We Already Tried That and It Didn't Work

In the leadership and administration section of Rev Magazine, an article by Alan Nelson appeared in the Sept/Oct 2006 issue entitled, “We Already Tried That; It Doesn’t Work”. The article was written primarily to inform leaders that trying new things and getting the objection, “we already tried that and it didn’t work” should be considered with more than one perspective. Basically, the leader must discern as to whether the objection raised about past failure is a result of human conditioning or legitimate wisdom.

The author’s purpose in writing this article is to inform leaders of the need for wisdom in discerning the legitimacy of the common objection, “We’ve already tried that and it didn’t work”. The question is this: is the person or persons voicing the objection truly savvy because the idea has been legitimately tried and proven ineffective or are they being close-minded? In order to determine the answer to this question, the author offered some points of consideration for leaders in this situation.

Some points of consideration include asking the question, “Have the circumstances changed?” After considering this question, if the leader can determine that circumstances have changed either inside the church or outside the church, he has a legitimate protest to the objection raised. Another point of consideration is who has more experience in similar situations. The author states, “Wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age, but sometimes you can’t gain wisdom without time and experience. Therefore, it’s legitimate to sit back and say to yourself, ‘Am I being naïve? Is my blindness to the risks a result of my inexperience? What is it that I can’t see, don’t know, am not asking, or don’t understand?’”. Learning from those with experience and wisdom is essential for effective leadership.

The final consideration for the leader is who’s bringing new perspective. People who are in the same environment with the same routine often have tunnel vision. When someone new comes into the organization, their fresh perspective will teach the leader a lot. “New perspectives, even if not fully valid or reliable, provide insights that those of us conditioned to a process or environment overlook”, stated the author. Finally, it is important to note that not everyone who offers this common objection are trying to be negative. Humans dislike negative experiences and it is natural to try and not repeat a negative experience. Wisdom is needed. The article closes with:

“Therefore, prayerfully and thoughtfully seek wisdom in your strategic thinking. Humbly consider negative advice while you take steps to discern whether the opinion is legitimate wisdom or whether it’s a smokescreen for adverse conditioning that we’re susceptible to as humans.”

I think the author accomplished his general purpose in the article however I believe there are other facets that could be discussed as well.

In reaction to the article, my perspective tells me that there are some good points raised here and some good advice. Leaders that inherit existing organizations including existing churches must work even harder to shape, mold, and even reform the church to their leadership style and vision for the organization. This takes time. Church leaders should expect some resistance and some objections to new things. Unfortunately, many pastors and leaders don’t stay at their post long enough to see the results and the fruit of their vision and change. When the leader leaves prematurely, the change that he instituted often falls apart. It is simply too easy for an organization or church to return back to the way things always were. This means going back to doing things the way we’ve always done it. This means the new leader inherits the mindset of those who have been led and the left hanging by previous leaders. It takes time to develop trust and a lot of encouragement to lead people into something new, even if they really have tried that before.