This is just another move in Facebook’s strategy to become the information currency system of the web – aggregating all the  information about you by connecting to your Facebook profile and then selling access to that information to marketers.

In addition to the demographic, social, opinion, and digital behavior data that Facebook gathers, adding information about a user’s location allows businesses to identify and tailor their marketing messages to the people that are most likely to purchase their products.

Geo-targeting (determining the physical location of a website visitor and delivering different content to that visitor based on his or her location) is the newest trend in internet marketing and is fueling the development of geo-location services like Foursquare and Gowalla. Integrating geo-location into the world’s number 1 website creates the potential to identify the physical location of Facebook’s 540 million users.

The opportunity for local churches

Setting aside concerns about privacy and consumerism, this move by Facebook has the potential to significantly enhance the efforts of local churches in:

• growing the local body;
• serving the local community.

Using social media to grow your church

Church leaders should be interested in the growth of their church. Not because growth means they are successful, but because growth means the Christ is successful. That His ministry is succeeding in its ultimate purpose: to glorify God.

Geo-targeting on Facebook means that local pastors have a direct means of reaching people in their community and inviting those people into relationship with the church. The targeting functionality that Facebook offers to advertisers could be used to engage people when they are in your neighborhood and let them know that you’re there. It’s same strategy that led to the wide-spread adoption of church signs, only adapted for the digital age. There is the potential for many additional creative and effective ways that your church can attract new people through Facebook using geo-location.

Using social media to do ministry online

Geo-targeting also enhances the ability for churches to do ministry online that I’ve discussed before. Now there is the potential to not only identify people who are hurting (who are in need of a Savior) but to minister to them in person because you know where those people are.

I’m not advocating stalking. I can just imagine some well-intentioned Christian walking up to someone and saying “Excuse me, I saw your latest Facebook status update about how your dad is a jerk. I just wanted to let you know that our Father in Heaven loves you and would never take away your X-Box 360 for a week.”

But what I am saying is that this system could create opportunities for us to identify those in need, know more about their circumstances, and engage them in a way that is appropriate – wouldn’t that make your ministry more effective?

Beyond profit, beyond the web

Facebook is aggressively pushing to grow it’s system and to add features that will increase the value it offers to advertisers. Their profit motive is clear and should not be mistaken to be benevolent.

But the motives of churches are more pure (not entirely pure, but much more noble in my opinion than that of Zuckerberg and his team). How can we take advantage of what Facebook is and the opportunities that it is creating to advance the Kingdom?

The truth is that everyone is capable of being creative. Yes, there are those who are extremely gifted, but these people are hardly worthy of being idolized.

Here are three principles for effective creative thinking that any individual or organization can follow:

1. Separate Ideation from Evaluation

“There no stupid ideas, just stupid people.” The process of coming up with ideas (ideation) needs to run its course. Even obviously bad ideas can lead to good ideas. But nothing shuts off the creative process like judging the merits of each idea as it is presented. For more effective brainstorming designate different periods for coming up with ideas and evaluating ideas. Establish a rule preventing providing feedback on ideas during the brainstorming and assign someone the responsibility of (politely) reminding people not to critique ideas until later.

2. Look at the Situation from Different Angles

Break free of the biases and assumptions that dominate your own worldview by forcing yourself to imagine different perspectives. This way you will be able to see other possibilities, emphasize things that might not be important to you but are important to your audience. You’ll also identify unintended consequences or outcomes of an idea.

3. Create Feedback Loops for Refining the Best Ideas

Once you’ve generated a list of new ideas, you need a way to filter out the bad ones and refine the good ones. One effective approach for thinking deeper about your starter ideas is the de Bono Hats system (or the “Six Hats System”).

Using this approach, members of a group rotate through different colored hats, each representing a specific way of thinking about an idea or problem.

• Questions (White) – considering purely what information is available, what are the facts?
• Emotions (Red) – instinctive gut reaction or statements of emotional feeling (but not any justification)
• Bad points judgment (Black) – logic applied to identifying flaws or barriers, seeking mismatch
• Good points judgment (Yellow) – logic applied to identifying benefits, seeking harmony
• Creativity (Green) – statements of provocation and investigation, seeing where a thought goes
• Thinking (Blue) – thinking about thinking

This process helps you to flush out your ideas by focusing on different aspects of the situation.

