Great inspiration comes to those that listen to genius. Great minds challenge one to think deeper about the problem in front of them. One of those geniuses is Clayton Christensen. Not only is he a Harvard Business Professor and famous author he is also a Latter-day Saint and former Area Seventy. I enjoy listening to him solve business and leadership problems because it makes me wonder if his answers would be similar if asked to solve similar LDS leadership problems.
Clay Christensen and James Quigley (also LDS and a former bishop) were interviewed by The Economist about leadership, corporate culture, and disruptive innovation. I imagine a conversation about innovating home teaching would garner similar answers.
Let’s see what we can learn…
As an Elder’s Quorum President or a Relief Society President have you ever had a new idea for solving a problem that should be implemented? Maybe it is regarding how home teaching is organized, or maybe it is regarding your quorum meeting format. Your new idea feels so profound you can’t wait to share it with the quorum. When you do share the idea, you see some initial excitement and buy-in, but over a few weeks you see no lasting effects take hold. In reality, what you are trying to do with a new idea is change quorum culture—the way success happens. Clay Christensen knows why this is usually difficult…
The Economist asks: What really changes culture in order to allow business to adapt to new innovation?
What Leading Saints would ask: What really changes culture in order to allow quorums to adapt to new home teaching innovation?
Listen to his answer here:
It’s not that leaders have bad ideas about home teaching, but rather they don’t frame the problem effectively in order for everyone to understand it completely. Your job is to give them a language to frame the problem and then they will be in step with you as a leader.
So how is this done?…..How can you effectively change culture in your quorum so that everyone buys-in and executes your idea in a way that will create success (as you have seen it)
The Economist asks (directed at Jim Quigley): What do you think works in changing culture in this way?
What Leading Saints would ask: What do you think works in changing culture in an Elder’s Quorum?
Being the benevolent dictator is difficult. Imagine you have an innovative approach to improving home teaching. Everyone in the group agrees it would be effective but then your meeting ends and the discipline it takes to execute the solution is lacking. The value of the innovative solution is never reached. At this point, many make the mistake of trying to think of a new innovative solution to fix the problem when their real problem is driving the idea “deep into the fabric of your enterprise.”
In this next clip Clay Christensen teaches us a great principle about home teaching.
The Economist asks: How can a manager kill a project that isn’t going to work in order to be more effective as a company?
What Leading Saints would ask: How can a leader make sure home teaching will be more effective?
In his example think of the customer as the home teaching family.
When trying to improve home teaching do you default to the data? Or do you look at the problems.
To create change in home teaching you need to identify the problems people have and how they can be fixed.
This is great insight! You don’t need to understand the home teaching family, you need to understand the needs and concerns in their life to more effectively home teach. The need of the laid off father finding a job is more important than simply making a monthly visit. The home visit many times is classified as the “need” when in reality what they need is a short 10 minute visit so they can get back to enjoying the evening with their children. When approaching home teaching this way the “probability that you will be successful isn’t 100% but it sure isn’t a crapshoot.”
What further thoughts can we apply to LDS leadership from these clips?
To see the full-length interview watch below:
I think sometimes that part of the "problem" with home teaching is that we no longer understand it. Over the years, the term has picked up so much weight, for lack of a better word. We might think of going back to basics — the duty of home teachers is to teach in the home — that's all.
Be the eyes and ears of the bishop? No. Take responsibility for repairing the water heater and the porch railing? No. Just to teach, that's all.
The emphasis on monthly visits is not based in scripture. So if we go back to basics, we can re-characterize monthly as a possible goal instead of a mandate.
A home teacher has an assignment — he can magnify it, or not. He doesn't need to be "managed" as a manager supervises an employee. Rather, he needs to be taught himself — perhaps such as Jethro taught Moses in his tent.
ji_,
Thanks for the comment!
I would agree with you that over the years the priesthood brethren have lost understanding of what home teaching really is. I would disagree that the only responsibility of a home teacher is to teach. We know this because of the direction we receive from our leaders in Handbook 2 and it is supported by scripture
Handbook 2 states:
"Home teaching is one way Heavenly Father blesses His children. Home teachers 'visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties' (D&C 20:51). They are assigned to families and individuals to 'watch over … and be with and strengthen them' (D&C 20:53). They 'warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ' (D&C 20:59)."
"Where possible, home teachers visit members in their homes at least monthly. Home teachers may also find other meaningful ways to watch over and strengthen the families they are assigned. For example, they may render service to the families or contact family members by mail or telephone."
"Home teachers represent the Lord, the bishop, and quorum or group leaders. They can be an important source of help to members. They consult with the head of the household about the family’s needs and about ways to be most helpful."
