Implementing Change Within a Ministry Context: The Five Steps to Creating a Capacity for Change

 

Setting The Stage

            Whether you’re starting a new organization or jumping into a role at a previously existing ministry, navigating change can be a daunting task. There is a great deal of planning and analyzing that must be done and there are variables to consider depending on the size, demographic, purpose, and even location of the organization. For the purpose of this article, the emphasis will be placed on the five most common factors for implementing change within a ministry. These include culture, establishing the vision, execution, the aftermath, and organizational capacity for change. Each of these will be examined in order and approached as if they are being discussed from the standpoint of someone who is new to an existing organization.

 

Step 1: Culture

            The culture will say a lot about the ability to create and implement lasting change within an organization. In order to properly understand how a culture functions, especially if someone is coming in from the outside, a great deal of observation, perception, and interpersonal skills are needed. Certainly, information can be gleaned from others but often those within a culture are oblivious to weaknesses, needs, and sometimes even strengths. When organizations are trying to implement change, a few of the challenges that often exist include being organizationally siloed, poor execution strategies, and mismanagement of timing efforts.

To simply break each of these down, being siloed means that each different area or department within an organization is functioning independently and there isn’t a collective vision or mission. This leads to different objectives, poor communication, and internal conflict because of the competing viewpoints and strategies. When change is imposed into a situation like this, the response will likely vary greatly causing even more conflict and disunity as it is almost certain that any change will be seen as a benefit to only certain areas of the organization. Using the systems thinking strategy to help everyone in the organization realize how they are interconnected and giving them a common vision and objectives, will assist in solving this issue.

Poor strategy execution often comes from a lack of foresight or good communication. Most people are not opposed to change, rather they are often resistant to the way it is implemented. Especially within large organizations, it’s easy to eliminate the human element when rolling out major changes because of the uniformity that is needed. However, everyone is human and change of any kind is generally interpreted as loss. For some individuals, this loss is not a good thing and that will stir up emotions and fears. The fear and emotions that are born will lead to cultural unrest, irrational responses, and a fierce resistance to the change measures being put into place. There are strategies for overcoming this challenge including approaching change as a positive while recognizing the difficulties that come with doing something new and different. Leaders should also embrace the opportunity to build trust and relationships through times of transition. A leader who is transparent, approachable, and understanding will also help the situation greatly.

The third challenge that will affect the culture during times of change is with the timing of change. This includes knowing when to unveil new changes and understanding that the world is constantly changing so there might need to be audibles called in the middle of executing changes. There are a number of organizations throughout history that have faced push back or major challenges because of poor timing. The more common struggle though is once the pendulum is in motion, being able to guide that energy into the proper channels to accomplish everything the changes were intended to do. When changes are up in the air, there will be a sense of apprehension within the culture. No one will feel settled or comfortable because they know changes or a different way of doing things could be coming at any moment. It takes some tightrope walking to be able to balance implementing changes quickly while also realizing that changes may need to be made to those changes should factors fluctuate during the process.

 

Step 2: Establishing the Vision

            Once the state of the culture has been analyzed, the next step necessary is establishing a vision and clear objectives for the organization. While this will be tailored towards the specific ministry or organization in question, there are three strategies to be considered.

            Proverbs 16:9 says, “a man’s heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.” No matter how much planning or thought goes into constructing plans and purposes, if these are not built upon biblical principles they will fail. Additionally, leaders must recognize that the ultimate authority in any organization should be the Lord and His wisdom and guidance should be continually sought. It’s one thing to come before the Lord with a plan and ask Him to bless it and give leading in it. It’s another thing to come with an open hand, asking the Lord to direct the organization where He sees fit.

            Once a vision is in place, the ideas of capable champions come into play. Capable champions could be defined as individuals who are able to influence others in the organization to adopt a proposed change or changes without the formal authority to do so. Often, these people live and work at the bottom or middle levels of an organization and function as it’s heart as they bring the life, passion, energy, and enthusiasm that is necessary to inspire and encourage others to buy into a vision or change. Part of establishing the vision is also identifying the capable champions within an organization or raising them up where none exist.

            The third strategy for establishing the vision is examining the trust levels within the organization. While one may argue that this should be a part of observing the culture, it fits within the scope of the vision because both the leaders and the followers must exert some level of trust in order for a vision to succeed. If a leader is not viewed as trustworthy, it’s likely the changes they propose won’t be accepted or will come with a great deal of backlash. Alternatively, if a leader doesn’t fully trust those they lead, it’s possible that they may be too controlling of the vision which could choke the vision altogether. If those within an organization feel like they aren’t being trusted, they won’t reciprocate it. Trust is built within an organization over time through integrity, faithfulness, and character. If someone has just entered an organization and is trying to bring about change without any of these factors, the lack of trust must be factored into creating and setting the vision. Building trust and implement change can be done simultaneously, it will just take time and effort.

 

Step 3: Execution

The most important part of executing change is the communication. Once changes are imminent, communicating this is important because surprise changes will generally make things worse. All throughout the change process, there should also be ongoing communication with every member of them team. This communication should also be two-way, there must be feedback loops in which member of the team can openly raise questions and provide feedback. There are multiple ways in which this can happen including team meetings, open door policies where team members can come and talk with leaders at any time, or specific media channels such as a messaging platform like Slack or Microsoft Teams. Communication must also be an expectation of every person within the organization. Organizations that freely and clearly communicate function at a high level because everyone knows the gameplan, current issues, and how they can best support the overarching mission regardless of whether they are directly involved or not.

It's impossible to overcommunicate too. The communication process is an important part of building trust as leaders. Being authentic, transparent, and open are all trademarks of a good leader. Leaders must practice what they preach and find ways to keep their message fresh by sharing it through multiple platforms and in different ways. Stories and analogies are a great tool as information is more easily retained when the hearer can identify with the characters or practically relate to the concepts. Utilizing informal social networks is another important practice. Communicating when you pass others in the hallway or in the break room is a start but especially within a ministry setting, interaction should go deeper. At the end of the day, the people in a ministry are not only coworkers but brothers and sisters in Christ and coheirs of the inheritance that awaits in glory. Investing in those relationships will hopefully provide exceptional benefits outside of the workplace but it will also allow team members to better understand others strengths, weaknesses, personality, and tendencies. All of these will greatly aid in communicating more effectively and efficiently.

One other strategy regarding communication is related to a biblical principle found in Colossians 4:6. The passages says, “let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one”. When it comes to work place communication, it’s not likely we would associate the idea of speaking with grace as a necessary practice. However, if we approached every communication, conversation, or interaction with grace, we would be far less likely to overreact in a way that is detrimental to the situation or even relationship. I find it interesting that at the end of this verse the grammar makes it seem like if we speak with grace, we will be able to answer others more clearly and appropriately. In my mind, I feel like that has more to do with wisdom rather than grace. But, if we think about, speaking and responding with grace causes us to slow down and answer patiently rather than giving in to the immediate response or words that may come to mind. Grace and patience in our speech and responses will create a sense in which our words season or enrich the conversation rather than creating new problems or tensions.

 

Step 4: The Aftermath

            The other side of change involves two important factors, resistance to change and accountability. Both of these relate to each other as they run along parallel tracks. A good accountability system for leaders and followers alike should lead to a more unified mindset and understanding of the organization. While this is certainly related to trust and the culture, everyone being held to the same standard and receiving reward or facing consequences, when necessary, will assist in ensuring an organizational wide dedication to the vision. The more those within an organization understand how the ministry is interconnected, the more they will realize and see how their actions or lack thereof, does actually affect everyone else in some shape or form.