Following these three principles will help you get your creative juices flowing. What other tips do you have about the creative thinking process?

The next phase in the evolution of the Internet will be the “Semantic Web” where machines not only exchange data and information but are able to derive “meaning” from the information that is being shared. Because meaning is subjective and influenced by situational factors, information on the Web will need to be interpreted within the context of the people who are using that information. This means somehow tying the information on the Web to personal information about the individual that is interacting with the Web information.

Facebook is aggressively pursuing a strategy that would make your Facebook profile the media of exchange for information about your online activities. Facebook wants to contextualize the information on the Web by tying it to your Facebook profile so that everything can be interpreted based on your digital identity.

Different web sites would then exchange information with each other, using your Facebook profile to facilitate the exchange, allowing them to (theoretically) understand what that information “means” to you.

Thus, your Facebook profile would be used in the same way that money is the media of exchange for economics.

Why does Facebook want to broker the exchange of information on the Web?

It’s all about the Benjamins. (They do it to make money, of course.)

The most obvious way to companies integrate the Internet into their business is to create digital equivalents or complements for different aspects of their operations. The first examples of commerce on the Web were digital equivalents of the exchange of goods (e.g. Amazon.com) or digital equivalents of business functions that support the exchange of goods (e.g. online advertisements).

In the Web 2.0 {pronounced “two dot oh”} era, we saw the rise of digital equivalents/replacements for other (non-commercial) aspects of society and culture. YouTube is a perfect example of this as the site enhances the ability of people to create, interact and distribute videos (the digital elements created are: storytelling, media, communication, interaction, and sharing).

In this era we’ve seen people attempt to create (with varying levels of success) digital equivalents for nearly every type of experience a person can have. This is what is at the core of the rise of online churches in the past few years (I refer to this period as Acts 2.0, the digital equivalent of the events of Acts Chapter 2.)

The challenge of profitability.

One of the big challenges the companies behind these Web services face is developing a sustainable business model.

This is often difficult because the scale of the Internet and the breadth of options increases people’s price sensitivity (creating an expectation that most of what is on the Internet should be free or low cost).

For Web services that have real-world business equivalents overcoming this is pretty straightforward since their offering is tied to a real-world, perceived value. However, for services that are based on life experiences that people aren’t accustomed to paying for (like interacting with friends), it is extremely difficult to convince people to pay for the online equivalent (in this case, participating in a social network like Facebook).

How to make  money online.

Find out what people are like to pay for and figure out a way to integrate that with what they’re doing on your site.

The best example of this is display advertising (putting text or image advertisements on web pages). Other examples are offering premium service levels (like LinkedIn’s Business, Business Plus, and Pro Account types or Kingdom Strategist Platinum). Another example is digital market places within social networks (apparently you can buy a tractor on Farmville for $20???).

Because of the volume of activity that people do online, there is (theoretically) a HUGE opportunity to engage people there and get them to spend money. But in order to do so, companies must overcome people’s resistance to spending money online.  AND they must do so at a scale that makes it a worthwhile investment for the company.

Digital stalkers – you can learn a lot about someone by tracking their every move.

Enter Cookies.

Cookies are tracking code that register and record information about your actions on a web site. Cookies allow companies to know everything about what you do on their site: what pages you visit, what links you click, what pages you enter on, what pages you leave on…

This information allows company to better understand how users are engaging with the content on their site. Companies then use that information to optimize the browsing experience in the hopes of optimizing your engagement with the site and motivating you to spend money (or click an advertisement which will earn the company money).

The problem of cookies is that they only tell you what someone does on your site.Imagine, if you could collect data about everything someone does online? Of course, here’s where privacy concerns come in. It’s one thing to track what someone does on your site. But tracking everything is a little creepy.

Cookies can only tell you so much.

Despite the tremendous amount you can infer about someone based on what they do online, it is really really hard to understand someone’s motivations and needs simply by observing actions.

The advantage the Facebook has is people actually volunteer this type of information and put it in the profile and statuses. You can tell a lot about someone based on their Facebook profile… what they like… what they need… what drives them…

On top of this, our social relationships greatly influence our behaviors (especially our purchasing behaviors… which is really what these web sites care about). Again, advantage Facebook. It knows not only information about you, but information about your friends… and their friends… and their friends’ friends…

So even though Facebook doesn’t offer much that people are like to pay for, it has something that is very, very valuable:

• Personal data about the lives of its 540 million users;
• Captive attention of its users (the average user spends 17.94 minutes per day online).

Those two things alone are a potential goldmine for Facebook, and Facebook knows it. It’s this same combination of scale and insight about its users that boosted Google to its $161 BILLION market cap (as of June 3, 2010).

The advantage that Facebook potentially has over Google is that it can tie activity data to an individual profile that (theorectially) is an accurate digital representation of who a person is. (Though Google is trying to catch up in this arena, using Gmail to create personal profiles and then tying that to information it collects from it’s multiple communication, productivity, search, and social services.)

The value of tying everything back to a profile is that it allows Facebook to personalize your experience on the site based on what it knows about you and people like you. This ability is the basis upon which Facebook will try to manipulate you to spending money. And this is the basis for other companies’ willingness to pay to advertise to you on Facebook.

Not content to be #1.

Despite being the #1 most visited web site in the world, Facebook isn’t content.

It has 540 million unique visitors, but that’s only a fraction of the over 1.8 billion global Internet users. Facebook’s strategy is to grow its database of profiles and web activity in order to increase the value to its advertisers and partners.

The best way for it to do this is to extend its profile functionality to other sites on the web.

The genius of this strategy is that it adds value to users (you and me) as well. Facebook could track and use the information it collects about you without your knowledge or permission (oh wait, it DOES do this). But integrating the social experience of Facebook to other sites is enough to make some people want to share their information about what they do off-Facebook.

But don’t be fooled, Facebook is more concerned about its own benefit and being able to offer greater benefit to advertisers. Remember, it’s all about the Benjamins.

Facebook’s Information Currency Strategy

The two main thrusts for Facebook’s information currency strategy are Facebook Connect and Facebook’s “Like” Button.

These two features of Facebook allow users to engage in online activity on sites other than Facebook while linking it back to their Facebook profile. In this way, your Facebook profile is becoming the media of exchange for information about your online activities, in the same way that money is the media of exchange for economics. Facebook is aggressively establishing its profiles as the information currency of the web.

So is this a good or bad thing?

In my opinion, it’s neutral.

From a sociological perspective, it enhances the relational elements of the Internet which is a positive advancement that can minimize “escapism” or people acting fraudulently. But solving those problems is still a long ways off.

From a privacy perspective, it creates a lot of concern as Facebook will have access to even more information about you and what you do online. And Facebook does not have a great track-record when it comes to privacy issues.

But the move does create benefit for everyone involved:

The benefit to Facebook is it grows its database of personalized web behaviors, making it even more valuable to online advertisers who want to get their products in front of the people who are most likely to spend money on them in a way that increases their desire to spend money on them.

The benefit to other sites is access to this information, the promotional benefit of having Facebook users suggest the site to their social circle, and the efficiency of using a popular login system versus creating their own.

The benefit to Facebook users is that it extends the social experience of Facebook to other sites on the web. The benefit of Facebook Connect is that users don’t need to maintain multiple profiles and logins.

But the thing you have to remember is that Facebook is driven by a profit motive. We’d be foolish to think that this profit motive will prioritize the well-being and interests of people.

Prioritizing people iss the church’s job, not Facebook’s. As Archbishop William Temple pointed out:

The Church is the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members.

How should churches respond?

Facebook’s strategy makes me wonder, what would a Christian-equivalent look like?

Normally I am against creating Christian-versions of popular culture. I refer to this as “me-tooism” and I think it sends the message the Christianity is irrelevant and unimaginative.

But in this case I think a universal profile that allows sites to access information about a person and their history has tremendous potential for churches and ministries to create enhanced web experiences that minister more intimately and effectively.

Imagine if a church web site “knew” that a certain visitor had previously searched Google for “ministry opportunities for 59 year olds“ and dynamically presented that visitor with all of the church’s resources aimed at that age group.

Or imagine if the visitor’s recent history indicated they we’re experiencing some crisis, like unexpected pregnancy? The web site could dynamically engage the person, in a personal way, and begins a process of ministering to them, starting on the site and moving them into a ministry path of healing. All done with compassion and offering the hope of Jesus Christ.

From a technology perspective such a thing is possible. This is the direction that the web is heading.

What Facebook’s strategy shows is that you need scale to make it work. Unfortunately, no ministry comes close to the amount of traffic of a Facebook or a Google. For that Christian organizations will need to work together.

The other thing is you need pure motives. This effort will need to be coordinated in such a way that encourages accountability and protects the integrity of the effort. It needs to open to encourage scale but it needs to be governed to protect the integrity of the system. It seems like an impossible challenge but this is the future of the Internet and I know that Christians can rise to the challenge.

As we move into the new era where the Web seeks to understand the meaning of things, the Church must work together to make sure that the Truth is the basis for those meanings.

– Michael Porter

– Peter F. Drucker

In it Neely examines his desire to purchase Apple’s new iPad through the lens of the Gospel. He suggests three questions to ask yourself in order to “make a Gospel-informed, wise decision.”

• Is this a tool or a toy? (broadly: is this an acute want or and actual need?)
• Is this a wise move financially?
• What is the posture of my heart toward this device?

The beauty of this framework is that it is simple and speaks to the primary areas of our sinful nature that are the most resistant to Gospel transformation. It also approaches the decision through Triperspectival analysis, addressing the normative, existential, and situational aspects of the decision.

Normative – “Is this an actual need?”

By asking “Is this an actual need?”, we are able to examine our outward priorities. Is our desire to possess or to use? Are we focused on what it will do for us or what we can do with it?

The truth of the Gospel is that we are created to be oriented outwardly, first to God and then to others. When we surround ourselves with unnecessary stuff we weigh ourselves down and constrain our ability to live outwardly.

Situational – “Is this a wise move financially?”

By asking “Is this a wise move financially?”, we are able to examine our attitudes toward money and stewardship. Do we have  the resources that will be needed to pursue this? Is the cost worth it or will be become burdened financially?

The truth of the Gospel is that God is sovereign over all things, providing perfectly for us exactly what we need to do what he wants for us to do. When we move forward without first counting the cost, we risk become weighed down by the financial burden of our decision. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that money is a powerful threat to our holiness (Eleven of the thirty-nine parables Jesus teaches talk about money; One of every seven verses in the Gospel of Luke talk about money.). We cannot treat the financial aspects lightly.

Existential – “What is the posture of my heart?”

By asking “What is the posture of my heart?”, we are able to examine where we may have set up idols in our hearts that are directing our actions. Are we seeking our identity through this decision? Is this thing more important to me than God?

This is by far the most important question to ask because our identity is and should be only found in God. The truth of the Gospel is that God should be the only supreme thing in our lives.

Application

This decision making framework is applicable for any life decision, not just technology purchases. As recipients of the Gospel, redeemed and transformed by God’s grace, and called into service of his kingdom, we must strive to put the Gospel in a place of ultimate authority over our lives and actions. This means transforming our entire lives, even our rational processes, by the truth of the Gospel.

What do you see as the value of Gospel decision making in your own life? What challenges does this kind of thinking create and how do we overcome them?

On the surface, most of us would answer “yes”. At the risk of generalizing and over-simplifying, it seems pretty clear that business generally produces resources that homeless people lack.

You may be thinking something like “Businesses make money… Homeless people need money…”

But it’s hard to go much beyond that. We get stuck trying to think of ways to transfer those resources so that it would be both sustainable and universally worthwhile.

