TOPIC 10: LEADING POSITIVE CHANGE
Note: these lecture notes are drawn from the subject Frameworks for Christian Leadership, a foundation leadership subject offered by intensive mode in July each year at Christ College. This subject is the first in a series of custom-‐designed subjects that form a coherent Leadership Development Program. This program is available for pastors-‐in-‐training completing B.Th. and M.Div. programs, and experienced pastors at an M.A. Other enrolment options are also available. For further information about this subject and the larger program it contributes to, see further the application forms available at
http://christcollege.edu.au/leadership/ .
INTRODUCTION
In the first lecture of this subject, it was argued that leadership is one of the most significant influences on the health and growth of all organisations1, including churches2. Leadership matters because God
designed his good creation, now fallen to sin, to respond to our derivative rule as his image-‐bearers3. Our
task, then and now, is to cultivate and bring order to God’s world (Genesis 2:15). In this context, leadership was defined as cultivating the conditions in which others can flourish.
According to the most recent NCLS Research studies4, the single greatest weakness among our churches
is leadership. This is followed closely by evangelism (or ‘faith-‐sharing’) among ordinary church members, and innovation and change. As result of these deficits, our churches appear to be declining and ageing5,
and display many of the symptoms of active inertia6 and a death spiral7 (declining performance followed
by denial and ‘more of the same’). According to Mohler8, we appear to be ‘believers who can’t lead’ (as
opposed to leaders who don’t know what they believe).
The previous topics have explored a number of different metaphors in which leaders can act, all of them arising out of Jesus’ own ministry as a shepherd. These metaphors flow out of Jesus’ own ministry as “the Mediator between God and man; the Prophet, Priest and King…”9. As noted in Topic 2, these categories
1 See further some of the following references noted in Week 1: Collins J. (2001a) Good to Great: Why some companies make the
leap…and others don't, London: Random House, Collins J. (2001b) Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review July-‐August: 136-‐139, Collins J. (2006) Good to Great and the Social Sectors: , London: Random House Business Books, Green R. (2009) Management Matters in Australia: Just how productive are we? Canberra: Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Kouzes J and Posner B. (2012) The Leadership Challenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-‐Bass.
2 Bellamy J, Cussen B, Sterland S, et al. (2006) Enriching Church Life: A Practical Guide for Local Churches, Adelaide: Openbook
Australia, Keller T. (2011) Corporate Renewal Dynamics. New York: Redeemer City-‐to-‐City, Pratt J. (2010) 'Growing Healthy Churches': Voices from the Churches. Directions 2012 Research Project. Epping: NSW & ACT Baptist Churches, Rainer TS and Geiger E. (2006) Simple Church: Returing to God's Process for Making Disciples, Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Publishing Group, Stetzer E and Dodson M. (2007) Comeback Churches: How 300 churches Turned Around and Yours Can Too, Nashville,
Tennesee: B&H Publishing Group.
3 Laniak TS. (2006) Shepherds after My own Heart: Pastoral traditions and leadership in the Bible, Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP. 4 NCLS Research. (2006) National Church Life Survey. Sydney South: NCLS Research, NCLS Research. (2012) National Church
Life Survey. Sydney South: NCLS Research.
5 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1996) Census of Population and Housing. (accessed August 12, 2008), Australian Bureau of
Statistics. (2001) Census of Population and Housing. (accessed August 12, 2008), Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006) Census of Population and Housing. (accessed August 12, 2008), Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011) Census of Population and Housing. (accessed 15 July, 2013).
6 Sull DN. (1995) Why Good Companies Go Bad. Harvard Business Review July-‐August: 42-‐52.
7 Nadler DA and Shaw RB. (1995) Change Leadership: Core Competency for the Twenty-‐First Century. In: Nadler DA, Shaw RB
and Walton AE (eds) Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-‐Bass.
8 Mohler A. (2012) The Conviction to Lead, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.
9 (2003) Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator. Westminister Confession of Faith. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 45-‐51.,
are formative for ordinary Christians and those called to serve them as leaders10. A summary of the
major metaphors of Christian leadership identified in this course is found in Figure 1.
This integrative lecture explores the difficult, contested, but essential work of leading positive change It begins with a discussion of the significance and difficulty of change, including change in the church. It then explores what makes change so difficult. A range of general strategies and tactics for managing change are then surveyed.
Figure 1: Framework for Christian Leadership
OUR DIFFICULTY WITH CHANGE
CHANGE IS UNAVOIDABLE
During our discussion of leaders as ‘Social Architects’, we noted that senior leaders in public and private organisations surveyed by IBM claimed they were bombarded by change, and in response were pursuing significant internal transformation to become more adaptive to their external environments11. These
environments were identified as increasingly volatile and unstable12. It was recommended that churches
pursue more organic and adaptive social architecture to help them engage their surrounding culture.
