·
Module 4: Week 4 Introduction
· Context Module Sub Header
Learn
·
Read: Kotter: Chapters 3 – 12
External Tool
Read: Kotter: Chapters 3 – 12
·
Watch: Understanding the Nature of Change
Page
Watch: Understanding the Nature of Change
·
Watch: A Sense of Urgency
External Url
Watch: A Sense of Urgency
Discussion Replies: The Struggle to Change
The replies Have to be 200 words or more
Bethney Sikes
TuesdayJan 25 at 3:45pm
Manage Discussion Entry
If change is inevitable,
why do so many organizations, including churches, struggle to change?
The biggest reason why organizations fail to change, according to this researcher, is because they are prideful, fearful, holding with tradition and/or are selfish. As mentioned by Kotter (2012) Errors include “allowing too much complacency”, “failing to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition”, “underestimating the power of vision”, “ undercommunicating the vision by a factor of 10 (or 100 or Even 1,000)”, “permitting obstacles to block the new vision”, “failing to create short-term wins”, “declaring victory too soon”, “ neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture” (Chapter 1). Bridges (2016) says “analyze who stands to lose something under the new system” (p. 17). This is so important. Once an understanding of what the employees could lose with the change, the leaders can assist in developing a plan to implement the change with minimal hardships on all involved and management can put systems in place to anticipate gaps that the change may cause. As mentioned by Bredfeldt (2006) “Jim Collins in Good to Great suggests that we not only need the right people on the team, or bus, as he refers to it; we also need them in the right seats on that bus.” “It is about both finding the right kind of people, and about helping those people assess the skills that each brings to the team effort” (p. 127). This is so true and is often implemented within sheriff’s offices within the first days of a new sheriff’s elected appointment. Which is the organization that this researcher will discuss as an inability to properly enact change and the repercussions next.
Describe an organization you are aware of that could not change and what impact that inability to change had on the organization.
It is interesting that the organization that comes to mind when considering a need for change is sheriff’s offices. Since most American sheriff’s offices change sheriff’s when a new president is elected outside the previous political affiliation, it is surprising that each time this change occurs deputies who have been trained often by and at the expense of the sheriff’s office look for employment elsewhere. During this researcher’s time as a deputy sheriff there were 3 sheriffs. One sheriff was elected before this researcher’s employment with the sheriff’s office and hired this researcher; the next was a sergeant of this researcher; and the last that this researcher had before departing was a lieutenant of this researcher. This researcher had a friendly relationship with the last two since they came up the ranks with the researcher.
The problem with the constant change of sheriffs is that every few years a new group of loyal deputies either come to work for the new sheriff or leave since deputies’ work “at the pleasure of the sheriff.” Well trained officers are often loyal to the sheriff they began under so the experience and education often leaves when there is a change of the sheriff. The Standard Operating Procedures are constantly having to be adjusted and updated. What one sheriff was ok with and even promoted the next sheriff may not be and then even others do not yet know where they stand and lack the ability to take a stand on either side of key issues. Further concerns are brought up by the taxpayers. New equipment with the new Sheriffs name and other information must be changed. One sheriff may be ok with tires that show a little wear while the next wants new tires within 10,000 miles while the vent spews still show. Keeping up with the budget between sheriffs is a huge time-consuming concern for government officials.
A new sheriff every few years can also be seen as a positive since a turnover of a system that utilizes power and control rather actual or implied can minimize the “good old boy system.” By this, this researcher isn’t implying that law enforcement is bad or that they set out to harm but by switching the ranks and staff the officer becomes less complacent and relies more on their training and education and less on the friendship and loyalties that they develop.
This researcher spent many days pondering how a systematic change could occur where it caused the least problems and lessened the burden on the taxpayer. Ultimately this problem has been since the first elected official and will continue since elections are like a pendulum swinging back and forth between political parties. Straight ticket votes down party lines usually dictate who the next sheriff of an area will be and doesn’t necessarily represent the needs or wants of the community of their law enforcement official. With this being the case, it is an organizational, leadership, and managerial nightmare every few years. So, while this isn’t a failure to change it is a failure to create a system of change that solves issues that are apparent.
Biblically speaking Moses had to transition his leadership from himself to Joshua. I am sure much of the issues that were mentioned of the sheriff’s office were seen in the transition of power from one leader to the next. Numbers 27:22-23 says “Moses did as the Lord commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the Lord instructed through Moses” (Holy Bible, NLT, 1996/2015). As this researcher sees it if Moses was able to follow God’s command and allow for a transition of power so can the old and new sheriff. This act let those that were following Moses know that there was a change in leadership, and they are to officially follow Joshua. As pointed out by Bridges (2016)
A couple of warnings about helping your people visualize the new way. First, don’t expect the picture to have its effect prematurely—that is, before your people have made an ending and let go of the past. There is no harm (and there is actual gain) in showing the picture to people as soon as the change is announced. Doing so will plant the picture of the future in their imaginations, where it will reassure them. But it does not make the transition happen. It was not just the image of the Promised Land that got the people out of Egypt or through the wilderness—it was Moses’ skill as a transition leader. (p.73)
This statement really seems to be at the center of how the change in leadership could be addressed within the sheriff’s office. The new sheriff, if given the opportunity, could provide room for closure then announce the changes anticipated to the staff/deputies before announcing the changes to the general population. This awareness of what could be anticipated in the upcoming months after the transition could offer a chance for the staff/deputies to come to terms with the changes. Giving them the opportunity to learn about the changes before they are asked to discuss the changes that citizens learned about from the news channels or the rumor mill. This information is sometimes correct but not always. And as this researcher learned in media communication early on “no comment” is a comment.
References
Bredfeldt, Gary. 2006.
Great Leader, Great Teacher: Recovering the Biblical Vision for Leadership
. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.
Bridges, W and Bridges, S. (2016). Managing Transitions, 25th anniversary edition. Da Capo Lifelong Books.
https://libertyonline.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9781422186442/epubcfi/6/18[%3Bvnd.vst.idref%3Da08_nav]!/4/10/1:66[hum%2Can%20
]
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change, with a new preface by the author. Harvard Business Review Press.
https://libertyonline.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9780738219660/epubcfi/6/12[%3Bvnd.vst.idref%3DCopyright]!/4/2[copy
]
New Living Translation (2004). Holy Bible. Wheaton, III: Tyndale House Publishers.
Kevin Stiff
Discussion Thread 2: The Struggle to Change
The life cycle begins at birth and ends with death. In between the two is change. If change is inevitable, why do so many organizations, including churches, struggle to change? The short answer is our comfort zone. We are creatures of habit, which means we like things that make us feel safe and secure. Last week we talked about the difference between management versus leadership. In summary we learned that change leadership describes influencing and focusing on the change, whereas change management describes the processes for how the change can be achieved. Both are leaders however, the change leaders create an inspiring vision, and advocate for that vision throughout the organization.
When we talk about change in the church, what comes to this writers’ mind are the words resistance and fear. This writer was a volunteer young adult pastor at his church for six years before being reassigned to a different duty station in the military. This group had grown from seven to over a hundred vibrate young adults. The pastor who replaced this writer, was on staff at the church for over fifteen years. He led this group for five years before the senior pastor called and asked this writer to come work on staff as the Small Group Pastor after hearing of this writer’s retirement from the military. After accepting the position, this writer learned that the young adult group had declined to less than ten members. What happened?
The difference was this writer’s leadership versus the leader who replaced him. This writer’s leadership is described by Scott Ridout in his video’s presentation, Assisting Your Congregation in Change, as an innovator.
These people make up about 2.5% in America who are good with change, in fact they come up with change. They are very visionary in what they do. Whereas the leader that replaced this writer would be described by Ridout as a late adopter. These people make up about 34% in America. Those are the people who ask the question, why are we changing, it’s working right now, and it doesn’t make sense to change. After this writer left, one of the comments the other pastor would tell the group, exactly how Ridout described it was, “I was here before Pastor Kevin and as you can see, I’m here after he’s gone” (Ridout, n.d.). This led to the decline in numbers because this pastor was not willing to adapt to the things going on in the community and around the world.
While this writer was away in those five years, so much was going on in our world on matters of race, class, culture, and community. Those young adults were asking questions and wanted answers on how to respond. One of the reason the pastor didn’t get involved was because of the church distinctiveness on issues that are divisive. During the time of 2012 through 2016, the topics mentioned above were as hot and divisive as they can get. Instead of engaging and embracing the possibilities of reconciliation, this pastor kept the status quo in terms of race, class, politics, and culture. He stayed the course of how they always have done things. It was not all his fault. The senior pastor, in his 30th year of establishing the church, had settled into the mindset of, if it’s working why change. Because so much was at stake, the pastor that replaced this writer was determined to remain the same from fear of loss of power, position, and privilege. Both the senior pastor and the young adult pastor became city planners, as described by Dr. Bredfeldt, in his video presentation Leading Change and the Organizational Lifecycle (Bredfelt, n.d).
After this writer accepted the position as the Executive Pastor, the young adult ministry had only four members left in the group. The impact was huge! From this writer’s assessment, he realized the reason this ministry failed was because they did not recognize, invest, or adapt to position itself for future need, demand, and opportunity. Bower and Christensen cite five factors that contribute to this type of failure: bureaucracy, arrogancy, tired executive blood, poor planning, and short-term investment horizons (“Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave Joseph L. Bower and Clayton M. Christensen, Harvard business review (January–February 1995), pp. 43–53,” 1996). The failure of this church to address the future from a position of strength opened the door for complacency and comfort.
References
Bredfeldt, G. (n.d.). CLED 780, Week one, lecture one: The essence of leadership. Liberty University.
https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/216753/pages/watch-the-essence-of-
leadership?module_item_id=18693142
Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. (1995). Long Range Planning, 28(2).
https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(95)91075-1 (Links to an external site.)
Ridout, S. (n.d.). CLED 780, Week three, lecture three: Assisting Your Congregation in Change. Liberty University.
https://cdnapisec.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/2167581/uiconf_id /39959791/entry_id/1_egsgb3no/embed/dynamic (Links to an external site.)
Read Less