This is a wonderful story of God's grace and power from one of my dearest friends who ministers in India. Take a couple of minutes and be encouraged today. If God can do this, He can do anything!
https://vimeo.com/53877165
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
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!
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!
Saturday, November 17, 2012
A goal worth pursuing
Regular readers of this blog are aware that my father passed away a week ago. It fell to my elder brother Thomas to lead the memorial service on behalf of mom, the ten children and numerous offspring. It was not an easy assignment but he did a masterful job of capturing the person, legacy and most importantly the faith of my dad.
No one is perfect, not even remotely - something that is often not evident listening to eulogies. I have been to memorial services where the person being described bears no resemblance to the individual I knew. We live in a fallen world where no one escapes the curse of sin and its effects.
But Thomas caught the essence of Dad and a goal of my life when he said "Dad was not perfect but he kept getting better." To the end, into his mid eighties, he kept getting better as he continued to allow Jesus to renovate his life and as he pursued Him and obedience to Him. That is a goal worth pursuing!
The heart of followership of Jesus is allowing Him to re-image us into the us He created us to be. It starts with our decision to follow Him where He justifies us and forgives our sin. It continues with the ongoing process of spiritual renovation - sanctification - as we allow the Holy Spirit to work in our lives.
The commitment to continue to follow Jesus more closely as we walk through life makes all the difference. It is so easy to settle with what is rather than to pursue what could be. I hope that those who know me best will be able to say, "he was not perfect but he kept getting better." It is a lesson from my father's life and a goal worth pursuing.
No one is perfect, not even remotely - something that is often not evident listening to eulogies. I have been to memorial services where the person being described bears no resemblance to the individual I knew. We live in a fallen world where no one escapes the curse of sin and its effects.
But Thomas caught the essence of Dad and a goal of my life when he said "Dad was not perfect but he kept getting better." To the end, into his mid eighties, he kept getting better as he continued to allow Jesus to renovate his life and as he pursued Him and obedience to Him. That is a goal worth pursuing!
The heart of followership of Jesus is allowing Him to re-image us into the us He created us to be. It starts with our decision to follow Him where He justifies us and forgives our sin. It continues with the ongoing process of spiritual renovation - sanctification - as we allow the Holy Spirit to work in our lives.
The commitment to continue to follow Jesus more closely as we walk through life makes all the difference. It is so easy to settle with what is rather than to pursue what could be. I hope that those who know me best will be able to say, "he was not perfect but he kept getting better." It is a lesson from my father's life and a goal worth pursuing.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Who are the keepers of organizational values?
All organizations and ministries have values, an ethos they are committed to and a culture that they are committed to upholding. Hopefully there is clarity in all of these areas. The question is, who is responsible for upholding those that ethos?
Every leader is responsible! Without exception. Every member of the organization is responsible! Without exception. Leaders, however, have a special responsibility to guard, uphold, champion, live out and champion what the organization believes in. We instinctively watch our leaders for clues as to how seriously they take the spoken and written promises of the organization. We are likely to follow their example no matter what is written or stated.
Anytime there is a fault line in upholding what the organization holds dear there is a direct threat to the ministry. People may give reasons and excuses for why they did not uphold the ethos but the fact that it was not kept is a threat to the ministry. This is why organizational leaders should never ignore violations to their ethos, culture or commitments. They may choose to respond publicly or privately but they always respond. They know what is at stake.
Staff members watch their leaders carefully. What they do is more important than what they say. What they model is what is followed. It only takes one leader who is out of alignment regardless of their place in the organization structure to disrupt the culture of an organization. One staff member, for instance on a church staff who is not living out the ethos, culture or values of that church compromises the health of the whole.
As I said in another blog, It only takes one individual to negatively impact the whole. That is why organizational alignment is so critical.
Healthy organizations intentionally live out their preferred culture and ethos. All leaders and teams work hard to stay in alignment. It is a critical factor in the health of all organizations and ministries. It is an issue worth talking about together: how well do we do it?
Every leader is responsible! Without exception. Every member of the organization is responsible! Without exception. Leaders, however, have a special responsibility to guard, uphold, champion, live out and champion what the organization believes in. We instinctively watch our leaders for clues as to how seriously they take the spoken and written promises of the organization. We are likely to follow their example no matter what is written or stated.
Anytime there is a fault line in upholding what the organization holds dear there is a direct threat to the ministry. People may give reasons and excuses for why they did not uphold the ethos but the fact that it was not kept is a threat to the ministry. This is why organizational leaders should never ignore violations to their ethos, culture or commitments. They may choose to respond publicly or privately but they always respond. They know what is at stake.
