In the last 100 years, we’ve become accustomed to the idea of the manager as “boss.” The popular notion is that the manager — or, worse, the leader of the organization — is the one who “knows best,” and that it is his role to make sure everybody carries out his wishes. People can have some freedom, but really the manager is the “expert,” and the role of employees is not to think for themselves, take initiative, and direct themselves, but rather to take a “wait until told” approach to their work.

I shouldn’t say this is necessarily the popular view. It’s certainly not popular in the sense of “well-liked”! And lots of people and organizations think differently and more accurately. But it is a common view, and it’s one of the reasons — whether they know it or not — that many people don’t like their jobs.

Now, managers and overall leaders in an organization ought to set direction — they ought to know where they are going, and inspire people to go there. But the popular notion has gone beyond that, seeing the manager as the primary source of ideas and as someone who carefully monitors people to carry out his or her will in detail.

This view stems primarily (but not exclusively) from two false assumptions. First, it stems from the assumption that work by definition is drudgery and not enjoyable. As Dan Pink puts it in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, “because work is supposed to be dreary, Motivation 2.0 [the outdated view of management and motivation I’ve referred to above] holds that people need to be carefully monitored so they don’t shirk.”

Second, it stems from a false assumption about human beings. It assumes that people are generally inert, not very competent, and wanting to avoid responsibility as much as they can. Hence, the only way to get performance out of people is to closely monitor them and exercise detailed control over them. (And in a very strange twist, the “manager” often, ironically, sees himself as an exception to this view of people. Somehow, “most” people are generally incapable of self direction, but he isn’t. That’s ultimately elitist, in my view — and not to mention wrong. In fact, and I hope this isn’t too blunt, in my observation, many of the managers that think they know best really don’t know what they are doing at all!)

Both of these assumptions are false. Sure, some work is dreary. But that doesn’t mean that most work is, or that somehow it ought to be — that you don’t have a “real job” unless it is largely unpleasant. And sure, some people do avoid responsibility. But most don’t. Most people are highly talented and creative and capable, and will far surpass your expectations if you give them high expectations and trust them. This is not only true to observation, but has actually been shown again and again through actual studies and research, such as that of Douglas McGregor (who wrote The Human Side of Enterprise way back in the 50s).

There is sometimes a place for detailed direction and a reliance on extrinsic motivation — namely, when you are dealing with rote, repeatable, non-creative tasks (and even there, the “manager knows best” paradigm is ultimately off in many ways). But most work these days is not like that. We are in the knowledge economy, and most of us are doing knowledge work. This requires a fundamentally different approach to managing people than society became accustomed to during the industrial revolution (and which continues to hold sway in many organizations to this day).

So don’t manage your people like a white collar factory. It’s not your role to “motivate” and closely supervise people, but to hire people who are self motivated, make sure they know the purpose of their role, make sure they have the knowledge they need, and make sure there are some helpful (but not overbearing) structures and systems that provide a context for the work. And then let them direct themselves.

Dan Pink summarizes this all very well in Drive:

As organizations flatten, companies need people who are self-motivated. That forces many organizations to become more like, er Wikipedia. Nobody “manages” the Wikipedians. Nobody sits around trying to figure out how to “motivate” them. That’s why Wikipedia works.

Routine, not-so-interesting jobs require direction; non-routine, more interesting work depends on self-direction.

One business leader, who didn’t want to be identified, said it plainly. When he conducts job interviews, he tells prospective employees: “If you need me to motivate you, I probably don’t want to hire you.”

One thing I’ve noticed about most Christian teaching on work is that it is pretty thin. It essentially boils down to “work hard” and “be honest.” Those are very important things. But, to be frank, they aren’t very interesting. And, they don’t give guidance to the wide range of issues that the modern worker truly has to deal with.

Even more, they don’t address the fundamental issue that most people struggle with in their work: finding meaning and loving what they do. Many workers, including Christians, lead work lives of quiet desperation because they don’t know how their faith truly connects to their work. And one big reason for this is that much Christian teaching on work is just too thin and undeveloped.

So as I’ve been reading on management and work over the last few years, and developing philosophies and systems of management for where I work, I sought to develop a more robust theology of vocation in the workplace. There is much to learn from common grace and the really incredible research that has been articulated so well by people like Marcus Buckingham and Daniel Pink. But there are also incredible things in the biblical text itself that teach us about what it means to be an employee and manager — things which many people are not drawing out, but which are right there.

