Another thought that's connected to this is continuity. Is it worth giving up someone who is less skilled but familiar and productive, for a more highly skilled, but less productive and less aligned leader? Most people, including myself, are attracted to skill, but the time and energy it would take to align and develop this person to be as productive as the person I already have may be extremely risky.
Here's a quote from marketing guru Seth Godin that speaks a little to this idea:
"What if you fired half of your workforce? Give the very best people a 50 percent raise and help the rest find jobs in which they can really thrive. Unless you produce a commodity like oil or billiard balls, it's not clear that selling more and more to an even larger audience is the best way to reach the success you seek. When your overhead plummets, the pressure to take on the wrong jobs with the wrong staff disappears. You're free to pick the projects that make you happy."
If we were to allow our overhead (staff labor) to plummet, I wonder if we would not only be more selective and fruitful with our time, but also exponentially increase our productivity.
Our current Campus Ministry strategy revolves around quantity. Our National team has asked for 100 staff dedicated to our ethnic student ministries by next year. What about 20 highly aligned, highly productive, and highly unified team to take on NY & LA. I wonder if this fantasy team of 20 competed with the team of 100, who would in the end achieve the bottom line goal--more lost students turned into Christ-centered laborers.
Which team do you think would win? I'm very curious!