Six elements of successful organizational change

Many attempts at organizational change are not successful. Often they flounder because they lack one of six fundamental elements for change to be successful. If any one of these are missing, the change process is compromised.

Conviction
Major change will not happen unless leaders have an absolute and unshakable conviction that it must happen. Usually this revolves around the need for the organization to re-envision for its next run, to adapt to changing opportunities or to address a specific threat. The conviction comes from the belief that if the organization does not change it will be in trouble. Many leaders understand the need for change but lack a compelling conviction that they must help the organization move through it. It is easier to ignore the need than to address it.

Without a bedrock conviction of the need for change, it will get derailed by doubts, anxiety and push back from resistors. Conviction brings the peace of mind in moments of doubt that you are on the right track and that this needs to be done.

Courage
If change were easy it would be common. It is not either easy or common. Suggesting that major change must take place takes a great amount of courage on the part of leaders. They know that if they are rebuffed or if the change is not successful, their own job is in jeopardy. Change takes the organization through some whitewater and uncertainty and it takes courage on the part of leaders to be willing to enter those white waters.

Risk
Change means that old methodologies and ways of thinking are jettisoned for new. Often those new ways and thinking are untried and therefore there is a certain amount of calculated risk involved. Good leaders have through through the risks and unintended consequences but there is still risk. The willingness to take the necessary risks requires the conviction and courage already noted.

Process
Because change is unsettling to most people the way in which it is approached is just as important as the change itself. People need to understand the why and the how and what the future looks like and while there is white water in the process there should not be chaos. Change is a process of thinking differently and acting differently and that takes time to assimilate. 

Unmanaged change, or change that lacks proper process will likely fail because the very staff who need to live out the change are not given the time to assimilate the change. Never underestimate the need for process. If there ever is a time it is when the organization is going through change. Much of the process is a continual dialogue with leaders and staff about what you are doing, why your are doing it and how it is going for them.

New Practices
The best way to assimilate change is to commit to new practices. Change is theoretical until you actually put it into practice. Not only that, but actually doing something new channels anxiety among staff about change into productive energy and as they try out new practices they don't seem as threatening as they did when it was theory. As those new practices are being tried out, leaders should be in active dialogue with staff as to how it is going, what their frustrations are and encouraging them to keep pushing into the new. Because practices are driven by habits it will take a great deal of time for new habits to be formed - for organizations it can take years.

Resolve
People and organizations naturally seek the familiar and comfortable and thus even with new practices being tried there will be a pull back to the old ways of doing and thinking. Some of this is natural as habits are hard to break. Some of this will come from resistors who just don't want to change. This is where the organization needs to feel the resolve of its leaders that the change is going to happen, that there is no going back and that no matter what pressure is brought to bear organically or from individuals that the organization is going to push forward into a new future.

It takes a unique leader to drive organizational change and successfully see it through. These six elements are fundamental to a successful change process.

What you need to know when you are going to suggest major change

Before a whitewater-rafting trip, a good guide is going to sit everyone down in the calm water and tell them what to expect. The reason is simple: knowing what is in store lowers the anxiety level. At least we say to ourselves in the middle of the whitewater, our guide told us that it would be this way.

Here are some realities of negotiating change:

Most likely you will face resistance. This is normal. Don't be anxious or discouraged when your great ideas face resistance; that is simply how many people are wired.

A few loud voices will often seek to shut down the change process. This is normal too. Don't allow their voices to keep you from doing what you need to do, even if they make threats. An exception to this would be individuals who you know have great wisdom and a history of being supportive (not squeaky wheels) and who have significant 'coinage' with you and others. Not everyone's voice carries the same weight.

Some people may threaten to leave to leave your church or organization. This is normal. The more intentional you are as leaders, the more resistance you will encounter from a few because you are messing with the status quo. It is not unusual for some people to leave a church or organization when key directional decisions are made. To cave into their threats is to compromise the kingdom impact of your ministry because of a few loud voices. Don't cave!

You may have leaders who suggest that you revoke the suggested changes, even though they agreed with the need before pushback occurred. This is normal, although unfortunate. True leaders don't retreat from something they believe to be right, just because their proposed change causes waves. Whitewater is all about waves. Change is about waves. Leaders who cannot live with waves are probably in the wrong place.

The greater the change, the more uncomfortable you may feel. This is normal. In the middle of the whitewater it is hard to think calmly. Change produces anxiety in people, which will cause you anxiety. Stay the course, keep your anxiety low and work the process.

You will get wet. This is normal. when the boat is bucking, water comes over the sides. When equilibrium is upset, people say things that are sinful and take shots at those who caused the waves. Respond in ways that lower the tension and stay the course. If you know you'll get wet going in, you won't feel as uncomfortable when it happens.

Did you see the theme here? This is normal. so often in the midst of change, when we are getting wet and are surrounded by whitewater, we question our decisions: We are tempted to retreat; and we lose our nerve, thinking that we must have really screwed up to be where we are No! All of this is normal. Expect it and negotiate it with wisdom, patience and low anxiety.

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. 

