The Classic 21st Century Church Leadership Mistake
by Mark Tidsworth, Founder and Team Leader
“A good rule of thumb in a major change effort: Never underestimate the magnitude of the forces that reinforce complacency and that help maintain the status quo.” --John Kotter, Leading Change
Underestimating the work required to facilitate deep change is the most common mistake of pastoral and lay leaders when it comes to leading change. Given the times in which we live, we can now describe underestimating the work required for adaptive change as THE classic church leadership mistake of the 21st century thus far.
If underestimating the work of congregational change is the classic mistake when leading congregation’s forward, then the primary expression of this mistake is implementing change too soon. Pastoral and lay leaders grow excited about something new, launching before the congregational system is prepared to engage this change. Over time, we’ve seen leaders launch change efforts too soon due to a wide variety of beliefs, perspectives, or practices (factors). These factors contribute to adaptive failure. Though they are painful to recognize, knowing them can save us much pain and suffering.
Mistaking inspiration for timing
Often leaders are visionary people who lead by inspiration. When they discover a new insight, a new opportunity, or a new direction for the church, they grow excited; ready to share this new discovery NOW. When they experience great inspiration through whatever means, they often assume this means it’s time to begin the change process. These leaders must retrain themselves when it comes to large-scale adaptive change. Yes, inspiration is very helpful when preparing sermons and needing an energy boost. At the same time, because we are inspired does not mean the preparation work for change is complete or even begun. Leaders who recognize inspiration as a helpful tool, yet not a timing indicator, can use inspiration’s energizing effect without undermining their change leadership effectiveness.
Exaggerating trust levels in the congregation
Isn’t it ironic? Emotional intelligence research tells us that the higher one goes in an organization’s hierarchy, the less accurate feedback one receives. This is especially true when seeking feedback about the effectiveness of one’s leadership. With minimal reflection, we can understand the influences behind this dynamic. Who wants to tell leaders they are less effective than they think themselves to be? We want to be team players, supporting our church. So we rarely tell leaders the truth.
Here is where congregational leaders misread trust. Leaders typically exaggerate the level of trust in the congregation. After coaching so many clergy who believe they are highly trusted only to discover they are being asked to leave, overestimating trust seems to be the pattern. Lay leaders also tend to misjudge the trust they are given by the larger church. So, pastors and lay leaders initiate large-scale change, only to find they started without sufficient trust. We will explore what makes trust so necessary for leading adaptive change later.
Neglecting Leadership Cadre Development
What’s your leadership archetype look like? All of us carry one, often so deeply ingrained in our minds and souls that it’s hard to see. For those leaders coming of age any time before the turn of this century, you will recognize the “strong man” theory of leadership. When he’s needed, the strong man rises up and meets the challenge called for by the organization. Yes, when this leadership archetype developed the leader was typically male. Add the strong current of individualism running through American culture and we find ourselves believing we can lead change on our own. Female leaders are often not exposed to satisfying leadership models when the strong man leadership archetype is prominent.
Churches need a coalition of congregational leaders to effectively lead significant change. Pastors and lay leaders who launch their change effort without a guiding and sustaining leadership coalition committed to seeing the changes through will not sustain the adaptive change process.
Starting when urgency in the congregation is low
Urgency is the motivation to tolerate the discomfort of giving up what’s familiar in exchange for the possibility of experiencing something better, yet unfamiliar. When our motivation for change is low, the inertia created by familiarity wins every time. Congregations who adapt are driven by a high desire, or shall we say, need to become something more. When apathy permeates the congregation is not the time to initiate significant change. Instead, raising the urgency level precedes initiating significant change. Adaptive failure results when we believe initiating adaptive change will be the catalyst for raising motivation. Change efforts require the reverse, high levels of urgency to sustain us through the change process.
Believing stating the case for change results in sufficient motivation for change Proclaimers (pastors and priests) are notorious when it comes to believing stating the case for change is sufficient. “If I can get that into a really good, meaningful sermon, then people will be on board.” Or, perhaps you have seen it play out another way. “When we gather the necessary information; showing our thirty-year attendance patterns on a graph, then our congregation will be ready to change.” There’s enough truth in this factor to make it dangerous. We do need to understand why change is necessary. Yet, understanding alone is helpful for only low-level minimal change.
Underestimating resistance to deep change
People change every day. We in congregations change every week. Much of the time we negotiate change fairly well, else we would be in conflict at all times. But when it comes to adaptive change, we meet resistance. Giving up something very important, like a spiritual ritual which was so life-giving at one time, is hard work. Our rhythms, norms, processes, and structures grow so familiar with time . We grow into believing our way of being church is not only one good way to be church, but the best or only way. In fact, we come to believe that being church the way we are church is what it looks like to be a faithful church. We mistake methodology for faith. So when we ask congregations to change, we are asking them to lay aside a way of being church which they have grown to cherish. Novice church leaders are often blind-sided by the vigorous resistance to their well-intentioned recommended changes.
Ignoring the obstacles and impediments in the way of change
When it comes to congregational change, there are two strategies which bear good fruit. First, new experiences of faithfulness, growth, and engagement in the present can overcome obstacles and impediments to change. These new experiences lift disciples up into a new reality, influencing obstacles to shrink in importance. Second, some obstacles and impediments require direct attention. Time does heal some wounds, yet others fester without attention. The infection and toxicity in some wounds prevents healing until it’s addressed.
When it comes to leading adaptive change, leaders must work to remove enough impediments for the congregation to move ahead. At times this means pulling off the scab, examining the injury, and surgically removing infection. We will need every resource we can muster while engaging significant change. Adaptive failure is highly likely when enough of these impediments and obstacles are ignored.
Since the classic adaptive change leadership mistake is underestimating the magnitude of change before us, demonstrated by initiating change too soon, then what are we to do? Nearly all of our experiences with change processes these first seventeen years into this 21st century are screaming one word loud and clear – READINESS.
NOTE – Excerpt from the Introduction of Farming Church, Cultivating Adaptive Change in Congregations, by Mark Tidsworth, Pinnacle Leadership Press.