Organizational Change As A Process

Nobody likes change. Not really. We grow accustomed to a certain way of doing things and change can be uncomfortable. Sometimes however, staying the same renders us both stagnant and impotent. Change may be necessary to be effective. Change can be difficult, often attracts resistance, and is time consuming. Change in terms of organizational development must be seen as a process and not an event. What good does it do for the leader to yell charge and rush to the top of the hill only to find he arrived there alone? A more progressive approach to change is the better part of wisdom. This takes adequate planning and this is how we, as leaders, can become change agents. French and Bell speak of organizational development in terms of organizational improvement through action research. Leadership is confronted with circumstances that make the necessity of change obvious. A change agent becomes essential for the following reason: external pressure, competition, new technology, cost, and failing systems. Furthermore, economic and social conditions as well as cultural flux can escalate the necessity of long-term change. The first step is arguably the most important and where the leader can be most effective; this is the planning stage. Proper planning can reduce the resistance that change sometimes encounters. Proper planning would involve in depth investigation in order to develop a preliminary diagnoses as well as a data gathering effort designed to ensure clear and precise status reports that can be used to develop an action plan. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in which the member system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need outside help to effect changes, and participates with the leader in the process of problem diagnosis and affective change.

References:

French, Wendell L. & Bell, Cecil (1973). Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall

Johnson Richard A. (1976). Management, systems, and society : an introduction. Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Pub. Co

When Change Is Necessary

Change is the only constant in an organization. The environment is always in flux. Churches who refuse to address the changing culture are in jeopardy of becoming irrelevant. Leaders today must become change agents or interventionists in order to insure proper adjustment to the changing landscape. In certain instances, some among the leadership, as well as the members are frozen in past traditions and intervention is required to facilitate the change. The leader may be called upon to orchestrate this intervention. If you find yourself in this position, I recommend Argyris & Schön’s change model as a guide. They recommend the change agent or interventionist move the process through six phases.

1. Mapping the problem. This includes the factors and relationships that define the problem, and the relationship with the living systems of the organization.
2. The internalization of the map by members. Through inquiry and confrontation the interventionists work with members to develop a map for which members can accept responsibility.
3. Test the model. This involves looking at what ‘testable predictions’ can be derived from the map – and looking to practice and history to see if the predictions stand up. If they do not, the map has to be modified.
4. Invent solutions to the problem and simulate them to explore their possible impact.
5. Produce the intervention. Make the change.
6. Study the impact. This allows for the correction of errors as well as generating knowledge for future designs.

References:

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. (pp. 220-221)

The Leader As A Change Agent

There is one thing in any church that will never change…and that is the fact that everything changes. This makes change leadership essential. Factors that necessitate proper change management include external pressure; which can encompass competition, new technology, cost, and culture changes, as well as constantly changing economic and social conditions. Many organizational change management theories and models are based on Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze theory. Lewin believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. He embraced the idea that change management proceeds in a circle of steps. The steps embrace the idea of:

• Unfreeze - becoming motivated to change: Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of a need to change even though there may be resistance to said change
• Transition (or Change) - change what needs to be changed or moving to a new state: The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested.
• Refreeze - making the change permanent: Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted

The cycle begins with a series of planning actions initiated by the leader who works as a change agent. This model can be adopted by church leaders as they become change agents in order to be effective in a constantly changing culture.

References:

Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts. Selected papers on group dynamics, New York: Harper and Row

Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science, New York: Harper and Row

Will God Use Ordinary People?

