Keywords

Introduction

In the Bible, in order for the patriarch Jacob, whose name means “supplanter,” or “deceiver” to become Israel, whose names means “contender” or “fighter” and is also said to mean “prince” or “prevailer” (Biblical Names: Jacob 2008), there had to be a transformational change: there had to be a Peniel.

Jacob had sought to overcome his brother Esau and uncle Laban through manipulation and cunning. But God’s purposes for Jacob and his struggle against God (Genesis 32:24–28 New International Version) brought Jacob to a point of choice: either continuing on his current path; or choose complete dependence on God (Manser 1999). A change needed to occur in Jacob’s self-directed behavior in order that God’s redemptive plan would continue on the course which He had identified. This place of change would be named “Peniel” by Jacob (Genesis 32:30). Jacob did not become the great example of a patriarchal leader overnight. He continued to make mistakes and made some poor decisions. The validating of his name change as declared by the man at Peniel would come after an act of obedience, and his decision to ask his household to put away all of their foreign gods (Genesis 35:1–10). However, in the process of becoming the man God wanted him to be, there had to be a Peniel.

Peniel comes from two root words in the Hebrew. The first part of the word means to turn, perhaps toward someone or something, while the remaining part (el) of the word represents God, specifically Elohim (Klein 1987). Peniel was the place of change, the place of transformation, named thus by Jacob after he wrestled there with a Man whom he would later identify in Genesis 32:30 as a manifestation of Deity (Ellicott 1905).

Organizations today are places of rapid change. Szamosi and Duxbury (2002) in their work to develop a measure assessing the effects of organizational change began their article by stating that change is very much a regular part of life for individuals, and has become synonymous with upheaval in organizational settings as well (Szamosi and Duxbury 2002). This place of change can also be found today in the contemporary church or in para-church programs. It could be at an altar, or in a Bible study, or could be at a homeless shelter or in a drug treatment program sponsored by a faith-based organization. The place of change has always been significant for members of the faith community.

When we consider turning around performance and managing change in organizations, whether in a corporate setting or at an old wooden altar, might there need to be a Peniel moment to ensure that the change actually sticks? Does scripture provide a framework that could be useful in managing people and organizations through change? Does it matter in directing secular organizational change movements whether there is a Peniel moment?

The current chapter addresses three related premises:

  1. 1.

    The first premise is that organizational change is only mildly effective unless individuals within the organization receive and accept the need to change. A literature review will examine research to support this premise. A common approach will be identified from among several models by which the process of change management has been demonstrated to be successful with individuals.

  2. 2.

    The second premise is that the Biblical narrative promotes transformational change that has the potential to be real and lasting, a process similar to Jacob’s Peniel experience. Scholars have codified the stages by which this change occurs, which is more detailed than anecdotal evidence on individuals. A common approach will be identified which will summarize similarities in documented spiritual conversion experiences.

  3. 3.

    The final premise seeks to link both of the former concepts, comparing conversion methodologies and the research on transformational change, by suggesting ways that each methodology can inform the other. In other words, conversion models in the church and in para-church programs have the potential to offer recommendations for how transformational change can more effectively work both through individuals and by extension in organizations.

There is evidence that scripturally based change management processes have demonstrated success in helping people to navigate organizational change. Commonalities and discrepancies in these approaches will be highlighted, and finally a new model for change management based on scripture and the research on these divergent methodologies will be introduced. The chapter concludes with application exercises that build off this new approach to change management.

Background: The Study of Transformational Change

Organizational life often requires its members to adjust to change s in the competitive landscape, which include adjusting prices or adding services to acquire new customers, intensive competition to woo and keep old customers, approaches to innovation which require internal changes in methodology (Barsh et al. 2008), new staff alignments to “do more with less,” new tactical initiatives which aim to reduced budgets and remain competitive, or the acquisition of a firm and the subsequent procedural changes (Downey 2008 and others). One professional association, in training and preparing its adherents for the contemporary workplace, noted that change in organizations is endemic, and organizations need to change rapidly to respond to the many environmental pressures they face in conducting business (Downey 2008).

According to Zenab Kazmi and Naarananoja (2013), the first effort to define the process of change and the management of change in organizations was made by Lewin in 1947 (Zenab Kazmi and Naarananoja 2013). Lewin was a psychologist and humanitarian who encouraged the resolution of social conflict in order for people to grow and learn and restructure their perceptions of the world around them, thereby improving their status in life (Burnes 2004). According to Burnes, Lewin’s planned approach to change comprised of four elements, including Field Theory, which was understanding the starting point of the change; then Group Dynamics, which was seeking to influence the group to change; and Action Research, where research on the forces inhibiting change met the behaviors of the group needing to change. These first three elements are still in effect in research today (Burnes 2004). According to Burnes (2004), Lewin’s greatest contribution, which is typically taught in management texts today, is the fourth element of his recommended approach, which is Lewin’s three-step model: unfreezing, where individuals work to discard old behaviors by destabilizing them; then moving, which seeks to create a motivation to learn new approaches; and then refreezing, where leaders would seek to stabilize the new behaviors within the group (Burnes 2004). Here Lewin seems to see the success of change as creating new collective group behaviors (Lewin 1947).

