Reading: 3.6—Checkpoints and Partners

3.6 Checkpoints & Partners: It’s helpful to divide the distance between the present date and the calendar target date into shorter time segments, creating checkpoints along the way. This breaks a GCO down into shorter steps that can indicate what progress is being made. Human nature is to procrastinate, so don’t lose sight of Parkinson’s Law or the Law of Procrastination. Checkpoints and accountability partners help leaders overcome those natural human tendencies.

First, let’s focus on checkpoints. For the sake of simplicity, let’s imagine that there is an objective that needs to be completed in six weeks, say, on Friday of week six. Let’s call it Friday 6. One simple way to approach this objective might be to break it down into six steps that can clearly be distinguished from one another, each step being considered a checkpoint. We might, then, set up a checkpoint schedule that targets completion of requirements for the first checkpoint by Friday 1, completion of requirements for the second checkpoint by Friday 2, and so on until requirements for all six checkpoints are completed by the calendar target of Friday 6. Simple, right?

Using this technique causes numerous good things to happen. First, we have a plan that, if followed, will guard against Parkinson’s Law and the Law of Procrastination. Second, by spreading the workload evenly over six weeks, we avoid the last-minute crunch that often accompanies completing objectives. Third, by using calendar spacing and workload pacing, we avoid having to work under pressure which often lowers the quality of our efforts. Fourth, if we do fall behind, we discover we’re off-target early in the timeframe rather than at the bitter end.

Let me share a small example from my own experience at meeting objectives. While in seminary, one course that was required during my third and final year focused on the spiritual development of pastors. On the first day, we were given the standard course syllabus that laid out all assignments for the entire course, which was, in this case, the fall semester. This course met once a week from late August to early December.

One of the assignments was to submit five two-page papers throughout the semester that reflected on something that had been covered in the class session during a given week. We had the freedom to select from all classes and from any topic covered in those classes. The catch, though, was that these papers had to be turned in at the next class following those selected for papers. In other words, you couldn’t wait until the last week and then rush to turn in five papers on topics from throughout the semester.

My habit throughout seminary was to wait until I had attended all of the first sessions of each course that I was taking in a given semester. At the end of that week, I would sit down with my calendar and all of that semester’s syllabi, and I would plan out all of my assignments for the semester and write them into my calendar – reading assignments, presentations, papers, examinations, etc. When it came to papers, I would note actual deadlines, but then I would assign myself slightly sooner deadlines with a view toward finishing papers before the actual deadlines. I might add that, as a second career pastor, I enrolled in seminary at forty years old. It’s very unlikely that I would have been this disciplined had I started seminary in my mid-twenties. Live and learn!

In the case of this course, I designated the next five class sessions as the sessions I would use for my five two-page papers. For the next five weeks, upon getting back home after those classes, I went straight to my desk, pulled out my notes from the class, read through them, selected a topic, and wrote my two-page paper. So, six weeks into the semester, that assignment was completed. The professor for that course was also my faculty advisor, so late in the semester I happened to be meeting with him and we chatted a bit about this particular assignment. He informed me that I had been the first in the class to complete that assignment and, with only a couple of class sessions left, some in the class would not be able to complete the assignment because there weren’t enough class sessions left for them to make it to five papers. Amazing! Let me say, though, that my efficiency in the use of the calendar was not simply built into my hardwiring. It reflected a learned skill.

So, what does this skill look like in my ministry world today, three decades after my five two-page papers? Again, let me refer to the GO PROJECT ROADMAP Tracker for an illustration. The following sample is an excerpt from the Tracker that highlights a set of Checkpoints within the GO PROJECT Revitalization Process:

MARKER 4 – Implementation Checkpoints

This graphic is a cross-section of a much larger chart and, out of context, might not be completely understandable, but I’m sure you get the idea. The “WHEN” column can be blended with an actual calendar in terms of setting calendar targets.

Let’s shift the focus to partners. There are times when you’re working with a team on an objective, or perhaps, with another party who’s engaged because a couple of objectives are intertwined or dependent upon each other. In this case, partnership is inherent to the process. There are other times when none of these conditions is present such that there is no inherent partnership. In that case, it can be helpful to manufacture a partnership to insert a degree of accountability that might not be there otherwise. 

Partnerships tend to generate accountability which, in turn, generates productivity, in this case, meeting a particular GCO. Perhaps, the loosest or worst-case scenario would be to work on an objective with no checkpoints and no partner. In such a case, there would also be the absence of a calendar target. This environment would be so open ended that completing any GCO would be highly unlikely.

What does partnership bring to the table? First, a partner brings companionship and added strength as in, “two heads are better than one,” along with division of labor, shared responsibility; the list goes on and on. Second, a partner brings motivation and a reason to produce on time. It’s one thing to let yourself down, but most of us can live with that far better than we can live with letting a partner down. Note: Jesus sent the disciples out two by two. Military operations are often organized around a buddy system. The exploits of the Three Musketeers with their, “All for One and One for All,” operational ethic rides on the back of the value of partnership in accomplishing the task at hand.

Third, a partnership creates multiplication. I don’t want to go too far with the mathematics of this concept, but a partnership is greater than the sum of the parts. It’s not simply one plus one equals two, but the capabilities of one multiplied by the capabilities of a partner exponentially increases the quantity and quality of what can be accomplished on time regarding GCOs. If a partner is inherently part of the scenario, great, if not, generate a partner to level up and scale up.

Setting Great Commission Objectives (GCOs) and establishing accountability are greatly advanced and expanded by leveraging checkpoints and partners.