It is an older but still relevant word, found in an article entitled “Change or Die,” written by Alan Deutschman, and published in Fast Company in 2005. We used this article in clergy retreats years ago, and it may have been ahead of its time, at least for us in the church.
The question is posed: Could you change when change really mattered? This article shares some sobering realities. Change is hard. As an example, one major study shows that 90% of people with heart disease will not change their behavior, even at the risk of dying, and even after major surgery. A John Hopkins project explored the reasons for this and came to some helpful conclusions, with implications for our work as leaders in the church.
Several myths are exposed. For one example, we might think that facts will motivate change. They do not. For years, physicians have been trying to motivate patients with facts about unhealthy behaviors. Instead of changing, people will often go into denial about bad things happening to them and tell themselves that they will be okay. The facts are intended to produce fear, but fear can debilitate rather than motivate. We read, “Telling people who are lonely and depressed that they’re going to live longer if they quit smoking or change their diet is not that motivating…who wants to live longer when you’re in chronic emotional pain?”
So, what is the remedy? Re-framing! In reality, our thinking is guided by narratives, not facts. Mental frames or narratives shape the way we see the world. An example is the frame (or narrative) of seeing a company as an army with ranks and top-down structures. This determines behavior. If we saw the company as a family or a commune, people would work together in very different ways. For facts to make sense they must fit into frames. If they do not, they simply are not received, for reasons beyond “reason.”
To quote the article, “This is why political conservatives and liberals each think that the other side is nuts. They are working within different frames.” The article does not elaborate but I wonder how these political frames might be named – seeing government as the protector of individual freedoms or seeing government as a facilitator of community. Is the underlying narrative about advancing individual economic freedom with less interference or facilitating an economy that works for all, with regulations that work for the common good? Does the narrative inspire an openness to different perspectives or a desire to keep other perspectives from being imposed upon those who do not see the benefit or who believe they might be harmful? How we frame the “facts” changes everything!
The article outlines a John Hopkins project where patients were invited to reframe with the help of emotional and spiritual sources for healing, and to begin to see themselves through a different lens – one of feeling better, of being able to make love to their partner, or take walks through the woods, or play with grandchildren, or learn a new skill, or make a contribution to the world. After three years, 77% of patients who participated in this project, stuck with new lifestyle changes and were able to avoid additional surgeries. It happened because of a change in narrative. The article also points out the importance of an emotional appeal, rather than facts. The possibility of something good has to reach the heart. That makes all the difference.
What are the implications for us as leaders in the church? The article hints at this with examples from the business world. For one example, the story was told about the decline and revival of IBM. The culture of the company had become overly bureaucratic with demands for uniformity and seemed to feed on depression and hard work. A radical change was needed. They moved from selling computers to selling services and helping customers build and run information technology operations. They even recommended that clients buy from competitors such as Microsoft when it was in the client’s interest. This sweeping and quick change made a big difference.
Apple served as another example. For years they had battled for market share and consistency fell behind. A reframing was needed. They became a home for creative innovators, who dared to think differently. Many began to flock to the inspiration that flowed from this new narrative.
As Jesus said often, “Let those who have ears, hear” or “let it sink in.” In these times of great change, how might we need to reframe? How can we move beyond the facts and fears? What narrative is needed that will inspire the courage and wisdom needed to change? We have such a good story to tell, one of transformation and life! How do we give witness?
Connected In Christ 