The whiplash effect of leaders who easily change their minds and strategies

 

One of the most difficult challenges many staff teams face is a leader who has new ideas on a frequent basis. Those new ideas can set off a chain of changes that reverberate through the staff and organization as there is a scramble to implement the newest version of the leader's vision or strategy.

Any change that comes from the top impacts the organization. And changes are absolutely necessary from time to time. 

The challenge comes when a leader frequently tries new ideas as they seek the holy grail of organizational success without understanding the disorienting nature of what they think are simple (and brilliant) ideas. 

For the leader, the new solution seems obvious and simple. For staff, the new solution often creates frustration as their prior efforts to implement the last great idea are now supplanted by the need to scrap that work and work on a new strategy. This can create cynicism among staff who scramble to keep up with the latest strategy. Sometimes those new ideas are called the "flavor of the month" as staff knows there will be a new idea soon.

Resisting this temptation is part of the maturity growth of a leader.

This is not about resisting change. It is about being wise and managing change properly. How one does change management matters because many are impacted. Frequent changes indicate that the leader himself/herself is not clear as to where they are going. Lack of clarity in the mind of a leader is problematic!

A leader who frequently changes their mind or strategies often has not done the hard work of clarifying the organization's direction. Clarity of the organization's identity and what they are about must always precede strategies. When strategies come without organizational clarity, you simply get chaos as leaders throw ideas at the wall to see what may or may not stick. 

Wise leaders are clear on who the organization is and where it is going. In addition, they vet any proposed changes with other leaders to ensure that they have considered the unintended consequences of their decisions. And, they talk candidly with those who will be affected by the new direction so that staff is not taken by surprise. 

In my leadership history, I have waited up to a year to make a proposed change until I knew I had the support and understanding of the leadership team. I learned that I could not make unilateral changes but needed the wisdom and support of those around me to negotiate change successfully. That helped ensure I didn't act precipitously and create organizational whiplash. The counsel of others kept me from making changes too quickly, but I had to learn to work with my senior team rather than make unilateral decisions.

Clarity and care in the change process are part of a leader's maturity growth. Guided change based on clear objectives can keep leaders from creating whiplash with their staff. 

responses to change

 Many are familiar with the bell curve that describes how people respond to change: innovators; early adapters; middle adapters; late adopters, and laggards. In my experience in the change process, I have another set of suggested categories to watch for. Where individuals are on this continuum from change resistors to evangelists for change makes a great difference when you are considering them for leadership positions either on staff or a board.

Resisters. Like the laggards on the bell curve, these are people who will actively resist change because they are simply wired that way. This is the individual who told me, "T.J., you can bring whatever change you want to the organization but don't expect me to do anything different." No rationale is going to change the mind of a resister. This does not mean they are bad people. It does mean that they don't do change, and you cannot have them in a place of leadership - ever!

Protectors. The protector is also highly resistant to change but for another reason. They believe in the status quo, the way things have been done in the past, and they will actively try to protect "what is" rather than embrace "what could be." This was the individual who told me and many others that the changes I was bringing to the organization I was leading at the time that I was destroying the organization. 

Cynics. This group is simply cynical about change unless the proposed change is their idea. They tend to view change as "the flavor of the month" and are often vocal about their opinion. Cynics generally don't trust leaders, so proposals brought by leaders are quickly discounted.

Loyal followers. These individuals have a deep commitment to the organization and team. They accept change if there is a good rationale for it. These staff say, "Just tell me which direction we are going, and I will go with you." 

Idealists. This is an interesting group with an upside and a downside regarding change. When creating change, one inevitably creates a gap between what is and what should be. Idealists are highly impatient to get to what should be and believe we should be there now. On the upside, they want the change. On the downside, they can become highly critical that we have not arrived. Thus on any given day, they can be either an ally or a critic.

Realists. This group is supportive of change, realizes that it will take time and process, and is generally comfortable with that process. They are helpful in realistically figuring out how to get there and can live with the tension of what is and what should be.

Change agents. These individuals not only support proposed changes but will be active agents in helping the organization get there. They are your front lines in speaking a new language, setting a new course, and helping redesign philosophy and strategy.

Evangelists. These are the champions of change who publicly and privately live the change out, help others understand and get there and advocate for the new direction.

In my experience, it is the realists, change agents, and evangelists who will help drive change, while the resisters, protectors, and cynics will actively undermine change. Loyal followers and idealists will go with you but will not drive change. 

Think about the implications of these eight ways that people respond to change regarding who you hire, who you put into leadership, and who you ask to serve on a board. One church leader, after hearing these descriptions, aptly commented, "no wonder so many boards are stuck." He is right. Resisters, protectors, and cynics must be managed but beware of allowing them into leadership positions and influence! 

Further, when you are considering someone for a leadership position, it will be the realists, change agents, and evangelists who will help you get to where you need to go. Don't put someone in leadership who will not actively help you move forward and who is not change-friendly.

Moving your language from "That is not how we've done it" to "How do we want to do it today?"

