Wednesday, May 11, 2011
"Change" in Winning by Jack Welch, pgs. 133-145.
Jack Welch says that anytime he is asked about the best way to lead change that he always answers this question with two of his own questions:
(1) "Are you the only person [in the organization] who sees a need for change?" (2) Do you have the authority to lead the desired change?
Welch goes on to say that if the answer to both of these questions is "no," than either "learn to live with [the status quo] or get out."
If the answer to the above questions is "yes," than Welch believes that the following 3 practices will help leaders lead change:
(1) "Attach every change initiative to a clear purpose or goal. Change for change's sake is stupid."
(2) "Hire and promote only true believers".
(3) "Ferret out and get rid of resisters".
Welch offers helpful insights. Although change might be needed within an organization, this does not mean that the organization is ready or even desires change. Without the buy-in of other key leaders and the proper authority, leaders are likely wasting time and energy.
On the other hand, Welch's chapter on change also demonstrates the limits of a secular leadership model within the Church. It should not be a pastors aim to get rid of people because they resist change. Often the resistance within the Church stems from the strategies of the evil one manifested through particular individuals. Therefore, pastors should instead pray and educate their people on why the change is necessary for the organization.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jack Welch that “change for change’s sake is stupid.” However, I am with you that the strategy to “ferret out and get rid of resisters” is similarly stupid within the Church. In fact, when I read the Gospels I see that Jesus did exactly the opposite: he surrounded himself with “resisters.” I can’t even count the number of times that the disciples did or thought something contrary to the mission and teachings of Jesus. They had many “Get behind me, Satan” moments. Their idea of the messianic mission was a violent revolution against pagan oppressors that would free Israel from foreign rule. Jesus would not have this. Even Judas was allowed a place at his table.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don’t think having “resisters” around is a bad idea. It might make leadership difficult, but it gives room for growth and redemptive moments. I would be very weary if I was surrounded by people who always agreed with my mission or vision for a Church. I think that conflict is both healthy and productive when done in a safe and accepting environment. The attitude of getting rid of resisters seems to be more parallel to that of the Romans and Pharisees than to Jesus.