Why are we so Risk Averse? Crucial Challenges The Salvation Army and other Organisations face.

My hands are trembling and my fingers are shaking. I'm nervous even writing this, either that or I've already drank too much coffee this morning. I'll be honest with you, it could be either one.

Let me preface what I'm about to say with this: Change can be painful. Change can be unsettling. Change can even hurt. Though change is necessary for any organisation that seeks to stay relevant and engaged with the world around it. It has been said, that the only thing that doesn't change, is the fact that things change. Actually, the rate at which change happens today is changing. Without spelling out the obvious, change is happening at a more rapid rate than ever before. How do we possibly cope?

In the interest of organisational stability, we attempt to not rock the boat. We do it with great intentions; we want to see great organisations continue to thrive, and not fall apart in the midst of shifting societal values and rapid technological change.

Here is the challenge: The organisation that thrived in its beginnings, generally thrived within a culture of boldness, innovation, a mild disrespect of existing bureaucracy, a little bit of arrogance and risk-taking ingenuity. The organisation some years later tries to hold itself up using fundamentally different ideals, that of, organisational structure, clear administrative processes, authoritative lines of decision-making, risk aversion, workplace health and safety and the list goes on.

The latter list is not wrong, far from it, but it is miles apart from the culture that caused the organisation to thrive in its inception.

So we are seeking to be part of a thriving, growing movement, that has a new learned behaviour of rewarding the fulfilment of the status quo. We then question why the organisation is not thriving to the degree we have in our heart, but fail to recognise we implicitly support an organisation fundamentally different to the one that used to thrive.

The Salvation Army faces that challenge. Right now we are on the precipice of change. We have a decision to make. Who will be in the drivers seat of organisational life? Risk Aversion or Faith-filled visionary ideas?

Let me spell it out. We need good goverance; of course we do. We need to ensure children are safe in our care. We need to ensure the finances are managed well. We need to ensure thrift shops are safe. Absolutely. Though because these things take up so much of our time, they end up being in the drivers seat. Visionary ideas are pushed to the background. Innovation and risk taking are seemingly frowned upon, or atleast perceived to be from leaders who seek to 'do something new.' This happens without a flinch from people upholding good governance, because they seek passionately to keep the organisation stable and productive.

Where do organisations like The Salvation Army move from here?

• We need to communicate VISION more than COMPLIANCE.
• We need to reward INNOVATION more than ORGANISATIONAL Box-Ticking.
• We need to release APOSTLES to be apostolic and allow ADMINISTRATORS to be great administrators that help facilitate apostolic work.
• We must focus on PEOPLE more than TASKS. Tasks are means to an end. The end is surely to ultimately support the transformation of people.
• We must not forget the ministry of JESUS that worked to lighten the load of religious expectation upon the people.

What can YOU do to support the edgy, risk-taking, out of the boat kind of people that God is calling us to be?

I have a few thoughts:

• Remind people to fix their eyes upon Jesus (Remember Peter walked on water when he fixed his eyes/heart/faith upon Jesus)
• Encourage new ideas. Don't let your first position be, 'No.' Let it be, 'Tell me more...'
• Get the right people on the right seats on the bus. Allow the prophetic organisational leaders be free to be who they were created to be. Have the people gifted in administration in roles of administration. People need to be working in their gifting.
• Strongly encourage people to pray with great faith. To believe for the impossible. To believe God for a miracle. To pray with fervour and expectation.
• Remind people of the history of the organisation - Remind them of the faith-filled stories of days gone by. Reignite in people a belief for greater things!
• We need to legitimize innovation.

Organisations that succeed find the right balance between risk aversion and innovation. They place vision in the drivers seat and governance in the back seat. (Don't worry, governance will be a good back-seat driver and yell out occasionally when you need to be reminded).

Let me finish with this: Change can be painful. Innovation can be risky.

If we learn to empower dynamic, faith-filled, risk-taking, bold leaders who seek to establish God's kingdom in a broken world, we honour the past, provoke the present and forge a tremendous future!

Bureaucracy - You Can Cut Excessive Red Tape without Cutting the Umbilical Cord.

Good bureaucracy does exist. The military can respond quickly on the frontline. A business can make a fast, sound decision that is beneficial to the company. A large group of people can feel empowered, motivated, and positive towards fulfilling that group’s common purpose.

Why is it when you think of a bureaucracy right now, you are thinking paperwork, waiting in long queues, and you find yourself already drained and exhausted? Why does it often feel like life is being sucked out of you? You feel dis-empowered  uncreative, stifled, frustrated and you hope it’s going to change. We often reflect on the nature of bureaucracy and give up hope.

A bureaucracy, from the definition I saw at dictionary.com is inherently negative as it is about, ‘excessive red tape and routine’. Red tape and routine are fine; good governance is not the problem here. The issue is not whether administrative boundaries are needed, the question is, how many administrative boundaries do you need before it is excessive?

