Dealing With Dead Horses

Every leader sometimes finds himself or herself trying to resurrect something that is either dying or already dead. Here are a few choice insights on dealing with "dead horses" from our Hillcrest Church Children's Pastor, Susan Rutledge:

Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in business we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following:

1. Buying a stronger whip.

2. Changing riders.

3. Saying things like "This is the way we always have ridden this horse."

4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.

5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride horses.

6. Increasing the standards to ride horses.

7. Appointing a tiger team to revive the dead horse.

8. Creating a training session to increase our riding ability.

9. Comparing the state of horses in today's environment.

10. Changing the requirements to specify that "Horses shall not die."

11. Hiring contractors to ride the dead horse.

12. Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.

13. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to ride."

14. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.

15. Doing a study to see if the horse can be ridden cheaper if outsourced.

16. Purchasing a product to revitalize the dead horse.

17. Declaring the dead horse is "better, faster and cheaper".

18. Forming a quality circle to find uses for dead horses.

19. Revisiting the performance requirements for horses.

20. Saying this horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.

21. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.

Personally, I think the best way to deal with a "dead horse" is the same way Pastor Syvelle Phillips taught me to deal with a "sacred cow" … namely, you shoot it from as far away as possible with a high-powered rifle, then walk up wringing your hands over its untimely demise…! J!

Decision making paradigms and "A/G Leadership Interrupted"

I just stumbled onto an article by Rich Tatum of PneumaBlogger renown over at BlogRodent that touches on ways we leaders can improve the process we go through when we make and announce major ministry decisions. It deals with the recent, abrupt resignation of Thomas Trask from the senior spot in the American branch of the Assemblies of God denomination.

If you read Rich’s post all the way to the end, past his speculation regarding what political maneuvering or other considerations may or may not have prompted Trask’s recent step, which is not of interest to me personally since I am not A/G and have no plans to be, you will find he expresses some interesting thoughts about the way the Apostle Paul and his peers interacted regarding a critical ministry decision in the Book of Acts. Given the number of times in my life that I have seen Christian leaders announce very drastic ministry changes with a simple, "I feel this to be the leading of the Holy Spirit," I urge you to think about what Rich says.

Let me hasten to add that, although I have never met the ex-General Superintendent, I have heard wonderful things about him over the years. He may well have extensively and confidentially processed his pending action among a closed circle of peers before announcing it officially, along the lines of the "Pauline model" Rich has sketched out. Be that as it may, for me the greatest personal "take-away" is that each of us who serve as a spiritual leader needs to continually keep in mind just how far-reaching the consequences of our personal decisions are in the lives and ministries of those we serve.

In another vein entirely, reading this and Rich’s other posts about the recent General Council of the Assemblies of God caused me to remember the fact that blog posts on the internet had also substantively impacted the agenda this year at the national convention of the Southern Baptists, another leading evangelical denomination in America. For instance, check out the FutureAG blog hosted by such leaders as Mark Batterson, Paul Stewart, Brad Leach, Jeff Leake, and Tony Farina, especially the bullet point notes of Bryan Jarrett's presentation at the 2005 General Council, and the archives of SBCOutpost.com.

In my view, the astonishing influence of the internet on very weighty deliberations in these two denominations this year highlights the drastically different ways younger people process organizational decisions as compared to their elders. For more of my thoughts on this sea-change in what is perceived to be acceptable process that we all must come to grip with as we lead church groups in conducting their affairs, including the growing desire for greater openness and public debate in all levels of organizational life, see my earlier post entitled, “Generation Gap.”

I would love to hear your thoughts...!

Leading through change via the RASCI model

Yesterday I preached a sermon at the church I serve entitled, "Following Jesus through Change." Some of the insights I shared are very helpful to me as a leader. An important part of what you and I do is influence people around us to implement some degree and type of change.

All change involves decisions. One of the most helpful tools I have enountered for leading people through this process is the RASCI matrix. It is a simple acrostic that helps leaders quickly identify every individual in a group who needs to be involved in the decision-making dynamic. I do not not know who originally developed it, but I follow it as a mental checklist when processing people through change:

R - These individuals are RESPONSIBLE for the decision. Ultimately, the power to make the decision and the responsiblity for its consequences rests with them. They are usually vested with some form of legal and titular authority that defines their role.

A - These people do not have the official authority to make the decision, but they must AGREE with the decision or the proposed change will fail. They have the power to veto the decision. In the U.S. government, for instance, our Congress has the power to make laws, not our President, but he has the power to veto certain laws under certain circumstances. While he signs many laws he would not have crafted or promoted, it is usually very unproductive for Congress to send him a bill they know he will veto. (Some models link the words, "Approve," or "Accountable," with the letter "A" in the RASCI acrostic.)

S - These people must be willing to SUPPORT the decision. They do not have the power of a legal veto, but without their backing, the proposed change will not be able to be implemented succesfully. In a sales context, customers fall into this category. They may not have any formal right of input into the decision making process, but any refusal by them to embrace its outcome will have devastating results. Witness the failed rollout a few years ago of a "New" kind of Coca-cola.

C - These people expect to be given the right to CONTRIBUTE to the decision. Usually this means that they need to be given a chance to share their thoughts and concerns and to feel like they have been "heard." The decision does not necessarily have to directly reflect their desired outcome for them to support it. Sometimes they will agree to back the proposed change anyway as long as they believe their ideas have been given genuine consideration during the decision-making process. (Some models link the word, "Consult," with the the letter "C" in the RASCI acrostic.)

I - These people need to be INFORMED promptly once the decision has been made. It is best to to do this before the change is actually implemented because it will impact them directly on either a personal or a professional level. If the people who are responsible for the decision fail to inform this group of people, very negative consequences can develop within the organization.

If you would like to know more of my thoughts on following Jesus through change, check out my written notes on my Sermon Seeds blog. The audio can be downloaded or listened to online via our Hillcrest Church website on the Sermon Audio page.