The Pivot Point of Organizational Change

by: Leadership Now

0

Tweet

We know that the vast majority of organizational change initiatives fail. Why? The general answer is our resistance to change. But what if it’s something else?

In The Pivot Point, authors Victoria and James Grady ask, “What if this is not a ‘resistance’ problem for which the organization must engineer a solution, but a deeper ‘people’ problem that the organization must first learn to understand and respect?”

Perhaps the problem is less about resistance to change and more about attachment to some thing.

Change involves destruction and insecurity. You have to give up something to create something new. It’s the nature of change. Sometimes it is very hard to give up that thing. It creates anxiety, frustration and insecurity. “We form attachments to objects unique to our organizational environment and we lean on them for support.” What we react to is our loss of attachment.

The essence of the problem is not resisting change per se, but resisting the distress inherent in somehow losing the objects that we attach to or lean on in our work environment. These objects can be people, systems, places, things, or even abstract concepts such as ideas or environments—anything that provides us with a sense of “attachment” to the organization.

If this is the case, then the challenge is to identify those attachments and the impact the proposed change will have on them, and design a solution around them—introducing changes will maintain healthy attachments. The authors refer to this as the Pivot Point of organizational change success: “when we recognize the significance of our individual reaction to organizational change, take appropriate steps to support healthy attachment behaviors, and make use of current information to optimize the situation for all concerned.”

The authors suggest that “to mitigate the negative effects of losing our sense of stability, one way an organization can ease the transition of a change initiative is to look for a generic substitute to replace the lost object until a new sense of stability is restored. Those replacements could be “a leader, a favored object, a method of communication, a continuing education series, a technology, a colleague, a culture, or any combination of these items.”

They also present other methodologies to prevent or modify symptoms before or as they are developing. It is possible to discover which symptoms are most likely to escalate, allowing you to implement a strategy to mitigate these symptoms before you ever begin your organizational change initiative.

Read more about The Pivot Point here.

Tags: Change, Leadership Now, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Disrupt Something and Think the Unthinkable

by: Phil Cooke

0

Tweet

When was the last time you shook up the thinking at your office? If it’s been too long, then maybe it’s time to start thinking the unthinkable, seeing what nobody else can see, and breaking a few rules. We are all creatures of habit, and it usually takes a jolt to shake us out of our rut. I know – I wrote a book on the subject. But climbing outside the rut is exactly where we need to be.  So start tomorrow.  Think of the projects you’re facing at work, and then think of the most outrageous solution.  For once, just forget about budget, schedule, and rules.  Just start asking, “What’s the most elegant and perfect solution?”  Reframe the problem in a new light and see what insight comes from there.

And just for fun, see how many minds you can blow in the process.

Tags: Change, Innovation, Phil Cooke, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Are You Investing Your Best Resources in the Wrong People?

by: Michael Hyatt

0

Tweet

It is easy to see other people making this mistake. It is more difficult to catch yourself doing it. I’ve been guilty plenty of times.

Leaders often make this same mistake in various areas of their lives.

What can you do if you are in this situation?

Make sure you are investing your best resources—including your time and energy—in your best people. Here’s how:

1. Acknowledge that your resources are limited. Your time, money, and energy are finite resources. It’s easy to forget this and overcommit. But it’s a zero-sum game. Every time you say “yes” to one person, you are saying “no” to others.
2. Become aware of where your resources are going. It’s easy to think the situation is temporary or an exception. But is it? This is the little lie that keeps us stuck if we aren’t careful. Look back over your calendar and make an honest assessment. It will reveal the truth.

Read the rest of the article from Michael here.

Tags: Michael Hyatt, Staff, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Can Mega Be Missional?, Part 1

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Today, I begin a new blog series to continue an ongoing dialogue. And make no mistake this dialogue is important. What I hope we gain together are sound principles of what makes a church missional— anytime, anywhere, any size. Even greater, I hope you see where your church is un- or under-engaged in the mission of God– and make clear plans to take concrete steps forward.

