OD Statement Part 2

MBMG 610
Eric M. Larson
May 11, 2004

Change Opportunity

As outlined in Part 1 of this assignment, I intend to work with Berean Baptist

Church in Burnsville, Minnesota to revamp their volunteer technical staff. I concluded

my earlier paper by explaining that the development opportunity “is the establishment of

an infrastructure that supports those volunteers and lets them grow in their service.”

Minimally, the opportunity at Berean is to “make our video support better”. Initially, I

plan to follow the intent of the Pastor of Worship Ministries, who would like to develop a

volunteer technical team and use me and two other part-time staff to organize and direct

the technical ministries. However, I feel more strongly after having participated in this

class that my project at Berean cannot begin with its end fully formed. Instead, I need to

focus on interaction with Berean’s leadership and with the volunteers themselves to help

ensure that we build an organization that involves all the stakeholders and inspires people

to full participation (rather than conforming them to a pre-designed “mold” that merely

completes assigned tasks).

Throughout this process I have felt as if I were aiming for a “moving target”. Due

to a variety of internal and external circumstances (changes in leadership and budget, new

church initiatives, seasonal changes in attendance, etc.) Berean’s needs for video support

are changing. In addition, Berean’s needs will not “stand still” long enough to be

analyzed, evaluated and addressed; the organization is constantly changing to adapt to

 Larson, 2

new needs. This flexibility is wonderfully positive because it provides an opportunity to

implement planned change. However, the environment is so flexible that we face a

challenge in ensuring that our changes are truly planned.

Relevant Models

The primary model in which I plan to anchor my work is Bolman and Deal’s

Human Resources frame. Although such a plan is easy to summarize in one sentence,

that brevity belies the enormity of the challenge. The initial momentum for this change is

in the context of a Structural frame; the prevailing notion at Berean, it seems, is that if we

could establish a clear structure with defined roles and boundaries, then ministries would

operate more smoothly than they do now. Obviously, structure is very important;

refining structure does not compete with a human resources frame. However, Berean is

still a small organization and the Worship Ministries team is smaller still. Our primary

driving force is the individuals who comprise the organization – their talents and abilities,

how they work together as a team, the amount of time and passion they are able to

commit to the ministry, etc. Any organizational change at Berean must focus on the

reality that we are organizing people, not mere “resources”.

Conversely, the challenge of this change opportunity is to draw attention to the

organization of those people, rather than merely collecting them and turning them loose

on a ministry. It appears that an overly-narrow emphasis on the Human Resources frame

draws leadership to a view that “good people do good things, if only we let them”. True

though that is, those good people need their leadership to follow an organized approach

in a human resources context, so the organization knows not only how it should treat its
 Larson, 3

people, but why it should treat them that way and what to do to help foster than

environment.

Consulting Stance

My consulting stance will be that of a “Joint Problem-Solver”. Despite my

background in Human Resource Development, the pastors who are leading ministries at

Berean have more training in “pastoring” and are the people who have the stated

authority to implement change. A more consultant-heavy approach would marginalize

those pastors and the value that they not only can but ought to bring to the discussion.

An “advocacy” approach could work – I could develop a plan based on my HRD

background and experience with our volunteer staff and bring it to Berean’s leadership

for a mere “stamp of approval” – but I believe that Berean’s pastors hold more leadership

experience than they might give themselves credit for, and my task will be to draw that

experience from them and apply it to a Technical Arts ministry. (Conversely, a more

client-centered approach is not advisable at this point, because I do not believe that the

“clients” are equipped with enough analytical structure to draw a change plan out of their

existing infrastructure; they need an injection of problem-solving dialog to help inform

them of their ministries’ needs and provide additional insight with which they can

interact.)

Change Process

Following a structured change process will be very important, to help keep the

conversation on-track. However, the process should not appear so formal that it stifles

participation; the most important element of this process is to encourage dialog and
 Larson, 4

implement a change that addresses as many stakeholder needs as possible, and a

methodology that appears rigid will discourage conversation and involvement among

those stakeholders.

The “entry” point of this particular intervention will begin with a discussion with

the Pastor of Worship Ministries. He will be the “sponsor” of the change process and,

ultimately, he will decide whether and how chances can be implemented. (When viewing

the organization of Berean’ from Bolman and Deal’s Political frame, the involvement and

acknowledged power of the Pastor of Worship Ministries becomes even more relevant.)

After this preliminary discussion, a fairly informal “contract” will outline the

project scope and timeline. The initial plan (to be outlined in detail during this “contract”

stage) is to address data collection and analysis in early summer, begin implementing

changes in a “pilot phase” during the rest of the summer, and have an improved system in

place for launch in fall.

Data collection will involve not only the Pastor of Worship Ministries, but other

pastors who are not only stakeholders in the Video Ministry “product” but who are also

“local experts” in the task of building volunteer staffing within Berean. In addition, the

existing volunteers themselves are a tremendous resource for data collection. The key to

success in this change plan is to open pathways for dialog and glean knowledge and

suggestions from those who are closest to the needs and opportunities for the Video

Ministry.

After preliminary analysis, further feedback and alternatives will be addressed

through discussion with the Pastor of Worship Ministries. Once again, the ultimate

decision as to the change(s) to be implemented in the Video Ministry will lie with him.
 Larson, 5

After the appropriate decisions have been made regarding the direction that the

Video Ministry ought to proceed, an “action plan” and appropriate timeline (in keeping

with the original contract) will be set in motion. Here, again, is where participation of the

current ministry volunteers is vital, as they will be the ones feeling the effects of the

change (and who, frankly, will ultimately be responsible for its success).

The most important step of the entire consulting process is evaluation. This step

is crucial because I believe organization development to be an iterative process, and

evaluation provides data and insight that will inform later change processes. In the case

of this particular change plan, I intend to continue my participation in Berean’s Video

Ministry. In fact, my role there as envisioned by the Pastor of Worship Ministries is to

transition to “continual consultation,” where I can focus on the question of “how we can

be better” rather than on operational and logistical questions regarding “how we can

survive today”. Therefore, the “evaluation” stage of this consulting process amounts to a

transition to the next full cycle of the consulting process, where the changes implemented

will lay the groundwork for the next changes around the corner.