What do you think of when you hear the term "The System"?
How about the phrase "a cog in the machine"?
We don't view either of these phrases in positive ways. In fact, we usually talk about ways of "beating the system" and refer to company men as "just another cog in the machine."
Often times, we take this approach to organizations because we think of them as easily corruptible. And true, this can (and has) happened many times over. However, despite the many times corporate corruption has infiltrated groups that began with a good purpose, I believe the organization still has the best chance to bring about positive change. An individual can be a great champion and cheerleader, but he or she must have a supporting cast to carry out the mission. A cast where everyone has a specific task that is different, yet brings to life the over-arching goal. For this reason, it is a powerful thing to be a cog in the machine and a small part in a big system.
Take the human body, for example. The gallbladder is just one of many organs. It's one of the smaller organs, only 6-9 centimeters in length. We can actually live without this tiny organ, even though it helps us process and breakdown the food we eat. Yet, missing a gallbladder carries serious setbacks. People living without a gallbladder cannot eat large meals. Because the gall bladder secretes bile into the small intestines, which helps digest fat, people without one must instead eat snack-sized portions throughout the day. Eating smaller portions prevents the "dumping syndrome" in which food is too quickly transported from the stomach to the small intestines. So while the human body can continue living without this organ, the digestive system is at a large disadvantage in its absence.
The gallbladder is a part of a greater system - the digestive system, to be exact. The digestive system is part of an even bigger operating machine, which we call the human body. Within this body are even more systems, namely the circulatory, musculo-skeletal, endocrine, nervous, excretory, integumentary, reproductive, and respiratory systems. Within each system are many more parts, some of which are large, and some even smaller than the gallbladder. Because each system in the body is made up of parts working together to meet the same goal, it works. When even one part in this overall system goes down, the whole body suffers.
The same can said of organizations. Many systems exist within any given organization. These systems are made up of people and functions, and no matter which function people find themselves in, the work they do matters for the health of the organization.
Like any other organization, churches certainly have their systems. Teaching teams, worship leaders, small groups, outreach groups, mission teams, and finance teams are typical for most churches. They each meet specific needs within a church, and each are very important. And while any of these parts are capable of being corrupted, they are more likely to produce something beneficial for the overall system. More than just another cog in the machine, each part is THE cog for THAT specific function of the machine.
So what part do you play in your church? I write this assuming you play a specific role, as this site is for leaders. And if, in fact, you do play a role, how are you viewing your place in the system? How do you view the system?
General systems theory is a great framework for church leaders to consider. Through this framework, we see our churches as a group of parts working together for the same reason.
I mentioned many parts of this in my first post, but this theory is essential for anyone involved in organizational work. Therefore, it's worth repeating many times over. The system or machine can be a good thing, and it's an inescapable part of accomplishing positive change. What we must remember as leaders is to play our role in the systems we lead. We must put in our strengths and allow others to put their strengths into the same system. When we view our churches in such a way, we empower individuals with different abilities to be a part of the same goal.
This is how our churches will collectively change the world.
Showing posts with label church communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church communication. Show all posts
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Importance of Interaction
I know many of us serve in a small church. With a church staff of 2 and a congregation of 60 (on a good day), I am able to interact pretty easily at Epoch. Few churches have numbers this small in either category. If you serve in a church of 500, 750, 1000+, it becomes impossible to have regular communication with all congregants and staff.
We recognize the power of relationships. Many of us subscribe to the idea of relational evangelism. Acts 2:42-47 certainly stresses the importance of relational interaction within a church body. Beyond this, why is interaction so important for a healthily functioning church?
Social constructivism is where people's understanding of the world is directly tied to whom they interact with and how they do so. Ultimately, whether done accurately or not, people socially construct and co-construct their perceived realities. In English, this means that people base their perception of reality on interactions with others.
If identical twins are separated at birth and are adopted by two differing sets of parents with different approaches to parenthood, their views of reality will not be the same. It won't matter that they sound, move, and look the same or that their fingerprints are a match or that they have similar tendencies in personality. If one was raised by parents who love him, provide for his physical and emotional needs, and teach him right from wrong, that child will grow up with a positive opinion of family. If the other is raised by parents who are rarely home, communicate through shouting, and pay little attention to the kid, he will probably grow up to think this is normal. Thus, the word "family" will have a negative connotation to him.
Many Christians have long known that saying hello to new faces and making outsiders feel included is the right thing to do. What is less known is why this is so important. When we stay in constant contact with people, our relationships form and deepen. Its easy to distrust or dislike someone we don't know. But if we are recognized by, spoken to, or otherwise involved in someone's life, we are much less likely to have negative feelings toward them or they towards us. Therefore, one of the best ways to make people feel good about your church is to have a relationship with them.
If you are in any kind of leadership position (including non-paid volunteer leadership) within a church, you have a responsibility to build a relationship with the congregation. For many, this is easy. For many more, however, constantly speaking to strangers or people not known well can be a stressful experience. But leaders must get over this discomfort. If, for example, someone within your church is rarely spoken to, included, or shown the vision of the leadership, your church is not very good. At least not to someone with whom people (especially leaders) rarely interact. Perception is reality, and people socially construct that reality through interaction. If you want to give someone the impression that church is a bad thing, ignore them.
The social constructionist theory has crucial implications for the church. Specifically, I believe 3 things must be recognized by church leaders:
1. People construct their reality through interaction
2. Interaction, positive or negative, greatly impacts the way people view church
3. A socially constructed reality is fluid: it can changed for better or worse
Because we care about the impact the church has on the world, we must interact with
people who walk through our doors. Through interaction, we have the opportunity to change hearts and minds. And yes, we have the power to influence reality.
Interact wisely.
We recognize the power of relationships. Many of us subscribe to the idea of relational evangelism. Acts 2:42-47 certainly stresses the importance of relational interaction within a church body. Beyond this, why is interaction so important for a healthily functioning church?
Social constructivism is where people's understanding of the world is directly tied to whom they interact with and how they do so. Ultimately, whether done accurately or not, people socially construct and co-construct their perceived realities. In English, this means that people base their perception of reality on interactions with others.
If identical twins are separated at birth and are adopted by two differing sets of parents with different approaches to parenthood, their views of reality will not be the same. It won't matter that they sound, move, and look the same or that their fingerprints are a match or that they have similar tendencies in personality. If one was raised by parents who love him, provide for his physical and emotional needs, and teach him right from wrong, that child will grow up with a positive opinion of family. If the other is raised by parents who are rarely home, communicate through shouting, and pay little attention to the kid, he will probably grow up to think this is normal. Thus, the word "family" will have a negative connotation to him.
Many Christians have long known that saying hello to new faces and making outsiders feel included is the right thing to do. What is less known is why this is so important. When we stay in constant contact with people, our relationships form and deepen. Its easy to distrust or dislike someone we don't know. But if we are recognized by, spoken to, or otherwise involved in someone's life, we are much less likely to have negative feelings toward them or they towards us. Therefore, one of the best ways to make people feel good about your church is to have a relationship with them.
If you are in any kind of leadership position (including non-paid volunteer leadership) within a church, you have a responsibility to build a relationship with the congregation. For many, this is easy. For many more, however, constantly speaking to strangers or people not known well can be a stressful experience. But leaders must get over this discomfort. If, for example, someone within your church is rarely spoken to, included, or shown the vision of the leadership, your church is not very good. At least not to someone with whom people (especially leaders) rarely interact. Perception is reality, and people socially construct that reality through interaction. If you want to give someone the impression that church is a bad thing, ignore them.
The social constructionist theory has crucial implications for the church. Specifically, I believe 3 things must be recognized by church leaders:
1. People construct their reality through interaction
2. Interaction, positive or negative, greatly impacts the way people view church
3. A socially constructed reality is fluid: it can changed for better or worse
Because we care about the impact the church has on the world, we must interact with
people who walk through our doors. Through interaction, we have the opportunity to change hearts and minds. And yes, we have the power to influence reality.
Interact wisely.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Interpersonal vs. Organizational
When we hear the word communication, we often think of a person speaking (i.e. I studied in the speech communication department, so I must know how to speak well). This is one part of communication, but many more aspects exist.
In the same way, when we hear that a church has a communication problem, we may immediately think the pastor does not preach well. Or we may think the announcement guy makes confusing statements. Or the radio and TV spots are ambiguous. These are all parts that make up the way a church communicates. But before this blog can go further, we must first understand the difference between interpersonal communication and organizational communication.
