The Emotions of a Pastor or Leader’s Spouse in Times of Transition

By | Change, Church, Church Planting, Church Revitalization, Encouragement, Family, Marriage | 11 Comments

When I’m talking to a pastor or other leader who has accepted a new position or is in a time of transition – after I hear the excitement in their voice of what they see God doing – I almost always ask the same question:

“How is your spouse dealing with the change?”

I like to encourage pastors and other leaders to remember their spouse’s emotions in the process of transition.

When I ask the question I often hear a short pause, followed by an “umm” of some sort, then a statement such as, “She/He seems to be doing okay.”

Push a little more (which I usually do) and I’ll hear something like:

It’s been harder on him/her than I thought it would be.”

Pushing even further, I have even heard something like, “I don’t understand why he/she is not as excited as I am. We agreed this was what God had for us.”

Many times, when the leader is honest, the transition hasn’t gone as well for the spouse as it did for the pastor/leader. It will likely come in time – if given time – but for now, the spouse is simply not as excited about the change in positions as the one who made the change in career is.

Why is this?

Well, consider it from the spouse’s position. (This is always a good practice in any relationship issue.) The pastor/leader who moved to a new opportunity came with their center of gravity and purpose defined. You know what you are going to be doing with your time and energy. Most likely the spouse will feel a sense of loss and have to look for theirs. That takes time.

Often a new pastor, for example, comes home at the end of a long day and has something exciting to share about the day. Whether the day is good or bad things are moving, changing, and challenging them daily. So, even on days things aren’t going well they have drama in their day they can’t wait to share.

Many times, right now, the spouse has days which basically look the same.

Since a majority of my readers are in vocational ministry, let me say a word to the new pastor. This is just a typical scenario I have heard many times.

You arrive at your new position, come home at the end of the day pumped at what God is doing, so naturally you share your enthusiasm with the one you care to share with the most – your partner in life and ministry.

But if you’re not conscious of your spouse’s emotions, depending on their state of mind, they may hear, “My life is exciting. Yours is boring.”

Or worse, “My life has meaning. Your life has none.”

Granted, you are not and would not think those things – and would never want your spouse to think you do, but emotions are high in times of transition. Don’t be surprised if they produce irrational thoughts and actions at times. This is part of change.

Your spouse likely moved from friends and has to learn who to trust again. They may even be more relation-centered emotionally. Their heart may transition slower. The roles they held in the church or community haven’t been replaced yet.

You moved forward in your career and passions. Many times the spouse may have taken a step backward. Or, at least, seems to have for now. This will change in time, and the spouse probably knows this intellectually, but emotionally they feel a sense of loss which will take time to replace with a sense of purpose equal to yours.

The key is to remember your spouse is an individual person, with individual needs for a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Failure to acknowledge this and be sensitive to it is not only unfair it can damage the relationship and slow the process of acclimating in the transition.

5 Questions to Ask When Facing Rejection as a Leader

By | Change, Church, Fear, Innovation, Leadership | 11 Comments

When I started an insurance business from scratch, I made hundreds of cold calls. Lots of people told me no. I’ll be honest, I hated this part of starting the business, but in time I got accustomed to rejection.

It still hurt sometimes, but I learned it was a natural part of successful selling. I couldn’t get to a yes (which paid the bills) without a lot of no’s.

Life is this way also. People aren’t always going to buy-in to what you’re selling or presenting. This is never more true than as a leader. No one is going to love every idea you present.

Leaders lead to somewhere they are hoping will be better than today. But this always involves change – and tension always accompanies change. Always.

And for the leader – part of their success may be their tenacity through rejection.

The fact is no one likes rejection.

Your proposal. Your product. Your presentation.

You love it. You believe in it. You want it to go forward. How could anyone reject what you’ve put your heart into?

It’s difficult not to make rejection personal, but it should be understood rejection isn’t always against you. Many times – maybe even most times – people reject because of their own level of comfort or acceptance of whatever they are rejecting.

When my ideas are being rejected I like to ask myself some questions.

Here are 5 questions to ask when facing rejection:

Is the rejection based on truth?

Many times rejection has no basis of truth. People may reject because of their own misunderstandings or their unwillingness to accept something new. If you are selling a product, they may not want what you have to sell. This doesn’t necessarily mean you have a poor product, it simply doesn’t match their needs.

And, then, there are rejections based on truth. The idea you are proposing is not good – or it has some flaws. You need to hear this rejection – discernment is a huge part of leadership. Be willing to listen and learn. If you will allow it, their rejection may actually make your idea better.

Is the rejection about you or your presentation?

If it is personal rejection then it’s a bigger issue, but if it’s rejection of something you only represent then it should be viewed differently – not taken personally. You’re simply a messenger. This goes for a product you sell or a Gospel you tell. If someone rejects the Gospel they aren’t rejecting you as much as they are God. Let Him deal with rejection.

If rejection is about you may need to ask yourself bigger questions, such as: Am I too pushy? Do I have a caring approach? Do others genuinely think I care for them? How can I communicate the importance of whatever I’m proposing, without devaluing them or their opinions?  (You may need to get coaching and insight from others if your ideas are constantly rejected because of your approach.)

Am I the wrong person to present the idea?

Sometimes rejection comes because you’re not an opinion which matters to them. This may sound harsh, but you weren’t called to minister to or lead everyone. A mentor once told me to find my affirmation among the people God sent me to minister to. Great advice. As a church planter, I would have many ideas (ideas dealing with methods, not theology) which were easily rejected by people in established churches. But, they weren’t to whom God had called me to minister. Why should I be bothered by their rejection?

I’ve learned I’m not always the one to propose something to an audience. I’ve had ideas, for example, which I believe could make our community better. I’ve learned those ideas are often more easily accepted when I can get some seasoned business or community leaders excited about them first. Their opinion often matters more than a pastor who has only been in town a few years. The same is true in the church. Some ideas come better from a volunteer than a paid staff member.

Is the rejection permanent?

Sometimes people say no – even many times – before they say yes. They have to warm up to the idea. They need to process it in a healthy way. I’ve found these people often become the best supporters, because they have wrestled through their objections first.

Persistence often makes the difference with great salespeople – and some of the best leaders. No one likes a pest or someone who can only see their ideas as valuable, but don’t be quick to dismiss an opportunity after initial rejection. It may prove to be the best idea ever if you wait. Timing is often everything.

Is the rejection based on a part or a whole?

This can be huge. Did the rejection have more to do with the overall idea or just some aspect of the idea? This is where you have to learn to ask good questions, know your audience, and be willing to compromise on minor issues and collaborate on major issues. This is where good leadership is necessary. You may have to educate people on what they don’t understand. You may have to allow input to make the idea stronger and more acceptable. If it doesn’t impact your overall goal or mission, be willing to listen, learn and make the final result even better.

Rejection doesn’t have to mean the end. Instead, it could only be an obstacle and be used to improve things in the end. The best destinations are met with many roadblocks. Standing firm through the rejections are a part of good leadership.

7 Times the Speed of Change Can Be Faster than Normal

By | Change, Church, Church Revitalization, Leadership | 6 Comments

Change takes time. There are no “quick fixes” in the world of change leadership. And there shouldn’t be. I’ve seen many leaders try to rush change through only to destroy themselves, the organization they are trying to change, or the change they are trying to make.

There are occasions, however, when the speed of change can change.

There are unique opportunities where change can be introduced and implemented quicker than other times. The leader should be careful to strategically plan each change, but taking advantage of these times can help facilitate change faster.

Here are 7 times the speed of change can be faster than normal:

When there is a new leader 

The honeymoon period can be a benefit. Honestly, from my personal experience, I believe the period is becoming shorter than it may have once been. I don’t know how long this period ultimately lasts – perhaps only a few months or up to a year – but some change seems almost expected in the beginning days of a leadership position.