Staff members watch their leaders carefully. What they do is more important than what they say. What they model is what is followed. It only takes one leader who is out of alignment regardless of their place in the organization structure to disrupt the culture of an organization. One staff member, for instance on a church staff who is not living out the ethos, culture or values of that church compromises the health of the whole.
As I said in another blog, It only takes one individual to negatively impact the whole. That is why organizational alignment is so critical.
Healthy organizations intentionally live out their preferred culture and ethos. All leaders and teams work hard to stay in alignment. It is a critical factor in the health of all organizations and ministries. It is an issue worth talking about together: how well do we do it?
Thursday, November 15, 2012
When board members allow friendship and relationship to overshadow their governance role
The relationship between board members and the organizational leader is a nuanced one. In many cases board members are also friends. This is often true on church boards where there may be a long relational history. In other cases, particularly in ministry settings, "Christian nice" is the culture of the board. We believe the best, want the best and assume the best - even in the face of evidence that there are issues that need to be pressed into.
Let's address the friendship issue. As an individual I may have a strong and long friendship with my organizational leader. As a board member, however, I am not there primarily as a friend but as a board member whose highest priority is the health and missional effectiveness of the organization. In the board room, therefore, my friendship cannot get in the way of asking the necessary and even hard questions and pressing into issues that are important for the organization.
This applies to the "Christian nice" that pervades so many boards. It amazes me that boards can ignore issues of organizational health and effectiveness in the face of evidence that it is not what it should be. All boards should be collegial - they are a team. All boards should also be engaged in honest, robust dialogue around clearly defined results for the ministry. The test of a good board meeting is not did we all get along and agree. The test is whether we addressed the real issues and engaged in honest dialogue about those issues - even if it was uncomfortable for some and for the organizational leader.
One of the great failures of boards in this regard is to clearly define the outcomes (ends) that the ministry is committed to. In the absence of clearly defined outcomes a board does not have an objective way of holding its organizational leader accountable. Everyone needs accountability and a target they are working toward. It also gives boards a yardstick for evaluation, dialogue, key questions to address and moves the conversation from "Christian nice" to objective results.
If you are a board member I would encourage you to ask these questions:
- Can I separate my personal friendship with the organizational leader from my role as a board member?
- Am I willing to ask the uncomfortable questions even in a board culture that wants a "Christian nice" ethos?
- Are there objective ends or outcomes that the ministry is committed to and which we can hold the leader accountable for?
- Does the board have a job description that clearly defines what its role is?
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
It is time to stop the blame game in missions
I was at a conference recently where there was a very harsh and unkind (and I would add largely unfair) critique of western missions. The critique was made by a prominent Latin American missiologist. He characterized missions from the west as being imperialist in nature, controlling, paternalistic and colonial. He further blamed most of the worlds ills on the west and its capitalist system. The west is the creator of the world's ills and the majority world is the victim.
It made me sad. It is true that western missions have made many mistakes. Mission leaders and missionaries are far more sensitive today than in the past as we have learned from those errors. It is also true that the church in the west has made an enormous sacrifice and contribution to the evangelization of the world in the last 200 years and continues to do so, now in partnership with missionaries from across the world.
In fact, the faith of this missiologist is the legacy of missionaries who gave up everything to go to share the gospel. As I write this I sit overlooking Hong Kong where my own parents served as missionaries in the 1960's. Then it was a place where the Gospel was scarce and today the Gospel is well known and the church is strong because of the sacrifice of western missionaries. My parents and many others gave up much to bring the Gospel to Asia. Tens of thousands of western missionaries are making that sacrifice today globally.
Missionaries from the majority world will and do make many of the mistakes that missionaries from the west made. It is the nature of missions. It is time to stop blaming one another and to start appreciating one another in the global church and to work together. It is time to get over it (anger at the west) and get on with it (the cooperative work of the Gospel). Our own mission has moved to a philosophy of "We don't own anything, control anything or count anything as ours." We are a servant organization to the church in the United States to serve their mission vision and to the church internationally to serve their mission vision.
I find the critique from this Latin missiologist particularly hard to swallow given the social and political landscape in much of Latin America where corruption, crime and inept governments are the norm and where the church has little influence on society. I don't say this to defend the west, but to make an observation that is hard to ignore. One can certainly find much that is wrong with the west and with the church in the west and I am not here to defend it. However, one can also find much that is wrong in the majority world and the church there and I am not here to critique it. It is time to stop the blame game.
I love and cherish my colleagues in the majority and minority world who work with us to spread the Gospel. Their attitudes are so different than the one mentioned above. We are able to appreciate one another's strengths and weaknesses, cultural differences and varied circumstances as we work together. Our concern for the Gospel outweighs our many differences. In fact, we are all enriched as we value one another, learn from one another and enjoy the richness of our differing cultures.
