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.

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! 

Understanding why people are reluctant to try new ideas

For those who are wired to innovate and bring change the resistance they encounter from others can be frustrating. This is especially true when change is critical to the organization or when doing things differently would save a great deal of time, money and frustration. We ask ourselves in these instances, "Why don't they get it?" It is a good question and it has three good answers. 

First, there is the change scale. When it comes to one's openness to change people fit into one of five categories: Innovators who drive change and are always looking for new and better ways; Early Adaptors who embrace change quickly once it is presented; Middle Adaptors who need to think about the change before adopting it; Late Adaptors who are late to embrace any change and Laggards who resist any change. 

Of these categories which represent how people are naturally wired, only innovators and early adaptors quickly embrace change. the other three categories are essentially change resistant at different levels. Thus any strategy to drive change must speak to middle and late adaptors. One need not worry about innovators and early adaptors. As for laggards, don't bother to try to convince them - they are inconvincible when it comes to change.

Resistance to change has nothing to do with an individuals character or intellect. These categories represent how they are naturally wired. The key to helping middle and late adaptors get to a yes on change is to appeal to a higher value than their resistance to change. If they deeply believe in the mission of the organization, for instance, one can appeal to the ability to better accomplish that mission if we adopt the proposed changes. 

A second reason that people resist change is their own comfort. People simply get comfortable doing things in certain ways and changing those ways can be uncomfortable. It is far easier not to rock the boat and to leave things as they are. After all it has worked in the past so it will work in the future. Except of course, the future is different than the past and those who don't understand this are destined to lose their effectiveness. 

Resisting change for one's own comfort is not a noble cause and those with this tendency should not be in organizational leadership. Leaders realize that their loyalty is to the mission of the organization, not their comfort. 

There is a third reason for resistance to change which change agents need to understand. There are people who resist change because they cannot envision what it looks like. These are people who understand new paradigms when they see it but cannot envision those paradigms without first seeing it. 

In these cases simply be aware of the fact that the change resistance is not a poor attitude but that these individuals need to see the new way in action and are likely to support the change once they understand it.

Part of the job of change agents is to understand how their audience is likely to respond to the change and to tailor their communication in ways that will allow the most people to get to a place of support. They need to be change agents in communicating their proposed changes - and flexible in their approach.

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.

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.

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.

Laggards in churches and ministry organizations

Laggards, those who will resist change of any kind are found in every congregation and every organization. They are highly resistant to change (they are traditional - they like the way it is and always has been). My friend Larry Osborne from North Coast Church in Vista, California calls these folks "squeaky wheels."

Laggards are usually a small minority (perhaps 16 percent) that cause a whole lot of heartburn for leaders for one reason: They can have very loud voices and cannot be convinced.

They are the individuals who speak the most and the loudest and are often the most negative. Because they are loud, others in your congregation or organization may wrongly assume that their view is held by many.

Leaders often spend an inordinate amount of time trying to placate the squeaky wheels. Someone has said that 80 percent of our time is often spent trying to keep 20 percent of our organization happy. It is not a wise use of our energy.

Think about that! No matter how much time you spend trying to convince the squeaky wheels, you will not be successful. They are deeply change resistant. You are wasting your time, because they will always find something to squeak about. They are not bad folks, they are simply wired to resist change.

We would be better off allowing squeaky wheels to squeak and work to convince the other folks in the organization who can be moved, than to waste precious time and energy trying to convince folks who will not be convinced. Love them, listen to them, and don't assume that they speak for the majority. Usually they do not.

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.

How people respond to organizational change

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 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.

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 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 are staff who 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 when it comes to 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 that we should be there now. On the up side, they want the change. On the down side they can become highly critical that we have not arrived. Thus on any 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 in terms of 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 positions of leadership and influence! 

Not ready, proceed slow, lets go: When leaders resist change!

I was in a fascinating meeting recently. I would guess that there were at least sixty people present and the topic was organizational change (very much needed). The outside facilitator asked everyone present to put a post it note on one of three large sticky pages. The first was labeled "Not Ready for change," the second, "proceed slow with change" and the third, "lets go with change." 

Not one post it note was put on the "Not ready" sheet. Yet, when the discussion turned to change there was very significant resistance in the room to doing anything by a good number. What some did not want to admit is that they didn't want change at all, even though all the evidence pointed toward a deep need for change.

I often face this resistance when working with church boards or ministry organizations who call me in to help them solve problems. They know problems exist and they know that what they have in place is less than adequate if not out of date and inadequate but there is still resistance to change. Some will not admit it but they are just resistant to change no matter why it is needed.

What really fascinates me in Christian organizations is the ability of change resistors to spiritualize their reasons for not changing structure as if structure is a spiritual issue. It is not. Structure is simply a way of organizing to serve the mission of the ministry. The mission may be spiritual but the structure is not. Good structure is simply good structure. Inefficient structures are simply structures that no longer serve the mission well and therefore need to change. It is not a spiritual issue.

When I hear soliloquies about how God led our forefathers to organize in a certain way so we cannot change, I immediately know that we are no longer talking about the purpose of organizational structures but about resistance to change, for whatever reason. Someone uses this line of reasoning almost ever time church bylaws are revised. What people forget (often conveniently) is that what got us to here got us to here but it won't get us to there. In many cases those forefathers are not even living anymore. They led in a different generation with different issues and in different times. 

Organizations do not simply grow. They change. No organization is the same organization that it was ten years ago and the structures that serve the mission must be adjusted at regular intervals to ensure that they are serving well. I am always amused that church bylaws are so hard to change. We will violate scripture on any number of issues but don't touch the (sacred) bylaws. Really?

When we resist changing our structures, they often end up actually hurting and hindering the mission whether in churches, denominations or other ministries. Organizational structures that served the mission in one era can hinder the mission in a different era. That is why antiquated governance structures in local churches must be dealt with or the congregation is likely to plateau or move into decline. The same is true for other organizations as well.

Here is my challenge to leaders. When it comes to change, "not ready" is not acceptable. Yes we may need to "proceed slow" or be ready to go but not ready or to be more blunt, not willing is not a sign of leadership but of non-leadership. Our world is changing at a rapid pace. Those who are in leadership positions must be ready and willing to change practices and old ways in order to meet the challenges of a new day. And the proof is not what we put on the sticky paper but whether we are willing to seriously engage in change discussion, not matter how uncomfortable that might be to us personally.

The General Motors Syndrome. Why good people in good organizations resist needed change in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is needed

As an organizational leader and consultant I see the General Motors Syndrome played out in churches, ministry organizations, missions and denominations: Those inside the organization cannot see the need for change while those outside look in and wonder why in the world good people don't see what they see - the world has changed but they have not. 

Why, for instance, did the organizational structure and culture of General Motors not change until bankruptcy when Toyota, and others where light years ahead of them in efficiency and quality? Why do even large churches resist changing antiquated structures that hinder them and no longer work for them? Why do mission organizations who have seen their entire context change but continue to operate as if they were in the pre globalized world? Why do denominations struggle with changing structures that served them 50 or 100 years ago but no longer?

The why question is even more powerful when one realizes that there is almost always demonstrable evidence that change is needed. Even in the face of that evidence, change can be hard to come by and is met by resistance. So why do good people in good organizations resist needed changes in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is needed?

Let me suggest three key reasons.

One, organizations like families are systems that resist any changes to the status quo. It is why missional is often subverted by institutional. Institutional is comfortable while missional is a threat to the status quo of the system (organizational). In families, if one individual tries to pull away from the family system, the rest of the family applies pressure to bring them back in. That is why it is called a family "system." A perceived threat to the status quo can be met with fierce resistance that to others makes no sense but within the "system" it makes all the sense in the world. 

When I proposed major change in the mission I lead, the "system" worked to try to pressure the system back to where it had been previously which was known and comfortable. The organizational family system was threatened and wanted equilibrium again. This is why organizations find change so hard. The existing family system resists even change that outsiders think is a no brainer. 

Two: organizations, like individuals have an EQ quotient. A major part of individual EQ is the ability to know oneself, our strengths and weaknesses and how we are perceived by others. All of us have met people who lack that quality. Others see what they cannot see and to a certain extend that is true even for an individual of healthy EQ. 

Organizations are no different. What did the executives of GM think sitting up in their executive dining room surrounded by luxury as the world around them changed radically? Their corporate EQ was severely lacking. 

I once consulted with a church that had gone from 500 to 50 in a 2 million dollar facility and when I told them they were not healthy they asked what the evidence was! That is a corporate EQ issue. It is also why organizations need outside counsel when looking at significant change. Others can see what they no longer see. We become so entrenched in the system that we no longer see ourselves with any degree of objectivity. We have become the system! We no longer see objectively. 

Three, and this is less neutral than the first two. When Patrick Lencioni published his book Silos, Politics and Turf Wars they flew off the shelf, were avidly read, people saw themselves in the mirror and many of their organizations saw no change. Why? Because the politics, silos and turf wars were too strong to allow change. People do not easily give up their turf, even for good reasons. Turf and autonomy are power and they don't easily yield power. This is a spiritual issue while the first two issues are organizational system and EQ issues. 

Fifteen years ago, the team I served on, the senior team of the EFCA made a decision to give up a measure of our individual and departmental autonomy in order to get on the same page and serve the whole with greater effectiveness. There was blood on the floor in some of our initial meetings. We were tearing down silos, addressing the politics and declaring there was no more turf. Responsibility for our areas - yes. Turf - no. And our mission and the accomplishment of that mission had to take precedence over our "individual rights" and sometimes preferences.

It was a hard necessary change. So let me put it candidly. Without the humility to give something up for the sake of the whole, no organization goes to the next level. This applies to church boards where a member is guarding their sacred ministries or organizational structure, to team leaders who are more concerned about their ministry than the whole ministry, staff who are guarding their ministry portfolio or in the case of missions, individuals who want to be independent contractors rather than members of an organization and in alignment with the whole. 

This one is a heart issue. And it keeps many Christian organizations from moving forward in ways that would be far more effective and results driven.

Why do good people in good organizations resist change even in the face of incontrovertible evidence it is needed? Their organizational family system resists it, the corporate EQ of the organization may not be healthy enough to see it and people are unwilling to give up the politics, silos and turf wars. 

What does it take to see real change in change unfriendly environments. First, the family system must champion honest, candid, truthful dialogue without seeking to pressure people back into the fold. It takes courage to speak up and be a change agent when there is significant resistance to resist that change. And there will usually be loud voices in opposition.

Second it takes the willingness to face the "brutal facts" as they are, look in the mirror, listen to outside voices who do not have a vested interest and who can see with greater objectivity and be willing to count the cost of the status quo. If one waits until the organization has plateaued and gone into decline it is often too late to resurrect what could have been. Now is usually the time to face the facts rather than later. 

Third, it takes the humility to give up the parts of our autonomous nature that keep the organization from being all that it can be. It is pride and power and guard silos and turf. It is humility and missional commitment that break them down. Does it matter? It will on the day we give an account to the Lord of the church. Ironically, it often matters more to those we serve than to us who lead. They often see what we cannot see and when they do not see their leaders act, they often decide to invest their lives elsewhere.