 

Language makes a big difference. Think of the number of times you have heard the comment, "that is not how we've done it." Maybe you have said it yourself. Whenever these words are spoken, it is an indication that you are living in the past. And that we are held captive by our past way of doing something.

It is a trap and a bad one. There is an adage that is very true. "If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." This is the reason that so many strategies keep yielding the same or diminishing results even as the world around us has changed. But our language of "how we've done it in the past." keeps us from looking at new ways and possibilities.

Language sets an organization's culture. It also reveals an individual's bias and where they have locked themselves into a particular paradigm. Leaders should speak a different language and move the conversation from "That is how we've always done it to "How do we want to do it today?"

Think about it. How we have done anything in the past is irrelevant in the present if there is a new and better way of moving forward. You might ask the question and still decide to follow what you have done in the past, but at least the question has been asked. More likely, if you ask the question, "How do we want to do it today?" we will come up with a new answer because times have changed, the needs have changed, the environment has changed, or there is simply a better way of doing what needs to be done.

When I am working with churches to refresh their governance and bylaws, for instance, there is often pushback because it is not the way we have operated in the past. So my question to the group is this. What would it look like if you were designing your governance paradigm today? That changes the conversation from what we have done in the past to what we want to do today. And usually, the answer is very different.

If you lead, think about the language you hear around you and the language you use. You can literally change the conversation if you choose a different language. 

Flexibility is an ability

 

There was a day when the ability to do one thing and do it well was a valuable asset. That day is gone. In fact, we are seeing the rise of the "generalist" in the workplace and ministry who is able to do multiple things rather than simply one thing. The reason for this new found appreciation for the generalist is that the pace of change is so fast today that it is necessary to pivot regularly and that takes the ability to do multiple things and have the ability to change strategies in order to accomplish one's mission.

The generalist often has a skill that others don't have: flexibility. This is the ability to shift one's focus, strategy or tactics easily to meet new demands and a changing environment. We have watched the need for flexibility take on new meaning in the age of Covid. All of us know people who were flexible in meeting this new environment and others who struggled in a big way. Flexibility is an ability and an increasingly important ability.

How do we develop the ability of flexibility? It largely comes down to how we view the world, our world and ourselves.

First, we need to consciously understand that our world is not static but constantly changing. If we see the world as static, we find security in that unchanging environment and we will resist the inevitable changes in our environment leaving us ineffective. A mindset that expects change and embraces that change is critical to developing flexibility. 

Second, we need to view work as a place of change rather than a place of stability. The mission of an organization may remain the same but tactics and strategies will change regularly, testing our own flexibility and ability to pivot and try new things. Increasingly, risk taking and an entrepreneurial spirits are necessary to meet our changing environments. If we regularly expect change and embrace it, flexibility will come. If we don't expect or want change, we will atrophy.

Third, we need to develop a mindset that sees our organization's ministry as stable but the things we do to accomplish that mission as changeable. Thus, a large part of my effectiveness is found in my flexibility to change roles and tactics to meet that mission. To put it another way,  rather than focusing simply on expertise at what I do, I need to focus on my ability of flexibility. It is going to be those who are flexible who will be the most valuable players in the future.

Can flexibility be learned and developed? I believe the answer is yes. And, it starts in how we think about our skills and our work. Leaders who train and teach the art of flexibility have an advantage over those who don't because flexibility is an ability that is and will be in high demand in rapidly changing environments. It is a worthwhile thing to think through each of your key staff and ask the question as to how flexible they are and how you can intentionally develop this ability.

The enemy of innovation is inertia

 

In a changing world, innovation (reexamining our practices for a changing environment) is a necessity for a healthy organization. When we live with what was rather than adapting to what is, we quickly lose our edge and ability to respond in an environment that has changed. Many organizations and ministries are in that very spot because of the changes brought by Covid 19.

This stagnation affects even very smart people because we tend to think as we always have. Jonah Berger, author of The Catalyst puts it this way: "Rather than thinking about which candidate represents their values, voters tend to pick whoever represents the party they voted for in the past. Rather than starting fresh and thinking about which projects deserve attention, companies take last year's budget and use that as a starting point. Rather than rebalancing financial portfolios, investors tend to look at how they've been investing and stay the course. Inertia explains why families go back to the same vacation spot every year and why organizations are wary of starting new initiatives but loath to kill off old ones." (The Catalyst, page 5).

Inertia is a comfortable place to be because we know it well. Innovation means that we need to think differently and look for new solutions and ways of doing things. It is an uncomfortable but necessary place to explore and live. 

Covid has forced organizations to think differently. REI is selling its massive corporate campus in Seattle because they now realize that they can do without it. Instead, many will work from home or from small hubs. I suspect there will soon be a great deal of empty office space in our cities. The need to use tools like zoom has taught us that there is not always a need to travel in person to meet others. Parents are having to become teachers like in days past as schools open part time if at all.