Some of the secular thinking (the good stuff — there’s also lots of bad management thinking out there) gives helpful words to what Paul is articulating in places like Ephesians 6:5-9; other aspects of the (good) secular thinking are consistent with biblical teaching, even though they may not be the only biblical way to do things (the Bible gives freedom within a framework, though some practices are more helpful than others, and ought to be pursued for that reason).

Tonight in our small group I sought to bring together a more robust set of thinking on work from a biblical perspective. Below are my notes for what I taught. I don’t say everything that could be said, I don’t draw out exactly how we should think about the interaction of correct secular thinking and the Bible (though it is important here and I have much to say on that), and I didn’t flesh everything out as fully in these notes as I did in our group discussion. (And, alternatively, we didn’t cover everything that is included here!) So if anything seems unclear or in need of expansion, remember that these are just my notes, and as such were primarily intended for myself. But I think they might also be more broadly helpful as well, and it makes more sense to post these notes now rather than wait until I have the time to turn them in to a set of more polished blog posts.

So, here they are, for any who are interested in a more robust Christian theology of work. I’d like to expand on some of these things at some point, and maybe delve even more deeply into this subject in my second book. But for now, here are some of my main thoughts on a more robust Christian doctrine of work. (You can also see my article “Management in Light of the Supremacy of God” for greater detail on many things touched on here.)

Two Core Truths from the Text

1. Eph 6:9: “Masters, … give up threatening.”

Here’s what this means: don’t motivate primarily by fear. In fact, don’t even motivate primarily by carrots and sticks—extrinsic factors. Cue in to the fact that in the verses right before, Paul exhorts slaves (= workers) to be intrinsically motivated (“doing the will of God from the heart,” etc.). Consequently, manage in a way that syncs with that. This means create the conditions that foster intrinsic motivation, rather than relying on detailed rules and telling people what to do. What does this look like? We will talk about that in the application section.

A corollary text here: 1 Peter 5:3: “Not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” Peter is addressing this to elders, but the principle applies to all leadership positions. It would be strange if elders were to lead this way, but everyone else is justified in being domineering to their people.

2. Eph 6:9: “Masters, do the same to them.”

This means: View your workers with respect and treat them as real people in the image of God who are more than just a pair of hands, but are also creative and resourceful and a source of ideas.

In other words, workers aren’t just to be ordered around. Manage to the whole person. Treat employees with respect, as valuable individuals in the image of God. No one likes to be ordered around or micromanaged. And that’s not just because it’s annoying. It’s because it’s out of sync with the way we have been created. We have been created in the image of God and thus people are creative and responsible, seeking to do good work and make a contribution. If you believe that about people, most will live up to it. And don’t let the few bad apples that don’t spoil it for everyone.

Underlying this is also the truth that employers ought to seek the good of their employees. For workers had just been commanded to “obey your earthly masters” — that is, workers should seek the good of their employer, should seek to make a contribution and put their employer before themselves, and should accomplish the objectives and tasks given them (but not only those tasks — workers are to be self-motivated, as the command to work from the heart and “render service with a good will” shows, and this means taking proactive initiative). So “obey your earthly masters” doesn’t just mean “be compliant and do the minimum necessary,” because that’s not how we would want to be treated — in the home, for example, we don’t want our kids to begrudgingly obey, but eagerly obey. It’s the same with the workplace (and, of course, Paul says this explicitly, as we saw, when he says to obey from the heart). “Obeying” your employer implies taking initiative, showing creativity, and at root being for the good of your organization.

Now, that’s cool and amazing (it’s a lot more enjoyable and interesting to be engaged in your work than merely compliant!). But here’s the really incredible thing: since Paul says to masters “do the same to them,” it follows that managers (and entire companies) are to be about the good of their employees as well. They should not see their employees simply as cogs in a machine, or workers to be maximized for company profits, but as valuable individuals worthy of respect and appreciation. And that respect and appreciation ought to be tangibly demonstrated through positive, empowering policies and a mindset of supplying employees with what they need to do their jobs well, and so forth. This isn’t a country club mentality, as we should have high expectations for our employees (which also serves them, because it challenges them to stretch and give their best selves). But when employees are treated well in this way, it is not only better for them; it is also better for the organization, because it produces greater performance. It is also less costly, because it reduces turnover (Chick Fil A example: their business model is underpinned by the Sermon on the Mount, and their retention rate is a stunning 97%).

Last point (though many more could be made): note the stunning implication here: “Do the same to them” ultimately implies treating your workers as you would Christ himself, for workers had just been exhorted to render their service “as to the Lord and not to men” (v. 7). Since masters (managers) are to do the same, it follows that they should treat their employees as they would Christ himself.

