I keep highlighting versions of the same leadership idea.
Tod Bolsinger and his collaborators describe change as requiring both a preservation conviction and a change conviction. Tony Morgan draws a line between values and practices. Tim Elmore talks about timeless principles expressed through methods suited to the moment. Carey Nieuwhof distinguishes mission from method.
Different language. Same tension.
What must remain—and what must be willing to change?
The question matters because we are capable of making mistakes in both directions.
We can become so enamored with innovation that movement itself begins to feel virtuous. New becomes synonymous with better. We adjust so quickly that we lose clarity about the thing the adaptation was meant to serve.
But we can make the opposite mistake too. A method works. We repeat it. It becomes familiar. Familiar becomes normal. Normal becomes “the way it should be.” Eventually we defend a practice with the intensity that belongs to a conviction.
Discernment requires separating the two.
What is central enough that changing it would make us something else?
What has served the mission well but is still only a method?
What are we preserving because it remains true?
What are we preserving because it remains comfortable?
This has applications far beyond organizations. Families have traditions and values. Individuals have routines and convictions. Technology changes methods constantly. Faith requires both rootedness and faithful translation into real life.
The more clearly I know what I am unwilling to lose, the freer I become to reconsider everything that merely helps me express it.
Source trail: Tod Bolsinger, Mark Demel & Marty Linsky, Leading Through Resistance; Tony Morgan, Developing a Theology of Planning; Tim Elmore, The Eight Paradoxes of Great Leadership; Carey Nieuwhof, Didn’t See It Coming.