration people experience a form of loss and their work feels disintegrated to who they are.

Fairholm continually highlights the role that work plays in people’s lives. For instances he states that, “Work has become the center of our lives. Whether we like it or not, work is becoming the source of values in our society and the site of our most worthwhile contributions. The work community has become our most significant community, and the work place is fast becoming the place where most of us find our sense of full meaning.” (111) He acknowledges the centrality of work in our lives and intuitively makes the connection between work and vocation. He does not use the word vocation nor does he look at work from a Christian and theological perspective.

Fairholm’s concept of spiritual leadership connects with the centrality of work in our lives. The spiritual need of a person at the work place is acknowledged and explored. A spiritual leader is able to address this spiritual dimension of the work and the workers he is leading. In contrast the typical manager and most management theories are not able to address this dimension of the workers life in a meaningful way. Fairholm argues that, “what is most needed today is not more intellect, but more soul …. Neglect of our spiritual nature helps explain the whole range of workplace problems we now face – the persistence of hopelessness, worker anomie, lowered productivity and substance abuse …. Efforts aimed at improving people’s lives that don’t have a moral and spiritual dimension are literally a waste of time. A sense of spirituality is the anchor for most people’s work ethics and social morality ….” (114) Moreover, Fairholm argues that “for many people, the goal of work may ultimately be to more deeply become people of quality. The biggest mistake of current leadership texts is that they confuse dedication, mission and vision with spirituality. People are looking for significance in their work and the opportunity to use their minds and feelings in concert with the energizing life-giving principles within them.” (118) Since there is this convergence between people’s spirituality and their work Fairholm notes that, “Workers today are asking the company to weaves personal, spiritual, social and environmental dimensions into the fabric of corporate work life. Business is after all simply another form of human activity. Workers are saying that we should not expect less from it than we do from other social institutions. Today’s workers want their work to be more human-oriented, more humane.” (126) This observation, seems to carry a lot of opportunities for Christians to contribute insights from scripture and Christian tradition.

Thus, I’ll end this post with two questions:

1.) What does a Christian spirituality have to contribute to this conversation?

Jim Collins in his insightful book, Good to Great, seeks to address the question, “Can a good company become a great company and, if so, how?”[1] Collins believes “that almost any organization can substantially improve its stature and performance, perhaps even become great, if it conscientiously applies the framework of ideas we’ve uncovered.”[2] Collins believes that he has uncovered a universal principal of how to move from good-to-great. Thus the concept can be applied in any type of organization, including churches.

The type of leadership that is required to lead a company from good to great is what Collins and his team termed “Level 5 Leadership.” The book discusses six key concepts that were found in companies that moved from being good-to-great and were led by Level 5 Leaders.

1.      First Who … Then What. Instead of starting with vision and strategy the Level 5 Leader “first got the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats – and then they figured out where to drive it.”[3]

2.      Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith). Level 5 Leaders embrace the Stockdale Paradox – “You must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, and at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”[4]

3.      The Hedgehog Concept (Simplicity within the Three Circles). Level 5 Leaders need to be able to identify what they can be best at in the world. This sometimes means dropping a company’s core business. “A Hedgehog Concept is a simple, crystalline concept that flows from deep understanding about the intersection of the following three circles: 1. What you can be the best in the world at (and equally important, what you cannot be the best in the world at). 2. What drives your economic engine. 3. What you are deeply passionate about.”[5]

4.      A Culture of Discipline.

5.      Technology Accelerators. Rather than using technology as the primary means for igniting a transformation, they carefully select technologies suited for their purpose.

6.      The Flywheel and the Doom Loop. “The good-to-great transformation never happened in one fell swoop. There was no single defining action, no grand program, no one killer innovation, no solitary lucky break, no miracle moment. Rather, the process resembled relentlessly pushing a giant heavy flywheel in one direction, turn upon turn, building momentum until a point of breakthrough, and beyond.” [6]

I find the first key concept (First Who … Then What) that was found in companies that moved from good-to-great fascinating. In most of my experiences of church we focus on the “what” first before the “who.”  

