How the Mighty Fall

[_kairos]

There are some interesting concepts in Collins' 'principles" and your insights into their applicability to the Mormon organization-thanx!

I remember when the CEO of my company mandated Good to Great be read by all VP's and above. He even quizzed us in high level staff and trustee meetings. However he fell from power much as Carly Fiona? did by not having a good cover of loyal trustees in his corner. A silent coup took place mainly based on rumor enhancing a business loss during the Olympics when a foreign government stiffed our company for about 25 million dollars-it was recovered mostly in international courts but the CEO was long gone.

The informal network of power persons in an organization can pull off such activities if there is usually one or two "leaders " in that group- companies usually suffer not only in terms of revenue and growth but also in employee morale for hardly is the true story of the demise of a CEO or board chair brought out.

In the Mormon church organization we here that junior apostles speak only when asked; Nelson has a tight grip on "everything he wants" and may really trust only his buddies. Nelson probably cannot call out all of the apostles names from memory and Loyalty and Obedience are the principles that dominate in the decision making apparatus. The prophet is never wrong and president newsroom makes sure of that.

So do principles like Collins has laid out drive or heavily influence the RC or Mormon church? Are not the informal relationships driving the decisionmaking train? Can a coup occur in the Mormon church-tried but failed during Joseph Smith tenure and BY ruled probably off the top of head but with an iron fist.

Until one or more apostles decide it is all BS and go public, there will be few significant changes even as the ship continues to take water and is sinking.

Very sorry i took a probably way off base angle but your posts ignited a few random thoughts.

Thanx again Doctor Moore for your postings!

k

[Guest]

My brother has been an executive in a couple of large companies and he liked Good to Great, but I'm suspicious of anyone's fourth book. You can make a great first book by spending years on it and then if you're lucky it may sell, but once you're contractually obliged to produce so many books in so many years it's a rare author who doesn't stoop to padding.

I'm not likely to read this book but what I see looks suspiciously like description of symptoms masquerading as analysis of causes. And half a dozen "markers" for each "stage" toward decline, with the disclaimer that not all markers are always present, looks like the kind of stretchy sock that can fit any foot.

Some of these markers even look tautological. "Not enough right people in key seats" is something you're bound to be able to say in hindsight about any company that fails for any reason, because "company doesn't fail" is part of the definition of "key seats" and "right people".

Is it really better than that?

PG, excellent observations and thank you for sharing.

No clue what Collins' book deal was, but runaway success business books like Good to Great are rare animals. Even more rare are runaway second, third and fourth books. Collins is no exception, his first was his best. I imagine each successive book in the series found publisher review easier, drafting off of the combined virtues of brand awareness and the unique insights brought to the field through new research. Lower risk and less marketing cost, means greater odds of a profitable book on a smaller run. That would make more sense than committing to run as-yet undiscovered research and frameworks, obligating Collins not only to do new research, but to figure out what questions to ask next.

I hear you on the half-dozen markers and symptoms described as analysis. Perhaps that is my fault for listing only end-chapter bullet summaries, rather than attempting a more thorough review. He covers most of the root causes through case studies in the text, and also provides examples of cases in which each problem behavior have been addressed to positive effect by successful turnaround leaders.

Collins focuses more of his research and books on large enterprises. Maybe by design, because he looks at very long term trends. Good to Great, as I recall, had a decades+ stock price outperformance as a minimum threshold for consideration in the study, which would tend to narrow the field to companies that managed to successfully compound long-term growth. Study of large enterprises, being more complex, should not be expected to produce one or two silver bullets or one-size-fits-all predictive frameworks.

I hear you also suggesting a sort of common sense to all of this. On one level, that speaks to your impressive accumulated experience, education and associated pattern recognition (seriously). Two other thoughts. First, you aren't wrong - the most helpful management frameworks do look like common sense in hindsight. Second, there is enormous complexity involved in building and sustaining a business -- layers of people dynamics, products, markets, finances, all moving together towards or away from business goals.