This summer, while not at my church, I’ve preached at a few megachurches– James River Assembly of God (Springfield, MO), Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis), and will be at Christ Fellowship (Miami) this Sunday. At every place the question was discussion, “How can we live on mission more effectively?” They wanted to live on mission while being a megachurch. Megachurches want to be missional.

Another outcome I’d love to see the end of “class envy” and “class superiority” in all sized churches. Some small churches or anti-megas believe large churches are blight on America. In turn, some mega churches sneer at small churches with a spirit of superiority because any church in America smaller than them “just doesn’t get it.”

We need each other! The enemy is not another church– the enemy is the enemy (Ephesians 6:10-17). And if it takes all kinds of churches to reach all types of people then we all have a unique place in God’s mission. Paul gave a principle that supports our need for each other to the Romans:

For I want very much to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, that is, to be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. Now I want you to know, brothers, that I often planned to come to you (but was prevented until now) in order that I might have a fruitful ministry among you, just as among the rest of the Gentiles. (Romans 1:11-13 HCSB)

With that being said, let me get to the start of the argument: I think it is harder (in some ways) to be missional when you’re a megachurch because you have a tendency to maintain the monument you’ve created. There’s this self-sustaining structure that has to be continued.

Megachurches face unique challenges in being truly missional— yet they also have the opportunity to rally people for substantive impact. Recent research shows that megachurch attendees are more involved and engaged in many ways, which I will address, but there are issues that distract megachurches from mission as well.

Of course, smaller churches in inner cities and in rural communities do as well. I’ve written on that frequently.

However, I am going to focus on megachurches for a bit. Why? Because a bias against megachurches has emerged that does not always represent reality. At times, some look to people in megachurches as mindless, consumer-encoded automatons who are unable to think for themselves or to live on mission. Lined up like robots sitting in rows each Sunday, they just love the show. And they love the goods and services offered by their Super Wal-Mart that has driven the local “mom and pop” churches to the verge of extinction.

There may be megachurches that have some of those traits. However, I know many megachurch pastors, and it’s not their passion or direction to drive other churches out of business. They are deeply burdened to lead their churches on mission into their community and the world.

Now, to be fair, I also know some megachurches pastors who feel like it is their passion and desire to be the unquestioned leader. I also know some are highly competitive, driven leaders. And so there’s some dysfunction in megachurch world. I get that. But, my point is that there are a lot of megachurches that are asking the right questions and focused on the right issues.

So, let me add that I do think there’s certain arrogance among some anti-megachurchers. Too many of them just refuse to think anything good can come from the megachurch– they’ve already made up their mind, perhaps because they have been burned along the way.

So, full disclosure: I have a great appreciation for what God is doing through many megachurches. To be fair, that is usually my posture– I am not that perpetual contrarian looking for somewhere to point my finger. But, I think that many are just too knee-jerk on their reactions. Megachurches are like all churches– imperfect and flawed– but I want to look at how some are seeking to be more missional.

Every five years or so someone new announces that the era of the megachurch is over. And yet every five years there are more of them. So, my question is, can we engage the mega movement without selling our missional souls?

If you have a group of people who gather together to listen to Bible teaching and that’s the only thing that they do, you’ve created a room full of consumers– whether it has 20 seats or 20,000 seats. But if instead you take that opportunity to help them move from being customers to co-laborers, and you have intentional strategies and processes to do that, I think the end result is that you can have a church that intentionally leads people to be on mission for the gospel. That’s true in a small church or a megachurch.

So can mega be missional? I think that’s like asking can small be missional, or can middle be missional? The right question is “What does the missional church look like?” And “what are your unique obstacles to being missional in your context?” I think all of us live imperfectly in light of the mission of God, but I think megachurches must exhort people to live on that mission, and there are some that are.

Stay tuned.

Read Part 2 of this series here.