Disclaimer: This is not usually “major” change. That should still be strategically planned over time, but certainly some changes can be made quickly. Use wisdom here.

When the change needed is imminent

There are times when everyone agrees something must be done. When a needed leader unexpectedly resigns, for example, no one likely questions the change in staffing to hire someone new. When everyone agrees something is “broke” it’s okay to bring change that attempts to “fix” it. When “it is what it is” there is an expectation to make a change. Take advantage of these times to introduce healthy, smart change.

Disclaimer: Many times people overreact during these periods. Wisdom is still very important even when changes is expected. These type changes can often set precedents for future change.

When an organization is new

In the early days of an organization time can move quickly. Everything is new and so change may come rapidly. I experienced this in church planting. Change is almost an expected part of the process.

Disclaimer: The more you can slow down decisions in these days the better you will be long-term. Many times you make decisions fast only because you can and not because you have to make them fast.

When there is a crisis at hand

I’ve seen this in government, the church and among individuals. When something happens, which shakes the core of your being and scares people they’ll be more accepting of any change which seems to protect them.

Disclaimer: Sometimes these changes are regretted once emotions heal. Sometimes helping people deal with grief and giving them a sense of stability buys you time to reconcile the best changes needed.

When there is overwhelming support

There are times you can move swiftly simply because the support is overwhelming. Momentum for change is often fueled by public opinion.

Disclaimer: It should be noted that this type change can sometimes be dangerous it isn’t built on rational thought and is simply emotionally driven.

When situations are beyond control

Sometimes you can’t do anything to stop needed change. When government, or other powers, demand change, you can rebel or you can change – often quickly. You may not agree with the change forced upon you, but may have to react faster than you expected.

Disclaimer: This is one reason staying alert to future trends and predictions is important. It could be studying movements in the courts or government, tax changes, or cultural trends.

When you aren’t concerned about the outcome

There are times when the results simply don’t matter much in the scheme of things. As a pastor we would schedule baptisms almost any Sunday, for example. Sometimes we may not have a baptism scheduled, but knowing baptisms helped fulfill our key function as a church, we would quickly change our schedule to accommodate. Some changes are so in support of your vision you simply make them as soon as an opportunity presents itself.

Disclaimer: Be careful with this one. In atmospheres more receptive to change we can, as leaders, sometimes take advantage of this and fail to see the weight change is having on the people we lead. Even when much freedom is given to us to lead change we must be mindful of the real reaction of people we lead.

There are probably equally good illustrations for refusing to make change quickly. (There are probably even 7 of them.) Feel free to share them with me and my readers.

When have you seen the speed of change change?

The Quickest Way to Spur Organizational Change

By | Change, Church, Innovation, Leadership, Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Do you want to know the fastest way to encourage change?

I have practiced this one for years and it almost always triggers change. It has worked in business, government and church. It worked in church planting and in church revitalization.

It is cost effective too.

The quickest way to spur organizational change:

Expose leaders to new ideas.

In a team environment, where people are empowered to lead, new ideas produce change.

Often faster than any other way.

That’s why I encourage attending conferences when possible. I pass along blogs, podcasts and articles I read. We have often read books together as a staff.

Keep in mind, this works as long as people are allowed to dream – and the leader doesn’t have to control everything. When people are introduced to new ideas it produces energy and momentum. As team members attempt something new, change happens. Often quickly.

It doesn’t have to be monumental change to create excitement. Tweaks, slight improvements and small adjustments can create an atmosphere and an appetite for change on a team.

And the best part – there is always less resistance to major change when change is a part of the culture.

One way we practiced this was in the most recent church where I served as pastor. We often used training budget to take our entire ministerial staff and spouses to another city and church several times larger than our church. They had usually figured out some things we were still learning. We toured the church and then each staff member met with their counterpart staff member at the other church. We would ask questions and explore their story. It was always insightful.

I never knew how it would work or what ideas we would uncover, but I was sure of one thing. It would expose us to some new ideas. We would come home with some immediate changes to consider. Plus our team bonded and there was a new energy and momentum developed.

And that’s a win for me.

Do you want to encourage to encourage change quickly? Expose your team to some new ideas.

Discerning a Change? I Can Cut Your Decision Time in Half

By | Change, Church, Leadership | 2 Comments

I think we waste a lot of time in change management that we really don’t have to waste. Here’s a time saving tip when you are considering a change.

I’m guessing, but I believe this could cut your decision-making in half.

How to save time in change management:

First decide if you’re going to make the change.

Before you spend any time deciding how you will implement the change, decide if it is a change you are going to make.

I’ve been in brainstorming meetings so many times where we are trying to decide whether or not we would make a change. The conversation quickly starts going towards the details of how we would implement the change. It is almost as if we had already decided to make the change.

And time is wasted. We never even made the change. In fact, we talked ourselves out of it by getting into the details. We could have saved a lot of time if we had first decided if it was a change worth making.

Many times, after a brainstorming session, we decide not to make the chage at all. But I’ve learned people like to discuss the how. So, when the conversation goes to how, before the decision has even been made to change, I like to draw our attention back to the original question. “Should we make this change – or not?”

  • Is it a worthy change?
  • Will it move the mission forward?
  • Will people invest the time and energy into making it a reality?

Many times there will be no passion towards accomplishing the change regardless of how good the change seems. Sometimes it is clearly not good timing for the change and, with a quick discernment, everyone knows it. Maybe it is a change that is needed, but it is best  is to wait. Tabling the idea for now makes more sense. Sometimes the win is not worth the effort.

If we are supposed to do it. If God is calling us to this. If this makes sense for us to do – or try – regardless of the risks or fears or unknowns in the room – then we will find a way to make it happen. We will plow through the details and work for solutions. When we know it is something we are going to move forward with the answers are easier to find.

Rather than continuing the discussion of a change you aren’t even going to make now save your time and energy for another discussion.

There are exceptions, but:

Discussing the “how” before the “if” usually wastes valuable time and energy.

If its a worthy and needed change you’ll figure out the how.

Any questions?

The Second-Tier Leadership Principle – (This has made me a better leader.)

By | Change, Church Revitalization, Leadership | 2 Comments

A number of years ago I began thinking in terms of “tiers of leadership”. It was during the first year of a new position. I saw so many things I wanted to do in the organization, but I knew I could never accomplish everything I wanted to do in the first year or even first two years.

Real change in any organization – the kind which changes ingrained structure and systems – DNA type changes – and sometimes people changes – often take steady progress over a number of years. So, it was helpful to me to start thinking of things in terms of tiers of leadership. Staggering significant changes over seasons of my leadership made me a more effective – and less frustrated leader. Tiers of leadership is not putting off things I don’t want to do. It is doing what I can realistically and effectively do in this season and then scheduling things I couldn’t do as well now into another season of leadership.

Since then the use of tier leadership has been confirmed for me many times. It is such an important understanding of how I lead; especially when I am new to an organization. I am naturally wired to come into a new position ready to conquer the world. Even after years of being in leadership, I can naively think we can accomplish everything that needs to be done quickly.

Time and experience has proven otherwise – at least in my leadership.

I’m convinced, if a leader doesn’t understand “tiered leadership” – or whatever term they choose to use to describe it – the leader will often think he or she is doing something wrong as a leader. They will wonder why everything hasn’t improved yet. They may even question their ability to lead. Ultimately those who are trying to follow will be frustrated as well. (I often have to share with our staff and board what I’m doing, or they will think I am ignoring important things.) All of this simply because they tried to do everything in one “tier” of leadership.