Timing and Change: They work together

Timing on key decisions can be the key to either success or failure. A decision or direction can be the right one but if the timing is wrong, the right decision can go south - making it all the harder to move in that direction at a later time. This is particularly true with major change in an organization.

Leaders are always thinking ahead and it is not unusual for them to figure out a new direction (which may be a great direction for the organization) but in their impatience to make it happen, try to move before the organization is ready - and find that there is greater resistance to the change than they anticipated. The resulting "failure" of the effort undermines the leader's credibility and paints the direction as wrong even though it may not be.

Timing and change strategy go hand in hand. If you are a leader who desires to bring change to your organization, here are some questions that should be asked before you pull the trigger. Knowing the answers to these questions will help you determine whether the timing is right (or premature).

Do you have your key leaders with you so that when resistance to the new direction kicks in you are confident they will be your advocates?

Organizations that need change often have the wrong leaders in place. A new leader at the top may be critical but it is not enough. Unless that new leader has the support of the key organizational leaders the change will be sabotaged by the very people whose support you need.

It is not unusual that before introducing major change you need to change out leaders who will not go with you or who cannot be evangelists for that change. Wise leaders do not pull the trigger until they know that their key people will go with them.

Has the need for a major change been adequately communicated to the whole organization?

People are naturally change resistant. Entrepreneurial leaders are not and often do not take that resistance into account. Some people will never view change positively. Most people will agree to change if a higher value than their resistance can be called on and if the reason for change is properly communicated. That takes time, strategy and patience.

Senior leaders bringing change will not know whether there is adequate understanding and buy in from enough people unless they have dialogued with people throughout the organization - in person. In essence, one needs to create a crisis that is in proportion to the scale of the change needed. Crisis gets people's attention, life as normal does not.

For many ministries, the issue is simple. Unless we change and adapt to a changing world, we will no longer be effective. Ministries are notoriously behind the rest of the world in adapting to necessary change. The bottom line is that no matter what an organizational leader thinks, unless a good percentage of those he/she leads, agree, the change will not happen.

Is there a guiding coalition of folks who will champion what you intend to do?

This is the hard behind the scenes work necessary before rolling out major change. The board or governing authority needs to be with you. The line leaders need to be with you. And you need key people of influence in the organization with you.

As a leader you cannot be everywhere, all the time. You need people who are as passionate about what you are proposing as you are and who can be convincers of others at crucial moments. Major change without an adequate guiding coalition is doomed to fail.

Are you as a leader clear as to what your proposed change looks like?

It is one thing to know that change needs to happen. It is another to be clear as to what it looks like. If you are not clear you can be sure others will not be clear. While you may not be clear on everything, it is critical to be clear on the big issues so that you can clarify rather than confuse.

Many people will accept clear direction even if it is not the direction they would have chosen. Lack of clarity, however, brings apprehension rather than support.

Can you define the outcomes that you want to see and allow your line leaders and people to figure out strategies to get you there?

Your leaders and people need to have a stake in the change process and frankly, they are more likely to figure out the strategies to get you to your preferred outcomes than you will.

When the organization I lead, ReachGlobal, went through major change, one of our objectives was to move from "addition" to "multiplication" in all of our strategies. I could define the outcome, and in certain situations could give suggestions or possibilities but it was our missionaries who had to figure out what multiplication looked like in their context. They were the experts in their area, not me.

If you can define desired outcomes, giving good people a stake in figuring out strategy will go a long way in creating organizational buy in and common goals. Declaring how it must be done is rarely a good strategy for leaders.

Do you have the personal credibility to drive major change?

If you are a new leader, your coinage may be low (perhaps you came in from the outside) or it may be high (people are excited about what you bring). If you are an existing leader, your bank may be full of good will or it may be low if you have had to deal with difficult situations.

In any event, having a good feel for whether you have the personal credibility with your people to drive major organizational or cultural change is important. If you do not have the credibility or coinage - don't move forward until you do - or leave it to another leader who does not have the baggage you have.

Lack of personal credibility, whether fair or unfair, will likely cause your effort to fail. It is not worth the fallout to you or to the organization if it does. If change needs to happen and you dont' have the credibility to pull it off, do the right thing for the organization and let someone else with greater credibility do it.

If you can answer these questions in the affirmative, your timing is probably favorable for a positive outcome. If you cannot, wait! Trying to drive change prematurely hurts the organization in the long term and will make it all the more difficult to try again. In change, timing is critical. And wisdom is necessary to be able to answer the questions to determine the timing.

Moving a church from deeply institutional to missional

Those who are attempting to move a church from institutional to missional face a daunting task, but not one that is impossible - with a lot of prayer, wisdom and perseverance. In fact it is a job to attempt only with eyes wide open, knowing that this is one ministry where a fair amount of blood can be shed before it is accomplished.

As I often point out, congregations have a very specific and ingrained genetic code. They do not change easily and the longer they have been in existence, the stronger the resistance to change. People inside a system often cannot imagine or picture life outside the system and since what is works for them, they have no incentive to move to what could be. Churches are like family systems and family systems are difficult to change.