Let me give you a few examples.

The accountant meets with a store manager, and they discuss the implementation of this year’s budget. The budget is decided upon, and expenses relevant to the store are budgeted for and agreed upon.

The store manager, a few months later, intends to spend money on the advertising that was budgeted for. The manager is told that approval is needed to spend over $2,000. Permission must be granted. Now some may say, this is simply good governance. I say that the second step in this process is unnecessary red tape. The advertising was agreed upon during the budget process. Why this extra step in the process? I’ll answer that question in a moment.

I once worked closely with a Non-For-Profit, with a lady who was the manager of a particular Outside Hours School Care Service. There were two other employees at the service, of which she was in charge. She had to get permission from her head office to purchase a $30 board game from Target for her after-school program.

Remember the Australian Government helping to administer donations that came through the Red Cross following the flood emergency in Queensland? There was so much red tape that families took months to receive financial assistance during the crisis.

What about Motor Vehicle organisations and the plethora of forms that must be filled out to apply for car registrations?

*****

Let me ask two questions related to bureaucracy.

What is the effect on business and individual performance in an excessively bureaucratic business/organisation?

Why do we in fact have excessive red tape (bureaucracy)?

Firstly, from my experience (practically and from discussion with others) excessive red tape causes the following problems in an individual:

• Decreasing intrinsic motivation
• Stifling of the creativity within
• Negativity towards the organisation
• A growing feeling of worthlessness
• A mindset that the overall organisation (whether true or not) is one that is slow to move, stubborn, passively aggressive and resistant to change

The effect, from my opinion, that bureaucracy has on an organisation as a whole is the following:

• Creates a high level of distrust in the organisation
• Stifles creativity within the individuals
• Can cause very slow, clunky, decision making
• Fosters conservative financial spending
• Creates a culture of cautiousness
• Only tried methods are allowed, the rest is resisted, frowned upon and by no means encouraged
• A resistance to change is developed (because of the bureaucracy!)

I want to come to a fundamental question in this discussion. Why do we in fact have bureaucracy? Or rather, why do we in fact have excessive red tape?

Let me come back to example one. Head office had agreed with the store manager, during the budget, that $2,000 would be spent on advertising. So why is there an extra step in the process?

Why?

The issue is surely a fundamental lack of trust in the store manager. A trust firstly from an integrity point of view (that he would spend and only spend that amount on advertising) and secondly trust in the man’s competence (that he would spend the amount on the right type of advertising).

This bureaucratic step in the process is there to safeguard the organisation against stupidity.

Can I ask why in the world would you employ a store manager if deep down you don’t trust that store manager? Now, do one of two things. Either fire the manager because you don’t trust him, or allow him to freely spend money that has already been budgeted for and agreed upon at an earlier date.

I understand, not all bureaucracy is related to trust. Some red tape exists to merely administrate a business. Though excessive red tape that exists because we have lowered the administrative bar to the lowest, most untrustworthy employee, will stifle the organisation!

Inherently trust people.

Let your administrative processes reflect trust, creativity and empowerment.

Rid the business of needless process.

People will only rise to the level you put the bar of trust. 

*****

Receive Pete's Blog Posts via email (below):

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

A Modelling Agency has my Number

I know the modelling agencies will knock me back. I mean I haven't tried to apply, but I am confident my runway skills will not be up to scratch. Then of course, there's the lack of hair, which of course rules me out of ever helping to sell Palmolive to the masses. Some of you are thinking, 'What about the looks Pete, and the slim figure needed for such a job?' Well, like I said, I haven't applied, and I would not want to assume their answer...

I am not offended by this. I understand that modelling agencies have particular values and rules that govern its industry. Without some sort of framework to operate within, the whole industry would collapse.

Is this not similar to the Christian faith? Churches, that represent God's people on earth, have frameworks that are used to create a sense of stability and cohesion. Without a holiness code, would anything simply be acceptable? Without doctrinal statements, would any theological presupposition be adhered to? Without any rules governing the ordaining of people into Christian leadership, would anyone simply be suitable?

It's not that these frameworks are wrong. They are not. They are just open for abuse. They are at times overly-regulated by people. They are set up by broken people, who are in need of a Saviour.

I am not offended by these operational frameworks that for the most part are led by the Holy Spirit to help govern particular faith communities. Let it be sharpened by other people of faith and the wider community. Let the Word of God inform the necessary changes. Let it not become a beuracracy but merely a way to bring focus to the task at hand.

Modelling agencies do not offend me with their values and rules. Either does the church.

By the way...

A modelling agency has my number.  

Daily Devotional - 6th September, 2012

*****

Receive Pete's Daily Devotions via email (below):

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner