CHANGE SOMEONE ELSE BELIEVES IN

When I concluded my previous post (LEADING CHANGE BECAUSE CHANGE IS NEED ~ September 26), I stated I would be continuing on the theme of change by looking in today’s post at how to deal with “the majority rules.” So, here we go.

There’s such a strong tendency for people to think as individuals, the “What’s-in-it-for-me?” mentality, I believe it significantly compounds the challenge of change. I don’t know if self-centered thinking is a growing problem, but from my perspective it sure seems like it. As someone who follows Christ, the Bible instructs me to live an “other-centered” life. Instead of approaching life asking, “What’s in it for me?” it’s better to ask several other questions: “What does God want in this situation?” and “What’s the best thing for everyone involved?” I’ve heard these two different approaches to life referred to as: “ME-think” and “GROUP-think.” Several scriptures come to mind which clearly instruct us to think of others:

Romans 12:10 (NIV) “Honor one another above yourselves.” (NAS, “give preference to one another in honor.”) To “honor” means to show deference to another person. 

Philippians 2:3 (NIV) “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.”

Basically, what Paul is saying in these two verses is that our concern and consideration of others must precede our concern and consideration of ourselves. I know it’s not very American, but it is Christian. 

The self-centered “me-think” which seems to be the dominant attitude today is very destructive. This attitude is so dominant I don’t feel like I even need to suggest examples. Each of us has witnessed the destructive force of selfishness, including in the context of change, within our families, workplaces, our network of friends, and our churches. On a positive note, when each member of the Christian community is committed to being other-centered, the problems of disunity and disharmony are greatly diminished. When an attitude of mutual concern is exercised, in the context of change, people have a tendency to be more open-minded and flexible. If I can see how a change can benefit others, even if I don’t personally [individually] require change, I can be supportive and enthusiastic for the sake of others and the greater good of the group. 

When change is being proposed in a group where we’re a member, all of us have to fight the tendency to become very myopic. Another word for myopic is: narrow-minded. Self-centeredness is a major contributor to narrow-mindedness and the inability to see the bigger picture, which includes the perspective of others. 

I haven’t said as much as I thought I would regarding, “the majority rules.” As I mentioned in the previous posts, one of the things which can be seen from Rogers’ research is that the majority will be slow to adopt or adapt to change. It would be a stretch to suggest self-centeredness is the sole cause of this slowness, but it is certainly a contributing factor. If a change is being proposed, the group leaders need to focus their efforts towards sharing how this change will ultimately benefit the group. The broader perspective and bigger picture will help those who are slower to embrace change. Most importantly, as a leader, don’t be discouraged or dismayed by the initial reaction of the group when a change is first announced. The majority will need time and more information to process the change.

Have a great weekend!  *MBR

LEADING CHANGE BECAUSE CHANGE IS NEEDED

In my previous post (September 23, LEADING CHANGE WHEN THINGS GET CRAZY) I continued exploring the implications of the five categories sociologist Everett Rogers uses to describe how people respond to innovation/change: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards (“Diffusion of Innovations”, 1962). In my previous post I shared some thoughts on how to lead when there’s change which occurs because of outside forces, or is the consequences of decisions made beyond the immediate group. In today’s post I want to look at leadership during a time when change occurs intentionally. This includes those scenarios where the group, or the leadership of the group, determines there’s a need for change and they begin the process of working intentionally towards their desired goal.

While there’s always the possibility of change for the sake of change, the neurotic leader who has to always stir things up, I lean towards the perspective most leaders believe the change or changes they are promoting will improve the group they’re leading. The neurotic, ego-driven leaders don’t last. They blow in, blow out and blow up! For the leader who truly desires to move the group or organization she or he is leading in a more positive and productive future, I want to share some ideas for leading change because change is needed.

First, to state the obvious…what’s obvious to you may not be obvious to others. As the leader of a group/organization you’re aware of most everything. You’re constantly evaluating organizational strengths and weaknesses. You’re looking for best practices to improve the impact of the group you’re leading. Where you see the need for change, to you it’s glaringly obvious, others are oblivious. It’s important and helpful to be aware that others, perhaps many others, are unaware of the need for change. In books I’ve read on organizational change, I recall the authors suggesting that one of the steps in the change process is the “crisis.” John Maxwell was the first person I heard who said, “People will not change until the pain to stay the same exceeds the pain to change.” For the Late Majority and Laggards, possibly even those in the Early Majority, it takes a “crisis” to motivate them to consider change. As a leader, you need to be able to clearly articulate the crisis. A friend of mine was leading a church through ten consecutive years of decline. It didn’t matter what the church did, and they tried many things, nothing would stop their dramatic slide. In a meeting of the core leadership of the church my friend prepared a graph, based how things had been going over the previous ten years. This graph showed the church would “die” in three years, essentially there would be so few people attending they couldn’t manage to keep the door open. This “crisis” motivated the church to take a huge step of faith to reinvent itself and over the past three years they’ve experienced an explosion of fruitfulness for the Kingdom. For pastor-leaders reading today’s blog, you might want to give my friend’s strategy a try and predict the date of death for your church. Proceed with caution.