As I learned in business school, every case is a little different and a little bit the same as another. Look at enough business cases and patterns start to emerge, but the patterns can always be clouded over by some unique factor -- a vagary in market structure, irrational competitor behavior, mood swings in the capital markets, equity ownership, capital structure, technology change, etc etc etc.

So as you might expect, the most successful business books, like Good to Great, sift through so much noise and draw out a signal. Operationalize that signal into a helpful framework, and voila, you are a business guru.

Most highly regarded business frameworks do not have a one-size-fits-all magic bullet test. This may explain why we have Porter's five forces, not two forces. Collins' 6-7 indications of a stage of decline, instead of just 2 or 3 makes sense enough to me. Every course I took in business school was 100% case-based. By semester end, we had accumulated 5 to 10 of the most common lessons learned or accumulated wisdom, across dozens of cases. Often the case protagonist would come in on that case day and share with the class what went through her or his mind at the time. If the class was Marketing, factors from across the rest of the business mattered, but we focused around the difficult Marketing decisions. The final exam was another case. The one message hammered into us day after day is that there aren't easy answers, indeed there aren't "right" and "wrong" answers. Great business leaders have a LOT of crap to pay attention to in order to produce great results year after year.

It is tempting to over-simplify issues and paint business wisdom as common sense, but that does injustice to the manifold elements involved in the calculus.

Take one of the most over-simplified business theories of our generation: Christensen's disruptive innovation theory. Because technology changes so fast in our society, the theory has spread like wildfire. Almost every entrepreneur I meet today has heard of it and believes their business applies disruption theory in some novel, disruptive, way. And almost all of them are mistaken because they've distilled a multi-part theory into a simple rule of thumb.

Your last point on people in the right seats is true enough. The symptom is easily seen, but root causes do vary and that matters. It's one thing to just hire the wrong VP and face the consequences, or leave a bad person in the role too long because hard conversations are not your thing. I believe Collins' draws on the well known but oft repeated problem, going back to stage 2 as a precursor, that companies in a wanton quest for growth will more often than not trade off hiring standards to achieve capacity targets. Doing so does not assure failure, but it compounds the odds of failure when combined with other issues. And unfortunately, in the growth phase, it just feels oh so right.

Think, for instance, if the LDS church had NOT been so consumed with growth as a manifestation of its divine origin, but instead put relentless emphasis on the quality of new Bishops. I mean, a ridiculously high bar: extensive training, mental health evaluations, background checks, deep reference checks, apprenticeship. Required education courses in psychology, law, divinity, child development, leadership, organizational behavior, public speaking, and member-level knowledge of at least 5 other religions. Say the program was so intense, it took 5 years to produce a new LDS bishop. What would be different in the church today? Obvious answer, the church would be a lot smaller and missionaries would have done something other look for baptism candidates all over the place. More seriously, though, what might be healthier and better for the church as an organization seeking to do good things in the world?

[_Dr Moore]

Until one or more apostles decide it is all BS and go public, there will be few significant changes even as the ship continues to take water and is sinking.

Kairos, unfortunately there is too much truth in what you say. But it is a trap of their own making.

[_lemuel]

Collins focuses more of his research and books on large enterprises. Maybe by design, because he looks at very long term trends. Good to Great, as I recall, had a decades+ stock price outperformance as a minimum threshold for consideration in the study, which would tend to narrow the field to companies that managed to successfully compound long-term growth.

We call this "sampling on the dependent variable." Collins is more of a good storyteller than a good scholar. That's not a bad thing.

Take one of the most over-simplified business theories of our generation: Christensen's disruptive innovation theory. Because technology changes so fast in our society, the theory has spread like wildfire. Almost every entrepreneur I meet today has heard of it and believes their business applies disruption theory in some novel, disruptive, way. And almost all of them are mistaken because they've distilled a multi-part theory into a simple rule of thumb.

The smartest thing the church could do would be to put Clay Christensen in charge of it.