Just because a leader is not able to accomplish everything needed in one “tier” of leadership is not an indication that they are leading poorly. They may be leading poorly (that would have to be another post), but it might be they are simply being strategic as a leader.

Bottom line – A second-tier leadership understanding allows the leader to set realistic goals and objectives in the first tier and then shift other goals and objectives to the second tier of leadership.

Another understanding of second-tier leadership, which is also vital to know, is that second-tier leadership is often harder than first-tier leadership. And again, this is not because you put off doing the hard things. Usually it is because the timing for the harder things – strategically speaking – made more sense to do them in the second tier.

Let me try to explain.

First tier leadership involves the onboard process of the leader. The leader is learning the organization and the organization is learning the leader.

In my experience, realistic first tier changes – even the messy ones involving replacing people – are usually more obvious to people. Everyone knows they need to be done, even if they are hard to accept. Plus, a new leader has a short window where people expect some changes to occur.

First tier decisions are often the ones, which bring the fastest momentum to the organization. It may involve vision-casting or strategic planning. These first tier decisions may be the ones intended to either build a leader’s credibility or stabilize a declining organization.

In the second tier of leadership – the changes that need to be made are often less obvious. These changes may, for example, involve good people, who haven’t necessarily done anything wrong, but who are no longer a good fit for the organization. Everyone loves them and no one expects them to go anywhere. Changes made with these people will be harder to accept and often require a “second tier” of leadership.

Another example – It might be that in the second-tier of leadership is where a leader begins to move the organization to change things, which are more deeply entrenched into the DNA of the organization. The leader may have avoided them in the first tier, because he or she did not feel they had built enough trust to tackle these changes. (This is being strategic, not negligent as a leader.)

The bottom line understanding again – and the point of this post –

A second-tier leadership understanding allows the leader to set realistic goals and objectives in the first tier and then shift other goals and objectives to the second tier of leadership.

To be clear, in my experience, there is also usually a third tier of leadership – and a fourth tier and a fifth tier and… Well, hopefully you get the point.

Understanding the tiers of leadership, and planning reasonable advances or changes in the organization for each tier, will help a leader feel, and probably actually be, more successful as a leader.

5 Suggestions For Adding Structure to a Growing Organization

By | Change, Innovation, Leadership, Organizational Leadership, Team Leadership | 9 Comments

I think there is value in unstructured growth. We shouldn’t be afraid of growth we cannot understand. It’s messier, harder to contain, even uncomfortable at times, but it also keeps leaders energized, maintains momentum, and helps spur exponential growth.

As the organization grows – and as strategy changes – additions in structure have to be added. Even entrepreneurs shouldn’t be afraid of healthy structure.

Adding structure, however, can be a painful and disruptive process if not handled carefully. We must add structure strategically.

Too many churches and organizations are stalled, because when things got messy due to growth they simply added a new rule.

The fact is structure should never be too inflexible. It should change with the organization. It should even change at times with the people who are in the organization.

How do you add good, helpful structure in a growing organization?

Here are 5 suggestions to add good structure to an organization:

The change should make sense with the organizational DNA.

We have to be careful altering something in a way which could disrupt the fiber, core, or root foundation of the organization. DNA is formed fast, but changed slowly – and sometimes never. It’s who an organization is and who people have come to expect it to be. It’s hard to disrupt this without disrupting future potential for growth.

For example, the structure we tried to add or change in church revitalization looked different from the structure we had in church planting.

And every church and organization is unique.

The structure added should not impede progress.

This seems common sense to me, but I’ve learned this is not always the case. Structure should further enable the completion of the vision, not detract from it.

Notice I said progress not grow with this suggestion. It could be you need some temporary structure which slows growth for a season. When I was in city leadership there was a time we needed to slow the pace of growth so we could catch up with infrastructure in the city. We actually saw that as progress. If it slowed growth forever it would no longer be progress.

An organization which never grows will eventually die (hence the following suggestion.) The key is structure should consider the future potential for long-term sustainability of the organization.