Resistance to change often leads to sinful and obnoxious behaviors when someone seeks to bring renewal (seen as unneeded change). YouTube has many examples of church fights (ah the wonders of everyone having a cell phone) and behavior that would be funny if not so tragic. 

People may say things, assume things, accuse others of things that are downright nasty and to say the least lack the character of Jesus. Even if their motives are not bad (and we cannot judge those), behaviors can be truly destructive. Remember that it is a family system that naturally moves toward protecting the comfortable and known status quo.

And then there are the politics of power which can be as unhealthy in a congregation as in the workplace. Remember, someone has a vested interest in what is. They helped create it and they have had influence within it. To suggest moving away from what is can be a threat to those who created it and they may well resist that movement knowing that if it happens it impacts their influence in negative ways. 

The resistance may well not be overt but rather is often passive aggressive and therefore more difficult to pin down and deal with. If you are going to challenge the status quo be very sure what individuals you are also challenging and be aware of how they may respond. Be realistic about how they may respond rather than taken by surprise. 

An absolute key is to get the right people in leadership to provide a guiding coalition of resolve to move the congregation in healthier directions. This means finding ways to move the wrong people out - those who will resist the move from institutional to missional. Until there is a core of healthy resolved leaders, it will be an uphill and often impossible road.

Recognize that this is a spiritual battle as institutional and inward focused churches are not a threat to the enemy while intentional, missional and outward focused churches are. An ongoing and unrelenting prayer strategy is essential to make the shift.

A key is to appeal to those in the congregation who want to accomplish something for God. You will probably not convince those who are deeply opposed to change so it is not worth your time trying to do so. In fact, you may assume that there will be people who will always be convinced that you have ruined their church no matter what transpires. The constituency you want to appeal to are those who are more interested in reaching people for Jesus than they are in guarding the status quo.

Expect that people will leave the church. Whenever major change takes place some people will get off the bus. This is normal. If your board is united and you are moving the church toward health do not let the fact that people leave threaten you. They may well be very happy where they go and what is at stake are many who will never hear the gospel unless the church becomes healthy.

Be resolved about your direction but remain kind and gentle to those who disagree. Listen to those who are unhappy but stay the course. This is not about people liking you. Rather it is about helping the church become the church it was meant to be. In the middle of such a transition you are likely to be deeply discouraged and wonder if you did the right thing. That is not the time to abandon ship. It is the time to see the change process through. In fact, to start the process and then leave in discouragement may well do more harm to the congregation than if one had not attempted to bring change in the first place.

Be clear where the leadership believes the church needs to go and what that looks like. Celebrate small wins as people respond to the new vision and live it out. This will reinforce the new values and practices in a powerful way. It also gives people hope that the church will emerge on the other side of change.

Finally remember that this is not about whether people like you. It is about whether the congregation becomes what God wants it to be. In the process you may take major hits. It is the nature of leading through change. It is not comfortable but it is natural. Good leaders have counted the cost, have major resolve and stay the course with their eyes fixed on what can be, not what currently is.

The Nine Critical Shifts that must take place in missions today

Many mission agencies are still living in the old, pre-globalized world paradigms. The world has changed around them, but they have not changed. I believe that there are nine critical shifts that mission agencies and churches engaged in missions need to make to minister effectively in today's world context. They are also the nine shifts ReachGlobal has made over the past eight years.

Shift One: Moving from being primarily doers to being primarily equippers of national workers. It is no longer about what we, as missionaries, can do ourselves but what we can help others do in their context. Increasingly, we must stand behind and alongside national workers as equippers, coaches, and encouragers rather than in front of them.

This is reflective of what Jesus intended for the church. Paul writes in Ephesians 4:11-12 that “Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.” Often, we hire pastors to do the work of ministry for us when, in reality, their job is primarily to equip all of God’s people to be involved in ministry in line with their gifting and wiring.

The application of this in missions is that missionaries are often trainers and equippers of others to help them do what they can do better than us in their context. Thus, in many cases, missionaries are no longer primarily church planters and evangelists but are equippers and trainers of nationals in theology, church planting, holistic ministries, and those ministries that contribute to the growth of the church.

This leads naturally to Shift Two: Moving from being in charge to equal partnerships with nationals where neither party is subsumed under the other and where each retains their autonomy. The day of colonial and paternalistic missions is over. It is a remnant of the black-and-white world. Equal partnerships are the coinage of the color world where each party, missions, and nationals brings different skills and abilities to the table for mutual cooperation.

It is in partnership with national movements that are orthodox in their theology and missional in their activity, bringing the most significant leverage and synergy. This is a natural outcome of the first shift: We are present to help the church grow, and that is done in equal partnerships where each party brings something of value to the ministry table.

Shift three is a natural outcome of the first two. Moving from owning and controlling to a philosophy of “we own nothing, control nothing, and count nothing as ours.” This is a servant mentality that says we are here to serve you in helping you plant churches, develop holistic ministries, and evangelize your people. We will serve you, not control you. Those agencies that serve with an open hand are magnets for indigenous believers to partner with.

Living out a non-controlling ministry philosophy is a prerequisite for partnerships today. It also models the ministry model of Christ and the Apostle Paul and the spirit of humility that Paul speaks of in Philippians 2:5-11. This is sometimes a challenge for Western missions, who are used to being “in control” rather than at a table of equal partners.