[_kairos]

Collins focuses more of his research and books on large enterprises. Maybe by design, because he looks at very long term trends. Good to Great, as I recall, had a decades+ stock price outperformance as a minimum threshold for consideration in the study, which would tend to narrow the field to companies that managed to successfully compound long-term growth.

We call this "sampling on the dependent variable." Collins is more of a good storyteller than a good scholar. That's not a bad thing.

Take one of the most over-simplified business theories of our generation: Christensen's disruptive innovation theory. Because technology changes so fast in our society, the theory has spread like wildfire. Almost every entrepreneur I meet today has heard of it and believes their business applies disruption theory in some novel, disruptive, way. And almost all of them are mistaken because they've distilled a multi-part theory into a simple rule of thumb.

The smartest thing the church could do would be to put Clay Christensen in charge of it.

Never mind his organization skills and business genius, I bet he prays like a child with arms folded like taught in primary- that is he has drunk the koolaid so deeply, been indoctrinated thouroughly that he is just another blind sheep in the fold- he has investgated Mo'ism deeply yet he seems to have no shelf or he has calculated that leaving will disrupt
His family and everything religious in his life. Now he is one John D should interview. Sad he can't see he has been had!

k

[_lemuel]

The smartest thing the church could do would be to put Clay Christensen in charge of it.

Never mind his organization skills and business genius, I bet he prays like a child with arms folded like taught in primary- that is he has drunk the koolaid so deeply, been indoctrinated thouroughly that he is just another blind sheep in the fold- he has investgated Mo'ism deeply yet he seems to have no shelf or he has calculated that leaving will disrupt
His family and everything religious in his life. Now he is one John D should interview. Sad he can't see he has been had!

k

I've met him a couple times. Very genuine and gentle soul. Strikes me as the type trying to reform from within.

[_Physics Guy]

The symptom [of not enough right people in key seats] is easily seen, but root causes do vary and that matters. It's one thing to just hire the wrong VP and face the consequences, or leave a bad person in the role too long because hard conversations are not your thing. I believe Collins' draws on the well known but oft repeated problem ... that companies in a wanton quest for growth will ... trade off hiring standards to achieve capacity targets. Doing so does not assure failure, but it compounds the odds of failure when combined with other issues. And unfortunately, in the growth phase, it just feels oh so right.[emphasis added]

This makes the point not so trivial, especially the bolded sentence.

Think, for instance, if the LDS church had NOT been so consumed with growth as a manifestation of its divine origin, but instead put relentless emphasis on the quality of new Bishops. I mean, a ridiculously high bar: extensive training, mental health evaluations, background checks, deep reference checks, apprenticeship. Required education courses in psychology, law, divinity, child development, leadership, organizational behavior, public speaking, and member-level knowledge of at least 5 other religions. Say the program was so intense, it took 5 years to produce a new LDS bishop. What would be different in the church today? Obvious answer, the church would be a lot smaller and missionaries would have done something other look for baptism candidates all over the place. More seriously, though, what might be healthier and better for the church as an organization seeking to do good things in the world?

This is closer to the way mainstream churches train their clergy. Training for ordination is typically several years of full-time study at an accredited seminary, followed by a couple of years of internship in some kind of junior ministerial role. Then in return for that large investment mainstream clergy have a career in a respectable middle-class job. They are not expected to perform their religious leadership duties on top of a normal life.

How much better is this than the Mormon model of amateur clergy? I can't compare the two from my own experience. I've always been impressed by the professionalism of clergy I've known. Mainstream churches aren't growing much nowadays.

[_Dr Moore]

How much better is this than the Mormon model of amateur clergy? I can't compare the two from my own experience. I've always been impressed by the professionalism of clergy I've known. Mainstream churches aren't growing much nowadays.

Maybe that's a good thing? I would prefer less volatility and more predictability in the clergy, even if the organization isn't growing, even if it meant paying the clergy. Growth in numbers doesn't make a church super successful, any more than growth in national parks, local soccer teams, or bowling leagues makes those enterprises successful. It starts with definitions of success and purpose.

Your comment made me think a bit more about the Mormon model of "sustaining" leaders, even (especially?) local leaders possessing enormous training & education deficits. This is not just a nice activity to support each other, it is arguably a requirement for the growth-at-any-cost model to work. Furthermore, the notion of a God-inspired "calling" heightens the stakes for members who might otherwise be tempted to point out those flaws and ask for change.

As it becomes more evident that local leaders are not only poorly trained, but also not God-called, cynicism grows and weakens the whole. This isn't a new thing, but the information age accelerates awareness. And the solution, sadly, by upper management has been to blame members, claim revelation for belated changes, and meanwhile to redefine humility to mean submission to leaders.

[Dr Moore]

Adding the original graphic, which was lost in the site migration.

https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts/fiv ... cline.html

fivestages.jpg (18.02 KiB) Viewed 403 times

This post was made 3 years ago. Recent events prompted me to ponder Collins' important work again. I think it is highly relevant to the institution of the church. To be clear, when I say "church" in this context, I am looking at the enterprise comprised of interconnected structures: members, leaders, policies and theology, or in the operative metaphor: employees, leadership, systems and product.

========= 2019 RECAP =========

In 2019, I felt the data indicated an enterprise that had moved beyond stage 2 (represented by the 1970s-1990s, mistaking size and growth with greatness), and was exhibiting a number of stage 3 markers, and some stage 4. For a litany of reasons, Russell Nelson has served as a catalyst for the decline of the church, and for all we know this may have been his intent (shrink to grow, so to speak, by consolidating the Saints around greater fundamentalist devotion).

Looking back to 2019, in my mind, the biggest issues marking stage 3 were:

• 3.1: Whitewashing history, inventing miracles while ignoring failures & missed opportunities; PR stunts re small donations to equality groups.
• 3.2: "Hastening his work" mission age & Holland's 100k missionary goal; building many more temples as activity & utilization flatlined.
• 3.3: The POX (policy of exclusion) manifested its catastrophic downside risk & was thus reversed. The "essays" may have been a necessary gambit, but the downside risk was immense and thus we see subsequent equivocation and de-emphasis.
• 3.4: Notion of councils reliant on file leadership & patriarchy; team dynamics in church leadership have never followed proven, sustainable models
• 3.5: Blaming members, blaming Google, blaming "unreliable" or "unfaithful" sources for loss of faith; blame anyone but the people in charge. Excommunication of Sam Young.
• 3.6: Nelson's rapid-fire changes, rebranding, re-organizations: Mormon, 2hr Church, Scouts, new hymnbook announced, Home TeachingMinistering, HPG consolidated with EQ, youth interview changes, weekly missionary nod to phone home, civil marriage OK prior to sealing, ward YM presidencies discontinued, women can witness baptisms, temple ceremony asks wife to covenant to obey God, not husband... as Holland noted in 2018, "President Nelson, I don't know how many more 'rushes' we can handle this weekend."
• 3.7: Small notions of apostle worship, such as standing when they enter/leave room, remain seated until they stand, and near-doctrinal insulation of leaders from rank and file members under the guise of "order" and "file leaders." Plus: let's not forget Nelson's world stadium tour.

In 2019 I also saw early signs of stage 4 decline:

• 4.2: Many of the practically benign adjustments in 3.6 above were introduced with revelatory fervor and fanfare. Thus the energy attached to ordinary or experimental changes felt way out of proportion.
• 4.4: Early signs of disappointing results in previously overhyped changes, most notably the much-touted "hastening the work" mission age reduction, which had the mathematically guaranteed result of juicing missionary numbers temporarily. Holland, bafflingly, extrapolated the trend and predicted 100,000 missionaries. But just as mathematically predictable, the numbers normalized back down, and "hastening the work" is now uttered less frequently than "Mormon" in general conference.
• 4.5: Anecdotal evidence of cynicism in church pews, meetings, activities, and between active, believing members of my family.

========= 2022 UPDATE =========

Well, here in 2022 I see all of those stage 3 signals pulsing even stronger. And, I see more by way of stage 4 evidence. Here's a summary of notables in the past 3 years:

• 3.1: Three years of Newsroom statements on Church finances, but zero transparency in the form of actual financial statements; legitimate questions about money/charity/investments are wholly discounted over the pulpit, while every small donation to any good cause receives its own Newsroom article. "See how we care about charity, but don't you dare ask us for transparency." Ongoing questions about Church history are minimized/mocked in frequent BYU/youth firesides which reiterate faithful narratives.
• 3.2: We are now at 300 announced temples, nearly double the number of temples in existence when Nelson was illegitimately (prior to churchwide common consent) set apart as President. In that same time span, membership has been scarcely better than flat, and active tithe-paying membership is likely down.
• 3.3: Likewise, the gospel topics essays have been diluted and de-emphasized. One new big bet with downside risk: the new FSY guidelines no longer proscribe certain activities which the church technically hates -- grab popcorn and queue the fireworks over tatted missionaries, 10-earring temple wedding photos, Bishops encouraging masturbation, and the like.
• 3.4: The march toward further numbing believers to embrace autocratic leadership, who want to never be criticized for gross errors, continues. The latest salvo, this talk by Ahmad Corbitt: "Activism toward the Church... is one of the great mists of darkness of our time... an especially effective tactic Satan is using to blind and mislead the young..." This is precisely opposite what healthy organizations do: loyal opposition should be welcomed, and social activism should be encouraged with civility, not silenced or shamed. Here we see Nelson's hypocrisy on full display. He likes to say that "good information leads to good revelation." But the best information often emerges through activism because the people at the top can't or won't see the reality without help. If there is one glaring cause of decline in the church, it is this erosion of healthy team & leadership dynamics. The model being pursued by church leaders is not healthy, not sustainable, and not effective.
• 3.5: Blame-shifting on people who leave continues at a fever pitch, even as panic sets in (see 4.1). Insistence on avoiding unfaithful sources of information, blaming "lazy learners & lax disciples" or those "disaffected" for some sort of hidden agenda to propagate lies and misrepresentations. In this environment, church leaders are implicitly teaching that NO ONE who leaves can be trusted to tell the truth. "Stay in the boat" is synonymous with "anyone not in the boat is an untrustworthy pirate." The charade has become almost comical to youth, who can spot B.S. a mile away thanks to a lifetime of access to instant full-spectrum information availability. Add to this, GAs giving poor-taste talks blaming members for asking why leaders were racist (Brad will never live that one down), blaming young men for wondering if they should serve missions. Lastly, the church is aggressively externalizing blame regarding SA, despite evidence of systematic cover-up, hush-money, and avoidance of negative publicity at the expense of victims.
• 3.6: New church logo. New programs for children and youth. New roles for women in rituals. New garment designs. New temple clothing. Young women matriculate at age 11 in birthday year, and young men get Aaronic Priesthood at age 11 in birthday year.
• 3.7: Who can forget Nelson's bizarrely meaningless April 2020 "Restoration: Bicentennial Proclamation to the World"?
• 4.1: There is clearly panic in the hierarchy. About people leaving. About losing the youth. About money. About no longer growing. About light being shone on the church's sex-abuse systems. Long-term, about potentially losing the right to enjoy tax-free status and BYU accreditation while openly discriminating. Look at the hastily-written, foot stomping, Newsroom rebuttals to the Arizona/AP sex abuse coverage. John Dehlin had a recent insider scoop that tithing revenue is "way down" from pre-Covid. Then you have Bednar at the NPC informing the whole world that "the church doesn't need their money," referring to poor members who must pay anyway to have temple privileges. With Ensign Peak Advisors, the church has built itself a golden calf and is scrambling to convince members it doesn't worship the calf and the calf isn't actually an idol (but it sure as hell is gold). There is panic about LGBTQ activism and advocacy. Holland's instantly-infamous "mustket fire" talk shows just how worried the brethren are about this issue. It's like, hey we're driving off a cliff but will you clowns at BYU grow a spine and back us up already? (Because we've already "spent hours" discussing it internally and we've got nothing) Reports are that young people today get some 70% of their information on social media platforms. And I'll give you one guess, between ex-Mormons and Mormons on social media, who has more content, better arguments, doesn't hide facts, and consistently articulates behaviors that are and aren't honest and moral? If you guessed ex-Mormons, you go to the head of the class.
