I wasted my time trying to help too many organizations that didn't really want to change.

It took me way too long to realize that, in too many cases, I was wasting my time trying to help organizations that said they wanted help but, in reality, did not. I don't intend to do that again.

Typically, I will get a call from an individual with an organization who says, "We need help." Often, I will meet with them and explain our process at The Addington Method, and they will say we need this really badly. 

But I have learned that in many cases, they didn't want help in the end. Let me explain and unpack the five questions I now ask before agreeing to help an organization.

One: Do you genuinely want candid feedback?

Almost everyone will say yes, but you quickly discover that the yes only applies to things they want to hear and not to the difficult things they need to hear. The problem is that we only grow when we are willing to listen to things we don't particularly want to hear. That is true in my life, and I suspect it is yours. We are human, and our egos don't like to be bruised, but until we are willing to choose humility over ego, we stay in the ruts that we are in. 

The only way forward is to be willing to accept candid feedback. No leader gets better without it. Those who resist it are wasting your time. They want to do something other than the hard stuff to grow. 

Two: Are you willing to listen to your staff?

In my work, I often conduct Culture Audits. These are one-hour conversations with open-ended questions designed to discover what is happening beneath the organization's surface. It is not unusual that when the results are shared, the people who asked for your help decide that the results—from their own staff—are inaccurate. Mainly because they are inconvenient.

Boards and leaders who do not take the feedback from their staff seriously are doomed to mediocrity. The irony is that in not wanting to accept that input or trying to make it disappear, the staff all know the truth anyway. They see it and live it every day. In addition, if leaders and boards are willing to listen, they can rectify the issues that staff raise and ultimately make the organization healthier and happier. 

When leaders or boards ignore staff feedback, they do so out of their insecurities and egos. A posture of humility and openness to staff experience is one of the greatest gifts leaders and boards can bring. 

If one is unwilling to listen to one's staff and their feedback, one does not really want help.

Three: How much do you want better organizational culture and health?

This is hard work. It demands introspection and a setting aside of our egos to achieve a better and healthier place. If one is only willing to do the easy part but not address the hard issues, one is not ready for this challenge. In order to achieve a better culture, you must deeply want to get there because the route there will be challenging.

Four: Are you willing to invest the time it will take to get to cultural transformation?

Transforming one's culture is not a microwaveable process. Your DNA is imprinted with past habits, attitudes, and ways of doing what you do. Cultural transformation can take several years, but it is deeply worth it. However, it requires focus, honesty, introspection, a willingness to change, and a long-term commitment to healthier and better practices.

Leaders enamored by short-term, flavor-of-the-month ideas may need more time to be ready to help lead cultural transformation, which is long-term work that requires significant patience and resolve. This work takes time, focus, and resolve. In one recent case I was involved in, I told the board that it would require at least a one-year intensive plan to change the toxicity of their organization. In their wisdom, they said, "We want it done in 90 days with executive coaching. Submit a new proposal to reflect that. I chose to step out, knowing they were not serious and that it would not work.

Five: Will you invest appropriate finances to get the help you need?

Important work takes time and requires a financial investment. Too often, organizations are unwilling to get help and make the necessary investments. They think they can handle it. Of course, the very reason they are talking to a consultant is that they have not been able to handle it. Every organization funds what is most important to them. If they are unwilling to fund becoming better and solving real organizational issues, it means that this is not important to them.

If your organization is in need of change or a healthier culture, ask these five questions. You are not serious or ready to move forward until you can genuinely say yes to all five. This is the work we do at The Addington Method, but not until we are convinced an organization is truly serious.

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.

Emotional Intelligence and it's correlation with organizational culture.

It is a given that the Emotional Intelligence of an organization is the sum of the EQ of its members. In other words, the organization's EQ reflects the general emotional health of its people. When I ask people about the culture of their workplace, they can quickly identify the positive and the negative aspects of their organization. What they often don't realize is that they are describing the EQ of those who work there. 

In effect, the EQ of the organization (which reflects the EQ of the individuals within the organization) creates the organizational culture. There is a direct correlation between EQ and culture. So, if one is going to change the organizational culture it becomes necessary to grow the EQ of its members. 