Recently, I was reading John MacArthur’s book: Twelve Ordinary Men. He points out how in Matthew Chapters 8, 9, and 10 Jesus shares leadership responsibilities with his disciples. Our Lord chose ordinary men and trained them to become extraordinary leaders. There are four natural progressions in their training. First, they simply followed Jesus. These followers grew as they listening to and learning from his teachings. A fundamental principle of discipleship and leadership training is that you cannot be trained as a leader if you are not interested in learning and following. In other words, difficult to lead others if you have not first learned to follow. How can you lead if you do not understand being led? Second, there must be commitment. When Jesus called these men, they left everything to follow him. You cannot be trained to lead others if you fail to commit. If there is absence of self-sacrifice, there is absence for service. There is a connection between dying to self and service to God and for God. Third, there is internship. The Twelve had wonderful opportunities and were privileged to spend premium time with Jesus being mentored and taught by him. Think of it. How would you like to be mentored personally by the Son of God! Such education and experience can not be obtained in Seminary. It is through the process of internship that their character was shaped and their destiny fashioned. The final step of leadership training is empowerment for specific service. This is primarily the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus instructed followers to stay in Jerusalem until they receive the dynamic power from the Holy Spirit so that they might fulfill the Great Commission (Acts 1:8). These were ordinary men. The lesson here is God uses ordinary people to do extraordinary things so that He can be glorified. John MacArthur says, “God’s favorite instruments are nobodies, so that no man can boast before God.”

Reference:

John MacArthur, Twelve Ordinary Men (Nashville: Nelson, 2002), 15-19.

Jesus: The Servant Leader

In Matthew 4:19: Matthew shows how Jesus establishes Himself as an effective leader. Matthew builds a progression in the text that shows a natural establishment of Jesus as a leader. “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” . Jesus' call to leave profession and family was radical, the sort of demand that only the most radical teacher would make. This text provides us several examples of servant-leadership and radical discipleship. Jesus' seeking out disciples himself may represent a serious breach of custom as Jesus is seen "coming down to their level" socially. Kouzes and Posner identify this challenging of the “status quo” process as a quality of great leadership. Notice also that Jesus relates to his followers in terms they can understand. Jesus did not call professionally trained rabbis to be his followers. He called fishermen and encouraged them that the skills they already had were serviceable in the kingdom. Great leaders use persuasive rhetoric and can motivate followers through rhetorical lens’. Bass points out that transformational leaders “move followers to go beyond their own self-interests” (fishing) “for the good of their group, organization or community, country or society as a whole” (fishing for men).

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation. New York: Free Press

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jesus: The Compassionate Leader

I love the characterization of our Lord as a compassionate leader. Second to “love” the word “compassion” may be the clearest description of the nature of Christ as a leader. What is a compassionate leader? I read an article by Christine Zust where she attempted to define a compassionate leader as someone who: 1) Communicates openly, 2) Is flexible, 3) Isn't afraid to show emotion, and 4) Leads by example. I would like to add one more characteristic. A compassionate leader is one who is driven to action. It is possible to be concerned and do nothing. This happens all the time. We are moved by the hungry children we see on television or by the needs we see in our own neighborhood but…what do we do about it. It is possible to be concerned and do nothing but real compassion demands action. Jesus was “moved with compassion toward them” when He saw the multitude in Matt. 14 and He “healed their sick”. In Luke 19 Jesus shows His compassion by weeping over Jerusalem and it was this compassion that compelled Him to the cross. Jesus wasn’t just concerned, He had compassion and that compassion demanded action. Jesus was, indeed, a compassionate leader.

References:

The Compassionate Leader by Christine W. Zust: http://www.emergingleader.com/article19.shtml

Leading With Love

The nature of our Lord’s leadership can be summed up in one word. That word is “Love”. We see this in Mark 12:30-31. Let’s look at this passage using the principles of intertextual texture analysis. In response to the scribe’s question of priority, Jesus places the emphasis on love. He also prioritizes our application of love in the order He presents the commandment.

Notice:

“Love” God with all your heart

“Love” God with all your soul

“Love” God with all your mind

“Love” God with all your strength

“Love” your neighbor

“Love” yourself

The repetition of the word “Love” shows the importance while the progression of the application shows the priority: God first…others second…me last.

