Innovators, Early Adopters, Early/Late Majority, Laggards: Which are You?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, December 06, 2004
- Viewed 95
- (49) comments so far
There is a fairly well recognized theory by Everett Rogers in the business and marketing worlds about how new ideas eventually get implemented to our everyday lives. This theory holds true in many areas; from our cultural fads, consumer buying habits... and even our church life. Here's the premise:
For any new idea, there is a group of innovators. Innovators are defined as the first 5-10% of the people who first adopt any given idea. They are the ones who usually come up with the idea in the first place and refine the idea so that it is something that works. Innovators are venturesome; they are the most willing group to try something new and take the initial risk to try something out. They are also influencers... they keep in contact with many others in their area of expertise.
The next group, the early adopters are about 10-15% of us. These people are the trend-setters. They are the ones who are aggressively looking for new ideas to implement. They might not be the ones coming up with the ideas or innovations, but they have their eye on the innovators to see what they will do next. They'll quickly snatch up an innovators idea and test it out themselves.
The early majority (about 30% of us) wait a little longer to make our decision. Actually, if they're not actively searching out new ideas (like the early adopters)they might wait to see the first bit of advertising on a product or service, or get the recommendation of a friend before they jump in. But still, they want to be in on the ground floor. Early majority people still consider themselves 'cutting-edge', they just want to make sure the idea has worked out in some other places before they try it.
The late majority (another 30% of us) wait still longer to get on the band wagon. They still get on... some are excited, some are skeptical. But by this stage of the game, there is growing pressure to 'not miss out'.
The last group, the laggards, (about 20% of us) are true traditionalists. They are generally not interested in new ideas/products and are the last group of us to buy into new ideas.
Does this model hold up for the first group of questions I stated above? I think it does to a large degree. Let's take the "40 Days of Purpose" campaign for example.
INNOVATORS: Rick Warren & Saddleback Church
EARLY ADOPTERS: The very first churches that did the campaign
EARLY MAJORITY: Those churches that have already completed the campaign
LATE MAJORITY: Those churches who are signed up to do a future campaign
LAGGARDS: Those churches who will do the campaign in 2006-2007 or never
Now, of course, there are some churches who will never do the 40 days of purpose campaign for various reasons (theological, philosophical, they don't like Rick Warren, etc.) That doesn't mean they are laggards in every area. (So I'm not using this scenario as a blanket statement for everyone).
Where do you consider yourself and your church (note: You might be in a different group as a leader than what your church is in)? Do you agree with the above scenario or innovators, early adoptors, etc.? If not, what is your theory? Please give your ideas below. I'd like to hear from as many of you as possible today. I'll use many of your thoughts and ideas as I develop this series.
Has your church participated in a 40 Days of Purpose Campaign? Or even a 40 Days of Community Campaign? Does your church use video projection, or evan IMAG in your services? Are you using multi-service/ multi-format (worship) approach? Are you a ‘one church in multiple locations’ multi-site’ church or are you considering it? Do you use terms such as ‘seeker sensitive’ or ‘seeker targeted’ without even thinking? New ideas. New philosophies. New programs. New formats. New ways of doing church. How many of the above questions did you answer ‘yes’ to? All of these issues are fairly new in the 21st century church. But how did these trends come about? Where do they come from? How did they start? And why do we find that so many churches are taking the same ‘new’ approach in so many areas? I find this subject fascinating, and we’ll be digging deeper into the whole idea of innovation in the church for the next few Mondays here in MMI and in the MMI blog…
-----
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Bryan on Mon, December 06, 2004
I am the Associate Pastor for Family Ministries at FBC in Huntsville, TX. I would consider myself an innovator much of the time. I have implemented a unique format for students to proclaim their faith publically and allow Youth Ministries to partner on a monthly basis. This is a youth gathering called Neutral Ground. It is comprised of area churches joining forces to exalt the name of Jesus through high-energy music, drama, prayer, scripture reading and student challenges. It is completely student-led and you will never see an adult or student minister on stage. It’s all for the students as they take roles of leadership and get what they are really missing…that is, each other. We are running a couple hundred students and are even seeing “fringe” students get a little closer to the cross. Please feel free to check out the Neutral Ground homepage at http://www.NeutralGroundMinistries.com anytime. Neutral Ground offers hope for every frustrated youth minister and would like to help tear down those invisible barriers that seem to exist in most coummunities. Thank you for such great articles and resources for people like me. You are a Difference Maker! Bryan McNair - FBC - Huntsville, TX (http://www.fbchuntsville.org)
Ivan on Mon, December 06, 2004
I am and will remain a laggard. I will remain biblical in my approach to church growth.
Ivan Schoen
Westosha Baptist Church
Bassett, WI
Todd Rhoades on Mon, December 06, 2004
Ivan,
Why is being a ‘laggard’ the only thing you consider biblical? I don’t understand.
Todd
PS—Also, I wanted to clarify that I am not endorsing that all churches should have done or do the 40 days campaign. I used that for illustrative purposes only. Not every church uses every innovation. My point was that we all use many of the same ideas from a select few innovators. (That can be either good or bad). I didn’t mean to say that you’re bad if you don’t participate in the newest program or fad. And being a laggard is fine. But again, I’m puzzled as to why a laggard would think that this was the only biblical position. Any other laggards out there besides Ivan care to chime in?
Thanks! Todd
MMI Blog Administrator
joon on Mon, December 06, 2004
the biblically grounded, spirit-filled church is built to be innovative by design since its reliance is on the Most High God- knower of the future and our deepest human needs.
sadly, our usually traditions-based church culture for quite awhile now has fostered an exile of true ‘innovators’ to places like the foreign mission field, para-church ministries and the secular workplace (either for or non-profit).
most innovative leadership in the established church is closer to how you defined early-adoptors/early majority and this suffices for relative innovation. i think we see lots of micro-innovation (again, a characteristic of the early-adoptors/early majority) within defined parameters but very few true ‘out of the box’ innovations (i.e. something someone outside of vocational ministry would look at and say ‘wow, that’s innovative! maybe something like that would help our company/country, etc”) PLEASE see this as an observation to react to, not prescriptive condemnation to be defensive about.
whatever innovation we see in the established church is usually the work of 3 or 4 true innovators nationally that gets rapidly disseminated/adopted by eager early-adoptors/early majority across the country. the problem is that this type of behavior is masking the lack of true innovators within the church. most organizations suffer this cyclically because the dominant majority of people prefer stasis but non-church organizations are usually more hospitable to true innovators than we are.
we have as a church become comfortable with such a small number of true innovators challenging the church and this is a sad acclimation for sure. what if we as a generation, reclaimed our early church roots of unquestioned dependence on God, living lives that attracted persecution, having non-believers calling us Jesus-like and establishing and embracing a tradition of biblical change.
hope this wasn’t a waste of your time todd… please react! (sorry for the length?)
Todd Rhoades on Mon, December 06, 2004
Joon,
I agree with most of what you said! My hope is that churches would become more innovative on their own, but as you said, that’s hard to make happen many times at the local church level.
Again, I’m not saying that having national innovators is a good or a bad thing. I think much good can (and has) come; but also much more could spring up from the church locally. Most smaller churches (again, not EVERY, but most that I’ve seen) look to the larger regional churches in their area to see what they’re doing that’s successful. These same larger regional churches are looking to larger regional or national ministries to see what’s working. To an extent, it’s always been done this way; but with the internet and publishing houses getting in the game, the rise of national phenomenons like ‘40 days’ or ‘Jabez’ will come and go much more quickly than before.
