I am currently finishing an undergraduate degree in Religious Studies at the University of Cambridge. I graduated from BYU in 2003, with a Bachelor’s in Marriage, Family, and Human Development. And while I am taking Hebrew, and typical biblical studies curriculum, my focus is on how sociology and psychology interact with religion. As part of my program I have to write a thesis on a relevant subject. I wanted to write a short introduction to get a feeling for the opinions of others hopefully resulting in feedback.
My thesis is based off a Harvard Business School model developed by Clayton Christensen, who actually as chance would have it is LDS. His model is based on the idea that there are two main forms of innovation- sustainable and disruptive. Sustainable innovation is the maintaining of the status quo the moves forward existing markets and ideas are well founded in history, this form of business is well studied and addresses in most typical business books. Clayton Christensen’s book The Innovators Dilemma was revolutionary because he dared to say that well managed well-run organizations fail because they focus too much on sustainable technology and ignore what he coined “disruptive innovation”. Disruptive innovation as explained by Christensen is what happens when a new technology changes the playing field for a whole market, making the sustainable techniques that have been employed previously irrelevant resulting very often in the failure of massive very successful organizations. The unfortunate issue is that while in business has perpetual ebb and flow, the market seems to take care of itself in a very natural way. The implications for religion are less clear. We must ask ourselves how we want it to play out in our own religion. The
important part of the theory is that the issue of disruptive innovation is very often the result of very well run organizations that have had a long history of success doing things the way “they have always been done” that blinds them to the need to see and create a way to deal with disruption. Clayton Christensen suggests taking parallel paths of development, one that sustains the current way of doing things and simultaneously exploring possible disruption. There may even be acknowledgement in organization that a disruption exists, but the current structure does not even allow for the possibility of dealing with it well. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has numerous parallels to a large well-run corporation. The LDS church is extremely efficient and very correlated in a hierarchical structure similar to how corporations looked in the 1960s, with dress codes and strict protocol and managerial structure. The structure of the church hierarchy is very represented of the successful organizations that existed during the period that the church underwent correlation. The structure is not really conducive to change, I like to think how IBM chose to structure itself verses how Google reinvented the work culture. In a world where companies like Google are reshaping the mentality of what a company looks like while being radically successful, one has to ask is it the best plan to stick to an organizational chart from 50 years ago.
The official title of my thesis is The Internet, a disruptive technology in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The issue of disruptive innovation I believe is very applicable to how the Internet has changed the way the church has to play the game. For the first time in history the church (and other religions) can no longer control its own message and its own history. For a religion that is based heavily off the historical narrative this has the potential to be devastating. The Internet differs from previous mediums of religious idea sharing which were limited by geography and money. The Internet reaches far and wide and initial cost to participate is almost free. The church although it is aware of some of the issues regarding in regards to history, it seems unable to really move forward in solving them. There are steps such as the Joseph Smith Papers Project, Revelations in Context, and other projects that seems to help deal with some of the historical inconsistencies. The issues remains that these projects have yet to be integrated into the mainstream culture of the lessons, manuals, and general conference talks. The structure of the LDS church is such that bottom up innovation is very hard. Change almost inevitably has to come from the top as to reshape culture and educate members on how to deal with complexity. The Internet also poses other issues such as ecclesiastical abuse, lack of equality and so forth, because the Internet gives voice to those who historically did not have one. My hope is that in using a business theory the language will be understandable to men who have spent their lives in the corporate sector and law firms. I believe that the LDS church has amazing potential to move into a post modern world, where it is more relevant to the public discourse than it is today, but it has to adapt in a very intelligent way and in a timely manner.
Jessica Finnigan
Jessica is a Master's Student at King's College London, where she studies religion in the contemporary world. She recently completed an advanced Diploma in Religious Studies at the University of Cambridge. She earned a Bachelors from BYU in Marriage, Family, and Human Development. She is married to her best friend, and they have 4 daughters.
All posts by Jessica Finnigan
Jessica, I couldn’t think of a more interesting and relevant topic for the LDS community. I was at a Seminar where this very topic of “disruptive” innovations was discussed at length. The primary presenter discussed how businesses became obsolete because of their inability to see how technology was changing—of course he cited the collapse of newspapers, etc. I knew he was LDS (he was in fact employed by the LDS church) and I asked him whether the same concept would apply to the LDS church and he emphatically said ‘NO”–because it was guided by revelation. What??? He was assuming that the leaders were inspired and therefore could not fail—perhaps that “they will never lead us astray” is the very hubris that must be eliminated in order to have any chance to adapt/innovate. we will see
Ron-
That is so interesting that he thought it did not apply to the church. I think the never leave us astray will be one the first things that needs to be addressed. A quick look at history show a lot of humanness, and that should be embraced and used as a way to move forward.
This is a huge issue for LDS Inc. Because there really is no god-given revelation or even inspiration, they must rely exclusively on man-driven views, opinions, ideology etc. As you state this is currently based on the 1960’s corporate culture/business model. How can they incorporate this idea into a culture that has been led to believe that there is some god-figure at the helm?
Very interesting Jessica. Do you think LDS Inc. can or will switch to a disruptive model? What would that require? Do we need a group of Harvard MBA grads to be called as GAs to make it happen?
Matt- I think that if they want to stay relevant and have a meaningful place on the religious stage that they will need to adopt a model that deals with disruption. I think that the LDS church has amazing things going for it and can be a huge influence for good in the future if it can see and respond to how the world is changing. The church does seem to have a lot of MBAs in its ranks 🙂
The premise of the thesis seems to be that change will apply to the LDS church the same way it applies to business, because the church is like a business. This premise (church equals business) will have to be satisfied in one’s mind before he/she can conceive of the similarities of disruption.
Convincing an LDS member of this premise creates a significant challenge. Even large businesses don’t view themselves similar to other large businesses. When Yahoo recently announced the decision to bring all teleworkers back in-house, many companies thought about doing the same, but very few actually have taken the same steps as Yahoo. Why? Because every company has a different culture, different goals, different levels of talent, different needs etc. If it’s difficult to show how large business are similar, the task will be even greater to show how a church (which believers would say is led by revelation) is similar to a corporation focused on earning money. Yes, you can certainly find some similarities, but I believe I could find more differences that similarities. And if the differences outweigh the similarities, then business priciples are less likely to translate.
M. Rees-
You sound like my husband 🙂 I think these are very valid points and ones that I think about a lot. I personally don’t think that the church can easily fit into a business model. There is a saying that business books are like romance novels they are printed on cheap paper and hopefully have one good idea in them. That being said I feel that religion as a whole has no over arching well thought out theory about how to conduct itself, especially as society has moved away from a theocratic form of power that once allowed churches a large amount of power. There was a huge push in the 50-early 70s to create theory. Sadly those theories have not really been updates and some are quite poor. The church adopted a lot of those without even being aware. The work of Carol Gillegan shaped the YW/YM program. I think that this project is just an attempt to have a conversation. Religion in my opinion needs to start examining the historical assumptions that fills its doctrine and practice.
I do not think that one theory at this stage will be a perfect fit, it is too reductionist. I do think that every aspect of religion should be examined starting with the best theories in every field and thoughtfully questioning how we can do things better.
Sister Finnigan,
Thanks for writing this. This is good stuff.
This past Sunday, my bishop and I were discussing whether or not I see the church as addressing some of the issues of disaffection within the LDS church over historical issues.
I noticed that over on the FMH FB group you discussed in brief the Joseph Smith Papers and the Church’s News Room. In my discussion with my bishop, I also brought up the JSP as showing the Church’s attempt address some of the rough spots of history.
I see some that have found themselves outside of the LDS Church saying that the JSP, and what the News Room puts out as only being produced by the Church as a form of “plausible deniability”, since only scholars and those that are really paying attention read them. They may have a point, but I disagree a bit with the conclusion. Given the fact that it is moslty scholars that look at the JSP and only those members that are really paying attention to the current events of the Church, what can the Church do to better dispense said information to those sitting in the pews?
I don’t know from whom I stole the metaphor, but I see the internet as the Gutenberg press of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It’s a game changer and we are waaay behind the ball on this one.
The good that I see in the church is not exclusive to the church nor is it original to the church. It copies good from other sources and tries to market it.
There is however much that is “bad” currently about LDS Inc. not even looking into its past. Its treatment of homosexuals and women, its use of its massive wealth, the colossal wast of time doing work for dead people.
It has in the past, made positive change and attributed it to “revelation”. However the changes that need to be made would tear the church apart. It would be nice if it could. But I don’t see how.
Mike- I was actually reading some Christian history from the time period after the printing press became usable for more people. The history of printing religious tracts and the disruption that is caused in that era is so similar, but on a much smaller scale, and with a cost limiting factor. It is interesting to see how the churches reacted and how they actually did respond to a lot of the changes that were being addressed. It gives me hope.
Awesome subject. I will be expecting a followup post. 🙂
Jessica,
Out of curiosity, would you classify the following as sustainable or disruptive? Or maybe neither?
-the change in missionary age
-the new youth curriculum
-mormonsandgays.org
-2013 scriptures
They are desperate attempts to stop the hemorrhaging.
LDS Inc. is dead. It will just take a few years for the nerve impulses to stop the reflexive kicking.
J, Walace-
I would say that they are attempts to deal with the disruption while not actually dealing with it. I think that they are trying to address the issues while still trying to follow their traditional sustainable model. The issue is that there is no clear model for how religion moves forward. This is not just an LDS thing it is really across the board issue for religion and depending on how hierarchical the religion is the more they will feel the pull of the disruption and the more they will need to address the theoretical and theological implications.
What would you say about the model followed/used by the RLDS – now Community of Christ? While they are moving more radically – it simply seems to point to the inevitable…religion of today serves little purpose for the benefit of individuals and families of today.
It seems to me you have to look at (at least) two different issues. First, if you accept the disruptive innovation premise, does the Church need to continue to be disruptive in order to make headway? And, second, regardless of the answer to the first question, does it need to be able to address future black swan disruptive innovation elements that happen to us?
Addressing the first, we could not have been any more disruptive in our inception and we continued to follow the disruptive model with game-changing and disruptive tactics such as regarding ourselves as a restored church rather than another reformation, a living prophet with twelve apostles, a massive migration, burning printing presses, polygamy, relentless proselyting, radio and TV ads (what other churches even thought of that?), Word of Wisdom, etc. Lives cannot simply accommodate us. Lives have to change, shift and move. In more recent times, however, we have grown substantially less disruptive and more conservative, changing very little. As American faith movements have shifted toward mega-churches, casual dress, and production value services, we have maintained our growth as usual model. Having said that, do the major religions really follow a disruptive model after establishment? The Catholic church’s growth is staggering, but that is an extremely non-disruptive, faith as usual church. It started disruptive and continued with disruptive innovation (such as the Inquisition), but today, not so much. Their lack of disruptive growth tactics doesn’t seem to be hurting their growth. People flock to businesses because they offer something new, but I don’t think that is what drives religion. [Cue the music from Fiddler on the Roof.] Ritual worship is comforting and instructing to many precisely because it does not change. In the same way, I don’t want a new version of Goldilox and the three bears. I want her porridge to be too hot, too cold and just right, each and every time I hear the story. I know what is coming. I have heard it a thousand times, but reliving this experience with her one more time brings anticipation (ironically enough) and comfort.
I would also pose a question to be considered under the first topic. Does a religion whose continued growth and longevity requires disruptive innovation solely for the sake of growth deserve continued growth? If it can’t survive without the latest MBA consultant’s tool, does it deserve our devotion, blood, toil, sweat, tears, children, faith and devotion?
I think the second question might be more interesting. How do we deal with the disruptive tactics of wide-spread information about our faith, including historically uncomfortable moments? How do we deal with the fact that the churches down the street have one set of services for families with teens (think praise bands, fog machines, strobe lights and other high production value services), another for the lengthen your shuffle crowd, and another for singles, another for young children, etc. Our ward has lost some to the “more relevant” high production value services.
My two cents.
Hagoth- I think those are very relevant questions that I hope to address in my paper. I think the LDS church has within its structure the ability to adjust and grow and adapt in ways that are very meaningful. I think that the LDS church is very tied to American religion maybe even more than they know, something that I didn’t fully realize until I moved to England. I think that they really ideally in my opinion would just own their weirdness and get rid of the self conscious stuff. I liken it to a the anxiety filled teenage years (and in terms of religious age that is where the church seems to fall). I think that it also has to realize that it needs to change and adapt, which like you said is more like the what the church was founded on, but not so much like the current conservative culture that we have now.
I think that religion if it wants to survive will need to learn to deal with disruption in order to stay relevant.
Brilliant! I love this.
Jessica, thanks for sharing this! Christensen has actually been asked to apply his theories to the Church before. While his prescriptions are not comprehensive, you might enjoy this interview.
