Chapter 18

CHANGING TRADITIONS

Removing Unhealthy Structures

When we’ve hit the wall and all the traditional breakthrough methods (greater effort, efficiency, and improved quality) haven’t worked, it’s not only time to consider new advisors and new patterns of relationship; it’s also time to consider whether our traditions and organizational structures might be the culprits.

The good news is that changing organizational structures is relatively easy, unless of course they are traditional structures.

The bad news is that most organizational polices, procedures, and structures become traditions rather quickly. When most people think of an organizational tradition, they think of something with a long history. But that’s not always the case. Lots of traditions are merely the comfortable and expected way of doing things around here, even though we haven’t been doing it very long.

Traditional structures not only have the power of inertia behind them; they have the power of emotion. People find comfort in their traditions (even their new ones). Changing them is almost always an uphill battle.

I learned that the hard way as a young pastor of a new church. The church was just a few years old and was meeting in a high-school cafeteria when I arrived. I figured since it was so new, it had no traditions.

I was wrong. Dead wrong. Every time I tried to change anything, someone would tell me, “That’s not the way we do it around here.”

I quickly learned that our church was like most organizations. The evolution of a deeply held tradition went something like this.

Year one: Why are we doing that?

Year two: Okay. Whatever.

Year three: But we’ve always done it this way.

That’s what makes changing dysfunctional structures so difficult. After year three, they tend to have the power of tradition. But it matters not. They can’t be left to run their course. Dysfunctional structures will run any organization into the proverbial wall. And if something isn’t done to change them, the organization will inevitably shrink to a size that perfectly fits its policies, procedures, and structure.

IS IT WORTH THE BATTLE?

Not every goofy or annoying tradition and organizational structure is worth changing. Every organization has plenty of them. They seem to spontaneously generate. But a leader can’t and shouldn’t do battle with all of them. Every leader and leadership team has only a limited number of chips. Using them to change every policy, procedure, and practice that is merely annoying, ineffective, or a waste of time is seldom a good use of those chips.

That was the mistake I made in my early years of leadership. If something didn’t help us accomplish our mission, I tried to kill it off. It nearly killed me off.

Since then I’ve learned that the important question is not, “Does this fail to help us fulfill our mission?” The important question is, “Does this keep us from fulfilling our mission?”

If something is a roadblock that keeps us from moving forward, it has to go. If it’s merely an annoyance, it’s probably best to put up with it until I have a ton of chips in the bank.

So what are the polices, procedures, and practices that have to go once you’ve hit the wall? Which ones are worth the battle? The answer is that anything that (1) locks out fresh thinking, (2) derails the decision-making process, or (3) destroys flexibility has to go, the sooner the better. It’s the only way you’ll break through to the other side of the wall.

FRESH THINKING

I find that lots of organizations have polices and procedures that unintentionally lock out fresh thinking.

Because of the size of our church and my national network, I’m often asked whether I know of any potential candidates for an open staff position. My normal response is to ask for a copy of the job description and requirements. It always surprises me that most are filled with qualifications and requirements that have little to do with the job.

For instance, at the top of almost every list of job qualifications is a list of minimum educational and experience requirements. Right off the bat, that eliminates some great people. Ironically, a lot of the organizations that ask me for advice wouldn’t have hired me for a job back when I was starting out. And their minimum qualifications for hiring would eliminate some of my best staff members, the very ones they’d like to hire away.

Shoot, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg wouldn’t pass muster in the HR department of a lot of companies.

Any organization that automatically rewards experience and education unintentionally punishes inexperience and a lack of formal education. Over the long run, that will make it harder and harder for fresh thinking to have a voice. It will push young eagles to the bottom of the pile, keep fresh thinking at the back of the line, and pretty much guarantee that innovation happens elsewhere.

The rationale behind rewarding education and experience is a desire for safety, a preference for the known over the unknown. But when it comes to building an innovative and successful team, risk aversion usually turns out to be success aversion. Safe people are indeed safe, but they’re seldom spectacularly successful.

Those who are most likely to bring genuinely fresh thinking to your organization are always a little bit weird. They are almost always too young, too inexperienced, or too idealistic to know that their ideas won’t work. Which is exactly why you need them at the table.

Any policies, procedures, or traditions that lock them out are worth the battle to remove.

DECISION-MAKING

Another area where policies, procedures, and traditions can hold us back is in the decision-making process. When you’ve hit a wall, it’s a good idea to ask if your decision-making process is structured to make bad decisions.

The most common problem is having too many people involved in the process.

The more people involved in the process, the more likely it is that most decisions will favor the status quo. As we saw in an earlier chapter, a gauntlet of committees will almost always derail innovation and fresh thinking, the desire for harmony gives veto power to the angry and stubborn, and groupthink leads to a politically correct rather than a brutally honest assessment. All of these contribute to organizational inertia.

Having too many people involved in the process also tends to slow everything to a crawl. Large groups seldom make quick and good decisions.

It takes nuanced thinking to make a good decision. But that bogs down most larger groups. And even when they try to work through the nuances of a tough decision, the key issues often will be boiled down to soundbites and simplistic solutions that can be easily grasped by everyone present.

In addition, the larger the group, the more likely it is that everything will need to be reviewed over and over. Someone will always have missed something (or the last meeting) and need to be brought back up to speed.

Finally, when polices and traditions involve too many people in the decision-making process, it’s almost impossible to get everyone close enough to the facts so that they can make a wise decision. Smart people make foolish decisions when they don’t have accurate facts and firsthand knowledge of the key players. It forces them to rely on past experiences, hearsay, and assumptions.

I like to put it this way:

The Wisdom of Solomon + Inaccurate Information = A Fool’s Decision

FLEXIBILITY

A lack of flexibility is another structural problem that’s worth the battle. When policies, procedures, and organizational structures become too rigid, it becomes almost impossible to break through once you’ve hit the wall.

Flexibility is important because the only thing we can know for certain about the future is that it will be radically different from what we thought it would be. That’s why it’s so vital to build flexibility into the DNA of our organizational structures. Without it, it will be difficult to navigate the constantly changing landscape of the future.

For instance, consider the consequences of inflexibility as they relate to a budget. Inflexible budgets are horrible at handling opportunity because it just shows up. It never sends an email saying when it’s coming. And unlike a crisis, which if it is serious enough will be taken care of, opportunity has to wait until it can be put in the budget.

But it doesn’t wait. It just leaves. Which explains why organizations with rigid budgets usually have a long history of missed opportunities.

Another way of illustrating the advantage that flexible organizations have over rigid organizations can be seen in the fundamental differences between a blueprint and a game plan.

Blueprint organizations have a rule for everything. Once an architect finishes a blueprint, the contractor is expected to follow it exactly. He doesn’t have the option of pushing a wall out a couple of feet or placing the plumbing on another wall. If he does, he’ll be in big trouble with both the inspector and the architect.

Blueprint organizations also insist that everyone follow the manual exactly as it’s written.

They also tend to live in the past. In fact, I’ve found that I can often tell with great accuracy what their big problems of the past were based on reading their current polices and procedures. It’s as if they made a new lock every time another horse left the barn.

In contrast, game-plan organizations have a plan that is constantly adjusted as the game goes on. Game-plan organizations tell everyone to first try this, but then do whatever seems best if that doesn’t work. A coach expects his players to make adjustments on the fly. It’s part of what he coaches and trains them to do. His game plan has built-in options based on the score and time left in the game.

Hitting the wall is tough. It’s no fun. But it can be a great opportunity for you and your organization, as well as innovation’s best friend. That’s because it’s only when the old ways stop working that most people are willing to consider the new ways — the new advisors, expectations, and structures that will pave the way for tomorrow’s adventure.