Why is it hard to hang on to a committment to adapt?

The differences between “operational” and “adaptive” leadership styles are helpfully set out in Surfing the Edge of Chaos, a book by Richard Pascale on business theories which work in our post-modern culture. As I think about the Episcopal Church, it makes complete sense that what we need are leaders who are adaptive, i.e. who can communicate the urgency of the challenge in a changing culture, establish a broad understanding of the circumstances creating the problem (and so clarify why traditional solutions aren’t working) and finally enlist others to work together to creatively come up with new solutions. But much like Sears (an example which the author holds up), our Church has been successful for so long that it is hard to imagine, even with the statistics of decline staring us in the face, that our future is not assured. Certainly we need to commit to a new course of action, we all say, but then go right back to acting as we have always acted. So I wonder: Why is it so hard to hang on to a commitment to adapt?

I remember an incident when I was rector of St. Matthew’s in Tucson, AZ. We were building a new sanctuary which, after extensive and inclusive discussion, had been approved by 99% of the members. It was to be a building welcoming the whole community, usable by theater and music groups, book studies and town meetings, as well as being a holy space in which to worship. The walls were up, the windows were being installed and it was time to order the chairs, when a significant number of members cried, “What chairs!?! We want pews. Who decided on chairs?” A careful look at the plans showed that, indeed, tiny chairs were drawn in. A discussion about the flexibility of the building being an invitation for people to join us at many levels and the importance of our ministry to the community took place. And still this group felt unheard, expressing fear that we would not have a real sanctuary without the traditional pews in place. I’m proud to say that the congregation did not resort to dividing into pew VS chair camps at this point. Instead, a task force made up of both chair and pew proponents was formed. They visited churches in the area which were using different kinds of seating  and eventually recommended a kind of chair which could be linked together to form a very comfortable pew-like arrangement, and then be separated for more unconventional seating configurations.

This should have been, and indeed was in some respects, a win-win solution except…..in the rest of my tenure there, the number of times we actually unhooked the chairs and used them in any format other than that of pews could be counted on my fingers! We had planned for, and then re-committed to adaptation in a changing cultural environment by buying chairs to make a more hospitable space. Hanging on to that commitment and following through creatively were much more difficult.

Perhaps Pascale would point to the contention in his book that only the threat of death and the invitation of sex (an opportunity for the recombination of basic building blocks!) are motivational enough to get people to really choose adaptation over conventional actions. Perhaps he is right, although the Gospel does give me hope that God’s love for us and ours for God can motivate us to change without death or sex in sight. And, after all, St. Matthew’s still has those chairs. I wonder what they are doing with them now…..