• No results found

TOPIC 10: LEADING POSITIVE CHANGE

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "TOPIC 10: LEADING POSITIVE CHANGE"

Copied!
44
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

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.,  

(2)

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*

(3)

• 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.  

(4)

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.  

(5)

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,  

(6)

 

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  

(7)

 

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  

(8)

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.  

(9)

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.  

(10)

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  

(11)

• 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.  

(12)

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  

(13)

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%

(14)

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.  

(15)

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.  

References

Related documents

So if at a later date other programs within his mind such as, “I want to be a macho man”, comes to the surface which makes him defiant of her, she can easy gain control over him

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local congregation of baptized believers who gather regularly, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the

You agree to indemnify, defend and hold Bondway, the other members of the Bondway Group and the Shippers harmless from and against any and all claims, liabili5es, ac5ons,

Slovak FIEs show statistically significant and higher than total sample average sales orientation to foreign parent companies and lower sales orientation to domestic

 Microsoft debuted Internet Explorer in 1995, leading to a browser war with Netscape..  On the JavaScript front, Microsoft reverse-engineered the Navigator interpreter to create

In accordance with Elon’s mission, the Center for Leadership staff believe it is critical for you to experience and participate in community service.. Service, like leadership,

• Continue implementation of the Energy Education program • Improve collaboration of Energy. Education and GCS Maintenance Department to maximize efficiency of

*Includes education districts, health and human services districts, hospital districts, housing and redevelopment authorities, lake improvement districts, law enforcement -