            Focusing on accountability more closely, there are two strategies what should be imposed. First, while it may seem harsh to hand out consequences to someone who doesn’t meet goals or standards, consideration should be given into the recourses and time they are wasting and causing to be poorly stewarded because of their meager performance. This reflects bad on both the organization and also the leader if they cover up or make excuses for the team member even after a long period of time. Here’s another thing to consider too. If someone is simply not meeting expectations and it seems likely that they will never reach those, who is it benefitting to keep them around? Certainly not the organization and I would also argue, them too. Why should they continue to invest their time and energy in a position or organization where will ultimately never succeed? The second strategy is the reverse side of this argument though. While everyone should be measured against the same performance standard, some thought should go into considering someone’s impact on an organization outside of what the numbers might show. Sometimes there will be people who routinely underperform but they are the main reason why others overperform because of the morale, experience, and networking abilities they possess. Removing these people could cause catastrophic damage to an organization. This doesn’t mean these individuals are somehow above the accountability, rather, maybe expectations should be adjusted or different positions considered that will enhance their performance and provide opportunity for a better use of their skills and talents.

            Handling resistance to change will be the most difficult part of the aftermath of change initiatives. There will certainly be opinions raised and objections made throughout the process but mending relationships and addressing concerns will await on the other side. The two strategies for handling this include focusing on relationships and utilizing the accountability system. Most change fails because leaders and organizations fail to realize that they aren’t just bring about a new way of doing things, they are forcing team members to part with experience, understanding, and a way of life. If a ministry has always used one email system and decides to switch to a new one, an older person may be furious, not because they don’t believe the new system will be good but rather because what they know and are familiar with will be gone. Leaders will see and understand this if they relate the human side of the organization and become in tune with the concerns and fears of team members. While some of these will be irrational, leaders may find better ways of implementing intended changes that will make the process less scary and more comfortable for those who oppose it. Related to the irrational side, the accountability process can also assist in helping to work with the opposition. On one hand, if someone is struggling to meet standards under the current situation, leaders can show how the changes may help workers reach higher marks thus removing the potential of facing consequences. Alternatively, if someone is creating chaos by their refusal to accept changes, the accountability system can serve as a reminder that have to live up to the organizational standards and will face penalties if they don’t. While it should be very rare that situations come to this within a ministry, all too often ministries sacrifice good stewardship and integrity for the sake of extending grace. While grace, mercy, and second chances are what Christianity is all about, there must be a point at which doing what is right for the organization is more important than the individual. The relational side of accountability also balances this out. There must be opportunities to engage, hear, and see each person and their individual opinion and resolving issues is the goal.

Step 5: Organizational Capacity for Change

            Change within an organization should not be viewed as a one-time action but rather an ongoing process and part of growth. It’s important to get away from the prior mindset and replace it with one that focuses on innovation and adaption while maintain an adherence to the overarching mission and vision on the organization. The distinction here is important, functioning in a free fall or going after whatever is new or trendy is not a good vision for an organization. Instead, while there should be a set vision and objectives, there must also be room left for flexibility within the gameplan for accomplishing those things to adjust based changes in the environment. The balance may be difficult to find at times as a leader, but equal attention must be given to staying true to core values and objections and finding new ways forward that will improve the organizations performance and efficiency. In order for a ministry or organization to remain ready to pivot at a moment’s notice, this balance must be found and innovation must be something that is recognized and rewarded.

            All of the elements and strategies discussed are areas that continually need to be assessed and maintained. In order for an organization to remain change ready, all of these factors must be functioning. To recap, these a culture built on trust, a defined vision and properly trained middle managers and capable champions to drive that vision, clear communication with proper feedback loops, an accountability structure, and a mindset that promotes and rewards innovation. All of the most successful organizations have the ability to pivot and maneuver, something called their organizational capacity for change. This is defined as a dynamic, multidimensional capability that enables an organization to upgrade or revise existing organizational competencies, while cultivating new competencies that enable the organization to survive and prosper. If your organization is going to not only survive, but also reach the next level, your OCC must be extremely high.