Any thoughts? Who would you all categorize as national and regional innovators? Here’s a few I can think of just off the top of my head:
Willowcreek/Hybels: seeker-sensitive
Saddleback/Warren: purpose-driven
Fellowship/Ed Young: creativeness
North Coast/Larry Osborne: video venues
Regional Innovators/Early Adopters:
SeaCoast Church (SC)
Granger Community Church (IN)
Life Church (OK)
Point of Grace Church (IA)
Just a start of some of the obvious ones. Who would you nominate?
Todd
Al on Mon, December 06, 2004
Friends,
Here are two quotes from above that demonstrate the greater damage affecting the ministry of the Church today:
“I am and will remain a laggard. I will remain biblical in my approach to church growth.”
AND
“the biblically grounded, spirit-filled church is built to be innovative by design since its reliance is on the Most High God”
Until the church comes to the point that God works through his body in many ways we will continue to argue over “style” and “approach” to ministry. As a result we will damage the very work we are tying to see accomplished – people coming into a true relationship with Jesus Christ.
As a pastor I understand that my church is not the place for everyone! But that doesn’t mean God isn’t using my gifts to minister to people. Like the Church down the street, they minister to others in the Body of Christ – but I don’t sit back and condemn them as “unbiblical” because they don’t do it how God is leading me!
I understand the Purpose Driven Church – But what about the Spirit Directed Church? I believe that is all Rick was trying to do at Saddleback! Here is the point - if you feel led by the Spirit to use new approaches to minister to those in your care then by all means “obey the Spirit.” If the Spirit is leading you to hold on to the approach you are using and which has served your church effectively for years then by all means “obey the Spirit.”
Each of us is tying to obey the Spirit in following the Great Commission – lets agree that the most important issue to all our programs and efforts is the Fruit of those efforts – if they reflect the “Fruit of the Spirit” in the lives of those entrusted to us – then we both are on the right track.
Michael Julian on Mon, December 06, 2004
Todd,
I agree with the assessment of the progression of people as they join a new movement or process. I am not so sure about the labels attached to each group. I find that we are too quick to label people today. We have tags for people born in certain eras, tags for people who are the first to jump on the bandwagons, etc., etc. etc. There could be other factors involved than just being more cautious about when to join in some popular movement. Yet, one thing really serves as a splinter under my skin about the reasonings why people join in certain movements or new Christian methodologies. The supreme motivation seems to be methodological, pragmatic, or sheer popularity, instead of truly Spirit-led. Rick Warren’s 40 Days of Purpose is fabulous. I believe he is a man of endowed wisdom from God. And now the SBC has a program entitled 40 Day Experience:EKG, the Heartbeat of God. Too often, I believe the church (as an institution) sways toward the tendency of trendiness. If it is hot and shows promise and results, then we all should jump aboard the train and ride it until it stops or until we see a faster train coming alongside. I recently finished a book by Os Guiness, The Call, and in there he talked about the progression from Christ to Christian to Christianity. Those who followed Christ did not call themselves Christians, they simply referred to themselves as followers of the Way. The Christian tag came from the surrounding community of non-followers. I have been questioning myself and the practices of the modern church heavily in recent months. In some instances I think we are doing the right things, but in the wrong order. Our priorities are off kilter. I hope that this message does not come across as negative, but as thought-provoking. I love the church, and Christ died for the church, but we must continue to be followers of the Way, not trends and pragmatic success stories. What is the answer? I don’t know, but I will continue to seek and search and call attention to priorities that are not in line with Christ and His word.
Todd Rhoades on Mon, December 06, 2004
Michael, I agree. And for churches to do the trendy thing just to do the trendy thing is wrong; and to be honest a waste of time.
Realistically, there are many things at play here… what started as a program Rick Warren started at his local church caught fire and became a national phenomenon. I don’t think Rick ever imagined that would happen (at least to the extent that it happened).
When things like this happens, it also creates (out of necessity) an organization to faciliate and support the program. I’ve been in Purpose-Driven’s office, and it’s amazing the amount of people that it takes to carry on an organization that size.