• 4.2: "Covenant Path" as the new rallying cry for church evangelicalism, has become not only a revolutionary way to think about the role of the church's products (facilitating social lock-in effects via covenants), but also a fresh method to virtue signal deference to top-down messaging protocols.
• 4.3: There was so much hype about the new youth programs, especially for boys but also for girls, after the exit from Scouting. The results, however, have been nothing short of super lame. The new programs are not structured around achievement, extra-church experiences, vocational learning or social awareness. They're worse than ever, now that bishoprics replaced what was previously dedicated young men's leadership. Also, so much hype about the new hymnbooks: where are they? So much hype about the Shanghai China temple, thanks to Russell's self-declared national hero status behind the Red Curtain: cough nothingburger cough.
• 4.4: Ministering sounded great, and initially the stories about elevated, uh, ministering, were plentiful. But it's been an abject failure -- visits don't happen, and there is no longer a monthly cadence of accountability. Ministering didn't actually elevate anything, it merely killed an old program that most followed out of habit or duty. Welcome change, but not working as sold.
• 4.5: Believing members are more vocal than ever: "my friends are leaving, what should I do?" Also, merger mania is driving fresh cynicism in all corners of zion. Mergers of wards, mergers of stakes, mergers of missions. The word "Mormon" continues to drive a wedge of cynicism between ardent believers who insist the virtue signal must be maintained for civility, and doubters who feel even less seen when their use of "Mormon" to alleviate discomfort in already-uncomfortable conversation becomes "the issue." The church has always developed thought-stopping techniques to prevent truly intimate dialogue about doubts, but "Mormon" might be the most brilliant one of all. Failure to use the full-name of the church in conversation with believers is suddenly the surest way to lose their empathy. It's silly, uninspired, pathetically weak nonsense. Roughly half of Mormons now support gay marriage, rising sharply in a decade. What happens when that number is 60%? 75%?
• 4.6: If the church has one ace up its sleeve, it's money. Yes, investors have been taken to the woodshed in 2022, so the church has less money now than it did a year ago. But we're still talking about "more money than God" levels of wealth. Only a few people know for sure, because leaders are too afraid of transparency, but enough data has leaked to peg the number ballpark $150 billion of investments last year, probably falling to some $120 billion this year as rates and inflation drove asset deflation across the board. Anyway, at year end 2021, the church had saved up some 30 years of operating expenses. Together with the right to tax members at 10% of income in perpetuity, the church will be financially stable essentially forever, even if half the members quit attending or paying. But, another way to look at financial health is the trend in yearly income. This is the metric which may grow to crisis levels if more people leave, or simply choose to follow their consciences by paying tithing to humanitarian charities, rather than knowingly support a pointless investment vehicle.

Well, just a few thoughts as we head into the close 2022. For many, it's been a difficult year. If we spiral into a recession, it will certainly be a rainy day in 2023 for many - church members and non-members alike. There is crime, homelessness, abuse and suffering everywhere. For the brethren, I'm confident it's been a difficult year putting out fires at the day job. But fortunately for them, their organization is flush with cash and the church provides them a generous lifetime living allowance, ensuring there will be gifts under the tree, the shirts will be pressed and shoes polished, and family will visit together in warmth and comfort during the upcoming holidays. Perhaps that is all they need to feel assured that the enterprise really is the kingdom of God on earth.

[MetaProf]

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the stages model to assess the assignment of specific church/corporate behaviors to the typology of stages, but good lord that was a fantastic read!