Pressures to change can arise from a range of external sources, including:
10 Clowney EP. (1995) The Church: Contours of Christian Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, Keller T. (2012) Centre Church:
Doing Balanced, Gospel-‐Centred Ministry in Your City, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
11 IBM. (2008) IBM CEO Study.
12 Reeves M and Deimler M. (2011) Adaptability: The New Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Review July-‐August: 135-‐
141.
Leadership*is*cul.va.ng*the*condi.ons*in*which*others*can*flourish*
‘KING’*
Navigator* Social*Architect*‘PROPHET’*
Interpreter* Group*Educator*
‘PRIEST’*
PeaceDmaker* Counselor*‘SHEPHERD’*
Elders/Pastors* Fathers* PowerD* Broker* Coach* Ambassador*• Fashion pressures to adopt the latest trends or ideas seen in other organisations (a pattern called
mimetic isomorphism13). For example, why do new city-‐based churches need to draw so heavily on
the ‘hipster’ urban sub-‐culture?
• Coercive pressure to conform with a recent legal ruling from ‘the state’ or headquarters (a pattern
called coercive isomorphism14)
• Normative pressures to follow so-‐called ‘best practice’ arising from the professions and training
schools (a pattern called normative isomorphism)15
• Market decline pressures resulting from a contracting market16
• Geopolitical pressures associated with being in the wrong place at the wrong time17
• Hyper-‐competition pressures resulting from competitors introducing frequent disruptive change
into the marketplace, such as through innovative design which better addresses the needs of the target audience in superior ways18
Pressures to change can also arise from inside organisations, including19:
• Growth pressures (e.g. towards new forms of organising, such as different church size
dynamics20)
• Integration and collaboration pressures (e.g. arising from the merger of two departments or
organisations)
• Identity pressures (behaving consistently with a desired institutional identity, even when this is
difficult)
• ‘New broom’ pressures (the changes which accompany the appointment of a new leader) • Power and political pressures
Even organisations which don’t try to change still end up changing, albeit reactively. Estep Jr.21 notes that
change occurs naturally within an institution’s life cycle, even in churches. Ministries and organisations are born through active, intentional and progressive change to pursue a desired dream. They grow through purposeful planning and advancement.
But organisations cannot maintain existing levels of effectiveness unless they commit to ongoing and intentional change. Without re-‐casting the vision and re-‐engineering the organisation22, the organisation
or ministry will be driven by entropic pressures and slide towards gradual decline and eventual death. The organisation thus institutionalises and begins to work for its own existence, and not the fulfilment of its original vision. A lack of change does not perpetuate a ministry; it kills it (see further Figure 2).
It is an institutional myth that organizations can simply maintain their current levels of effectiveness without any significant change occurring. In reality, one may have to change the program, ministry,
13 DiMaggio PJ and Powell WW. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in
Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147-‐160.
14 Ibid. 15 Ibid.
16 Palmer I, Dunford R and Akin G. (2009c) Why Organizations Change. Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple
Perspectives Approach. Boston: McGraw-‐Hill, 49-‐84.
17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.
19 Palmer I, Dunford R and Akin G. (2009c) Why Organizations Change. Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple
Perspectives Approach. Boston: McGraw-‐Hill, 49-‐84.
20 There are lots of great sources student can consult on this topic. See further Keller T. (2010) Leadership and Church Size
Dynamics. New York: Redeemer City-‐to-‐City, Martin KE. (2005) The Myth of the 200 Barrier: How to Lead Through
Transitional Growth, Nashville: Abingdon Press, McIntosh GL. (2009) Taking Your Church to the Next Level: What Got You Here Won't Get You There, Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
21 Estep Jr. J. (2005) Ministry Leaders as Change Agents. In: anthony Mj and Estep Jr. J (eds) Management Essentials for
Christian Ministries. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 201-‐221.
or organization just to maintain present levels of achievement. The maintenance myth has led to ineffectiveness and the eventual death of many congregations and Christian organizations23.
Figure 2: Institutional Life-‐Cycle24
Similar observations have been made by Stetzer and Dodson in their study of turnaround churches in the US25.
Over time, most churches plateau, and most eventually decline. Typically, they start strong or experience periods of growth, but then they stagnate. Patterns and traditions that once seemed special eventually lose their meaning. Churches that were once outwardly focused eventually become worried about the wrong things. They become more concerned about a well-‐used policy manual than a well-‐used baptistry26.
