We’re familiar with the practice of creating a mission statement for our businesses, ministries and churches. I’ve been part of shaping a number of them. The Leadership Institute recently worked through our own mission, vision, strategy and legacy statement. But in our work with ministries and churches, we’re seeing a practical difference between a stated mission statement and a functional mission statement.
For example, a church may declare that it is a church that prays. It may also have a board member who says, “We just don’t have time in this board meeting to spend praying.” The implication is that matters of organizational policy, financial accountability and conflict resolution and other business for which the board is responsible requires little by way of prayer and much more by way of business savvy. What we’ve stated is out of harmony with what we practice.
This is where Edgar Schein’s insights into organizational transformation are so helpful. Paul Jensen has done quite a bit of work with his writings and has developed a presentation for The Journey from these insights. Schein reminds us that the actual culture or “spirit” of an organizational is the unstated beliefs and assumptions that lie hidden from view below the surface of an organization’s social community. A leader’s primary function, in Schein’s view, is to transform the organization’s culture which first requires that the organization be preserved. An organization that is destroyed by leadership action cannot be transformed. And there is a tension between transforming functions and preserving functions.
One implication of Schein’s insight is that organizational culture is transformed more indirectly than directly. This happens through what he calls “embedding mechanisms.” He also talks about reinforcing mechanisms that do not produce change, but can serve to support (or fail to support) new beliefs and assumptions that are being embedded by leaders. How are these new beliefs and assumptions embedded in the cultural values of the organization?
- By what a leader actually models. To what degree does a leader (or leadership team) model trust in God versus trust in personal resources or strategies?
- What a leader gives attention to. Where is their focus? What do they talk about most? Where are the leader’s intentionalities focused?
- What criteria are used in selecting and advancing leaders? (Jesus spends the night in prayer before selecting his Twelve).
- What criteria are used in releasing others from certain tasks or roles? (Not just “firing,” but sabbatical or sick leave).
- How does a leader respond to crisis. How is crisis and the leader’s response expose actual values that may be in conflict with stated values?
- (Added by Paul Jensen) How is the leader telling the group’s story, reminding the community of their roots? Such stories are the lived experience of what its beliefs, assumptions and convictions actually are. God repeatedly invites His people to remember and proclaim the story of His actions on their behalf, as well as how they followed or didn’t follow. This is a way of refreshing the good things that were embedded in the past for the present.
Think about your own influence—family, work, church, ministry. How do you see these six mechanisms at work? Which is a strength for you? Which is a weakness?
Pingback: Looking Back: Church and Ministry Renewal « Alan Fadling: Notes from my Journey
I am hoping you take this with the degree it is given and not a way to insult. But they don’t talk about the disjointed churches and how head pastors have become to busy to care for the sheep. The problem with disjointed churches is the head pastors say one thing on the pulpit but the leaders under them tell a different story . I know for a fact several churches have this going on and I have seen this myself. Where the message given that day was turned around and told by other leaders that it was not what the church stood for. For example a Head pastor gave a sermon on how the clothes doesn’t make the person then one of their leaders tells someone they dont have the right designer clothes to present the proper image of the church. This is just one example . It is sad many times there are more. what happens is the person standing there supporting the message of the chuirch is the one the leaders get rid of then the leader says it all a misunderstanding just a simple offence. But offending the sheep is not something the Lord advocates and shouldn’t be advocated by the head pastors or their leaders.,. Leaders who have private group meetings are taking advantage and promoting their own agendas and not necessarilary what the church believes. That is a problem for the church and renewing it caused then You have to question which church is being renewed . When does the head pastors realized that some of their leaders are actually their adversaries. Anyway i think if a discussion about how to about renew ministry which is the message and the church where the message is delivered these issues need to be address to. As well as the wolves left in charge because people feel it would disrespect their authority to dismissed them. The churches need to be reminded it not the leaders who are to be served but the sheep they are tending too. The Pasotrs should be loving and guiding not hindering or preventing. Church renewal is renewing the people(sheep) that needs to be addressed as well. How are the sheep being treated? Which Leaders are promoting growth and which are promoting digression? As I said I dont mean this to insult but it is things I am praying the Church finds healing and renewal in tending the flock .,. I think if talk of renewing Churches is discussed these issues also should be addressed.