Collaborations

It's All About the Mission
J. David Schmidt 
This article provided by the Engstrom Institute

"To survive the next few minutes, Captain Haynes and his crew were going to need every bit of wisdom, luck, and creativity they could muster. Their wide-body jet, carrying 295 passengers to Chicago, had just experienced a catastrophic failure of all three hydraulic systems. All flight controls were totally inoperable. The odds of this happening were over a billion to one—the odds of surviving considerably less."

So begins author and consultant Pat MacMillan in his book, The Performance Factor, as he describes the incredible story of United Flight 232 that crash-landed in Sioux City Iowa on July 19, 1989. He goes on to explain what brought them to this point.

"United Airlines Flight 232, a DC-10 traveling from Denver to Chicago, suffered what the airline industry calls a 'catastrophic engine failure.' At 37,000 feet, one hour and seven minutes out of Denver, The No. 2 engine, located high in the tail of the aircraft, literally broke apart. Over 70 pieces of shrapnel ripped through the skin of the plane at high velocity severing, by random chance, the three completely separate, redundant hydraulic lines used to fly the plane, rendering the heavy aircraft virtually unflyable.

The engine failure is so unique that there is no standard operating procedure for this type of event (the odds of having all three hydraulic lines suffer damage are over a billion to one). During the next 41 minutes, Captain Al Haynes led an extraordinary effort that proved to be unique in the annals of aircraft emergencies. The cockpit crew and ultimately an entire network of other teams formed a larger '232 organization,' working together to achieve unprecedented results, and figure out how to fly an unflyable plane."

Killer Collaborations

Pat MacMillan emphasizes the power and importance of collaboration, pointing out how the crew "demonstrated the ability to build the team en route, taking advantage of every possible resource, skill, and experience in the most expedient manner." By working with scores of teams across the country, the crew of this crippled aircraft was able to do the unthinkable—crash-land their aircraft with 184 of the 295 aboard miraculously surviving.

To land his plane, Captain Haynes had to build some "killer collaborations"—high-value relationships with people and organizations that allowed him to accomplish his mission of minimizing (but not averting) a terrible tragedy that day in Sioux City, Iowa.

Beware of the Weak Link

It took these "killer collaborations" to offset another set of more sinister "killer collaborations" that were also at work—those that caused the problem in the first place. Years earlier, in 1971, a titanium ingot had been made in Henderson (NV) with a microscopic imperfection. Metal from that titanium ingot eventually became one of the fan disks in the engine that failed on Flight 232. Over the 18 years the engine and plane were in service, that minute imperfection caused a small crack that was never seen by even the most meticulous inspectors. The stresses of engine starts and stops, 15,503 takeoffs and landings, flying hours, and aircraft age ultimately collaborated to cause the fan disk to explode—and led to loss of life.

Your Turn to Fly

In the execution of your organization's mission, you will face the challenge of determining what kind of "killer collaborations" you will create. With spiritual discernment and strategic thinking, you, like Captain Haynes, can develop a network of collaborators that will help you accomplish your mission. The problem is, it isn't easy and the most important dimension—mission alignment—is sometimes overlooked.

Let's assume you and your board or leadership are contemplating collaborating with another enterprise that you believe shows great promise.

The chemistry is good. There seems to be a fit between your strategies. You can see how one would support or augment the other. The financial and personnel disruptions are minimal or appropriate. There is general enthusiasm for the idea. Everything seems like it should be cleared for take off.

BUT without exercising spiritual discernment and strategic thinking—related to mission alignment, you run the very real potential of inadvertently entering into a "killer" relationship that might diminish the mission impact God has called and gifted your enterprise to accomplish. So the question becomes, what kind of "killer" collaborations will YOU build?

Good, the Enemy of the Best

Bob Buford, founder of Leadership Network often poses the question, "Is this a nice idea, or a big idea?" He is not referring to big as in financially big, or attention-getting big. He is asking the mission question: Will this advance our mission in a significant and strategic, Kingdom-building kind of way?

So how do you decide which collaboration is ideal for your ministry's future? By keeping one concept central in your thinking:

It's all about the mission.

Four Kinds of Collaboration

Below are four kinds of collaborations. Note that mission is central to all of them—not location, work style, governance, strategy, budget size, etc. It's not that there aren't other measuring sticks to use as you consider a collaboration or partnership. It's that the first and foremost one to address is often the most illusive: Are the two of you going in compatible directions missionally? As you discern if God is leading you into a specific partnership or collaborative effort, take steps to insure mission is central to your evaluation process. With mission only in mind, here are four potential collaborations to consider:

1. Mission-Aligned Collaborator

A mission-aligned potential collaborator enthusiastically endorses all aspects of your mission. This kind of collaborator is already actively engaged in similar or supportive work. They share a deep commitment to the historic evangelical position that a personal, growing relationship with Jesus Christ is the ultimate answer for the human condition. Whatever their organization's mission is, it is completely aligned with the mission of God and your organization's unique expression of it.

Clearly, the more influence a person or organization will have in assisting you to deliver your mission, the more that person or organization MUST be mission-aligned. The danger of having "close in" collaborators who are not mission-aligned in delivering your mission is real: the gravitational pull of their own mission will constantly be pulling them in a different direction. The closer to the front lines of mission delivery, the more aligned they need to be.

2. Mission-Supportive Collaborator

A mission-supportive potential collaborator enthusiastically endorses your stated mission but may do so from a slightly different perspective. This kind of collaborator is willing to engage with you in carrying out your mission. They may or may not identify themselves as you do, but they demonstrate enthusiastic endorsement of your mission and beliefs. A mission-supportive collaborator may be an individual or organization that is only nominally Christian or even non-Christian, but highly supportive. But because they are supportive, working with them is both a delight and strategic to advancing your mission.

3. Mission-Neutral Collaborator

A mission-neutral potential collaborator accepts your stated mission as a good mission among many good missions. This kind of collaborator is happy to participate in program delivery, but may or may not do this in the name of Christ.

Mission-neutral collaborators may not be able to support your statement of faith, but they certainly can have a role in your organization's development. The caution in working with mission-neutral collaborators is around leadership positions, program development, and planning. Better to use mission-neutral collaborators in roles that don't put them in positions where a conflict could arise around the beliefs and values that must permeate the development of every service or program you deliver.

4. Mission-Hostile Collaborator

A mission-hostile potential collaborator rejects some or all aspects of your mission and beliefs. Typically they may display deep discomfort with the Biblical basis for your mission. They may even ask you to make adjustments to your program or strategy to accommodate this discomfort.

These kinds of collaborators—no matter how powerful, no matter how well endowed, are not going to work well in your system. They can be welcomed on other levels to lend support to your work: That is how Jesus would behave, offering full love and respect. But any one person or organization that is hostile to some or all of your mission has no effective contributory role in delivering your mission to the marketplace.

Sorting Things Out

Quoting Shakespeare, C.S.Lewis once said, "He who sups with the devil must use a long spoon." It is a good warning, with a clear application. Pick your collaborations carefully. They aren't all created equal.

Unfortunately across the history of the Church and parachurch, you can find more than one example where organizations established relationships with enterprises and people that made it next to impossible to express and deliver their mission to its fullest.

When Captain Haynes was desperately trying to save his aircraft, he did not reach out to all of his friends at United Airlines. He reached out to only the strategic relationships that would advance his mission: Get the plane on the ground with a minimal loss of life. YOU have the same challenge as Captain Haynes: Reach out strategically to advance your mission. Standing in your way of doing that well can be a lack of strategic thinking that gets reflected in these kinds of statements (or perhaps a better word would be fears):

"They are well-connected, so we need them."

• "If we don't work with them, they could hurt us with bad press."
• "They have been so good to us in the past; we have to find a place for them."
• "They give us credibility, so we need their support."
• "We'll disenfranchise a key friend of our ministry if we don't work with them."

All of these responses really make for a poor guidance system in choosing whom to partner with. Why? Because they reflect a posture of fear, not one of confidence in what God can do.

The Bible calls Christian leaders and managers to a very different response in choosing our relationships. In Proverbs 29:25, we read:

"Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord will be kept safe."

As you observe and even feel these fears when faced with collaborative decisions, the story of the Israelite's rescue from slavery in the Old Testament is an encouragement as God says to them,

"Take the Promised Land; don't look anywhere but forward and fulfill this mission I (God) have given you."

This seemingly daunting, unattainable task was backed up by these promises:

"The Lord Himself goes before you and will be with you; He will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged." (Deuteronomy 31:8)

You will be faced with many voices and perhaps even have face-to-face confrontations with some who believe you owe them allegiance or at least a glance their way. However as a leader or manager you must exhibit unwavering belief that completing the mission Godhas given you—through the relationships He has already determined are best—is the true fulfillment of His calling.

David Schmidt is president of J. David Schmidt and Associates, a consulting firm assisting church and parachurch ministries in the areas of research, organizational development, and strategic planning. For more information visit www.wiseplanning.net