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”…