According to this author, a very close contemporary revisiting of Lewin’s original work would be the book, Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard, written by Dan and Chip Heath (Heath and Heath 2010a). The Heaths’ book draws on research from the fields of psychology, sociology, and additional behavioral studies to highlight the premise that transformational change follows a pattern. Their outline presents as a simple, three-step model very similar to Lewin’s fourth element and three-step approach. So, for example, their first main point is directing the rational side the individual needing to be changed. They use the reference of a rider on an elephant (our emotional side) as being the rational thinking part of us (Heath and Heath 2010a). This corresponds with Lewin’s “unfreezing” stage and the thoughtful consideration of the need to change behavior (Burnes 2004). In order to direct an individual’s rational side, according to the Heaths, we have to convince people that there is a reason to change and present some examples of what change could do and what it might look like (Heath and Heath 2010a). It is also important to script some of the change and point to the destination for the rational side in order to envision what the overall objective would be (Heath and Heath 2010a).

The Heaths’ second main point, similar to Lewin’s “moving” stage, is in motivating the emotional side of the individual, where a person feels the need for change (Heath and Heath 2010a). As will be seen later in the chapter, individuals are rarely persuaded to make significant change based on reasoning alone (Deutschman 2005; Heath and Heath 2010a). So the emotions are strongly considered in this process. With Lewin, motivation to change was unleashed but not necessarily controlled (Burnes 2004). The Heaths suggest that the way to motivate the emotional side is to make the change not seem so great but to start small (Heath and Heath 2010a). The Heaths also recognized that it was important to be clear with people and help them to engage the process of change with small achievable goals.

The Heaths’ final major point had to do with creating an environment which supports change and building habits to reinforce the change (Heath and Heath 2010a). This also clearly resembles Lewin’s “refreezing” stage, in which Lewin seemed to focus on the group processes and reinforcement needed to cement the change. For the Heaths, the focus remains on the potential for individual change, with an element of the social system also in consideration, by tweaking the environment and rallying the herd by having new behavior imitated by others to reinforce the change movement.

So there is evidence here that both the origination of change management theory in the form of Lewin’s work (1947) and a contemporary view of change management based on the Heaths’ research (2010a) follow very closely the same approach. Overall, the Heaths’ model seems unique in its development but tends to mirror the other organizational change research as will be highlighted later. Their approach is a good process, although very similar to Lewin as noted (Burnes 2004). Their approach is psychologically based and seems to build on the way that God has designed us. There is evidence that several faith-oriented leaders have encouraged the review of and the usage of the Heath book (Wertz 2010; Heath and Heath 2010c; Jones 2014 among others). The Heaths reimagining of a contemporary approach to managing change was extremely well received, as the book remained on the New York Times best seller list for nearly a year, and received numerous other awards (Heath and Heath 2010b).

Now, with the specter of Lewin’s classic work (1947) seemingly validated in the well-researched work by the Heaths, why continue with this inquiry? Several reasons, including additional research, state that changing individual behaviors are key to directing and reinforcing change in organizations (Kotter 1996; Deutschman 2005). The Heaths’ approach and Lewin’s approach tend to be more organizational and group based, although they do allow for individual change elements. So one reason would be that individual behavior change needs to be considered as part of the change management process. Branch (2002) suggested that Lewin’s model had an individual component where managers needed to work on changing individuals and reinforcing the change (Branch 2002). But most of the focus of the Lewin model was on influencing and adjusting organizational structures and systems while also managing change in the culture. Also, there is the question with which this chapter began, that of whether there needs to be a Peniel moment to assure that change takes root. Can the faith-influenced manager bifurcate organizational change and God’s sovereign oversight? The faith-influenced manager must ask a more fundamental question: Can real transformational change occur if God is not involved?

A Lack of Change Management Research by Faith-Oriented Authors

Since the Bible is so strongly focused on redemption, new life, and behavior change through the power of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), and since by extension the church is a place where people regularly experience the need to change and where we are accustomed to the change process of discipleship, this might suggest that more articles focusing on change management from a faith-oriented perspective would be generated by managers and scholars within the Christian academic community. Yet in a search of research articles published in the Journal of Biblical Integration in Business (JBIB), a leading source of academic articles by faith-influenced professors teaching at Christian Universities, when entering the word change as part of journal content, out of 145 items only two articles had the word “change” in their title. One title was called “Let’s Quit Thinking About Integration for a Change” (VanderVeen 1997). Organizational change did not seem to be the emphasis of that article. The emphasis was on using a variety of techniques to help students put on the mind of Christ.

The second article was by Yvonne Smith who wrote “A Rock in the Whirlwind: A Changeless God in A Changing World” (Smith 2000). Smith’s article was in response to another article and focused on the changing world around us and the immutable God who does not change. It is not so much an article about change management, although it does discuss God as the rock for people to embrace change in the midst of the sea of change around us.

Michael Cafferky, a retired professor and prolific author of faith-based business books and articles, has written an entire chapter in his textbook, Management: A Faith Perspective (Cafferky 2012), focused on change, power, and conflict (Chap. 13). Cafferky references some key Biblical leaders who led groups through change, including Joseph, Moses, Joshua, and David. He references King Josiah and a significant change effort (2 Kings 21–23), citing the fact that age is not an important factor for leading people through change (Cafferky 2012). He describes the early church and the stressful process of societal and theological change (Cafferky 2012). Cafferky ultimately moves away from scriptural examples toward the historical research on change management, and finally to the moral implications of change leadership, citing White and Wooten (1983).

Cafferky’s six points on managing change are instructive:

  • Change comes about when someone or a group sees the need for change.