CHANGE IS DIFFICULT
The capacity to manage organisational change successfully is now regarded by many organisations as business-‐critical and central to their survival. Yet most organisations find it difficult to manage change successfully. Research has found consistently that approximately two thirds of major change initiatives
23 Estep Jr. J. (2005) Ministry Leaders as Change Agents. In: anthony Mj and Estep Jr. J (eds) Management Essentials for
Christian Ministries. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 201-‐221.. page 202.
24 Ibid., p203.
25 Stetzer E and Dodson M. (2007) Comeback Churches: How 300 churches Turned Around and Yours Can Too, Nashville,
Tennesee: B&H Publishing Group.
end in failure, not meeting basic project objectives around time, budget and quality constraints 27. In
other studies, this rate of failure has been as high as 80 to 90 percent28, although some researchers have
queried this claim29. The below quote indicates that this situation is widespread among organisations.
Most traditional companies have accepted, in theory at least, that they must either change or die…Despite some individual successes, however, change remains difficult to pull off, and few companies manage the process as well as they would like. Most of their initiatives – installing new technology, downsizing, restructuring, or even trying to change corporate culture – have had low success rates. The brutal fact is that about 70% of all change initiatives fail30.
Change within churches is not much different. Similar rates of change failure have been observed among studies of US churches. It is probable that comparable rates of change failure are found among Australian churches too.
The natural question is, “Who wants a stagnant church?” And the obvious answer is, “Nobody!” Yet, the real truth is that most churches will not make the adjustments and changes necessary to move from stagnation and decline to revitalization and growth…Revitalizing a stagnant church is not easy. If it were, 70 to 80 percent of North American churches would not be stagnant or declining, and 3,500 to 4,000 U.S. churches would not close each year31.
Discussion
What makes change so difficult in our churches? Make a list in small groups.
WHAT MAKES CHANGE SO DIFFICULT?
IBM recently conducted another major study of change management practices, based on surveys and interviews among more than 1,500 practitioners worldwide. This study found what management researchers have argued for many years, that the so-‐called ‘soft’ factors (i.e. people factors) are the hardest ones to manage. The top five obstacles, each cited by approximately one third of respondents or more in this study, are noted below:
• Changing mindsets and attitudes (58%) • Corporate culture (49%)
• Underestimating project complexity (35%) • Shortage of resources (33%)
• Lack of commitment of higher management (32%)
Dealing with ‘soft’ factors or people-‐issues (obstacles 1-‐3 and 5 above) are far more challenging than even a shortage of resources. A summary of the full list of cited challenges with change is found in Figure 3.
27 Henrik Jorgensen H, Owen L and Neus A. (2008) Making Change Work. IBM Global Services, Armenakis AA and Harris SG.
(2009) Reflections: our Journey in Organizational Change Research and Practice. Journal of Change Management 9: 127-‐142, Higgs M and Rowland D. (2005) All Changes Great and Small: Exploring Approaches to Change and its Leadership. Ibid.5: 121-‐ 151.
28 Gilley A, Dixon P and Gilley JW. (2008/2010) Charateristics of Leadership Effectiveness: Implementing Change and Driving
Innovation in Organizations. In: Perry JL (ed) The Jossey-‐Bass Reader on Nonprofit and Public Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-‐Bass, 479-‐501.
29 Hughes M. (2011) Do 70 Per Cent of All Organizational Change Initiatives Really Fail? Journal of Change Management 11:
451-‐464.
30 Beer M and Nohria N. (2000) Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review May-‐June: 133-‐141. page 133. 31 Stetzer E and Dodson M. (2007) Comeback Churches: How 300 churches Turned Around and Yours Can Too, Nashville,
Figure 3: The Challenges of Change32
Among churches, Stetzer argues there are two main reasons why churches don’t turnaround33:
1. Most churches will not admit how bad it is, and 2. Most churches will not make needed changes.
Both of these reasons find their roots in the individual mindsets and collective culture of church congregations, especially their leaders. Why do people resist changes that are actually for their own good? In past topics we noted that the culture of an organisation, even when it is completely
dysfunctional, plays an important anxiety-‐reducing function for many members.
Because culture serves an important anxiety-‐reducing function, members cling to it even if it becomes dysfunctional in relationship to the environmental opportunities and constraints34.
A number of studies have grappled with these people-‐related challenges. A few relevant studies from the organisational development and organisational change literatures will be surveyed to explore further reasons for failed organisational changes. Many of these will be relevant to churches.
There are few Christian authors who address the issue of organisational change from a ‘kingly’ perspective. The great majority of books and papers I have seen focus on leadership at the individual level of the senior leader, and thus ignore important organisational dynamics. It should not be surprising to learn that even fewer Christian authors deal effectively with the tricky issue of power and politics in Christian contexts. It is for this reason that most sources in the next sections of this paper are drawn from the secular research on change management. This lecture is a first step towards correcting this imbalance.