(If you’re reading this blog and are in business I assume you think that doing this would be worthwhile, regardless of the cost. But the world doesn’t work that way. At least not yet.)

I believe in the power of business to change the world.

I get really excited when people address the problems of the world and help their fellow man through business.

I know I’m not alone in this. Thousands and thousands of people all over the world are looking at the world through the lens of their business skill and knowledge, trying to find opportunities to do the most good.

Yesterday, the Department of Housing and Urban Development released a report stating that it would be less expensive for the government (city, state, federal) to provide homeless families and individuals with permanent housing than to shelter them. According to the report:

“In almost all cases costs associated with providing housing for individuals and families who are homeless within a program exceeds the Fair Market Rent cost of providing rental assistance without supportive services.”

Josie Raymond of Change.org goes into more detail on the HUD report in her article “Shelters Cost More Than Apartments“. You should go read it.

As I read about how the government has identified that it’s own efforts are grossly inefficient, the idea pops into my head:

Business can wipe out homelessness by removing inefficiencies in how the government serves homeless people.

Business creates value primarily in one of two ways:

• It can create new value by tapping into an unmet need in the market.
• It can improve on existing value by identifying and removing inefficiencies in the market.

As Christian men and women, called to be a light for this world, called to love and serve the people of this world in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ, this is a huge opportunity that has been dropped in our lap!

The government is saying that it is not efficient in providing shelter and services for homeless people. I think the government would do everything in its power to work with businesses to lower the cost of caring for these people.

What would a business model for affordable providing private housing and services at a lower cost than the government look like?

The potential for this is so huge and so obvious that I can’t help but get excited.

More often than not efforts at fighting injustice are plagued with inefficiency. God has given some of us the business knowledge, skill, and experience that are needed improve inefficiencies while advancing the kingdom. We need to open our eyes to the true potential of business.

Is this you? Could this be what God has called you to do?

There are strategic thinkers who hold on very tightly to a preferred approach.

When these strategists are asked their opinion on what a business or church should do, they launch in with the same answer again and again. They are the ones who flood the Internet with tweets and articles chocked full of words like “every”, “should”, and “must”. The act as if their universal truths are the secret to unlocking the potential of the universe. Occasionally they will attempt to justify their approach, drawing weak conclusions from even weaker evidence.

Their confidence in their approach is not unfounded, they usually have experienced success with it in some situations. Of course their faith in their solution often leads them to downplay situations where it hasn’t work, attributing the cause of failure to some other factor that was outside of their influence.

And then there are the strategic thinkers that recognize that every situation is different.

They see the common elements between the current situation and previous experiences.  But they don’t assume that what was successful in previous situations will apply perfectly to the current one.

Instead they dig in to understand the unique objectives of those they’re trying to serve. They look for the extenuating circumstances that will influence any effort toward achieving those objectives. Only then do they begin to develop a solution.

When asked for their advice, their typical response is “It depends.”

If you haven’t guessed, I prefer the second kind.

But like all strategic tools, the compounding phenomenon can work both to the benefit and detriment of your organization. A lesson that most companies (and people) learn the hard way.

A quick analogy.

Right now, there is infection in five of my toes. I’ll spare you the details but know this: IT HURTS. I’m a pitiful sight right now, wincing and grimacing as I hobble around. But it didn’t start out like this. It started with my winter boots which, though functioning correctly, have a narrow “toe box” which caused my toes to rub against the inside of the boot.

Now add to that the fact that it’s winter and I wear the boots for extended period, the rubbing starts to become intense. Add to that the fact that (as a diabetic) I have poor circulation to my feet. Now my toes are being irritated and don’t receive a sufficient supply of “clean” blood to keep them healthy. What happens? Infection sets in and then spreads to the toes that have been weakened by the compounding effect of my constricting boots and lazy pancreas.

What started as a minor irritation quickly became a near-debilitating condition.

How small problems can compound in an organization.

Now imagine a similar situation in your organization.

One member of your team (let’s call him ‘Tony’) is being slightly but continually irritated by a tool that isn’t quite what he needs. Annoying but no big deal, he’s team player and times are tight so he’s making due with the best he can.

Now imagine that some other part of your organization, say Human Resources, starts having problems. It doesn’t have to completely fail to function, like my pancreas has; it could be as minor as falling behind or forgetting to complete something on time. But as a result, Tony doesn’t get his pay check when he’s supposed to.

Now Tony is being worn down by a minor inconvenience and the flow of resources that he needs has been disrupted. As anyone who has ever had to deal with a missing pay check will tell you, Tony’s condition has just gotten a lot worse. The stress of his inefficient work environment is now compounded by the disruption that flows from another part of the organization. Tony’s pissed. Infection has set in.

Let unchecked, Tony will now start to have a detriment effect on those around him, compounding any difficulties they’re enduring. This is how the infection spreads. Suddenly, what started as a minor problem has compounded to a critical issue that will take a lot of attention to heal.

Don’t sweat the small stuff.

As entrepreneurs, leaders, and managers, you’re accustomed to working in less that perfect conditions. And in many regards inefficiency will always hinder our efforts. In order to accomplish our strategic goals we’ve learned not to sweat the small stuff.

But that doesn’t mean that we can ignore the small stuff completely. You need to pay attention to what’s happening around you. And it is especially important to keep a pulse on the “health” of your team and make sure that you are creating the right conditions for them to succeed in their positions. Because if you don’t, something minor can quickly compound into something major and hobble your efforts.

Don’t sweat the small stuff. But don’t ignore it either.

Despite the integrity and good intentions of most people who use tools like Twitter, the low cost of usage and anonymity offered inevitably result in these systems being abused by people of questionable ethical standards. These people have no qualms about abandoning etiquette, stretching the truth, and attempting to manipulate the people the people that social media these tools allow them to access. All for personal gain. And because this behavior has a negative impact on those whose intentions are more noble, the “good guys” have started speaking out.

The dissent started out in the form of people publicly questioning the qualifications of self-proclaimed and self-important “Social Media Experts/Gurus/Ninjas/Gods“.

Some of the comments have been quite funny. One of my favorite examples is:

“‘Social Media Expert’? What does that mean? You’re really good at making Facebook profiles?”

You can find other examples by searching Google for “Social Media Expert”. I also recommend you check out Social Media Han Solo, which brilliantly integrates a Star Wars theme into its social media expert bashing. It’s funny.

How far has the pendulum swung?

Recently, the volume of critiques of social media efforts seem to be increasing. This new wave of criticism seems to be focusing on how people neglect the “social” aspects for social media.

Jeremiah Owyang recently drove this point home on his blog saying that companies should have a ‘Customer Strategy’ not a ‘Twitter or Facebook Strategy’.

Similarly, Amber Naslundm, director of Community for Radian6, in her post “Social Media Is Not the Disease” points out that it isn’t social media that’s the problem, it’s the people using it.

When you’re looking at whether or not “social media” is a blessing or a curse, remember this. It’s just the amplifier. The mechanism for the word, idea, attitude or behavior to spread faster and farther, and with less discretion. I’ve been thinking a lot about this for months, but my friend Linsday Allen’s post about a check skipper at a Tweetup hit on it once again. While the situation was unfortunate, social media itself isn’t the “fail” here, the people are.

The Fundamental Flaw

As much as I agree with these and other analysis of the shortfalls of social media, they themselves also fall short… (do you see what I did there?)

Social media tools enable people to connect with people in ways that previously were not feasible. As the the use of these tools increase, systems or networks start to develop based on how and why the members of that system participate. As these systems evolve, they become more focused, clarifying the value of participation and establishing their own conventions for participation.

This phenomenon is not unique to social media. The same pattern can be seen in the development of societies, in the evolution of business and trade, even in the evolution of religion. The world has a tendency to organize itself into systems to allow the members of those systems to achieve greater things than they could as individuals. This is not a bad thing.

The problem occurs when you and I, as individuals, are changed by our involvement in the system. We see this when we begin to focus (in our thinking and behavior) more on the system than on the components of that system. When the “means” of the system start to become “ends”. The flaw is that our awareness of the system overwhelms our awareness of what they system does for us.

That’s what’s going on with social media right now. People care more about the tools and how they work than they do about what they tools can accomplish.

Systems thinking

According to Wikipedia,

“Systems thinking is a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation.”

Systems thinking as a methodology became popular in science after discovery that the any act of measuring something changes that thing, thus making it impossible to know the true nature of that which you are studying. Thus, systems thinking focuses on the interrelationships of objects and seeks to define “systems” of objects by how they affect each other.

Systems thinking is a very useful strategy methodology as it provides a framework for anticipating the effects that strategic actions will create throughout an organization’s ecosystem. It is also very useful in problems solving as it can shine light on causes that otherwise might not have been obvious.

Systems thinking falls short when the relationships of objects within the system are overemphasized to the detriment of the objects themselves. The main way that this primarily happens is that the different aspects of a system are over-generalized and thought of as conceptual categories.

An example of systems thinking in my life.

I’ll give you an example. I do strategy work for a company in China that designs innovative and lean manufacturing processes primarily for glass products (ranging from decorative Tiffany-style lampshades to insulated drive-shaft sleeves for power tools). I relate the owner of this company in a number of ways but the primary two are as a service provider (vendor) and as an adviser.

As a service provider, I mentally describe this company and the owner with a number of general concepts that also inform how to engage with them: customer, overseas business, manufacturers, business owner… All of these descriptors apply with various degrees of accuracy.

As an adviser I tend to think of this relationship based on general descriptions of the owner himself: man, 60 year old, American, expat, Christian, leader, boss, mentor, friend.

But none of these, no matter how many labels I apply, will ever fully capture who Bill really is. There’s nothing wrong with objectifying Bill as I do, I would not be able to serve him if I did not.

But, in the busyness of the day-to-day or when trying to create consistent levels of excellent service to my customers, it is easy to forget that Bill is first and foremost a person. And when I lose touch with the “personal” Bill for the sake of my well-designed and well-defined system, I will always (without fail) marginalize him in some way.

You cannot operate a system that applies 100 percent of the time. There will always be outliers, exceptions to the rules. Someone somewhere will not “fit” the boundaries that we have defined. It’s inevitable.

“People strategies” miss the mark.

It’s encouraging to see a re-emphasis in our society on valuing the human- or people- aspect of how we act. Whether it’s the rise of “social” entrepreneurship or the emphasis on community among today’s churches. If Jesus teaches that “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40 ESV emaphsis mine), it stands to reason that valuing others is extremely important to God (second only to loving God).

But, integrating “people” generally into our “systems” will always fall short. No matter which characteristics we use to define “people” there will always be a person that exists outside of our system.

Note that the object of Jesus’s command is not general, it’s personal. Jesus isn’t saying “love neighbors”, he is explicitly clarifying that I am to love my neighbor. The specificity of this command points to what is often lost, that the target of our love is a person. They are a person in the same way that I am a person. And that is the extent to which I am to love them, encompassing every single thing about them. I am to love them as an individual.

What is your “person” strategy?

I feel the need to say again (for the record) that I am pro-system thinking. I am also pro-”people” strategies and pro-”social” social media. I’m encouraged when humanity is valued in any context.

That being said, it is infinitely more valuable for you and me to truly love and serve one single person than anything else.

Above all else, our strategies must be “person” strategies. That means that as we devise create approaches for reaching the least and the lost we MUST NOT value the individual less than the corporate. As we build systems that increase our ministry reach, scale, and efficiency, our mechanisms MUST BE able to be adapted to the specific needs and opportunity of ONE PERSON. Our strategic vision and focus MUST NOT overlook the individual.

Given the choice of impacting the person we are with versus focusing our attention on impacting hundreds or thousands through our ministry or business, we must choose the individual.

It may feel counter-intuitive but Scripture drives this message home again and again:

• Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. (Hebrews 13:2 ESV)
• Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. (Luke 15:7 ESV)
• What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? (Matthew 18:12 ESV)

What do you think? In your efforts to love and serve people, are you neglecting the person? How can we ensure that we don’t lose focus on individuals?