Ed Setzer from A Lifeway Research Blog

Ed: When you’re preaching and when you’re communicating, what is the goal that you have for the listener? What do you want them do, be, act, or change as you communicate with them?

Andy: Well, actually I think the list that you just gave me is the goal and I think it depends on the kind of sermon. And so, I think every communicator needs to step up to wherever he or she’s communicating with a specific goal, and sometimes it is “I want them to know something,” sometimes it is “I want them to do something,” sometimes it is “I want them to change something.” So, in 35 or 40 minutes of a lot of words coming out of my mouth, in my mind, there’s always a specific goal. This past Sunday for us was Easter and I wanted our congregation to understand something. It wasn’t an application sermon. It wasn’t even a “here’s something you’ve never thought of before” sermon. It was a “I want you to understand something.” But I think that’s going to shift with the topic and shift with whatever series a communicator’s in. That’s a good question.

Ed: You and Layne Jones coauthored the book, Communicating for a Change, and many people have found it very helpful. What do you think are some elements that pastors and communicators who are doing messages, what do they need to bring to the message so that people can experience or be motivated to experience that change?

Andy: I think a big part of it is passion. And I coach our communicators. Every week I’m in some sort of coaching environment with our communicators on staff, and one of the things I say to them frequently is I say, “Look, you’ve gotta imagine there’s a 21-year-old guy that’s sittin’ two/thirds of the way back and he’s givin’ church one more shot. What, where in your message is the passion to reach out and grab that guy by the throat and say, ‘You can’t leave here without hearing or doing or understanding.’” And so, when it comes to change, I think it’s one thing to look at our outlines and our, whatever script we have in front of us.

That’s one thing, but I think we have to step up there with somebody in mind or a type of person in mind because, for me, that’s what I think fuels me to communicate for change or to communicate for a life change or to communicate to understand something that’s never been understood before. And in my world - and you’ve been around me enough to know - every once in a while, I pull my stool out to the front of the stage and just it on it as close to the edge of the stage I can and lean as far as I can into the audience, and that’s sorta my visual way of saying, “Okay, look, if you forget everything else you’ve heard today, you got to know this one thing, you gotta hear this one thing.” And I think from the stage, that’s the compelling change part. Here’s what’s gotta change.

Link to original article

John Sweetman

Well I think that I’ve said enough about change and I probably need to move on to other subjects before you get too bored. Some of us have opportunities to bring about the significant organizational change I’ve been talking about, but for most of us, it’s probably more about shaping and improving rather than radically transforming.

However, you do need to be aware that we all react to change in different ways. Research has shown that some people adapt to innovation far more quickly than others. Here’s a brief summary of the groups of people that research has identified and how readily they will change.

1. Innovators (3%) - always the first to try anything new no matter how risky, love novelty.

2. Early adopters (13%) - keen to move on something new when it appears to have some credibility

3. Early majority (34%) - will move readily when others have shown it is possible and desirable

4. Late majority (34%) - slow to move, but will do so when fully convinced

5. Laggards (16%) - very slow to move or change, love the status quo, critical of changes

If we reflect on Jesus’ disciples, it is likely that Peter was an innovator. He was always quick to try something new - even getting out of a boat to walk on the water. On the other hand, Thomas was probably a laggard. No matter what people said, he wouldn’t believe that Jesus had risen from the dead until he could actually see and touch him. He had to be convinced without any doubt.

Our various reactions to change ensure a church’s health. Imagine a church or group in which everyone was an innovator. Life would be chaotic. Imagine a group full of late adopters or laggards - nothing new would ever happen. We must learn to appreciate and respect each other.

If you’re an innovator, that’s great. We need you to push us and excite us. But just remember that you too need the wisdom of others. Be a little patient.

If you’re a late adopter, that’s fine. We need you too. You stop us doing stupid things. But just be careful that you don’t keep standing in the way of healthy change when most others have accepted it.

Of course we’re often a mixture of the above, depending on the context. I’m an early adopter when it comes to ministry ideas, but I’m a late adopter with some technology. (I’m not even on Facebook.)

As long as we accept that change is inevitable (we’re growing in our relationship with God and he’s calling us to be different) and that we need each other (because of our differences), we’ll do fine. We’re on the move. As Paul says, “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of the that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.” (Phil. 3:12)

As a leader, you have to be a change agent. Leaders take people somewhere and this inevitably means that things will change. However there are effective ways and damaging ways to bring about change so knowing how to bring about change is important.

I’m sharing a few of the things I’ve learned about bringing change. I hope that they will help you avoid some of the mistakes that I have made.

Daniel Goleman & Richard Boyatzis from Harvard Business Publishing

New studies of the brain show that leaders can improve group performance by understanding the biology of empathy. In case you missed it, read Part 1 here.

Followers Mirror Their Leaders-Literally
Perhaps the most stunning recent discovery in behavioral neuroscience is the identification of mirror neurons in widely dispersed areas of the brain. Italian neuroscientists found them by accident while monitoring a particular cell in a monkey’s brain that fired only when the monkey raised its arm. One day a lab assistant lifted an ice cream cone to his own mouth and triggered a reaction in the monkey’s cell. It was the first evidence that the brain is peppered with neurons that mimic, or mirror, what another being does. This previously unknown class of brain cells operates as neural Wi-Fi, allowing us to navigate our social world. When we consciously or unconsciously detect someone else’s emotions through their actions, our mirror neurons reproduce those emotions. Collectively, these neurons create an instant sense of shared experience.

