Pilgrimage

The socio-economic and cultural changes in post-modern society have presented an unprecedented challenge to traditional evangelical churches. While Catholics and high-church protestant denominations have experienced serious decline in the last several decades, this has only been a relatively recent phenomenon to plague some evangelical churches. Pastors, church boards and congregations are grappling with the theology of the institutional church and its relevance in addressing the myriad questions of secular society. As evangelicals seek to change the methodology without watering down the message of the Gospel, many churches are experiencing positive transformation while others are simply maintaining the status quo or dying off. Often, the success or failure of a congregation seeking change rests in the theory of change embraced by the local church.

Historical Perspectives

Most scholars agree the seeds of change theory were first planted in the mid-twentieth century by researchers Kurt Lewin and Leon Festinger. Lewin is often credited with being the founder of modern social psychology. He articulated what has come to be known as force field analysis.

According to Lewin “An issue is held in balance by the interaction of two opposing sets of forces – those seeking to promote change (driving forces) and those attempting to maintain the status quo (restraining forces)”. Lewin viewed organizations as systems in which the present situation was not a static pattern, but a dynamic balance (“equilibrium”) of forces working in opposite directions. In order for any change to occur, the driving forces must exceed the restraining forces, thus shifting the equilibrium (Values Based Management 2008).

Force field analysis has significantly impacted social psychology and organizational training. It led to Lewin’s articulation of a three-stage process of change: unfreezing, moving and refreezing.

Lewin saw the three-stage model as “forming an integrated approach to analyzing, understanding and bringing about change at the group, organizational and societal levels.” In the unfreezing stage “equilibrium needs to be destabilized (unfrozen) before old behaviour [sic] can be discarded…and new behavior can be successfully adopted.” Since the goal of unfreezing is to change behavior, the second step—moving—“creates motivation to learn” new behavior. This leads to the final step of Lewin’s process, refreezing. Refreezing “seeks to stabilize the group at a new quasi-stationary equilibrium in order to ensure that the new behaviours [sic] are relatively safe from regression.” “Lewin saw successful change as a group activity, because unless group norms and routines are also transformed, changes to individual behaviour [sic] will not be sustained” (Burnes 2004, 986).

Lewin’s significant impact in social psychology influenced Festinger who theorized about cognitive dissonance. Festinger felt there were two basic principles of dissonance theory. First, “dissonance results when an individual must choose between attitudes and behaviors that are contradictory;” and second, “dissonance can be eliminated by reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs, acquiring new beliefs that change the balance, or removing the conflicting attitude or behavior” (Theory into Practice n.d.). Festinger considered a basic human need was to avoid dissonance. As such, he felt individuals would harness whatever means necessary to overcome personal dissonance (Griffin 2008, 206). These notions of Lewin’s three-stage model of change and Festinger’s dissonance theory are the basis of many modern concepts of organizational change theory. “Scratch any account of creating and managing change and the idea that change is a three-stage process which necessarily begins with a process of unfreezing will not be far below the surface” (Hendry 1996, 624).

Contemporary Organizational Perspectives

In more recent literature, John Kotter shares an eight-stage process of organizational change in his well-received work, Leading Change. Kotter, who is a professor emeritus at Harvard Business School, examines change dynamics from a corporate perspective. While not explicitly stated in the text, Kotter’s concepts bear a stark resemblance to Lewin’s and Festinger’s work. Kotter’s change process seeks first to produce dissonance through a call for urgent, tangible change. When upper-level leadership establishes a clear and considerable need for change, individuals in the rest of the organization will begin to see the need for significant change. “Creating a strong sense of urgency usually demands bold or even risky actions that we normally associate with good leadership” (Kotter 1996, 43).

