Strategic Review

Every year, our Diocese makes provision for reviewing our life and work together under the leadership of Bishop Greg R.  We call this process a Mutual Ministry Review.  It is not a performance review perse, but rather, a chance to reflect on the work of our diocese and leadership together.

In 2012, we did a far more comprehensive review of the diocese .  We call this process a comprehensive strategic review (CSR).  We invited consultant Russ Crabtree of Holy Cow Consulting to lead us in this process.  

The following methods were used to collect data:

• Surveys were conducted online--Significant that such a large percentage of our people participated in this survey (7-8%, vs. 2-3% which Russ said was usually obtained).  
• Interviews took place with the governing bodies of our diocese and the staff
• Focus groups from around the diocese took place in the varied regions these groups were comprised of people that were NOT active in the diocese but rather new and excited about what they found in their local Episcopal Church

Below is the full text of the CSR Results, Findings, and Recommendations

Comprehensive Strategic Review Results (Phase 1)

Initial results from the first phase of the CSR indicate that the diocese is in a stage of high-energy/high-satisfaction, which is identified as a potentially transformative stage. Crabtree suggests that organizations in this stage may choose strategies of growth, expansion, replication and impact. Rickel stated that the kind of transformation with which the diocese is presented requires sacrifice, a word that comes from the root word for “holy.”

• Other results from the first phase include that members of the diocese are most satisfied when they believe:
• the diocesan leadership has done a good job of developing a shared vision that unites its members;
•  the diocese does a good job of communicating with one another in a way that keeps members aware and engaged;
•  the diocese is effective in recognizing trends in the larger society and in helping members adapt in order to deal with changes;
• the whole spirit in the diocese makes people want to get as involved as possible; and 
• the diocese does a good job helping each member understand s/he has an important role to play.

Crabtree said if he could encourage continuation of anything, it would be these fives things as they are identified drivers of satisfaction in our diocese.

He reported that when asked where they would like to see additional energy applied in order to expand or improve the work of the diocese, the following were identified as the top four areas:

•  equip rectors/vicars and other congregation leaders with strategies that enable them to reach new members; take a leadership role in working with churches that are struggling;
• develop a discernment process to rethink how to be vital Episcopal churches in this specific region; 
•  equip rectors/vicars and other leaders to help members become growing, vital disciples.

Results also indicated that, compared to similar organizations, the greatest strengths of the Diocese of Olympia are a positive spirit between church leaders and diocesan leaders; success in helping churches become more vital and effective; and diocesan leadership as a valuable resource in helping churches cultivate financial giving.

Comprehensive Strategic Review (Final-Executive Summary)

There is a clear desire for the Diocese to build on these critical strengths and to focus additional energy on developing healthy, vital, growing congregations. Members also indicate that the church they envision will need to be significantly different from the current state.  Key in their thinking is a church that is more diverse, younger, and welcoming.   At the conceptual level, there is broad understanding that this will require a significant rethinking of what it means to be Episcopal churches in the region. Members respond positively to the assertion that a cultural shift will be required, a change process that goes much deeper than developing new programs.  However, when they speak of how their congregations contribute to the vitality of the Diocese, programs are one of the words they most frequently use.

The organizational culture of the Diocese appears to be flexible and progressive with strengths in the capacity to reflect, advocate, explore, and include.  However, members may be challenged in their ability to anticipate the emotional and spiritual impact of the changes they imagine.  Church members in denominational systems across the country share a common vision for the congregations they desire in their future.  Embracing a set of strategic values, rewards, and penalties, and the adoption of fresh tactics and practices is what that they find most daunting.

For a cultural shift is to be realized, communication will be critical to the enterprise. This communication system will not only need to be two-way, it will need to be horizontal as well as vertical, that is, connecting congregations to one another for the sharing of best practices and organizational learning.  In addition, communication will need to be multi-channeled, face to face, face to group, print, and digital.  The Diocese has made significant strides in this direction with its video sites, but members indicate that a reliable and comprehensive communication system is yet to be achieved.

Finally, the priorities articulated by respondents in the process are outcome-based.  This will require a shift from process measurements, for example, descriptions of events and procedures, to outcome measurements, for example, changes in demographic data for church populations and changes in church climate.  At present, the Diocese does not have a system of organization intelligence in place sufficient to support to an outcome-based strategic plan.   

