Friendly Fire

Let’s avoid shooting SA employees

I

f a person asked me whether he should become an adherent in The Salvation Army, I would say go for it; God is still using the Army to draw people unto himself.  If an adherent asked me whether she should become a soldier I would say by all means; I believe anyone ‘called’ to serve in the Army is called into a life of soldiership – a unique (though not exclusive) covenant with Jesus Christ.

If a soldier asked me whether he should become an officer I would give them the nod of approval; though we are all called to minister, both the Old and New Testament affirm the truth that God calls some to be set aside for fulltime ministry (vocational ministry, if you will).  If anyone (Christian or non-Christian) asked me if it would be worthwhile becoming a volunteer for the Army I would give an enthusiastic ‘yes’; we need these people to keep our Army on the march.  But if someone asked me whether they should work for the Army as an employee, a paid worker (not including officers), I would say with conviction, “ummm….maybe.”

Although the term has been in existence for a long time, Canadians first heard of “friendly fire” in 2002 when an American F-16 fighter jet dropped a laser-guided bomb near Kandahar, Afghanistan, accidently killing four Canadian soldiers and injuring eight others.  In our own Salvation Army, I believe that many employees have become casualties of friendly fire.  I am talking about those people who, with the best of intentions, joined our ranks only to find themselves the victim of friendly fire, inflicted upon them by colleagues, subordinates, and in many cases – superiors.

I’ve heard too many stories of Army employees in both low-level to high-level positions being harassed on the job, given inconsistent or improper supervision, given inadequate training to do the job and then being unfairly disciplined when things go wrong. In some cases, they have been dismissed for no discernible reason.  Why do we treat our employees this way?  Is there a disconnect between the way we treat those lost souls we’re trying to win for Christ, and those souls who have joined our ranks as employees?  Is the common criticism true that we often “eat our own”?

First of all, let me say that I have no entrenched bitterness against The Salvation Army.  It was through the Army I came to faith; indeed I’ve dedicated my life in service to the Army’s mission: to save souls, grow saints and serve suffering humanity.  But it is important in our love for the Army not to neglect our blind spots.  The stain of sin is evident in even the most pious person; likewise there are many imperfections to be found in one of the world’s best organizations.  And let me say that ideally speaking, the Army makes every attempt to provide their employees with good benefits and suitable working conditions.

Here in Canada, safeguards such as the Territorial Abuse Advisor have been put in place to ensure that Army employees have watchdog protection, that much needed right to cry “foul” when things are amiss.  I think some Salvation Army divisions have an excellent reputation for their treatment of employees.  Unfortunately however, some divisions have quite a negative reputation, and some regions within those divisions are known for their ill treatment of their employees.  All this is anecdotal of course – I don’t have statistics to show you of the percentage of employees happy at their jobs.  However, I am sure you would not be hard-pressed to find former employees who have been recipients of the Army’s friendly fire.

So why does this happen?  Well it would be naive to think that one would experience less work-related problems employed at a church as opposed to a secular work environment.  The church is both divine and human, both eternal and temporal.  Conflict exists in both the sacred and the secular spheres.  Though the reasons for friendly fire are numerous, I am going to offer three specific ideas as to why Salvation Army employees sometimes receive less-than-fair treatment.

1. A sense of entitlement on the part of management (officers).  Some officers see themselves as defenders of the Army, and therefore as the ultimate apologists of “the Army way” they take it upon themselves to ensure that “the way” is preserved at all costs.  And if an employee is seen challenging the way, that employee is soon judged to be expendable.  While officers do exercise power over their employees, an officer with a sense of entitlement will believe she has carte blanche authority to fire them for any reason whatsoever.
2. Inexperience.  Many officers in management positions today became officers at a young age.  Over time they developed skill sets around preaching, teaching, administration, etc.  But if you became an officer at the tender age of 19, chances are you have little experience in employing people.  Being a good employer involves being a good listener, being sensitive to the needs of your employees, being able to competently handle their administration, providing adequate training and supervision, and offering regular feedback and evaluation.  It is my opinion that some officers in positions of management, simply don’t possess these abilities.
3. Seeing people as simply a means to an end.  Ultimately, friendly fire occurs when in our eagerness to get on with the Army’s mission we begin to see people only as a means to complete the mission.  While it must be noted that officers and executive directors are often under enormous pressure to carry out the organization’s objectives, this pressure to succeed causes employers to treat their employees as commodities or tools and not people.  When those in positions of authority begin to lose this fundamental level of respect for their fellow human beings, it soon becomes easy to mistreat them.

Bramwell Booth raised an indignant cry at an Army leaflet that read The Christian Mission is a Volunteer Army.  “I’m a Regular or nothing!” was his response.  But as much as Bramwell (or perhaps we ourselves) wouldn’t want to admit, The Salvation Army is a volunteer Army.  Whether we come to the Army as volunteers, soldiers/adherents, officers or paid employees, we are here out of our own free will.  True, we may be responding in obedience to God’s direction, but our response to serve or not to serve is determined by our own God-given freedom.  How sad it is then when we reward our employees with such ill-treatment.