Organizations that will flourish in the future will have leaders who question everything: Their current practices, assumptions, financial models, and priorities in order to meet needs of constituents in a changing environment. It is the choice between innovation and inertia.

Good leaders ask good questions:

• Why do we do it that way?
• Is there a different and better way?
• What should we stop doing?
• What should we start doing?
• How do the changes around us impact our priorities?
• Does our budget reflect our true priorities?
• If we were organizing today, how would we do it?
• Do we need to organize as if we were starting over?
• How are others addressing problems we address?
• Can we do more with less staff?
• Are we clear today on what our mission is?
• What staff have lost their edge and are living in inertia?
• What programs need to be killed?
• Do I have the time to reflect on my organization rather than just doing what we have always done?

Ask yourself the question. Is your organization, church, non-profit living more in the world of inertia or regular innovation? Remember always that the enemy of innovation is inertia.

Pivots are the new normal: Get used to it!

For those of us who like stability and that includes most, life has thrown us all a curve ball with the uncertainty of Covid 19 and what the future is going to look like. There are colleges, universities and seminaries on the brink, non-profits trying to figure out how to survive, churches scrambling to understand how to do ministry in this environment and, at the moment, Covid statistics going the wrong way. This is resulting in sometimes massive layoffs and major companies that have been with us for years on the edge of existence.

As one who leads and interacts and consults with other leaders, there is a very common word being used today: Pivot. 

A pivot usually occurs when a company make a fundamental change to their business after determining (usually through market research) that their product isn't meeting the needs of their intended market.

In prior times these might happen rarely. Today they are happening sometimes weekly with organizations that are trying to come to terms with today's environment. Those organizations, leaders and staff who are change resistant are often going to find themselves out of a job in this new and challenging time. We are sailing through uncharted waters that will demand the best of our thinking, skill and ability to change quickly (pivot) to new information or strategies. 

Those organizations who think things will return to normal and are just waiting for that time are in for a rude awakening. If you work for an organization like that, brush off your resume. You will probably need it.

This is what leaders, staff and organizations need to recognize: Pivots are the new normal. Your mission may not change. The service you provide may not change but the way your do what you do, your methodology and tactics will change. If not, your customers or stakeholders will likely change (and not to your benefit) because the world is uncertain, unstable and changing each day. 

Pivots are the new normal. Get used to it, embrace it and figure out what pivots you need to make as an organization. Those staff who cannot respond quickly to pivots need to understand the new reality.

Many staff members are those waiting for the past to return, for what we have known to come back. They need to understand that the world they have occupied will not return unchanged in significant ways. They need to be coached in how to respond quickly to changes in strategy and plans even though they may be change adverse. Unfortunately, those who cannot adjust will find their positions in jeopardy. 

If you are a leader, it is just as critical for you to realize that pivots are the new normal. As the Bible says in a different context, the old has gone and the new has come. Don't be caught unaware. Get ahead of the curve and try some bold moves. The status quo is history. 

One critical issue for new leaders: The speed of change is directly related to the speed of trust

Coming into an organization as a new leader is an event that will test the ability of even the best leader to manage the transition well. This is because change is an inevitable part of the process. Each leader has unique gifts and skills and they are hired because their gifts match the organizations needs at that time. So change is a given. Yet, that very change although needed, and even endorsed by those who hired the leader can be a difficult process. There are three reasons for this. 

One. Regardless of your resume or accomplishments which may bring great hope to the organization, you as an individual do not yet have the trust of the staff. This is even more important if the previous leader had violated trust with the staff as you may be seen through their lens.

Two. You are coming with a vision for the future but there is often a DNA and a culture that will stand in your way until it is changed - if it needs to be changed. In other words, if culture needs to shift, that is perhaps your most important work because culture trumps everything (even the best leadership), Until you have a culture that will allow you to move forward without a drag on the organization, many of your efforts will prove futile.

Three. In most organizations you have two primary staff constituencies: those who represent the past and will cling to the ideals of the past and those who represent the future and want to move forward. How one deals with this will vary but a new leader needs to recognize that both groups exist and until there is alignment, some things will have to wait.

The key to navigating these three realities is to build as much trust with staff as quickly as possible. Trust is the most important coinage a new leader has so developing that bond of trust is the most important and pressing job. 

Trust comes before most actions although taking some actions can actually build needed trust.  This will be counter-intuitive for many leaders because leadership is all about action. New leaders come in with a vision and an outside perspective that allows them to see what others don't see and they are ready to move! What they don't understand is that those they lead can either make their life easier or harder depending on the degree of trust that exists. Trust can be built quickly if you have a strategy for doing so.

Here are proven ways to get to where we desire to go.

First: Honor the past but build for the future. Too many leaders act as if nothing done before their arrival has any significance, forgetting that the present staff was all part of the past to one degree or another. It is not necessary to criticize the past if one has a vision for the future.  Honoring the past while you build for the future does not disenfranchise staff who were part of the past.

Second: Listen - a lot. Trust happens when individuals feel that their story and opinion counts. A new leader usually comes into their position with a well formed direction they intend to lead the organization. This a time to listen before revealing all that is on their mind. There is a large upside to this. In listening carefully to key staff, one can also make judgments as to whether they will fit in your preferred future. Listening builds trust in a significant way.

Third: Ask a lot of questions rather than making statements. Dialogue trumps telling every time and dialogue is nurtured by good questions. The answers to your questions also tell you a great deal about the thinking ability of staff, the vision and dreams that they have and the thoughtful nature of their responses. 

I have realized on a number of occasions that if I had not taken the time to get to know staff I would have made poor decisions. I would have let people go I actually needed and I would have kept those who did not actually fit. Our first impressions may not be accurate and until there is dialogue one will not know.

As you listen, you are making judgments regarding people and strategies. Where there are things you strongly disagree with, keep your own counsel or speak only to those who can help you make necessary changes. Careless words to others will cost one needed trust. 

Fourth, affirm everything and everybody that you can. You may not be able to affirm everything but you can affirm some things. The same is true with people. And remember, if there is a significant need for organizational change, it is because of a prior leader who allowed the organization to atrophy. There are staff who probably knew what was happening but their hands were tied. Don't blame them for what they were not responsible for. Be generous with your praise even if you intend to change many things. Criticism elicits no coinage. Affirm what you can and where you cannot, be light on criticism.

Fifth: be gracious even with those who won't be with you in the future. Graciousness costs you nothing. It is easy to be critical but the best leaders practice graciousness even when making needed changes. This means that we watch our words, our criticisms and our attitudes. 

Sixth: Share your vision for the future but cast it in "wet cement" so that staff can dialogue with you on that vision. In order for your vision to become a shared vision you need to engage people in significant dialogue. One cannot just pronounce vision. And a new leader's vision will not prevail anytime soon unless he/she can bring staff along with them. Find multiple ways and venues to share a new vision for the future and engage in dialogue. Again, listen carefully. Staff may know things you don't know and will either be able to help you or hinder you.

Seventh: As new leaders we come in with our plans but we need to realize that an organization can change only as fast as people can react to the speed of change. The speed of change is directly connected to the speed of trust. The higher the trust level of staff the faster the change. The lower the level of trust the slower the change. What this means is that the speed of change we are proposing is only possible if we are paying equal attention to the speed of trust. 

I have watched new leaders this transition because they believe that leadership is simply making the right calls. They made what they thought were the right calls but didn't listen to the wisdom of others, nor did they develop the level of trust they needed to bring staff with them. Eventually staff rebelled or constituents pushed back and it was over - especially true in nonprofits and churches.

Remember the speed of change is directly related to the speed of trust. Change always requires trust if you desire to being people with you.

So what is the most important job of a new leader who desires to bring change to an organization? It is the building of trust because trust is the coinage that allows them to lead in new directions and in new ways. The faster that trust can be developed, the faster the change can be implimented.

8 responses to change: Understanding who will help you and who will hurt you

Many are familiar with the bell curve that describes how people respond to change: innovators, early adapters, middle adapters, late adapters, and laggards. In my experience in the change process, I have another set of suggested categories to watch for. Where individuals are on this continuum from change resistors to evangelists for change makes a significant difference when considering them for either staff or board leadership positions.

Resisters. Like the laggards on the bell curve, these people will actively resist change because they are wired that way. This individual told me, "T.J., you can bring whatever change you want to the organization, but don't expect me to do anything different." No rationale is going to change the mind of a resister.

Protectors. The protector is also highly resistant to change, but for another reason. They believe in the status quo, the way things have been done in the past, and they will actively try to protect "what is" rather than embrace "what could be." This individual told me and many others that the changes I brought to ReachGlobal would destroy the mission. 

Cynics. This group is simply cynical about change unless the proposed change is their idea. They tend to view change as "the flavor of the month" and are often vocal about their opinion. Cynics generally don't trust leaders, so proposals brought by leaders are quickly discounted.

Loyal followers. These individuals have a deep commitment to the organization and team. They accept change if there is a good rationale for it. These staff say, "Just tell me which direction we are going, and I will go with you." 

Idealists. This is an interesting group with an upside and a downside regarding change. When creating change, one inevitably creates a gap between what should be. Idealists are highly impatient to get to what should be and believe we should be there now. On the upside, they want the change. On the downside, they can become highly critical that we have not arrived. Thus, they can be either an ally or a critic on any day.

Realists. This group supports change, realizes it will take time and process, and is generally comfortable with it. They are helpful in realistically figuring out how to get there and can live with the tension of what should and should be.

Change agents. These individuals support proposed changes and will be active agents in helping the organization get there. They are your front lines in speaking a new language, setting a new course, and helping redesign philosophy and strategy.

Evangelists. These champions of change publicly and privately live the change out, help others understand and get there, and advocate for the new direction.

In my experience, realists, change agents, and evangelists will help drive change, while resisters, protectors, and cynics will actively undermine change. Loyal followers and idealists will go with you but will not drive change. 