  • Solid values are central to the reason for change.

  • Change leaders use existing reporting relationships to affect change.

  • Commitment of resources such as time and energy are made as individuals submit to each other and their beliefs in God’s will.

  • Leaders listen to others in the change process.

  • Leaders are themselves willing to be changed (Cafferky 2012).

Of the six items, only one item discusses God’s sovereignty over the process of change, where individuals submit to each other and to their belief in God’s will in this process. This might not be something which is considered in a secular approach but would certainly need to be considered in a Peniel approach to change. Cafferky’s points are thoughtful, but is there more to God’s sovereign oversight of the change process? In the next part, we will investigate the three premises upon which this scriptural model for lasting transformational change is built.

Premise 1: The Importance of Individual Change to the Success of Change Management Programs

According to Appelbaum et al. (2012), John Kotter’s book Leading Change (1996) became a business management bestseller in describing the process for leading change in organizations. Kotter himself, in the updated version of his book (2012), was surprised that it would be listed as one of the 25 most influential business management books ever written (Kotter 2012). And yet according to Appelbaum et al. (2012) and as confirmed by this author, the original text contained neither footnotes nor references, save for references to Kotter’s consulting work which was the basis of the original book (Appelbaum et al. 2012). Kotter’s material was developed from his own research and his own consulting work.

Kotter advocates that the critical issue in change has to do with individual change, and building “a sense of urgency” to capture individual employee’s heads and hearts in recognizing the need to make changes (Kotter 1996). Szamosi and Duxbury (2002) acknowledge in their research that authors whom they have reviewed placed a great importance on human factors as being very critical to the success of organizational change efforts (Szamosi and Duxbury 2002).

One other article cited research that suggested that most change efforts fail because they are conducted “top-down” and miss what Kotter described as being the significance of impacting the individual heart (Lawrence and White 2013). Nadler and Shaw (1995) opine that individual employees need to be the central focus in change management efforts, not simply the adjustment or redefining of responsibilities (Nadler and Shaw 1995). Palmer et al. (2009) describe the importance of considering individual perspectives in the implementation of change initiatives (Palmer et al. 2009). These authors suggest that complex organizational forces can hinder individual initiative as well as the seeds of behavior change from taking root. These authors acknowledge that problems or crises do not always induce change, using the case of the Challenger explosion in 1986 as an instance where individuals were not heard in calling for cancellation of the launch. A significant disaster had to bring the problems and internal conflicts to light, and even then, change was slow to occur while the organization resisted (Palmer et al. 2009).

Alan Deutschman, Fast Company senior writer, used the occasion of a Global Innovation Outlook conference to investigate the effectiveness of organizational change efforts (Deutschman 2005). Deutschman reported that the biggest challenge for organizations seeking to transform themselves and to be more competitive was the challenge of changing individual behaviors among employees in these organizations (Deutschman 2005). Deutschman wrote that the data on individual change efforts among people with serious medical conditions suggested the odds are 9 to 1 against people making changes, even when their life is at stake (Deutschman 2005). So if people facing a serious life-or-death crisis in their health are not so quick to change, how about those employees who have been doing their job the same way for several years, and who are now challenged to “Change or Die” as the Fast Company article is entitled?

Rhetorically, Deutschman asks why change is so difficult, and why crisis is not a significant motivator to help people understand the need to change, as was reinforced by Palmer et al. (2009). Deutschman then interviewed the aforementioned John Kotter about the effectiveness of organizational change efforts. Kotter suggested that the central issue in change is always about individual change, and changing the behavior of people (Deutschman 2005). According to Kotter, even in organizations which are focused on the need to change and can support this urgency with strong analytics, in order for this change movement to be successful, individuals need to see a problem and own the responsibility to make some behavior adjustments as a result. It has to be more than just head knowledge, according to Kotter – it has to touch the individual hearts (Deutschman 2005).

One change model widely used is based not on organizational change dynamics but instead on death and the grieving process. The Change Curve is a change management model originally developed from the writings of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Kubler-Ross’s book On Death and Dying (Kübler-Ross 1969) was written to help explain the grieving process. The model became a familiar tool for helping people understand their reactions to significant change or upheaval. Kubler-Ross wrote that a terminally ill patient would progress through five stages of grief when informed of their illness. Kubler-Ross suggested that these coping mechanisms as she called them (Connelly 2015) could be applied to other dramatic life-changing situations. This approach was adapted by change management practitioners (Connelly 2015). The Kubler-Ross model has distinctive attributes which mirror one particular scripture passage, the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3–10) in defining dramatic change (see Table 4 in the Appendix).

The Kubler-Ross Change Curve is a familiar tool to assist individuals through dramatic change events, and this is perhaps why the model is so widely used (Connelly 2015). In a similar approach, Haines and Aller-Stead (2005) in their consulting work offer a change management model called the “Rollercoaster of Change” which closely follows the Kubler-Ross stages (Haines and Aller-Stead 2005).

As another example, the ADKAR change model is a research-based approach, according to its author (Hiatt 2006), which focuses on helping individuals manage change. The model and the steps in it represent milestones or key steps through which an individual must go in order to change successfully (Hiatt 2006). Practitioners who use the ADKAR approach (Zenab Kazmi and Naarananoja 2013) state that they use this model because it helps determine the level of readiness among employees at each phase in the change process. It also supports managers in helping employees walk through the process by developing action plans (Zenab Kazmi and Naarananoja 2013). The model also helps managers in understanding barriers that individuals are facing as they proceed through the change process (Zenab Kazmi and Naarananoja 2013).

Kristi Branch (2002) was an often-referenced source on change management, cited by many of the publications reviewed for this chapter. Branch writes that change at the individual level was a concern of many theories describing the process of organizational change (Branch 2002). Branch references a seminal work by author Warren Bennis and others (Bennis et al. 1985), The Planning of Change, as offering three strategies on how managers might guide individuals to better respond to change management initiatives. Nickols (2010) classifies these strategies as follows:

  1. 1.

    Empirical-rational strategies , which postulate that individuals are rational and will pursue self-interest. So in order to succeed, change strategies will need to offer incentives to encourage change.

  2. 2.

    Normative-re-educative or persuasive strategies , which postulate that individuals are social beings and who adhere to cultural norms and values. So in order to succeed, change strategies will need to re-define and re-explain or freshly interpret cultural norms and values while developing new norms and values and encouraging commitment to these new influences. According to Kotter (1996), two factors help to anchor change movements in organizations. One is linking new behaviors and new attitudes introduced in the change process to improved performance, so that constituents see how this different approach really does work (Kotter 1996). Cafferky (2012) also suggests that change must begin at the level of specific behaviors which migrate to shared group thinking among organizational members, and ultimately become rooted in shared values (Cafferky 2012).

  3. 3.

    Power-coercive strategies , which assume that individuals are generally compliant and will do as they are directed or made to do. So in order to succeed change strategies will be based on the exercise of authority and the introduction of progressively more punitive sanctions.

Nickols (2010) adds to this list a fourth strategy, that of environmental-adaptive strategies. These strategies present a picture of loss to people, but also offer the opportunity of newness in terms of a new structure where the assumption is that people will quickly adapt (Nickols 2010).

Branch suggests that Meyer et al. (1990) also offer a fourth recommended approach, which is defined as the mimetic or an imitation strategic approach, where change is promoted through positive examples and new models (Meyer et al. 1990). So this proposal has some similarity to the Nickols’ fourth recommendation.

In order to step back and consider the aforementioned unique approaches to change management on an individual basis, a collection of the aforementioned strategies in total are listed in Table 1. The use of colors/letters in the table is meant to draw attention to similar types of approach.

Table 1 Individual-based models of change management (Bucci 2018). Colors suggest areas of similarity
Full size table

Based on the comparative model map as represented in the table, and the previous review of Lewin (1947) and the Heaths’ (2010a) change models, it seems that there are similar phases that change management on an individual basis must address. These phases are summarized here:

Several models suggest (1) a shock or surprise which makes individuals aware of that a change is at hand. The shock must lead to an (2) awareness of the need for change; the shock itself does not motivate change. This harkens back to Lewin (1947) and the Heaths’ (2010a) understanding of a rational acceptance of the need to change. In some cases (3) anger or frustration seeps into the change process because of the perception of loss. Just as in the sales process (Nickels et al. 2013), where the seller seeks to make the buyer aware of what it is going to take to make this purchase, along with the consequences – we call this avoiding “buyers’ remorse” – in the change process (4) the individual must come to an acceptance of some level of loss of the things outside of their control. If not addressed early in the process, these become resistance barriers (Haines and Aller-Stead 2005; D’Ortenzio 2012).

Then within this change process (5) there is either a transition to an emotional understanding of the impact of the change and a view of hope for newness; or the individual will continue to experience frustration (Haines and Aller-Stead 2005; Craig 2014). The emotions need to be addressed, in order for the individual (6) to grasp and feel a part of the change process. This point is addressed by Lewin (1947), Kotter (1996), and the Heath brothers (2010a). The emotional reckoning of the change (7) supports both a hopeful outcome by the individual and the acceptance of new responsibilities. (8) This stage is supported by examples, models, and some ownership of the change by the individual (Haines and Aller-Stead 2005; Craig 2014).

Finally, managers and employees who more readily adjust to the change serve as models, while the manager reinforces the opportunity for the individual to see themselves as part of the transition, with (9) the opportunity to learn new skills and to integrate into the new patterns.

These assimilated steps mentioned here in the management of individual change are listed sequentially in Table 3.

In this chapter we do not detail well-known organizational change models like Peter Senge’s Learning Organization (Zenab Kazmi and Naarananoja 2013), or the McKinsey 7-S model (D’Ortenzio 2012). D’Ortenzio summarizes several theoretical and practical change models such as those previously mentioned by saying that these organizational change models identify some of the internal and environmental issues existing in organizations, in order to alert managers to hindrances or obstacles to change, as well as to the importance of conveying the expectations of the change process, and a cultural acceptance of the newly learned behaviors.

What is most critical in these organizational models is the need for constant communication, as well as the fact that often times a manager will need to shepherd several processes at one time (D’Ortenzio 2012). For example, it is understood by Branch (2002), as well as Rose (2002), that Kotter’s model is sequential and must be followed as such. But several of the stages might need to be managed at the same time (Branch 2002).

D’Ortenzio also discusses resistance to change, which is really based more on a lack of understanding and the fear of loss (D’Ortenzio 2012). This refers back to the example of “buyers’ remorse.” Without sufficient preparation, individuals will not be able to cope with the change in the expectation that they will lose something of significance or that the change will ultimately not make sense (D’Ortenzio 2012). For this adjustment, it is recommended in several articles that small incremental changes and employee participation in the process is critical (D’Ortenzio 2012).

In all of this, as was demonstrated in the Deutschman article (2005), shock and awe are not the things that promote real change, as much as getting the employee’s attention, enlisting their understanding and then helping them to see implications of the change (Deutschman 2005; and D’Ortenzio 2012). It is from this choice to receive the change that the individual comes to grips with that Peniel moment.

Premise 2: Scripture Promotes Transformational Change That Has the Potential to Be Real and Lasting

It seems that those in the evangelical community would be well-versed in behavior change , based on their understanding of the “born again” experience and the admonition in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” Participants have a front-row seat to some of the most exciting transformational change processes known to man.

One of the major tenets of Evangelicalism is the belief that lives need to be transformed through a sanctification process, including a “born-again” experience and an ongoing process of discipleship (NAE n.d.). Many articles reviewed for this chapter, when speaking of the “born-again” experience of change, utilized personal anecdotes to describe the change process. Ackers and Preston (1997), in an article describing the impact of religious experiences in the lives of employees in the workplace, move beyond personal anecdotes and support with data and outside resources the fact that a transformation does occur in the lives of individuals who express having gone through this born-again experience (Ackers and Preston 1997). The authors cite Martin (1993) and write that there is little doubt that a religious identification with becoming a new creation can be a significant and life-changing experience (Ackers and Preston 1997).

What is the value of the offer of a new life through Christ’s redemptive work if not accompanied by a complete change in behavior? It was our sinful state, evidenced by selfish behavior, which required not only atonement for sin but also transformational change. When described by many pastors and linked to confession of sin, they describe repentance as a 180° change of direction (Giorgio 2008). The redemptive act of Christ in taking our place to pay the penalty for our disobedience to God creates a response by those understanding this selfless act, who then acknowledge their sinful state and then receive this new life through a confession of sin and an expressed desire to change their behaviors. We have historically called this the “ABC’s of Salvation” (LifeWay Church Resources 1984).

Most people leaving the altar after praying the sinner’s prayer do not recognize that while all things have become new in the spiritual realm (2 Corinthians 5:17), there are still some habit patterns which must be changed, as well as new habit patterns learned to support this transformation. So there is a combination of spiritual renewal, sometimes accompanied by an emotional response, combined with a recognition that something has changed in the relationship between God and man, followed by the admonition that behavioral change needs to occur to complete the transformation (John 8:11; Romans 6:1). In repentance and its related renewal process, there is strong spiritual support on which to build true behavior change (Hebrews 4:12), with the Holy Spirit as advocate and teacher guiding this process (John 14:26).

It would not be overstating the obvious to acknowledge that organizational change is much less spiritually informed. Up to this point, the author has not found any documentation to suggest otherwise. Yet we are triune beings created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26; 1 Thessalonians 5:23), and scripture seems to support the fact that our three parts must act in unison in the process of transformational change (James 3:9–12), or perhaps then the change is not really transformational. It has also been noted that there is in organizational change, a Peniel moment when a decision to accept and receive the change must be made. Therefore, in consideration of the Spirit Man inside all persons, there may be examples in the conversion experiences evidenced in church and para-church programs which could inform how transformational change can more effectively work both through individuals and by extension in organizations.

Conversion Models Which Qualify the Scriptural Admonition in 2 Corinthian 5:17

There is a need to move beyond anecdotal evidence of the spiritual transformation of individuals in order to make a valid research comparison to the process of transformational change which occurs in the lives of corporate employees forced to cope with dramatic organizations change. A literature review revealed both academic and para-church-related research articles on the process of religious conversion, which is how the literature refers to this spiritual transformation.

One academic approach identified was developed by Louis Rambo (1993), professor of Psychology and Religion at San Francisco Theological Seminary in his book, Understanding Religious Conversion. Rambo identified seven distinct stages in the conversion process (see Table 2). Rambo proposed that the conversion process begins with some sort of crisis. Several of these conversion theories have this as a consistent phenomenon. This is also similar to what happens in organizations when change occurs: something unnerving or unsettling occurs which threatens the status quo and causes organizational members great anxiety; although as earlier stated, the shock itself may only inform the individual of the need for change (Harrow 2002).

Table 2 Individual-based models of conversion (Bucci 2018). Colors/letters suggest areas of similarity
Full size table

Don Everts and Doug Schaupp, although not academics by trade, interviewed some 2000 adults who had made a decision to follow Christ. In their book, I Once Was Lost, they draw from their research major themes and decision points along the process of individual conversion. See Table 2 where these stages have been identified. While the book is really meant to help those people on the front line conducting camp programs and other types of evangelism, it does again give data support and context for what causes change to occur in the lives of people going from not believing that change was necessary to a point of accepting the transformational change introduced to them.

Snow and Machalek (1984) have described their own theoretical constructs related to conversion (Snow and Machalek 1984). These researchers assess the stages of conversion along the lines of the rhetoric or communication of the transformed individual (Snow and Machalek 1984). The first stage or phase is described as Biographical Reconstruction (Snow and Machalek 1984). This refers to the idea that individuals going through change will reconstruct or reinterpret past lives from the perspective of the current context of the present day (Snow and Machalek 1984). After this, the next stage is called Adopting a Master Attribution Scheme (Snow and Machalek 1984). Here the converted person begins to make sense of themselves, others, and experiences in the change context (Snow and Machalek 1984). The third phase or stage includes the Suspension of Analogical Reasoning (Snow and Machalek 1984). In this stage, the convert avoids using analogy when discussing their beliefs because here, if the change is not attributed to or like anything else, it becomes sacred and personal (Snow and Machalek 1984). The final stage is the adoption or the Embracing of a Convert Role (Snow and Machalek 1984). Here the convert connects with or creates an alliance with the new group and is willing to associate with that group (Snow and Machalek 1984).

In critiquing the Snow and Machalek research, Staples and Mauss (1987) suggest that this conversion process is a radical change in self-concept and involves a change in the way individuals think and feel about themselves (Staples and Mauss 1987). This is very much in alignment with some of the previous discussion about change as developed by Lewin (1947) and the Heath Brothers (2010a).

Snow and Machalek (1984) suggest that, although conversion is a radical personal change, whether or not it is sudden, gradual, or serial in terms of its scope is up to interpretation, and they cite numerous other researchers in support of this (Snow and Machalek 1984). The example of scripture and Christian history can be instructive in this, by giving us several different types of conversion experiences: The Apostle Paul mentions Timothy growing up in a household of faith (2 Timothy 1:5), which certainly had some support for his adopting the faith. St. Augustine acknowledged that he was worn down by his mother’s persistent convictions until his conversion (Samples 2001). Then there was the dramatic conversion of the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9).

Whether ultimately the conversion experience is sudden, gradual, or serial in scope, there is evidence of a profound personal change through this process of conversion. Table 2 summarizes several academic and surveyed models of conversion. Colors/letters were added to the table to present similarities of approach.

Some common themes evident in the conversion theories listed and those investigated would include the following: (1) the tension or anxiety of crisis which would cause an individual to consider changing from their current status and consider transformation or change. This is followed by (2) a search for an acceptable truth outside of their normal frame of reference. Then (3) the individual might encounter someone or somehow be made aware of a new set of beliefs which they investigate. (4) There is then the engagement with others from this new group to discover more, and (5) then a willingness to convert to except these alternative teachings. (6) The transition becomes more solidified with the convert learning the new ways of the group; meanwhile (7) the new group begins modeling and interacting actively to bond with the convert. These assimilated steps in the conversion process are listed sequentially in Table 3.

Table 3 Comparing an assimilation of change model and conversion model stages (Bucci 2018). Colors/letters suggest areas of similarity
Full size table

The conversion of a person to a faith commitment – whether through the power of the Holy Spirit in a traditional church setting, or to a new lifestyle or even to a cult group – reflects similar change management stages as noted with individual change within restructured organizations. In several of the models, including many evangelical settings, it is noted that a Peniel moment would be a significant part of this process. Yet as has been seen with the example of Biblical and historically Christian characters, the process of conversion could include a dramatic event, as in Jacob wrestling with an Angel; or the process could move more methodically through to a gradual acceptance. The fact that the processes reflect similar stages begs the questions of what stages are different, and whether there is some significance to this?

There is no expectation that employees would have anything like a religious conversion experience when moving through change in organizations facing market pressures or significant loss of business. Yet a place of deep reflection, similar to Jacob’s Peniel moment, could be a significant step in an overall change management strategy in leading individuals to a recognition of and to a heart acceptance of the need to change. If managers do not consider something akin to a Peniel experience, will true and lasting change take hold in organizations and be embraced by individual employees?

Premise 3: Assimilation of Conversion Experiences as Types to Assist in Approximating Change Management Schemes

It has so far been documented that managing individual change is key to having change stick in organizations. There has also been evidence that transformational change through a conversion process has been shown to mirror many of the steps in the individual change management literature. A common approach will be identified which will highlight similarities between the organizational change management stages seeking to impact individual change and the research on conversion experiences below. What can be learned about helping people successfully adapt to needed organizational change based on scripture and the experiences of a Peniel transformation?

In an article for the Harvard Business Review, Keith Ferrazzi (2014) wrote of conducting a change management program as a part of his training and consulting work. He was approached by several people who related his methodology for helping organizations manage change to similar methodologies used by Alcoholics Anonymous (Ferrazzi 2014). Ferrazzi did not realize that the approach which he applied in supporting organizational change on an individual level seemed to parallel traditional treatment programs which successfully helped people manage addiction, lose weight, and modify their behavior (Ferrazzi 2014). Ferrazzi’s consulting team did some research into traditional 12-step programs and therapies for troubled youth. They determined that there were similarities in their training in terms of leveraging human nature to modify individual behavior (Ferrazzi 2014). Ferrazzi’s particular practice focuses on managing organizational change by drilling down to focus on changing individual behaviors. But the implications for organizations guiding employees through significant cultural change were striking and held some promise for organizations traversing major change. According to Ferrazzi:

“At the simplest level, the comparison is this: Organizations can’t change their culture unless individual employees change their behavior – and changing behavior is hard. Many change programs focus on providing strategies, technologies, and training. But often that’s not enough. When it comes to modifying deeply ingrained behavior, 12-step programs have a superior track record. They use incentives, celebration, peer pressure, coaching to adopt new habits, negative reinforcement, and role models – things organizations can draw on.” (Ferrazzi 2014, p. 23)

Clients who have been through Ferrazzi’s training have suggested that systemic change cannot happen in organizations without changes in individual behavior (Ferrazzi 2014) as has been discussed. In the process of encouraging individual change, there may be faith-neutral practices applied by leaders or consultants which assist the change initiatives, such as support groups, using candor in performance discussions, and honest self-assessment (Peck 2008). These same techniques are used by large companies and smaller team-based organizations (Biech 2012).

