An Army led

… or an organization managed?

If you always do what you always did,
You always get what you always got.

onald Reagan, while President of the United States, said that “status quo is Latin for the mess we’re in”. We cannot afford to be satisfied with the status quo. We must be open to deep change.

Over the past twenty-five years The Salvation Army internationally has made numerous changes organizationally, but without the hoped for and needed results. Take my home territory, Canada & Bermuda Territory, as an example. In 1980 when the Canadian population was 24,350,000 the Army had a membership of 99,127, an average of 4.1 per 100,000. Just over twenty years later, membership stood at 85,500, an average of only 2.8 per 100,000 given the rise in Canada’s population to approximately 30,750,000. This translates into a 32.5% per capita membership decline over the last twenty-five or so years. A similar tale can be told in virtually every Salvation Army territory in the west. What is at the root of this decline?

The problem goes deep into the fundamentals of our leadership base, steadily eroding our influence as a Movement, preventing us from accomplishing the mission to which we have been called, reiterated by General Gowans as “…to save souls, to grow saints and to serve suffering humanity”.

I believe that at the centre of our leadership crisis in The Salvation Army is the system of organizational leadership we deploy, namely an antiquated command and control model based on position and maintained at a distance. More and more organizational entities have moved to a networking model built around relationships, where power and authority are derived from being accessible.

We need to move from a managerial mindset focused on maintaining the status quo and doing things right, to a leadership mindset that values entrepreneurial thinking and is more concerned with doing the right things. We must move beyond superficial change, beyond simply reworking the familiar, to deep change that prayerfully and willingly embraces the realm of the radically unfamiliar and even the unknown.

FROM ‘COMMAND AND CONTROL’ TO ‘NETWORKING’

The command and control model, also known as the pyramid or hierarchical model, is rooted in the 19th century organization in which only a select few were sufficiently educated and trained to make the effective day-to-day decisions necessary to keep things running smoothly. Employees of such organizations were functionally cogs in the machine whose task was to carry out the orders of those above them. As cogs they neither truly understood the organization – its aims and purposes and structure - nor were they expected to. For the most part, they were illiterate. Viewed as having limited value they were essentially dehumanized and considered disposable.

This form of organization reached its zenith in the days of Henry Ford and his development of the car assembly line: workers needed only to know how to perform their relatively simple, repetitive task, and nothing else. Interestingly, the perception of organization as machine, inanimate, rational, static, compartmentalized, closed and the estrangement of humanity from nature was seen by Wordsworth and other romantics of the Industrial Era as an earthly image of Satan’s enterprise in Hell.

This subordination of skill and imagination to the rigid architecture of the machine effectively disallowed workers from expressing their natural creativity and ignored the fact that humans are inherently relational beings, driven by principles that are organic rather than mechanical, who were created to live in dynamic relationship both with God and those around us.

The networking model serves and promotes the notion of relationship above all. It is this model of organizational life that naturally fosters more congenial working environments which are more nourishing and favourable to growth.

This concept of organisation as animate was epitomized most in the Natural Church Development (NCD) model of Christian Schwartz. Schwartz makes very clear that the bionomic (machine) model of church life is not the way God intended churches to operate, and that although it may produce favourable results in the short term, in time it becomes counterproductive and breaks down. Schwartz advocates that a more biblical model of organizational church life can be seen in the organic model which recognizes that the corporate church is a living, breathing organism and not a machine.

In the command and control model, people move up the corporate ladder through compliance and by embracing institutional distinctives - the traditional yes-man approach. They exercise power from a distance and are comfortable with the lack of collegiality that typically pervades hierarchical organizations. In contrast, structures in the network model are circular rather than pyramidal. Those who emerge as leaders are comfortable being at the centre rather than the top; they prefer building consensus rather than issuing orders, and place a low value on symbolic perks often prized in hierarchical models, such as office space, titles and reserved parking spots. People are able to focus on what needs to be done rather than on who has the authority to do it.

What the majority of people truly desire from their work is not financial rewards, but the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to something important and significant. A corollary of this is that if an organization is incapable of making people feel part of something that truly matters, it will have to pay them more in order to keep them.

Employees in the network are regarded not as simple cogs in a giant machine, but as equals, no matter what their position, title, rank or paycheque. Their value is based on their ability to bring ideas to the table and their ability to help realize these ideas. Approval is granted those who are best able to express their individual talents and to those with strongly held views, rather than to those who conform to the common institutional standard. There are those in every organization who, by virtue of their personality, natural leadership skills and the trust they inspire, wield a personal authority, influence and even power greater than their official position, rank or title might indicate; in a traditional, hierarchical structure such entrepreneurial thinkers are often perceived as threats, disruptive links in the great chain of command. In the network model, such people are prized.

The command and control model neither cultivates consultation nor disseminates significant decision-making power to the lower ranks of the organization. In such a model many upper echelon personnel are out of touch with front line action and so consequently do not truly understand what it is like “on the ground” or “in the trenches”. As Alberto Moravia points out, illiteracy is still a problem in most, not so much in the traditional sense, but in their being unable to read the times. “The ratio of illiterates to literates is unchanged from a century ago, but now the illiterates can read and write.” No longer confined to the rank and file, today they permeate every organizational level. Because of this, as Leonard Sweet observes in his recent book SoulTsumani, “Church hierarchies and bureaucracies are catastrophically wrong about a remarkably high proportion of the most important issues with which they deal.”

Network structures push decision-making power outward, toward the edges of the organization, to the front lines. They encourage the formation of new routes of communication. The network is thereby able to carve paths enabling the organization to adapt much more rapidly to a constantly evolving and rapidly changing world. Intel head Jim Zurn illustrates the point by contrasting an aircraft carrier with a school of fish. In organizations with a top-down management approach “You turn the wheel and it sort of turns … real … slow. We’re more like a school of fish. A school might have tens of thousands of fish in it, but they can change together, instantaneously, and go in a new direction.”

Such networks allow organizations to become highly manoeuverable by empowering individuals to exercise competence without regard to formal job description. Built on a model of trust, networks recognize, affirm and free up employee expertise and talents in order to keep up with our rapidly changing world.

Unlike the days of Henry Ford when assembly line workers could be replaced and quickly trained to perform any given job, today’s employees often bring with them years of specialized training and experience. Consequently, many organizations annually spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the ongoing training and development of these same employees. In the networking model, expertise is given significantly more value over positional power: the independence and natural talents and giftedness of individuals throughout every level of the system are recognized as the greatest strength of the organization. This paradigm shift is reflected in many of the commercials we see today, where companies highlight less their products and more their employees’ talents, expertise and dedication.

FROM MANAGER TO LEADER

In her book The Web of Inclusion Sally Helgesen quotes Cindy, an employee and key leader at Intel Corporation. “Most organizations say they want strong people, but they don’t know what to do with them. What they’re really looking for is people who’ll go along. They think go-along types will be better at teamwork, but this isn’t true, because people who don’t have strong beliefs don’t have that much to contribute. They lack a sense of urgency, of commitment. Here at Intel, there’s a mystique around individualists, people who are very vocal and verbal, people with strong opinions about how to get things done. These are the only kind of people who’ll fight for a project, do whatever’s necessary to get it through. Intel looks for that kind of person in the first place. Then also, they know how to keep them. They understand that strong individuals need to be left alone, need to work the way they want to, instead of always being questioned or forced to give an accounting. When you’re free, you can move quickly, which is a great incentive to assertive people. In my experience, assertive people won’t stick around if they don’t feel free to move.”

In The Salvation Army we have struggled to retain many key leaders, and often done a poor job of cultivating those who do stay. Our hierarchical model looks for ‘go along’ types and consequently attracts more people with a managerial mindset rather than the naturally entrepreneurial leader. We do not know how to deal with outspoken, assertive leaders. As a result, often those individualists with whom we have been blessed either slowly suffocate or simply leave. And many of those we could be attracting look elsewhere.

If we truly desire to ‘understand the times and know what to do’ we must be willing to reinvent ourselves. We must be prepared to foster an environment which draws and cultivates more aggressive, catalytic leaders. We must learn how to empower them and celebrate their value to the movement.

Leonard Sweet in SoulTsunami put it this way. “The church is missing the boat on what it means to be a leader. Our problem is not a need for leadership to add sanity and order to an insane, irrational system. The church is bursting at the seams with rationality, decency, order, dignity, and predictability. What it needs is the holy intoxications of foolishness, humour, craziness, outrageousness, creative disorder, and passion.”

At its heart the command and control model cultivates bosses and managers, while the network model cultivates leadership. The hierarchical organization is over- managed and under-led with too many bosses and not enough true leaders.

In his book, On Becoming a Leader, Warren Bennis includes a comparison of management and leadership profiles. Much of the following comparison flows out of his writings.

In a nutshell, the fundamental difference between leader and manager is that leaders master their context, while managers surrender to it:

while the manager administrates, the leader innovates
the manager maintains, the leader develops
the manager focuses on systems and structures, the leader on people
managers rely on control, leaders inspire trust
the manager has a short-range view, the leader a long-term perspective
managers ask how and when, leaders what and why
managers have their eyes focused on the bottom line, leaders on the horizon
managers are deductive, leaders inductive
managers imitate, leaders originate
managers accept the status quo, leaders challenge it
while the manager is the classic ‘good soldier’, the leader is his own person
managers are reactive, leaders proactive
while managers do things right, leaders do the right thing
managers focus on efficiency, leaders on effectiveness
managers are rigid, leaders flexible
managers embrace rules, leaders embrace risk
while managers use their common sense, leaders use their imagination
managers avoid failure, leaders embrace it.

FROM SUPERFICIAL TO DEEP CHANGE

A few years ago I saw a bumper sticker that read: Everything in the universe is subject to change and everything is on schedule! Organic in nature, the Church was created to change. Medical doctors will tell you that a clinical definition of death is a body that in which change has ceased. The moment we stop changing, we die.

The third shift we have to make as an organization is from superficial to deep change. When we look around at the Army worldwide we see a great deal of change happening. While some find this change rapid and overwhelming, for others it is long overdue, yet not significant enough and frustratingly slow.

General Gowans’ first recommendation in his final report for the International Commission on Officership pertains to leadership models and structures, and reads as follows: “We recommend that the territories continue to move away from authoritarian models of command and develop consultative models of leadership. Such models will be characterized by consistency with Gospel values, servant leadership, cultural relevance, flexibility, increased and wider participation, and mutual accountability.”

This is a recommendation worthy of our wholehearted endorsement, and not just for officers, but for all members. To bring about such a significant shift in leadership, mindset and organization will require change far beyond the superficial and cosmetic: it must be real, radical and deep. General Gowans further noted: “Salvationists are coping with immense changes in social, economic and religious environments, all of which impact on leadership, demanding clearer focus, greater flexibility, adaptability and understanding for their leaders. All of this represents a major challenge to a movement originally structured as a quasi-military and hierarchical system with international regulations.”

We live in a time when the average invention has a life span of approximately two months before it is replaced. For many, the speed of today’s change can be overwhelming. Even the very nature of change has changed! No longer is it incremental, but exponential. Superficial change has been characterized as: “having to do better what you already know how to do”. Deep change is: “having to do what you don’t know how to do”.

Change that is going to make a difference must be Spirit-led, timely, radical and deep, pushing us beyond our structural comfort zone towards the outer limits. We need to start with the organizational model itself, moving from the yesterday of a command and control model to the tomorrow of a networking model. Such a shift, if we can pull it off, will empower gifted individuals at every level of organizational life to naturally bring about needful change in every aspect of our existence and to breathe new life into what many have called the sleeping giant. It will halt the decline and foster the growth we so desperately need and want. It is a change long overdue.

Writer: This piece was written several years ago by an unknown soldier (of The Salvation Army). It has never been published before. It reflects the author’s experience and study of The Salvation Army and expresses convictions grounded in a deep appreciation of the movement. The author permitted theRubicon to publish this article on the condition that we do so anonymously. The forthright analysis and the conclusions reached, are offered in a spirit of respectful and constructive criticism.

Tuesday, April 1st, 2008 Ecclesia, Ephemera, Power

28 Comments to An Army led

It’s conforting to know that someone else in the Army feels the sameway.

Myself and numerous others recently walked away from the Lakeshore Community Church (Salvation Army) because of the same issues discussed above. For me it was a sad realization that the Army(from the top down)is more political than spiritual. They were all for NCD until it came time to implement changes.

Charles on April 1st, 2008

AMEN!!!!!!!

Please Lord, bring it on.

Eric Himes on April 1st, 2008

hear, hear…like fossiles found today from bygone areas, they can be preserved as long as they stay frozen…for future generations to look at, but you can not thaw them out. If you try, they fall apart. I am afraid it’s way to late for TSA. You would need to place young, ‘inexperienced’ officer in charge of that change, and that would upset all those in line for the promotion and who have bought into the fosilized way of doing buisness. And ‘you can’t do that’.
As always, God does not wait around, He moves on and creates new forms for His body to appear. Forms that refuse to change are left behind by Him to become pieces for the Museum.

Siggi Buschhaus on April 1st, 2008

Interesting article and I agree about the consultative approach to leadership being the best approach at this time. Obviously this article was written a few years ago and I’m assuming it is not an April Fools’joke but it is certainly my experience that the consultative approach is more in place today with the Army hierarchy.

I’m not saying that our leaders are perfect and yes some people have been stifled at times but it does get a bit discouraging though to always put the blame for the state of decline in our Army on the leadership. Many of the ‘fossilized’ leaders are men and women of God who have years of wisdom and experience and in truth are probably more on the front line than any of us and more aware of situations. I’m sure that sometimes if things were as simple to implement as we suggest from the ground up, these leaders would do it.

Personally, I think the state of the decline in the Army has far more to do with people on the ground not always willing to commit to some of the disciplines of bible study, prayer, tithing etc.

Paul Wood on April 1st, 2008

My first reading of this piece leaves me somewhat jumping with joy. I may not agree with all that is in the piece but the central tenet as I see it is that we need to change and adapt our command and control to consult and cooperate.

Our model for leadership holds us back. For most of what we in TSA are about we need a consultative and cooperative leadership style.

Yes there are occasions when command and ontrol may be necessary but those are emergency situations when we as an organization are involved in something where there is no time and no purpose other than get this emergency dealt with.

As a former Manager in a Corrections Enviroment I remember how as a working CO on the floor that supervision and management was command and control. When the oppurtunity within that organization came for me to have some impact (with some other forward thinking managers) we worked towards doing things in a consultative and cooperative way. Front line supervisors and managers were challenged to stop being command and control freaks and to accept a management model that was based on cooperation and consultation with staff who worked the cellblocks and provided front line services. It took time and effort and much pulling of my hair for this to get to the stage where today that system has changed from an old style “Do as I Say Model” with those that put the time in getting the promotions to one where consultation on changes and procedures are part of the process, where cooperation between management and front line workers is the norm, where people who think outside of the box are being listened to and their ideas are being taken seriously.

Somehow I would like to see that change happen withing my community of Christians but the old way still exists.

Our Corps (Winnipeg East) an amalgamation of two preexisting corps had new Officers appointed two years ago with a promise of at least five years. Our structure is a Ministry Board Model with the Corps people handling as much as possible and with decision making allowed at the lowest possible rung of the hierarchy. They (the COs) are doing a fantastic job of leading us into joint community, of challenging us as Christians, and helping us in a Visioning Process.

But all the promises fall through when less than a month ago our COs had to announce to the Corps that THQ is moving them. An unexpected move for them and an unwelcome move for most of the members of our Corps. THQ has a special need for them ( as it has been put). Done in a command and control method without even a hint of consult and cooperate. Somewhat of a bad taste left in our mouths about this even if we were promised that the new COs will be what we want.

Oh for a real change to happen.

John

John Stephenson on April 1st, 2008

I would add my AMEN! If I may, let me add two statements from Eugene H. Petersons great book “The Jesus Way”.
“We do not have to passively let professionals decide the ways to follow Jesus” and also, “There are no experts in the company of Jesus”

Stan Brown on April 1st, 2008

Check out the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship for terrific entrepreneurial values in church leadership. One of the founders was also among the founders of a technology company that quadrupled to 2,500 people in 15 years while staying front-line focused.

flyhigh on April 1st, 2008

Where does the leadership base start?

John Clifton on April 1st, 2008

Good article but it’s too bad that you publish this anonymously.

John Stephenson’s comment (above) says it all: “But all the promises fall through when less than a month ago our COs had to announce to the Corps that THQ is moving them… THQ has a special need for them…”

In Army culture the greater good of the larger Army will always take priority over the individual ministry and/or individual. The problem is that the larger Army is just the sum of the parts and so as the parts get smaller, so goes the Army…

One additional practical thought: I’ve never understood why all the “best officers” get “promoted” up and out of frontline work. Why not do both? The pope is still the bishop of Rome. The result would be HQ staff officers, who normally have great gifts and abilities, would continue to have their hands in frontline ministry units. Their leadership there is needed. I would think that most capable HQ staff officers could do both frontline ministry and their staff roles as well.

John Norton (Canada) on April 1st, 2008

Never more appropriate!

Ben Bridges on April 1st, 2008

Wow! Lots of steam letting go and thats good for the soul. But do it in love for each other. Did you know the Army is growing in the US Western territory/ some 200 people from diverse backgrounds recently converged on the College for Officer Training at Crestmount College for this years future Officers fellowship . The message for the week was ”Live like you mean it”Avoiding negativity with possibility thinking, Quote Comm. Philip Swyers. Over 450 people expressing an interest in Salvation officership. The US theme is Come Join Our Army!Please say your piece in kindness and pray for all who serve in leadership of The Army I love and serve in Jesus name for He along is my Captain,Pope or General.Peace be with you sleep well. Ps get a copy of New Frontier read about an Army on the march.Henry just passing by one day at a time

Henry Armstrong on April 1st, 2008

Anonymous contributor: you ask “What is at the roots of this decline?”

Whilst I understand the desire for consultative leadership I think that Paul has an important insight by suggesting other, perhaps more significant causes of decline…though would want to more fully analyse what these might be.

Merely analysing style and philosophy of leadership doesn’t answer the question about causes of decline, even ‘if’ structural or systemic managements problems are embedded in the Army. This may be a factor in decline but I can’t support the implication that shifting leadership style will lead to growth. The sociologists Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge have done lots of work on what causes religious movements to succeed or fail in a secularising society. They conclude that leadership is one factor, but only one amongst many, and I think we do an injustice to individual leaders in the Salvationist Movement by over-emphasising this one possible contributory factor.

Adrian on April 2nd, 2008

Well said.

However, let me say that as much as I agree with the main empasis in the artical, I do think there are changes happening, just not where you’d notice them so much. Real change has to be from the frontlines. The soldiers on the ground must speak up - not walk away. Those of us in a position to speak to the need for change must do so boldly. It never ceases to amaze me that I haven’t been thrown out after all these years after some of the outrageous things I’ve done and said - always stirring the pot, always pushing the limits, always following the Spirit’s leading, being cheeky and challenging people when the opportunity avails itself.

However, rather than fight for the right to move forward, officers & lay leaders often become discouraged and let that turn into cynicism and despair - they eventually leave the army. This is what is causing decline. That despair & cycicism - is it sinful?

I was watching Jesse Ventura on Larry King Live the other night and he’s written a book called “Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me” - I think we could take a lesson from that. He’s sick and tired of the status quo and says people need to stand up and do something about it.

We need to speak up and send letters to our leaders and let them know what we think of the direction (or lack thereof) they are taking our beloved army. We need to be less aware of “position” and “prestige” and just get on with it.

I’m from Toronto [Canada] originally but I’ve been away since commissioning in 1992. I recently came back to Ontario for a conference and attended an army corps. Oh my, it was like stepping into a time warp. Nothing had changed. It was so very, very weird. It was the second time that has happened another time a few years ago in Ottawa.

Let’s be the change agents God calls us to be and just “git er done!”

much grace… Kathie

Kathie Chiu on April 2nd, 2008

As the captain stears the ship, so the boat goes. Organizations rise and fall on leadership. Read almost any guru and researcher on leadership and that is the way it is. To blame the troops for not moving fast enough whilst they have been led into the swamp, leads to frustration and resignation on behalfe of the troops. And that is where things are at. leaders take responsibilety for where things are at and either get out or affect the changes nessessary to get the troops moving again. And that is not happening for the most part.

Siggi

Siggi Buschhaus on April 3rd, 2008

I just looked up a study by a guy called John Manson. He discovered that during the ’80s the turnover rate amongst Salvation Army officers was as much as one third per year. John Manson also says the senior Army leaders kept for themselves the authority to move officers from corps to corps with little notice and at frequent intervals. He says this high degree of control during the ’80s enabled the Salvation Army’s leadership to maintain a degree of authority that lacked a long-term legitimacy and contributed to the stagnation of the movement’s growth.

Oh, by the way, he was talking about the 1880s.

Go figure!

(Manson, John, “The Salvation Army and the Public: A Religious, Social and Financial Study”, Routledge, London, 1906)

Adrian on April 3rd, 2008

Adrian

One Hundred and twenty odd years later
it appears nothing much has changed re the leaders keeping authority to themselves while putting on a public image of being consulative and cooperative with Corps.

John

John Stephenson on April 3rd, 2008

I like the analogy of the aircraft carrier and the school of fish. Do you suppose that we’re the aircraft carrier slowly being turned?

I’ve maintained for a while now that things must change in the Army if we are to continue to be the force for social change and salvation for the lost we were raised up to be. We’ve become an institution when we began as a movement. An institution has a life span, while movements are organic, constantly evolving and changing to meet the demands of life it is currently facing.

What I would ask and have asked some who have decided it is better to leave than to suffocate as suggested above is: is it worth it for the future of the Army to sacrifice personal satisfaction and comfort to stick with the current model so that change can be brought about…eventually. If all the potential agents for change leave, where will the impetus for change come from? When those who challenge the status quo respectfully and biblically leave, then those who remain are molded into leaders who lead in the same way, with the same tactics and methods. What is needed is serious and meaningful conversation between current leadership and the “rank and file,” along with a committment by both groups to prayerfully consider emerging from such discussions with a new model for SA leadership for the 21st Century and beyond.

Rob on April 3rd, 2008

We are a ‘Salvation’ Army are we not? So we cannot just blame the leaders for decline. After all, how many people on the ground have invited their family/friends to church/shared with them what Jesus means to them, have been bold and public in their love and witness for God? Is it the leadership’s fault if there are those on the ground that stay silent?

Again, I’m not saying the leadership system is perfect but we all needs to hold our hands up and accept blame for the decline. After all is it the leadership’s fault if those on the ground don’t turn up for prayer meetings, house-groups etc. Do those on the ground realize how discouraging that it is for a leader when they preach their heart out on this and very few support it.

The fact is we all have a responsibility and blaming it on the leadership alone, who yes have their faults like anyone else, is almost a cop out of personal responsibility.

Just as an aside, surely the front line is wherever we encounter the unsaved and so those in the Army’s hierarchical leadership are really just as much on the front line as us. I would even add that it is far more easier at corps level to shut ourselves off from the ‘real world’ than it is at DHQ/THQ level.

In the end, I would endorse Henry’s comments to look more positively on this issue. For whatever purposes we are yet to see unfold, God has brought us into The Salvation Army. Let us work together, from the ground to the top and back to be that Salvation Army and we can be an Army of growth - slightly digressing but God is not finished with the Army (by a long mile if you ask me!)

Paul Wood on April 3rd, 2008

I must say to Siggi that your pessimism is unfounded. You assert that those “in line for promotion” have bought into the system, and that only young,inexperienced officers would be capable of bringing about change, and such a clean sweep would not be possible (that part is true). I am an officer in my early forties and every officer friend I have is chomping at the bit to begin a new style of leadership. Many of these friends are now being put in positions where they can effect organizational change. We may not be young, but don’t assume we’ve bought into the heirarchical model. I’m a dedicated Salvationist - I’ll never leave - but I will stick my neck out there and fight for change.

I have seen the generation aof officers above me struggle to adapt to post-modern (sorry, I had to use the term) styles of leadership. It is very hard for them to go against everything they have learned in the past, but they try. I know what books many of them are reading, even what classes some of them are taking to try to catch up. These are people in the top positions of my territory. And I have noted that these people are choosing the innovative thinkers of my generation, who have a “team” approach to leadership, to be their replacements. This older generation is definitely not learning these lessons as quickly as I’d like, and there remain many amongst them who still cherish the heirarchical style. But my hat is off to those who really try.

I speak from the point of view of an officer in the USA West. Not everything is rosy here, but a new generation of middle-aged people is poised to take leadership, and things will begin to change.

Amy Reardon on April 3rd, 2008

Invitation to Kathie Chiu and others. pay a visit to Southlands Community Church of TSA Winnipeg, Canada. If you visit Sunday’s come to worship with your hands high in praise. Henry

Henry Armstrong on April 4th, 2008

Amy, thanks for your insight. Whilst I, like many, acknowledge the need for new styles of leadership within the Army, I’m not convinced that it is the universal panacea for all our woes. I simply don’t subscribe to the ‘fix the leadership model and everything will be ok’ attitude.

The problems that I face at grassroots level in the UK is that people simply aren’t focussed on mission, and this isn’t a new phenomenon. This problem exists at all levels, so ‘fixing’ problems in the higher echelons won’t solve them lower down. Some corps have seen successive officers who are expected to attract new people to the corps whilst feeding those who attend, few if any have ever invited their friends to the corps. If this doesn’t change then no matter what happens at DHQ, THQ or IHQ corps still won’t grow!

Graeme Smith on April 4th, 2008

Perhaps leadership needs to be redefined. For me, anyone can be in a leadership position, having the support, and the right person in that role is where the problem comes in. For example, Paul Wood’s comment about it not being the leadership’s problem if people don’t show up for meetings, perhaps needs to be looked at from a relationship perspective. When you have officers making statements such as “I’m not your spiritual leader” and making unilateral decision that goes against the congregation, how many people and for how long do you suppose the church will continue to grow. This is then exasperated by the failure of the upper echelons to address the issues in a manner that’s transparent to the congregation. It’s one thing to preach God’s love, it’s another thing entirely to show it in our actions and that, I truly believe is where we are failing. We need to revive our collective conscience and put to bed our ego’s. Give God’s love a chance to truly shine through. Be there for the right reasons. When the “person” becomes the focal point as opposed to the “Army” I believe we can make significant positive changes.
I unfortunately think that the rank and file have become more political than spiritual.

Aaron on April 4th, 2008

Graeme makes a good point about mission. Here in the UK, there is a consultative leadership and team approach developing, e.g. a consultation process takes place over new appts between DHQ, corps officers, corps local officers before being submitted up the line for final decisions to be made.

As corps officers, my wife and I feel very well supported by DHQ and indeed THQ with the freedom to be Salvation Army as how best fits the community we find ourselves in. (This doesn’t mean a compromise of beliefs principles etc.)

My experience of the leadership hierarchy as well is one of people equally committed to mission, growth and progress. Sometimes these things take longer than we would like and yet no-one would like to make it happen quicker than out leaders!

Simply changing a leadership model may help to some degree but I do not believe it as the root of our decline. There are other more important issues such as effective discipleship and we all have a responsiblity too.

In addition, we might even find ourselves that the next generation of Salvationists will think we are outdated and out of touch with what is best for the Army!

Following on from Graeme’s point, think about what growth might occur if all members of the SA were to just bring one new person to Christ each year?

Paul Wood on April 4th, 2008

Hey, just in case there is any confusion, there appears to be another “Aaron” posting here, so I will post as “Aaron 614″.

Grace,

Aaron

aaron614 on April 4th, 2008

Aaron

If I have given the impression it is not the leadership’s problem if people don’t turn up for meetings, I do apologize. What I meant was we cannot blame the leaders and leadership structure alone for the problem of decline if people from all levels are not willing to be involved in aspects like bible study, prayer meetings. The leaders would of course need to address this issue and agree with what you say about relationships. I would also strongly disagree with any corps officer who would say to their corps folk, ‘I’m not your spiritual leader’ because they are.

As a corps officer myself, I believe strongly in the corps owning the vision and that it is one bigger than the officer or any other individual so that we all have a collective responsibility towards it. We are a team working together and everyone matters and is of value to realizing the vision God has given our corps.

Paul Wood on April 4th, 2008

You almost make me feel bad for Henry Ford — he can’t ever just get credit for getting people into cars; it’s always the cog in the machine he’s remembered for. Next thing you know, he’ll be blamed for the weather.

I would just add that mechanization was just one factor leading organizations in the 1800s to adopt rigid hierarchies — in addition to an infatuation with all things Prussian, it was also seen as more fair (http://www.angelfire.com/ma3/bobwb/schurz/speech/necessity.html). The civil service movement was a reaction to Tammany Hall-style networks which excluded free thinking and penalized non-loyalty as viciously as any hierarchy.

There are all kinds of structures appropriate to different organizations — a newsroom doesn’t look like a car factory doesn’t look like a stock trading floor and so on. So, I think the article here starts a healthy discussion, but presenting it as a modern vs. old-fashioned (arguing the other side, it would be just as easy to label the difference as tried-and-true vs. trendy) or Christian vs. non-Christian isn’t the most useful way to frame the debate.

Catherine W. on April 5th, 2008

Because of the reference to NCD, I was directed to this article by an officer who participated and facilitated a conference entitled, “Prophets and Paradigms”, at which I spoke on some of the learnings from NCD within The Salvation Army in Australia.

I would like to make a couple of comments….

1. Change can only ever be effected in the areas over which we have influence. Whether we’re officers, soldiers or whatever is the current term to describe “other” members, we all have a sphere of influence - a web or network of relationships in which direction can be wrought.

A friend of mine suggested wisely that whenever we point the finger at someone, we have three fingers pointing back at us. It is easy to absolve ourselves of responsibility and attribute blame for the lack of growth of The Salvation Army on the numbers of the nameless people who exist in The Salvation Army, oft referred to in the corridors as “these”, “those”, “they” or “them”. A non-descript group of people whose identification is as difficult as it is to pick up jelly with chop sticks. We (and therefore I) need to take responsibility within my realm for lack of growth of Jesus followers, small group leaders, ministry leaders and ultimately new corps.

It is my impression lasting change can be made at the extremes - the grass roots expression of The Salvation Army (regardless of the mode of manifestation - corps or social) or in key, primary leadership functions at HQ. (I’m informed that the only three structured decision making positions within The Salvation Army structure at present are Corps Commanding Officer, Divisional Commander and Territorial Commander.) Changes targetting new processes, new management systems etc are merely rearranging the metaphorical deck chairs on the doomed titanic.

As the local expression of The Salvation Army transforms communities, HQs will necessarily take notice.

2. NCD advocates that all churches (corps) have leadership. For some the leadership is dictatorial, others autocratic, others democratic, others apostolic. However, healthy growing churches have a strong culture of empowering leadership. Whilst I agree that we, as a movement, need to move to greater levels of consultative or perhaps more accurately empowering leadership, to do so without appropriate preparation of leaders would be imperilous.

A few years ago my niece (5 years old) believed she could swim. Despite her parents advice to the contrary she was convinced of her capacity to swim. To prove it she jumped into the pool, thrashed about for a while, stirred things up, but eventually started sinking to the bottom, her hands in the air (though more drowning than waving). (She was rescued… we didn’t sit on the side of the pool and watch her drown!)

Whilst we might believe a change at a swift pace to a culture of empowering leadership might be ideal, it may cause some leaders to thrash about a bit, make some change, but ultimately drown. They may think they can empower, but in reality, their experience and training (nature and nurture) makes it extremely difficult for them to function appropriately within such a culture. Sure after some experience and exposure to empowering leadership they can grow in their understanding and abilities of this style of leadership, a sudden change may, in the long term, cause more harm than good.

So am I sitting on the fence giving myself splinters? Not at all. Change is undoubtedly needed. Concurrent systemic change and grass roots change. Each will spur the other on.

My goal is to be found, when the master returns, doing the task to which he called me. It’s easy to become enamoured with the need for change within a movement. God’s called me however to change all that is within my realm, nothing less.

Liam G. on April 20th, 2008

As I read through the various comments it’s a worry that there is no sense of direction no sense of purpose.

C. Peter Wagner suggests that Churches that in the 1970’s who started putting social work as first priority and evangelism in second place started to decline while those that put evangelism first found that the level of social work also went up.

Today we have proof of that with the state of our Army today, we are very out of balance to the point that we are in danger of turning turtle. We are first known as a charity not as a church, whose fault is that?

If you read General Wilfred Kitching’s book “A Goodly Heritage” you will find that he was needing to remind Territorial Commanders that the primary purpose of the Army was saving souls. So I ask you “Do you really want to see Souls Saved?”

I believe that if that was our driver, we would not be in the situation we find ourselves but instead a mighty army which God intended.

Your humble foot soldier.

Roy Stephens on April 30th, 2010

Sound and Fury

Does Power Corrupt? 19 Charlee, Errin Hogan, Errin Hogan
With God on our side 19 Hank Harwell, Robert Deidrick, John Stephenson
What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 13 Phil, Jim, Jim
Officers - "The shrinking pool" 41 Thimon, David Hutchinson, Rob
Resurrected writers: Catherine Booth 1 Michelle Townsend

An Army led

Related posts:

28 Comments to An Army led

Leave a comment

Categories

Sound and Fury