Collins writes regarding this key concept:

“The executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there. No, they first got the right people on the bust (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it. They said, in essence, “Look, I don’t really know where we should take this bus. But I know this much: If we get the right people on the bus, the right people in the right seats, and the wrong people off the bus, then we’ll figure out how to take it someplace great.”[7]

It seems to me that it is harder to get someone to moves seats or off the bus in a church. It’s a very delicate matter. I wonder how one addresses this issue pastorally. How do you tell someone that the place that they are exercising leadership in or carrying out a ministry is not their gift? Speaking the truth in love is easier said than done. What are the consequences of not doing this? I have had to make some very difficult but necessary decisions. I would be really interested in some practical tips in this area.

Collins advises that, “whey you know you need to make a people change, act.”[8] To the question, But how do you know when you know? Collins provides two reflective questions that can help you gain clarity:

1. “If it were a hiring decision (rather than a “should this person get off the bus?” decision), would you hire the person again?

2. If the person came to tell you that he or she is leaving to pursue an exciting new opportunity, would you feel terribly disappointed or secretly relieved?”[9]

Even when clarity is gained, one still has to find the appropriated way of asking someone to change seats or to leave the bus.

good company become a great company and, if so, how?”[1] Collins believes “that almost any organization can substantially improve its stature and performance, perhaps even become great, if it conscientiously applies the framework of ideas we’ve uncovered.”[2] Collins believes that he has uncovered a universal principal of how to move from good-to-great. Thus the concept can be applied in any type of organization, including churches.

The type of leadership that is required to lead a company from good to great is what Collins and his team termed “Level 5 Leadership.” The book discusses six key concepts that were found in companies that moved from being good-to-great and were led by Level 5 Leaders.

1.      First Who … Then What. Instead of starting with vision and strategy the Level 5 Leader “first got the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats – and then they figured out where to drive it.”[3]

2.      Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith). Level 5 Leaders embrace the Stockdale Paradox – “You must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, and at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”[4]

3.      The Hedgehog Concept (Simplicity within the Three Circles). Level 5 Leaders need to be able to identify what they can be best at in the world. This sometimes means dropping a company’s core business. “A Hedgehog Concept is a simple, crystalline concept that flows from deep understanding about the intersection of the following three circles: 1. What you can be the best in the world at (and equally important, what you cannot be the best in the world at). 2. What drives your economic engine. 3. What you are deeply passionate about.”[5]

4.      A Culture of Discipline.

5.      Technology Accelerators. Rather than using technology as the primary means for igniting a transformation, they carefully select technologies suited for their purpose.

6.      The Flywheel and the Doom Loop. “The good-to-great transformation never happened in one fell swoop. There was no single defining action, no grand program, no one killer innovation, no solitary lucky break, no miracle moment. Rather, the process resembled relentlessly pushing a giant heavy flywheel in one direction, turn upon turn, building momentum until a point of breakthrough, and beyond.” [6]

I find the first key concept (First Who … Then What) that was found in companies that moved from good-to-great fascinating. In most of my experiences of church we focus on the “what” first before the “who.”  

Collins writes regarding this key concept:

“The executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there. No, they first got the right people on the bust (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it. They said, in essence, “Look, I don’t really know where we should take this bus. But I know this much: If we get the right people on the bus, the right people in the right seats, and the wrong people off the bus, then we’ll figure out how to take it someplace great.”[7]

It seems to me that it is harder to get someone to moves seats or off the bus in a church. It’s a very delicate matter. I wonder how one addresses this issue pastorally. How do you tell someone that the place that they are exercising leadership in or carrying out a ministry is not their gift? Speaking the truth in love is easier said than done. What are the consequences of not doing this? I have had to make some very difficult but necessary decisions. I would be really interested in some practical tips in this area.

Collins advises that, “whey you know you need to make a people change, act.”[8] To the question, But how do you know when you know? Collins provides two reflective questions that can help you gain clarity:

1. “If it were a hiring decision (rather than a “should this person get off the bus?” decision), would you hire the person again?

2. If the person came to tell you that he or she is leaving to pursue an exciting new opportunity, would you feel terribly disappointed or secretly relieved?”[9]

Even when clarity is gained, one still has to find the appropriated way of asking someone to change seats or to leave the bus.