Ferrazzi’s consulting team researched several successful 12-step programs. One program which directly reflected their approach as mentioned was the change management training program used by Alcoholics Anonymous (Ferrazzi 2014). According to their website (http://www.aa.org/pages/en_US), Alcoholics Anonymous is an international fellowship of men and women who have had a drinking problem. Alcoholics Anonymous’s 12-step program is famous all over the world. Since the founding of the program, some efforts have been made to ameliorate the “God concept” from the original program, and some programs built on this model have gone ahead and recommended this adjustment, while other attendees have simply rationalized their way through the “God-focused” steps (Castleman 2011). The AA organization itself has sought to remain true to the principles of the program, affirming this in a book on the 12 steps written by one of the cofounders of the program (see the Introduction, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, Wilson 1953) which has recently been reviewed and gone through its 75th printing. These change principles have work in the lives of hundreds of people since the first meetings were held in 1935. This is a program which leads participants to a defined Peniel moment.

Charles Duhigg, author of The Power of Habit (Duhigg 2012), while discussing change in a radio interview, suggests that there is no practical reason why AA works. According to an interview on the Fresh Air radio program (Duhigg 2012), the author was quoted as saying there are only 12 steps in AA because, “the guy who wrote them was thinking about the 12 apostles” (Duhigg 2012). Duhigg suggests that there is no logic as to how it was designed. Duhigg posits that the reason AA works is because, “it essentially is this big machine for changing habits around alcohol consumption and giving people a new routine” (Duhigg 2012). For all practical purposes, the 12 steps are not amazing or dramatic in themselves. There is an acknowledgment of helplessness, and the need to look for something greater than oneself for restoration. But there is also a Peniel moment, with a deep reflection and the submission of the will to one’s “Higher Power.” This submission to the will of God was a point made by Cafferky in his writing on managing change (Cafferky 2012). Submission to God and another person, a fearless moral inventory, confession of faults and restitution are other keys to the AA process (Wilson 1953).

Author Duhigg does not acknowledge the spiritual implications of AA. Its success in his view is more attributed to connecting people who have an alcohol consumption problem with those who have beaten the problem (Duhigg 2012). And there is truth in the importance of the support network provided by AA. Yet for many who have overcome this addiction, it is the spiritual nature behind the Alcohol Anonymous program with its Peniel moment from which it derives its power. Here again is the point of the article: Can real change occur without a Peniel moment?

What is the difference between the research on change management at an individual level and the research on individual conversion stages? If we suggest that perhaps the key, in the conversion methodology, is the choice of devotion to a cause greater than oneself, as compared to one devotion to 40-hours of hard labor, then we face two challenges: first of all, passion is not accurately measured in any of the research. Secondly, our work, according to Wong and Rae (2011), is not a necessary evil but a way that God has designed for mankind to fulfill a part of its destiny (Wong and Rae 2011).

Do we simply say that the conversion process of change works because of the spiritual nature of the model? The research has not yet found any empirical evidence suggesting this distinctive as a major difference in the approaches. These approaches are very similar in terms of engaging the rational and emotional side as well as the modeling of behaviors, hearkening back to the Heaths’ work (2010a). In Table 3 there is an effort to compare the collective results detailed in the previous Tables 1 and 2 between the change model processes and the conversion model processes.

There are some empirical observations which can be drawn from the comparison of the two unique tracks: that of traditional change management training as compared to conversion theories.

Business requires a commitment but not devotion. Conversion requires a solid belief in the new path, while business requires a tacit understanding of what needs to be done. In conversion, individuals are looking for a change; yet while on the job we do not really want to change. In conversion, individuals are looking for security, while changes at work bring insecurity.

Both approaches require much communication and a clear idea into what people are getting themselves because they will develop a mental picture of the new state themselves if not given a clear image of what this change will represent to them (Kotter 1996). Also, learning and coaching are necessary in any transformational process, to help individuals make the change adjustment. Just as in business, even a person who comes forward to an altar looking for change does not necessarily lose all bad habit patterns. This new convert may need coaching or counseling in order to overcome some habit patterns which are inappropriate in the new culture (Ferrazzi 2014). The irony of this situation is that all the while in the Heavenly Realms their spiritual transformation has taken place (2 Corinthians 5:17).

What can Christian conversion learn from change management? Pastors and altar worker can apply better communication about the change process, engaging both the rational and emotional sides of individuals (Heath and Heath 2010a). There can also be a more pronounced use of good patterns of behavior demonstrated and mentored through individuals who have successfully navigated the process themselves, to help people through the change. There is also the issue of loss (Kübler-Ross 1969). Individuals must come to an acceptance of some level of loss of the things outside of their control.

What can change management facilitators learn from conversion experiences? We know that people are triune beings. They have bodies, minds, and souls. They need to be engaged at the deepest level to view the future state of the change and be involved in understanding the impact of the change in order to help them take greater ownership of the early ambiguous change process (Haines and Aller-Stead 2005). Is this not an aspect of the Peniel moment that has been discussed?

There also may be anger and frustration that spills out at the specter of major change: Some individuals will need to “feel” their way through the change process (Heath and Heath 2010a). So a process of discovery to find this new truth or new reality should not be discouraged due to time constraints, but instead encouraged for people to take ownership of this new path. If managers do not address “WIIFM” (what’s in it for me?), individuals may decide that there will not be anything in it for them, and they may resist the change (D’Ortenzio 2012). Peniel takes a person to the point of what their lives were up to the present state and reveals the potential in the future state. But Peniel requires deep trust, and managers may seek to build change at the organizational level with tacit support from group members, all the while seeking cultural reinforcement but not significant individual commitment (Burnes 2004).

Helping Individuals Navigate the Change Process

We know clearly from scripture that only God can change a heart (Ezekiel 36:26–27); yet the actions of managers and pastors through motivational psychology and counseling can better help individuals to understand how and why we react to certain people and situations and they work through the process of change. These insights are important and necessary, whether we have encountered the need to change through an organizational change program or through a conversion experience. Scripture also presents a vivid process outlined by Jesus Himself which speaks to the need for dramatic change to occur, both individually and socially. Table 4 in the Appendix offers this scripturally based change management approach, known to His followers as the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3–10), where the research in this chapter has aligned the assimilation of data regarding both change management stages and conversion stages from Table 3.

Most of this chapter has described theories of change management and theories of conversion with the goal of identifying a common path for creating and sustaining true change in organizational life. True change here is described as more than process change, but change that is embraced in the heart of the organization’s stakeholders. The author has attempted to identify where each of the separate streams of thought from change management theory and theories of conversion can inform the other, and from this, to recommend a spiritually based model which supports both organizational change and internal transformation. Processes can change and systems will change. But the people of the organization are at the heart of accepting and embracing the dynamic of change if it is to be successfully implements.

Consider the implementation of significant software systems or updated technology business systems. It is understandable that the changing of software processes and systems to accommodate new software and the technological changes in implementing such systems would be daunting and would present challenges to existing staff. But there is a significant cost to the failure of a software system implementation. One website offered several studies which noted the failure rates of major project implementations, and more specifically of IT project implementations (Calleam Consulting 2017).

In a survey conducted by IBM Global Services 2008, it was noted that almost 60% of technology and systems projects failed to meet at least one major project objective, while some failed entirely (IBM Global Services 2008). It was noted in the survey that the major obstacles in implementing these systems was not the difficulty of the IT system itself nor the barriers of the new technology. The main obstacles identified were the changing of mindsets and attitudes in the organization 58%, the impact of corporate culture – and resisting change 49%, and the underestimation of how to adapt the system and its complexity to the existing culture 35%. Conversely when the implementation initiative led to success, it was noted in the research that the support of top management was the most critical area in ensuring the successful implementation of the new systems. Ninety-two percent of executives in the survey noted that senior management’s involvement and support was the most important factor in the implementation of change. This was followed by the involvement of employees at 72%, timely and transparent communication of the status of the change initiative at 70%, and finally the impact of a culture which promotes and support change at 65% (IBM Global Services 2008).

One of the recommendations for beginning the change process was discovered in an interview with a victim of domestic violence. In seeking to escape from the violent behavior in which the victim had lived for some time, as part of the transition away from the offensive environment, the victim was met by and connected with local law enforcement. At that time, the victim wrote out in great detail a statement to law enforcement of all of the actions that were occurring in the home, which included certain criminal offenses such as dealing with drugs and weapons possession, as well as some of the victimization that occurred. But the exercise of writing out the details of the difficulties in the environment from which she was escaping was the first step in helping the victim to own the need for change and to surrender the denial. By writing down the dysfunctions of the current environment, this exercise made the need for change real to this person, and this was the first step in the healing process.

Conclusion

The conclusion of the research is that any change apart from a Peniel experience represents a type of change, similar to the types of love the Apostle Paul presents which are similar but distinct from true agape love (1 Corinthians 13). But unless there is a Peniel moment, organizational change is nothing more than, “a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1b).

As this chapter was being finalized, a colleague’s review was so precious that the entire text is included here:

“It seems that for true change to occur – the change in the individual that will contribute to the transformation of the organization – there has to be this moment when the person turns from the old goals and ways to the new ones that the organization must embrace to survive.”

“In business, the only change that is really necessary is behavior: a person cannot want to change or may think the change is stupid, but as long as they change their behavior, then the organization will change. This is best accomplished with a heart change first, but it is not necessary.”

“This is not true in spiritual change. In a Peniel change, the heart must change; outward behavioral change will not reap salvation if not accompanied by heart change.” (M. Pregitzer, June 1, 2016, personal communication)

Since human beings are made in the image of God, we are wired to truly change in a certain way: from the inside out and by turning from something toward something else. Managing and facilitating that turn is at the heart of change management. For true change to occur, Peniel change should be our focus. In other words, managers should have the heart of the employees as their focus, not simply the tasks at hand.

Since the manager’s role is perceived to be one with a “sacred responsibility” toward their employee, to competently manage and train their people for success (Banks and Stevens 1997), it is the solemn responsibility of those of us educating the future generation of new managers to consider both the tasks and the hearts of our employees. It was God’s purpose for Jacob which brought Jacob to Peniel, and to a choice between continuing in his old destructive habit patterns or to a complete dependence on God (Manser 1999). Through the ministry of business, as we vicariously teach the process of change management with a spiritual sensitivity, we have a great opportunity to present this sacred choice as well.