Like Brother Christensen mentioned, the problem businesses have is looking at the characteristics of the customer which isn't correlated to why they buy. The same goes for home teaching. Just because they are characterized as "members of the ward" or "on my home teaching list" doesn't mean they NEED a monthly visit. It takes the extra step of looking at what "jobs" they have or their needs and helping them fulfill those "jobs". By doing that it makes home teaching what it is suppose to be — bringing people into full fellowship and "watch over … and be with and strengthen them."
I think this is a good discussion and I'd love to hear if you have any further thoughts.
I agree: "the problem businesses have is looking at the characteristics of the customer which isn't correlated to why they buy." And I agree that a comparison can be made to home teaching.
My main point was that, over the years, home teaching has picked up a lot of baggage, and we could perhaps improve home teaching if we could jettison some of that baggage. A return to basics, so to speak. Home teaching existed before Sunday Schools and before wards and before bishops. It was just teaching. God commands all of us to teach everyone else — teaching is so very basic to what we do, and in the earliest days of the Church men were called to to teach the gospel to their fellow saints (I can't say ward members, because wards didn't exist at the time).
If I accept home teaching with all its baggage, well, it can be too heavy a load for me to pick up. If I MUST be the eyes and ears of the bishop, and if I MUST be a friend (a REAL friend) to the head of the household, and if I MUST be the priesthood bearer in the home of a sister, and if I MUST take responsibility for home and auto repairs, and so forth — well, that's my point. If the task was just going to teach, that's easier — and I also believe that even with this basic task, much of the other stuff might also happen as a matter of course — but we're reversed in our church culture, it seems — the other stuff seems to have taken primacy over the basic task.
I also feel that we cannot try to manage members like employees. There is a dignity in the priesthood, and that dignity is lessened when an elders quorum president (or bishop) tries to run his quorum (or ward) with a production and numbers mindset. If we could restore that dignity, then perhaps the numbers would improve also — but focusing on numbers will never improve the dignity.
You can see an example of the baggage in your own posting above — your first paragraph has lots of citations from the scripture (the basics) — your second and third paragraphs have no citations (the cultural accreted baggage). Not that there's anything wrong with the baggage in itself, of course.
If priesthood holders considered themselves as ministers of the gospel, as pastors in other faiths do, then we can live the mindset that we have a small number of families that we focus on, and minister to (as home teachers). Then, we don't need a full-time, paid pastor to watch over the entire congregation. We each do our share as PR holders. Then we become aware that we really do minister to those families as the Savior would. we don't need to try to become their friends, but rather, genuinely become their friends as we love them and serve them. We don't need to worry if a family needs car repairs done and we don't have those skills, we bring the need back to the quorum and as a quorum, the assistance will be found and provided.
I'm a newly sustained elders quorum president of a branch in Asia. The church has only existed here since 1956. I am still in awe and shock at my calling. As I was given it this past week. The branch where I will be serving in is quite new and has quite a bunch of little issues and headaches. It hasn't deterred me from taking the calling or redoubling my efforts. I know the power that is inherent in home teaching I believe in it and I have seen it's affects. It's the getting others energized that makes it a bit of a struggle. The inspiration to stand a little taller and do a little more is key in motivating others. Clearly the numbers game is a losing one. The Lord is not in it for statistics, so why are we?
Good luck with the new calling. All leaders feel a level of anxiety when they are first called. If they don't, they probably picked the wrong person. You are correct. The Lord is not in it for statistics but for the immortality and eternal life of man. Focus on teaching those you lead to serve those and then the "statistics" will come later.
I recommend you read this post: https://leadingsaints.org/home-teachi…
Please continue to share your thoughts.
I just discovered your website and I’m not sure why this post from 2012 is resurfacing in 2015 but I suspect this topic has something for me, though I’m not focusing on the culture of home and visiting teaching. Instead, I’m focusing on the culture of family history work.
The culture of family history work needs to change. I loved how this topic was trying to help me stop thinking I need to develop great ideas but try to look for what problems ward members need solve (in particular to why they are/aren’t involved in family history work, or how to recognize what is being done that data can not represent). The focus needs to be on the culture of turning hearts to the father so that family history work will natural increase as the culture changes. Thank you for this pod cast and commentary, even if I’m arriving at it 3 years later.
Thanks for the comment.
I revised this post and shared it again, that’s why it resurfaced. 🙂 I’m glad you enjoyed it.
Amen! Bishop’s wife here who currently have home teachers who create problems for them to fix (very well intentioned, I’m sure) instead of honestly inquiring what our actual needs are, and they end up putting more stress on us. Really and truly, we just need someone to bring the spirit into our home and not take up too much of our time, but that doesn’t make them feel good enough I guess.
Great men, we love them, but they are definitely missing the mark. It’s not just a problem with home teaching. I see this all over the church. If we don’t feel like we’re serving enough, sometimes we create needs that aren’t there so we can feel like we’ve done some good, to the point where we don’t respect others’ boundaries. I’ve told people “no” very clearly so many times, and very often it doesn’t matter. They disregard my answer and do it anyway. It’s very frustrating.