Then publishers (and denominations) see the success and try to duplicate it. We saw this with Jabez and 40 days. Some of the new stuff that comes out is good, others are hastily put together hopefuls.
I do hear one thing come up in the conversation so far and that is being “spirit lead”. (Al also mentioned this). What works in Lake Forest may not work in Cheboygan at your particular church. And then again, it may! That’s where the local pastor and staff need to be spirit lead. Are these new national ideas or ‘innovations’ something that can effect my local church positively. Or is there something I can create that would be just as innovative and minister to my community better than what’s nationally available.
My bottom line (at least at this point)… national innovation is great, but I’d sure like to see more innovation at the local church level than I do now. But as was previously said in a post… that’s a hard thing to ask for in much of today’s local church climate.
Hopefully I didn’t muddy the water any! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Todd
Diane on Mon, December 06, 2004
There is a “mega church wanna be” syndrome in our churches today. So many churches are looking at the big churches (big meaning better?!) and doing what they did to get big. Moses had his burning bush - but some churches just want to enjoy the vision God gave someone else. I’d like to see God do a NEW thing in His church. Not just people copying what Saddleback or Willowcreek - or Calvary Chapel is doing.
Shane Montgomery on Mon, December 06, 2004
Innovation is a tricky word because what one church considers innovation another will see as formula. If we do “A”+“B” then we will get “C”, or in many cases, a successful church. Innovation, for the sake of itself, is never a valid reason to introduce it to the body. On the other hand, a Pastoral team who sees new trends surface in the church and has the wisdom to prayerfully seek God’s direction, timing and method of delivery is wise beyond the 15 minutes of fame many “successful” Pastors experience. The heart of this argument is not “Does God bless innovators?” but “What does the heart of the Leadership look like, how does it respond, is it driven by performance and acceptance, or a deep sense of security in who God is, what he has called the church to and the needs of each congregation?”
Innovation can belike a zerox of a copy of a duplication of an original. Often it is unable to capture the intensity or impact of the original because the original is a result of a leader in tune with God’s direction and the needs of his congregation fueled by his own passions and gifts. Be innovative by not doing what every other mega church in the nation is doing. Seek God for direction not seek a book for a program to implement.
Jay C. Burgman on Mon, December 06, 2004
I love the labels. Interesting that we are still attaching them to folks. Let me be trite for a moment, “I wonder if Jesus would label us?” Maybe—maybe not. After all, He did not have wonderful things to say about the ruling elite religious class. At least you are not calling me a whitewashed tomb… or viper…
I appreciate Warren’s ministry and his approach, but I do not appreciate the use of so many different translations without appropriate context. In fact, I found it a distraction to an otherwise very introspective book. (It caused me to be introspective!) I would not use it in my church unless it was in a small group with a gifted leader to deciper the passages—contextually.
Better never than late,
J
C.R. Ewfan on Mon, December 06, 2004
Ivan cannot be a complete laggard. After all, he just posted in the blogosphere!
Al on Mon, December 06, 2004
CR
Good observation! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/grin.gif
Don Johnson on Mon, December 06, 2004
Dear Todd;
First let me thank you for Monday morning Insight. It is now part of me recuperation routine following Sundays. The several stages you listed are not new to me. I heard them years ago from a fund raising consultant who was talking about the way the congregation would react to a capital campaign, in the same ways as you listed leadership styles. What that did for me was to give members space and time to adapt to new ways and not get frustrated at the slow adapters. I am clearly an innovator type, but really need the others around me for depth and balance,
Peace, Don
joon on Mon, December 06, 2004
uh, sadly, none of my book references made it onto the post (i posted them in the wrong type of brackets… man, i’ve forgotten so much html). at the end of my 2nd paragraph i submit ChurchNext by Gibbs (talks about the relationship between innovative people and the church) and after my 4th paragraph i submit the Church on the Other Side by McClaren (talks about importing innovation from someone else which i think address al’s issue w/ my post?) sorry ‘bout jacking that up y’all.
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Post a Comment