Ethics of Change
All of my professional life I have heard the phrase "change or perish." The argument is that if one does not change, he/she and particularly the institution that he/she represents will perish, die, or become irrelevant and even extinct. Recently, I read this same statement in a blog from an individual who pastored for many years and has moved from calling himself a fundamentalist to a conservative evangelical. As with most truisms that are commonly accepted, this truism requires further scrutiny.
One strategy in dealing with a truism and especially a truism that one wants to embrace or discredit is to cite the extremes. The Amish is cited as an example of a group that has not changed and must change or it will become extinct. Since in the past, many people defined fundamentalism in terms of externals like hair length, ladies wearing slacks, beach attendance or participation, or wearing a beard; therefore, all fundamentalism must be abandoned. These are extreme examples of the need for change.
To adopt a "change or perish mentality" or "take-over mentality", I suggest that one should evaluate what is changing and what needs to change. Doctrine, for example, should not change or be undermined. Doctrinal statements are not negotiable. Much care should always be demonstrated in changing or modifying a doctrinal statement. Mission statements should also be slow to change. Change for the sake of change should not be the common practice.
I question the ethics of the "corporate raider mentality" as it relates to churches, colleges and universities, and organizations. I also question the ethics of institutions who have doctrinal statements in place, but the members of the institution no longer believe the tenets or the members do not enforce it or adhere to it. The historic document means nothing. Leaders change the history and character of an institution, church, or organization without consideration of the donors, alumni, faculty, and staff who have invested in the institution.
This is very characteristic of a corporate take over mentality. A president is hired by the board; the president brings in his own team; and the rest is history. The very character of the institution is changed even highjacked. In subsequent years one does not even recognize the institution. Faculty are hired without any allegiance, doctrinal fidelity, and commitment to the institution and its doctrinal distinctiveness. Under the guise of change and that is absolutely necessary as the argument goes, the institution is sold "down the river" and is changed forever. The changes are not necessarily for the better, the "so-called" improvements are only window dressing.
Ethics demands that we involve the stakeholders and be totally clear about any changes. Leaders should build consensus and lead as well as inform. Perceived success at the expense of doctrinal shift, change, or abandonment is not an acceptable strategy.
One strategy in dealing with a truism and especially a truism that one wants to embrace or discredit is to cite the extremes. The Amish is cited as an example of a group that has not changed and must change or it will become extinct. Since in the past, many people defined fundamentalism in terms of externals like hair length, ladies wearing slacks, beach attendance or participation, or wearing a beard; therefore, all fundamentalism must be abandoned. These are extreme examples of the need for change.
To adopt a "change or perish mentality" or "take-over mentality", I suggest that one should evaluate what is changing and what needs to change. Doctrine, for example, should not change or be undermined. Doctrinal statements are not negotiable. Much care should always be demonstrated in changing or modifying a doctrinal statement. Mission statements should also be slow to change. Change for the sake of change should not be the common practice.
I question the ethics of the "corporate raider mentality" as it relates to churches, colleges and universities, and organizations. I also question the ethics of institutions who have doctrinal statements in place, but the members of the institution no longer believe the tenets or the members do not enforce it or adhere to it. The historic document means nothing. Leaders change the history and character of an institution, church, or organization without consideration of the donors, alumni, faculty, and staff who have invested in the institution.
This is very characteristic of a corporate take over mentality. A president is hired by the board; the president brings in his own team; and the rest is history. The very character of the institution is changed even highjacked. In subsequent years one does not even recognize the institution. Faculty are hired without any allegiance, doctrinal fidelity, and commitment to the institution and its doctrinal distinctiveness. Under the guise of change and that is absolutely necessary as the argument goes, the institution is sold "down the river" and is changed forever. The changes are not necessarily for the better, the "so-called" improvements are only window dressing.
Ethics demands that we involve the stakeholders and be totally clear about any changes. Leaders should build consensus and lead as well as inform. Perceived success at the expense of doctrinal shift, change, or abandonment is not an acceptable strategy.
Comments