Think about the implications of these eight ways that people respond to change: who you hire, who you put into leadership, and who you ask to serve on a board. After hearing these descriptions, one church leader aptly commented, "No wonder so many boards are stuck." He is right. Resisters, protectors, and cynics must be managed, but beware of allowing them into positions of leadership and influence! 

Accepting the reality that relationships change

What is hardest to accept about the passage of time is that the people who once mattered the most to us wind up in parentheses.
John Irving

What Irving is alluding to is that relationships and friendships can change over time and even recede into the past, leaving us feeling sad, disillusioned or even angry. What we need to remember is that relationships can last for a moment, a season or a lifetime. It is the nature of friendships and our lives.

Friendships or relationships that last a moment are those that come and go relatively quickly, often forged in a time of crisis or need where someone comes alongside us or we them. The patient in the hospital for cancer treatment bonds with another fellow pilgrim. The office mate who is helping us on a project forges a relationship but it is for a specific project and purpose.

Seasons of friendship are longer. When I pastored I forged some strong friendships but they were primarily for that season of life. I moved, another pastor came and although I stay connected to a few on Facebook the friendship, genuine as it was is not the same. Likewise, in my thirty years in the last organization I served I had many seasons of friendship with people I served alongside. But again, except for a few, the relationship changed, as is natural, when I left.

Those of us who are very lucky have friendships that last a lifetime. I call them "friends for life" and they transcend circumstances, location and even differences of opinion or life stage. We treasure these friendships the most because they reflect a long investment in one another's lives.

We often grieve when friendships die or move on. That is the nature of relationships but it does not take away from what we had or how our lives were changed in the time or season that our lives intersected. Most friendships will be a parenthesis in our lives but that does not mean they are not important parentheses. As relationships change we should remember the ways in which that relationship helped us during a period of our lives.

Who we are has been impacted by every healthy relationship we have had over the years whether for a time, season or lifetime. We are changed by our interaction by others and we in turn have had an influence on them. Some relationships do not weather stormy events of life and that is OK. It does not diminish the mutual impact that relationship had on us. In some way we were enriched and enriched others. And ultimately we must hold all relationships with an open hand. We change, times change and relationships change.  It is the nature of life.

Too often when a relationship ends we feel diminished or abandoned. We should not. We are no less whole than when the relationship was vibrant. We are simply in a different time or season. It played the role it needed to play and we are now free to pursue other relationships for this season in life. New beginnings come out of endings. In those transitions it is tempting to hurt others in our own hurt but we ought not burn bridges. It is not necessary and it diminishes what once was.

I keep a mental checklist of friendships that once were and how they impacted my own life. I am grateful even when I sometimes experience sadness that what once was is now over. Mostly I am thankful for how others impacted my life and enriched me if even for a time or a season.

Organizational change and the angst it creates

Organizations face change in predictable situations. That change - often brought by a new leader must be done in ways that minimize the anxiety and uncertainty to staff and constituents. That means that good process must be run, input sought, dialogue practiced and there are no great surprises. Even with this, however, needed change is hard and often causes anxiety among leaders, staff and boards.

In major organizational change it is not unusual that some people choose to leave or are let go. This is normal. Often, those individuals have alliances, friendships or relationships with others who take up their case and put pressure on the powers that be to change their minds. This is normal. If both of these are normal, we ought not allow their presence to cause anxiety or concern. It is an inevitable part of the change process.

In major organizational change it is not unusual for those who don't like the change to make their gripes public. This is normal. They are unhappy and are likely to take it out on the leader who is bringing changes to the organization. Assuming that this leader is bringing change with sensitivity and concern for those involved, there is no reason to back down simply because unhappy voices are heard. They are usually responding out of fear rather than animosity. It is a normal part of the change process.

Change brings with it a need for people to make choices about their ongoing participation in the organization. Long time leaders may choose to leave - graciously or ungraciously. Often staff and boards take this as a sign that there is something fundamentally wrong with the changes taking place. Not necessarily! It is often simply that they don't want to make the personal changes they would have to make to fit into the new paradigm. That is not good or bad but simply a decision as to how they respond to the new paradigms. This is normal and to be expected. Even board members may choose to exit as they realize that it is a new day with new leadership and new paradigms. Again, this is normal.

Major organizational changes can bring a high level of anxiety to an organization. Most people are by nature change adverse - middle and late adapters, and laggards. Change brings uncertainty and uncertainty makes many uncomfortable and discomfort causes a level of dysfunction as the ground seems to be shifting for those who love stability. In these times of change there can be a high level of angst among staff. This is normal. Indeed, there is no way to negotiate change without angst and uncertainty. 

The common thread here is that these responses to change are normal and should be expected. In addition, they are not a sign that the organization is failing or falling apart. If anything they are signs that necessary changes are underway (organizations that do not change die) and that someone with courage is leading. As long as good process is being followed (and that is a big deal), we should not be intimidated by push back to change. It will happen, it is normal and it is the price of bringing needed change.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

One of the largest mistakes pastors make when they come into a new church. It can be fatal

One of the largest mistakes pastors make when they come into a new church is to make too many changes too quickly and without adequate process. In doing so, the coinage they started out with due to high expectations of the congregation diminishes greatly and may even be fatal. It also reveals a deep lack of sensitivity to congregants who feel their church was hijacked by the vision of one at the expense of the vision of the whole.

In most cases, changes are needed when a congregation reinvisions itself with a new leader. That is not the issue. The issue is how it is done and at what expense and with what process.

Think of the message congregants hear when a new leader brings major change quickly. They hear that the past was of no value, that their efforts and energy over the years has been discounted and devalued and this is compounded when new pastors publicly say things like "I wouldn't want to come to church in a facility like this." Or "we need vision." All that and more might be true but the message it sends is that the past has not accounted for much of anything. 

Think of the feeling of congregants when services are suddenly changed, ABF's taken away or other major changes to staff and programming seemingly unilaterally made. Their church has been stolen! It is how it feels. And it is all the more painful when adequate discussion and process has not been run but it just happens. Note to new pastors: feelings and perceptions matter both because we are in the people business and because we will lose our followers and ability to lead if we unnecessarily disenfranchise our people.  Another note to new pastors: This is not your church, it is our church so can we have a conversation about this together?

Here are key principles that pastors should pay attention to when coming into a new ministry setting.

• If you envision the future at the expense of the past you have just devalued those who were responsible for making the church what it is today.
• It is not your church but our church so it is not just your vision that matters but a common vision that we can all buy into.
• Wait at least a year to make major changes. You might learn a few things along the way and earn some relational credits that will allow you to manage change better. Why the huge hurry? It is not about you but about the church as a whole.
• When you do make changes, ensure that you run process, process, process. This will include conversation, dialogue, and more conversation and dialogue. People in general are change adverse and need to be brought with you.
• Be gracious. Understand the feelings of people, empathize with the pain of change, shepherd them through the change.
• Just because something is not organized the way your would organize it does not mean it is not working. Find out what is working and how to make it better and pace the change so that people can keep up.
• The people who are in the church when you come matter. One needs to be as concerned for them as for the "target audience" that many new pastors have in mind. Another way to devalue those who are there is to talk about the target audience to the exclusion of those already in the congregation.

To many new pastors think it is their job to fix all the broken things in the congregation they come to. First we need to love people and see what needs fixing. If we fix and change at the expense of loving and shepherding we go the sequence wrong. And likely what it means to pastor a church.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

The one thing that is necessary for needed change in any organization

That one thing is not what changes are necessary or even why they are necessary. Those are easy enough to discern. 

No, the one thing that is necessary for needed change in any organization is the courage of leaders to admit the need and have the courage to act on needed changes. Without the humility to admit that change is needed - and that is humbling - and without the requisite courage to act on that need, nothing happens. 

I work with churches and ministry organizations as well as lead ReachGlobal, an international missions organization. The reason I get called in to work with other organizations is that they recognize that not all is well. They are experiencing organizational pain and are looking for solutions. 

Finding the source of the pain is not difficult. Convincing the ones experiencing the pain can be. They know that all is not well. But in come cases do not have the courage to act on the necessary steps to solve the problem - which is usually holding them back from much greater ministry effectiveness. 

Why is this when it defies logical sense? Because it is more comfortable to live with what we have and the way we have been doing things than to take the risk of doing things differently. Comfort often wins out over mission.

Courageous leaders don't settle for what is when they know what could be. They take the risk to act on needed change in spite of their own comfort and what they are used to. The mission of the ministry is a higher priority than their comfort or even long established paradigms. That is the nature of good leadership.

When asked to help an organization my internal question is always this: Do the leaders have the courage to change? If the answer is no, it is best to leave them with their old paradigms. Don't be one of those leaders!

Process in change

Knowing that changes need to be made is half of the challenge. The other half is designing a change process that is most likely to result in your desired conclusion. The key word here is process. When change goes wrong, it is usually connected to a process that is flawed or short-circuited.

Here is a key principle: Most people are willing to change even though that change causes them discomfort, if they can be convinced that the proposed change meets a value of theirs which is higher than their resistance to change. Having said that, remember that the heart acceptance of the change will be determined by where they are on the change curve.

For instance, I have helped numerous congregations change their governance systems to reflect a more empowered culture. Almost without exception, late majority and laggards were negative toward the change when it was first introduced, and even the early majority was cautious.

However, when there is a process that allows people's questions to be answered, and when they are convinced that a change in governance will help the church reach more people for Christ (a high value of believers), most are willing to consider and adopt the changes. That's because the value of reaching folks for Christ is a higher value than their resistance to change.

This is why having solid values are so important to an organization. When change is needed, it is the mission and the values that must be appealed to and if these are a higher value than the inborn resistance to change, people will be willing to consider necessary changes. If you cannot appeal to a higher value, then the argument becomes one of preference rather than one of mission.

Change resistance in the church: It can be chronological age but it can also be related to how long one has been in the church

Pastors often assume that change resistance in a local congregation is a matter of chronological age: those who are older are more change resistant. This is not always true. Some of the most progressive change advocates are older - more a matter of outlook and wiring than it is age. 

There is another age to consider, however. It is the age of a church and how long one has attended. It is not unusual for younger adults who have grown up in a church to be the ones who resist change because it messes with the church they knew in Junior and senor high and their entire experience there.

Ironically in one church I attended, the two most change resistant folks to the point of all out warfare was a gal in her forties who had grown up in the church and her father in law who had helped start the church years before. In both cases the resistance came from individuals who didn't want anyone messing with "their" church but age had little or nothing to do with their positions. The age of the church did and their longevity in the church did.

In charting a change course it is critical to pay attention to the concerns and potential responses of even younger generations who have grown up in the congregation - especially those who have influence like the young lady above who was a power broker in the church. It is often how long someone has been in the congregation that make more difference than their chronological age.

The art of negotiation, timing, and strategy in ministry change

Ministry attracts people with strong belief systems and convictions. Another way of saying that is that it attracts people can be very black and white, impatient and convinced that one must act - now!

It is what also gets many young leaders in trouble. Their beliefs and convictions get in the way of thinking through the ramifications of their actions. For them, it is about right or wrong. For others it feels harsh and often unnecessary. 

Ministry has politics like any other organization. Politics is not good or bad - depending on how one approaches it. It is recognizing that there are different groups in a congregation who share common perspectives that may differ from other groups and unless one can navigate those differing perspectives, you cannot lead. I would suggest that there are three skills that young leaders need to develop in order to navigate the political waters of leadership in ministry.

The art of negotiation
I have worked with many churches on reforming their outdated and noneffective governance systems. Rarely does one get all that one wants in the process because their are sacred cows embedded in the bi laws. Some of the issues may be seen as Scriptural issues, others not but they are important to someone which is why they got there in the first place.

Leadership is knowing how far and fast one can go without losing those you are leading. It is learning to negotiate differing concerns, seek common solutions while realizing that these are not usually hills to die on. Good leadership settles for what it can get at a particular time to move the ball down the field knowing that there will be another day to address other issues that need to be addressed. 

The art of timing
Even when one knows what needs to be done, knowing when to pull the trigger is just as important as knowing that the trigger needs to be pulled. I have just finished reading Rise to Greatness: Abraham Lincoln and America's Most Perilous Year (a great book by the way). 

One of the most critical issues Lincoln faced was that of freeing the slaves in America (Emancipation Proclamation). It was not a matter of if but a matter of when and how since both the timing and the way it was done had huge political ramifications at a time when the union was deeply divided over many issues. Lincoln took heat from many sides for not acting sooner than he did but he recognized that the when and the how were critical factors in the success of the what.

A leader can only successfully lead change at a rate that he/she will be followed. Move too fast and you lose too people and coinage. Move too slow and you lose good people who want to see ministry move forward.  Trusted counselors and boards can be immensely helpful in knowing the right timing.

The art of the strategy
When we talk about change we talk "change management." Healthy change is managed through negotiation, timing and strategy. Let me give a very practical example: I am asked from time to time by church leaders to help them move a staff member out of the church because of a bad fit, budget issues, re-organization, poor performance or some other legitimate reason. 

Letting a staff member go in ministry has consequences. Everyone has a constituency so understanding the potential response is critical, as is negotiating a win/win (where possible) with the staff member being let go. How you do it, when you do it, what you say about it and how well you treat the departing staff member all become critical factors in limiting the fall out in the church. One can do the right thing in a poor way and injure the organization.

There are two common themes here. First, there is an art to any kind of change. The art is to understand the politics and people involved, to know when to make the change and to have a strategy that minimizes negative fall out. The second common theme is that all of this takes a great deal of careful thought, patience and the ability to go where one can go and hold back when one must. Impulsive behaviors in change work very poorly. 

Young leaders grow in these areas by both success and failure. When necessary get a coach and some wisdom to minimize the dumb tax paid in the process

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Change and its effect on people

We often wonder why there is such resistance to change. The answer lies in how people are made, and how they are influenced by others in regard to change. In general, people are change-resistant rather than change-friendly.

Those who introduce change are called innovators. Innovators are those who dream up new ways of doing things (2.5% of the population). Those who embrace change first are the early adapters - they see a good idea and adopt it (13.5% of the population). 34% of our population are called the early majority. They are more deliberate in thinking through the innovation but, after consideration, will adapt. Then there are the late majority individuals (also 34%) who will be skeptical of the innovation but eventually respond after seeing the benefits. Finally there are the laggards (traditionalists) who will probably never respond. For Laggards (16%) innovation is a bad thing.