Love as a leadership style is supported by Winston who declares that “Leadership is first of all love”. It is further supported by Hoyle who goes as far as to assert: “If you can’t love, you can’t lead.” Jesus used many leadership styles during His earthly ministry; however, in identifying one that can qualify as the “Nature” of our Lord’s leadership, it would have to be love. Love embodies the very essence of God’s plan and purpose. This is personified through Christ as He imparted this into His followers.

Hoyle, R. John. (2002). Leadership and the force of love. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Winston, Bruce. (2002). Be a Leader for God’s Sake. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University

The Heart of Leadership

It is impossible to consider the nature of our Lord Jesus’ leadership without the scope of its long lasting effect. Jesus imparted Himself in the lives of His followers in a way that ensured the plan of the Father would be fulfilled. David DeSilva supports this in his book (An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and ministry Formations) with his observation: “After Jesus’ ascension his disciples, whom Luke describes as “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Lk 1:2 NRSV) and who were clearly not limited to the twelve (see Acts 1:15,21-23), proclaimed his death and resurrection, and sought to make disciples through passing on Jesus’ teachings and example. Sayings of Jesus, parables, stories of his confrontation with members of various groups all served this catechetical purpose (that is, the task of instructing and shaping disciples and communities of disciples). Stories about Jesus’ acts of healing and miracles both enhanced the community’s appreciation of Jesus’ authority to prescribe a way of life and opened them up to the possibilities of God’s power in their midst to heal and deliver.” This progression prioritizes impartation as a major factor in understanding Jesus’ leadership and its support of the over-arching purpose of God. The nature of our Lord’s leadership style was to duplicate Himself in respect to plan and purpose. Leadership can never stop with “me”. We must place our eyes upon the horizon of others. Deep down in the center of our motivation is the God given call to multiply. My prayer is that what God has done in me will be imparted to others and will make a difference for generations beyond my earthy journey. This is the heart of leadership.

References:

DeSilva, David A. (2004). An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and ministry Formations. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press

Finding the Right Fit

Effective leaders must make certain that they utilize a leadership style that is a good fit with the motives at play in the organization. For instance, whether the leader engages an Authoritarian Style or Participative Style depends upon the motives observed. To help us, let’s look at Bruce Winston’s classifications of motive:
1) “Me” motives rest in the desire by the leader to see his/her image enhanced or his/her vision/goals achieved.
2) “We” motives focus the efforts of all for the good of the organization and drives the persuasive behavior of the leader to gain compliance from the follower.
3) “Thee” motives are concerned with the goals and needs of the follower. Here the pattern is sometimes reversed. The leader does not set out to persuade the follower to achieve the leader’s goals but rather the follower sets out to discover the leader’s goals and works to achieve them in an altruistic manner.
4) “It” motives show that sometimes the leader’s motive is not about relationship but about task only.
These can be divided into two categories. I will call them intrinsic motive and extrinsic motive. Intrinsic has to do with motives that are developed through an inward lens and are more “self” oriented. Extrinsic, on the other hand, deals with motives that are seen through an outward lens and are more “others” oriented. . “Me” and “It” motives are intrinsic while “Thee and “We” are extrinsic in nature. Once this is discerned, the leadership style needed becomes clearer. Using Lewin and White’s distinction of leadership styles we see the Authoritarian Style as foundationally autocratic and more classical in nature. This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. The Participative Style is foundationally democratic and is more delegative in nature. This style involves the leader including one or more followers in the decision making process. An intrinsic motive would call for an Authoritarian approach while an extrinsic motive would find the Participative Style a better fit.

References:

Winston, Bruce. Leadership Style as an Outcome of Motive: A Contingency ‘State’ Rather than ‘Trait’ Concept. Regent University School of Leadership Studies

Lewin, K., LIippit, R. and White, R.K. (1939). "Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates." Journal of Social Psychology

Rajiv Mehta; Alan J Dubinsky; Rolph E Anderson. Leadership style, motivation and performance in international marketing. European Journal of Marketing; 2003; 37, 1/2; ABI/INFORM Global