Transition - And the Process of Change

In a previous post, we discussed change and transition in general terms. Today, I want to look more closely at William Bridges’ transition model.[1] His premise is that in order to bring about change in any organization effectively, a transitional process is essential. While change itself is the desired outcome, transition speaks to the emotional and psychological pieces of a process. He has captured this process in three major phases, flowing from left to right in the figure. In Bridges model, all three phases are at play from the beginning to the end of the transition process. He depicts a strategy that is aimed at a gradual increase of the new reality and a decrease of the old in an atmosphere which informs and respects them both.  

Bridges’ model is for times when change is planned and transition can be built-in. A couple is preparing for the arrival of a baby. A company decides to launch a new product. A church plans to start a new ministry. The list is endless.

With intentional change, transition can begin as early as the planning stage. In planning transition, some control over the process of change can be retained.

To launch a new program by suddenly springing it on the church, will generate a great deal of negative reaction and resentment. At every point in Bridges’ model, all three elements are present and active. The difference is in degree as one moves forward.

1.   In the beginning, the sense of loss is the most acute, when the process of Ending begins.

·         The ending of a program, a ministry, or an ineffective branding is announced,

·         At the same time a new beginning is introduced.

·         The wilderness (answering the question, “What is going to happen now?”) has been set in motion.

2.      In the neutral zone, several things happen:

·         An opportunity is given to mourn the ending.

·         The new beginning is fully described and the reasons for its need are itemized.

·         The past is praised and reasons for its replacement are given.

·         Verbal and written information is disseminated.

·         Questions are asked and answered, and concerns responded to.

·         Time to adjust and prepare for the new beginning is given.

3.      After the Neutral Zone has been successfully navigated a new Beginning occurs.

·         The Ending is moving into the past,

·         There are still questions, and a bit of wilderness still to transverse, but it has abated considerably.

·         The Beginning is more likely to be embraced and take its place in the ministry of the church.

If we use transition to bring about change, there will still be those who oppose it. However, that number will be minimized, and a large majority of those involved will embrace it.

How have you used a transition process to introduce change?

What worked for you?

Do you have any horror stories?

---

[1] Bridges, William, Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Da Capo Press, 2003.

Looking at Change and Transition

LOOKING AT CHANGE AND TRANSITION

Individuals, institutions, and churches tend to have little or no influence over cultural change. Change is driven by many factors. Just to name a few. Knowledge is growing exponentially. Information technology is transforming everything from the way we do business and communicate, to fomenting revolution. Our society is becoming increasingly secularized, and societal values are being modified.

Church members live in society, and their daily lives are being impacted by all of the changes. By default, they bring that change into the Church.  The issue, then, is less about change itself than the Church’s response to it. 

Relative to the shifting complexities of culture, the Church has tended to move slowly. As the speed of changing cultural norms and personal preferences has increased, that stance has become less and less tenable. One way this attitude is expressed is the tendency to create programs designed for members. Such programs are defensive in nature, and tend to disconnect the church from its community. Several reasons can factor into such a reaction. Here are a few:

1.  They don’t want us. It is a fear generated by a perceived hostility of the predominantly secular culture,

2.  We don’t want them. The observation that an increasing percentage of people in the neighborhood are not “like us,” and

3. We don’t want to dilute the gospel. A fear that if we change the methods and structures, we will be changing the message.

One important reason why such a defensive response is faulty is that it contradicts the Great Commandment to “go.” An emphasis on sending missionaries to other countries, while commendable and right, tends to ignore the command to go to our Jerusalem and Judea. It assumes they are Christian. In the long run, if Jerusalem and Judea are no longer viable, there will be no resources for Samaria and the whole earth. A balance needs to be established.

Change and Transition

One distinction that helps us to manage change is to understand the relationship between change and transition. Historically, most change has occurred gradually. In the last three or four decades it has happened at an increasing pace. Almost all change develops without our involvement and is beyond our control.

Transition, on the other hand, is characterized by a response to change. Change tends to be external outside our control; transition tends to be internal within our control. We can determine, to a large degree, the path transition takes. It helps us cope with the “tyranny” of change. If we choose to bypass transition, we choose to allow change to pass us by.

Most churches operate within a, more or less, authoritarian (top-down) church structure. Decisions are made at the executive or church board level, and are implemented from that point. Both now, and increasingly in the future, decisions made in such a fashion will find resistance not only to programming, but also to the person or board that introduced it.

As we have seen, transition happens internally. It would make more sense to:

1.   Articulate the problem, and the possible solution,

2.   Break down implementation into transitional phases,

3.   Begin education early,

4.   Provide literature,

5.   Solicit further input, and

6.   Give the phased out method a respectful goodbye.

Constructing a well thought through transition can build consensus, minimize despair, and put the church in charge of managing change. What experiences have you had with introducing change by using a process of transition? If it is positive, would you be willing to share it with us? [1]

---

[1] More blog entries are coming on this topic.

What Are God's Intentions for the City?

In the 65^th chapter of Isaiah we find a portrayal of an unbelievably futuristic city God intends to create. Isaiah describes this New Jerusalem in terms that are beyond human experience. In the figure below, I have included the text on the left, on the right I have described the text in terms that might reflect our contemporary context.

Many believe Isaiah’s description is an Old Testament representation of the New Jerusalem depicted in the vision of John the Apostle described in Revelation. This interpretation may be correct. One must consider, however, that such an interpretation would relieve one of any responsibility to work to make it happen. That said, before Isaiah begins, he says, “whoever invokes a blessing in the land will do so by the God of truth; he who takes an oath in the land will swear by the God of truth” (v.16). Isaiah seems to suggest that the invocation of a blessing, or a pledge to the God of truth, will be an important factor in the creation of this new (city) society.

ISAIAH 65:18-25 (NIV)	THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GOD’S IDEAL CITY
18But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create … I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy.	God’s city will be a joy - and all people will rejoice in God’s urban creation.
19I will rejoice over Jerusalem and delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. 20"Never again will an infant live but a few days, or an old man not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth…	God’s city will be known for the health and longevity of its inhabitants. They will be free of natural, environmental and stress-related illness, infant mortality will end. Human existence and longevity will be enriched and enhanced.
21They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. As the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people…	The exploitation of laborers will cease - adequate housing and food will be justly distributed to all the city's citizens, so that all may long enjoy the work of their hands – and experience job satisfaction.
23They will not toil in vain or bear children doomed to misfortune. They will be a people blessed by the LORD, and their descendants with them.	Economic prosperity and employment for all - a secure, well-balanced economy, not subject to the whims of the marketplace, or pressure to conform.
24Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear.	God wants to bless and be in constant and intimate dialogue with everyone in the city, and be receptive to them.
25The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will not harm or destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.	Justice and reconciliation will bring peace - ensuring that no person or organization has an advantage. Each person will live at peace with his or her neighbor.

I invite you to consider, for a moment, that this passage may also be a picture of how God sees city's potential in the Kingdom of God. Augustine and Calvin were both captivated by the power of the idea of the “City of God.” Allow me to suggest that the Church does faithful service to the Kingdom of God when it works to make Isaiah’s vision in 65:18-25 a reality in today’s world.

What do you think?