Stages two through seven of Kotter’s paradigm echo Lewin’s stage-two concept of moving. After creating a sense of urgency, Kotter clearly sees the need to transform the group dynamics in the organization. “A strong guiding coalition is always needed—one with the right composition, level of trust, and shared objective” (Kotter 1996, 52). This “guiding coalition” must have the necessary components of power, expertise, credibility and leadership to bring success to the change initiative. Within this process, leadership must empower others to act, remove any barriers, and provide the necessary training to achieve the common vision (Kotter 1996, 106).

Kotter’s stage eight, institutionalizing new approaches, draws insight from Lewin’s stage three, refreezing. Kotter insists that for change to be lasting new behaviors must be rooted in the fabric of the organization. The organizational culture must reflect the new changes. “When the new practices made in a transformation effort are not compatible with the relevant cultures, they will always be subject to regression” (Kotter 1996, 148). Lewin’s notion of refreezing also “requires changes to organizational culture, norms, policies and practices” (Burnes 2004, 986). While Lewin’s work was well received in the psychological disciplines, the impact of Kotter’s work has had a substantial impact across disciplines dealing with organizational change.

William Bridges’ Managing Transitions has also had a noteworthy impact in the field of organizational change. Bridges makes a distinction between change and transition. He observes that “Change is situational: the move to a new site, the retirement of the founder, the reorganization of the roles on the team, the revisions to the pension plan. Transition, on the other hand, is psychological; it is a three-phase process that people go through as they internalize and come to terms with the details of the new situation that the change brings about” (Bridges 2003, 3). This distinction between change and transition as well as the three-phase process provides the framework from which Bridges develops his text.

The process of transition that Bridges describes, like Kotter, echoes much of Kurt Lewin’s work on change theory. Bridges first phase of psychological transition is termed ending, losing, letting go. This follows closely Lewin’s idea of “unfreezing.” The notion here is that previous methodologies and identities are coming to an end. Bridges suggests leaders must take time to allow people to deal with the losses created by this phase. Even though the change itself may be rapid, the psychological transition takes significant time (Bridges 2003, 5).

The second step of Bridges model is the neutral zone. This is “the in between time when the old is gone, but the new isn’t fully operational…it’s when the critical psychological realignments and repatternings take place.” He goes on to suggest that “The neutral zone is…a dangerous place and an opportune place, and it is the very core of the transition process. It is the time when repatterning takes place: old and maladaptive habits are replaced with new ones” (Bridges 2003, 5; 9). Lewin’s model articulates this stage as “moving.” Successfully navigating The Neutral Zone brings one to the third phase of Bridges model, the new beginning.

The new beginning is “when people develop the new identity, experience the new energy, and discover the new sense of purpose that make the change begin to work” (Bridges 2003, 5). This stage closely resembles Lewin’s concept of refreezing. In this phase, the physical change has clearly taken place. It is the psychological transition, however, that must lead one completely out of the neutral zone and into the new beginning. Bridges equates a failed psychological transition to the biblical account of the Exodus. Someone may have left Egypt, but if they have not embraced the new identity, they are still “wandering somewhere in the wilderness” (Bridges 2003, 73).

Christian Organizational Perspectives

The influence of secular business and organizational literature in the religious world is significant. Pastors, church boards and lay leadership have had few resources from which to choose in the Christian book genre for assisting with change and its resultant challenges. That, however, is changing. The Leadership Network, along other publishing houses and seminaries, has sought to train and empower Christian leaders for the unique challenges they face. Leading Congregational Change a Leadership Network publication written by Jim Herrington, Mike Bonem, and James Furr presents an eight-stage model of change that resembles some of Kotter’s work in Leading Change. Whereas Kotter begins with establishing urgency as the first step to bringing about change, Herrington, Bonem and Furr begin with making personal preparation. They state, “if leaders cannot or will not make the time to prepare adequately for transformation, they should not continue any further with the process” (Herrington, Bonem and Furr 2000, 30).

