I have friends who are Apple evangelists. For them, stock in Apple is like gold, an iPhone is akin to a magic wand, and Steve Jobs is the messiah.
I’d like to think I’m more balanced. I carry an iPhone, but use a Dell laptop. I like the Mac operating system–but actually prefer using Windows 7.
Regardless of whether you are on Team Apple or not, from a business model Apple can’t help but garner your respect. I thoroughly enjoyed Apple Nation, a recent article in Fast Company magazine. Some interesting quotes…
Apple’s engineers spend 100% of their time making projects planned by a small club of senior managers–and sometimes entirely by Jobs himself. The CEO appoints himself the de facto product manager for every important release.
Apple sets its own agenda and tunes out the tech wags–competitors, industry observers, analysts, bloggers, and journalists who constantly spew torrents of advice, huzzahs, and brickbats in its direction. Behind its doors, Apple can ignore us all.
Steve Jobs primary role at Apple is to turn things down. Every day, the CEO is presented with ideas for new products and new features within existing ones. The default answer is no. Every engineer who has gone over a product with him has a story about how quickly Jobs reaches for the DELETE key. “I’m as proud of the products that we have not done as the ones we have done,” Jobs told an interviewer in 2004.
So much of this makes sense for a for-profit company, and is the reason for Apple’s success. But I have some questions about how it might translate in the church world…
- If the senior pastor at your church was the primary creative director and had veto power for everything–is that a church you would enjoy attending? Would you want to work on a staff for that pastor?
- I wonder if members/attendees at many churches think similar thoughts– “Behind its doors, the staff/elders of this church ignore us all.” In the church world–is that good? Or is that a weakness?
- At Apple, the “default answer is no.” Would churches run better if they said “no” to more opportunities? Do we tend to get so broad that we lose impact?
Your turn–what do you think?
18 Comments
I happen to work in the software industry, in product development for a small independent software vendor. It seems unwieldy and unworkable to me that a small group of senior managers and the CEO dictate and directly manage so much of what's going on. Sure, yes, it works for Apple, but I argue that they are very unusual, perhaps unique. In my 21 years of doing this, CEOs where I've worked tend to focus more on business and hire trusted people, who hire trusted people, etc. — and decisionmaking is pushed down as much as possible.
I'm not a big fan of modeling church operations after corporations, but to the extent it is done I believe it is better for everybody and creates a more engaged and passionate membership when there's a feeling of shared vision, destiny, and decisionmaking power.
I finally got around to reading "inside Steve's brain" (unofficial book on Steve Jobs and Apple). No doubt, Steve Jobs is brilliant, I mean brilliant. He's demanding, extremely picky, holds on to his values and fights for only the very, very best ideas. IF these were the core essentials alone I'd say YES, this would be great for a Church or organization.
But……..what is Apple without Steve Jobs? Nothing. Leadership is about building others and empowering others, this was true in the late 80's when Steve was ousted and Apple began to fail and if Steve gets sick or leaves, I am sure Apple will start to fail again, UNLESS he's learned his lesson and has an apprentice ready to take his place.
Leadership is about succession, you have to have the next person ready to replace you IF you want your success to continue in your absence. This is just my philosophy in leadership of course.
M_
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Stevens, bryan nelson. bryan nelson said: Reading: Should the Church Have More in Common with Apple? http://bit.ly/c5jsTh [...]
I don't think it translates well to the church world at all.
Except for possibly the 3rd point. There's a lot to say about getting intensely focused on a few specific things and doing them well.
Personally, I think the model works great for Apple because Apple = Steve Jobs.
If you want a church to = lead pastor, then this model would work just fine. But who in their right mind wants that?
I think there are churches like that which have become cults of personality, equivalent to the discussion of Paul in 1 Corinthians where the believers were bragging about that they were a follower of Paul or Apollos. I'm pretty sure that passage pretty much sums up God's stance on the subject. When people get too wrapped up in who the lead pastor is to the extent that they start discounting others or getting defensive, then they are basically turning to celebrity/idol worship.
In general, YES the church should have more in common with Apple. They produce remarkable work & hold strictly to in-house standards.
Also, the ignoring of bloggers is pretty awesome.
I recently left a church that you're describing hypothetically that we attended for 8 years. There were a myriad of reasons (primarily that we felt God was calling us elsewhere), but one of the factors for me was the fact that I felt the church as an administration was not accountable to the church as a Biblical body of Christ. I felt like I had no voice or say in the things I saw that I disagreed with in the administration, and the administration's stance was for the status quo, don't rock the boat, and don't challenge anyone or anything. It upset me because I wanted to be challenged, I wanted to be stretched, and I wanted to be convicted, and they didn't want to step on anyone's toes.
I am a big time Apple fan (drank the "kool-aid" a long time ago) and our staff team uses many of its products. Love the passion, vision and style that comes out of Apple.
I appreciate your insights and questions. The one point I will comment on is the ability of Apple to say "no". I believe it is something that the church needs to be able to say "no" confidently, as it evaluates opportunities in light of an individual church's calling, gifts, passion, and vision. A fascinating study through the Gospels is looking at the times that Jesus "said" no either by words or actions.
One major difference is that with Apple, the sun rises and sets on the finished, delivered product. It's slick and sweet and people build tribes around ownership of their products. There's no engagement… that's not part of the deal.