Interpersonal communication is what we are most familiar with, such as when individuals speak back and forth to each other. This does not mean when more than two people are speaking together, an organization is formed. Instead, interpersonal communication relates to a type of communication that only represents individuals. A large group of 30 can come together to talk, and interpersonal communication still takes place. Within this group, many conversations occur. Someone's dog just died, a guy just got a new job, a young lady just got a zit, a couple is thinking about adoption, a child has to go to the bathroom. None of these conversations present any ideas, beliefs, or actions of anyone but the speakers. The listeners will likely engage back with comments about the zit or the need for a bathroom break, and then perhaps form some statements of their own.
If this explanation was confusing, then just think of it like this: interpersonal communication takes place when people communicate to each other through speaking, listening, and non-verbal cues.
Organizational communication is done on behalf of an organization. This can be achieved through a public relations statement in a press release, but it can also be done through the types of charities the organization supports. Or the type of people the organization hires. Communication even takes place by the work environment of an organization. The most famous understanding of this form of organizational communication takes place at Seattle's Pike Place Fish Market, as made known through the book Fish. This book takes the fish market's culture and turns it into an easy-to-read manuscript on how to create a fun atmosphere at work.
There are clear differences between interpersonal and organizational communication, although much overlap exists as well. Within any organization, interpersonal communication obviously takes place. One of my college professors even argued that there was little reason to seperate these two types of communication, claiming they both fell under the same umbrella. With organizational communication being such an unknown phenomena, however, I think having only one label for communication would prohibit many organizations from knowing how to effectively promote positive change. Interpersonal communication might fire up one or two, but an organization with actions that match its values delivers a message more powerfully than a room full of 100 individual linguistic geniuses.
As we continue to look at organizational communication for churches, I am confident that the theories and practices within this field of study will provide solutions for existing difficulties. Communication is a powerful thing - whether from the mouth of 1 or the hands of 1 million.
In the same way, when we hear that a church has a communication problem, we may immediately think the pastor does not preach well. Or we may think the announcement guy makes confusing statements. Or the radio and TV spots are ambiguous. These are all parts that make up the way a church communicates. But before this blog can go further, we must first understand the difference between interpersonal communication and organizational communication.
Interpersonal communication is what we are most familiar with, such as when individuals speak back and forth to each other. This does not mean when more than two people are speaking together, an organization is formed. Instead, interpersonal communication relates to a type of communication that only represents individuals. A large group of 30 can come together to talk, and interpersonal communication still takes place. Within this group, many conversations occur. Someone's dog just died, a guy just got a new job, a young lady just got a zit, a couple is thinking about adoption, a child has to go to the bathroom. None of these conversations present any ideas, beliefs, or actions of anyone but the speakers. The listeners will likely engage back with comments about the zit or the need for a bathroom break, and then perhaps form some statements of their own.
If this explanation was confusing, then just think of it like this: interpersonal communication takes place when people communicate to each other through speaking, listening, and non-verbal cues.
Organizational communication is done on behalf of an organization. This can be achieved through a public relations statement in a press release, but it can also be done through the types of charities the organization supports. Or the type of people the organization hires. Communication even takes place by the work environment of an organization. The most famous understanding of this form of organizational communication takes place at Seattle's Pike Place Fish Market, as made known through the book Fish. This book takes the fish market's culture and turns it into an easy-to-read manuscript on how to create a fun atmosphere at work.
There are clear differences between interpersonal and organizational communication, although much overlap exists as well. Within any organization, interpersonal communication obviously takes place. One of my college professors even argued that there was little reason to seperate these two types of communication, claiming they both fell under the same umbrella. With organizational communication being such an unknown phenomena, however, I think having only one label for communication would prohibit many organizations from knowing how to effectively promote positive change. Interpersonal communication might fire up one or two, but an organization with actions that match its values delivers a message more powerfully than a room full of 100 individual linguistic geniuses.
As we continue to look at organizational communication for churches, I am confident that the theories and practices within this field of study will provide solutions for existing difficulties. Communication is a powerful thing - whether from the mouth of 1 or the hands of 1 million.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)