Integrating Change Models and the Theology of Leadership
A sentiment common to almost any organization is that the one fact that remains constant is change. As society changes, and human understanding grows, any organization that maintains a static posture, assures its demise. Churches and Christian organizations are no exception. The gospel may remain the same, but the method for communicating it must speak to the audience to assure understanding. The Christian leader must be prepared to meet this challenge by incorporating an effective model for change into his theology of leadership in order to keep the ministry relevant and effective. Searching for such a change agent can prove to be challenging as well. To aid in this search, four different contemporary change models were selected, and an evaluation of these models yielded those with the most suitable strategies to be coupled with a leader’s theology of leadership in preparation for effective leadership.
Analysis of Contemporary Change Models
Initiating meaningful change in any organization can be difficult in the best of circumstances. In order for any ministry leader to attempt improvement to a ministry structure, establishing the need for a shift in direction is necessary to accomplish the desired goal. The change model used by the leader must also fit his theology of leadership. An analysis of four change models revealed telling characteristics of each, presenting their possible suitability.
Kotter’s Leading Change Model presented a process of eight steps for organizational transformation (Kotter, 2007). These steps include: urgency established, coalition development, vision creation, vision casting, vision action empowerment, creation of short-term wins, consolidation o...
... middle of paper ...
...n the life of Jesus. Journal Of Asia Adventist Seminary, 14(2), 159-170.
Gupta, P. (2011). Leading innovation change - The Kotter way. International Journal Of Innovation Science, 3(3), 141-150.
Hull, B. (1996). T-Net. Training Net. Aurora: Evangelical Free Church of America.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General system theory: Applications for organization and management. Academy Of Management Journal, 15(4), 447-465. doi:10.2307/255141
Kotter, J. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 96-103.
Sun, P. (2013). The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior of servant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 544-557. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.008
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy Of Management Journal, 15(4), 407-426. doi:10.2307/255139
Leading Change was named the top management book of the year by Management General. There are three major sections in this book. The first section is ¡§the change of problem and its solution¡¨ ; which discusses why firms fail. The second one is ¡§the eight-stage process¡¨ that deals with methods of performing changes. Lastly, ¡§implications for the twenty-first century¡¨ is discussed as the conclusion. The eight stages of process are as followed: (1) Establishing a sense of urgency. (2) Creating the guiding coalition. (3) Developing a vision and a strategy. (4) Communicating the change of vision. (5) Empowering employees for broad-based action. (6) Generating short-term wins. (7) Consolidating gains and producing more changes. (8) Anchoring new approaches in the culture.
Sachs, A. (2010). Management, Plain and Simple. Time, 175(15), Global 4. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Toward the end of his book, Hunter shares a phrase with a similar intent of the four domains of Blanchard and Hodges. He writes: “Thoughts become actions, actions become habits, habits become our character, and our character becomes our destiny.” (Hunter, 1998, p. 167). With this quote in mind, Hunter affirms Blanchard and Hodges’s perspective of servant leadership. Both authors concur that by centering one’s life on the love of Jesus Christ, servant leadership will come naturally. When a leader puts their own selfish needs aside and places their trust in God, they will be empowered to spread Christ’s light to all those they meet. Leading in this way mirrors the way Jesus led because it calls for service as a way of
With that said, the time has come at OGBC to manage the inevitable transition of welcoming a new pastor. The researcher is an associate minister at OGBC and recognized the need for developing a transition plan to help her church to transition well. Transition is the process of letting go of the ways things used to be and then holding on of the way they subsequently become. William Bridges identifies a place in between the transition process called the “neutral zone”. Bridges suggests that while in the neutral zone people resist the transition because it takes longer (often much longer) than change, and it leaves us in this zone while a replacement reality and a new reality is gradually being formed. The researcher’s church was in the neutral zone for three years until they finally selected a new pastor. The time has come for OGBC to let go of the way things used to be and take hold of the way things have become and then move forward with their new pastor embracing the process for a healthy pastoral transition. Transition is the way that we all come to terms with change. The pastoral transition process does not have to be chaotic thus, this project is develop in the anticipation to make the way smoother for
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (June 2010). Managing organizational change: A philosophies of change approach. Journal of Change Management 10(2), 135–154.
John Kotter studied success and change. During this process, he learned that change has to go through several phases. According to Clawson (2012) “Kotter’s research outlined eight reasons that corporate change fails and eight corresponding ways of managing them. Kotter’s counsel was that change leaders should (1) establish a sense of urgency, (2) create a guiding, powerful coalition, (3)
According to Yoder-Wise (2015), a leader can be defined as, “an individual who works with others to develop a clear vision of the preferred future and to make that vision happen” (p 35). As employees, we often have our own ideal of a good leader, which may be influenced by experiences and perception of workplace norms. While one’s opinion of an effective leader may vary, there are several recognized leadership theories. The following will focus on the transformational leadership approach.
Kotter, JP 1995, Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. In Harvard Business Review on Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
“Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail” is an article written by John P. Kotter in the Harvard Business Review, which outlines eight critical factors to help leaders successfully transform a business. Since leading requires the ability to influence other people to reach a goal, the leadership needs to take steps to cope with a new, more challenging global market environment. Kotter emphasizes the mistakes corporations make when implementing change and why those efforts create failure; therefore, it is essential that leaders learn to apply change effectively in order for it to be beneficial in the long-term (Kotter).
Kotter, J. P. (2007). ‘Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail’. Harvard Business Review, January: 96-103.
Transformational leaders birth new transformational leaders. Followers themselves become transformational leaders and a journey of extra mile partnership started.
The systems theory can be a convenient way of thoughtful about the job of supervision. In real life situation it provides a framework for visualizing internal and external environmental factors as well as an incorporatedentire. It permitsacknowledgment of the proper place and function of subsystems. The systems inside which businessmen must run are necessarily complex. However, management via systems concepts fosters a way of thinking thathelps to dissolve some of the complexity and, in another side, helps the manager recognize the nature of the complex problems and thereby operate within the perceived environment. Especially it is important to recognize the integrated nature of specific systems, including the fact that each system has both inputs and outputs and can be viewed as a self-reliant unit. It is also important to distinguish that business systems are a part of larger procedures—possibly industry-wide, including severalcompanies and industries, even society all together. Further, business systems are in a constant state of change—they are created, operated, revised, and often eliminated.
The change process within any organization can prove to be difficult and very stressful, not only for the employees but also for the management team. Hayes (2014), highlights seven core activities that must take place in order for change to be effective: recognizing the need for change, diagnosing the change and formulating a future state, planning the desired change, implementing the strategies, sustaining the implemented change, managing all those involved and learning from the change. Individually, these steps are comprised of key actions and decisions that must be properly addressed in order to move on to the next step. This paper is going to examine how change managers manage the implementation of change and strategies used
However, Lewin’s central model centres on unfreezing, effecting change and then refreezing, starting from the status quo, then moving things and then continuing with the new status quo (Green, 2007). Kotter’s change model focuses on establishing urgency, guiding coalition, developing strategy, communication, empowerment, short-term wins, consolidation of gains to produce and anchor new changes (Sabri et al, 2007). Kotter does not engage with the complexity of organisational systems and potential clashing, he sees change being systematic, architectural, political and doesn’t engage strongly with the less deterministic metaphors in the latter steps (Smith et al, 2015). However, Kotter does highlight the importance of communicating the vision and keeping the communication high throughout the process although this starts with a burst of energy and in later stages its followed by delegation and distance (Cameron and green, 2009). Lewin’s change model focuses on people with the collaboration, contribution creating a force field approach to change including the power holders socially, culturally and behaviourally to drive change (Smith et al, 2015). However, Lewin’s approach ignores the metaphor of groups of people only willing to change if there is a need to do so, the model is more of a planning tool rather than an organisational development process (Cameron and green,
Miles, R. (1975) Theories of Management: Implications for Organisational Behaviour and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York.