Read a great article by Ron Ashkenas on Harvard Business Review and it has great insights for the church as most churches have so many different programs and events. That’s because the gravitational pull for a church is to become more complex over time, to offer more entry points for people. But the byproduct of that is that its hard to see what the focus and vision is. It also makes it very difficult for a church attender to understand what their next steps are because there are so many. The most frustrating thing is that when a church has many programs, it seems like the same people go to all of them and the majority of people are not involved in any of them. But, because the church focuses on many things, the quality of the programs are not where they should be. Personally, that’s why I’d rather be a part of a church that does a few things well than many things mediocre. And the programs that the church doesn’t do, they can partner with existing para church or non-profit organizations that do it very well. That’s definitely easier said than done as the organization has to have a laser-focused strategy for this.

Why Organizations are So Afraid to Simplify by Ron Ashkenas

While most managers complain about being overloaded with responsibilities, very few are willing to give up any of them. It’s one of the great contradictions of organizational life: People are great at starting new things — projects, meetings, initiatives, task forces — but have a much harder time stopping the ones that already exist.

Take this example: The CEO of a large consumer products company was concerned that the organization was becoming too complex and unwieldy — which was adding to costs and slowing down decisions. After a long discussion with her senior team, everyone agreed to identify committees, projects, and studies that could be stopped across the firm. However, when the executive team reconvened the next month to review the ideas, everyone pointed out activities that other teams should stop instead of opportunities in their own domains. They then spent an hour justifying why everything that they were doing was critical and couldn’t be stopped.

There are several deep psychological reasons why stopping activities is so hard to do in organizations. First, while people complain about being too busy, they also take a certain amount of satisfaction and pride in being needed at all hours of the day and night. In other words, being busy is a status symbol. In fact a few years ago we asked senior managers in a research organization — all of whom were complaining about being too busy — to voluntarily give up one or two of their committee assignments. Nobody took the bait because being on numerous committees was a source of prestige.

Managers also hesitate to stop things because they don’t want to admit that they are doing low-value or unnecessary work. Particularly at a time of layoffs, high unemployment, and a focus on cost reduction, managers want to believe (and convince others) that what they are doing is absolutely critical and can’t possibly be stopped. So while it’s somewhat easier to identify unnecessary activities that others are doing, it’s risky to volunteer that my own activities aren’t adding value. After all, if I stop doing them, then what would I do?

The final reason that unnecessary tasks continue is that managers become emotionally attached to them. We see this often with "zombie projects," activities that are seemingly killed or deprioritized but somehow keep going because managers just don’t want to let go. Once people have invested in creating projects, committees, or processes, they feel a sense of ownership. Getting rid of them is like killing their own offspring.

Given these powerful underlying dynamics, what can you do to stop excessive activities in your own organization? Here are a few guidelines to keep in mind:

Separate cost-reduction from work-reduction. Since people are naturally (and understandably) protective of their livelihoods and careers, it’s difficult to ask them to do things that will result in the loss of their own job. So if cost-reduction is a key driver, try your best to eliminate jobs first. Only then should you work with the "survivors" to eliminate the unnecessary work.

Make work elimination a group activity. While managers are hesitant to point out stoppage possibilities in their own areas, they often can see opportunities elsewhere. By bringing teams together across different business units and functions, you stand a better chance of surfacing activities that can be brought to a halt.

Insert a "sunset clause" in the charter of all new committees, teams, and projects. Instead of swimming against the tide in trying to stop ongoing endeavors, make the shut-down process a natural event in the life cycle of organizational activities. If people know from the start that there is a beginning and an end, then managers will start to expect that things will be turned off at a specific time and can plan accordingly.

All organizations need to periodically hit the "off" button on activities that add unnecessary costs and complexity. Doing so however requires that you deal with the psychological dynamics that make it easier to get things started than to get them stopped.

Do you think churches and organizations should simplify?

We all have a gravitational pull toward cynicism to the things that we are "a part of" and I believe Regi Cambell identifies why:

To watch this principle in action, go to any homeowners association meeting. Whether you like them or not….whether you agree with them or not…those people involved in leadership who put in all the time and really care about the neighborhood…they will rarely be cynical. It’s those who just show up for the meetings but do little else that are the cynics.

I first discovered this truth in church-world. We had been involved in our church for years, but little by little, we’d moved on from this ministry and rotated off that committee. We found ourselves being cynical about the very things we used to be involved with. When we were involved, when we had a stake in the decision making, it was all good. But as we slid into passive participation, our hearts were lost and we became cynical. We found a new church.

The principle comes from Scripture, where the Lord said (in Matthew 6:21) "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Our treasure is our energy, our caring, and concern for our church, business or organization. When we invest the "treasure" of our energy, our hearts follow. Whatever we invest time and energy into, we will care about. When we stop investing and become participants, we’ll care less and become more cynical over time.

Involvement says "I’m in." "This is partly my deal. I care about this. I’m not just doing the minimum…I’m going above and beyond. I have pride of ownership." Participation says "I’ll probably be there. I hope it’s good, but if it’s not, so what? I don’t have a dog in this fight."

When you’re involved, it’s "we"…it’s "my church", "our company". When you hear yourself start saying "they", you’ve probably moved from involvement to participation.

Let’s bring this home. If you lock your wife out of your family finances, she’s going to become cynical about the way you manage the money. If she’s involved, she’s going to feel more supportive of the decisions and more committed to making them work.

If you announce that you’re playing golf on Saturdays, was she involved in that decision or was it just announced to her? Is your wife cynical about your love for golf? There might be a clue here.

The next time you find yourself sour and cynical about something, check your level of involvement. It might be that putting in a little more of your "treasure" will bring a change in your heart!

What are you participating in that you should either quit or become more involved?