32 Henrik Jorgensen H, Owen L and Neus A. (2008) Making Change Work. IBM Global Services. page 12.
33 Stetzer E and Dodson M. (2007) Comeback Churches: How 300 churches Turned Around and Yours Can Too, Nashville,
Tennesee: B&H Publishing Group. page 23.
34 Schein E. (1996/2010) The Learning Leader as Culture Manager. In: Perry JL (ed) The Jossey-‐Bass Reader on Nonprofit and
INAPPROPRIATE CHURCH LEADERS
If leadership is the single greatest influence on organisations, including churches, then poor leadership must make change more difficult. Gilley et al.35 identified the following leadership-‐related factors that have been associated with increased resistance to change:
• Poor leadership
• Lack of management support for the change
• Poor management-‐employee trust
• Conflict over resources, recognition or rewards
• Lack of commitment to change
• Dysfunctional culture
• Unwillingness to deal with resistance
• No consequences for poor performance
Over the last two years teaching leadership at the college, I have heard a number of stories from our students about the state of our churches. One of the astounding claims that I have heard several times is that some of our church leaders are not even Christian. That is, they may claim the title of Christian, but they lack the fruit of a regenerate life. Other students allege that some of their leaders are Christian but are spiritually immature. The conflicts that wear many of our pastoral leaders occur within their own leadership team. The surprise to me is not that that we experience problems within our leadership teams, but that we appear to tolerate people who are not qualified Biblically (1 Timothy 3:1-‐7, Titus 1:5-‐9) to play the role of pastors and elders. Organisations rarely grow beyond their leaders.
INADEQUATE EVALUATION PROCESSES
A maxim sometimes heard in the field of change management is “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”. Change takes place around what performance is measured, who is held accountable, what is acted upon, and what is rewarded. Evaluation provides an important feedback loop, and creates an important check on the health of the organisation, as well as the assumptions underpinning the
organisation’s strategy. Although the most critical issues are also some of the most difficult to measure, there are ways of constructing appropriate frameworks for evaluation, even in not-‐for-‐profit contexts36.
A failure to monitor progress made against agreed measures of performance (especially the
organisation’s mission), along with appropriate interventions to correct deviance from these standards, is a pretty sure way to promote organisational mediocrity, inertia and in time, the organisation’s own demise.
AMBITIOUS CHANGE INITIATIVES
Not all changes are equally difficult. Large scale organisational change, especially the kind which is deep and pervasive in nature, is qualitatively different and much more difficult than mere incremental change. Similarly, change which is forced upon an organisation, or reactionary in nature, is similarly more
difficult than change which is undertaken in a proactive manner before it is forced upon an organisation. Organisations that introduce small changes regularly save themselves from the prospect of having to introduce more risky reactive and significant change later on. A summary of some of these key differences is highlighted in Figure 4.
35 Gilley A, Godek M and Gilley JW. (2009) Change, Resistance, and the Organizational Immune System. SAM Advanced
Management Journal Autumn: 4-‐10.
36 Sawhill JC and Williamson D. (2001) Mission Impossible? Measuring Success in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit
Figure 4: Types and Relative Intensity of Organisational Changes37
OVERLY MECHANISTIC SOCIAL ARCHITECTURE
Gilley et al.38 claim one major reason for failed change stems from an organization’s inability to remain
flexible and adaptive to changes in its external environment. As organisations are ultimately made up of people, this observation goes to the issue of culture and structure (that is, social architecture) and its impact on people’s collective beliefs, attitudes and behaviours.
As was argued in the topic of leaders as ‘Social Architects’, too many of our churches are overly mechanistic in nature (centralised top-‐down control structure with a bureaucratic rule-‐following culture) and represent the exact opposite of what contemporary organisational theory recommends in environments like ours with a commission to make disciples. Instead, we ought to be adopting more organic approaches that encourage self-‐organisation, improvisation and bottom-‐up initiatives from ordinary members. Churches can embrace this, in part, by investing heavily in training ordinary Christians for the ordinary Christian life, an issue explored under the topic of leaders as ‘Group Educators’.
UNDERDEVELOPED TEAM AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES
In our discussion of the Leaders as Group Educator, we noted that many of our churches have failed to properly equip ordinary Christians for life and leadership in Jesus’ world. This is in spite of one of the key roles of pastoral leaders being to equip God’s people to follow and serve Jesus in all of life (Ephesians 4:11-‐16).
Related to, and compounding upon this issue, is a related criticism made about our some of our church leaders. According to some in our denomination, we don’t know about, and value, teamwork. Yet such teamwork structures were the context for ministry in the New Testament, are the very best place for training and equipping disciples and leaders, and are a wonderful way to promote more organic social architecture. This issue was brought to the fore with our discussion of Leaders as Coaches.
37 Nadler DA and Tushman ML. (1989) Organizational Frame Bending: Principles for Managing Reorientation. The Academy of
Management Executive 3: 194-‐204. Pp. 196.
38 Gilley A, Dixon P and Gilley JW. (2008/2010) Charateristics of Leadership Effectiveness: Implementing Change and Driving
Innovation in Organizations. In: Perry JL (ed) The Jossey-‐Bass Reader on Nonprofit and Public Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-‐Bass, 479-‐501. page 480.
INADEQUATE ATTENTION GIVEN TO SENSEMAKING AND SENSEGIVING
Amenakis and Harris39 have studied change from the perspective of change recipients, such as employees.
Their work focused on the question of what change recipients were interested in when making their decision to embrace and support or reject and resist a change (i.e. to ‘buy-‐in’ to the change). Their
research found five key change beliefs which shape change recipients’ motives to support change efforts. A failure to engage directly with the below beliefs has been associated with change failure.
1. Discrepancy – the belief that a change is needed, and that there is a significant gap between what is and what should be (based on a vision of future performance, or comparison with other
benchmarks). Without the belief that a genuine problem exists with the present state, there is a real risk future changes may be perceived as arbitrary.
2. Appropriateness – the belief that the specific change proposed is the correct one for the
discrepancy. Change solutions should be based on a systematic analysis of the unique situation at hand, not a replication of the actions of other progressive leaders (i.e. mimetic isomorphism, or copying others who are deemed successful, especially during times of uncertainty).
3. Efficacy – the belief that the change recipient and the organisation can successfully implement the change. Change recipients must believe they are capable of executing the new behaviours
required by the initiative.
4. Principal support – the belief that the formal leaders (vertical change agents) and opinion leaders (horizontal change agents) are committed to the success of the change and that it will not be another passing fad. Recipients need to believe that high-‐level as well as local-‐level change agents “walk the talk” through word-‐deed alignment.
5. Valence – the belief that the substance of the proposed change is beneficial and attractive to the change recipient. This includes both extrinsic (external) and intrinsic (internal) benefits.
The nature of sensemaking and sensegiving were discussed in more detail in our review of Leaders as Interpreters.
INADEQUATE CHANGE LEADER BEHAVIOUR
Kotter’s work has focused on the behaviour of change leaders, and is among the most cited in the change and management literature. The perspective of the change leader is different but complementary to that of change recipients.
Based on his studies of large-‐scale change, Kotter40 claims that some 27 percent of changes fail due to
employee resistance or insufficient capabilities and tools, while 23 percent fail because management behaviour does not support the change. That is, half of all failures stem from people factors. His advice for change agents (summarised later) arises out of eight causes he believes lead to change failure41:
• Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency. More than half of all companies fail in this
first phase. The task is to make the status quo seem more dangerous than launching into the unknown. Kotter argues that the urgency rate is high enough for successful change when 75 percent of an organisation’s management is convinced that business-‐as-‐usual is totally unacceptable.
39 Armenakis AA and Harris SG. (2009) Reflections: our Journey in Organizational Change Research and Practice. Journal of
Change Management 9: 127-‐142, Armenakis AA, Bernerth JB, Pitts JP, et al. (2007) Organizational Change Recipients' Beliefs Scale: Development of an Assessment Instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 43: 481-‐505.
40 Kotter JP. (1996) Leading Change, Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition. Renewal programs can start with just a
handful people, but they must grow over time to include most senior executive leaders (not all will support) and other representatives beyond senior management, outside the formal hierarchy.
• Lacking a vision. In failed transformations, there are often plenty of plans, directives and
programs but no vision. They do not rally or inspire change.
• Under-‐communicating the vision by a factor of ten. People must believe that change is possible.
People’s hearts and minds will never be captured without lots of credible communication through multiple mediums in the form of words and deeds (especially leader behaviour).
• Not removing obstacles to the new vision. These obstacles may be fictional or real (e.g.
incongruent social architecture)
• Not systemically planning for, and creating, short-‐term wins. Transformation risks losing
momentum without compelling evidence that the change is producing expected results within 12 months.
• Declaring victory too soon. Change can take 5 to 10 years to sink into an organisation’s culture,
and until then are fragile and subject to regression.
• Not anchoring changes into the organisation’s culture. Change only sticks when it becomes
“the way we do things around here”.
Higgs and Rowland42 conducted some fascinating work on the relationship between leadership
behaviour, change assumptions and change failure. In relation to leader behaviour, they found that those leaders who engage in ‘enabling’ behaviours with respect to followers are much more effective than those who practice more controlling ( “shaping”) or leader-‐centric behaviours. The latter draw on the position, role and power of the leader. The description of controlling leaders bears some similarity with Jesus’ description of the gentile Kings who lord it over others, a leadership model his disciples were to avoid (Luke: 22:25-‐27).
It does appear that there is evidence to suggest that leaders need to focus efforts on doing change with people rather than doing change to them [emphasis added]. Furthermore, the former approach and the associated behaviours appear to provide a basis for more effective and successful change implementation43.
These leader-‐centric behaviours are based on a metaphor of management as control44, and involve:
• Controlling what gets done
• Expressing strongly one’s own views and beliefs about the change • Using one’s own experience of change to shape the implementation • Holding others accountable for delivering allocated tasks
• Focusing on persuasive and expressive communication
The authors of this study contrast these more controlling behaviours with those which are more “enabling” of followers45. The more positive enabling behaviours included:
42 Higgs M and Rowland D. (2005) All Changes Great and Small: Exploring Approaches to Change and its Leadership. Journal of
Change Management 5: 121-‐151, Higgs M and Rowland D. (2011) What Does It Take to Implement Change Successfully? A Study of the Behaviours of Successful change Leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 47: 309-‐335.
43 Higgs M and Rowland D. (2011) What Does It Take to Implement Change Successfully? A Study of the Behaviours of
Successful change Leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 47: 309-‐335., page 331.
44 See further our discussion in Topic 2 of the course.
45 Higgs M and Rowland D. (2011) What Does It Take to Implement Change Successfully? A Study of the Behaviours of
• Establishing an emotional connection to the change (e.g. creating a compelling story which frames
reality)
• Challenging others to deliver the change (e.g. describing reality truthfully, challenging the status
quo, setting the bar high)
• Creating a framework for people to work within (e.g. establishing performance expectations and
values, creating ownership and trust, promoting a ‘safe’ environment)
• Providing emotional, temporal and physical space to enable people to think and act differently
(e.g. demonstrating commitment, freeing people to new possibilities, breaking established patterns and structures to create movement).
Much of this work is consistent with Collin’s concept of the Level 5 leader46.
If leadership is cultivating the conditions in which others can flourish, then people are both the means and ends of Christian leadership. The members of our organisations are far more than mere pawns which leaders move around their organisational chess board. People themselves, even the difficult ones, are the ends of our ministry, in so far as we are called to promote discipleship. And yet they also play an
instrumental role in working with us to accomplish together a broader mission beyond ourselves. Leaders who adopt and practice controlling forms of leadership as their default style47 usually end up
exhibiting both sub-‐Biblical AND ineffective forms of leadership.
SIMPLISTIC CHANGE ASSUMPTIONS
In relation to alternative assumptions regarding change, Higgs and Rowland identified four common approaches, each supported by different scholars48. A short explanation of each approach is provided
below49:
• Directive: changes are driven, controlled, managed and initiated from the top. They operate
based on a simple theory of change or a few rules of thumb, together with clear ‘recipes’ and tightly controlled communication. Challenge and deviation from the plans are not permitted. Overall, there is little or no involvement of others in the change planning. This has been called a ‘Director’ image of change in other contexts50. Kotter’s model of change sits within this category.
• Self-‐assembly: direction is tightly set at the top, however accountability for change
implementation rests with local managers. The strategic direction is therefore fixed, but local adaptation at the level of implementation is allowed. There is little involvement in the overall change discussions, and there is an expectation that managers have the capability to work with the change.
• Master: overall direction is set at the top of the organisation, but is open to discussion with, and
input from others (such as major stakeholders). The complex nature of change is recognised, and a wide variety of interventions are used to respond to contextual challenges. Much emphasis is
46 Collins J. (2001a) Good to Great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don't, London: Random House, Collins J.
(2001b) Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review July-‐August: 136-‐139, Collins J. (2006) Good to Great and the Social Sectors: , London: Random House Business Books.
47 This is in distinction to more particularly circumstances where ‘power-‐assisted steering’ may be required.
48 For a map of the literature relating to each approach, see further Higgs M and Rowland D. (2005) All Changes Great and
Small: Exploring Approaches to Change and its Leadership. Journal of Change Management 5: 121-‐151. page 126.
49 Higgs M and Rowland D. (2011) What Does It Take to Implement Change Successfully? A Study of the Behaviours of
Successful change Leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 47: 309-‐335., page 317-‐318.
50 Palmer I and Dunford R. (2002) Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics. Strategic
Change 11: 243-‐251, Palmer I, Dunford R and Akin G. (2009b) Images of Managing Change. Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Boston: McGraw-‐Hill, 23-‐47.
placed on building line-‐leadership capabilities in change leadership. This approach has been referred to as the ‘Navigator’ image of change in other works.51.
• Emergent: the senior leadership establishes a broad sense of direction and a few “hard rules”. In
general, there is a view that change can be initiated from anywhere in the organisation. It is assumed that high contact levels will be maintained throughout with clients or customers (i.e. key stakeholders in the external environment). Rather than establishing specific initiatives, the
leadership role focuses on helping others in the processes of sense-‐making, improvisation and self-‐organisation. These assumptions have also been referred to as a ‘Nurturer’ image52. These
practices are highly consistent with more adaptive and flexible forms of social architecture.
The differences between these approaches are highlighted in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Contrasting Approaches to Change53
Based on their two published studies which drew upon some 135 change stories in 37 different
organisations, Higgs and Rowland reached conclusions about the effectiveness of these different change approaches. Those approaches which assumed change was a complex phenomenon (Master and
Emergent) were more successful than those which approached change from a more linear and sequential viewpoint (Director and Self-‐Assembly). Director and Self-‐Assembly perspectives leave little room for employee participation or resistance.
In their 2005 study, Higgs and Rowland noted that Master approaches were more appropriate for long-‐ term change initiatives (greater than 18 months) among organisations facing continuing change. Emergent approaches, however, were better in high magnitude changes (impacting a large number of people and multiple parts of the system). Emergent approaches reflect how change actually happens in practice, often in interaction with more planned and structured change frameworks.
51 Palmer I and Dunford R. (2002) Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics. Strategic
Change 11: 243-‐251, Palmer I, Dunford R and Akin G. (2009b) Images of Managing Change. Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Boston: McGraw-‐Hill, 23-‐47.
52 Palmer I and Dunford R. (2002) Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics. Strategic
Change 11: 243-‐251, Palmer I, Dunford R and Akin G. (2009b) Images of Managing Change. Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Boston: McGraw-‐Hill, 23-‐47.
53 Higgs M and Rowland D. (2011) What Does It Take to Implement Change Successfully? A Study of the Behaviours of
FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR ORGANISATIONAL RESISTANCE54
Gilley, Godek and Gilley55 contend that change is so difficult because organisations possess a powerful
‘immune system’ that defends the status quo and resists change. Some approaches to change, like the ‘Directive’ model discussed earlier, do not give sufficient attention to the possibility that some
organisational members may resist and disrupt these changes56. These approaches, all other things being
equal, are therefore more likely to contribute to failed change outcomes.
Just like a human immune system, organisational immune systems protect the organisation from change. They do this by erecting a powerful barrier in the form of people, policies, procedures, and the resulting culture these create. This barrier prevents the introduction of change, regardless of the consequences57.
Such responses may even occur when changes are positive in nature. For example, a typical organisational response to change proceeds in the following manner:
1. Organisational leaders explore the possibility of change. 2. Employees ask questions and seek information.
3. Rumours develop, gossip spreads, and initial fear and resistance takes hold. Change is isolated and resources are cut off. Employees form alliances against the change and become vocal and call in reinforcements.
4. Alliances build and resistance solidifies.
5. Avoidance, rejection, and sabotage take place. The change is insulated, alienated from the organisation, before being ultimately rejected58.
Similarly, many leaders fail to involve important stakeholders in the change process, particularly during the early stages. A rough guide for determining who should be included is summarised in Figure 6.
Figure 6: A Guide to Stakeholder Analysis59
54 Some of this material was first discussed in the lecture on leaders as ‘Power-‐Brokers’.
55 Gilley A, Godek M and Gilley JW. (2009) Change, Resistance, and the Organizational Immune System. SAM Advanced
Management Journal Autumn: 4-‐10.
56 Ibid., page 4. 57 Ibid., page 6. 58 Ibid., page 6.
59 Drawn from Palmer I, Dunford R and Akin G. (2009a) Diagnosis for Change. Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple
Perspectives Approach. New York: McGraw-‐Hill, 121-‐158.
1. Identify stakeholders 2. Assess capacity for
influence (i.e. power) 3. Check their “track record” 4. Assess level of interest in
this change
5. Identify stakeholders with most interest and influence 6. Determine their “position” and take appropriate action (see right). A.# Minimal# effort# B.# Keep# informed# C.## Keep# sa6sfied# D.## Key# players# Level%of%Interest% Power% Low# High# Low# High# The%Power1Interest%Matrix%
Stakeholder assessments draw attention to those individuals, groups and organisations who have an ‘interest’ in the activities of the organisation. These will include staff and other members inside the organisation, as well as customers, neighbours, suppliers, government and others outside the organisation.
Some organisations experience change failure because they do not involve key stakeholders in early discussions and decision making, especially those who have both a high level of interest in the change, and high levels of power to enable or constrain it. These ‘Key Players’ in quadrant D should be involved, or in the very least, consulted throughout. Other stakeholder groups can be related to based on the above suggestions noted in Figure 6.
UNDERPOWERED CHANGE
In some change contexts, proposals for change will face considerable resistance, and will be contested and challenged by powerful others. In certain circumstances where major changes are contentious (e.g. the removal of popular elders who lack the requisite ongoing qualifications for office based on character or doctrinal grounds), yet have to be introduced quickly (e.g. to bring about an organisational
turnaround), research has found that success is more likely when leaders adopt a ‘dictatorial transformation’ approach60. In these circumstances, leaders may have to resort to more coercive
strategies, drawing upon the power of the leader’s office, an approach advocated by Mohler as a necessary last resort for Christian leaders61. Further discussion of the nature of power and politics in
organisations was discussed in an earlier topic on leaders as ‘Power-‐Brokers’.
FAILURE TO CULTIVATE GOSPEL RENEWAL
All of the before mentioned causes of change failure are relevant to our churches, given their similar nature as organisations. And yet the similarities between churches and other organisations should not be stretched too far. While they share the same form as organisations, they are engaged in a very different kind of work.
Keller has noted that churches, even conservative ones with so-‐called right theology, have a habit of moving away from the gospel. Individual and corporate change which relies upon a change of heart will therefore turn on the effective application of the gospel.
Over time, all churches, no matter how sound their theology, tend to lose sight of the uniqueness of the gospel and fall into practices that conform more to other religions than to irreligion. Their doctrinal instruction loses sight of how each doctrine plays a role in the gospel message, and their moral instruction is not grounded in and motivated by the finished work and grace of Christ. The leaders of the church must always be bringing the gospel to bear on people’s minds and hearts so that they can see it as not just as set of beliefs but as a power that changes us profoundly and continually. Without this kind of application of the gospel, mere teaching, preaching, baptizing, and catechizing are not sufficient62.
Christian leaders must strive to cultivate gospel renewal individually and corporately, because the default mode of the human heart is works-‐righteousness63. We have a nasty habit of relying upon our
sanctification for our justification. Keller claims that because we don’t believe the gospel at a
60 Buchanan DA and Badham RJ. (2008) Power assisted steering: accounting and winning. Power, Politics and Organizational
Change: Winning the Turf Game. 2nd ed. LA: Sage Publications, 246-‐285., citing Dunphy D and Stace D. (1990) Under new management: Australian organizations in transition, Sydney: McGraw-‐Hill.
61 Mohler A. (2012) The Conviction to Lead, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers., pp. 108-‐110.
62 Keller T. (2012) Centre Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-‐Centred Ministry in Your City, Grand Rapids: Zondervan., page 54. 63 Ibid., page 54.
fundamental level, our hearts find ways of rejecting or changing key doctrine (as per liberal Christianity), or subscribing mentally to but ultimately trusting functionally in our own moral goodness (as per “dead orthodoxy”). As a consequence, churches and individuals experience a slow spiritual deadening over the years, unless it is arrested by a revival or renewal movement64.
How are these dynamics to be cultivated? They were discussed, in part, in the course notes for Topic 1 (reprinted below):
In his training paper distributed through the Redeemer City-‐to-‐City network65, Keller outlines the shape and causes of revivals historically. In each case, there is a need first for right doctrine and an experience of the Spirit. No human agent can produce a revival, yet there is a real human element of “laying the sacrifice” on the alter.
According to Keller, Leadership in relation to revivals begins with Kingdom-‐centred prayer. Moses in Exodus 33 is a model with his deep confession of sin, personal consecration, and bold requests. There is also a deep proclamation of the gospel, and the laying before the church of a vision of what it could be like if God were really present amongst them. Such leadership generates a dissatisfaction with the status quo, particularly as they model the fruit of renewal. Such leadership is not inconsistent with the studies already discussed.
Preaching and leadership belong together. The promotion of gospel renewal, as per change generally, will require leaders to act in prophetic, priestly and kingly ways.
Discussion
How many of the prior discussed problems have you experienced among our churches?
What change strategies and tactics could we adopt to overcome some of these common problems?
The next section of these course notes explores various suggestions from the literature to lead more positive change.
STRATEGIES AND TACTICS ASSOCIATED WITH LEADING POSITIVE CHANGE A few major guidelines and strategies are proposed to pursue more successful change. In the IBM ‘Making Change Work’ study cited earlier, a range of factors were identified with successful change implementation (Figure 7).
The top five factors were all cited by more than 50 percent of respondents:
• Top management sponsorship (92%) • Employee involvement (72%)
• Honest and timely communication (70%)
• Corporate culture that motivates and promotes change (65%) • Change agents (pioneers of change) (55%)
64 Ibid., pages 54-‐55 especially.