It should accommodate or encourage continued future growth.

Again, this should make sense. The problem is we don’t always ask the right questions to see if this is true.

Structure’s purpose should be to help the organization continue to grow over time. Structure should make things more efficient — not less efficient. Healthy structure enables growth. It does not control growth (except in rare cases as noted previously).

It should hit the center of acceptance.

This is a hard one to balance. Not everyone will agree with any change, but if the structure is universally opposed then it may need to be considered more closely before being implemented.

This goes back to the suggestion about DNA. You shouldn’t make change based solely upon popularity – it needs a better thought process than simply what people like. Leadership is never about making people happy.

But, at the same time, if you want the structure to be sustainable and helpful it must meet general acceptance, which leads to the last suggestion.

People should understand the why.

This may be the most important one of all of these. People are more likely to accept structure when they can identify the value to them and their area of responsibility, but at least the value to the overall organization.

I once interviewed Zig Ziglar. He continually said, “If people understand the why they will be less opposed to the what.” I’ve learned how true this principle is over the years.

We took a year to make one structural change, so people could clearly understood why we were making it. Some people still didn’t understand but most people did. And it was a widely accepted change in our structure.

What would you add to my list?

A Meeting No Leader Likes to Have, But Should Always Consider Having

By | Change, Leadership, Organizational Leadership, Team Leadership | 2 Comments

Years ago a very successful business mentor of mine gave me a vital tip about a necessary meeting all leaders should consider. Unfortunately, since I received this advice, I have had to use it several times through. It’s never easy.

You don’t ever want to have this meeting. Trust me. You certainly don’t want to have it very often.

But having this meeting could avoid you having other even harder meetings than this one. And it could turn out to be a blessing for everyone.

It’s called “The Meeting Before the Last Meeting”.

It’s a meeting you have when –

  • Someone is not performing well on the team.
  • You’ve warned them numerous times. (Make sure you’ve done this)
  • They have exhausted their chances with you or with the team.
  • You’re at the point where you believe it would be better for them to leave the organization than to stay.

Before you release them (which is one of the hardest things a leader has to do)…

Have one more meeting.

The Meeting Before the Last Meeting

It’s a meeting where you give grace, a final chance, and clear guidance as far as what needs to improve – including a date by which you expect to see results.

Of course, as a good practice, you should document everything. Have a witness with you. Answer any questions the person might have about what you are expecting.

But here’s the whole reason you’re having the meeting. You make it very clear this is the meeting before the last meeting.

The meeting after this meeting will not be fun for anyone.

A follow up meeting, if things don’t improve will actually be the last meeting – the very last one. The working relationship would be terminated at this point.

According to my friend, the meeting before the last meeting usually produces one of two results rather quickly.

  • A tremendous turnaround. And you’ve secured a valuable team member.
  • Or a definite confirmation the last meeting is the right decision.

I have had tremendous success, with both results, implementing this meeting into my leadership.

A couple things should be noted. First, you don’t always need the meeting before the last meeting. There are times it is very clear what needs to be done. The person isn’t a good fit, they have lost all energy for the mission, or they have gone so far they can’t recover in their current position. The meeting before the last meeting is for those people you believe have capability within the organization if they would pull themselves together and perform to their full potential. (And in my experience, for those who have potential, they receive it as a tremendous act of grace.)

Second, you have to have the fortitude to follow through if there isn’t improvement in performance. For this to be effective there can only one meeting before the last meeting. This is the hard part of leading.

No leader enjoys replacing people. With the right person, and handled carefully, this can actually be a very affirming meeting which produces tremendous results.

7 Criteria to Realize Genuine Organizational Change

By | Change, Church, Innovation, Leadership | 15 Comments

In my observation, many leaders want change and know they need to lead for change, but they haven’t been able to actually produce change.

I think there are reasons for this.