Application

So, what does it look like to create a culture that fosters intrinsic motivation in people — a culture of engagement rather than compliance?

1. Trust people and have high expectations for them. Trust is at the heart of a healthy culture. Most people want to do a good job and want greater responsibility. If you trust them and have high expectations, people will generally live up to that. (Likewise, if you have low expectations and don’t trust people, people will typically live down to those.)

2. Make the vision, values, and top priorities clear, then allow people to find their own way to accomplish the objectives. This is most consistent with trust and creates space for initiative and autonomy, which are at the heart of motivation.

3. Lead from values, not rules. This, again, is most consistent with trusting people. Detailed rules say “you are not competent, and therefore we need to control you.” People will live down to that and not apply their extra initiative. But leading from values says “we trust you” and allows people to use their judgment and creativity. It also gives purpose, which is another of the core components of motivation.

4. Seek to extend people’s autonomy to the greatest possible extent. Managers should keep expectations clear, but within that framework people are to manage themselves. The manager becomes not a boss, but a source of help.

5. You see the implication of self management right in the text: Paul exhorts workers to be self managing when he says don’t obey by way of eye service or as people pleasers. In other words, do what you do because it is right, not just because you are told or to score points. And, doing this “from the heart” implies: take initiative. For that is what we do when we are doing something from the heart.

6. Individualize. If workers are in the image of God and thus to be respected, we should not seek to mold them to fit a highly standardized version of the role. The role is to be flexible, not primarily the person. Highly standardized versions of a role not only run over the individuality that each person brings and is a potential source of incredible contribution; they are also impersonal. People are personal beings by nature; there is no virtue in regarding “impersonal” as essential to the meaning of being a professional.

7. By the way, what is management? It is unleashing the talents of the individual for the performance of the organization. Individualizing and unleashing the potential of the person are not just good practices, but are intrinsic to the nature of management itself.

The results of this will be:

1. Motivation, because this syncs with the three components of motivation: autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

2. People will grow because they are required to be responsible and exercise judgment. And this is critical because management is not only about getting things done through others, but developing people through tasks. Management is a matter of serving.

3. Greater efficiency, believe it or not. Trying to control people doesn’t scale. It also results in higher turnover, and kills the initiative that leads to great results.

4. Initiative and innovation. Again, this unleashes greater initiative and the best ideas of your people.

5. Employee engagement.

6. A strong workplace. (That’s not just a throw-away phrase; there’s great and specific meaning in what a “strong workplace” is that would be great to go in to sometime.)

7. An exciting workplace — a place where people want to work and enjoy their work.

8. Your people will be served and built up, and the organization will be served more effectively as well.

9. Failure to manage this way is why so many people want to retire, by the way. So many workplaces treat people merely as cogs in a machine. It’s no wonder people want to escape at 65. What a waste! I’m not saying retirement is bad — it can be a great thing to transition to a different type of contribution after a lifetime in the workplace. But far better to also manage our workplaces in such a way that people don’t want to retire to get away from the job, but rather retire because of the potential for a different type of contribution later in life.

Blog Posts

• Management in Light of the Supremacy of God
• Avoiding the Bureaucratic Death Spiral
• The Tyranny of Corporate Computer Control
• Use Your Practical Wisdom
• The Harm in Multiplying Rules
• On Multiplying Rules
• Why Minimize Rules?
• When Rules Go Bad: An Example

Few people aspire to mediocrity. But they often drift into it because the temptation to cut corners and take the easy route is often not recognized. It’s not recognized because it’s often veiled in the advice to “be reasonable.”

But if you are going to be effective — that is, if you are going to truly serve people well (which is what effectiveness is about), then you can’t settle for being reasonable. You have to go the extra mile.

Here’s how Patrick Lencioni puts it in his latest newsletter:

If you’re not willing to do things that others would say are over the top, and if you’re not comfortable being criticized for being annoying and for having standards that seem perhaps just a little too high, then you’ll drift toward mediocrity.

And though no one would ever aspire to being mediocre, it is more tempting than we might realize.

After all, the majority of people out there will encourage us to take the easy route, because that isn’t threatening to them. They’ll support us as we justify cutting a corner here and lowering our standards there, because it isn’t reasonable to do anything more.

And I suppose that’s the whole point. Success isn’t about being reasonable. It’s demanding. It’s over the top. It can even be annoying. But it’s worth it.

Read the whole thing.

From What Were They Thinking?: Unconventional Wisdom About Management:

Isn’t it better to have fewer managers and a flatter structure?

The answer, according to both Edmondson’s research and the experience of Southwest Airlines as described by Jody Hoffer Gittell, is it depends on what the managers do.

If they just give orders and assign blame if things go wrong, you’re probably better off with fewer of them.

But if leaders actually help people coordinate and learn, more are better.

Good point. He continues:

The problem with having fewer managers is actually quite simple: since people have been taken out of the organization, those that remain have more to do unless something has been done to decrease the total workload.

And there are fewer people in the organization to ensure coordination, reflection, and learning. In order for leaders to act as coaches, there must be enough leaders to do the coaching.

Just as coaches help their teams perform better by standing on the sidelines and providing perspective and information that players in the thick of things might otherwise miss, so in companies it is useful to have people whose job responsibility includes learning, coaching, teaching, and reflecting, or else those activities won’t occur.

Marcus Buckingham, from First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently:

And what of the notion that “trust must be earned”? Sensible though it may sound, great managers reject it.

They know that if, fundamentally, you don’t trust people, then there is no line, no point in time, beyond which people become suddenly trustworthy. Mistrust concerns the future. If you are innately skeptical of other people’s motives, then no amount of good behavior in the past will ever truly convince you that they are not just about to disappoint you. Suspicion is a permanent condition.

Of course, occasionally, a person will indeed let you down. But great managers, like Michael, the restaurant manager from the introduction, are wired to view this as the exception rather than the rule. They believe that if you expect the best from people, then more often than not the best is what you get.

Innate mistrust is probably vital for some roles — lawyering or investigative reporting, for example. But for a manager, it is deadly.

I blog frequently on management and how the essence of good management is not actually to supervise people but realize that they are self-governing. In other words, people are to manage themselves. The manager is a source of help whose role is to unleash the talent of each individual by seeking to enlarge their scope of freedom and autonomy as much as possible.

This is not a new idea. Interestingly, Charles Spurgeon, way back in the 1800s, articulated the essence of this as well as anyone today. Here’s what he had to say in Counsel to Christian Workers (and, also interestingly, he is simply echoing Ephesians 6:6!):

What a mean and beggarly thing it is for a man only to do his work well when he is watched. Such oversight is for boys at school and mere hirelings. You never think of watching noble-spirited men.

Here is a young apprentice set to copy a picture: his master stands over him and looks over each line, for the young scapegrace will grow careless and spoil his work, or take to his games if he be not looked after.

Did anybody thus dream of supervising Raphael and Michael Angelo to keep them to their work? NO, the master artist requires no eye to urge him on. Popes and emperors came to visit the great painters in their studios but did they pain the better because these grandees gazed upon them?

Certainly not; perhaps they did all the worse in the excitement or the worry of the visit. They had regard to something better than the eye of pompous personages. So the true Christian wants no eye of man to watch him.

There may be pastors and preachers who are the better for being looked after by bishops and presbyters; but fancy a bishop overseeing the work of Martin Luther and trying to quicken his zeal; or imagine a presbyter looking after Calvin to keep him sound in faith.

Oh, no; gracious minds outgrow the governance and stimulus which comes of the oversight of mortal man. God’s own Spirit dwells within us, and we serve the Lord from an inward principle, which is not fed from without.

There is about a real Christian a prevailing sense that God sees him, and he does not care who else may set his eye upon him; it is enough for him that God is there. He hath small respect to the eye of man, he neither courts nor dreads it. Let the good deed remain in the dark, for God sees it there, adn that is enough; or let it be blazoned in the light of day to be pecked at by the censorious, for it little matters who censures since God approves.

This is to be a true servant of Christ; to escape from being an eyeservant to men by becoming in the sublimest sense an eyeservant, working ever beneath the eye of God.

Patrick Lencioni’s latest monthly article is now available. It’s called “Discounting Teamwork.” Here’s the upshot:

What’s the practical lesson for companies trying to improve? They should start by spending more of their time and effort creating a culture of teamwork than looking for outside talent, because the rewards for doing so are enormous. For starters, they’ll get more from the employees they already have, and even find stars who are already in their midst. Remember, great football teams birth superstars from the ranks of ordinary players who happen to have extraordinary attitudes. Beyond that, companies that create true team environments become places where other team-oriented players want to work. Great football teams attract players who are tired of playing for selfish, dysfunctional teams, and, in many cases, they even play for less money to have that opportunity.

Perhaps the first thing that a company needs to do in order to improve is to ask itself if it truly believes that teamwork is a strategic advantage, and that it, more than shear talent, brings about lasting success.