Goals, Growth and Results

I initially named this “linear growth vs. logarithmic growth” because that’s really the crux of this message, but it’s not as good for SEO. Let me ’splain my thinking:

If a church has a goal of 10% growth in, say, attendance over one year, then it would be logical to expect a 2.5% growth every 3 months (for a total of 10% over a year). That would be linear growth. And it would also probably be unrealistic.

Logarithmic growth, on the other hand, assumes that ramping up will take time, effort and refinement. The growth may be .5% after the first three 3 months, 1.5% at 6 months and a larger ramp-up over the last half of the year. That’s logarithmic growth.

I don’t think it’s a shock to hear that the best results almost always come about after a period of sustained, goal-focused effort. We all want the results (I know I do), but we don’t always want to take the time to really put forth the right kinds of effort to get those results (I struggle with this). A gerbil in a wheel will work, very, very hard and get exactly nowhere.

Maybe it’s different for you, but I’ve found that I focus on that which I enjoy. The key, therefore, is to align my tasks to match up with the objectives (bite-sized and created from the original goal) that allow me do things that I enjoy during the process. For me to get the results, I’ve got to set myself up for success (and it helps if your boss helps you do this, too, by giving clear goals and realistic expectations). Since I’m all about “story”, I’m taking my tasks and doing them in the context of building up towards the over-arching story. Point is, find a way to get those things done, consistently, while filtering them against the goal.

My natural desire to see immediate results. My experiences have shown results come over time. It’s not linear….it’s logarithmic.

Twitter This

Twitter Account Name: Password:

Churches Breaking FCC Law

I wish I had the ear of more pastors. If I did, they would have known by now that the Federal Communications Commission has enacted law that orders all users of the 700MHz band to move frequencies. That may sound like techno-nonsense, but I assure you it will affect a great many churches because older (and often less expensive) wireless mics, in-ear systems and assisted listening systems use the 700 MHz frequency.

As of June 12, 2010, churches must cease using any 700 MHz gear or be subject to prosecution. Here’s the legal mumbo-jumbo:

FCC 08-188 (NPRM&O), Paragraph 14:

“As discussed above, the Commission and various affected parties, such as SBE and Shure, have contemplated that low power broadcast auxiliary devices would lose their secondary status, and would need to vacate the band, upon completion of the DTV transition. We therefore tentatively conclude to revise our rules to make clear that low power auxiliary stations authorized under Part 74 of our rules – including wireless microphones – will not be permitted to operate in the 700 MHz band after the DTV transition.”

My friend Mike Sessler (churchtecharts.org) created a nifty chart (for those who want to dial their inner geek up to 11) showing how this will pan out : Download the PDF chart here.

Fortunately for churches, many of the manufacturers went to battle on The Hill for you (in particular, Shure, Inc. and Sennheiser – thanks, fellas). They lost, but they have since regrouped and made trade-in offers to make this mandatory transition less costly. Check out Shure’s rebate and Sennheiser’s rebate.

So, pastors, follow me on Twitter and have a tech dude speaking into your life. @anthonycoppedge. Oh, not sure about Twitter? Well, here’s a big, shameless plug for my e-book “The Reason Your Church Must Twitter”. $5. Get it.

Twitter This

Twitter Account Name: Password:

The Economy, Churches and Technology

Research guru George Barna’s firm (I also recommend him as an author – see “Revolution” for a great read) has published part two of a three-part series studying the effects of the economy on local churches. The study focused on 1,114 pastors and church executives and was conducted in the fourth quarter of 2009. So far, the results are not only interesting, some are flat-out surprising.

According to the research, “nearly half of church leaders (45%) said they had not (emphasis mine) made any changes to their ministry as a result of the economic problems of the last year.” The remaining 55% have reduced spending, cut staff, reduced missions giving, and/or reduced facilities budgets.

• About 20% of the pastors surveyed have cut budgets, while only 2% to 3% said they “were watching spending, conserving more, shopping for better deals, eliminating non-essentials, freezing portions of the budget and re-evaluating vendors”.
• “About one out of every six churches (18%) indicated that they had to eliminate positions, reduce salaries, rely on more volunteer time, and cut hours from full-time to part-time.”
• “…nearly one in every 25 churches said they had reduced their giving to missions or missionaries.”
• A mere 3% of those surveyed reduced facility budgets.

Doing Less vs.  Doing Differently

The “easy fix” is to simply do less; whether that’s less staff, less programs or less budget – the first response is to make cuts. There’s nothing wrong with tightening the financial belt, but cuts alone won’t provide the church with the leverage to ramp up once the economy turns around.

I thought that David Kinnaman, President of the Barna Group, concluded his thoughts brilliantly as he talked about the challenge of not merely doing less, but doing things differently.

In the past year, most churches have been satisfied to tie down loose financial ends and keep costs under control. That has been no small feat for most organizations, let alone donor-driven congregations. Yet, the surprise is how few churches seem to have clearly and intentionally developed a proactive response to the downturn.

When pastors were asked to identify the changes they had made as a result of the economic downturn only about one out of every eight church leaders (13%) identified what might be described as activities that proactively position the church as a valuable resource to churchgoers and to those in the community.

For instance, many churches understandably have put off purchasing new equipment and technology. Yet less than one-half of one percent of the churches we interviewed said they upgraded their use of technology in order to help cut down on costs or to maximize communication and reach. Some churches were naturally deferring building projects and facility-related expenditures, but virtually none of the leaders we interviewed said they were rethinking whether the future of congregational ministry required or could even sustain their current campus, much less planned facility expansions. And while some churches have offered resources, training and assistance specifically in response to the economic crisis, it is surprising that so few pastors had made strategic shifts to become a significant and vital resource to their congregants and to the broader community. Like so many others, church leaders have been focused on surviving; now is the time, though, to calibrate ministries and strategies to the opportunities brought by the new economy. (David Kinnaman, The Economy’s Impact on Churches (Part 2 of 3): How Churches Have Adapted)

Having worked with churches on the big three areas of consulting (people, process, technology), I’m in complete agreement with David’s assessment. Change is hard. Aligning your people, processes and technologies can make the difference between doing less and doing things differently. It’s harder than only making cuts, but the results are far more effective.

In addition to David’s suggestions, how would you (or has your church already done) help churches think different instead of/in addition to doing less?

Twitter This

Twitter Account Name: Password: