Phil Cooke

It has been truly fascinating to watch the accelerated evolution of change at ORU in the past few months. Here are some ideas, several of which were employed by Mart Green at ORU, in morphing cultures from a personality-centered posture.

1. Define the overarching purpose of the organization. If it's just a vehicle for the founder, then it should be mothballed or cremated when the founder passes. Does it have a compelling reason to exist beyond the lifetime of the founding personality?

2. Monarchy along with its offspring such as the Divine Right of Kings (which includes the Right of Succession) should be relegated to Medieval Times.

3. Collective wisdom must be valued. Too often we humans "anoint" someone beyond their callings or abilities assuming they must have some special wisdom above our own. Boards and advisers wilt under the trump cards of "God told me" or "touch not My anointed."

4. People must be valued. There is one standard of respect and it should be uniform from the most menial to the boardroom. There is not a select ruling class and an army of serfs. This thinking also belongs in the Dark Ages.

5. There must be a cause that becomes bigger than the personality. Donors have to be redirected to giving to a cause and purpose rather than to a person. This is a key "branding" change in the whole area of communications flowing from the organization.

6. Fear must be vanquished. To survive and thrive organizations must be incubators of innovation. Fear is an iceberg that thwarts the hatching of ideas and stifles the power of the human imagination.

7. Talent and performance within the organization should be more important than loyalty. Help people succeed and they will be loyal… most of the time. Emphasis on loyalty shows insecurity in leadership – which leads to fear, control, etc.

Seven is a good place to stop.

I don't think there's much to add to your list Chris.  I think you've nailed a lot of it.

I believe ORU tried in the mid-80's to lay some groundwork for the type of changes that could have been made with Oral Roberts moving to a less active role of leadership.  They did a lot of the right things in attempting to come up with how to make that transition, at least as far as I could see at that time.

In the end, the two things that I think made the difference were:

1.  The huge emphasis and push on the City of Faith which in the end failed and drained a tremendous amount of resources and focus from the university.

2.  Continued reliance of ORU upon ORM for fund raising which made it difficult to make a change for fear (there's that word) that the money would dry up.

What would hindsight suggest be done differently in making that type of transition?

The focus on making the University independent of ORM financially was a stated goal, but it never happened.  I remember Phil commenting on transition from a founder to the second generation of leadership and how downsizing should be considered a legitimate option rather than debt to attempt to maintain the historical mission as experienced under the founder.

The planning for transition should be done years before it is needed.

Success without a successor is failure in the end (it's cliche but true.)  If a public ministry relies primarily upon the name recognition and personal gifts of the founder then either a successor with those same gifts groomed by the leader,  who likely is not a family member is an option, or the work to make the organization independent of those gifts should be done BEFORE that person retires or dies and the organization is faced with the transition at the same time that financial support is presumably reducing.

I think ORU made some steps in that direction and talked about the right things to do but in the end just couldn't or didn't follow through with the plan or chose to put their faith in Richard as a successor for a task that in the end he wasn't suited to do.  I have some sympathy for him in that regard.  I hope once things have settled down and if his reputation comes intact through the current accusations, that he is able to move out of the shadow of his father and experience who God intends for him to be.

As long as Oral Roberts is alive, the name will not change.  Under the new leadership there is still a strong element of Spirit-filled, charismatic, and pentecostal influence, which is a good thing, considering the New Testament principles ORU was founded upon.  Hopefully, the new Board of Trustees will bring needed financial success to the university, as well as, continue the spiritual atmosophere for which the universtiy is known.  We do not want an Oberlin College (Ohio)… founder, Charles Finney.  The Oberlin name was of no significance.  It was their purpose and mission that changed, ultimately becoming completely secular without even a theology school in existence, today.

Change the name. If you want to grow the college change the name.

I have been thinking a lot about how Oral Roberts University will "re-brand" itself?!  Have any ideas?

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=05a1e625-7002-40da-bff8-5f51e82c2b34

Better link, I hope

Like you, I suspend judgment.  There's been a lot of mud slinging on both sides.  It's hard to see which to take seriously.  This latest allegation sounds insane.  But there's another aspect to all of this that strikes me as even crazier.  Mr. Green stated that even he hasn't seen last Fall's audit.  You could have knocked me over with a feather when I read that.  The whole ORU debacle is bizarre to me, from front to finish.  I don't understand how any of the major players in this game think.  It's been baffling.

Nothing fascinates me more than something I can't make sense of.  I'll be paying attention to this story for a long time to come.