The process of change isn’t easy. And, it doesn’t happen overnight. Some leaders move too fast. Others move too slow. Plus, not every church, business or non-profit will tolerate change – or at least to the level prescribed by a leader. The leader needs to know when to push and when to leave things alone for a while.

It’s a delicate process leading change. And, the simple fact is, some leaders simply don’t know how to introduce healthy change. (This is not intended as a slam. It’s a reality statement.)

I believe change is necessary for growth. I don’t think everything has to change. Some things never should. But, change, even the hardest kind of change, has to occur if progress towards worthy visions is going to continue to occur.

This post is sort of a gut check for those who want to lead change – attempting to reconcile some of the criteria to be a good change agent leader.

Please understand, I’m not an expert on change, nor am I claiming to be. I have led lots of change – some successfully and some not so much – but I’ve worked with dozens of leaders in leading change. And I’ve there are some things we do which work better than others.

7 criteria to realize genuine change:

Have a willingness to fail.

Not all change will work. You can strategize and plan, but change at some level involves the risk it may not work. Good change agent leaders know this in advance and are willing to accept the challenge – and not defeated if it doesn’t. They try again in another way.

Be able to withstand strong criticism.

Change invites pushback. Change changes things. (That’s deep, isn’t it?) Change is uncomfortable and people will tell you the degree of discomfort they are feeling. Sometimes in passionate – even mean ways. If they don’t tell you they will – with passive aggression – tell others who will eventually tell you. You’ll feel unpopular at times. Rumors may spread about you. Good change agent leaders keep the vision ever before them and are motivated more towards the accomplishment of it than making sure everyone is pleased with them personally.

Constantly evaluate and be willing to adjust plans accordingly.

You can’t be a good change agent and equally be a control freak. You are leading people through sometimes muddy waters. You’ll need to solicit buy-in from others. You will need to collaborate. You’ll need to process the success rate of the change and recalibrate as needed. You’ll have to delegate – and this means release the right to determine the exact way something is done. Progress towards the goal must be more important than the exact actions taken towards achievement of them.

Be able to outlast the opponents of change.

When the naysayers show up good change agents are willing to stand strong for that which they believe is worth fighting. It will likely take longer than you hoped it would. At times you’ll feel like quitting, but good change agent leaders stand the test of time.

Think bigger than today.

Change is always going somewhere new. Always. So change agent leaders have to be able to think about the options which aren’t currently on the table. You’ve got to think beyond now and even beyond the most immediate future. You have to look for what others can’t see, choose not to or are afraid to see (or admit).

Be willing to challenge status quo.

This the kicker, isn’t it? Change agent leaders have to go against the way things are being done and the way things have always been done. We are talking about change. Get it? Change. This means something is changing. (Oh, such a deep post.) You have to move people from the center on which they’ve grounded themselves. This is never comfortable. But, good change agent leaders are willing the challenge what has become standard or traditional in people’s minds.

Work within a DNA conducive to change.

Here’s another kicker – and this one has more to do with the organization or people receiving the change than the leader implementing change. Every church and every organization in which you are called to bring change isn’t wired for change. The fact is some of those said churches and organizations are going to die – they’ll stall – perhaps for long periods, but they’ll eventually just fade away. And nothing you can say or do will encourage otherwise. In the end, you can’t lead people where they don’t want to go. The sooner you can learn this fact the quicker you can try to be a good change agent where change may actually occur.

Well, those are some hard realizations. I’ve studied and observed them by working with dozens of churches, businesses and non-profits and in the organizations and churches in which I have led. And, most of all, I’ve seen them true in my personal journey as a leader.

I should note, I believe we can grow as leaders in these characteristics. Of course, the last one we can’t do a lot about – but, even there, I’ve learned some places where others have said change couldn’t or wouldn’t occur haven’t always proven to be true. Sometimes the answer to making better changes is simply we must become better leaders.

What have you seen as necessary criteria to be a good change agent?