As a mission leader who is committed to healthy mission practices I found the comments of this man sad. I am committed to a different way of doing missions and of valuing the contributions that all make.
It made me sad. It is true that western missions have made many mistakes. Mission leaders and missionaries are far more sensitive today than in the past as we have learned from those errors. It is also true that the church in the west has made an enormous sacrifice and contribution to the evangelization of the world in the last 200 years and continues to do so, now in partnership with missionaries from across the world.
In fact, the faith of this missiologist is the legacy of missionaries who gave up everything to go to share the gospel. As I write this I sit overlooking Hong Kong where my own parents served as missionaries in the 1960's. Then it was a place where the Gospel was scarce and today the Gospel is well known and the church is strong because of the sacrifice of western missionaries. My parents and many others gave up much to bring the Gospel to Asia. Tens of thousands of western missionaries are making that sacrifice today globally.
Missionaries from the majority world will and do make many of the mistakes that missionaries from the west made. It is the nature of missions. It is time to stop blaming one another and to start appreciating one another in the global church and to work together. It is time to get over it (anger at the west) and get on with it (the cooperative work of the Gospel). Our own mission has moved to a philosophy of "We don't own anything, control anything or count anything as ours." We are a servant organization to the church in the United States to serve their mission vision and to the church internationally to serve their mission vision.
I find the critique from this Latin missiologist particularly hard to swallow given the social and political landscape in much of Latin America where corruption, crime and inept governments are the norm and where the church has little influence on society. I don't say this to defend the west, but to make an observation that is hard to ignore. One can certainly find much that is wrong with the west and with the church in the west and I am not here to defend it. However, one can also find much that is wrong in the majority world and the church there and I am not here to critique it. It is time to stop the blame game.
I love and cherish my colleagues in the majority and minority world who work with us to spread the Gospel. Their attitudes are so different than the one mentioned above. We are able to appreciate one another's strengths and weaknesses, cultural differences and varied circumstances as we work together. Our concern for the Gospel outweighs our many differences. In fact, we are all enriched as we value one another, learn from one another and enjoy the richness of our differing cultures.
As a mission leader who is committed to healthy mission practices I found the comments of this man sad. I am committed to a different way of doing missions and of valuing the contributions that all make.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Any ministry is only as strong as its weakest area
Ministries like any organization are a series of interconnected parts where each plays a role in the whole. Given the connections, it is also true that in many cases, the ministry is only as strong as its weakest area - a sobering thought.
The corollary truth is that when we choose to ignore areas of weakness we actually hold the whole ministry hostage to those areas of weakness. A church may have quality ministries but if their small group ministry is weak (where this is the relational glue of the church) the whole ministry is weak because the back door remains open. Thus, this area of weakness impacts the rest of the ministry.
Generally staff have an opinion on where the weaknesses lie in any ministry. For years, an area of weakness was the intake process for our mission. If you don't catch dishealth at the front gate you must deal with it later and others pay the price. While the organization knew this was true, there was not a culture that made it OK to talk about the issue and so it went on and on. I spoke recently with someone who attends a church where the music leader is incompetent, will not listen to others, and is frankly terrible up front. No one dares push the issue and the church remains small and will probably stay that way because of this area of obvious weakness.
Healthy organizations have an ethos where areas of weakness can be identified and addressed. It is not about blaming people as the issue usually comes down to processes. Either way, however, if an area of weakness is present and is impacting other areas as they usually do, there must be a way to address it. And to address it there must be a way to talk about it. If there is not the very culture of the organization conspires against reformation.
One weak link in a chain compromises the whole chain. That is why any ministry is only as strong as its weakest link.
The corollary truth is that when we choose to ignore areas of weakness we actually hold the whole ministry hostage to those areas of weakness. A church may have quality ministries but if their small group ministry is weak (where this is the relational glue of the church) the whole ministry is weak because the back door remains open. Thus, this area of weakness impacts the rest of the ministry.
Generally staff have an opinion on where the weaknesses lie in any ministry. For years, an area of weakness was the intake process for our mission. If you don't catch dishealth at the front gate you must deal with it later and others pay the price. While the organization knew this was true, there was not a culture that made it OK to talk about the issue and so it went on and on. I spoke recently with someone who attends a church where the music leader is incompetent, will not listen to others, and is frankly terrible up front. No one dares push the issue and the church remains small and will probably stay that way because of this area of obvious weakness.
Healthy organizations have an ethos where areas of weakness can be identified and addressed. It is not about blaming people as the issue usually comes down to processes. Either way, however, if an area of weakness is present and is impacting other areas as they usually do, there must be a way to address it. And to address it there must be a way to talk about it. If there is not the very culture of the organization conspires against reformation.
One weak link in a chain compromises the whole chain. That is why any ministry is only as strong as its weakest link.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)