I recently participated in a fascinating workshop on Improvement Science that addressed how change happens in a context of systems (used originally in health care and now being applied to education). One of the most thought-provoking assertions for me came in the form of a quote from Paul Batalden:

“Every system is perfectly designed to achieve exactly the results that it achieves.”

In other words, if you build a factory that makes pencils, it will make pencils! There will be some defects here and there, but by and large, it will make pencils and a lot of them. So to make any sort of change in output, you can’t necessarily blame the personnel (although they certainly play a part), but you have to look very closely at the entire ecosystem in which those people carry out their jobs. Is there an inefficiency in the eraser attaching station? (I’m making this up, I have no idea how to make a pencil). Then you can’t blame the worker for attaching erasers too slowly, you have to re-evaluate the process within the system where the erasers are attached. Or, to provide a more day-to-day example, think about your commute to work. I take the 38L (Limited stops) or the 38BX (Express bus, almost no stops) bus every day, whichever one comes first. But if I took the 38 (many stops), it would be less efficient. I can’t blame the 38 bus, I have to make a change to shorten my commute time. Same thing can be applied to driving–if 101 South from SF to the Penninsula clogs up every day during the 7am hour (I experienced this first hand), then you have to make a change: either wake up earlier and commute partially during the 6am hour, or take a different route (280 South). But don’t blame 101 South. It’s handling exactly the traffic it was designed to, driver inefficiencies included.

Alex Smith - A changed man, or part of a changed system?

Or, to take a current sports example, look at the relative success of the 49ers this season compared to last, with essentially the same personnel. What changed? The coach, yes, but essentially what changed was the system! (Full Disclaimer: I don’t really know anything about football, so I am completely open to correction on this analogy).

This all got me thinking–does this sort of improvement science thinking apply to the church context? A common attempt to solve church problems happens on the personnel or people level–change the pastor, swap out small group leaders, use teaching or training to fill gaps in theology or thinking processes, have more prayer and worship times to facilitate people’s connection to God, and many other good things. And this is a natural way to go about things, because that’s what is right in front of us. This is undoubtedly a tricky question, because a church at its core is the people (see my post “Mischaracterizations of Church“), not an institution. However, there is value in a “living systems” approach, which sees the church as a live and active organism that moves, breathes, reproduces, and depends on its constituent parts to form a healthy whole. Moreover, when one part of the system is operating inefficiently or is experiencing some sort of trauma or unhealthiness, then the whole system suffers as a result.

But what if the problem is the system?

From the start, the church is not a factory. It’s not simply an input-output machine where you put a person in one end and get a result out the other. But our post-industrial mindset teds to conceive of church as that way. A better approach would be to recognize the organic nature of the church as a living system working synergistically. As Alan Hirsch aptly puts it in his book The Forgotten Ways, “the church in its most phenomenal form organizes itself as a living organism that reflects more how God has structured life itself, as opposed to a machine, which is the artificial, inorganic alternative to a living system” (Hirsch, 180). What exactly does this sort of approach look like?

“A living systems approach seeks to structure the common life of an organization around the rhythms and structures that mirror life itself. In this approach we seek to probe the nature of life, we seek to observe how living things tend to organize themselves, and then we try to emulate as closely as possible this innate capacity of living systems to develop higher levels of organization, to adapt to different conditions, and to activate latent intelligence when needed (emergence).” (Hirsch, 182)

If we take an improvement science approach to a church organism, then, it would involve identifying unhealthy or inefficient parts of the system (not the people, per se), and correcting them. So if people aren’t growing in their prayer life, a first move might be to evaluate what things are in place that are supposed to foster a healthy environment for growth. Moreover, it’s not simply a “More is Better” approach–it may not be that more preaching or more prayer gatherings is what’s needed to help the overall health of the church organism. What may be needed is a complete re-conception of the system itself. That’s where I think re-constructionists like Hirsch and an improvement science approach can be quite helpful. Instead of applying band-aids or swapping personnel, a living systems improvement approach would require deep thinking and reconfiguration. It would mean asking a lot of hard questions and examining every cog in the church, comparing it to known kingdom values, and removing or changing those parts that don’t conform. That process can be quite jarring, but I think it’s worth it f it means healthier, more Christ-centered disciples.

Not to leave God out of the equation, I think where the application of improvement science principles breaks down is that it can’t account for a transcendent God that constantly surprises us and works as He wants to work. We simply cannot systematize God, and even if we create the “perfect” environment for spiritual growth, ultimately nothing will happen without a work of the Holy Spirit. Simultaneously, as responsible disciples, our task is to listen to God, do what He says, and create the best environment possible in our churches with what we’re given. And that takes work on our part. I think this also breaks down a bit because the church IS the people, and any structures or systems associated with it–when operating organically–are quite intertwined. That makes it hard to just make a systems change that is distinct from the people themselves.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!