Chapter 24 – Directing – Plans are Not Enough, You Have to Build It

Directing – Plans are Not Enough, You Have to Build It

From Planning to Implementation

How many people have dreamed of building a house, designing a car, or constructing a boat? Countless millions throughout history have conceived grand plans, yet far fewer have translated those visions into reality. Planning is relatively easy – anyone can envision success, wealth, or achievement. The critical differentiator is turning plans into action through directed effort.

The biblical account of Noah’s ark represents one of history’s most ambitious construction projects: building a massive vessel according to divine specifications to preserve life through a global catastrophe. Noah’s story provides profound insights into the management function of directing – the process of guiding plans from conception to completion through leadership, motivation, and sustained action.

The Challenge: Building According to Specification

The biblical narrative establishes both Noah’s character and the scope of his challenge:

“In his generation, Noach was a man righteous and wholehearted; Noach walked with God… The earth was corrupt before God, the earth was filled with violence… This is what Noach did; he did all that God ordered him to do.” (Genesis 6:9-12, 22)

Noah received detailed construction specifications for a massive vessel:

• Specific dimensions (300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 30 cubits high)
• Materials requirements (gopher wood)
• Structural details (rooms, three levels, a window)
• Waterproofing methods (pitch inside and out)

The directive was clear but daunting – especially for someone with no apparent shipbuilding experience. The project timeline was extraordinary, spanning approximately 100 years (Noah was 500 when first mentioned and 600 when the flood began). This long-term construction project required unprecedented persistence, faith, and directed effort.

Perfect Execution Through Directed Faith

The biblical text repeatedly emphasizes Noah’s complete compliance with his instructions:

“This is what Noach did; he did all that God ordered him to do.” (Genesis 6:22)

“Noach did everything according to what ADONAI had commanded him.” (Genesis 7:5)

Unlike Adam, who disobeyed his first divine instruction, Noah demonstrated perfect implementation of an extraordinarily difficult directive. This compliance wasn’t passive following but active doing – translating complex plans into physical reality through directed effort over decades.

Noah’s directed faith is particularly remarkable considering the project’s scope and the absence of apparent oversight. While he received initial detailed instructions, the text doesn’t describe ongoing guidance during the century-long construction period. Noah apparently worked largely without supervision, direction, or reinforcement for decades – a testament to his internal motivation and commitment to the project.

Management Applications: Self-Direction and Persistence

Noah’s example provides several key lessons for effective directing:

1. Clarity of Purpose Drives Execution

Noah received clear, specific instructions that left little room for confusion. Similarly, effective directing requires unambiguous communication about:

• Desired outcomes (what success looks like)
• Specifications and standards (how work should be performed)
• Timelines and milestones (when components should be completed)
• Resources and constraints (what is available for the work)

Managers who provide this clarity empower their teams to work independently toward well-defined objectives.

2. Faith Bridges the Knowledge Gap

Noah faced an implementation challenge far beyond his apparent expertise. The text doesn’t suggest he had shipbuilding experience, yet he proceeded confidently despite the knowledge gap. This exemplifies how directed faith – believing a goal is achievable despite lacking complete knowledge of how to achieve it – drives implementation when plans stretch beyond current capabilities.

Modern managers similarly need to help teams bridge the gap between current knowledge and ambitious goals through:

• Breaking complex projects into manageable components
• Providing learning opportunities to build necessary skills
• Demonstrating confidence in team capabilities
• Focusing on the next step rather than being overwhelmed by the entire journey

3. Persistence Overcomes Timeline Challenges

Noah’s century-long project represents an extreme example of the persistence required for major initiatives. While few modern projects span decades, many significant endeavors require sustained direction over extended periods. Effective directing maintains momentum through:

• Establishing intermediate milestones to measure progress
• Celebrating small victories along the implementation path
• Reinforcing the connection between daily tasks and ultimate purpose
• Adapting leadership approaches as the project and team evolve

4. Autonomy Builds Implementation Capacity

The absence of micromanagement in Noah’s story suggests the value of autonomy in implementation. While he received detailed initial instructions, Noah apparently operated with significant independence during the construction process. This autonomy likely developed his problem-solving capabilities and ownership of the project.

Modern directing similarly balances guidance with independence by:

• Providing clear parameters and boundaries
• Allowing implementers to determine how to achieve objectives within those boundaries
• Remaining available for consultation without constant intervention
• Building decision-making capabilities at all organizational levels

The Missing Element: Purpose Beyond Self-Preservation

While Noah perfectly executed his directive to build the ark, commentators have noted a significant limitation in his implementation approach. Despite having approximately 100 years of public construction that could have served as a platform for warning and potentially saving others, the text contains no mention of Noah attempting to influence his generation’s behavior.

This contrasts sharply with Abraham, who actively interceded for the people of Sodom despite having no personal connection to them beyond his nephew Lot. Similarly, Moses repeatedly rejected opportunities to preserve himself at the expense of the Israelites, choosing instead to advocate for his people even when given divine permission to abandon them.

Noah’s apparent focus on self-preservation rather than broader redemption suggests an important management principle: implementation is most powerful when directed toward purpose beyond self-interest. While Noah saved the minimum necessary (his family and required animals), he missed the opportunity to direct his efforts toward maximum impact.

Effective directing connects implementation to purpose that transcends self-interest or mere organizational survival. Managers should:

• Frame implementation in terms of its broader impact
• Highlight how directed efforts benefit others beyond the immediate team
• Create opportunities for team members to see the human impact of their work
• Balance task accomplishment with relationship building and stakeholder engagement

The Relationship Foundation of Effective Directing

The Noah narrative begins with a relationship foundation: “Noah found grace in the Lord’s eyes” (Genesis 6:8). This relationship created the context for the subsequent directive. The direct, personal nature of the communication—”The Lord said to Noah” (Genesis 6:13)—established clear expectations without intermediaries or ambiguity.

This personal communication allowed the directive to be tailored to Noah’s motivational profile. The instruction “Make yourself an ark” (Genesis 6:14) framed the project in terms of personal preservation, which apparently aligned with Noah’s primary motivations. This personalization explains how Noah maintained implementation momentum for a century despite the project’s extraordinary demands.

Effective directing builds on relationship foundations by:

• Establishing genuine connection before attempting to direct implementation
• Tailoring directives to align with individual motivational profiles
• Communicating directly and clearly rather than through layers of interpretation
• Demonstrating understanding of what matters to the implementer

The Declining Relationship Over Time

The biblical text suggests a relationship evolution throughout the Noah narrative. Initially described as “righteous and wholehearted” who “walked with God” (Genesis 6:9), Noah is later characterized as an “ish ha’adamah” (man of the earth) after planting a vineyard and becoming intoxicated (Genesis 9:20-21).

This shift mirrors a common pattern in directed implementation—the relationship between director and implementer often evolves over the project lifecycle:

1. Initial enthusiasm – High energy and alignment at project inception
2. Implementation challenges – Stresses emerging during the work
3. Completion transition – Relationship recalibration as the project concludes
4. Post-project dynamics – New patterns emerging after the directed work

Noah’s post-flood behavior might reflect several possible dynamics:

• Post-traumatic stress following the catastrophic experience
• Relief-driven celebration after project completion
• Character revealing itself when the pressure of external direction eased
• Directionlessness after completing his lifelong assignment

Managers should anticipate and address relationship evolution throughout the implementation lifecycle by:

• Maintaining connection during implementation, not just at kickoff
• Providing support during challenging implementation phases
• Planning for the psychological transition at project completion
• Helping team members find new purpose after major deliverables

Skill Development Through Directed Implementation

Noah was directed to build something far beyond his apparent expertise. The text gives no indication that he had prior shipbuilding experience, suggesting he developed necessary skills through the implementation process itself.

This skill development through directed action illustrates an important management principle: implementation often teaches what planning cannot. Noah likely learned woodworking, structural engineering, waterproofing techniques, and project management through the building process itself rather than having these skills beforehand.

Effective directing can facilitate skill development by:

• Pushing implementers slightly beyond their current capabilities
• Providing enough guidance to prevent failure but enough challenge to foster growth
• Using project implementation as deliberate skills development
• Valuing passion and commitment over pre-existing technical skills that can be developed

Team Involvement and Delegation

The text raises intriguing questions about Noah’s sons and their involvement in the project. While they ultimately entered the ark, the narrative doesn’t specify their role in its construction. This ambiguity highlights the importance of team involvement and delegation in directed implementation.

Noah potentially missed an opportunity to strengthen relationships with his sons through collaborative work on a shared purpose. After leaving the ark, the brothers largely separated – Shem became a teacher while Ham and Japheth developed separate cultural lineages. This suggests that directed implementation can either build or diminish team cohesion depending on how involvement is structured.

Thus, effective directing should:

• Involve team members meaningfully in implementation, not just as passive followers
• Use shared implementation experiences to build team cohesion
• Delegate appropriately to develop capabilities in others
• Maintain effective teams after successful implementation rather than automatically disbanding them

Control Through Relationship Rather Than Authority

The flood narrative concludes with an interesting shift in the relationship between humans and animals. Initially, humans were given “dominion” over animals (Genesis 1:26), but post-flood, this changes to “the fear and dread of you shall be upon every beast” (Genesis 9:2).

This shift from cooperative dominion to a fear-based relationship illustrates an important directing principle: control through authority alone creates dysfunctional relationships. When trust breaks down (as it did with humanity’s corruption before the flood), relationships shift from cooperation to fear and avoidance.

Effective directing builds cooperation through relationship rather than control through authority by:

• Developing mutual trust rather than relying solely on position power
• Creating environments where cooperation emerges naturally
• Avoiding fear-based compliance that damages long-term relationships
• Building genuine commitment to shared purpose rather than enforcing mere compliance

Deliverables

• Provide crystal-clear specifications – Ensure implementers understand exactly what needs to be accomplished and how success will be measured.
• Balance guidance with autonomy – Give clear direction without micromanaging; allow space for implementation creativity within defined parameters.
• Connect implementation to meaningful purpose – Help implementers see how their work serves something greater than themselves or mere organizational survival.
• Build relationships before directing – Establish genuine connection as the foundation for effective direction rather than relying solely on positional authority.
• Anticipate relationship evolution – Plan for changing dynamics throughout the implementation lifecycle, from initial enthusiasm through completion and transition.
• Use implementation as skill development – Select for passion and potential rather than complete pre-existing skills; use directed work to build capabilities.
• Involve team members meaningfully – Create collaborative implementation experiences that build cohesion rather than reinforcing isolation.

Discussion Questions

1. Have you ever undertaken a task, but were unable to complete it? What went wrong? How would you proceed in the future when faced with the same or similar task?
2. How do you view Noah? Was he a great manager or was he a weak person?
3. Why do you think the generations right after Noah faltered so quickly? Can this failure reflect back on Noah?
4. How does your organization balance providing clear direction with allowing implementation autonomy? Which approach tends to produce better results?
5. When have you seen implementation focus shift from broader purpose to mere self-preservation? What impact did this have on the organization and its stakeholders?
6. How does your personal leadership style change throughout the implementation lifecycle – from project initiation through completion? What might you adjust based on Noah’s example?