The Analysis

Here are some of the UDEs the team surfaced during their TP analysis that blocked them from improving: 1. UMC lacked clarity of purpose/vision.

2. UMC is doing a poor job in spiritual formation (making Disciples).

3. Generally, the church is doing a poor job of transforming people.

4. There is no process for preparing leaders.

5. The UMC lacks a climate for innovation.

6. Spiritual malaise is prevalent throughout the church.

Lisa and I facilitated the UMC leadership through a full TP analysis with the core problem being that spiritual leaders were not fulfilling their specific roles as spiritual leaders. We came to that core issue from two directions: the TP analysis and a simpler analysis of the process required to achieve their purpose.

FIGURE 37-4 Church can cause world to become brighter according to Bishop Christopher.

Early on, we got the team to discuss the purpose of the UMC. Their stated purpose was "Make Disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the World." Lisa and I broke them into groups and had them draw a picture of their system.

Bishop Sharon Brown Christopher headed one group. Bishop Christopher and her group drew a picture of the Earth as viewed from outer space. The picture is provided in Fig. 37-4. They represented the Church by a box and had dimly lit souls going into the box and bright souls coming out (some of these are my words, not hers). The flow into the box pulled other souls into the box and all were recycled back into the box (they did not stay lit but needed recharging). The group said if the Church were doing its job, then the world would get brighter and brighter.

Holy Mackerel. . . what a cool depiction of an overall system; it was very simple and easy to understand. This group had been exposed to a lot of TOC training so Lisa and I pressed them-"What is in the box and where is the physical constraint?"

Ezra Earl and his team had already done some work in that area and said that the four steps in the box (the Church) were: 1. Invite people into the box.

2. The people develop a relationship with God and with each other.

3. That relationship is nurtured by Bible study, prayer, etc.

4. People are sent out into the world to engage in God's work concerning injustice, mercy, and sharing the good news.

These four steps combine to make the process for forming a Disciple; just like specific manufacturing equipment combines to form a process that produces a car part. Although each of the four steps is an "operation" in the overall process, each step can be quite complex on its own.

"Okay, where is the constraint?" we asked. I thought that would be a hard question for them. The team did not even hesitate-"Step 2, developing a relationship with God." I was taken aback with the speed and certainty of their answer. They even mentioned that this is the case in 9 out of 10 churches. However, that inspired another question: "So how does that happen? How does one establish a relationship with God?" I think it is important to note that we have now made this extremely complex system a bit less complex by focusing in on one of the four overall operational steps. This group of Bishops is now immersed in describing Step 2-the people develop a relationship with God and with each other.

The group discussed and pondered that question for a while. In all of their discussions on how one establishes a relationship with God, this thing called a "spiritual leader" kept coming up. These leaders of the church agreed that the thing they called a spiritual leader was the key to helping create an environment in which an individual and God could better connect; therefore, "spiritual leadership" is the constraint of the UMC. We now need to look at "spiritual leadership" as we would any other skill set or piece of equipment, especially since it is our precious and most valuable resource (the constraint). We first needed to identify what it looks like.

"So if I walked through your factory (the Church) and tripped over a spiritual leader, what would he or she look like?" I asked.

I sensed that was an uncomfortable question. The participants came up with a description of a spiritual leader as one who is: 1. Humble and worships the Lord with joy.

2. Involved in daily prayer, Bible study, and devotionals.

3. Involved with others on a routine basis to discuss how God is working in their lives and to hold one another accountable.

4. Participating in acts of mercy and addressing injustice.

5. Telling others their faith story.

What they had described was a Disciple and had discovered that "Disciples make Disciples." Another thing that they discovered is that they were paying a whole lot of folks to be spiritual leaders who did not meet that description. That particular issue was a problem but not one that the group was ready to address. There was enough work and progress to be made in focusing on the spiritual leaders they did have.

If spiritual leadership is the system's constraint, then how do you "exploit" the system's constraint? If you have 40 hours per week of operating time for a spiritual leader, what do you want them doing? Should they be attending meetings, washing windows, answering the phone and dealing with lawsuits? The answer to those questions is "no." Those activities do not move the UMC closer to achieving its purpose. The Bishops defined the five steps in the description of a spiritual leader as "being on the path" and said that spiritual leaders should be on the path with one another and with their congregations executing and facilitating the four steps in the box (the Church).

