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.

Ezra's and Nehemiah's: We need one another

A common theme I hear from highly qualified business people and other professionals today is "Why won't the church let me use my gifts in its ministry?" Many feel marginalized and underutilized. Some feel like they are not wanted at all on the ministry side.

Not that they are not allowed to minister. Ministry folks are often glad to let professional folks minister in ministry slots they have created that they need to be filled. That is not what these professionals are asking. They want to be able to use the skills God has given them in ministry - not filling slots the church has created!

Many ministry professionals lack experience and gifting in leadership, business, strategy and management. They don't like to admit it but it is true.

Many professionals lack experience in preaching, teaching, counseling or theological intricacies.

Perhaps given those facts, we need each other! Playing to each other's strengths and complementing one another. Actually making room for each other and not being threatened by one another.

Ezra was a spiritual leader and a good one. He was terrible as a leader or administrator! So God provided Nehemiah who did not pretend to be a priest, but who had amazing administrative and leadership gifts and who got done in a short time what Ezra could not get done in years. They needed each other, they played to their strengths and the people were stronger for it.

Ezra was a priest. Nehemiah was an executive of the king. Ezra's and Nehemiah's need each other. Too often they have not found a way to work well with each other. The church is the purview of the Ezra's and the world of the Nehemiah's.

We need the Ezra's and Nehemiah's in our churches to appreciate one another, trust one another and allow one another to play to the strengths God has given. Our congregations might, like the people of Israel in Nehemiah actually be better off because of it.

Supervisors and staff: Maintaining appropriate boundaries

Leaders have an interesting dilemma when it comes to how close or distant they are socially from those they lead. It is often something that they don't think much about but it has important ramifications for how they relate to others.

There is a difference in the relationship between peers and those one leads. This is obvious when a leader is promoted from within and goes from peer to supervisor. Everyone knows that something has changed and that the relationship is different.

It is different because now one who was a peer is leading those he or she was a peer with. Now instead of relating as peers, they are asking hard questions and holding others accountable for results. Often the transition is not easy. I remember one such transition myself where I was now supervising former peers and some of them never adjusted to it.

The issue of social distance can be framed this way: How close or distant do I position myself as a leader from those I lead, knowing that while we have a collegial relationship it is not by nature a peer relationship?

Some leaders try so hard to be best buds with those they lead that they lose their ability to speak into the lives, ministries, or strategies of their team because that is not the function of being best buds. In other words, in their attempt to be "one of the boys or girls" they lose their ability and authority to lead well. It is a leadership error.

Other leaders are so intent on their leadership role that they become distant and unapproachable from those they lead. Another leadership error because the human element is lost to the leadership role.

Social distance for a leader really depends on the situation. The best leaders are highly personable on a personal level. They care about families and kids and the personal issues of life and easily engage in discussions that deal with the human issues we all face. On that level, the relationship feels like a relationship of peers.

On the other hand, when leading the team, or pressing into a work related issue, they put on the hat of leader and can move into a collegial but clearly a leadership role where they are not afraid to give direct feedback, deal with a difficult issue or press into the work of those they supervise. In this role they are clearly not peers and need to be taken seriously by those they lead.

The most complicated relationships are those where a former peer was also a close friend. Now, there is both a friendship and a supervisory capacity that must be negotiated. In some settings they remain defined by the friendship but in the leadership setting it is the supervisory role that must be realized and acknowledged by both parties.

Wise leaders are both friends and leaders and they understand when it is appropriate for the social distance to be close and when it must be more distant. When social distance is too close it is difficult or impossible to lead. When it is too distant it is difficult to be seen as a leader who cares. Good leaders can and do switch from close to farther depending on the situation. They are collegial and human but also leaders and supervisors. If you are a leader, think about how you negotiate social distance with those you lead.

Leaders can be friends, colleagues and supervisors. They regulate the social distance depending on the situation so that they lead well. But they will never just be "one of the boys or girls."

What our calendars say about us

Whether we are an organizational leader or team member there is a very telling tool about our priorities and what is really important to us. It is not what we say. It is not what we communicate to our teams or one another. It is not the mission or priorities of our organization.

It is our calendar.

Nancy Ortberg in her book, Unleashing the Power of Rubber bands: Lessons in non-linear Leadership writes something that is all too true: "There is often an enormous disconnect between the vision of an organization and the events that make up the daily calendar pages of the organization's leaders."

Don't get me wrong. There is always great activity on a calendar. But the focus of that activity for too many does not match up with the vision or mission of the organization or the stated priorities of leaders (or team members). All of us can easily fall into the trap of mistaking activity for the results we say we are committed to.

I have only five priorities - Key Result Areas (KRA's). The are:

1. Personal development


2. Strategic leadership


3. Strong team


4. Leadership development


5. Mobilizing resources

Those are the big rocks of my work. Given those priorities, the proof of whether those are in reality my priorities is whether my calendar reflects those priorities. Do the majority of my appointments, obligations, and time allocations reflect those five areas, or does my calendar actually reflect a scattered and accidental approach to my work. The calendar tells the story!

