A Crossroads of Crisis and Opportunity

As ministries, we have come to a crossroads of crisis and opportunity. The economy and the culture have changed the rules and we have the great privilege of asking God how He would have us respond. What we do at this crossroad will dictate our future and our very survival in many cases. Our instinct as conservative, low-risk organizations will be to pull back, cut our losses and hunker down.

I believe that it would be a mistake to fall into that frame of mind. I believe that the only ones that will survive this troubled time will be those that:
1. Know what they are best at
2. Are engaging their advocates/recipients in transformational ways
3. Have a vision for what the world will look like when we rebound from the crisis

If we can engage our advocates and recipients with what we are best at with a vision for our place in a world recovering from crisis, then we can use that momentum to create action plans.

As I have been processing this, I went to Fast Company’s “Fast 50”. This is an interactive list of the 50 most innovative companies. I studied the top 20 of these companies, here is what I learned:

• The most innovative organizations are, at their highest levels, defined by innovation in technology – whether they sell shoes (Zappos), megawatts of electricity (NextEra Energy) or computers (HP).
  
• The reality that products and services require mobility oriented around the consumer drive these companies. (i.e. Pure Digital Technologies’ Flip Camera)
  
• Social responsibility is evident throughout these organizations and it manifests itself in authentic ways based on what these organizations care about. (i.e. Gilead Sciences’ Access program to provide key drugs to poor countries)
  
• These companies have perfected the art of knowing the needs of their customer/audience and meeting it in creative, practical, stylish ways. (i.e. Ideo’s pursuit of a “human centered methodology”)
  
• At their core, the most innovative organizations have a “participatory DNA”. This means that they have created their organizations so that innovation will bubble up. Staff and customers will be a part of their process/products, and decisions are made dynamically and in a distributed way. (i.e. Team Obama, Google, Facebook, Cisco Systems and Hulu)

Challenging Implications for Ministries:

• Technology: In the early days missions were extremely technology driven as they used every tool to overcome huge obstacles. But we have given this distinctive up and now most of our core processes/services/products are not driven by innovative technology.
  
• Mobility: We have fared better with mobility. Because our work and the geopolitical situations are always changing we have become effective at making our solutions mobile. With more technology we could be even more mobile.
  
• Green (Social Responsibility): Because we have a Kingdom focus that has traditionally centered on Eternal things rather than bettering life in this world, we are very weak here. That in itself is not bad because we have set our sites on bringing people into God's Kingdom. However, in order to speak to the coming “green” generation we must put our Kingdom work into language understood by a generation of people that will be redefined by social/environmental responsibility.
  
• Consumer Focus: This item is the greatest single threat to the survival of many ministries. At the core of our Christian beliefs is that we should be God-centered and focused on a life of service and sacrifice. In an increasingly post-Christian / self-centered world, we will find ourselves increasingly at odds with what the marketing, fundraising, promotions experts tell us to do. We will be forced to make very difficult choices between transactional success and transformational focus. What I mean by this is that the realities of an overcrowded nonprofit marketplace will force us to either try and compete for consumers by appealing to their needs (whether we agree with them or not) or we will try to engage consumers and help to raise their sites beyond themselves and to the needs of others based on our beliefs and convictions.
  
• Participatory DNA: Currently many ministries do not have a participatory DNA as organizations. Because of hierarchical structures, low tolerance for ambiguity, and a “limited good” mentality internally, we are not able to give our staff, donors, partners or ministry recipients the ability to participate significantly in who we are and what we will become.

These are very quick commentaries on issues that have many facets, reasons and potential solutions. The purpose of this blog posting is not to lay them out in the greatest detail or to provide extensive ideas on how to fix them. My main purpose is to show some of the key factors that are helping secular organizations lead the way in innovation and then contrast them with the realities we face in Christian nonprofits. Our survival depends on us looking at reality and then asking God how He might allow us to make a difference.

Political Will

A few weeks ago on 60 Minutes, the show did a rare interview with the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. It was a good interview with some helpful insights. But the most telling insight of all was this comment that is taken from MSNBC's reporting of the interview, "Asked about the biggest potential dangers now, Bernanke suggested a lack of "political will" to solve the financial crisis."

This word is very popular these days and so I thought it would be worth taking a look at it. The more I have worked in nonprofit leadership circles and on partnership efforts, I have realized that this issue of political will is crucial to success.

In a paper submitted to the 2008 Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, political will is defined as follows:

"Our ideal-type definition of political will requires that a sufficient set of political actors with a common understanding of a particular problem on the public agenda genuinely intends to support a commonly perceived, potentially effective policy solution. This definition includes four different components, which we deem necessary conditions:

(1) A sufficient set of political actors

(2) With a common understanding of a particular problem on the public agenda

(3) Genuinely intends to support

(4) A commonly perceived, potentially effective policy solution."

