LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
The Risk of Trying to Please Everyone
CLED 700
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the School of Divinity
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Ministry Department of Christian Leadership and Church Ministries
By
Henry Edwin Shikuku
Lynchburg, Virginia
10/2022
The Risk of Trying to Please Everyone
You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time,
but you cannot please all the people all the time. No, that’s not the exact quote attributed to
Abraham Lincoln. He referred to fooling the people, not pleasing them. But when it comes to
leading change, this riff on Lincoln’s words is an essential perspective for leaders to keep in
mind.
What’s funny about this statement is that pastors and ministry leaders readily agree that
keeping everyone happy all the time is impossible. And yet time after time, the process of
meaningful change is slowed, interrupted, or completely stopped by a leader’s desire to please
everyone.
Even though pleasing everyone is an unrealistic expectation, some level of support and
approval is essential for any new initiative. So, what does it mean to “please people” in the
context of leading change? It is more than getting a thumbs-up based on personal approval. It is
not catering to a consumer mindset and giving them whatever they want, even though people’s
desires do need to be considered. What is critical is building enough genuine support that a
major change effort can move forward. The hard work of change doesn’t call for pleasing
everyone, but it does require the commitment of enough of the right people.
The diffusion of innovation
In his theory on the “diffusion of innovations,” Everett Rogers divides people into five
groups: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Every leader has
experienced these different categories in their church or ministry. Even a bad idea will have
some supporters. Even a good idea will have people who want more information or evidence
before they get on board. And even the greatest idea, one that seems like a slam dunk, will run
into some opposition. There will always be laggards in any significant change effort. Should a
church leader try to win over these laggards?
Shouldn’t we give people more time to get on board?
The word laggard doesn’t suggest someone who is actively working against a proposed
change. It just implies a person who is slow to come around to a new idea. This leads to the
natural question, “Shouldn’t we give the laggards time to get on board?” Probably not. But
understanding this requires a closer look at the people who are not easily pleased and the risks
of trying to please everyone.
Some people who are slow are not laggards. The “late majority” often need a little more
time for prayer and reflection or a little more information before they are ready to embrace
major change. It’s worth allowing extra time in the change process for people like this. Others,
however, will ask for more and more and more time. These are the laggards who may be
looking for certainty that the new plans will succeed even though future results are impossible
to predict. Or they may want to find a solution that won’t offend anyone in the congregation
even though someone will always push back when change is proposed.
A different kind of laggard actively works against a proposed change. They’re not looking
for more time to consider the idea; they are convinced that is it wrong. They may not want to
make any changes, or they have a different solution in mind. Exploring different ideas is an
important and healthy part of leading change, but a single objector should not be allowed to
hijack the entire process.
The risk of trying to please everyone
And that is the risk of trying to please everyone. Whether the small minority that
comprises the rest of “everyone” are people who need far too much time to get to yes or ones
who are actively resisting (or some of both), waiting to achieve 100% support for a change
often undermines the very change you are hoping to accomplish.
Consider what may be lost if there is a lengthy delay while trying to please everyone.
Some of the earliest and most enthusiastic supporters (innovators and early adopters, in
Rogers’s terminology) may be frustrated and leave. This is particularly ironic since the purpose
of delaying is to get everyone on board. It is better to lose a few laggards who are holding out
than to frustrate the innovators who can spearhead current and future changes.
Even if those early supporters stay, their enthusiasm may diminish because of the lapse in
time or because an innovative proposal has been diluted in an attempt to please everyone. In
addition to losing the edge with these supporters, the lost time is a precious resource that
cannot be regained. And then there is the energy a leader spends trying to convince holdouts,
energy that is then unavailable for other important needs.
Leaders need to have strong support for any significant organization change. But if you
tend to think, “what will it hurt to wait a little longer to get everyone on board?” then take a
moment to count the real cost. The art of leading change is knowing when to wait a little longer
and when you’ve waited long enough. The wise leader doesn’t wait for everyone to get on
board but does make sure that enough of the right people are supportive before pressing
ahead.
Resources
“The Messy Art of Leading Change,” a Leading Ideas Talks podcast episode featuring
Mike Bonem
Genuine Change Involves Continuity by Doug Powe and Lovett H. Weems Jr.
The Art of Forging a Meaningful Consensus by Ann A. Michel
