Change
leaders not only define healthy change, they see change as a leadership
responsibility. If they are successful, they will have enthusiastic followers.
This doesn’t occur automatically, which emphasizes the third essential of
leading change: followers trust trustworthy leaders.
Successful
leaders not only carry out the tasks inherent with change, they involve, motivate,
inspire and attract followers. At the heart of this followership is a trust
relationship with the leadership team.
Trust
relationships are an important theme embedded in the biblical qualifications
for leaders. They appear in such passages as 1 Peter 5:1-4, I Timothy 3:1-13,
and Titus 1:5-9. These guidelines for selecting leaders focus primarily on aspects
of leadership character. Followers place confidence in and trust leaders who—through
their behavior—demonstrate godly motives.
Making
trust essential
In
the realm of change leadership, there is a crucial component of change that
makes a trust relationship essential. That component is the emotional makeup of
those experiencing the change.
Ann Salerno
and Lillie Brock address this topic in their helpful tool called the “Change
Cycle.”™ They
assert that when changes are introduced in any organization, people naturally
experience fear, resentment and anxiety long before they can move on to
acceptance. For that reason, followers commonly respond with paralysis and resistance
before they begin to cooperate.
Effective,
trustworthy change leaders respect this progression of emotions and behaviors. They
take the lead by proposing change. With an understanding of the dynamics of
change and—out of respect for people’s emotions—they also involve others as
appropriate.
The
extent of such involvement will depend on church size and other contextual
considerations. Still, the principle remains: leaders propose, request feedback
and input, and listen. Finally, they may or may not tweak the proposal before
implementing it.
Demanding
change
Ineffective
change leaders expect (and may even demand) immediate acceptance of change.
They also pay a price for attempting to force through what may or may not be in
the best interests of the church at that time.
Jim
Dethmer, a former teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church (WCCC), gave
a personal example of this once at a conference.
Prior
to assuming his role at WCCC, Jim pastored a large, rather traditional church
on the East Coast. He and his leadership team had attended a WCCC conference.
In their van on the way home, they decided to replicate this seeker-sensitive
church’s practices. So they shifted to a contemporary worship style and made other
significant programming changes. By introducing change too quickly, they
shattered trust. As a result, hundreds of families left the church.
A
patient path
By
way of contrast, I experienced an example of a more patient path toward change
in my ministry from 2002-2006. I was a senior associate pastor at Constance
Free Church
in Andover, Minn. After the church reached a certain size, paid staff felt that
our decision-making process was too slow and cumbersome.
Over
the course of several years, we researched alternatives while involving the
board and church members in the discussions. Eventually, we moved to a form of
policy governance that delegated more day-to-day decision-making to the church
staff. With this change, our leadership team honored everyone involved by moving
with—and not too far ahead of—the congregation.
Change
is an emotion-laden path. Leaders who recognize that demonstrate character,
build trust, and bring along followers.
Next time: Stuck
churches require radical change
No comments:
Post a Comment