For information on what I (and many others) mean by “missional,” click here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Mega-church, Missional, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >

You’re Not That Smart: Avoiding the Moses Complex

by: Tony Morgan

1

Tweet

As I was reading the Bible in YouVersion this morning, I was reminded of an article I wrote a few years ago about seeking the counsel of others. I think it’s worth a refresh, so here’s part one of the series.

I’ve always found it fascinating that Solomon, the wisest king to ever rule Israel, understood the value of getting advice from other people. If God had already gifted him with wisdom, why did he pursue advice from others? It seems like it would have been appropriate for Solomon to say, “My wisdom and understanding comes directly from God. I will make decisions about my next steps based on that wisdom alone.”

The Moses Complex

There’s a dangerous trend I’m seeing in churches today that embraces this theology of leadership. I refer to it as the “Moses Complex.” In these environments, only the senior pastor can receive a vision from God and it only happens through a Mount Sinai-type experience.

In churches that embrace this theology, everyone waits for the pastor to receive a vision, and then all the staff “leaders” are responsible for executing the vision God gives the senior pastor. Many times I see this approach in the same churches that function using the “culture of honor” that I’ve written about previously.

The problem with this theology is that it discounts many passages of Scripture that offer contrary perspective on attaining wisdom. It’s based on broken theology and, in practice, it leads to an unhealthy and dysfunctional leadership culture.

Are you seeking advice from others?

Ironically, in the wisdom that God granted Solomon, the wisest man in the world understood the value of receiving advice from others. For example, Solomon offered:

• “Instruct the wise, and they will be even wiser. Teach the righteous, and they will learn even more” (Proverbs 9:9).
• “Without wise leadership, a nation falls; there is safety in having many advisers” (Proverbs 11:14).
• “Fools think their own way is right, but the wise listen to others” (Proverbs 12:15).
• “Plans go wrong for the lack of advice; many advisers bring success” (Proverbs 15:22).
• “Get all the advice and instruction you can, so you will be wise the rest of your life” (Proverbs 19:20).
• “Plans succeed through good counsel; don’t go to war without wise advice” (Proverbs 20:18).

God granted Solomon wisdom, and part of that wisdom from God was that we need to seek wise advice from others. That’s not how I would have handled that if I was God. If I was God, I would say, “Wisdom comes from me alone. Don’t listen to the advice of others.”

Tags: Leadership Development, Structure, Tony Morgan

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Who Does What? 5 Observations on Clarifying Leadership Roles

by: Tony Morgan

0

Tweet

Here’s what is on my whiteboard right now. I’ve been processing this because my sense is that there’s a lack of clarity about roles within the church. When that happens, it can lead to complexity and confusion for all involved. And, as you might guess, it’s one of the key reasons I see churches getting stuck.

Here are some specific observations I’ve had in working with churches through the years:

1. Roles will overlap. Every team will at times need to take on the other roles listed. The problems develop, though, when a team spends the majority of their team assuming a role that belongs to another team.
2. Leadership vacuums develop when a team doesn’t embrace their role. Organizations get out of whack when a team abdicates its responsibility and no one carries out that function. When that happens, people will try to fill the vacuum and it oftentimes pulls the church in an unhealthy direction.
3. Every team is naturally pulled to execution. The comfortable place to live is in “doing” the work. It’s what we know. God’s design for the church is that those of us in leadership would equip God’s people to do the work of God. (See Ephesians 4:12) When we don’t follow God’s design, we won’t experience God’s fruit.
4. The role that’s most commonly neglected is the strategy function.Senior leadership teams get bogged down in the urgent details of day-to-day ministry. They don’t invest enough time in strategic conversations to determine “How will we accomplish the vision?” Because of that, there’s a gap that leaves people guessing what needs to happen next.
5. We tend to invest time and attention in the “task” roles but not the “care” roles. There needs to be a balance of both. We prioritize time and systems to complete the tasks. We also need to prioritize the time and systems to care for people with whom we have influence. This is where discipleship and leadership development happens.

Read more from Tony here.

Tags: Leadership Development, Staff, Structure, Tony Morgan

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

7 Ways Leaders Destroy Their Teams

by: Scott Williams

0

Tweet

Often times when it comes to “leadership” we hear the warm and fuzzies or the great success stories. There are so many great books and tools at the disposal of leaders that growth, competency and effective leadership should be inevitable. The challenge with that theory is it’s rendered “not always true” because of the simple fact that leadership deals with human beings and human beings are rather complex creatures. Anytime you are dealing with people things are never that simplistic.

Another reason being an effective leader is not that simple is that fact that book knowledge doesn’t always translate to street knowledge {{translation – just because you can read it and talk it, deosn’t mean that you can effectively apply it}}.

A key understanding to leadership how ineffective and incapable individuals find themselves in key leadership roles is this: people hire people, who hire people, who hire people. Somewhere within those three generations of hiring, there are people placed in roles of leadership that they are not capable of handling. In my tenure working as a Deputy Prison Warden, before being promoted to Warden, I worked for a leader that definitely should not have been in her role. She literally destroyed her staff and destroyed her team. Not only did she destroy them, she didn’t have the self-awareness to make the necessary adjustments. She was a “Leadership Destroyer.” In consulting over the last 14 years, I have seen and heard about these “Leadership Destroyers” more often than I’d like to admit.

Unfortunately the “Leadership Destroyers” are not isolated to my experiences, if you live long enough and work for enough people, there is a good chance that you will work for one of these destroyers. To help identify how these leaders managers destroy their teams, I have identified 7 ways.

7 Ways Leaders Destroy Their Teams

1. My Way Or The Highway (MWOH): Everyone has an opinion and often times people have thoughts, ideas and suggestions that can be helpful to those that are in charge.MWOH is fueled by the insecurity of the Leadership Destroyer. MWOH can create an environment of control, but not an environment of healthy success. Listen to your team, involve your team, learn from your team and embrace the reality that the collective sum is much better than the Big-Headed MWOH Leader.

2. All About The Numbers: The numbers do matter, the bottom line is important and if it doesn’t make dolla$ it doesn’t make sense.  In business, ministry or non-profit work, it’s important to measure things as it’s a great barometer for success. Where numbers become a problem is when the Leadership Destroyer focuses on the numbers, bottom line and measurables so much that they forget about their team of people who are making those numbers happen. They lose sight of the “how” because they are so focused on the “what.” Number matter, but people matter more. Focus on creating a healthy team and healthy numbers will be a natural bi-product.

3. Talk But Don’t Listen: No one can get a word in or have an opinion because the Leadership Destroyer is always talking. Not only are they always talking, they never listen. If people are not heard, they will cease to say the things that matter. Shh (be quiet) Listen!

4. Change Things For The Sake Of Changing Things: Change is good and sometimes necessary to create forward momentum. The Leadership Destroyer takes this to another level by changing things just to let you know that they’re the boss. They are unwilling to receive feedback or go back to what worked, even if their change isn’t working. I heard a great thought from OSU Football Coach Mike Gundy from his press conference during OSU’s great season last year.  OSU was ranked #2 and they were rolling like a well-oiled machine. Mike Gundy said, (paraphrasing) “I try to change things up a bit, just to justify my existence. My team will come to me and say I think we need to stick to XYZ and this is why. Often times what they are saying makes perfect sense and I change it back.” It’s important to survey the impact, timing and necessity of change.

5. They Just Don’t Care:  The quickest way to destroy a team is to not care about the players on the team. Team members know the difference between the fake stuff and the genuine care and concern for the individual players and the collective team. Leadership Destroyers care more about their title, role, corner office and the fact that they have arrived than they do their team. One of the things that the inmates used to say when I was a Warden in regards to leadership and life is this, “It’s All About Missouri!” In other words, Missouri is the Show-Me State.  I’ll close with the words of John Maxwell, “People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.”

6. Focused On Pleasing The Boss – It’s okay to want to perform for your supervisor and help you organization be successful. Leadership Destroyers take it to a whole-nutha-level. The Leadership Destroyer will do anything and everything to look good, rather than doing any and everything right. The all-consuming thoughts of wondering what the boss thinks will lead these destroyers to destroy their team, chunk team members under the bus and not give proper credit where proper credit is due.

7. Unwilling To Receive Candid Feedback – When an individual is unwilling to listen to feedback because “It may hurt” or “It isn’t what they want to hear,” they are in trouble. You can’t win with thin skin. Once team members realize the Leadership Destroyer is unwilling to receive feedback, they will stop giving feedback. Once team members stop giving feedback, the Leadership Destroyers find themselves on an island. Islands are great places to vacation, but horrible places to find yourself when you are trying to lead a team.

Tags: Hiring, Scott Williams, Staff, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Can Mega Be Missional, Part 3

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Yes, there are problems to the megachurch (and problems to the small, medium, etc.). Any institution or organization that grows large will battle mission and values drift. But today as I continue my series I want to give you some opportunities that megachurches provide for missional ministry. I introduced the first missional realm (community involvement and transformation) where mega churches can engage in last week’s post. Today we will look at two more of those realms.

Now, I should add that this is in addition to how christians, in small groups or individually, live out God’s mission. That “missional life” must trump all designs of missional church (mega or mini). However, my question here is, “Can Mega be Missional?”

Here are two more ways that I think churches can engage in missional ministry. They are drawn from some past research and writing combined with some new information.

Global Ministry

True missional engagement isn’t about being trendy (i.e. the pastor with the goatee and cool glasses). It involves joining God in His mission both locally and globally. Going forward, many megachurches seem to be taking Jesus’ words from Acts 1:8 to heart– that we are to witness of His glory in both local (Jerusalem) and global (uttermost parts of the earth) settings– and utilizing their strength and influence toward that end.

That’s what can happen when a megachurch focuses on not only increasing its own size and numbers but on investing its God-given resources for the purpose of extending His Kingdom around the world. I pray this kind of global leadership initiative will largely characterize the megachurches of the future.

But significant global awareness and influence is also happening at the local level. As the U.S. population becomes increasingly diversified, I see many megachurches claiming their role as Gospel ambassadors and cultural anthropologists.

In Pensacola, Florida, the 10,000-member Olive Baptist Church is focused on reaching diverse ethnicities within its community. As Pastor Ted Traylor encourages the church to be missional, he models that concept with a multicultural staff of Hispanic, Russian, and Chinese pastors. The church identified key people groups to intentionally reach, and then they hired staff that spoke each language and understood each culture to show the church’s commitment to taking the Gospel to all ethnicities. Whether through beginning a global initiative or diversifying ethnic presence within the congregation, megachurches are on the forefront of pushing churches to heed Christ’s call to go therefore into the world and make disciples of all nations.

I just finished an article, out soon in Outreach magazine, that talks about how megachurches are adopting unreached people groups– not just to send a one-time mission team, but to create a long term partnership plan where the church adopts and then acts as a missionary to reach that unreached people.

Apostolic Networking

More and more megachurches understand they are not called to be kings of the mountain. Rather, the Lord has blessed them so that they can bless their communities and incrementally reproduce their talents through other churches. Many megas are doing this by networking outside their church–a methodology called “apostolic networking”–or acting as a key leader of a network that partners in new missional endeavors.

This kind of megachurch collaboration is an increasingly prevalent theme that will carry into the future. Convening best practices and a wealth of diverse experience around a common table produces rich and strategic alignments, in turn providing new leadership and new means of collaboration.