Shift four. Embracing the reality that missions are moving from Western Missionaries to Global missionaries. The future is all people reaching all people. Increasingly, missionaries will be coming from the majority world, and our willingness to invite them to the table on our teams and within our structures or to partner with them becomes a test of a servant philosophy.

This also means that we must work to encourage and equip our national partners to become sending entities rather than simply receiving entities. When national movements become engaged in the Great Commission, amazing things happen, and they participate in the joy of seeing new areas reached for Christ.

Shift Five: Moving from dependencies to self-sufficiency wherever possible. Helping indigenous partners grow out of their dependencies on the West by realizing what they bring to the table and by assisting them to fund their efforts from their context wherever possible lifts them up, gives them dignity, and allows us to partner as equals rather than dependents. Dependent partners cannot be equal partners.

This often means helping national partners find ways to finance their ministries more independently and partnering together in places where that is not fully possible.

Shift Six, Moving from addition to multiplication. This is consistent with shift one, from doers to equippers. It is not about what we can do but what we can help others do. While we must often start with addition, basic evangelism, and discipleship, our mindset should always be to move as quickly as possible toward multiplication strategies that allow us to leverage our efforts for the Gospel.

Shift seven, Moving from competition to cooperation, gets more personal for many of us. We are used to doing our thing. We have taught our national partners to do their thing. In the process, we have created ministry silos and denominational entities that work alone in relative weakness rather than figuring out how to work together to propagate the Gospel. We are better together than alone.

This is a time in history when we have a unique opportunity to work together rather than separately for the sake of the Gospel. The world's needs are too high to tackle alone, and we need one another. It is possible if we look at what we have in common instead of concentrating on those things we don't.

This leads me to Shift eight. Moving from an emphasis on my brand to His brand. Jesus did not die for my brand of the church, the EFCA. He died for His bride, the church. That is why we no longer plant EFC churches but seek to plant healthy, indigenous, self-supporting, reproducing, and interdependent churches. The brand is not as important as the spread of the Gospel. At the end of the day, Jesus is not concerned about brand names. He is, however, concerned about His Bride and the spread of the Gospel.

Shift nine. Moving from agency-based missions to church/agency synergy. The vision for missions belongs first to the local church, not to mission agencies. Missions that thrive in the future will be those that serve the mission vision of the local church, domestically and internationally. We are servant organizations. In the globalized world, we no longer have a monopoly on the great commission, and local churches will increasingly go their own way if we do not serve them well.

Let me illustrate these shifts with a real-life example. Six years ago, I met a young couple in Manila from a closed country in South East Asia. They had just finished their degrees and were heading back to work in the complex context of a brutal regime in a profoundly Buddhist context. I knew this individual had leadership stuff in him, and we developed a relationship over the next several years.

Sometime later, a cyclone hit this fragile country. I received an email saying that he had spent all his money providing rice and water to those affected who were without food and homes. He asked if there was any way we could help. 

Over the next several years, we helped my friend develop a ministry team that has rebuilt bamboo homes and lives, done evangelism and church planting where there are few believers, trained pastors, and developed leaders. He is one of the few leaders in this country that works across denominational lines. We helped him develop three businesses, providing funds for his team to fund his efforts. Regularly, we coach, mentor, and train him and his team. They have formed a ministry to train leaders and plant churches nationwide regardless of their brand.

This country is a classic example of the result of propagating our brands over the years. I have been up to the northern mountain village where missionaries in years past liked to live. I won’t forget that town. We landed on an airstrip with animals wandering on it. The only hotel we could stay in as foreigners charged us twenty dollars a night for lousy food, no mosquito netting, and about one hour of electricity daily. I was particularly enamored by the airport security when we left. The airport had no electricity, but we still had to walk through the non-functioning security machine.

Here is the wild thing. You will find every denomination known to mankind in this town and many denominations not yet known to mankind as the original denominations split and formed new groups. It is a hoot to drive through this town in this Buddhist country. All the streets have biblical names, and you pass building after building of different denominations. Here in a country that desperately needs the Gospel, you find an amazing number of small, weak denominations that don’t work together. We trained them well, and they followed our example.

But think about this: In equipping my friend, we have lived out shift one, moving from being primarily doers to primarily equippers. In partnering with him, we live out shift two, from being in charge to equal partnerships. In helping him develop his ministry, we live out shift three, that we own nothing, control nothing, or count nothing as ours. In helping him build his own team, we live out shift four of raising up indigenous missionaries.

We live out shift five by helping him become self-sufficient rather than dependent. In empowering his team, we live out shift six of multiplication. In mentoring him to work with multiple Bible-based denominations, we live out shift seven of cooperation rather than competition and shift eight that it is not about our brand but the Gospel.

In connecting my friend to churches in the States and Asia interested in reaching this nation, we live out shift nine of agency/church synergy. In every way, it is a win for him, us, the Gospel, and his nation. Start multiplying that one example globally, and you see the amazing potential for the Gospel.