Herrington, Bonem and Furr suggest that the ability to lead a congregation through change is directly related to the personal and spiritual preparation in which one invests before the change process begins. “Transformation is a process of bringing the church into alignment with God’s unique vision. If the leaders of the congregation are not spending significant, consistent time seeking God’s direction—through prayer, Bible study, meditation, solitude, and fasting—it will be impossible for meaningful lasting change to occur” (Herrington, Bonem and Furr 2000, 31). In addition to increasing ones spiritual receptivity, practicing these spiritual disciplines allows those leading the change initiative to “deal with potential obstacles in a positive and proactive manner” (Herrington, Bonem and Furr 2000, 33).

In the Leading Congregational Change model, stage two—creating urgency—shares similarities with Kotter’s stage one notion of creating urgency for change. The benefit of creating a sense of urgency is that it stirs the imagination of the congregation to see things as they could be. It also allows people to see the need and begin to react in a positive fashion to bring about change. “Creating urgency does not necessarily portray the church in a negative light. Some of the most urgent churches in the country are those that are vitally concerned about the people in their communities who are dying without the knowledge of God’s love” (Herrington, Bonem and Furr 2000, 36).

Stages three through seven articulate the pathway to establish and realize a new vision. The primary beliefs of a local church assist in determining its vision. Unfortunately many churches have not adequately addressed their vision or even determined a need for one (Malphurs 2004, 27). Herrington, Bonem, and Furr suggest establishing a vision community to walk the congregation through the steps of change. “The vision community is a diverse group of key members who become a committed and trusting community in order to discern and implement God’s vision for the congregation” (Herrington, Bonem and Furr 2000, 41). Casting vision is an essential catalyst to propel the church to the desired change (Hallinger and Heck 2002, 9).

The final stage of the Leading Congregational Change model is reinforcing momentum through alignment. “Alignment is evident when the majority of the people, ministries, and structures of the church are functioning out of a clear understanding and commitment to the vision” (Herrington, Bonem and Furr 2000, 85). The tangible expression of the vision of the local church is expressed through the congregation “effectively defining and communicating the incarnation of the Kingdom of God” and “following Christ’s example of service” (Banks and Ledbetter 2004, 85). “Ultimately, momentum for ongoing transformation is a function of two factors: the organizations ability to continually assess current reality, and its ability to create internal alignment around the vision” (Herrington, Bonem and Furr 2000, 88).

Personal Reflections and Conclusions

It seems that most of the texts on leadership follow a basic premise that change is initiated through a catalyst, articulated and enacted through a flexible yet focused approach, and ingrained in an organization through cultural changes. Both sacred and secular texts seem to follow this premise. For leaders in the church the challenge is sensing the voice of God as it relates to any organizational change. Popular texts are quick to point out current fads and fashions that may or may not be God’s voice. Pastor’s are charged with leading a congregation into congruence with God’s vision and not the latest organizational trend. Understanding this, the spiritual vitality of the pastor and the pulpit are primary.

The pioneers of change theory and their successors in contemporary business literature focus heavily on the change process and outcomes. Modern sacred literature on organizational change does seem to move beyond the change process and prescribe lifestyle requirements for those leading change. In the face of high-profile moral failures in Christian denominations, this emphasis is welcome and needed. The spiritual disciplines and a sanctified heart are key to managing people and resources in a godly manner. The process of change in the local church is severely stymied when primary leaders fall or act in unchrist-like ways.

The mid-twentieth century scholarship of Kurt Lewin and Leon Festinger has considerably shaped the modern landscape of change theory. While the jargon of unfreezing, moving and refreezing may have changed, the notions these men pioneered are still felt in organizations today. A staged process to achieve lasting and effective change is a hallmark of modern change theory. In sacred institutions, the process of change cannot be divorced from the spiritual lives of those guiding the change. Passion for the Gospel and integrity in one’s private life are essential for true biblical change to happen. Twenty-first century Christian leaders will do well to recognized and implement these basic premises of change theory.