If you are committed to a life of intentionality I would challenge you to identify the big rocks of your work and then compare the obligations of your calendar with your priorities. Do they line up? Are you intentional in scheduling your priorities? Can you say no to those things that distract from what you are called to do? Are you willing for your colleagues to see your calendar? Would they say it reflects your big rocks?

Our calendars tell the story of our true priorities. And they are a powerful tool in ensuring that we achieve those priorities when we allocate our limited resource of time according to those things that we know are most important.

I don't have time

Are you ever caught in the trap where you don't have time to do what you need to do? What someone else wants you to do? Something you feel obligated to do? How does it make you feel?

Here is a truth to consider: We all have time to do what is most important to us and we all have time to do what God has called us to do. If we run out of time, it may be that we have things in our schedule that are not really important for us, or we have taken on responsibilities that God did not intend for us to take on! They may be important for someone but not for us.

Those times in my life where I have been harried and hassled are also times when I have not been careful about what I said yes or no too, and times when I had taken on new responsibility without letting go of old responsibility - always a mistake.

When I feel like I don't have time it is really a symptom that I need to more carefully examine the responsibilities and obligations I have and determine where adjustments need to be made so that I have adequate and good time for those things that are most important.

And that in itself takes time, which is why a monthly personal retreat day is so important to me. It gives me time to prioritize, evaluate and find time for those things that are important. And jettison those things that are distractions that take away from what is actually important. It takes time to save time!

I have had periods when I was too busy. I am not impressed with busyness. In fact, I am far more impressed with those who are not too busy to find time for those things that are truly important in their lives - and still have margin. It tells me that they have wisdom. They have thought through their lives so that they have time for what the ought to have time for.

"Father God, help me (and us) to do that."

The advantages of engaging a coach

Many of us would benefit from a formal coaching arrangement from someone who can help us ask the right questions, think strategically and improve our personal effectiveness. I am aware of one large denomination that has every one of their senior executives in such a coaching relationship.

Many executives in the business world do the same thing and pay several thousand dollars a day for day long sessions. The good news is that one can find a coach who can be in touch monthly for an hour or two using the phone or teleconference.

Why consider a coach? We see what we see and know what we know. A coach is not there to tell us what to do but to ask questions that help us think about options we might not think of, to challenge our presuppositions and to help us figure out how to be more effective.

There are trained coaches for pastors and ministry leaders, or one can ask someone who you respect and trust to coach you. It can be formal or informal.

The greatest barrier I find to entering into a coaching relationship is the fear of greater accountability. That is in fact one of the benefits of such a relationship because having that regular conversation with someone who is helping you focus on what is most important and to be disciplined in our use of time fosters accountability. But it is accountability from someone who is in your corner and is there to help you be more effective.

Monthly coaching from someone outside your organization is a great way to help you keep growing personally and become more missional and effective in the process

The soft side of leadership

I spoke with a member of a large organization this week who told me that the morale of the staff was hurting. One of the factors was that the new president did not connect with the staff like the previous president. When I probed as to why that was he could not explain the difference except that it was different and it had made a difference with morale.

There may well be reasons for this. The business is a lot larger than it used to be and many employees would not know the new president. Economic realities may well dictate that he spend his time on different issues than his predecessor. Or, he may not be perceived as relational.

What I do know is that there is an important but "soft" side to leadership which is not about strategies, vision, budgets or execution. It is showing an appreciation for one's staff, being personable and approachable when with staff, and caring about the impact of decisions on people in the organization.

One leader I have watched breezes in and out of the office with a sense of importance, rarely stopping to greet those he passes and when he does he says, "I'm really busy." What he communicates is "I am really full of myself and what I'm up to is important but you are not." This is a ministry leader - a pastor - and his lack of interest in or time for staff sends a strong message to those who work for him.

Rarely does he engage staff personally, stop into their offices or invite them into his and sends a strong message that he is the leader, is busy and does important things. Behind his back his staff have a name for him and it is not one he would appreciate - but it fits well. Any leader who sends those kinds of message may have authority but is not a good leader.

It also breeds mistrust among staff because trust is only possible in the context of relationship. Certainly a high view of ourselves and the perception that we use people rather than value people breeds mistrust.

The leader I work for is never too busy to stop, talk, engage staff and to find out what is happening in their lives, no matter where they are in the organizational structure. He is widely loved, trusted and respected while the individual above is neither loved nor respected. The difference? Treating people with dignity, concern and appreciation.

Organizations, whether businesses or ministries are made up of people. It is the staff which represents the heart, the intellectual capital and the ability of the organization to deliver something of value to those outside of the organization.

Staff knows whether their leaders use them or value them. That is essentially the difference in the illustrations above. People may fear a leader because he or she uses people but they will neither respect nor love them.

One of the best things leaders can do is to pay attention to those around them and those who work for them. It will deeply impact the morale of the group and treating people with dignity, well, it is what Jesus would do - and did.