Transformational Leadership

There is much discussion around the issue of transformation today, as there should be. One thing that we often overlook is that ministries are  often deeply in need of transformation and renewal as well and it is the job of leaders to see that happen. I call this transformational leadership.

Transformational leadership in the Christian ministry arena is the deliberate creation of healthy, empowered, Spirit led, collegial and effective ministries. It is the opposite of managing the status quo. Instead, the transformational leader sees his or her job as bringing transformation to all areas of the  organization where malaise, bureaucracy, lack of Spiritual sensitivity, unempowement, lack of missional clarity or alignment and focused results has crept in. This is not a one time thing but an ongoing concern. Organizational renewal is always ongoing.

It is organizational change designed to breath life, spiritual vitality, missional clarity and focused results into it. The transformational leader applies the principles of spiritual transformation into an entire ministry organization. On the individual side they create a culture where spiritual transformation is encouraged and on the organizational side they create a culture where spiritual vitality and missional clarity can flourish.

All good leaders are change agents toward healthy organizational structures, cultures and ethos where individuals can flourish and be all that they were made  to be. Because organizations slide toward institutionalism and comfortable, leaders are constantly ensuring that they stay missional and focused. When a leader ceases to be a transformational leader they cease to be effective.

Transformational leadership starts with leaders who make transformation in their own lives a priority. One cannot take others where one has not been themselves. They are then deliberate in creating the healthiest environment within the ministry or team that they lead. 

Are you a leader or a transformational leader and what does that look like for you and your organization? Where is your organization in need of renewal?

13 Leadership secrets from TJ

Clarity
The first job of leaders is to provide maximum clarity to those they lead about what their organization is about and how they will do what they do. The second job of leaders is to ensure that there is alignment around that clarity. The third job of leaders is to ensure that there are results based on that clarity. Leaders are the chief evangelists for the clarity they have defined for the organization.


Simplicity
Ministry is complex. Complexity is confusing. The job of leaders is to simplify complexity. Leaders simplify, simplify and simplify until all important issues can be explained on one sheet of paper.


Altitude
Leaders understand the altitude that they need to fly at in order to lead well and resist the temptation to dip down to fly at an altitude others are supposed to be flying at. Leaders do not disempower others in the organization by dipping down and doing what others are tasked with.


Empowerment
Leaders empower those who work for them within agreed upon boundaries. They neither delegate without accountability or micro manage and second guess. Leaders empower good people and hold them accountable for results.


Team
A group of missionally aligned and healthy individuals working strategically together under good leadership toward common objectives with accountability for results. Leaders build teams carefully and lead them intentionally.

Resolve

Leaders must have the resolve to follow through consistently with the clarity they have established. Clarity means nothing without the consistency of disciplined execution in a same direction. Leaders have staff who learn never to question their resolve.


Trust
Trust is a function of clarity + consistency + fairness + keeping one's word + authenticity + serving those on one's staff. Leaders always keep coinage in their trust account.


Failure
If one never fails one is living and leading too cautiously. Where there is not permission to fail there is no entrepreneurial thinking and where there is no entrepreneurial thinking there is no significant progress. When failure occurs, leaders practice autopsy without blame.


Evaluation
The mantra is plan, do, check, adjust. Leaders evaluate constantly.


Wisdom
Common wisdom is very common and rarely wisdom. Leaders think like contrarians, always asking why and why not? Leaders do not automatically go with the flow. Rather, they question the flow and look for new and better ways to do what they do. Leaders question conventional wisdom frequently.


Change
Tweaking is fear based change and one cannot tweak one's way to a new future. Leaders look for the game changers that change everything. A few truly significant decisions each year are more powerful than many insignificant decisions.


Results
Leaders never mistake activity for results. Everyone is busy but not everyone sees the same results. Leaders distinguish between activity and activity that yields intended results.


Intentionality
Leaders are deeply intentional in how they live and lead. They never settle for accidental living. Leaders know what they are about, what their priorities are and what they should say no to.

Five reasons we don't confront needed changes

Because of the work I do, I am surrounded by ministries - churches, mission agencies and Christian non-profits who need to make major changes or face significant issues if not decline and death. Here is what they need to know:

If you don't like change

you're going to like irrelevance even less

What keeps so many leaders and ministries from confronting the need for significant change in order to grow, take advantage of new opportunities and re-envision for the next run? There seem to be some common factors.

First, we become comfortable and change is uncomfortable. I am amazed at the ability of comfort to cause people to ignore even major risks they face by choosing comfort over change. Comfortable is the nemesis of faith, vision and new ideas. 

Second, we don't want to confront the idea that major change is needed. This is simply intellectual laziness that does not want to put in the hard work of figuring out what needs to change in order to go to the next level or simply avoid falling to a new low. 

Third, we resist the idea of getting outside help when it is most needed. In our self sufficiency and pride, we choose to keep the discussion in house with the limited knowledge that got us to where we are today (in need of change) rather than reaching out to someone who can look with fresh eyes at the challenges you face and suggest fresh ideas.

Fourth, we underestimate the pace of change around us, thinking that we have plenty of time to address it. You don't! Change is rapid and our turtle pace responses often overwhelm us leaving us with few choices when we could have had more choices. 

Fifth, we lack the courage to name our current reality in honest, candid, stark terms which would create a crisis among thinking people. In not naming the true nature of the threat we allow ourselves and others to minimize the need for change.

What is your reason for not confronting the need for change? 


See also:
When ministries need to change
Paradigm shifts and the job of leaders
Bringing change to your organization
Convincing the unconvincible

Paradigm shifts and the job of leaders

Paradigm shifts are very hard for most people to grasp. It is not that they are necessarily resistant, lack intelligence or don't want better results. The truth is that we see through a lens that is familiar and the unfamiliar is hard to grasp, especially if it requires us to think differently. The challenge is that the familiar will often not take us into the future. The world changes, and as it does the familiar often becomes our enemy, not our friend.


Interestingly, when change around us is rapid, we often cling to the familiar because it provides us with stability when in reality the familiar is destined to keep us from meeting new opportunities in our changing world. Think General Motors or Kodak. While they clung to the familiar the world changed and they were caught unable to catch up. The familiar was their nemesis.


For example, in the world of missions, the familiar is particularly dangerous as many of the traditional models will not carry water in the future. There are major shifts needed if mission agencies are going to meet the needs of a color world. Local churches must also make shifts in how they view missions strategy. In both cases, the familiar is the nemesis of future success.


This does not mean that what we did in the past did not serve us well in the past. It does mean that ministries need to ask the question of what will best serve them in the future. The future will never look like the past so it is reasonable that much of our methodology in the future will be different than in the past. That means a change in the way we think about what we do and how we do it. It is true in business and ministry. 


The challenge is that we are so used to the familiar that we often do not even question our methodologies. In fact, we often don't even think it is necessary to ask questions about our methodologies which is the real danger. And sometimes, those who do ask the questions are seen as irritants because they are messing with the familiar.


Leaders have the responsibility to take the time to consider where ministries need to go to meet the challenges of the future. That takes time, reflection and a lot of questions. No one else will do it for them. Then, they need to help their staff understand the needs of the future and press into needed changes in paradigms that will help them get there. This takes great courage because it requires us to give up the familiar for the unfamiliar.


Helping staff transition to new paradigms is a necessary, time consuming and dialogue rich discipline. Leaders who do not have the courage to position their ministry for success in the future leave their organization in a deeply vulnerable position. Here is what I know. The future is not like the past so we need to ask what old paradigms need to go and what new paradigms need to be embraced. And then, how do we help our staff and organization embrace new ways of thinking.

Running process

"We need to run a process" is a common phrase in our organization. Whether we are considering hiring, transitioning an individual to a new role, putting someone in leadership or believe that we need to transition an individual out of the organization, running a process is a non-negotiable part of the equation.

It is one thing to believe that you are making the right decision in any of these cases. It is another thing to know for sure, to understand the upsides and downsides, to know what training and coaching will be needed with a new hire or a transition, or in the case of helping someone transition out of the organization that we have done due process and have a plan for how to proceed. With new hires it is understanding the wiring and experience of the individual to ensure that they are placed in the right spot.

Many organizations do not pay enough attention to the process. Mainly because it is because it is time intensive and hard work. 

How well we run these processes is a measure of how much we value people in our organization. People matter. They are the most important asset we have. Proper process is what we owe our people because the consequences of how we deploy them impacts them directly as well as the organization.

Process is an investment in our people, our organization and mission. It is some of the most important work we do.

Empowered Structures

We pay far too little attention to the structures that we have in our churches and organizations for decision making. No matter how good our organizational clarity and  how competent our leaders and people, when the structures that one must negotiate to make decisions - or to organize staff - or work with a board get clunky, they hold up ministry, waste precious time and energy and demotivate otherwise good leaders.


Eventually, unfriendly structures can actually kill a ministry or company as GM found out prior to filing bankruptcy. I have watched churches that were shining lights at one time go into slow decline because their staff and governance structures were not brought into alignment with new realities. 


Let's consider staff structures. One church I am watching from a distance has a considerably large staff which has never been unified around common goals or direction. Led by fairly competent individuals, they have simply done their own ministries for decades. The end result is a staff with zero alignment, turf wars, confusion over who is responsible for what, lack of a common voice and when the church got into crisis, chaos. And this is a church that many would recognize by name in our country. 


Yesterday I did a church consultation in Europe and staff were begging for greater clarity about reporting relationships, who was setting direction and how to achieve alignment. The lack of these things in a growing and effective ministry is causing frustration for staff who in the process feel under appreciated and unempowered.


Structures at the leadership level are no less important. Here is the question: How easy is it for you as a leader to make timely ministry decisions and how many groups do you need to go to in order to do so? When the decision making process becomes frustrating you know it is time to tune up the process. This involves getting your board structure in sync, eliminating additional boards or committees that you need to negotiate with and simplifying your governance system. For those of you who have ever been through the Chicago area with its toll roads, it is moving from toll booths to easy pass. 


Staff and ministry structures matter because their either impede or help effective ministry. If you have issues with either one, take the time to address it. The positive impact of doing so will be significant.

Transitions that can help your ministry go to the next level

 Periodically ministries need to honestly evaluate the present and envision for the future. This is true for teams, ministry divisions, programs or entire organizations. There is a fairly simple way to get at the transitions that one needs to make. It can be done on a white board in four steps. 


This exercise, however, is not for the faint of heart or people who easily become defensive. In fact, the major reason more ministries do not look in the mirror to see what is really there in order to move beyond the present to the future is that they find it hard to be honest about their reality. It is too threatening and intimidating. It is far easier to live with the illusion that all is well than to look at the true facts and face reality. It is ministries that refuse to live with illusion and value looking at reality that continue to move toward more fruitful results.


Step one: Celebrate the past. Make a list of the the good things that you can celebrate about where your ministry is. You will be encouraged by the "wins" you have experienced. Here is an important principle. We celebrate the past but we envision the future. 


Step two is harder: Look under the hood. This will require you to set aside your ego and act like a consultant to your own organization. The goal here is to look beyond all the good things and make a list of the deficits which you know are there. Where is the organization not working well? Where are there silos? How well are you meeting your mission really? What staff are not performing? Where do you have lack of alignment? I tell staff in this step to act like a consultant to their own organization and tell the truth to the organization where there are major deficits. What would an outsider say to you? Be brutal, honest, candid and realistic about what is. Too many leaders are experts at step one but never go to step two because it is too intimidating. One cannot go forward without being honest about where you are.


Step three: What do you wish your organization looked like? Here you want to define your preferred future: you describe the organization, structure, results and organizational culture you believe would be optimal for you to meet your mission, see significant results and organize for maximum synergy. There should be a counter description for every negative you listed when you looked under the hood. What opportunities is the ministry missing today because of how they are organized? If you could build your ministry from scratch today, how would it look to maximize your ministry impact. This is the picture of what you believe you should become. 


Step four: What transitions do you need to make to get to where you are to where you desire to be? In other words, if you were to move from the present to the preferred future while overcoming the issues you discovered by looking under the hood what key transitions would you need to make? Here you are defining the true cost of moving from what is to what you believe needs to be. It is truly your road map to the next level of ministry success and impact. 


The transitions you need to make call the question on the courage of the leadership of the organization. Are we willing to pay the price that needs to be paid to get to where we need and want to go? Often the answer, candidly, is no. We may not want to rock the boat or pay the cost of necessary change - which is why many churches and ministries stall out. Courageous leaders, however, will take up the challenge and determine a strategy to make the transitions because their highest value is not comfort but effectiveness. 


A simple paradigm with powerful results - for courageous leaders only.

A vision without a workable strategy is an hallucination

Vision is a funny thing. Lots of people (and leaders) have vision but many cannot deliver on that vision because they cannot develop a realistic strategy that will allow them to accomplish the vision. That is why a vision without a workable strategy is hallucination: an unfulfillable dream, a false hope and an empty promise. 


The problem with this is that vision usually comes from leaders and leaders have followers and staff. It is staff who have to live with the unmet dreams of their leaders and the implications of chasing a vision that they know is a foolish dream. I remember a leader I once worked for who hired a staff member to accomplish a specific task that was vital to the organization. 


As I listened to the vision of that new staff member and his strategy for how he would accomplish it I knew in my heart that "this dog won't hunt" but I was not in a position to do or say much as I was lower in the organizational chain and this was a senior level hire of a senior level executive. Nor was I asked my opinion.


In this case we wasted three years of effort, built a staff we had to eventually let go and lost one million dollars in the process. And I had to pick up the pieces when it fell apart and the staff member was let go. Not only did we pay huge "dumb tax" for the foolish expectations and their results but the senior leader lost great credibility in the eyes of his staff for leading us down a path that resulted in organizational damage and could have been avoided. The Walter Mitty vision of the senior leader was an hallucination.


It is not that this leader (the one who hired) and the staff member (the one who was hired) did not have a strategy to reach their vision. Their problem was that it was not a workable strategy. It was built on false assumptions, optimistic rather than realistic thinking which did not even move the ball down the field a bit but rather went the wrong direction entirely.


How does one avoid moving mistaking vision for dreams or hallucinations? A key is not to develop vision by oneself. Senior leaders should work the visioning process with other senior staff who must help deliver on the vision. That includes a reasonable, workable strategy for how the organization will accomplish its vision. Usually that will mean changes in the current paradigm or strategy that the organization is using. After all, the current paradigm got you to where you are but was not designed to get you to where you need to go next. 


That raises the question of whether the organization and its leaders are ready and willing to refocus their efforts, personnel and resources toward the accomplishing of the new vision? Adopting a new vision without refocusing the organization toward that new vision is also an hallucination. Refocusing may well mean that some staff who were key in the past will need to be let go in order to accomplish the new. It may well mean that other staff will need to be refocused and even organizational structures changed to meet the needs of a new vision and a new day. It is a grave mistake to assume that your current ministry paradigm will get you to a new vision and the next level.


Here are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed if a vision is going to be more than a dream:

• Is this a realistic vision and is it the right vision for us as an organization?
• Do we have buy in from senior staff toward a new vision and what is our plan to create a guiding coalition within the organization to move in a new direction?
• Do we have a realistic and workable plan to accomplish the vision?
• What are the unintended consequences of moving in our new direction?
• How do we need to restructure staff, budgets or organizational structure to focus on the new vision?
• How will we know if we are being successful and how do we monitor progress?

Vision is a wonderful and necessary element of leadership. But, a vision without a workable strategy is simply a hallucination.

Are you beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists?

Eric Hoffer puts his finger on a critical truth when the world in which we live is in significant change.  “In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” 

One of the central jobs of a leader is not to specialize in what is today but to anticipate what will be tomorrow. It is to live in the present and the future at the same time knowing that the present will soon be history and the future will soon be today.

Take the US Postal Service which is hemorrhaging red ink as people send far fewer letters. The day the first fax was sent was the day that the Postal Service became obsolete. But no one noticed. Today they are begging junk mailers to send more stuff because the rest of us are using email. They are beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.

Or think of the evangelism strategies of most local churches which assume that people who don't know Christ will come to our church and find Him through some program. For the most part that world no longer exists but the church has not yet noticed. While we are beautifully equipped to put on programs that share the gospel at church the people we want to reach are less and less likely to come to church! The future is going to where people are who need Jesus, not expecting them to come to us - but the church continues to be blissfully unaware that it is bringing the gospel to every sector of life and work that is the key to evangelism.

The most beautifully equipped institutions to deal with a world that no longer exists are seminaries who continue to sell us on the idea that one cannot minister effectively without their education which entails sitting at the feet of the professors for four years. In the meantime many of the most effective workers today are being raised up in the context of ministry, are getting their education on the job and are not infected with the traditional ministry paradigms that still drive the church world. But try to get ordained in most denominations without a seminary education! We have professionalized ministry but the future is the releasing of people into ministry who are called, creative and equipped but not necessary in traditional ways. It almost sounds like the New Testament church!

I work in the world of missions where the whitewater of change is huge. As a group, western missions are beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists. Today it belongs to those who are equippers of indigenous workers, rather than those who are still doing what nationals could be doing better than they. 

If you lead anything, one needs to be living in the present and the future simultaneously or run the real risk of becoming museum pieces beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists. Learners inherit the earth. Learners are those who are paying close attention to the changing environment and are adapting to that change. Learners know that the status quo is not static for long and that tomorrows realities will be different than today's. There are plenty of people who are beautifully equipped to deal with today's realities. Leaders are learners who are equipped to anticipate the needs of tomorrow which will be today all too soon.

A better you, courtesy of the Holy Spirit

Most of us would like a better version of us. I grow tired of my impatience with others knowing how patient God is with me. I desire a deeper joy, knowing that God has given me so much. I wish to eradicate unkindness from my vocabulary and attitudes having experienced the kindness of Jesus on a daily basis. I want harshness in any form to give way to gentleness and my tendency to act in ways that hurt myself or others to give way to self control. And, for peace to reign in my heart regardless of my circumstances. Yes, I want a better version of me. 


For Christ followers, that better us is not only possible and within reach, it is the direct gift and work of the Holy Spirit at work in our lives. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23)." These qualities that make for a better us are a direct derivative of our relationship with Jesus. As we focus on our relationship with Him, this fruit is a natural result in our lives. When I say I want to be a gentler, kinder, version of me, what I am really longing for is more of the Holy Spirit in my life. 


What is interesting about the Spirit's fruit is that it is the opposite of  our natural self which is self centered and selfish. These qualities which come directly from God to us are other centric and directly mirror the graciousness that God has for us - undeserved as it is. In fact, the best way to understand what these qualities look like in real life is to read the Gospels and meditate on the life of Jesus. My greatest desire would be that people look at me and say, "He is like Jesus." That, by the way is the Holy Spirit's plan for our lives as well. Thus He shares His character with us.


We can be proactive in this process. Paul reminds us that "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.  Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other (Galatians 5:24-26)." The more we walk with the Spirit, the more of His character becomes our character. The old swapped for the new!


The greatest gifts we could give one another this Christmas, and every day, are the fruit of the Spirit in our words, actions, interactions and attitudes. In doing so, we become Jesus to one another and give what all of us desperately need. In the process, we become a better version of us, courtesy of the Holy Spirit.

Just one thing!

As one year draws to a close and another one begins we often think about new beginnings. There are usually many things we would like to improve on, do differently, or start doing. This is where New Year resolutions come in and they often don't work well - usually because we complicate things.


The key to change in life is keeping it simple - and focused. Consider asking just one question in four areas of life as you look at next year.


What is the one change I would like to make in my personal life?
What is the one change I would like to make in my spiritual life?
What is the one change I would like to make in my professional life?
What is the one change I would like to make in my family life?


Just one thing in four spheres of life!


Changing one thing and actually doing it is far more powerful than trying to do a bunch of things and not accomplishing it. And one thing multiplied by four can be powerful change or new beginnings.


Oh, one other thing. Don't wait until January one. Start today and by the time the new year kicks in you are already practicing one new thing in four key areas of life.


One thing - just one.