The rector, as the leader of the congregation is expected to have a vision, to set a direction and inspire others to follow. His goals may be in tension with the parishioners – in the Christian prophetic tradition, this is actually expected. If Jesus had waited for the disciples to be “aligned”, he would never have embraced the Cross.
Not all vision, however, is prophetic. Wisdom dictates caution when so naming an initiative. The value in understanding alignment is in the leader seeking to know where a change in direction will be fully supported and where a change will face resistance. Where there is not full alignment, fostering dialogue to move towards alignment minimizes resistance to change. When a leader wants to move in a direction not fully supported, the dialogue includes the leader providing more reasoning behind the desired change. This dialogue prior to implementing the change leads to a smoother execution.
For example, the Rector may like to walk around rather than preaching from the pulpit because he or she believes it reflects Jesus’ teaching while walking among the people. There are multiple options to implement this change. Here are two contrasting approaches that highlight the value of alignment.
First, the Rector may announce that the change will take place on one Sunday a month. Piloting the change allows time to hear feedback and make the change incrementally with time to adjust. This is a good traditional approach to change. Some of the feedback may get through to the rector, such as it is wrong because it is not traditional. But some are uncomfortable talking to the Rector, and they simply complain to their friends, leadership or the Bishop.
Second, the Rector begins by having conversations with many key people about considering this change. He or she will hear whether there is support for the change (alignment) or resistance to this change (non-alignment). If the resistance is because people feel that it is wrong because it is untraditional, the Rector can explain the biblical basis for this change. Sharing information usually resolves misalignments. The dialogue would continue prior to the change until there is alignment based on shared understanding for the Rector’s original vision or a modified change, such as preaching from the pulpit at one service and walking around during another. After alignment is reached, the Rector can implement the change knowing that it will be supported. In this case there is no complaining to friends or to the Bishop. Or if some people complain, the leaders who have been part of the dialogue will back the Rector’s change because they have come to support it.
The second approach may initially seem to take more energy than the first approach. But consider the amount of time and energy that it takes to overcome complaining and how long it takes until all the complainers accept the change. Sometimes years later, the Rector will continue to hear, “Remember when he stopped preaching from the pulpit? That’s why the Smith’s started going to Christ Church.” Or the change is made for several months, and then the Rector gives up and goes back to preaching from the pulpit, frustrated with the lack of support from the congregation.
Intentionally seeking understanding of the degree of alignment for a change and fostering dialogue to increase the alignment need not change to the leader’s vision, but it is more likely to lead to positive and permanent steps towards realizing that vision.
Application in an Alignment Cycle or in the COMPASS Workbook:
For the statements that are aligned, the leaders can act with confidence that they will be supported without further dialogue.
For the statements that are non-aligned, if the leaders act, they can expect resistance. This is addressed by fostering dialogue prior to action with the intention of finding the common ground – and alignment. Then, when acting upon that common ground, there is a higher likelihood of success. This is called “Alignment Optimization”.