Mirror neurons have particular importance in organizations, because leaders’ emotions and actions prompt followers to mirror those feelings and deeds. The effects of activating neural circuitry in followers’ brains can be very powerful. In a recent study, our colleague Marie Dasborough observed two groups: One received negative performance feedback accompanied by positive emotional signals-namely, nods and smiles; the other was given positive feedback that was delivered critically, with frowns and narrowed eyes. In subsequent interviews conducted to compare the emotional states of the two groups, the people who had received positive feedback accompanied by negative emotional signals reported feeling worse about their performance than did the participants who had received good-natured negative feedback. In effect, the delivery was more important than the message itself. And everybody knows that when people feel better, they perform better. So, if leaders hope to get the best out of their people, they should continue to be demanding but in ways that foster a positive mood in their teams. The old carrot-and-stick approach alone doesn’t make neural sense; traditional incentive systems are simply not enough to get the best performance from followers.

Here’s an example of what does work. It turns out that there’s a subset of mirror neurons whose only job is to detect other people’s smiles and laughter, prompting smiles and laughter in return. A boss who is self-controlled and humorless will rarely engage those neurons in his team members, but a boss who laughs and sets an easygoing tone puts those neurons to work, triggering spontaneous laughter and knitting his team together in the process. A bonded group is one that performs well, as our colleague Fabio Sala has shown in his research. He found that top-performing leaders elicited laughter from their subordinates three times as often, on average, as did midperforming leaders. Being in a good mood, other research finds, helps people take in information effectively and respond nimbly and creatively. In other words, laughter is serious business.

Link to original article

John Sweetman

As a leader, you have to be a change agent. Leaders take people somewhere and this inevitably means that things will change. However there are effective ways and damaging ways to bring about change so knowing how to bring about change is important.

I’m sharing a few of the things I’ve learned about bringing change. I hope that they will help you avoid some of the mistakes that I have made.

Principle 5: Most change fails for lack of a support group.

Here’s a typical scenario. Amanda (worship pastor) gets a great idea about a change needed in the evening worship service. She’s been attending lectures on worship at Malyon and feels that if the sermon could be moved to the front end of the service, it would leave plenty of space for the young people to really respond to the truth in worship after the sermon. This made sense in the lectures and she is keen to make the change.

Amanda talks to the youth pastor. He’s ambivalent about the change and raises a few half-hearted concerns, but Amanda is passionate (and forceful) so she starts working on the change. She tells the music teams and worship leaders what will be happening and reorganizes the evening service. Everyone seems okay about it and Amanda is really excited.

This proposed change will almost inevitably fail! You know why? Because there’s no support group. It’s Amanda’s idea, Amanda’s passion, and Amanda’s effort. She has no-one sharing and pursuing the vision with her. Oh you say (and Amanda certainly will), “Everyone seems pretty happy and no-one is opposing the idea. Most are actually cooperating well.” Maybe so, but with the first sign of difficulty (and problems will come), they will run for the hills.

Change should never be attempted until you have a group with you sharing and supporting the vision. If no-one really buys in beforehand, the change will almost inevitably fail.

Change agents don’t like this. They get a good idea, tell everyone how great it will be, and want to make the move before their enthusiasm fades or they lose momentum. Bad idea.

You have to take time to build a support group who will work through the change from a range of perspectives and then will stand with you through the ups and downs of the change process. Without this group you really have little chance of successful change.

I’m a slow learner. I have had to learn this lesson at least ten times. “People convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.”

Wait for the support group. It doesn’t have to be everyone. It won’t take forever. Most change fails for lack of a support group.

Daniel Goleman & Richard Boyatzis from Harvard Business Publishing

New studies of the brain show that leaders can improve group performance by understanding the biology of empathy.

In 1998, one of us, Daniel Goleman, published in these pages his first article on emotional intelligence and leadership. The response to “What Makes a Leader?” was enthusiastic. People throughout and beyond the business community started talking about the vital role that empathy and self-knowledge play in effective leadership. The concept of emotional intelligence continues to occupy a prominent space in the leadership literature and in everyday coaching practices. But in the past five years, research in the emerging field of social neuroscience-the study of what happens in the brain while people interact-is beginning to reveal subtle new truths about what makes a good leader.

The salient discovery is that certain things leaders do-specifically, exhibit empathy and become attuned to others’ moods-literally affect both their own brain chemistry and that of their followers. Indeed, researchers have found that the leader-follower dynamic is not a case of two (or more) independent brains reacting consciously or unconsciously to each other. Rather, the individual minds become, in a sense, fused into a single system. We believe that great leaders are those whose behavior powerfully leverages the system of brain interconnectedness. We place them on the opposite end of the neural continuum from people with serious social disorders, such as autism or Asperger’s syndrome, that are characterized by underdevelopment in the areas of the brain associated with social interactions. If we are correct, it follows that a potent way of becoming a better leader is to find authentic contexts in which to learn the kinds of social behavior that reinforce the brain’s social circuitry. Leading effectively is, in other words, less about mastering situations-or even mastering social skill sets-than about developing a genuine interest in and talent for fostering positive feelings in the people whose cooperation and support you need.

The notion that effective leadership is about having powerful social circuits in the brain has prompted us to extend our concept of emotional intelligence, which we had grounded in theories of individual psychology. A more relationship-based construct for assessing leadership is social intelligence, which we define as a set of interpersonal competencies built on specific neural circuits (and related endocrine systems) that inspire others to be effective.

The idea that leaders need social skills is not new, of course. In 1920, Columbia University psychologist Edward Thorndike pointed out that “the best mechanic in a factory may fail as a foreman for lack of social intelligence.” More recently, our colleague Claudio Fernández-Aráoz found in an analysis of new C-level executives that those who had been hired for their self-discipline, drive, and intellect were sometimes later fired for lacking basic social skills. In other words, the people Fernández-Aráoz studied had smarts in spades, but their inability to get along socially on the job was professionally self-defeating.

Link to original article