Finding #1 The Diocese is currently in a transformational strategic position (on a scale that includes chaotic, recovery, and static) with high levels of satisfaction and energy, and a relatively low level of polarization compared with other regional associations.  Strategies that are appropriate to organizations in this position include growth, expansion, replication, and increased external impact. [L] [FP]

Finding #2 With regard to trajectory, trend data suggests that the current strength is the Diocese is relatively new in its recent history and is uniform across every level including Diocesan staff, governance team members, and local church leaders. [L] [P] [FP]

Finding #3 The organizational focus is on leadership and vision as the major determinants of how people feel about the Diocese.  These are also critical strengths in the current level of vitality. Members of focus groups name Bishop Rickel most frequently (31) as the factor contributing to vitality expressed through focus, clarity, and goals (11), leadership (8), communication (8), and, honesty and transparency (3).   [L] [FG] [FP] 

Finding #4 Supporting congregations is another critical strength of the Diocese which includes helping congregations adapt to societal trends, become more vital, navigate transitions, and cultivate financial giving.  One significant way this strength is being expressed through the College for Congregational Development (4). [L] [FG]

Finding #5 With regard to future investment of energy, the top priorities indicated by leaders across the Diocese are focused on creating growing, vital disciples and congregations (12) which includes attention to churches that are struggling.  This is envisioned as a church that will be significantly different (19), including more (37) youth and younger people (18), diversity (10), connecting (13), welcoming (9), and communication (5). The lowest priorities are focused on building support for and a higher level of trust in the Diocese. [L] [FG]  Note: Since 95% of surveyed churches indicate that reaching families with children and youth is their first or second priority, Finding #5 represents a continuation of the current Diocesan priority of reaching persons under 35 years of age.

Finding #6 The organizational culture of the Diocese is adaptive-progressive (on a scale that includes adaptive-conservative, settled-conservative, and settled-progressive).  The typical strengths of this culture include curiosity, exploration, advocacy, articulation, conceptualization, analysis, innovation, and inclusiveness.  The shadow side of this culture that frequently threatens the fulfillment of its vision typically includes difficulty establishing boundaries (who we are and what we will do in contrast to who we are not and what we will not do) and overreliance on intellectual processes to effect change. [L] [FG}

Finding #7 In response to the statement that this vision will not be accomplished by a program, but by a complete cultural shift members expressed some excitement (8).   They quickly grasped that there was a difference (15) and that a cultural shift would involve significant change (18), though they described it in a variety of ways.  There were a few acknowledgements of the challenges at this level of change such as feeling uncomfortable (2), fear (3), and pain (1).  As evaluated by local church leaders and the governance team, the Diocese scores higher on flexibility than any other regional association in the database with typical flexibility scores among staff.  Respondents indicate that a significant need for change remains. [L] [P] [FG]

Finding #8 In order to reach their communities, members indicate they will need to listen (9) to what people (29) need (26) and offer acceptance (11). A key idea, expressed in a great variety of ways, is that churches may be creating unintentional barriers for people and that the Diocese will need to learn how to connect the message and the traditions that express the message in ways that will relate to where people are. [FG]

Finding #9 With regard to organizational performance, members identify communication as an area in need of improvement.  This is expressed as a need for more (10) with a number of expressions that the current level of communication is not (12) meeting expectations.  Developing better communication is the second priority of the staff, the fourth priority of the governance team and a driver of satisfaction across the Diocese. There were concerns expressed about not receiving the Voice (12).  Members generally favored email (17) communication with specific appreciation regarding the Bishop’s responsiveness to

emails.  A range of communication channels is envisioned that not only include emails, but also the website (11), videos (3) webinars (1), blogs (1), and social media (1).  Staff members indicate that equipping them to make better use of technology is the change most likely to improve their effectiveness or quality of the work experience.  Significant generational differences were expressed regarding expectations in the use of technology. [L] [P] [FP]

Finding #10 Significant regional variations appear in responses which highlight different needs, different levels of connection to the other churches of the Diocese, and different levels of motivation to become engaged. [FP]

Finding #11 Untapped potential appears as an opportunity at both the governance team level and across the Diocese.  Clarifying expectations and leadership development are high priorities the governance team. 41% of respondents across the Diocese agree, to one degree or another, that they feel they have something to offer the Diocese but don’t know how to give it. Extrapolated over the respondents to the survey alone this represents 750 persons. [L] [FP]

Finding #12 There is significant support for a planning process subsequent to this review.   Initiating a participatory planning process is the first priority for the governance team and the third priority for the staff. In spite of the fact that leadership and vision is a critical strength of the Diocese, only 16% of persons across the Diocese clearly agree that they know where the Diocese is headed and how it will get there, even though two thirds of them indicate they are moderately or very aware of the work of the Diocese. [L] [FP] [P] 

Finding #13 Climate assessment scores for the staff are in the average range, a fact that would be unremarkable were it not for more robust scores at other levels of the organization.  Scores in the personal and professional development are very high. Potential areas for conversation include the application of policy and how the gifts and strengths of staff members are identified and built upon. Staff priorities for the future have been articulated in other findings. [P]

Finding #14 Clarity of the leadership team regarding the perspectives, experiences, and aspirations of persons across the Diocese is very low, which is typical.  The estimates of the leadership team regarding key metrics such as the percentage of persons satisfied with the Diocese are off by a factor of 50%, which is also typical. It is reasonable to assume that any other group of 40 persons in the Diocese would be equally unclear regarding the perspectives of members as a whole. There is no systematic, sustained, comprehensive approach to collecting organizational intelligence that is evident for either the Diocese or its congregations.  Beyond tracking numbers of members and dollars, the leadership appears to have no way of knowing the extent to which it is achieving the goals suggested by these findings. [LCC]

Based upon the findings presented in the previous section, we present the following recommendations for consideration in subsequent planning processes. 

Recommendation #1 That the Diocese adopt as its fundamental purpose and unique expression of the Kingdom of God the creation of an array of ministries that support the development of healthy, vital, and growing congregations.  In many cases, this will mean supporting and possibly expanding the good work of the College of Congregational Development.  The actual wording of a purpose or mission statement is left to the creative gift of the Diocese.  

Recommendation #2 That the Diocese adopt a strategic vision that every church within its boundaries of every size and in every context will exhibit extraordinary signs of health and vitality as expressed through the perspectives, experiences, and aspirations of its people, and that the Diocese of Olympia will become a national leader in the renewal of the Episcopal church.  

Recommendation #3 That the leadership of the Diocese conduct an organizational audit to discern the current cultural markers  in terms of critical ideas, vocabulary, values, rewards, and penalties that can be compared and contrasted with the strategic culture required to achieve the vision. People need to understand the required cultural shift in concrete terms that specify how each person can contribute to the realization of the vision.

Recommendation #4 That the Diocese develop a standard methodology for assessing the vitality and

relational networks of its congregations that can serve the following purposes:

a. Provide the metrics that will enable the Diocese to gauge progress.

b. Provide the information that will help Vestries with planning and evaluation.

c. Help churches with succession planning

·         Transition management and bridging strategies

·         Search profile and critical leadership requirements

·         Rector start-up

d. Assist Rectors in the process of discerning whether to seek another call

e. Provide the basis for the visit of the Bishop to congregations

f. Provide an early warning system for churches with eroding vitality

g. Identify best practices and potential mentoring churches

h. Clarify key issues for clustering churches

i. Aggregate data from congregations to Inform the Diocese regarding its allocation of resources

j. Provide a dashboard for the Diocese regarding its churches and their needs.  

Recommendation #5 That the Diocese administer the Portal®/Landscape® in 2014 in order to document progress compared to its 2010 results and provide the information to update its plan. 

Recommendation #6 That the Diocese administer the Pulse® in 2014 in order to document progress compared to its 2012 results.  

Recommendation #7 That the Diocese administer FocalPoints© in 2013 in order to document progress compared to its 2012 results.

It is understood that these are to be considered in the context of a much larger process that will address

environmental opportunities and threats, research and resource development, promotion of Diocesan services with congregations, delivery systems, evaluative processes and feedback loops, staffing rationale, and facility analysis.