I am a big fan of Jim Collins, particularly Good to Great. This book came up in conversation with someone today, and it got me thinking about the impact it has had on me. One of the many things about it that has stuck with me is the two-part illustration of an organization being a bus. And, as Collins points out through the interpretation of his research, the first step in organizational development is to get the right people on the bus. Many organizations are good at this (many are not). But the second step is to get the right people in the right seats on the bus. Most organizations (even those good at the first step) are not nearly as good at this second step.
Many leaders understand this, in theory. They get the notion. They quote the notion. But they still don't put it into practice (at least, not well) in the organizations they lead. Because here's the thing I've discovered: many leaders have tunnel vision when it comes to defining what "the right seat" means. They think in terms of roles. That is, "What does the organization need...that's the role we need to fill." The problem with that approach is that very few people fit into that narrow of a definition of a seat. Most people have more than one area of expertise or skill or passion. And many people, in the "employment" process (both from those looking to hire and from those seeking a job), end up sitting in a seat that is either the wrong seat, or may only be the partially right seat (i.e., something at which they can do a decent job, but which may not be the best use of their gifts).
So the "right seat", as I understand it, is not necessarily matching the right person with a particular role (or, rather, not ONLY that), but, more holistically, it is matching up the person with the right opportunities to exercise their particular range of gifts and passions.
Because if we are truly pursuing step one, and getting the right people, then we want to use those people in the best ways possible, to allow them to thrive and to succeed. And when we're focused too much on roles, we miss a lot of potential for our people to flourish.
Obviously there are things at which certain people excel. But getting the right people means then finding opportunities for them to do what they are naturally gifted to do, and at which they will thrive.
I've read a lot about leadership, and one of the things that I see over and over again is the theory of strengths-based leadership...the idea that leaders need to play to their strengths and manage around their weaknesses. It doesn't make sense to spend a ton of time trying to turn a weakness into a strength. Most weaknesses will always be weaknesses. And most strengths are already the things people are good at. So those are the things we need to focus on. Yet many people end up in some nebulous middle ground; something at which they aren't terrible (or which they may even be good at)...but that is not necessarily the best match for their particular strengths or passions.
Strengths-based leadership and "getting the right people into the right seats on the bus" are really the same thing. They're focused on getting the right people regardless of the role, and then finding the areas in which they most excel (which most exercises their strengths and passions).
Where the problem comes is a natural consequence to getting this right: when you match people up with their strengths (and away from just filling a role), it leaves some things to fall through the cracks. The roles that they filled suddenly aren't being filled. I would say two things about this: one, this trade-off is always worth it. Letting a few things fall through the cracks, or finding temporary patches for some things, will always be worth the benefit gained from getting people into the right seats on the bus.
And two, maybe the things that fall through the cracks are not actually what the organization needs. Especially in Christian contexts, we often convince ourselves what is needed, when maybe what we really need are the things which God has already gifted the right people we've already identified. This speaks to something Collins says, which is that great organizations get the right people on the bus before they even know where the bus is going. That is, instead of identifying where the bus needs to go and then finding the people to make it happen (what good organizations do), great organizations get the right people on the bus and then let those right people and their gifts help define where the bus is going by getting them in the right seats. That's a scary thing, especially for organizations that have particularly strong or charismatic individual leaders. But I think Collins hits the nail on the head.
As Collins has identified, great leaders/organizations really get both of these steps, both in theory AND in practice...and getting this right is what separates great organizations from simply good ones.