Usually when I hear the word iconoclasm I have to think of church history and the Byzantine Iconoclasm and that of the Reformation. I grew up in Germany where you could see the impact of the Reformation iconoclasm in nearby local churches. David Morgan, author of The Sacred Gaze, provides some interesting insight concerning iconoclasm. His penetrating discussion of the subject matter goes beyond what usually comes to mind. Here are a few insights that I found thought provoking:

First of all, Morgan boldly states: “When an idol falls, its place does not long remain vacant. A rival is often quickly erected.”[1] One image is replaced with another image. How might this be? In order to understand this Morgan states that “the history of religion is in no small way a history of cultural rivalries. Religious belief has a powerful way of becoming the preeminent banner or symbol in whose name people organize themselves inwardly and understand their relations with other groups outwardly. Religion, in other words, is one means by which a group’s “inner” and “outer” are defined and maintained.”[2] Thus each religious group of movement identifies with certain images and reacts against others groups or movements images. Morgan states that “In the history of Western civilization, this inner and outer have often been configured as attitudes toward images, pivoting on “our” images and “theirs” or our proper avoidance of images and their surfeit of idols. This distinction has often been marked in ritualized acts of violence, generally called iconoclasm, or the destruction of images.”[3] If the two groups enter into a head on conflict, one group replaces the existing symbolic universe and image(s) with a new symbolic universe and image(s).

At this point and time someone might object and state that for example Protestantism didn’t replace the Catholic images that it destroyed with a new image. This is not correct according to Morgan who states that Protestants, “who express disdain for visual imagery in religious practice and seek to proscribe its use as “idolatrous” typically put in its place alternative forms of material culture that provide a different form of iconicity. ”[4] In other words, “Protestants cherish their Bibles.”[5] He argues that for a long time it was believed that there was religions that operated without images but according to Morgan this is not the case. The claimed aniconism is dismissed as wholly untenable.

Finally, according to Freedberg “the motivating force behind the destructive response to images is typically fear: fear of what images might do if left to themselves. Often it is fear of what they represent.”[6]

So what? Well, I wonder what type of images Evangelical surround themselves with and what type of images we seek to replace. I wonder how much of how we relate to others is fear driven. (Is this a healthy or an unhealthy fear?)

William A. Dyrness in his book, Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue, explores the relationship between Art and Faith and particular the visual arts and worship. One of the major themes that he explores in the book is the relationship between art and the church. He states, “when considering Protestant churches in general, while there are exceptions, it is fair to say that this tradition has had a troublesome history with the visual arts.” (11) According to Dyrness, in the Reformation word and image were separated particularly in worship. This shaky relationship between image and church still exists. Since our culture is a visual culture this raises the question whether or not Christians are able to engage culture through a visual faith. One thing is clear, “the contemporary generation has been raised and nourished by images; it has an inescapably visual imagination. Regardless of whether one considers this good or bad, for this generation, aesthetics counts more than epistemology.” (20) Moreover, Neil Postman describes the contemporary situation as follows: “We are now a culture whose information, ideas and epistemology are given form by television, not by the printed word…. Print is now merely a residual epistemology, and it will remain so, aided to some extent by the computer, and newspaper and magazines that are made to look like television screens.” (131) This insight raises serious questions for Evangelicals evangelistic efforts. Dyrness puts it succinctly when he writes:

“It is possible that we might actually win the battle of words but lose the battle of images. And losing that battle could well cost us this generation.” (21)

Thus there is a need to forge a new (and biblical) alliance between word and image in order to reach this new generation. I am curious to learn of some examples on how to do this? How do you use the visual to add power to the verbal?

Part of being in ministry is learning to be a good listener. It’s important to understand the context we serve in from other peoples perspective, not just our own. If we fail to understand our context from the perspective of others we miss out on a lot of opportunities on building deeper relationships with the people we serve and we miss out on understanding how we can be more faithful in our service to God and neighbor.

In order to be a good listener and to understand my own ministry context better, I asked members of our youth group and volunteers if they could provide me with a photo of our ministry context and share with me what Axiom (our youth group) means to them. My goal was to gain new and valuable insights about teenager’s and volunteers experience, perspective and values in regards to our youth group.[1] In order to accomplish this goal I used a method of photo elicitation that Douglas Harper refers to as “photofeedback” – “where photographers analyze their photographs with written comments, what might be called photo-self-elicitation.”[2]

You can view a set of photos plus the teenagers and volunteers written comments here:

In order to gain insights into the meaning of the images and comments I received I will draw on Gillian Rose who argues that there are “three sites at which the meanings of an image are made: the site(s) of the production of an image, the site of the image itself, and the site(s) where it is seen by various audiences.”[3] Moreover Rose argues that each of the above mentioned sites has three different modalities all of which can lead to critical insight(s) for understanding images. The three modalities are outlined by Rose as follows: technological, compositional and social. My “photofeedback” project focuses on understanding the meaning of the image and written comments at the site of the various audiences (i.e. those who provided me with photos and written comments). Moreover, I will focus on the social modality in order to gain critical insight about my ministry context.

All the people that gave me photofeedback live in Hong Kong. All pictures are taken in Hong Kong with the exception of a couple of photos that were taken in Beijing China. All photos depict some activity or meeting organized by our faith community.

General Observations:

1.) Women and teenage girls provided all photos and written comments about our youth group. I didn’t receive any feedback from guys.

2.) Nine out of thirteen photos provided are from special events. This potentially speaks to the significance and the value that special events have in our ministry context.  

Observations on the photos and written comments provided by teenagers

Teenagers:

1.) I received no individual portrait. All pictures involve at least two people. I wonder if this would be the same in other contexts (I honestly don’t know).

2.) The teenagers are writing in English – this speaks of their education and to a certain degree of their socio-economic status. Most of them are fluent in multiple languages such as (Cantonese, Mandarin, Tagalog, English, Korean, etc.)

3.) In their written comments they use “big words” such as: exegetical and philological. This also speaks of their educational background and their socio-economic background.

4.) Their written comments reflect that they are introspective.

Friday youth group and Sunday worship service:

1.) Our Sunday youth worship service speaks to personal struggles and problems of the teenagers – the message “is applicable to whatever problem I am going through at that time.” Moreover our Sunday service is a place where the youth get challenged “to live your life differently.” Multiple ways of conveying the message are utilized – our video drama’s “help convey the message in a fun way.” The worship and the songs we sing play an important role. This is very encouraging to hear how God is at work in our community.

2.) Axiom is a place “to meet new people and fellowship.” The importance to connect with each other is several times emphasized. The pictures provided also reflect this connectedness with each other. One teenager also describes our youth group as “family” and as a place where God’s love and presence is experienced.  

3.) One teenage girl describes the boy with his name “Jing Tai.” The fact that she remembers the name and the story that she retells from the picture show the deep connection she made with this little boy and his story and that she truly cares and misses him.

4.) The written comments reflect that the word of God, from the teenager’s perspective, plays a central role in our youth group. One girl notes that we “learn about God’s word and how to be more like Jesus.”

Observations on the photos and written comments provided by volunteers

Volunteers:

1.) The volunteers also write in English – again this reveals something about their socio-economic status.

2.) None of the leaders chose a picture of themselves or a picture where they are future in. This might point to their other-centeredness.

3.) All three volunteers that responded provided pictures from special events. One of the volunteers provided also one picture of our regular youth meeting.

Ministry:

1.) For the drama team, the video that they produce relates to the Bible – this speaks implicitly of how the word of God is central to our group.

2.) The creative process – the making of the video – is highlighted (from the description the process of making it builds community and a common story – Angel’s epic slap.

3.) The goal is formulated to give the youth space to explore and use their gifts and talents to serve God – this is done in connection with a drama team photo.

4.) One of the challenges to ministry is space – the comment on the gym night exposes this ministry challenge that is typical for Hong Kong. Our activities are limited and shaped by space.

5.) A mother’s perspective portrays me as comforting Lluvia in an uncomfortable situation (water, waves etc.) Moreover, I am portrayed as someone who gives instructions – in this case to Nathan before he gets baptized.

6.) The mission trip is described as a learning experience – particular learning to serve “the least of these” (Matthew 25). She states, “The Axiom youth were given an opportunity to witness God’s amazing grace and love to those who are abandoned.” Moreover, “Throughout the week at Hope, the youth stayed at Hope and were given the opportunity to learn to love and to serve as Jesus had unto us.” A picture that exemplifies this Christ like love - Lluvia loving and caring for three babies – is provided.

Conclusion

Overall it has been encouraging for me to understand better how the youth and volunteers perceive our youth group. I am encouraged to know that it is a place where encouragement through God’s word is found, friendships are build and teenagers are welcomed and can belong. Moreover, gifts are explored and teenagers are challenged to learn and grow in their Christian life.  One area that I particularly gained new perspective on is the significance of special events – gym night, mission trip, baptism in community building and spiritual formation. I hope to better understand how to facilitate community, Christian learning etc. through those events.