Therefore, the major injection provided in the Evaporating Cloud of the core problem was, "Spiritual leaders are on the path with one another." This is actually a very practical solution and doable. The Bishops could be "on the path" with their cabinets (staff), the staff could be on the path with those pastors who reported to them, and so on all the way down to the individual church member. There was excitement in the group. Each Bishop was in charge of a region of the United States, which they referred to as an "annual conference." We began to formulate plans where each Bishop would head their annual conference in this plan going forward. It was going to be a very large challenge, as much of what a Bishop does has nothing to do with spiritual issues but with issues of running a large organization. They find themselves absorbed in legal matters and administrative minutia-just like too many CEOs of corporations. However, there was a lot of energy and perhaps they might be able to pull off a major change initiative. Again, I think it is important to pause and understand that we have taken a system as complex as the UMC with over 8 million members and boiled it down to a relatively simple process on what needs to be done to have a major impact on UMC's ability to achieve its purpose.

Then the workshop participants' "mindsets" became their major obstacle to progress. Ezra Earl called Lisa and me and said that he wanted to have breakfast with us because he was concerned that things were not going well. At our breakfast he scolded us and told us that we were putting too much emphasis on the Bishops and that we needed to treat everyone equally. Lisa and I argued that the Bishops were the ones in charge of their regions and should be the ones carrying the torch. He told us to back off and take us down a different path on the last days, which Lisa and I did. In spite of our best efforts, however, momentum died, and you could almost feel it prior to the end of our time together. Ezra Earl scheduled another breakfast with us and said, "I messed up, didn't I?" He was not going to get any argument out of Lisa and me-yep, he did. We should have pressed ahead with the plan. There was a lot of learning and exchange of ideas; however, no implementation effort was forthcoming out of the session. I have always admired Ezra Earl for coming back and admitting his error. I have met very few people that had that kind of courage and leadership. It enhanced learning going forward.

Over a decade passed and Bishop John Schol, the newly appointed Bishop of the Baltimore-Washington Conference, the largest in the UMC, was attending a meeting of Bishops and the session that we conducted was being discussed. He learned that I was a member of his conference and after several meetings Chesapeake was hired to help them through a major transformation. What made it inviting to me is that Bishop Schol's plan looked like it had been copied directly from what we had discussed and developed 10 years earlier. I guess things are done in God's time, not ours. He called his initiative "The Discipleship Adventure," and it is almost exactly what we helped the Bishops develop years earlier. The elements of required leadership action are exactly the same five items as listed previously. However, Bishop Schol was ready to act. Hands-on implementation with this group lasted a year and they continued to implement after Chesapeake was gone.

One of the first problems the Bishop faced was being able to find time to be a spiritual leader (on the path) himself. When we reorganized the conference, we created a new position of Chief Operating Officer (COO). This individual would handle most of the legal matters and minutia of day-to-day operations, freeing the Bishop to focus more on making Disciples and being on the path with his leaders. We created "Disciplier Groups" that were groups of pastors who met on a routine basis to practice the five steps together as leadership behaviors, as they led the way in executing the four steps in the box (the Church). While other UMC conferences were reducing the number of people who "ministered to ministers," the Baltimore-Washington Conference was increasing these numbers. These new leaders were called "Disciplier Guides." The role of the Disciplier Guide was to facilitate the pastors in the conference being on "the path" with one another. There was some initial role conflict with the Guides and the traditional District Superintendent, but that was worked out over time. These changes took place in 2007.

How do you measure "Disciple making?" The Baltimore-Washington Conference came up with the following metrics: 1. Worship attendance.

2. Whether a church met their financial obligation to the conference.

3. The percentage of people who attended worship that were involved in small groups.

4. The percentage of people who attended worship that were involved in some sort of mission or service work.

5. The number of people who joined the church as a profession of faith.

The Methodist Church defined: The system to be analyzed as an "Annual Conference" or specific area of the country.

The purpose of the system as to make Disciples.

The measurement system as the five metrics listed previously.

The system's constraint as spiritual leadership.

Exploitation of the system's constraint as spiritual leaders being on the path with one another and their flock while a COO manages church financial and legal affairs.

Results after Two Years

Is it working? This chapter was written in 2009. The Bishop has set as a goal the year 2010 when the negative trend stops and 2012 as the year all trends are on an upswing. In two of the four regions of the conference, they are already seeing positive results, so those two regions are ahead of schedule. If they stay the course, I am confident they will be successful.

Summary

Dealing with complex systems is fun when an organized systems approach is taken. Here are some of the things that have worked for me over the years.

1. One must first define the system. What are its boundaries? It has been my experience that the initial perspective of what you call "the system" will change.

2. Define the purpose of the system and how you measure success. If you can measure how to make Disciples, surely you can measure anything.

3. Remember that systems (and their cultures) are the combination of purpose (processes), relationships, and information flow.

4. Information flows through relationships so you can assume that if the relationships are improved so will information flow.

5. Begin globally and work from the outside in. What are the global processes that achieve purpose? What is the information required to achieve purpose?

6. Where is the physical constraint and is it in a desirable location? If not, take action to move it.

7. What obstacles exist that would prevent exploitation of the constraint?

8. Who needs to be involved to implement the change and what do they need to experience to change their mindset?

9. Never give up. Chance is not linear and can accelerate at any time. Stay the course and be persistent.

There is no "cookbook" for addressing the problems in complex systems. If anyone says that there is, I would advise holding on to your wallet. There is no substitute for real people who have the knowledge, skill, and desire to address the complexity. Someone who has an understanding of the science of systems is going to be a necessity. In my book, Enterprise Fitness, I (Covington, 2009, 134) emphasize the importance of leadership in this role. This person needs to disrupt, honor, and align constantly during the change process. If the top leader in an organization is not ready to change in a complex system, leave and move on to the next system.

Reference

Covington, J. 2009. Enterprise Fitness. Mustang, OK: Tate Publishing & Enterprises.

About the Author.

John Covington is president and founder of Chesapeake Consulting (CCI). CCI specializes in process improvement and leadership development in both commercial and government markets and has been in business since 1988. John did his undergraduate work at the U.S. Naval Academy and the University of Alabama, earning a BS in chemical engineering. Prior to starting CCI, John held engineering, management, and executive positions at a variety of companies including DuPont, Sherwin-Williams, Stauffer Chemicals, and several midsized paint companies. John is a Fellow of both the College of Engineering and the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of Alabama. John is active in charity work for the developmentally disadvantaged and is an active member of his church. He enjoys biking, hiking, and training his German Shepherd, Maggie. He has been married to his wife Linda since 1972.

CHAPTER 38.

Theory of Constraints for Personal Productivity/Dilemmas1

James F. Cox III and John G. Schleier, Jr.

Introduction: A Status Report

Some people are very effective at their jobs and in their personal lives, while others never seem to be able to keep up in either. There are literally thousands of self-help books and articles discussing how to speed read; organize your home, your office, and your life; how to remember names and faces, numbers, etc. For almost every aspect of your life, there are books on how to improve. There is an awful lot of data and little information of value for the individual. We have this personal productivity chapter positioned in the complexity system section of this handbook for this reason. In keeping with the tenants of Theory of Constraints (TOC), we want to identify a few control points in managing your personal productivity that we hope will have significant impact on your ability to achieve your life goals and have a happy and fulfilling life.

The purposes of this chapter are to provide guidance in using the Evaporating Cloud (EC) technique to resolve chronic conflicts in managing both internal and external conflicts to achieve life's goals; understanding the differences between necessary conditions and goals; establishing personal life goals and supporting objectives; understanding how to measure your progress toward these supporting objectives and ultimately the goals; knowing how to record and analyze how you use your time; understanding how to use priority planning, capacity planning, priority control, and capacity control to achieve your supporting objectives; and knowing how to use Buffer Management (BM) to improve your execution effectiveness. We also provide an in-depth application of using the Thinking Processes (TP) to achieve your life goal. We also feel that using the tools to plan and to control personal lives is fundamental to learning how to apply them in other environments.

Copyright 2010 by James F. Cox, III and John G. Schleier, Jr.

Resolving Chronic Conflicts and Developing Win-Win Solutions