As I’ve studied this changing paradigm, I’ve noticed many megachurches partnering with other smaller churches by freely sharing their vast supply of resources and experience–developing training venues, church-planting networks, outwardly focused seminars and conferences, and online training for other churches. They’re making their staff members and resources available to other leaders and churches all over the world. I predict these strategic partnerships will only increase, replacing the competitive mindsets of the past.

Community Christian Church in Naperville, Illinois, is a prime example of leveraging influence not for its own means or renown but to extend the Kingdom of God. As an outflow of this megachurch’s exponential growth and the increasing number of pastors nationwide who wanted to learn from its success, the Naperville-based NewThing network emerged to coach other pastors in church planting and multi-site strategies. Founding pastors Dave and Jon Ferguson lead their venture with this mission: “To be a catalyst for a movement of reproducing churches relentlessly dedicated to helping people find their way back to God.”

Next week I will unpack the two final missional realms. But for now, which realm relates the most to you church? What further steps can you take into that realm?

See Part 2 of this series here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Mega-church, Missional, Structure

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >

Creating Teams

by: Bruce Hodes

0

Tweet

Performance within groups typically does not just happen.  For a group to really perform well it needs practice. The group needs to understand the best way to organize itself for performance. This concept is commonly understood by sports teams and the military. They clearly see the need to give groups opportunities to practice.  Boot Camp for the military and pre-season workouts for sports teams are the norm.

It is interesting to note in business that there is far less interest or appreciation of group development and the need for practice. Team practice, for the most part, is not factored into the business or corporate world. We form groups in business and march them into the corporate battle zone expecting them to perform and when they fail we are surprised.

This whole process was once again revealed to me as my business, CMI, went through the process of putting together a high performance work team.   In 2008, we expanded our organization by one. A full 25% change growth in our employee numbers.  This growth caused a change in our work mix and demands.  In essence, we needed less administrative work and more research and marketing.

As we went through the expansion process, some basic truths about teams, groups, and performance helped me traverse this territory:

1. The essence of good work team performance is not good communication or good relationships.

But a focus on performance and an agreed upon appreciation of what this means.

Typically in the work place people relate to each other socially. This means they are concerned with getting along and staying out of each others hair.  This is not how team players relate to each other.

Basically, the difference is between how one relates to people at a barbecue and how one relates to the work group who is trying to win a big contract? The nature of the relationships is quite different. The first is based on the social context of let’s all just get along while the latter is based on the context of let’s get something remarkable done and perform together so that specific results occur.

2. Teams enjoy and play games.

The vast majority of employees go to work because they have to in order to survive. That is the culture most adults live in. This is different than in the world of sports. People voluntarily play the sport because they want to and like the game. When members of teams fundamentally do not like the games or feel connected to the game the group is playing, there will be real performance issues for the group.   However, when teams of employees are into the game of making their customers raving fans, magic occurs, and they start enjoying the game.

3. The definition of real teams from “The Wisdom of Teams” by John Katzenbach and Douglas Smith is accurate.

They define teams as a small number of people with complementary skills who are equally committed to a common purpose, goals, and working approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.   Real teams are a basic unit of performance.   Mischief comes from team members who are equally responsible for the result.  This is quite different than how most of the work world is organized.

In the typical work place each employee is accountable for their job and they are often formally measured on their performance in the yearly appraisal process.  No group or team performance is formally measured or expected. The pretense is that if each employee just does his or her thing it will work out perfectly.  Unfortunately the work world is more complicated and in many cases customers are impacted by a group of employees. When a group takes on being mutually accountable for their customers’ experiences, the group can generate profit and customer loyalty.

4. In sports different games constitute different types of teams.

Soccer, because of the nature of the game, will require a different type of team than baseball. Work related teams are similar. Depending on the work output of the team and the dynamics of the workplace the type of work team that is required is different. The rules and dynamics that govern the work team will also be different.