Notice that the percentage of folks who can be labeled as "change-friendly" (innovators and early adapters) is only 16 percent: those who could be labeled as "change-cautious but open" equal 34 percent (early majority); and those who are change-skeptical or change averse equal 50 percent (late majority and laggards). This explains why even the best ideas will be met with caution, skepticism or negativity by the majority of any group.

There is nothing inherently "good or bad" about how people respond to change; it is how they are wired. A lot of obstinate behavior we see regarding change does not come from bad attitudes (although some does) but rather from how people are hard-wired to respond to change.

This illustrates the challenge for leaders to help people move in new directions, knowing that the majority of their people are not in the innovator or early adapter category. Almost any major change you can make is going to be greeted by these responses, at least in the beginning.

The statistics on change come from the groundbreaking work of Everett M. Rogers in his book Diffusion of Innovations, a must read for those who are change agents.

Charting a healthy change process

When you are going to propose major changes to an organization it is important to have a clearly defined process up front that you intend to follow and that will help the organization negotiate the whitewater that will result.

Prepare people for coming changes

People do not like surprises. Once you know that you are going to enter into a process of change, let people know and let them know why. You are not communicating final decisions; you are paving the way for changes that are going to come.

Always tie your process and proposed changes to your mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus or culture.

Remember that people are naturally change resistant. Thus if you are going to bring change you must appeal to values that are a higher value than their resistance to change. The discussion is not fundamentally about structure or programs; it is about mission fulfillment (ROM: return on mission). The more you communicate this, the more people will 'get it.'

One of the gurus on change processes, John Kotter, suggests that in order to get people's attention and convince them of the need for change, you need to "create a crisis." In the absence of a crisis, why change anything?

In ministry organizations, the "crisis" is that the lack of change will compromise (or is already compromising) our ability to do what Christ has called us to do. The result of change will be greater return on mission. Again, it is all about mission.

Recruit a guiding coalition

In any key change you are going to make, you want to have a guiding coalition of individuals who are on board and will publicly and privately support the process. This certainly should include all board members and key ministry staff members. (If you have board members or staff members who are not publicly supportive, you have other issues to deal with).

This should also include other people of positive influence in your organization - those who can help the early or late majority who may not understand the need for change. This is not about a lobbying exercise but recognition that people influence people and that within every organization there are key influencers. If these key influencers understand where you are going and the reasons for it, they become voices of reason and encouragement to the rest of the organization on the merits of moving forward. If you find that your key influencers are opposed, you may want to do more homework and groundwork before you move forward. After all, wise leaders are not going to propose something that they think will not have the support it needs to succeed.

A best practice is that before you propose major change, know that it is going to succeed to the best of your ability. You can test the waters by sounding out those who you need to be in the guiding coalition to influence others.

Provide ways for those in your organization to have input.
The higher the stakes in proposed changes, the more critical it is that you provide forums for members of the organization to ask questions and provide suggestions. The more open that leaders are perceived to be, the more likely the organization will be supportive of the process and outcome.

At this stage, proposed changes are seen to be in 'wet cement.' There may well be feedback or suggestions that would cause leaders to tweak or modify certain proposals before the cement hardens. This also allows those who will be affected by the change to speak into the process although they are not the prime movers in the process.

In the process...over-communicate with the organization.Possibly the greatest failure of leaders in a change process is the failure to adequately communicate with their organizations. This does not usually happen intentionally. Leaders already know what is going on and assume others do as well. In addition, once they have communicated, they feel that the job is done. This underestimates, however, the number of times necessary to communicate to a group before a message is heard. When there is not adequate communication, leaders are seen as aloof, arrogant, unaccountable, power hungry - all of which are probably far from the truth.

Trust is gained by leaders, in large part, by three simple disciplines: being missional, communicating well and listening.

Do everything you can to keep anxiety and conflict over possible changes low

As we have noted, anxiety over change often brings out the worst in people - much like weddings and funerals do within family systems. Leaders have a lot invested in major proposals they make and it is normal for them to become defensive when people push back hard or even attack. Whenever anxiety is present in a family system - and organizations are family systems - one of the jobs of leaders is to lower anxiety wherever possible. A key to this is a non-defensive attitude when challenged. If one responds low key and gently to emotional attacks, the level of conflict is usually lowered.

Do not neglect a prayer strategy for change initiatives

Our battle is not against "flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:12)." If you are proposing change or a ministry initiative because it will give you a greater return on mission, know that the evil one will oppose you at whatever level he needs to, to keep it from being successful. The bolder your plans, the bolder his response.

And if Satan can bring division in the process, or encourage bad attitudes or sinful junk to surface, he will. Why? Because your changes will make your ministry more effective. Sorry, but he doesn't want that to happen.

Relax, persevere and lead boldly

Change is not about us. Ministry advances are not about us. God has called us to lead boldly, and even more so when leading is not easy. Leaders need to be wise, to respect process and people, and to trust God for the outcome. What will surprise us more often than not is that when we do this right, the vast majority of those we lead will respond positively - even when they are not innovators or early adapters. Why? Because they have the same desire to see Christ honored and His kingdom expanded as we do.