Thanks Carl,
It is such an interesting interview. I love his ideas of getting more people involved. I have been in wards that follow each of his models and the one he suggests is just so empowering and the feeling of love in the ward is amazing.
I think it is so interesting that he said that no company has ever successfully gone from top down to a more bottom up. I think that religion has an advantage over business. I love his point about theory and how sometimes people run away from it because they do not understand it. I still wonder what he would think about how to deal with the internet and history.
I’m happy with the progress of the Church organization. While Google may come up with an “innovative way of doing business”, it’s a new organization (compared to a 200 year organization). Google is also much smaller. As an Entrepreneur I’m all about change, however what needs to change is “ME” not the organization. I can find ways to “magnify my calling” and help be part of change in others.
To your point – there are many a “ME” that are changing -and in the process finding the ‘organization’ has little to offer the new ME. The relevance of the antiquated religions (Catholic, Mormon, Protestant)is shrinking. However, one might look to the new mega-churches – which might remind some of the big box retailer model of business. They seem to be growing and meeting the needs of their customers better than the older versions.
Josh,
Josh
Thank you for your comment. I think that the church has different interactions with different people. I think that a lot depends on age and location personality. While I agree that some google idea is not the best this is far from that. Theory informs the church. It is easy to look back at correlation and see how business and psychological theory informed the way things were set up.
We all use theory to inform our personal and institutional choices the question is will they be we’ll informed theories or not.
Well informed
Move away from the corporate model IMHO will take a few generations, because the people who have a vested interest in the corporate model need to die off to make the way for new blood.
I have hope and see green shoots of hope already, so it shows voices are being heard.
Mark- I think that if left to alone the system will take a few generations to change. I am just not sure that with the speed of change in modern society that appears to not be slowing down that it is important that we have good ways for addressing the issues. There are green shoots, and I find it very promising, but there needs to be solid intentional movement towards solutions, and we need to hear more voices.
Interesting article and comments. I’ve wondered if the church has been behind the curve on embracing and using technology. I have been surprised at how little information is conveyed to the members via the web. For example, our ward doesn’t have a website and members have resorted to sharing info with each other on a facebook page rather than through the web. There has to be a better way to share information with each other as members and as leaders.
You are right when you mention that the internet gives a voice to every member, making a bottom up approach possible. We have to adapt and embrace the advances in technology and I think the church has been slow to embrace that at times.
which is interesting given that lds.org provides each ward with its own webpage. just not being utilized much. the problem may be about control. LDS Inc is a very control oriented organization and allowing people to be themselves on a webpage is hard to control. heck – listen to any F&T meeting and you see how hard it is to control people’s comments. I wonder how soon before the LDS Inc. directive will be no more Facebook pages (afterall, we are unable to control that). Remember – LDS Inc will do all the thinking for its members.
This is fantastic! I love what you’re doing here. Good luck and Godspeed with all of it. And I echo some comments above: it would be great to hear from you again down the road sometime.
Jessica: With regard to polygamy and the paucity of its discussion on the LDS.org website and in “Teachings of the Prophets” curriculum manuals such as those of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, I thought that the Church had done very little research on polygamy during the Kirtland and Nauvoo era. It turns out that members of the Church at BYU HAVE done some pretty good research, and that information ought to be made more available.
Jessie L Embry has written “Setting the Record Straight: Mormons and Polygamy”, where she, among other very interesting insights, opines that the LDS Church holds back on its polygamist history due to wanting to remove the unfair conflation with NON-LDS polygamists such as Warren Jeffs. If this is why the Church is keeping mum on the subject, I think it’s a bad idea, because it looks like we’re trying to hide something. Nothing needs to be hidden, and nothing should be. In many cases the evidence for what went on in early LDS history is not clear, and that needs to be stated, but also some things DO seem clear, and those things need to be owned up to.
Another great book on the subject, which seems to include a pretty fair treatment of Joseph Smith’s (possible) involvement with Fanny Alger, Orson Pratt’s wife, and other women is “Mormon Polygamy: A History” by Richard S. Van Wagoner
This kind of information needs to become more public, because I can see how (a) being surprised by it can be a very traumatic thing for even the “seasoned” Mormon, but also (b) one can come to the conclusion after seeing the evidence that Joseph Smith was, to a greater or lesser degree, as mortal as the rest of us, but that he still is a prophet of God.