Celebrating a one-of-a-kind

I sometimes wonder if people suspect I married Becky just so I could gain her parents in the deal. They are one of the best gifts she ever gave me. My second father, Bill MacNabb, passed away last week, and I’ve struggled to articulate an appropriate tribute for him. I’m going to do it as a leadership tribute.

I think what most impressed me was Bill’s faith and humor through a life of storms that would have shaken anyone. He had a one-of-a-kind disease. For over thirty years his doctors tried on diagnosis after diagnosis, sometimes naming diseases that were usually found in women or only diagnosed at autopsy. One doctor ended up calling it “MacNabb’s Disease.” Turns out all the symptoms can be tied to Agent Orange exposure in the Vietnam War. He gave his life in service to his country. If his life had ended back then, however, he wouldn’t have enriched as many lives as he did.

While he grew up without a model for fatherhood, he became the loving, doting father to his girls that he never had himself. He put a lot of energy into creating games for them and forging a lifetime of deep memories. He made sure they knew they were loved. When his daughters each found their life partners, he adopted them as one of his own kids, once they attempted the impossible feat he designed as a test.

No one needed to follow Bill. He was a titled leader—a president, chairman of the board, an elder, and a patriarch of a growing clan—but he didn’t require a title to lead. He had the courage to forge a path when there wasn’t one blazed before. He was willing to do what he wanted to do even if no one followed. Yet I think you’ll see that many followed him.

Finding the humor

Most will remember my father-in-law for his humor, in spite of all his hardships. He joked even if no one got it, because he wanted to make himself laugh. He often cracked himself up, and even if those around him didn’t get it, his laughter was contagious.

When painting became an outlet during a season of brain-diseased-episodes, he created art that only a mother would love. Or only the artist could appreciate. His best friend told him, “Bill, you’re an artist in your own mind.” Bill compounded the joke by scribbling overpriced valuations on the back of his most ridiculous paintings. One Father’s Day years later, when he was in his right mind, we pulled out his art collection from the attic. He hadn’t seen many of these pieces in a long time, and as he saw them he began to laugh. Ugly laughing—tears streaming down his cheeks and his face frozen in a grimace as he struggled to breathe.

He was often willing to offer himself as the butt of his own jokes, like his tongue-in-cheek alter ego, “Mr. Fix It”—a willing hero who was always depicted applying the wrong tool for the job. He was equally willing to roast his brothers-in-law or send them a two-page invoice after their family enjoyed his hospitality. Or to sacrifice his sons-in-law for comedic purposes. As his first daughter was about to marry me, he said at the rehearsal dinner, “I don’t think of this as gaining a son. I think of it as losing my shirt.”

He was also an author in search of an audience. He wrote because he had to, even if few would ever read his work. His written correspondence with his father-in-law is epic, even if written for only one person. As a former journalist, he wanted to publish, and he achieved that goal in 2019 with a book of extremely limited run. It seems perfect that there’s only one copy of his book available on Amazon right now, and there seems to be a bit of price gouging in play. Perhaps they think the author’s death is going to drive up demand in the resale market. Bill would be the first to find the humor in that.

First followers

It’s easy to say a one-of-a-kind doesn’t need others, but that’s actually untrue. The first to follow someone are the ones who define that person as a leader. As John Maxwell once said, a leader with no followers is just taking a walk. Bill MacNabb could have just taken a walk out of step with everyone else, but something about him drew others to participate in his jokes, his writing and his artwork. He had a huge influence on all who knew him, and we wanted to walk at his pace. So let’s talk about his followers for a minute.

One way we participated was to provide an audience. We listened to Bill’s drafts or helped others realize when he was joking. He fed off the reactions to his dry wit or sarcasm. In one case, he concluded a eulogy for his best friend and walked away silently before returning to the microphone to say, “I usually get applause.” I can still see the funeral director shaking his head at the raucous response. Bill loved it when a message intended for one audience was unearthed. Such as a spoof video he created as sales manager for a heating and cooling company, when he explained how profit was lagging sales, and told customers, “If we had known you would have money left over at the end of the year, we wouldn’t have given you the prices we did.”

The audience also has a role to play. The greatest gift those around Bill could give him was to help him lift his jokes, his writing, his artwork to a level of absurdity. For instance, his kids created a local news video to showcase his journalistic ramblings after a tree exploded behind his house: “A tree explodes! News at 11!” Others created inspirational placemats featuring his Mr Fix It photo series. He knew he was loved when others laughed with him.

We further participate by preserving and celebrating Bill’s writings, artwork, jokes and stories. This week, his first followers have been mining his archives so we can share some of the best at the memorial service tomorrow.

Harnessing limitations

One of the things I’ll remember most about my father-in-law was the way his health-related limitations focused him. Rather than becoming a barrier, they helped him reprioritize. 

He proved able to change and grow, moving away from his workaholism of the years before I knew him to putting his people first throughout his presidency. Frankly, his limitations made him a great president and chairman. Bill was a humble servant leader who loved his company and every employee. He was also capable and competent, leading with wisdom and foresight. Most of his staff had no idea how often he used the couch in his office. If they only knew that his meetings and sales calls were often preceded by a daily ritual of reciting Psalms out loud on his commute so he would sound articulate by the time he walked in the doors. 

Retiring early upon his doctor’s advice gave him more time to focus on people. Bill was incredibly generous, participated in church stewardship campaigns, led the church’s Rock & Roll Evangelism Committee and spent time with his many grandkids—whether they were biological or lived on the street. He also got to know his neighbors during his frequent walks, sometimes taking breaks in front of their homes or dodging a thunder storm in their carports. He then included many of their stories in his second, self-published book. He and my mother-in-law helped build a remarkable community in their neighorhood: this week, there have been as many tears shed up and down his street as among his family.

To the very end, Bill never lost his sense of humor, and joked even when he could no longer speak. Even if he was in pain and visibly struggling with basic activities, if someone asked him how he was doing, his standard ironic response was, “Never had a bad day in my life.” His book title summarizes the reality. His life was lived boldly, with buckets of tears and pails of laughter.

Good enough

When you need to make a decision, what percent of information would you say you need to move ahead? Is it closer to 100% or 60%? Err one way, and you fall into the ditch of analysis paralysis. The other side of the road can spill you into rash action. 

In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell argues that in many situations, people know instantaneously what they need to do, and the problem with waiting is that you can talk yourself out of the right answer. That was my experience in every high school exam. If I knew the answer, great. If I had an inkling but wasn’t sure, I’d then try to logic out the answer, and I’d choose a different answer than my immediate sense. Gladwell suggests you may have enough information in a split second to know what to do, and time could be your enemy. 

In The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership, Dr. Steven Sample goes the other way. He urges leaders to ask, “How much time do I have?” If you have another week to make a decision, some additional information might come to light that would lead to a better decision. Of course, if the decision is needed today, you have to make the best decision you can with whatever information is available now, knowing that to not make a decision is a decision. The reality is that some problems resolve themselves, or solutions emerge as other leaders step up. In other words, the more lead time, the better your decision success rate should be. Think of it as strategic procrastination: put off until tomorrow what doesn’t have to be decided today. When time is up, whatever knowledge you have is “good enough.” 

There are ditches on both sides of the road.

Back to my original question: For you, what percentage of the information you wish you had is sufficient to make a decision? It’s a question of risk tolerance. If it helps, ask it this way, “Compared to others, for a particular type of decision, am I more or less risk averse?” 

For me, I can certainly be decisive, but when asked to make a decision, I find it helpful to dig deeper. The amount of information needed depends on the scope, gravity and reversibility of the decision. Most leadership decisions are not life and death, but some have far-reaching implications. Here are some of my approaches:

  1. Filtering. The amount of information available to us is unprecedented, so it’s obviously not the quantity of information we need. One of Gladwell’s solutions is the idea of filtering the factors that matter, so it’s less about how much information than what types of information to pay attention to. I remember a very helpful acronym from my university calculus classes: TBU. Some information is True But Useless
  1. Breaking it down. Many decisions are actually a series of decisions, and you proceed to the next stage if the answer is “not no.” In these cases, you have time to see how the first “yes” develops before proceeding or adjusting course. 
  1. Prototyping. I have seen that many decisions allow for a ready-aim-fire, aim-and-fire again approach. In my work with innovators, I’ve learned the value of a minimal viable product (MVP) to start moving, and to test and learn from earlier attempts while working on a more effective version 2.0.
  1. Holding. I tend toward Sample’s advice, determining what kind of decision is needed and how long I need. In his dissertation on “Leading with Limited Knowledge,” Rob Hay describes “holding” as carrying, pondering, and wrestling with an issue, turning it around in your hand to consider its many facets. In the middle of a situation—when thinking, praying, reflecting and discerning are most critical—time and space are costly. But those are key parts of a leader’s job description. 
  1. Testing. For significant decisions, I often utilize Ruth Haley Barton’s spiritual discernment process laid out in Pursuing God’s Will Together. There are a lot of great practices there, but let me highlight one. Barton recommends deciding in your mind one way and letting it sit for a while before doing the same with the other choice. The implications of the decision emerge in ways you might not have noticed if you stayed in neutral.

In Acts 15, the early Church demonstrated a form of discernment in the way they approached a critical decision. The question they faced touched on deep-seated biases and had very significant implications that could tear the Church apart: Should the Church remain exclusive to Jews, or should it expand to include Gentiles? After hearing the facts and listening to debate, James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, held up their arguments against his own study of Scripture and then made a judgment call. Three times after that, the Church carried out implementation steps that “seemed good”—to various parties, “to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:22, 25, 28). 

There’s a humility in those words. Even when it’s an earth-shaking decision that will decide the future of the Church, the best James and the elders could do was conclude that it seemed good.  It’s an acknowledgement that our best efforts to hear the arguments and logic out the implications are limited and flawed, because we are human. Even if God clearly speaks, we can get it wrong because of our interpretations or the lens we use. The most we can do is conclude that it seems right, and accept that God has given those who lead in this moment the responsibility to make the decision.

We will never get it right 100% of the time, but we have to move forward.

I’ve taken to calling my approach “good enough.” I talk about it in terms of 90%—an arbitrary number that simply represents imperfection. 

  • If I can get 90% of the information that’s available at the point the decision is required, move ahead. 
  • If I can get most of the value out of a 90% MVP approach, move ahead.1
  • If I can get 90% in the room in favor of a direction, move ahead.2
  • And if I’m 90% sure that God is pointing in a certain direction, test that decision, sit with it, share it humbly, and then move ahead. 

Rob Hay promotes the idea of “tentative certainty.” Rather than try to make the whole decision, tentative certainty means being certain enough, with the amount of knowledge available, to take the next step. As you begin to act, pay attention in order to respond to the unexpected and be able to change direction.

  1. That extra 10% will likely take a lot more resources without adding much value anyway. ↩︎
  2. In most cases, people need to know their voice was heard, but consensus isn’t required. ↩︎