5. Teams develop in stages.

It is good for participants to be aware of these stages because they normalize the experience of growing and developing into a high performance team.  The stages are as follows:

Stage A – This is the birth of the group and there is typically some excitement and anticipation about the potential and possibility of the group.

Stage B – This is when reality sets in about how group life can be demanding and hard work. It is no longer fun and there is finger pointing between employees.  Mutual accountability by most is seen as an empty concept and team members look at who to blame.  This is where most teams die and where there is the need for the most support and focus.  Commitment needs to be generated to work through the issues.  This is also where the employee’s love of the game is needed and counted.  For most groups Stage B is where the real work counts and is necessary.

Stage C – Getting behind the game stage.  This is when everyone begins to align behind the group performance and what needs to happen in order to allow the group to succeed. Real group performance results are for the first time seen.

Stage D – This is the high performance stage, where the team is really using its group structure to produce some remarkable results.

I hope the above insights are valuable to you and your work groups. They have been valuable to me as I seek to establish a high performance team in my office. I invite you to share your experiences in building high performance teams.

Read more from Bruce here.

Tags: Bruce Hodes, Structure, Team

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

5 Thoughts on Innovation in Organizations

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

Every organization must deal with change. The crux of the matter is not if change will take place, but if the organization can lead change rather than just react to it. The most common type of proactive change is innovation.

Innovation is simply an attempt to do something new or differently in order to achieve better results. It sounds simple, doesn’t it? But any leader knows well that introducing innovation in an organization is easier said than done. Volumes have been written on change, change agents, and organizational response to change. My purpose in this brief article is to discuss just one facet of change: introducing innovation to the organization.

Five Thoughts

Most organizations do not naturally embrace innovation. Those who therefore attempt to introduce it to the organization often meet both active and passive resistance. We must be astute students of innovation to understand how we can best move new ideas forward. Allow me to suggest five thoughts on the matter.

1. Leaders must lead and model innovation. New ideas and initiatives cannot just be theoretical rhetoric. Leaders must hold themselves accountable for introducing innovation on an ongoing basis. The leader must persistently push the organization to embrace innovation as a value and priority.

2. Innovation must be embraced by the organization as a whole. This thought is naturally corollary of the first. Innovation cannot be autocratically dictated. Without ownership at all levels, innovation is likely to fail. Passive aggressive behavior is common unless people truly believe that innovation is critical for their own success as well as the success of the organization.

3. Leaders and others throughout the organization must resist the common objections to innovation. The challenge is that the objections are often valid. So it’s easier to yield to the objections rather than to find ways around them. Some of the more common words of resistance are: “We don’t have the capacity to do something new”; “We tried that before and it didn’t work”; “It costs too much and the payback is too long term”; and “We just need to focus on that which is already core to our organization.”

4. Innovation is a step of faith. Introducing innovation to the organization would never be problematic if we knew we had guaranteed success. So many organizations get involved in analysis paralysis to demonstrate why something won’t work.

5. Some innovation failure should be normative in organizations. It is unlikely that there will be any tolerance for innovation if there is little tolerance for failure. If the members of an organization expect that innovation failures will be punished, you can be sure that few, if any, will ever be innovators themselves. It is easy to fall back on the comfort of pain avoidance.

A Time for Change

The writer of Ecclesiastes reminds us “there is an occasion for everything, and a time for every activity under heaven” (3:1, HCSB). Never have I witnessed such a time of change. Sure, change has always been a reality. And certainly we have clear evidence that the rate of change is ever increasing.

But what our world and our organizations are experiencing today is seismic change. It is the type of change that will permanently alter the landscape of our reality. Those organizations that fail to grasp that reality and fail to respond to that reality are already on the path of failure.

Never before have organizations needed to change and innovate like they must do so today. Certainly the infusion of innovation must be measured and introduced with great discernment.

But the failure to innovate is a huge barrier for entering the future.

And it may be the beginning of a certain path to death.

Read more from Thom here.

Tags: Change, Innovation, Structure, Thom Rainer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >