Category: Reviews

[rating:4]

(New York: Rodale, 2011)

350 pgs

Perhaps this book caught me at a timely moment, or, perhaps I had simply gone too long since my last skinny, vanilla latte, but I liked this book. Howard Schultz is a consummate salesman and that comes through in this book [He sold me!]. He also loves coffee (he really loves coffee), so we had that in common. But there are some basic leadership themes that come through in this book that I think would be particularly helpful for people leading in the challenging environment of today.

In 2008, Schultz returned to be CEO of the company he made famous after he sensed it was in serious trouble. This book is about the effort of a leader to intervene to save a struggling organization. In the process, he does some things that are fundamental to good leadership. He identified the soul of his company. He refused to compromise its values. He sought help. He read. He enlisted great people. He inspired vision. He reinvented his company’s story. He respected and fostered corporate culture.

Of course this is not a “Christian” book, although I believe the principles he espouses could do a lot to infuse life into congregations. But it is about identifying the uniqueness of an organization and staying true to it.

Of course, he is famous for transforming a cup of coffee into an “experience.” He notes: “This was so much more than a coffee break; this was theater” (10). Schultz also related his famous story of how his father struggled in low paying, unfulfilling jobs all his life (15). This has been part of Schultz’s motivation in providing unique benefits such as health insurance for part time employees.

Schultz claims that Starbucks began to forget who they were and to allow their competition to define them (63). A low point was when McDonalds was rated with better coffee than Starbucks! (85). He claims, “In short, we were losing control of our story” (31). He notes that Starbucks was guilty of what many organizations do, becoming enamored with their success. He notes: “Our strategy was to do more of what had worked in the past” (35). He also observes how organizations can measure the wrong things and delude themselves into thinking they are healthy. He says: “every metric we were looking at said everything was fine” (40). “Like a doctor who measures a patient’s height and weight every year without checking blood pressure and heart rate, Starbucks was not diagnosing itself at a level of detail that would help ensure its long term health” (97).

Schultz goes into detail how over two years he turned the company around from its worst performance to record profitability. He is candid about his mistakes and failures and the process he went through to bring about positive change. He claims, “Now Starbucks needed another vision, and I had to come back with one. I had to come back leading” (47). He does share the excitement of the challenge: “It was invigorating to plan for how to make it right” (48). He uses the familiar metaphor of deposits in the bank to refer to the trust he had garnered over time with his staff: “We’d made enough deposits that I could draw from it. But not forever” (57). He also admits he did not return to the CEO role with a desire to be “liked” but to transform the company (57).

He also admits the harsh reality that not everyone will be able to make the necessary adjustments when you are trying to turn around a major organization: “I understood the fact that climbing a mountain is not for everyone. Some people would not have the fortitude for the kind of journey I needed them to embark on, or the skill to make the tough, quick decisions. Others simply would not have the faith in the brand or in me” (58). Schultz did have to let people go and to rebuild his leadership team.

Schultz proceeded to rediscover who Starbucks was as a company and to help remind people of their unique culture. He shares: “We had to rediscover who we were and to imagine who we could be” (73).  He confesses: “We thought in terms of millions of customers and thousands of stores instead of one customer, one partner, and one cup of coffee at a time” (97). “We forgot that ‘ones’ added up!” (98).

Schultz takes the reader through the reinvigoration of the Starbuck’s mission. “The Starbuck’s mission: To inspire and nurture the human spirit one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time” (112). He also claims that Starbucks is not a coffee company that serves people but a people company that serves coffee (141).

Throughout the book, Schultz touches on numerous leadership issues. For example, he found that although Starbucks preferred to promote people from within, at times they had to enlist outside expertise in order to address the company’s shortcomings (188). He also discusses the manner in which they let people go. With dignity (171). He also demonstrates why he has been such a good promoter of Starbucks for so long when he notes that every time he saw someone go by with a coffee cup from another company, “I take their decision not to come to Starbucks personally” (201). He also notes he has not embraced traditional advertising but rather has sought to grow his company one satisfied customer at a time (211).

Concerning leadership Schultz suggests that although he does not believe there is a single ingredient for successful leadership, “. . . I do think effective leaders share two intertwined attributes: an unbridled level of confidence about where their organizations are headed, and the ability to bring people along” (260).  He also claims, “How leaders embody the values they espouse sets a tone, an expectation, that guides their employees’ behaviors” (294). He concludes: “At its core, I believe leadership is about instilling confidence in others” (308).

Schultz also admits some misfires on launching new products. He concludes, however, that “exploring an imperfect idea can often lead to a better one” (269).  He also suggests: “Growth, we now know all too well, is not a strategy. It is a tactic” (315). He also suggests that every organization ought to go through the challenging process of reinventing and updating itself every twenty years (315).

I have read countless leadership books. There is often something new to be learned but then often they seem to cover the same territory. That is one of the reasons I enjoy biographies, because they teach leadership with real-life stories. You see leadership played out in how they lived, rather than in twelve easy steps. I am not sure I learned anything new about leadership in this book (although I learned a lot of interesting facts about Starbucks!), but he puts flesh on many familiar concepts and does so in a generally modest way. Despite his previous, phenomenal success, Schultz, like many CEOs in recent times, learned how to lead in an economic downturn.

While you may learn more about Starbucks than you ever cared to know, this book has a lot to offer. It presents a great study on developing and distinguishing your “brand” as well as your culture. It examines change up close. It looks at how staying true to your values looks when you are under pressure to make changes. It shows how a leader who is over his head gets help and enlists a team. This is a longer book than some people may want to wade through (but hey! It has lots of pictures in the middle!). I think this is a book that touches on many of the pressing leadership issues people are struggling with today.

[rating:1]

(New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008)

323 pgs

This book review feature is not just for books we recommend that you read but also a place to suggest books you not waste your money on! This is one of those books. I must confess that as someone who is fascinated by business biographies, I wanted to do some reading on Jack Welch who has been highly acclaimed for his 20-year tenure at the helm of General Electric. The title of this book caught my attention. I was intrigued by how leaders use their words to lead people and I thought this might be an insightful book since as Lane worked with Welch closely for close to 19 years.

However, this book rubbed me the wrong way for a number of reasons. First, it is filled with profanities and crude language. Lane attempts to give an inside view of the working of Welch but quoting the profane language Welch used seems unnecessary and the vulgar language Lane uses in telling his story is simply unprofessional. Second, Lane is clearly a starry-eyed fan of Welch. He readily admits that Welch enabled him to become rich and he owes his success to him. This makes his analysis, although crudely transparent at times, to lack real punch or objective credibility. Third, Lane spends far too much time commenting on the alcohol he consumed, or the pretty secretary, or the dramatic rise in his stock options, or how much he was paid, or golf. It is as if he is still an inexperienced young man who hasn’t matured yet. He is still enamored with the most basic, crass pleasures and has not developed a more mature outlook on life or business. Lane also readily admits that he has never run a business or had much administrative experience. He is a speechwriter, not a businessman. And it shows. He often makes comments that would never be found in a higher-level business book.

He makes statements such as: “A forceful leader can turn a culture on a dime” (12) and “Companies that overindulge work-life balance are going to be undercompetitive” (218).

Lane made me want to give Welch another chance by a writer who knew more about what he was talking about. I can’t imagine Welch being pleased with this book, despite Lane being enamored with him. At one point, when discussing Welch’s pride in his golf game, Lane notes: “I just didn’t feel in the mood to fuel this gigantic ego with more nitromethane” (202). Lane reports numerous angry outbursts by Welch and his penchant for firing those who underperformed. He relates how Welch agonized to prepare a rebuttal in case Warren Buffet tried to “zing” him when introducing him at a meeting (214). When Welch was in a vanload of GE staff, he made them all return to the office when his lunchbox was missing its turkey sandwich (225). Lane tries to make the point that Welch demanded excellence from everyone, but the scene of this multimillionaire CEO forcing everyone to return to the office for his sandwich makes Welch seem petty and childish. When commenting on his contribution to Welch, Lane notes: “Ghosts like me are paid very well to be unmentioned in memoirs” (173). Lane also notes that when Welch took over at GE, he “probably couldn’t stand about 25 to 30 percent of the people in the room” (89). However, after a number of departures and retirements, “By January, he probably hated only 15 percent.”

Nonetheless, Welch clearly was a highly successful CEO who took his company to astounding heights. Obviously he did some things well. Several controversial moves by Welch included dismantling GE’s long range planning machinery (25). Welch refused to have “visions” and instead focused on best practices (80). Further, he famously declared that any business of GE that could not be number one or two in its field would be fixed or sold (99). This insistence on focus and excellence is similar to Steve Jobs who narrowed what Apple offered and demanded its inventory be of high quality.

Lane does comment that Welch was extremely responsive to notes that were sent to him (87). He also claimed self-confidence was the essential ingredient to leadership success (108). Welch insisted that integrity and candor be the basis of everything done at GE (141). Finally, he observes that everything Welch put his name to had to be “owned” by him (247). Clearly Welch’s insistence on performance and honesty paid huge dividends. Finally, Welch’s desire to become a “learning organization” and his large investment in training his leaders helped produce a hugely successful company that was filled with talented leaders who were highly sought after by other companies.

What is lacking in this book is any level of sophisticated analysis. It is as if Lane is a sycophant reporting what he heard in the inner office without having the ability to analyze or critique what was said. Clearly Welch was an extremely successful business leader who challenged many contemporary business theories and who was able to transform the culture of a large, successful, inbred organization. It is therefore disappointing that this volume skims the surface of Welch’s accomplishments.

Lane, quite naturally, assumes that Welch’s success is largely centered around business presentations. He introduces his book by claiming, “The vanity of communications is about never—ever—allowing anything but your best face, and that of your organization, to ever, ever appear in front of your constituencies or your employees or your mates. Come with me . . .” (3). In a fitting conclusion, Lane begins his acknowledgments page by saying, “I’d like to thank myself for sitting at the dining room table for the better part of a year cranking this out . . .” (323). He concludes, “Why did I write this? Jack, you have to understand vanity.” (324).

[rating:2]

(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010)

232 pgs

Leading Outside the Lines is similar to other leadership books that seek to address an issue of corporate leadership that is rarely if ever discussed. As a result, this is not a comprehensive book on leadership but one that hits hard on one important subject that deserves more attention than it generally receives.

While this book is 232 pages long, it essentially bangs one drum throughout. This is that most organizations underutilize the important informal dynamics that could greatly enhance their performance. The authors note that most organizations emphasize the formal processes. They note: “Formalists view the world through the lens of rationality—they value logic, analysis, data, and frameworks. They manage through formal processes and programs. . . .These formal elements are promulgated through the organization in protocols and memos and enforced with comprehensive control-and-reward systems” (19). Key mechanisms for formal processes in organizations include: strategy, structures, processes and procedures, programs and initiatives, performance goals and metrics (21). Anyone familiar with leadership is aware of these.

While leaders are generally very familiar with the formal processes, the informal avenues that run deep in their organizations are often neglected. The authors note: “In essence, the informal is the aggregate of organizational elements that primarily influence behavior through emotional means” (23). These include, shared values, informal networks, communities, pride (23-24). The authors observe that “unlike the formal the informal construct is not strategic, analytical, logical, efficient, or enforceable. Nor is it manageable in the usual sense of that term. It is intuitive, personal, emotional, immediate—and it can be influenced” (26).

Formal processes are useful for work that is predictable and repeatable that needs to be done efficiently and with little variance (28). The informal is particularly good when facing challenges or crisis or when creative problem solving is called for. Often the informal leaders of an organization are not necessarily the ones who look as if they are being groomed to become the CEO (53). But they know the pulse beat of the organization.

The reality is that there are benefits to both the formal and informal organization (67). The key is for leaders to maximize the benefits of both. Unfortunately, when organizations face challenges, the natural instinct is to rely on formal processes because they are easily measurable and controllable. Another problem is that when people try to address the informal of their organization, they do so as if it involves nothing much more than warm, fuzzy, pep talks (118). The authors note that those addressing the informal aspects of their organization need to tie their efforts to measurable, identifiable goals. There are ways to relate what is done on an informal basis with organizational productivity. Formal procedures are not the only ones with measurable results.

The authors cite an interesting study by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler that demonstrated that if you have a friend who is obese, there is a 57% chance you will become obese as well. More starting, there is a 20% chance that if a friend of your friend is obese, you will become obese also (100). Clearly we are affected by the behaviors of those around us! So, wise leaders find a way to get to the hearts and behaviors of those in their organization.

I believe this book addresses an issue that we know intuitively but about which there is scant literature. We all know influencers in our church or company who may not hold the most powerful formal position, but whose opinion and attitude carries enormous weight. Likewise you may have discovered that despite sending out reams of memos and holding numerous meetings, attitudes and behaviors remained unchanged. Clearly when leading, it is imperative to touch both the mind and the heart of followers.

I found that this book addressed an important subject in leadership theory. Because it focused on a narrow issue, it struck me at times as if the point was belabored. Nevertheless, if you are interested in this particular subject (as most leaders should be), then it may stimulate your thinking on how to impact your organization at deeper levels than you may have been touching previously.

[rating:2]

(New York: Portfolio, 2008; expanded ed., 2009)

310 pgs

Leander Kahney has written this book on Steve Jobs to try and analyze how he has been able to develop the enormously innovative and successful Apple Computer company. Like many books of this genre, countless numbers of business leaders want to learn from those who have been wildly successful. We seem to never tire of reading about others’ success in the hope that we might pick up some tidbit that could turn our own career and business around. And, like most books of this ilk, there are some things that the successful CEO did that are unique to that individual and would bring calamitous results if copied by a lesser mortal, and then there are business principles that, if followed, can produce similarly positive results.

Some leaders appear to be larger than life. Steve Jobs is one of those people. He was born in San Francisco in 1955 to a pair of unmarried college students and immediately put up for adoption (5). He grew up constantly on the verge of delinquency and dropped out of college after only one semester (5). He went lived with friends, eat free meals at the Hare Krishna temple, and attempted to live on an all-apple diet (6). Such was the making of greatness!

Jobs’ story is now legend. At age 26 he was considered too young to administer his rapidly growing company so he enlisted John Sculley of Pepsico as the CEO. In 1985 Jobs was forced out of his own company and did not return for 11 years (8). Gil Amelio, the last CEO before Jobs returned, saw Apple lose 1.6 billion dollars. He laid off thousands of employees while earning 7 million in salary, had 26 million in stock, was lavishly refurbishing the executive offices, and negotiating a seven million dollar severance package for himself (17). By the time Jobs returned, the company was only six months from bankruptcy.

With the development of such products as the I-pod, I-phone, Apple Stores, I-pads etc., Jobs has turned a moribund company into one of the most dynamic businesses in the world. But how did he do it?

For one, Jobs brought focus to the company. He discontinued many of their product lines and determined to focus on what they could be good at (25, 29). Jobs’ favorite mantra was: “Focus means saying ‘no.’” (38). He also chose not to compete for price with other companies like Dell, but instead branded his computers with a reputation for quality and dependability (31). Jobs also excelled at innovation. However, he believed that innovation does not come from asking people what they want. He notes Henry Ford’s comment that if Ford had asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a faster horse! (62). Jobs demonstrates a certain patronizing attitude when he notes that people don’t know what they want until he shows it to them (63). Of course this has been the hallmark of many of the greatest businesses: they drove the market rather than being driven by it.

Jobs is also a perfectionist who refuses to settle for less than the best (85). He is a “control freak” who insists that his highest standards are met by his employees. Jobs earned the reputation for being an extremely difficult boss who is subject to angry tantrums and instant firings (105). Many people who work for him live in constant fear of being fired (151). Nevertheless, he has managed to attract highly talented people who are loyal to him and, while many people may worry about being fired; few quit (151).

What Jobs has done well is to instill a sense of mission in his company 146). He has developed a powerful brand, identified in such slogans as, “Think different” (124). Jobs has also maintained a small executive team of only ten people who clearly understand his values and standards and help ensure they permeate the company (165). Jobs also develops numerous prototypes and continually improves a product until he is satisfied it is the best they can make it. Kahney suggests that Jobs’ personality traits, “obsessiveness, narcissism, perfectionism” have been transformed into the hallmarks of his career (11).

The pressing question for Apple, of course, is whether the company can thrive when it no longer has Steve Jobs at the helm. Kahney talks about the “routinization of charisma” made popular by Max Weber (273). This is where the personality traits of the charismatic leader become ingrained into the institution so it continues to uphold the leader’s values long after a new generation of leaders emerges. If a leader is not able to accomplish this, then his or her accomplishments will not survive them. It is extremely doubtful that another Steve Jobs can be hired when the original one retires. It is also unlikely that other CEOs could get away with many of the unusual ways Jobs led his company back to profitability. Shouting at employees, immediately firing people who underperform and the like could get lesser CEOs in hot water from their board. It is therefore difficult to study Jobs to see how other CEOs can model their behavior after him. Unless you have the creative powers of Jobs and the charisma to attract the finest talent on the planet, you must apply his leadership style with caution.

What one can take from Jobs is his passion, his sense of mission to change the world and the determination to do things to the best of his ability. These are qualities that seem to be characteristic of most great leaders.

Jobs has been fighting a well known battle with cancer. In a commencement speech in 2005, Jobs said: “Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make room for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.” (285).

I found this book interesting. Certainly Jobs is a fascinating character who has accomplished a herculean task. As far as takeaways, I was interested in how Jobs branded his company and product. In so doing, he was able to charge more for his product and to earn a fierce loyalty from his customers. One has to look past some of his personality traits and administrative styles, but the fact is that many companies, including Microsoft, are adjusting their styles to match that of Apple. Clearly Jobs’ leadership is worth studying. Because this is focused on a particular leader, and because there are several characteristics of Jobs’ style that are less than commendable, I only rate this book a 2. However, for Apple lovers as well as those interested in major corporate turnarounds, this book may be of great interest to you.

[rating:3.5]

(New York: Harper Collins, 2010)

315 pgs

This is a very readable and accessible book. As it is written from a military General in the Canadian Armed Forces, military examples and illustrations are used extensively throughout the book. Hillier enlisted in the Canadian Forces in 1973, was appointed Commander of the Army in 2003, then promoted to Chief of the Defence Staff in 2005. His task was to combine the Navy, Army and Air Force into one unified fighting force. Hillier is honest, open, practical, warm and personable in his book.

The 50 chapters are short and divided into six sections and get straight to the point and are easily implemented.

Some chapter titles are:

• Put People First
• Don’t focus on Organization and Process
• Perpetual Optimism is a Force Multiplier
• Tactics without Strategy Brings Failure
• Build on History
• Never Waste a Crisis
• Credibility is Your Center of Gravity
• Peeing on the Electric Fence
• Stand on Your Soapbox
• Make Values and Principles Your Foundation
• Look After Yourself
• You Can’t Do it All
• Humour Saves

I relate to Hillier’s practical pragmatic approach to leadership and his ability to work with people in a no-nonsense, yet personable manner. In one situation he recalls standing with a commander as the troops went by in parade. Many of the troops made friendly comments to General Hillier as they walked past, yet ignored their commander. The commander responded, “I used to be that way, smokin’ and jokin’ with the boys, when I was a junior officer and leader, but as soon as I became a commander that all changed. Now, it’s all serious business and no time for jokes or making light of things.” Hillier replied, “Why do you think you were promoted through a variety of ranks, given additional challenges at each one and finally, now, given the challenges of senior command? Because of the characteristics you exhibited, demonstrated and matured at each of those different levels…because of the kind of person you were and how you related to people. The last thing in the world we wanted you do to was change in such a fundamental manner. You have to be who you are.” Good advice to leaders who think a title or position requires them to be someone different from who they really are.

Though this book is obviously meant to demonstrate general leadership principles, many of the practical ideas translate well into either sacred or secular work. Not every chapter will be applicable, but at least the stories are entertaining. There is little theory, more philosophy of leadership, but the vast majority of the book is comprised of the summaries of a leader’s reflections on where he has come from and where his skills as a leader has taken him.

What impressed me the most in this book is the heart and the compassion this soldier felt for those under his command, and the care and respect with which he clearly demonstrates to the families of his soldiers as well. From a leadership perspective, this compassion combined with his tenacity and brutal honesty, was likely a great combination for the incredible loyalty he was given by those under his command.

Hillier took on the monumental task of combining all the Canadian branches of the military into one streamlined, finely tuned combat ready force. No doubt he has his critics and detractors as he says, “Being decisive means pissing people off”. Hillier readily admits his own faults and flaws, but his personal discipline and strong character drove him to model for his troops and staff the kind of soldier he expected each member of the Canadian Forces to be.

The book does not delve into gory battle details, nor does it play the emotion or sympathy card for the military. Neither does it seek to make political points other than state what most people already understand about governments being largely out of touch with reality. It is what it claims to be, fifty short chapters containing insights learned over a lifetime of service, shared as one successful leader to other aspiring leaders.

[rating:2]

(New York: Penguin Press, 2010)

256 pgs

Clay Shirky is a professor in the Interactive Telecommunications Program at New York University. He previously wrote, Here Comes Everybody. Shirky is an expert in social media and he uses this knowledge to look for social patterns. In a world that is gradually becoming aware of the enormity of possibilities in a connected age, Shirky makes some interesting observations.

He notes that in the 1720s there was a craze of gin drinking among the masses in London (1). He notes that at first people thought this was a sign of increased debauchery among the populace. What it was, in fact, was peoples’ attempt to cope with the depersonalizing effects of the industrial revolution and social pressures related to urbanization. He then notes that since World War Two, society has undergone enormous changes and that has caused increased societal tensions. Shirky asks: “During this transition, what has been our gin, the critical lubricant that eased our transition from one kind of society to another?” (4). He concludes: the sitcom. He notes that since World War Two, the modern world has been granted an enormous amount of discretionary time. The majority of it has been spent watching television. Americans watch over 200 billion hours of television every year (10). Someone born in 1960 has, on average, already watched 50,000 hours of television and will more than likely watch another 30,000 hours before they die (6).

However, with the rise of the Internet, society suddenly gained a new form of entertainment. This one, however, is interactive. Rather than sitting on your couch in your living room by yourself all evening watching sit coms, people now share U-tubes and upload pictures of their vacation with friends around the world. Today’s entertainment is much more interactive. People no longer want to just sit passively and be entertained or informed by professionals.

Shirky notes that each year, educated peoples from around the world have over one trillion hours of free time. He asks, “Imagine treating the free time of the world’s educated citizenry as an aggregate, a kind of cognitive surplus” (9). He suggests that the key is scale. There are now so many people who are connected to one another and who have the time and technology available to them, that even if people only donated 1% of their free time to a particular cause, the magnitude of the effort would be enormous. Throughout the book, Shirky gives examples where people have united together using social media to advance worthy social causes. Such events such as the uprising in Egypt are examples of people uniting together for a cause perceived to be just.

Shirky makes a number of interesting comments. He notes that amateurs are distinguished from professionals by motivation (82). People who care about social issues will make great sacrifices on behalf of a cause. In the past society depended on professionals but technology is allowing amateurs with passion to change the world. He also notes that “globalization” is more about “scope” than “size” (85). He also emphasizes that small contributions may not seem like much, but when added to millions of other small contributions, there is enormous potential for change (174). He notes that at the end of 2009, there were 24 hours of material being added to U-Tube every minute (93). There were over 300 million words being sent on Twitter every day. He notes: “This increase in our ability to create things together, to pool our free time and particular talents into something useful, is one of the great new opportunities of the age, one that changes the behaviors of people who take advantage of it” (119).

He also notes that people have been unfair to categorize generations based on psychology. He notes that the primary difference between generations X, Y and Z have been that of “opportunity” (120). For example, with the advent of Napster, society bemoaned the fact that teenagers were “stealing” music on the Internet. However, Shirky points out that it was only because they were the first generation to have the technology to do so that distinguished that generation, not their loss of morals (123, 126).

Shirky also notes: “In a free culture, you get what you celebrate” (176). He also suggests, “If you want different behavior, you have to provide different opportunities’” (196). He quotes Brewster Kahle who said, “If you want to solve hard problems, have hard problems” (205).

Overall I found this to be a thought-provoking book. It addresses a fascinating concept of how to harness the connectivity of the modern age to accomplish good. I would think that churches, Christian ministries, and spiritual leaders in any setting would want to consider what new opportunities there are to harness peoples’ discretionary time to achieve kingdom purposes. Gone are the days when church volunteers have to drive to the church building in order to contribute their efforts. Now, volunteers sitting in front of their computer screens can provide invaluable service if only their congregations will identify ways to mobilize them through new applications of technology. Technology is enabling volunteers and amateurs what it used to take professionals to do. Will the church take full advantage of these tools?

Because this is a specialized, more technical book, I did not rate it as highly as a “must read” as I would for a more broadly applicable leadership book. However, for those interested in thinking about how to access the free time of their people to accomplish major change, it may be a helpful read.

[rating:3]

(Nashville: B and H Group, 2011)

304 pgs

In an interesting approach to writing on demographic issues, Thom Rainer, a Baby Boomer, wrote a book about the Millennial generation with, who better than his Millennial son Jess. Most of us are extremely familiar with the plethora of discussions that have followed the development of Baby Boomers. No generation in American history has captured the public’s attention like they have. While sociologists group Americans’ in different ways, the Rainers note that a generation is roughly 20 years. The twentieth century therefore witnessed five generations. These are:

G.I. Generation (1904-1924). 59.6 million. (Tom Brokaw identified them as America’s greatest generation).

Silent Generation (1925-1945). 55.4 million.

Boomer Generation (1945-1964). 75.9 million.

Gen X (1965-1979). 51.5 million.

Millennial Generation (1980-2000). 77.9 million.

American society has been enamored with Baby Boomers because of their sheer size. They represented the largest generation in American history. As a result, marketers, sociologists, politicians, educators and many others have carefully followed their progress through life. However, the Millennial Generation is slightly larger than the baby Boomers, which means it is not too soon to be thinking about how society needs to be adjusting to them and their particular needs in the coming days.

There were a number of interesting facts in this book. For one, this may be one of the most diverse generations in history (1). Whereas Boomers worked to have diversity, Millennials take it for granted. Whereas Boomers challenged racism, Millennials are color blind (80). In fact, one out of five Millennials has at least one immigrant parent (81). Interestingly, perhaps because Boomers were not close to their parents, they went all-out to be involved with their own children. As a result, Millennials are surprisingly close to their parents (93). Millennials rate “family” as their greatest priority (229). Many Millennials had parents who divorced. As a result, Millennials have a high level of commitment to make their first marriage work (31). Unlike their Boomer parents who rejected and even disdained the older generation, Millennials respect their elders (60). This is perhaps because they have had adults who nurtured them and believed in them all their lives. Interestingly, three out of four Millennials claimed they wanted a mentor in their life (41).

The Rainers estimate that only 10-15% of Millennials are born again, evangelical Christians (233). Millennials have largely rejected the organized church. This is in part because they view it negatively, as consisting of people who shout at and condemn those they disagree with (153). Millennials are peacemakers. They want everyone to get along. This may also be reflected in their acceptance of same sex marriage. It is not so much that they are liberal in their views as they avoid delving into divisive issues that polarize people.

Millennials have been told all their lives that they are special and that they can do whatever they put their minds to. And they have largely believed this. 96% of Millennials believe their life can make a difference in making the world a better place (16). Millennials are also activists, putting their money and their actions where their mouth is. They also are the first generation to grow up their entire lives immersed with technology. This makes them technologically savvy as well as expecting to have their needs met at work or church or any other place with state of the art technology. Of course, Millennials are incredibly relational. When you couple their concern for relationships with their love of technology, it is no surprise that Facebook has more members than the United States.

I found this book to be of particular interest to me because I am a Baby Boomer who has (and is) raising three Millennial children. My own experience resonated with much that was said. I had thought my parenting experience might be somewhat unusual but much of this book helped me better understand my own children. It also challenged me to invest in their generation. They are open to adults’ involvement in their lives. Surprisingly to me, Millennials have high respect for their elders and want to learn from them. I was also challenged that the church and most organizations have not yet made the necessary adjustments to accommodate this mass of people heading their way. I think any leader today must become informed about Millennials. They are the future. Significantly, the Rainers note that the 2008 election was the first time Millennials participated in a significant way. They voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and he won easily. Like I said, the Millennials are the future and ought not to be taken lightly.

Overall I enjoyed this book. In part, because it addresses things dear to my heart—my kids, and investing in the next generation. I enjoyed the writing father and son tandem of the Rainers. It is clear they are evangelical Christians. However, I think that is refreshing in contrast to sociologists who present themselves as entirely objective when it is clear they are not.

While this book is not as purely scientific as others might be, and it at times draws in the personal anecdotes of its authors, I think anyone concerned about the future should read this. It does not draw out a lot of specific leadership issues as a result of their study but it does present a fresh and interesting and influential look at a very important segment of the American population.

[rating:3]

(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010)

240 pgs

Joel Kurtzman attempts to do something numerous leadership writers have tried before—to write something new about leadership. His new concept is: “common purpose.” He states: “What is common purpose? To me, it is that rare, almost palpable experience that happens when a leader coalesces a group, team, or community into a creative, dynamic, brave, and nearly invincible we. It happens the moment the organization’s values, tools, objectives, and hopes are internalized in a way that enables people to work tirelessly toward a goal” (xii). Kurtzman acknowledges that “Common purpose is rarely achieved” (xii) which makes one wonder if this is a leadership oddity or something that is viable for leaders to strive for. The challenge for leaders, he states, is “how does a leader transform individuals from me to we?” (xiii). Kurtzman cites Warren Bennis who noted that when there is not a close fit between leader and led, “The group will either eject the leader or destroy itself in the attempt” (xiii). “Peak performance” notes Kurtzman, “comes only when the leader and the group function as one” (xv). The challenge is that the leader’s authority “derives from effectively balancing what can only be called the near-schizophrenic task of being a genuinely accepted member of a group while having sufficient detachment to constantly adjust course” (xxi).

While Kurtzman does not necessarily offer much that has not been said in other books, he does bring an important emphasis to leadership which is helpful—that of leading people to embrace a common purpose. This attempt to focus readers on a crucial area of leadership is akin to the book, Execution, which highlighted a particular leadership concern as well. Joel Kurtzman was an editor and columnist for The New York Times in which he interviewed numerous business leaders. He has edited and contributed to various other respected journals such as Harvard Business Review, The Milken Institute Review, and strategy and business magazine. Presently he is the chairman of the Kurtzman Group and specializes in knowledge management, strategy, economic development, global risk, and thought leadership.

Throughout the book he makes some thought-provoking comments. He suggests, for example, that “bad leadership” is not the fault of an individual. Rather, it is “baked into the structure of an organization” (15). He claims that “bad leadership tends to perpetuate itself, albeit in a downward spiral” (15). He also emphasizes that organizations do not “do” things; people do. He notes: “Organizations are simply ways people have developed for achieving goals that are beyond the capability of an individual to accomplish alone. They are methods for aligning groups of people so they achieve common goals” (23). Concerning naysayers he offers: “Once you discover that some negative people cannot rid themselves of their negativity, they must be allowed to find their purpose, passion, and opportunities elsewhere . . . When people disagree with your ideas, embrace them They are your antidote to insularity . . . But when people disagree with you—your position, authority, and level in the organization—they should seek other lines of work” (29). He notes that rarely has he seen excessively negative, angry, or confrontational people transformed into common purpose leaders (120). He also notes ”All organizations have embedded assumptions” 54). I think he is correct. The key for leaders is to identify what they are and, if need be, to alter them.

Kurtzman suggests that homogenous groups can function powerfully because they have a common language and points of view and so are able to act swiftly (71). While this is true, there are obviously clear shortcomings to homogenous groups. In today’s demographic realities, developing such a group can be nearly impossible. Furthermore, the creative and problem solving abilities can be dimmed in a group that thinks and views the world in the same way. Kurtzman suggests that the job of a leader is to “set goals, measure progress, hold people accountable, and remove obstacles” (81). He claims, “Removing obstacles is a leader’s full-time job” (81). I liked the focus of leaders removing obstacles so their people can do their work effectively. Kurtzman also suggests: “A great deal of business is simply doing, on time and correctly, what you said you were going to do” (85).

Kurtzman has several helpful chapters including “We’re All in this Together” where he posits that great organizations do not cultivate an “us versus them” mentality (103). He suggests this is counterproductive and that great organizations keep competitors in their peripheral vision but focus on achieving results themselves. Kurtzman suggests there are three types of leaders. These are Strategic Leaders, Operational Leaders, and Bridge-building Leaders (148). He suggests that organizations need all three types and at every level. Kurtzman also has a chapter addressing working with Generation X and Y in modern organizations (157ff). This is becoming an increasingly important topic and especially when it comes to enlisting them to align with corporate goals and values. Interestingly he suggests that rather than becoming frustrated with the unique characteristics of this group, their social strengths actually make them ideally suited to lead (161).

Kurtzman also has some helpful thoughts on corporate values. He suggests: “an organization’s values are identical to the way it does business” (164). He argues, “What is tolerated within an organization is what the organization values” (164). Kurtzman also reiterates what others have been claiming, that “The best leaders are those who care deeply about the people on their teams” (170). He notes: “. . . one primary, and usually overlooked, job of leaders is to prevent the buildup of organizational toxins. Leaders need to pay a great deal of attention to the emotional climate of the workplace” (172).

Kurtzman also has an interesting chapter on “thought leadership.” I don’t see enough discussion on this topic in modern leadership books. He concludes that chapter by suggesting; “To be successful, companies must be open enough and transparent enough to question everything” (190).

Overall I found this to be a helpful book with some emphases not found in other leadership books. I feel like the concept of “common purpose” truly is an enormous topic for today’s organizations, whether they are businesses or churches. I think for that reason this book is worth reading. I did have a couple of minor critiques, however. He greatly admires the insurance company, FM Global. From his description, it appears to be an admirable company. Nevertheless, he repeatedly cites it to the point that one wonders if there really are so few common purpose companies he must continually return to the same one. He also likes the word “toxic.” While the first time or two he uses it is quite effective, the word seems overused. Finally, and most bothersome to me is his careless citing of Michael Maccoby. Maccoby hypothesized that during the 2004 presidential election, President Bush would personally raise the terrorist alert to a higher level whenever his popularity was sagging (144). While Kurtzman confesses that there is no evidence to support this libelous claim, he goes on to suggest that this is an example of how a bad leader can use power inappropriately. Clearly Kurtzman’s left wing sympathies seep through here clearly. With so many examples of the abusive use of power by leaders that have been documented and is undeniable, why he chose to repeat the unfounded, politically motivated attack by Maccoby is bewildering. Kurtzman is well read and has met numerous leaders. He weakens his book by yielding to the temptation to cite hearsay rather than a credible, verifiable source that was easily at his disposal. As a result, I cannot wholeheartedly endorse this book. However, as I said, I think Kurtzman has identified a key focus for leaders and I suspect he may have coined a phrase that may enter the leadership lexicon in the days to come.

[rating:4]

(New York: Crown Publishers, 2009)

512 pgs

I suspect this book will be evaluated much like the 43^rd president was. Either you will enjoy it or hate it. More than likely your evaluation will be based more on your political leanings than on your editorial concerns. I for one am usually hesitant to purchase a book by a former president only two years after he leaves office. I am always suspicious they are more concerned with “setting the record straight” or enhancing their legacy than actually telling the truth. And, Bush certainly does do some of that in this book.

However, there were two things that attracted me to this book. First, it describes the life of a major leader. I love biographies, especially of leaders. I often find I learn more about leadership by reading a biography than when I read a book specifically on leadership. Secondly, Bush structures his book around 14 key decisions he made. He claims he told his story “focusing on the most important part of the job: making decisions” (xi). Whatever you think of Bush, it is clear that he made decisions and then he resolutely faced the consequences of his decisions.

I applaud him for beginning his book the way he does. The man who decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and who authorized TARP and the funding of stem cell research begins his list of important decisions with his decision to stop drinking alcohol. He notes: “Quitting drinking was one of the toughest decisions I have ever made. Without it, none of the others that follow in this book would have been possible” (3). Bush notes that he grew to love history. He mentions reading dozens of presidential biographies while he was in the White House. Perhaps tellingly, he read fourteen biographies on Abraham Lincoln alone (368).

It is touching how close he is to his parents and how much he admires his father. He writes: “Over the years there has been a lot of speculation about my relationship with dad. I suppose that’s natural for the first father-and-son presidents in 172 years. The simple truth is that I adore him” (20). Interestingly he notes that he was the first president to leave the White House with both of his parents still living. Bush’s detractors have mercilessly sought to make him out to be an ignorant, uneducated buffoon. The reality is that he earned degrees from Andover, Yale, and Harvard. That is an academic pedigree few of his critics could match.

Throughout the book Bush mentions his faith in God. He outlines his significant encounter with Billy Graham as a young adult and then often refers to sharing his faith in God to such leaders as diverse as Putin of Russia and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He also notes that he began each day in the Oval Office the same way: reading his Bible (473). It becomes clear that Bush’s faith was not just window dressing to gain the Evangelical vote. He genuinely believes.

Interestingly he notes how gracious his father was to Bill Clinton in his electoral defeat (50). Significantly, not only did Bush learn to act with magnanimity toward his opponents but he concludes that had his father won the election in 1992, “I almost certainly would not have become president” (51).

Throughout this book it is interesting to see how the most powerful person in the world handled difficult decisions. Those of us following the events on the news can gain much by later learning what was going through the minds of those directly involved at the time. While you may not always agree with their decisions, it can still be instructive. While many have viciously denigrated Bush, the fact is that he was a very successful politician. He only lost one election in his life (his first), but he unseated a seemingly invincible governor and overcame numerous challenges to win two terms as president of the United States.

Bush makes a number of interesting observations: “The people you choose to surround you determine the quality of advice you receive and the way your goals are implemented” (65-66). “Win or lose, we would finish this race as a team” (72). “Sometimes the best personnel moves are the ones you don’t make” (73). “If I abandoned my principles on an issue like stem cell research, how could I maintain my credibility on anything else?” (123). “But I was certain that I had just watched more Americans die than any president in history” (131). “’This is my son’s badge. His name is George Howard. Please remember him,’ she said as she pressed the badge into my hand. I promised I would. I served 2,685 days as president after Arlene gave me that badge. I kept it with me every one of them” (150). “For months after 9/11 I would wake up in the middle of the night worried about what I had read” (153). “I knew the cost would be high. But inaction had a cost, too” (253). “When I entered politics, I made a decision: I would confront problems, not pass them on to future generations” (272). “One of the lessons I took from Roosevelt and Reagan was to lead the public, not chase the opinion polls” (272). “What a testimony to the redemptive power of Christ” (281). “But once the public perception was formed, I couldn’t change it. For all my efforts to avoid the perception problem Dad faced during Hurricane Andrew, I ended up repeating it” (318). “Rather than pull troops out, I was on the verge of making the toughest and most unpopular decision of my presidency” (355). “Having a shoe thrown at me by a journalist ranked as one of my more unusual experiences” (392). “Self-pity is a pathetic quality in a leader. It sends such demoralizing signals to the team and the country” (459). “The nature of the presidency is that sometimes you don’t choose which challenges come to your desk. You do decide how to respond” (471).

For someone who loves history, I enjoyed reading of Bush’s interaction with leaders such as Tony Blair and Putin. While many do not agree with Bush and his decisions, this book sheds light on the process he used to make his decisions and the humility and integrity with which he tried to act. I found the book to be well written. While it certainly puts Bush in a good light, it also makes note of many of his failures and mistakes (some of which are quite painful). Overall I felt it helped me not only get a birds’-eye-view of a world leader, but it also helped me gain a new perspective on many of the events that captured the world’s attention between 2000 and 2008.

Whether you are a Republican or a fan of George Bush, I believe students of history and of leadership will gain helpful insights from reading this book.

[rating:4]

(New York: HarperCollins, 2010)

288 pgs.

Liz Wiseman has isolated a specialized, but crucial, area of leadership that is worth careful consideration. The critical issue, as she sees it, in these days is “new demands, insufficient resources” (x). Modern organizations are facing more challenges than ever before but are being forced to address them using fewer resources, particularly personnel. In the past, the answer to greater challenges was to hire more staff. Now, the key is not “resource allocation” but “resource leverage” (150).

Wiseman zeroes in on a very specialized subject: how leaders bring out the most in their followers. She terms these outstanding leaders “multipliers” because they manage to get far more out of their employees than those she refers to as “Diminishers.” Wiseman cites studies where Multipliers got 2.1 times more out of their people than did those who were Diminishers (13).

The “Five Disciplines of a Multiplier” are:

1.            Attract and optimize talent

2.            Create intensity that requires best thinking

3.            Extend challenges

4.            Debate decisions

5.            Instill ownership and accountability

Wiseman makes the helpful point that the key to success in an organization is not how smart the leader is but how successfully the leader can access the intelligence, creativity and insights of those they lead. No leader is smart enough to eliminate the need for others in the organization to do their best thinking as well. She asks, “Is it possible that your smartest people may be impeding the smarts of your organization?” (55). Wiseman also encourages leaders to become a “genius watcher” (60). These are leaders who are always on the lookout for someone whose talents and insights could greatly enhance the work of the organization. These leaders leave a trail of rising stars in their wake.

Diminishers on the other hand, are bright people who make wrong assumptions about people. They assume that people are not smart enough to figure things out without them. They tend to micromanage people and take away their will to think creatively. Wiseman beats the same drum concerning Multipliers and Diminishers until it can sound repetitive at times. However, she does offer some sound advice on how to bring the best out in those you lead. She suggests shifting the ratio of how much time the leader speaks and listens. She encourages leaders to make a conscious choice not to do the majority of talking in meetings or to offer their opinions too early in the problem solving process.

Wiseman notes that peoples’ best thinking must be given, not taken (89). She offers helpful insights into how leaders can bring the best out of their people by asking great questions and encouraging vigorous debate. She notes: “Diminishers give answers. Good leaders ask questions. Multipliers ask really hard questions” (116). She notes that to foster outstanding debates among staff, leaders must do two things: create safety, and demand vigor (146). She makes a good case for teams going through vigorous debate in order to reach the best conclusions. Wiseman also wades into the strengths/weaknesses debate by suggesting that leaders should “focus on extremes” by “topping off” the biggest strength and “neutralizing a weakness” (205). She concludes: “It is unlikely that they will turn their biggest weakness into their biggest strengths. The truth is that you do not need to be fabulous at everything. You just can’t be bad” (206).

Wiseman offers a “30 day multiplier challenge” in which she offers practical advice on how leaders can proactively move their leadership into a more Multiplier direction (210).

Wiseman has two basic assumptions she unpacks throughout the book. The first is that Multipliers “begin with a simple assumption and a singular idea, that people are smart and the job of a leader is to draw out the intelligence of others” (215). Diminishers, on the other hand, see themselves as smart and most others as mediocre at best. They tend to therefore hoard the thinking and decision making functions of their organization and therefore they greatly impede their organization’s overall effectiveness. Anyone who studies leadership clearly understands that some people manage to get far more out of their people than others. Some leaders constantly have outstanding young talent emerging under them while others suffer a constant hemorrhage of young talent from their ranks. Wiseman does a good job of isolating this reality and giving them labels: Diminishers, Multipliers. While I found that the overall point could have been summarized in one good article, she does offer some practical examples and insights that I think make the book worth reading. While I don’t give out a lot of 4s and 5s, I felt that this book offers some unique thinking on an important subject and therefore is worth the read.