Creating Change - Part IV

You have spent time checking out your own cognitive road map, assumptions about leadership and being a “change agent.” You understand the significance of multiple realities and perceptions. Masterfully and sometimes with plain dumb luck you have sidestepped several potholes in joining and establishing trust with members of your congregation. You are now ready to place your “fingerprint” on the next phase of the change process.

Former School Psychologist, current Pastor and Church Consultant Betsy Waters has developed a tool for assessing and locating your leaders in three areas regarding change and redevelopment. They are Personal Energy and Commitment, Levels of Urgency and Tolerance for Risk. Often in my consulting work, I will find leadership that has solid scores on every facet except for risk tolerance. When change results in conflict or the loss of church friends, folk can begin to lose courage and seek to pull the plug on change efforts. If your leadership scores are substantially low in all three areas, then your leadership needs to create an awareness of “more pain and dissatisfaction” or co-create a more compelling vision of the future.

My mentors over at Options for Change created the following formula (www.optionsforchange.com).

C = D x V x F x S > R

Lasting change equals dissatisfactions with the present, times leadership future vision, times engaging first steps, times sustaining support systems, and all of the previously stated must be greater than the resistance to change.

This formula frames the issue of motivation and the change process. Human beings are motivated by pleasure and pain. Provided with enough pain, a person will be motivated to change in order to avoid high levels of dissatisfaction. The hope of a compelling future with meaning, connection and pleasure is a motivational source with magnetic pulling power. Pain (how it is) pushes us to a process of envisioning how things can be different. Meaning and pleasure creates a pull forward into the imagined and dreamed of future (how it can be).

In my first church, a family had been received from a Vietnam refugee camp a decade plus before my arrival. They arranged for low income housing through their church owned property. Over the years the house fell into disrepair. A stream ran through the basement and the kitchen sink was emptying directly into it (failing septic system). After inspecting the house, it was clear that we had a problem. As I was walking through the house, it was apparent that these years of property neglect and deferred maintenance had created unacceptable living conditions. Out of gratitude and a rent of $150 per month, the family wasn't about to become a squeaky wheel.

Conversations had to be engaged concerning these conditions. Taking a “one up” posture of influence and creating a crisis with a “take no prisoners” approach could have been attempted. Labels could have been used like “slum landlords” and “benign neglect.” My strategy of influence was more incremental and a side-by-side posture of influence (making observation and engaging in dialogue).

My leadership “spotlight” shined on this issue through sermons, newsletters, individual and board meeting conversations. I intentionally avoided using language of blame and invited folk to view the situation through the lens of assessment and mission (how it is and what it could be). Within a year we had helped facilitate a process where the family was able to move out and purchase their own home in the community. In that time we had to face the hard and unpopular process of letting go of the known connection of landlords/rescuers to a yet to be defined relationship.

This approach avoided a potential escalation of conflict and polarization. However, in different circumstances a crisis induction intervention may have been necessary. In my model of “creating change” there is a belief that every move and strategy has both elements of constraint and strength. The goal is to be aware of both sides of any attempt to create influence.

Coming up next: Change Strategy, Congregational Culture and Alignment.

Multiple Realities - Part III

“Multiple Realities” is a term from my Family Therapy Training at the Kantor Family Institute. Acknowledging this relationship reality is key to leadership. It is about respecting multiple perceptions and truths from different locations within the congregation. In systems thinking, context is everything. Power positions, personalities and interpersonal posture are all in the eyes of the beholder.

I have listened too many times to a new pastor telling their story of entering a congregation with the agenda of enforcing church polity rules and regulation (in my system the "Book of Discipline). How quickly they learned about what it means to be absolutely "right" and simultaneously "dead wrong." The old adage, "choose what crosses you want to die on!" is rooted in an understanding of multiple realities.

During my "rookie years" as a pastor, I attended a workshop with Church Consultant Kennon Callahan. He stated, “Perception >Yields Behavior >Yields Destiny.” My take away from that conference was an increased dedication to observing my biases and prejudices regarding leadership, creating influence and change.

Author and Clinical Psychologist David Feinstein, frames the importance of managing your own mind and perceptions in neuro-biochemical-psychological reasons. He states “For better or worse, your expectations release a flood of chemical in your brain. Every sensation, emotion and passing thought causes millions of neurons to fire together, shaping your next response to whatever life presents.” Your perceptions of possibilities lead to more possibility thinking. Perceptions of defeat and despair lead to more of the same.

Each one of us has our bias and point of view. Multiple realities affirms the value of each persons point of view as a source of the energy the leads to transformation. Learning how to use difference is key to creating enough cohesion and buy in to do transformative work.

During my junior year of High School I latched on to Matthew 7: 1-2. “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” This bible passage helped me to discover the importance of paying attention to perceptions. At an early age, I bumped into the healing/hurting power of perceptions.

In one of my workshops on “Transformational Leadership” a pastor who was new to her church, stated that she saw a lot of dysfunctional tops spinning around in her church. She went on to state that she was knocking over these tops left and right! As we were about to discuss church culture and the joining process, I smiled and said, “Choose your tops wisely.”
I am not stating that we should be afraid to take a stand (defining self without negative labels and judgements is key to transformative leadership). However, I am saying that we shouldn't be surprised when we get a push back to our efforts to change a church that didn't ask for change in the first place.

Therapist turned Organizational Consultant, Alan Slobodnik states that judgments result when our emotions are tied up with our preferences. We get into trouble when we start telling or covertly communicating to our target systems (congregations) that their preferences are bad or inferior (old school, etc.). Ironically, if you really want to change a system of people, judging them provides the least leverage. Maybe it comes from our misunderstanding of the location and role of the biblical prophets, but more often than not, the first misstep in leadership is making and proclaiming negative judgments about the congregation.

Slobodnik goes on to state, “….when you enter a system with respect for its right to exist, you have much greater potential for leveraging the possibilities for change. On the other hand, people will smell out judgment early on and will be very turned off by it.”

The Joining Process - Part II

Joining is a way to talk about connecting and respecting the existing relational system of the congregation before pronouncing the need for change. It is foolish to blindly assume that folk are ready to make sacrifices in order to sustain change. If we seek to change the "system" before understanding the current configuration of relationships, we will get resistance. Can we really name it is as "resistance?" It may just be that the congregation is being itself and responding to unsolicited pressure to be different.

Joining is the ability to establish trust and connections. Effective “joining” triggers comments like, “s/he get its, understands, is a good fit etc.” Elizabeth Bettenhausen was one of my favorite professors at seminary. During one lecture in Systemmatic Theology, she shared her experience as a speaker at the National Lutheran Youth Conference. Adults came up to her later in the day and said, “the kids loved you, how did you engage them so effectively?” She replied, “I simply put myself into their shoes and imagined what it would be like to live as a teenager in this decade!” Empathic imagination is the beginning of a solid process of joining.

Four “Joining” Potholes
There is a photo on the web of a car being swallowed by a street "pothole.” That is my image of how leaders can get tripped up or even engulfed when failing to connect with a congregation before "turning them around." Four "potholes" jump to mind when clergy/congregation fail to successfully pass through the first trust building stage.

• Pothole #1 is the failure to establish trust and connection, sometimes described as a bad fit. Usually, it has more to do with the pastor/congregation lack of agility to flex enough to create connection. They have failed to join properly and build up sufficient trust.

• Pothole #2 is a failure to understand how different congregations respond to efforts to create change. Some church cultures “ignore and deny,” others, “escalate and increase” chaos, many “resist and counter” and collaborative churches “plan and facilitate” change. In this “pothole,” a pastor pushes change forward without regard to the norms, customs and beliefs of the church. Understanding culture, personal bias and a congregation’s way of handling change is critical. If that understanding isn’t present, the “pothole” increases dramatically in size.

• Pothole #3 is a failure to normalize relationships through different phases of the joining. The first partnering phase is a “meet and greet” stage of ministry where a person puts their best foot forward. Some organizational experts think of the next phase as “storming.” A period when folk relax enough to “get real” and share disappointment, concerns and criticisms. Once through this phase, both pastor and congregation begin to create new norms and customs for being in ministry together. They begin to answer the question, “How shall we make this journey together?”

• Pothole #4 is failing to provide challenge while staying connected. While congregations’ seek stability they also yearn for Vision and Direction. If the pastor and congregation have bought into the need for stability over vitality and vision, then usually by year 4 or 5 folk become restless. If a pastor continues to embraces shepherding over leadership, maintenance over transformation, the congregation will then build up momentum to change the pastor leadership style/priorites or make a pastoral change.

Thoughts on Leadership - Part I

At the age of 26, I was appointed to a small church about an hour south of Boston. It was rural in nature and in significant decline. It didn't take long to discover internal power struggles.

Bob Sweet, my first District Superintendent, gave me my prime directive. “Greg, go forth and turn that church around!” In hindsight, I now realize that seminary didn't provide training regarding church redevelopment or even how to assess if a congregation is ready for "turn around work." Fortunately, I had enough sense to avoid negative labels and pre-mature diagnosis. Pulling out a congregational version of the DSMV IV and labeling folk with a "you are the problem" diagnosis usually isn't motivating and furthers polarization. Many pastors find themselves locked out of the church system by proclaiming that they are here to eradicate the “poison.” (in this church a pastor did just that and lasted three years).

Twenty years of integrating my pastoral and family therapy experiences has led to some ideas about pastoral effectiveness. Early in my ministry, I attended the Kantor Family Institute and learned more about systems work and change. At KFI, we encountered the idea that each one of us has an innate model for how people respond to change and evolve. It is a combination of life experience, education and DNA that form our perceptual frame and bias about how to create influence and transformation.

For your own consideration. Do you believe groups tend to grow incrementally, one step at a time? Are your actions guided by a subtle assumption that folk grow in quantum jumps - leaping multiple steps or floors at a time.

Some leaders just know instinctively how to improvise in order to create transformation. They instinctively answer the question of whether the congregation would best be served by leadership that is direct and results oriented or steady and understanding.
The benefit to checking out your assumption and studying different models of leadership and organizational development is being able to bring instinct and intuition to the surface. Shared models and language help to bring folk on board and strengthen ownership of the change process.

What I hope you will take away from this blog entry is the critical importance of understanding your perceptual bias. Most pastor/congregational “marriages” do not fail because clergy can’t “pay the rent” (basic skills of preaching, pastoral care and administration). Escalating conflict or failure to thrive is not because the laity are all bad. Attempts to lay complete blame on either laity or the clergy fails to understand the complex “joining” dynamics between pastor and parish. A leader who desires to transform or influence a congregation must appreciate the critical nature of first effectively joining and establishing trust.

Look for my next installation on “The Joining Process.”