Second, even if change is needed for all the right reasons (i.e. increased effectiveness; survival of the organization; etc.) Rogers’ research forewarns us there will be a significant number of people in your group (the majority?) who will initially be resistant to change. Rogers’ found the following percentages of an organization in three of the five categories: Early Majority, 34%; Late Majority, 34% and Laggards, 16%. If you do the math, that’s 84%. This is the reason why when you’re a leader you won’t be winning any popularity contests.

Let’s consider this idea of the “majority.” It’s interesting (and challenging) to live in a country where “the majority rules.” While I believe a democracy is the best form of government, the majority doesn’t always make the best decisions. The Bible shows, over and over again, the majority seeking to move against God’s good plans. Here are a few examples:

The Twelve Spies: When Moses sent out the 12 spies to check the land which was being promised to the Israelites, ten of the spies (interestingly, 83% of the spies) told Moses they shouldn’t try to possess the land because there were too many “giant” problems. 

The Exodus: Moses began leading the people of God out of the bondage of Egypt towards the Promised Land and they started in with the complaining. It was too hot, they didn’t like the food, and there wasn’t enough water. The “majority” (also, known as “the saints”) voted to go back to Egypt. Thankfully, Moses didn’t listen to the majority, but he listened to the Lord.

Gideon’s Army: In the book of Judges we find the story of Gideon being called to lead his 32,000 troops against an enemy which numbered over 100,000. God thought Gideon had too many men, so in the first cut 10,000 troops, who were dominated by fear, excused themselves from duty. Observation: The reluctance and resistance people have towards change is often driven by fear. In the second cut, 21,700 more troops were dismissed because when they drank water they did so on their knees with their head down (i.e. like a dog), showing a lack of awareness of danger. Only 300 of Gideon’s men had a proper blend of courage and an awareness of danger to fight alongside Gideon, which is just less than 1%. If Gideon’s troops would have voted whether to fight the Midianites the majority would have voted “No”. 

The Mob at the Trial of Jesus: The majority did rule on the day when they shouted, “Crucify, Him! Crucify, Him!” It was the majority who sentenced the Son of God to die on a cross. 

What’s my point? Leading change requires leaders who possess resolve and thick skin. If you’re a fully devoted follower of Jesus, I am assuming you live to please God with everything you do. Your number one priority in life is to “seek first the kingdom of God” (Matthew 6:33). Pleasing God and pleasing the “majority,” unfortunately, aren’t always the same. Leaders, here’s something from Rogers’ research which gives a reason for hope: As the change process continues to move forward in your organization many in the Early Majority and Late Majority, which combined are 68% of your group, will get on board with the change. It may take some time, but don’t become weary in seeking the good of your organization.

In my next blog post I want to explore how to deal with “majority rules”…

LEADING CHANGE WHEN THINGS GET CRAZY

In my previous post (THIS MIGHT BE BORING, BUT YOU’D BETTER KNOW THIS! September 21) I shared the five categories sociologist Everett Rogers uses to describe how people respond to innovation/change: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards. Any time you’re dealing with theories it can seem too academic, but I believe it’s important to understand that how people respond and react to innovation/change is personal, to the individual, and a process.

Based on Rogers’ research findings, I want to venture into several scenarios and look at how the leadership of a group needs to navigate the change process.

While there are different reasons for innovation/change, for the sake of simplicity, I will suggest there are two: First, there is change which occurs intentionally. A group, or the leadership of a group, determines there’s a need for a change and they begin the process of working intentionally towards their desired goal. Second, there is change which occurs because of outside forces, or is the consequence of decisions made beyond the immediate group. 

In today’s post I want to deal with the second reason: Leading when outside forces or decisions trigger change in a group. In this scenario, the change, or at least the awareness change is coming, can happen with tremendous speed. With little or no advance notice, a group may find itself in the midst of a major shift. For those who serve as leaders of a group during this type of change you will be in for a challenge. Applying Rogers’ five categories to your group, you can anticipate that as much as half of the group will be emotionally distraught, or, to put it another way, freaking out. The Early Majority, Late Majority and Laggards all need time to process a change, and when change occurs swiftly and without much warning it is extremely unsettling. Of course, for the Laggards any type of change is unwelcomed. 

I’ve led large groups during these types of changes and I think I’ve learned a few things along the way. First, it’s important for you as the leader or a leader to stay calm. This isn’t just a function of mind over matter where you repeat a mantra, “Stay calm, stay calm, stay calm.” This is a time for drawing upon your faith and to build yourself up through God’s Word and prayer to move to a whole new level of trusting God. You will be asked many questions, questions which initially don’t have answers. Don’t feel like you have to give answers or try to offer some type of an answer just to give the appearance you have everything under control. You don’t so don’t fake it! Your sense of calm doesn’t come from you it will come from the Lord. See Isaiah 26:3

Second, be prepared to extend lots of grace to people. When people feel they are under pressure, they will say and do things which can often be unkind and even cruel. Unfortunately, when you’re a leader you will be blamed for things which you didn’t cause and were beyond your control, but the flesh loves to play the blame game. Make the choice to extend grace and refuse to take personal the comments which are made to you and about you. If you can hold your tongue and refrain from counter-attacking it will keep the situation from escalating and becoming an unnecessary distraction, and, most importantly, it will give those you are leading the space to process the change.

Third, and this may be the hardest thing to do as a leader, lead with courage. Since we’re looking at change which has come upon a group because of outside forces, or is the consequence of decisions made beyond the immediate group, you will have to begin to make unpopular decisions. When sudden change occurs in a group, there are often immediate decisions which have to be made. As these decisions are announced, you should anticipate the Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards (which could be over half your group) will be anxious and even fearful. Change is just not something they do very well, and when it happens too quickly, it doesn’t bring out the best in them. You will need courage during these times because the decisions, which often have to be made, will not be popular and earn you new members in your fan club. As a leader, I have to be content with seeking to do the right thing, the right way and for the right reasons. 

To be continued…

THIS MIGHT BE BORING, BUT YOU’D BETTER KNOW THIS!

I concluded my previous post (CHANGE HAPPENS. DEAL WITH IT!, September 19) with this question: Why do people treat change as the enemy rather than embrace it?    Our reaction to change seems to be a function of our personality, everything which contributes to who we are as a person, and, also, the place where we are in life at the time change emerges. There may be some changes which we welcome and then quickly adapt. Then there may be other changes which provoke a swift and rigid response; this is when change is perceived as the enemy! Personally I can flex with change most of the time. The exception is if I’m in a place in my life where there are many other changes taking place, it can get to be overwhelming for there to be one more change. 

Everett Rogers, a sociologist, is credited with originating a theory called “diffusion of innovations,” which basically seeks to explain how different people within a social system (a group of people) respond to innovation and change. This is one of those things you learn in undergrad or grad school, which at the time seems too academic, but it’s actually very helpful, especially if you’re in some type of leadership role.

Rogers uses five categories to describe how people respond to innovation/change: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards. I want to give you a brief definition of each category:

Innovators: The first individuals to adopt an innovation. Innovators are usually the youngest in age, are willing to take risks, come from the highest social group, possess a strong understanding of financial issues, are very social, have the closest contact to scientific sources, and the strongest interaction with other innovators.

Early Adopters: The second fastest group to adopt an innovation. These individuals have the highest degree of leadership skills. They are typically younger in age, a higher social status, more financial understanding than the average person, advanced education, and are more socially skilled than late adopters. Early adopters understand how adopting and adapting to a new innovation will enable them to maintain their role as a central leader.

Early Majority: Individuals in this category adopt an innovation given time. This time is significantly longer than Innovators and Early Adopters. Early Majority individuals tend to have an above average social status, contact with Early Adopters and seldom hold positions of primary leadership of a group.

Late Majority: Individuals in this fourth category will adopt an innovation after the average member of a group. These individuals approach innovation with a high degree of skepticism, have below average social status, very little financial insight, are in contact with others in late majority and early majority, and very little leadership function in a group.

Laggards: Individuals in this group are the last to adopt an innovation. Individuals in this category have little or no leadership role. These individuals typically have an aversion to change-agents (those who are the initiators of change) and are generally more advanced in age. Laggards typically tend to focus on “traditions”, likely have the lowest social status, the lowest degree of financial understanding, are in contact with only family and close friends and virtually no leadership function in a group.

As Rogers studied extensive numbers of groups, he found these five categories of adopters formed an “S-curve”: Innovators, 2.5%; Early Adopters, 13.5%; Early Majority, 34%; Late Majority, 34% and Laggards, 16%.

What does all this mean? Well, Mark Twain said: "The only person that likes change is a wet baby." That’s not exactly true because Innovators, Early Adopters and even some of the Early Majority will eagerly embrace the new opportunities and challenges of change. Personally, I think Rogers’ theory is something every leader needs to be aware of. When a group (school, work, church, family, team, etc.) is facing innovation/change, it is helpful to know that not everyone will react and respond at the same rate. To expect otherwise will lead to great frustration and poor preparation. By “poor preparation,” here’s what I mean: Since the leaders are usually in the first two categories (Innovators and Early Adopters) they may assume everyone will be just as open and eager to embrace innovation/change as they are. The result could be a failure to prepare to lead those who are in the other three categories. 

I think Rogers’ theory is helpful to leaders because it reveals that for many people, adapting and adopting change is a process. Since I generally function in the second category (Early Adopters) when it becomes clear to me a change is needed or certain I swiftly shift into the mode of adoption. I think it’s helped that in the first 18 years of my life there was a steady stream of change being introduced and I had to learn how to adapt. 

I encourage you to take time to reflect on the five categories and identify how you, as an individual, adopt and adapt to innovation. 

To be continued…