I'm hoping it will get accepted!!! I would be presenting a fun program on courage and followership!
Please, please let me get accepted. It sure would make things go more smoothly and timely!
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Calling and Timing
I was just revisiting a passage in Courage & Calling by Gordon T. Smith (1999) and found this paragraph:
Once again I must stress: vocation and career are not the same. They may coincide, but for many people that will not be the case. At each phase of our life we need to ask the question: Who am I and what fundamentally, am I called to be and do? What is my purpose, my reason for being? And then we must ask what we are being called to do now, in the immediate: What is the current duty, responsibility or job that God is placing before me? How can I fulfill this current responsibility in light of who I am? The current responsibility or job may seem quite mundane—caring for children, getting a job to pay the rent or studying. But it is God’s call for the moment, for the time being. And we accept this as from the hand of God and see it in light of the complete picture of who we are and who we are called to be.
What a great passage. This really puts things in perspective anytime a person feels that their work is not “what they want” or what they “are supposed to be doing right now.” Everything happens for a reason and this is such a great reminder that God has a plan.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
New Blog-Insightful
I found this blog today and thought it was insightful. I'll visit it again for sure.
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/
Here is one entry from Wally's blog:
One thing that's becoming clear is that there were more problems with the Deepwater Horizon than just mastering the technology of drilling in ultra-deep water. Sunday, the NY Times ran an excellent story headlined: "In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Oil Rig."
Deep in the story, you'll find this. It's a quote from Tad W. Patzek. He's chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas.
"It’s a very complex operation in which the human element has not been aligned with the complexity of the system."
The technology was complex, all right. But the project management was complicated, but straightforward.
There's a difference between "complex" and "complicated." It's the difference between raising a child (complex) and building an office building (complicated).
When something is complicated you start with the idea that anything can go wrong. You set up tracking, communication, and decision systems to deal with that when it happens. Then you put someone in charge and give them the power to enforce the rules.
The big problems on Deepwater Horizon didn't happen because the technology challenge was new and complex. They happened because the project was poorly run, with no clear chain of authority. Here's an exchange from the Times article.
Curt R. Kuchta, the rig’s captain, responding to an investigator's question of who was in charge: "It’s pretty well understood amongst the crew who’s in charge."
Coast Guard investigator: "How do they know that?"
Captain Kuchta: "I guess, I don’t know, but it's pretty well - everyone knows."
So no one was in charge. And when that happens any manager can assume that someone else is responsible and paying attention. Things might have been different if there was someone in charge.
Maybe the person in charge would have noticed as exception piled upon exception. Maybe the person in charge would have said, "I don't care if the feds don't require a response plan for a blowout, we need to have one." Maybe the person in charge would have said "We're not going any farther until we have a containment dome on site." Or maybe the person in charge would have drawn the line when BP (no person is named) violated some of its own standards.
But there wasn't anyone in charge. Instead BP and the regulatory agencies and Halliburton and Transocean exchanged emails.
Instead eleven crew from the rig are dead. Instead the apocryphal oil slick is spreading more and more every day.
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/
Here is one entry from Wally's blog:
One thing that's becoming clear is that there were more problems with the Deepwater Horizon than just mastering the technology of drilling in ultra-deep water. Sunday, the NY Times ran an excellent story headlined: "In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Oil Rig."
Deep in the story, you'll find this. It's a quote from Tad W. Patzek. He's chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas.
"It’s a very complex operation in which the human element has not been aligned with the complexity of the system."
The technology was complex, all right. But the project management was complicated, but straightforward.
There's a difference between "complex" and "complicated." It's the difference between raising a child (complex) and building an office building (complicated).
When something is complicated you start with the idea that anything can go wrong. You set up tracking, communication, and decision systems to deal with that when it happens. Then you put someone in charge and give them the power to enforce the rules.
The big problems on Deepwater Horizon didn't happen because the technology challenge was new and complex. They happened because the project was poorly run, with no clear chain of authority. Here's an exchange from the Times article.
Curt R. Kuchta, the rig’s captain, responding to an investigator's question of who was in charge: "It’s pretty well understood amongst the crew who’s in charge."
Coast Guard investigator: "How do they know that?"
Captain Kuchta: "I guess, I don’t know, but it's pretty well - everyone knows."
So no one was in charge. And when that happens any manager can assume that someone else is responsible and paying attention. Things might have been different if there was someone in charge.
Maybe the person in charge would have noticed as exception piled upon exception. Maybe the person in charge would have said, "I don't care if the feds don't require a response plan for a blowout, we need to have one." Maybe the person in charge would have said "We're not going any farther until we have a containment dome on site." Or maybe the person in charge would have drawn the line when BP (no person is named) violated some of its own standards.
But there wasn't anyone in charge. Instead BP and the regulatory agencies and Halliburton and Transocean exchanged emails.
Instead eleven crew from the rig are dead. Instead the apocryphal oil slick is spreading more and more every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)