Have you ever found yourself overwhelmed by digital distractions? Like countless others, have you ever intended to spend just 15 minutes on a social media platform, only to realize hours have slipped away unnoticed? Developing resilience to digital distractions involves cultivating self-awareness, setting priorities, and practicing self-discipline (Hari, 2018; Newport, 2019). According to Hari (2018), understanding our triggers and habits in relation to digital distractions is crucial. By being mindful of how certain apps, websites, or notifications affect our attention and well-being, we can begin to take proactive steps to manage them effectively. Newport (2019) emphasizes the importance of setting clear priorities and boundaries in our digital lives. This involves identifying our core values and long-term goals, then aligning our use of technology with these priorities. By consciously choosing which digital activities are most meaningful and beneficial to us, we can reduce the impact of distractions and stay focused on what truly matters.
Moreover, practicing self-discipline is essential for building resilience to digital distractions (Newport, 2019). This includes implementing strategies such as time blocking, where specific periods are dedicated to focused work without interruptions from digital devices. Additionally, developing the habit of regularly disconnecting from technology and engaging in offline activities can help strengthen our ability to resist distractions and maintain productivity. By consistently applying these principles and techniques, individuals can enhance their digital resilience and regain control over their attention and time (Hari, 2018; Newport, 2019).
References:
Hari, J. (2018). Lost connections: Uncovering the real causes of depression – and the unexpected solutions. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Newport, C. (2019). Digital minimalism: Choosing a focused life in a noisy world. Portfolio.
I was fortunate to be in Uzbekistan a few years ago for a teaching assignment. As I took this photo by the campus where I was teaching, I realized how much time the photographer and I had to work to create this photo because of the several distractions.
In today’s fast-paced digital world, cultivating presence amid constant distractions is more challenging than ever (Hari, 2021; Newport, 2019). With smartphones constantly buzzing with notifications, social media feeds inundated with updates, and streaming services offering endless entertainment options, it’s easy to lose ourselves in the digital realm (Hari, 2018).
Practicing mindfulness in the age of digital distractions involves consciously setting aside time to unplug and engage in activities that promote presence, such as meditation, journaling, or spending time in nature (Newport, 2016). For example, individuals may designate “tech-free” zones in their homes or establish daily rituals that encourage mindful reflection, such as starting the day with a gratitude practice or ending it with a digital detox hour before bed.
Moreover, with the rise of remote work and virtual interactions, finding moments of presence amidst the constant barrage of emails, video meetings, and digital collaboration tools is essential for maintaining focus, productivity, and overall well-being (Newport, 2019). By prioritizing presence over digital distractions, individuals can cultivate a greater sense of clarity, purpose, and fulfillment in their lives.
In my career as an educator with global travel especially with my recent teaching at Uzbekistan, Central Asia. I’ve witnessed the profound changes that have driven shifts in leadership within organizations. These changes are grounded in a rich tapestry of experiences, academic research, and the insights of renowned experts like Simon Sinek and John Maxwell. Here are few key points behind the reasons for change in leadership:
Technological Advancements and Innovation: In this digital age, rapid technological advancements have necessitated a change in leadership. Longitudinal studies show that leaders who embrace innovation and understand the implications of emerging technologies tend to be more successful. As I’ve seen in countless organizations worldwide, those who fail to adapt and leverage technology risk obsolescence. A key takeaway from Simon Sinek is that leaders who start with “why” in their embrace of technology create a compelling vision that guides their teams through the digital transformation.
Globalization and Cultural Diversity: The world has become increasingly interconnected, with organizations spanning the globe. Leadership must now accommodate diverse cultures, languages, and traditions. Comparative analysis underscores that leaders who exhibit cultural competence and respect for differences are more effective in a globalized world. This often means learning to speak the language of empathy and understanding to build cohesive, multicultural teams.
Purpose-Driven Leadership: Inspired by Simon Sinek’s work, we’ve seen a significant shift toward purpose-driven leadership. Research has shown that leaders who connect their organizations to a higher purpose create a sense of meaning and motivation among their teams. This transformation in leadership highlights the importance of care and love for a mission that extends beyond profits, with a focus on contributing to society and making a positive impact.
Diversity and Inclusion: Research and comparative analysis have consistently demonstrated the value of diversity and inclusion in organizations. The most successful leaders have acknowledged the merits of diverse perspectives and experiences. Organizations that fail to cultivate a culture of diversity are at risk of stagnation. Leadership experts like Simon Sinek emphasize the significance of creating environments where all voices are heard and respected.
Resilience and Crisis Management: Longitudinal studies have illuminated the importance of resilience in leadership. In my experiences across different countries, it’s evident that leaders who can withstand crises and maintain their composure tend to navigate through tumultuous times more effectively. This resilience is tied to caring for the well-being of employees and demonstrating love for the mission. Leaders who demonstrate compassion and care during crises inspire their teams to persevere.
Servant Leadership: The timeless wisdom of leadership expert John Maxwell has underscored the value of servant leadership. This paradigm shift in leadership focuses on serving one’s team rather than being served by them. As I’ve witnessed in various nations, leaders who prioritize the well-being and growth of their team members foster more motivated and high-performing teams. It’s all about leading with care, love, and a willingness to help others succeed.
Ethical and Transparent Leadership: A consistent theme in the countries I’ve visited is the growing demand for ethical and transparent leadership. Ethical breaches and a lack of transparency have led to high-profile scandals. Leadership experts and research emphasize that leaders who prioritize integrity, accountability, and transparent decision-making build trust within their organizations. Trust is, after all, the foundation of effective leadership.
Work-Life Integration: In today’s fast-paced world, achieving a healthy work-life balance is a growing concern. Research shows that leaders who prioritize their own well-being and encourage it in their teams are more likely to achieve sustainable success. This transformation in leadership places care for the mental and emotional health of employees at the forefront.
In conclusion, the evolution of leadership is shaped by various factors, including technological advancements, cultural diversity, the search for purpose, the embrace of diversity and inclusion, the resilience to navigate crises, the practice of servant leadership, the insistence on ethics and transparency, and the focus on work-life integration. In this world of constant change, effective leaders demonstrate care and love not only for their mission but for the well-being of their teams. By integrating these principles into their leadership styles, they are better equipped to lead their organizations toward enduring success.
Have you ever pondered the underlying factors contributing to shifts in leadership structures within organizations?
In Simon Sinek’s book, “Start with WHY,” he asserts that true leaders do not necessarily possess all the brilliant ideas themselves; rather, they provide support and guidance to those eager to make contributions. Sinek’s work is replete with examples demonstrating that leaders inspire action when they begin by explaining the “why” behind their initiatives, rather than focusing solely on the “what.”
The concept of leadership has evolved over the years, carrying different connotations for different individuals and organizations. Often, the responses you receive regarding leadership will depend on the specific context or the entity being queried. In this discussion, the emphasis will be on what leadership can and should entail.
In “Canoeing the Mountains: Christian Leadership in Uncharted Territory” by Tod Bolsinger, a critical distinction is drawn between leadership and management. Fundamentally, leadership revolves around an organization’s fulfillment of its mission and the realization of its core purpose, which differs significantly from the role of management. Management concerns itself with maintaining existing commitments to stakeholders. Implicit in this distinction is the idea that leadership revolves around influence. Leadership is, fundamentally, about the capacity to inspire and shape outcomes—a concept that differs markedly from management.
I vividly recall my entrance into the Houston Baptist University campus during the spring of 2017 for a doctoral interview. Faced with a committee, I had to elucidate, through a PowerPoint presentation, the underlying reasons and “why” behind leadership. Equally crucial was making a compelling case for my admission to the institution. I candidly shared stories of my past failures, including my ill-fated venture into entrepreneurship in Sacramento, California. I emphasized that these failures, as well as my personal background, had not been allowed to define me. Instead, they had served as stepping stones to my present position. This juncture prompted a profound exploration of the “why” that ignited the flames within me—the driving force behind my aspirations. This exploration dives deeper into the core of any leadership shifts.
The gratifying news is that I was accepted into the program and ultimately graduated. Seven years later, as I assumed the roles of president within a nonprofit organization and later as a university dean, I recognized the recurring need for changes in leadership. Often, these changes raised questions about the underlying reasons.
According to Simon Sinek (2011), while most individuals and organizations can articulate what they do, very few can effectively communicate the “why”—the compelling rationale driving their actions or inactions. Leadership changes frequently prompt inquiries into the motivations behind such shifts. Some changes may possess clear justifications, while others may appear more compelling than others. However, when a leadership structure proves ineffective, a change becomes imperative. In this context, the words of Kirk Kirlin resonate: “When what you are doing isn’t working, there are two things you cannot do: (1) continue with the same approach, and (2) do nothing.”
A growing body of evidence underscores the significance of maintaining an attitude of curiosity, awareness, and attentiveness to navigate a world fraught with uncertainty. This curiosity serves as a foundation for fostering creativity when properly harnessed. In examining leadership changes from a behavioral perspective, it becomes evident that leadership is fundamentally expressed through behavior. Every living system necessitates an individual who can inhabit and lead the transformative process essential for survival. The person who assumes personal responsibility for inhabiting the transformative realm within the organization is recognized as the leader. As suggested by Ed Frieman (Bolsinger, 2018), the true leader in the system is the one who refrains from assigning blame. While leadership behavior is undeniably crucial, what holds the utmost importance is the “why” that guides and propels these behaviors. In times of conflict, leadership behavior must remain steadfast in adhering to the organization’s chosen path. What proves pivotal in leadership, as it remains resolute, is the capacity to learn through action and continuous reflection. John Dewey astutely observed that we do not learn solely from experience; rather, we learn by reflecting upon our experiences.
According to the interesting story told by Bennet, a man returned home one night to a dark house. He needed light and began to pray. “Oh great Electric Company, please give me light. All of my neighbors have light, and I know that it’s your will that I have light. Please give me light.” No light. The darkness continued.
Bennet went further to explain that the man made a decision to engage in a fast, and fasted in the dark for several hours. The issue was there was no light. The man got offended at the Electric Company. “Why does the Electric Company give light to others but not to me?” The man decided to visit a neighbor and share his frustration. The neighbor listened calmly and finally asked, “did you flip the light switch?” The man looked uncomfortable and replied, “I don’t believe in works. I believe the Electric Company should know I need light when I need it.” The neighbor replied, “flipping the switch is not work, it is a response to what is available. Your lights are waiting on you to flip the switch.”
The moral of the story highlights a cardinal point. Isn’t that how we sometimes engage in prayers on issues especially in areas we should take steps on. The best job has an application process. The best education requires some steps, so the earlier we engage and activate those steps which is an act of faith, the better we realize it.
So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God. For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. (Mk. 11:22-23)
Bennet’s post conclusively highlights the beauty which is that our faith-filled words are the switch that releases God’s provision in our life. It’s time to stop complaining and start activating God’s grace. If the question is asked, Can there be light? The answer would be, Yes, just put on the switch.
In the word of God, there was no account of sickness until after the fall of Man in Genesis. However, reading the Bible we noticed in Matthew 14:14 : “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.”
Barry Bennet would make it clear in his teaching that “God does not afflict His children with sickness. If a natural father were to do such a thing he would be arrested for child abuse and thrown in jail. For some reason, there are those who think that God makes His children sick or allows them to be sick and it should be called a blessing. No.”
God’s will and God’s heart can be seen in Jesus who healed all who came to Him. There is no account of Jesus ever making someone sick in the New Testament “for His glory.” There is no account of Jesus ever leaving someone sick to teach them something. There is no account of Jesus ever refusing to heal someone who came to Him. Jesus came to destroy the works of the enemy (1 Jn. 3:8) and went about healing all who were oppressed of the devil for God was with Him (Acts 10:38).
Jesus never received glory from sickness, only from healing. Every sickness is an opportunity for healing to bring glory to God.
God does not need sickness to perfect His children. He placed all sickness on Jesus. It would be unjust for Him to place it on you. God perfects us through His Word and the Spirit. If sickness and loss are your teachers, you’re in the wrong kingdom! He no more uses sickness to perfect us than He would use sin. He went to the cross to deliver us from both sin and sickness. Culled from Barry Bennet’s work.
Bless the Lord, O my soul, And forget not all His benefits: Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases. (Psalm 103:2-3)
Barry Bennet on his post raised a profound question that captures what most people have been thinking. He asked; “Did God Allow It?”
According to Barry Bennett, “the predominant theology of Christians today, when faced with life-changing circumstances, is that “God allowed it.” After all, “God is in control” and “in everything, there is a purpose.” Sadly, none of this is accurate and has left the Body of Christ paralyzed, misrepresenting God to others, and cooperating with the work of the enemy.”
He further pointed out that today we are hearing that God “allowed” a virus to attack the world for some mysterious reason. Some say that the virus is meant to bring men to repentance. This begs the question, why does it say that Jesus sent the church into the world with the Good News? Why doesn’t it say that He sent viruses into the world?
Let’s look at the word “allow.” “Give (someone) permission to do something.” When some say that God allowed the virus, they are saying that God gave permission for the virus to do its damage by killing thousands around the world. God has become the perpetrator or an accessory to mass killing. If a man was behind the genocide of tens of thousands, he would be considered a criminal worthy of imprisonment or death. But if its God, it’s OK.
Is God “allowing” (giving permission) to abortion, sex trafficking, cancer, slavery, hurricanes, child abuse, and every other horrible thing that we see in the earth? No.
Go back to the Garden of Eden. God “allowed” Adam and Eve to eat of every tree of the Garden. He did NOT allow them to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He forbade them from eating from that tree. That tree was the revealer of man’s heart. Man chose the words of a serpent over the instructions of God. God didn’t allow evil in the earth. Adam did. God had given the earth to man and had to honor man’s choices. Evil is not from God. Evil came from Adam who chose to be independent of God.
God has not allowed abortion, sex trafficking, cancer, slavery, hurricanes, child abuse, and every other horrible thing. In fact, He sent Jesus to redeem us from evil and equip us to overcome it. What God has allowed is for us to be born again, carry His Name, be filled with His Spirit, walk-in His covenant, use His promises, His gifts, and the keys to His Kingdom. We have His authority. We can bring healing to the sick, freedom to the oppressed, peace to the storms of life, and we can share a message of life from the dead. God has given us His permission.
The evil in the earth is not His will. He is not using it for His glory. He wants to use His children for His glory, but most are attributing evil to Him and slandering His Name.
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. (James 1:17). Culled from Barry Bennet.
Researchers have argued that globalization is one of the reasons the current pandemic has spread so fast. Globalization compresses the time and space aspect of social relations. Globalization, according to experts, involves the intensification and acceleration of social exchanges and activities. The internet relays distant information in mere seconds, and satellites provide consumers with real-time pictures of remote events (Steger, 2003). The intensification of worldwide social relations means that local happenings are shaped by events occurring far away, and vice versa. The big questions most people seem to ask is where and how does God come into play in all of these. Is it not through the hand of God that all of these intensifications are designed?
The plans of God have always been consistent for humans in the face of the latest technology. Even in an intensified world that has altered human relations, we may be able to provide a physical explanation of the spread of the virus. One thing we should have in mind is that God is a good God. In John 10:11 we read: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd would die so that he can save his sheep.”
God’s plan for our lives is never to send sickness and diseases to afflict his children. In Ex. 15:26. For I am the Lord that healeth thee. His plans are to heal and not afflict his children. His nature is to provide wellbeing for his people.
Most people that claim that God is behind this plague because of the lessons they learn from it seem very divided when the argument gets push further, arguments like shouldn’t you want to contact COVID-19 to learn a lesson? The answer is usually “NO.”
At these challenging times, I want you to understand that God’s plan is to heal and not to destroy. He is a good God. The being behind this destruction is the devil. Psalm 103:3 states this about God “he healeth all thy diseases.”
Several questions have emerged in the last few days over the coronavirus. Some have hastily argued that Covid-19 was designed to teach Americans humility. Others hold a different opinion that suggests the virus came from God.
Before we jump into any hasty conclusion, it will be pertinent to examine the character of a good God. Just because plagues and viruses are predicted in Scripture does not mean they are from God, nor does it mean we are in the last days of the last days. Jesus called such things “the beginning of sorrows.”
According to Bennet, God is telling us to go into the world to preach the Goodnews. He is not trying to kill everyone before we get there. Most importantly, the heart of God for humanity has not changed. Consider the following: The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill and to destroy. I have come that they may have life and that they may have it more abundantly (John 10:10).
Again, from the character of God, we can tell, that he judges no one….(John 5:22). He was in Christ deeply involved in the ministry of reconciliation, he is reconciling the world to HIMSELF, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19). God is not using the disease to teach us a lesson as some promote.
A virus is not the work of God. There is a devil at work, he has some destruction works, those works are worthy of destruction, and Jesus came to destroy them.
You see, changes, and even deaths, are simply endings, which are all a necessary part of living. And all endings are necessary for beauty, too—otherwise it’s impossible to appreciate someone or something, because they are unlimited. Limits illuminate beauty—they are reminders that we need to be aware of this beautiful person or situation, and appreciate this beautiful thing called life. Every ending is also a beginning, because while we have lost someone or something special, this ending, like every loss, is a moment of reinvention. Although heartbreaking, it forces us to reinvent our lives, and in this reinvention is an opportunity to experience beauty in new, unseen ways and places. And, of course, every ending is an opportunity to celebrate the beautiful, ever-changing journey we’re on, and to be grateful for what it has showed us and taught us along the way.
Getting to this point of understanding—changing your thinking—again, is far from easy. But it’s honestly worth every bit of effort you can muster.
We all need a healthy reminder like this sometimes—that if we want to be happier, we need to do the hard things, to face the unexpected losses and painful life changes that we’re going to encounter no matter how much we try to avoid them. We need a reminder to face down our pain and negative thinking and leverage it to take the next step. And, sometimes, we just need a reminder that we’re not done yet—that today is worth fighting for.
You may not be responsible for everything that happened to you in the past, or everything that’s happening to you right now, but you need to be responsible for standing strong and undoing the thinking patterns these circumstances create.
Evans Akpo 