For instance, if one has a culture that is rife with gossip, back stabbing, unhealthy competition, conflict and people taking credit when they should not or blaming others when they are to blame one has a dysfunctional culture that reflects poor Emotional Intelligence among its members. The core issue is not the culture but the people who make up that culture and their level of emotional health.

The lower the EQ of the staff, the more dysfunctional the organization is. The higher the EQ of staff, the healthier the organizational culture. And the culture almost always reflects an organization's leadership as people take their cues from leaders.

Because we don't often think of organizational culture as related to the EQ of its members, we become frustrated with our inability to deal with issues in our organizational culture. However, by teaching and coaching in EQ we can directly impact the culture of the organization in healthy ways. 

All cultures have positive and negative aspects to them. Take a moment and think about the problematic areas of the culture of your team or organization and armed with that knowledge, do some teaching and coaching in the requisite areas of EQ that are involved in the problematic areas.

For examples of the signs of good and poor EQ, click here.

Five ways for leaders to overcome their fear of organizational change

Let's face it: organizational change is uncomfortable, and it is one of the reasons that it does not happen often enough, even when there is clear evidence that without it, our organization will not go to the next level of effectiveness. In the many years that I served as an organizational leader, I had to personally deal with this uncomfortableness. In my years of consulting, I have watched leaders struggle with the implications of necessary change because of its impact on them and the comfort of the status quo.

Organizations that remain static today quickly find their effectiveness eroding. Changes in the marketplace, the size of the organization, the need to break through growth barriers, or the necessity of trying new strategies all require change, and the first barrier that must be overcome is the reluctance of leaders to embrace it.

Why would organizational leaders not embrace change that can help their organization become better and more effective? Change is uncomfortable! It means that we must move from comfort to discomfort. It means potential changes to our "turf" and how we are used to doing things. It can impact reporting relationships and, therefore, the "politics" of the organization (and all organizations have politics). It requires us to think about our work differently and often more strategically. All of these factors make change uncomfortable, and unless leaders are able to overcome their discomfort, they can be the barrier to organizational growth and effectiveness.

How, then, do we overcome our discomfort to change? It really goes into how we think about our work and about change. 

First, it is OK to admit that change is simply hard. Often, we resist change as leaders by arguing that it is not needed rather than just admitting that it makes us uncomfortable. Any major change needs to be prefaced by the fact that it will make us uncomfortable.

Second, we need to remember that our work is not about us but about the mission of the organization. If change is required to better fulfill our mission (and it will be), we embrace it because our commitment is not to our personal comfort but to the fulfillment of the mission of the organization. To resist change because of our own discomfort is to see our work as about us rather than about the mission we are committed to.

Third, we need to be willing to embrace uncertainty as to how the change will impact us. Here is another fact: There is uncertainty in change, and until we get through the whitewater to the calm water on the other side, we will need to live with uncertainty. But also recognize that our fears are rarely founded in reality: they are simply fears of the unknown that change brings. True leadership is about the ability to negotiate needed change for the good of the organization, not to guard our own comfort. Even when we try to understand the consequences of necessary change (which we should do), there will be implications that we do not foresee.

Fourth, as leaders, we need to understand that change is good for us. It requires us to sharpen our thinking, our strategies, our assumptions, and our ability to adapt to a changing world. Usually, our resistance to change is about us, while our willingness to embrace it is about the effectiveness of our work and the mission of the organization. Dealing with organizational change makes us better and sharper leaders.

Fifth, we need to think of change as innovation. That is what it is: innovation to increase our effectiveness. No company survives for long without innovation. If I view organizational change as a nuisance, I will resist it. If I see it as an innovation that will help the organization do what it does better, I will more willingly embrace it. Innovation is always an ongoing process in any organization.

Notice that all of these five principles are about how we think about our work and our role as leaders. If we can change the way we think about change, that change will become easier.

Reinvigorating and reimagining your organization

All organizations whether for profit or non profit go through predictable stages of growth. Someone had a vision in the beginning but at some point that vision is reached and unless care is taken the organization starts to stagnate in the status quo and the impetus for forward movement starts to stall out.

But this need not be the case if senior leaders are constantly thinking about the way forward. In fact it is the job of leaders to constantly ruffle the waters of comfortability without sinking the ship. Without this commitment to keep searching the horizons leaders themselves can become the barrier to forward movement in their organization. And this applies to leaders at all levels of an organization.

The way to counter stagnation is for leaders to reinvision every five years or so. In our fast moving world opportunities change and thus organizations need to learn to be nimble to meet those opportunities without compromising the values and mission of the organization.

The central questions are these:

• What do we want our organization to look like five years from now?
• What new opportunities do we have to fulfill our mission as we look at the changed environment around us?
• What changes do we need to make if we are going to meet those opportunities?
• Is there anything we are doing that is no longer mission critical and should be dropped so that we can focus on issues that have raised to greater importance?
• If we were starting the organization today what would we do differently? And then align to the answer to that question.
• Do we have the right people in the right seats to meet the opportunities of today? If not, how do you use your talent to maximize your impact?

Thinking through these issues is hard work but it is the work that the most innovative organizations do on a regular basis. It is worth the work because the return on mission increases significantly.

TJ Addington of Addington Consulting has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com.

Organizational change and the angst it creates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating intentional waves

Organizations, teams and groups crave equilibrium - predictability. Especially in Christian contexts there is also an aversion to strong disagreement or "conflict." The phrase "don't rock the boat" reflects most people's aversion to surprises or major change. We are more comfortable on calm seas then in the waves.

In fact, so comfortable are many organizations with the status quo that they are willing to drift into decline and even oblivion rather than create waves. We watched General Motors do that in recent times. They lived in a fairy tale world while the world around them changed dramatically but with its change adverse culture no one was willing to create some waves, wake people up, help them smell the coffee and realize that it was not 1960 anymore!

Churches, mission organizations, and Christian ministries often do the same thing. And many are living like General Motors did.

Without a crisis major change does not occur in an organization. Yet without major change, organizations become obsolete. This is why wise leaders regularly create a crisis - they intentionally create waves that cause discomfort to the system because without shocking the system the system always returns to its comfortable equilibrium.

Waves are not bad and leaders often need to create waves and even some anxiety if they are going to convince others that change is needed. Over a decade ago, we intentionally created a crisis in our denominational office to convince our staff that either we needed to change - to become a premier service organization for our churches - or we would become unnecessary and obsolete. It was not a comfortable time for our staff but it had the desired result of helping us change our culture.

Leaders create waves, sometimes small, other times large, to rock the boat, upset the equilibrium, get people's attention and force the organization to look at some issue differently. If someone had done that at General Motors years ago, they would not have found themselves in the spot they did. The same is true for many churches who are quietly drifting into irrelevancy oblivious to the fact.

When equilibrium is disturbed, people begin to talk about issues and solutions that they otherwise would not discuss. The REVEAL study done by Willowcreek Community Church on spiritual formation created a crisis in many churches as they realized that their assumptions about life change were in fact flawed. That has sparked huge conversation around how spiritual formation actually takes place and we will all be better for it.

As in the REVEAL study, leaders create waves by asking tough questions about the assumptions that often underlie our ministries. Those questions are uncomfortable and perhaps intimidating but they force the organization to think differently and to engage in significant dialogue. As our world changes at an ever more rapid pace, the need to create waves that spark discussion and new thinking becomes all the more important.

Some leaders are intimidated by the prospects of disequilibrium because they cannot control where the waves will lead. That is true! But with an organization full of good people, the likelihood is that the discussion and dialogue will create a pretty good solution.

In our mission, I intentionally created waves several years ago by suggesting that we wanted to be planting churches internationally that were healthy, indigenous, self-supporting, interdependent and reproducing - and that many of the churches we planted or groups we worked with were not committed to these things.

My white paper was taken by some to be unrealistic, by others to be a slam on what we had been doing and by others to be a threat to the status quo.

But it sparked a great deal of discussion (not all of it comfortable) and in the end we sharpened our understanding and goals for the kinds of churches we wanted to plant and the strategies we would use to accomplish it. But I had to be willing to create a crisis in order for the dialogue to take place - and take the risk of a period of uncertainty as that dialogue was going on.

In fact, when leaders are no longer willing to create waves (it can be uncomfortable for them as well) it is time for them to step aside.

Change and its effect on people

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charting a healthy change process

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

Prepare people for coming changes

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

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

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

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

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

Recruit a guiding coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not neglect a prayer strategy for change initiatives

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

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

Relax, persevere and lead boldly

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

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!