I think 'no' can be a good thing, because too many times pastors and administrations try to please everyone and end up spreading the resources and themselves to thin. Especially at small churches. There needs to be a constant openness to new ideas, but also a set vision and purpose that they need to fit into. That openness needs to be a constant engagement (as Corbett said) with the congregation…but that doesn't mean it can't end with 'no'.
Should the church be like Apple? No, and yes, of course.
No. We follow a man, and are not pushing product but connecting people with the creator. We must be open source (Jesus’ kingdom is not a closed system), and we are not dependant on human talents as deeply as Apple.
Yes. Of course we represent (market) the gospel. If THE church were known for “quality” and stuff that “works elegantly,” my church would spend a lot less time saying, “We are not who you think we are” trying to distance ourselves from the “church” label. And we should say no to many things that are not relevant, excellent, true, gracious, and full of faith in Jesus’ ability to transform our neighbors.
Tim,
Great post on the influence of Apple in the church. I've long admired their creativity and design excellence, but like you work on a Dell. There is much that the church could learn from Apple, but like all businesses, the church can learn from them in context but should remember they are not a business . I posted a similar look at the Wired article: http://27gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/apple-day.html. As for saying "no", I think that is one of the most powerful words that church leaders seldom use.
Tim – You raise some excellent questions. I respond most strongly to the veto power over everything held by one person. This cannot be sustainable at all levels of the church. If the lead pastor is unwilling or unable to pass off key decisions to others the congregation will be significantly limited in the scope of ministry and how far they will be able to share good news. I value a collaborative approach where everyone can be vetoed with enough reason and there is not one person who could veto anything.
Something the church could learn to look at would be the sheer number of ideas that float around places at Apple that never make it to finished products. I know that Google pays literally thousands of engineers whose job it is to take as many ideas as they can and pursue them as far as possible before they’re determined to not work. And then only the very very best ever see the light of day, and when those do, they’re polished to a mirror shine.
Exploding creativity and the ability to lay down a “No” would be great things for many churches to develop.
Hey Tim,
Great post! I have some thoughts about your three bullet points above.
Regarding the Senior pastor have that kind of role and veto power, I have observed guys like that and admire their leadership ability and ideas, but would never want to work with/for them. Just not me.
Totally agree with where your questions are going with the second bullet point. We need to be open and transparent as leaders in the local church. We are leading people who are also Christ-followers who want to have input into the process. Obviously this process needs to be managed properly to make a difference.
The third bullet point reminds me of my style. We do have a person on staff whose default is "no", mine is "yes". We joke that by saying yes, I probably arrive at no's more than he does. What he does is say, "No." to any idea that comes along and you have to talk to a "yes." With me I start out with a "yes" and let's work together to see how we can implement your idea, and many times together we arrive at a "no". He get's the bad rap, but I'm the one who get's to a "no" more than he does.
Just some thoughts from this part of the world.
Blessings,
Dave
[...] A good question is raised at Should the Church Have More in Common with Apple? [...]
I struggle with both sides of the No. Using the CEO to approve or disapprove seems to me to break the concept of every member is a Priest and is to come directly to God. There seems to be a strong understanding of this CEO with the approval in mission agencies, and many churches. While it allows for a very homogeneous group, it subtly teaches that individuals don't have a relationship with God, they have a relationship with God via their Leader (and I thought this was addressed during the reformation when it was in place through confession).
I think that the power of this is that they do seek to only give the best to the market. But that also means that they limit their "potential" buyers to those that can afford the best. This also subtly teaches that only the best deserve what is offered. That may work to a point in a culture where we can simply offer a church for every strata of society and every socio-economical breakdown. But will that work in places where they can only be one church for multiple language groups and socio-economic stata?
Christianity is not a marketing tool. It is not a business. We never go out of business. Yes we can learn a huge lesson from no using a methodology that is now outdated to reach people. I admire Apple a great deal for their willingness to make the leap forward. Too often missions especially stay focused on what worked 100 years ago. BUT there is no bottom line for the church, unless no one is being discipled and evangelized. It isn't about money its about changed lives.
I've got to reply to this. I, too, read the Fast Company article, and have been having the same reflections as you. I'm posting anonymously, although nothing I say would get me in any trouble at work, I don't think. Yet I never underestimate the chances of being misunderstood.
I've worked for 2 megachurches. One was more like Google, with lots of ideas from staff and congregation members that would percolate up. If someone had a vision for a new ministry, they were allowed to run with it. The church leadership might not give full support, but wouldn't stand in anyone's way, either. It was a good system, though a little disorganized and unfocused sometimes. And it created a climate of ministries competing with each other for limited resources.
The one I work at now is very much like Apple. It is much more corporate in its feel, especially as a staff member. The church is based around an extremely talented senior pastor, who is an incredible communicator and visionary leader. The issues for my current church are the same as they are for Apple's: It all hinges on the leader. If anything happens to the leader, both the church and the company are in trouble. And the pastor knows this intellectually. But moving away from that model is much harder than understanding it.
Does it work? Yep. But so did the other church. The key to making my current church work is the pastor. It works when you have a leader who is remarkably capable and talented. It would be a disaster, though, if a pastor was high control, low talent. My current church is more focused, more directed, and, as many would measure it, more "successful". But as a staff member, I feel like I have less say in things. For congregants, they're here because they like the pastor and trust his leadership. But I'm not sure this church would foster new ideas and leadership from laypeople the way my previous church did.
Ultimately, ministries reflect their founders, and good churches will be structured to match their leader's strengths and minimize their weaknesses. I've been lucky to work at two very different churches and learn from both.