Just as the government is struggling with a "lack of political will," I think that many partnership efforts among ministries are dealing with a similar challenge. This definition takes a very abstract concept and really helps us to look at our associations, partnerships and organizations and consider whether we have garnered the political will to make the changes necessary to innovate and survive in these challenging times. Lets take each one and apply it to the nonprofit arena:

(1) A sufficient set of political actors
These words imply that the right people are at the table in order to process the challenge ahead. It also implies that there are enough people at the table to affect change. When you face some of your great challenges in your settings, are the right people at the table? The right people will be those who are influencers, who have a significant stake in the problem and those who represent your internal constituencies.

(2) With a common understanding of a particular problem on the public agenda
Do those gathering to process and consider your challenge have a common and solid base of information on which to begin discussions? So many times these discussions are punctuated with a lack of basic understanding. But that is the fault of the convener of the meeting as well as the participant. Think about what you can do to bring people to the table with a common understanding of the problem you are wanting to solve.

(3) Genuinely intends to support
One of our greatest mistakes is that so many times we sit down at the table to work out a solution when a group present does not support the basic premise or issue at hand. Now we should not take this line of the definition to mean that we need a group of "yes-people" bobbing their heads in a meeting. The way I read this is that those who gather must all agree that the problem is real and that a solution is needed through this effort. If all parties agree to that, then the compromise and planning will take place to come up with a direction. But if there are groups of people who attend without any expectation of supporting the initiative, then political will cannot be achieved.

(4) A commonly perceived, potentially effective policy solution."
This is the toughest part. As I read this definition, for political will to be exerted there has to be an understood solution presented ahead of your deliberations which can bring understanding and general support to your discussions. This last piece involves a lot of homework by the sponsor or champion of the process. Before a group can be brought together to discuss options and build political will, the homework to define in broad strokes what the possible solutions are must take place. This seems backwards. So many times we bring people together with some basic facts and challenges and ask the group to design the solution. But what I have found every time is that a group does not have the time, knowledge or skills to define solutions in a meeting. This must be done ahead of time (with interaction with others) and presented for crafting, modifying and compromise. In this instance, the pre-meeting homework is critical. Unless you have defined the potential solutions and given your participants the chance to interact, they will not be ready to coalesce behind a solution.

Conclusion
So many times in our nonprofits we ask the wrong people to come to the table, without the key information that would inform their participation, unclear of their support for the general direction and withholding the potential solution that we are considering. This is a recipe for disaster in our innovation efforts.

So lets turn this around positively. What should we do when faced with a major initiative that requires significant political will within our organization or cooperative partnership?

1. We should get those with influence, decision making ability and representative authority at the table.

2. We should make sure that everyone at the table has the background and resources to be knowledgeable about the issue at hand.

3. We should do our footwork and make sure that everyone at the table has a vested interest in a solution and is genuine in their participation.

4. We should bring a proposal to those negotiations based on all the above so that the group can get to work on creating a viable way forward.

Authentic Innovation

I have been thinking about authenticity recently. It started when I asked God why he doesn't move more powerfully in us at times. As I thought about this, I realized that many times when God moves I immediately focus in on this new exciting thing that is happening and take it over. I am convinced that I can run it better than God!

You know what I mean. How many times does God do something special just to have us come in and build this movement a building, a program, an 8 week curriculum, etc. We don't know what else to do with the God of the Universe on the move. To let Him do His thing would be to loose control of our lives completely - and that is the idea isn't it?

I think there is a powerful application to innovation. God is the ultimate innovator. He is doing incredible new things that are transforming lives and blessing communities. His ways are inherently innovative - we understand only a small piece of who God is and how He thinks. Imagine the endless stream of new ideas that God is capable of revealing in our world.

With this in mind, innovation in mission is about seeking God. If God is the source of our ideas, then those concepts will have an authenticity that we could not develop on our own. Let me give you an example. In the Old Testament, God innovated to create a place for His people Israel. He brought them out of captivity and gave them a land. In that land there was no king - simply a judge that represented God's holy rule. What an innovative model for government! To think that the God of the universe would guide and lead an earthly people.

As this played out, God showed himself faithful and protected Israel. After one such event, the people decided that they needed control. They wanted a king. Samuel tried to convince them that the authentic rule of God was more beneficial than a human king, but they had made up their minds.

How many times do we take a holy idea - authentic to its core - and destroy it as we seek to gain control and power? How many innovations has this destroyed? Who knows, but we do know that God is an endless fount of blessing and He is willing to bless us with many more ideas. IF we will not seek to control and own them.

So what does authentic innovation look like? It is God moving through us to bring about a new idea that will bless many. We participate and God guides it to fruition. Pray that God will move in that way in your ministry today!