On one level we are being forced to treat our employees better.  In social services in particular, the number of unionized employees are on the rise.  But shouldn’t the way we treat our workers be motivated by our love for God?  We can handle lawsuits and labour grievances rather easily; but when we are called to give an answer to God Almighty on how we treated our fellow humans – well, that is an arbitration hearing I hope I’m prepared for.

While I’ve picked on officers a lot it must be said that employees experience ill treatment at all levels: from superiors (who may not be officers at all), from their fellow colleagues and from their clients and customers.  As a future officer though, I acknowledge the role we play in this and how we must show Godly leadership to make the situation better.  The Evil One throws enough fiery darts at God’s children; let’s avoid further casualties – especially as a result of friendly fire.

Writer: Rob Jeffery is a Salvationist who hails from the east coast of Canada (Halifax, Nova Scotia) where he spent several years in the Canadian Armed Forces. Rob has a deep interest in all things geo-political and how The Salvation Army is called to serve in a hurting world. Pursuing excellence in leadership and discipleship is another area of study that excites him. Along with his wife Hannah and son James, Rob lives in Winnipeg where he attends the College for Officer Training.

9 Comments to Friendly Fire

1. You sir, will be a welcome addition to the officer ranks of the Salvation Army. Do you know of 100 more with your insight?
   Stan Brown
Stan Brown on October 6th, 2008

2. Rob J. Thanks for this and the conviction it took to say it. I have issues with what you are saying. This is an anecdotal, impressionistic piece. Not a bad thing in itself, but you fall short on developing a clear prescription to resolve the problem…and even framing what the problem is. The central problem would seem to be that non-officer employees aren’t appreciated and/or are disrespected. This happens, you suggest because historically officers (the sources of managers) have been very young when they first entered the profession and have not received much in the way of post-secondary education.
   I can’t think of a single profession that doesn’t make for this tendency…And if anything it’s worse where years of study and credentials are requirements. Thanks again, Andrea
Andrea614Regent on October 6th, 2008

3. Why is it that whenever someone raises valid discussion points to help us all along someone has to comment on their apparent lack of providing solutions? What are your ideas Andrea? For me, I look at this from what I believe is the writer’s underlying point, AS CHRISTIAN’s, we should be responding in love to ALL whom we deal with, not just those “we’ve been called to save”. To that end, I believe we need to get back to basics, prayer, fellowship and putting away of the old self (ego).
Peter on October 7th, 2008

4. Peter… The problem that has been outlined here is likely not Army-specific. And solutions have probably been developed elsewhere. Anyway, looking to ways similar issues were resolved in other organizations might be part of the answer. It’s not much to ask.

   Andrea
Andrea614Regent on October 8th, 2008

5. This does have something to do with a power differential. A commanding officer, in charge, may not recognize the value of working toward consensus with employees. We also don’t tend to have a process for grievance that involves mediation - rather, it is generally an appeal to HQ, all too often without an unbiased person involved in the process. In my experience, I’d be hard-pressed to note a conflict where the employee was upheld and the officer disciplined in some way. Solutions can include regular staff meetings, reasonable expectations, open communication, open dialogue between the employee and HQ, adequate supervision of officers, shared evaluations, etc. In our division, we’ve done training workshops on the officer/employee relationship as well.
JoAnn Shade on November 5th, 2008

6. JoAnn - your comment reminded me of a quote I’d noted a few years ago and came across again earlier this week. I think it addresses some of what you allude to in the power differential. Fodder for some thought, anyway …

   “Fear is one of the greatest diseases of mankind, and it is rampant in organizations and in group decision making because power has often become an entity in itself instead of a tool for living. People use power, sometimes in the form of factual knowledge, to dominate others rather than as a means of facilitating processes.” (Dorothy Marcic, Managing with the Wisdom of Love)
Sharon on November 5th, 2008

7. Sharon:

   That’s a great quote. I think though, that Rob J. is not talking about the power stemming from knowledge, but rather position. Nevertheless, the point that power, when it is used to reinforce itself, rather than improve the organization is a very powerful one. And it does come down to selfishness vs. love.

   Andrea
Andrea614Regent on November 6th, 2008

8. I’ve been in the “Army” since I was a small girl - one of the neighborhood kids who was picked up, found a spiritual and emotional home, and stayed. I’ve been a soldier, an officer, and am now happily a soldier and a long time employee. I believe that one of the hidden reasons for the unkind and casual way that employees get treated is financial. The lack of appreciation that officers have for every day economics is breath taking - only someone who has never made a rent or mortgage payment could so cavalierly fire someone without a second thought about there welfare (or that of their family).
Sheila on November 6th, 2008

9. Would it be accurate to say that the way employees in the Army are treated is a reflection of how some leaders in the Army, lay managers and Officers, really value people? I’ve got no problem with getting ‘tough’ on unfair practises and incompetence - but this unacceptable behavior is not restricted just to those with red trim. At this point in the Canadian Territory, there is significant “employee” representation at very senior levels of THQ - but we are still doling out shabby treatment far to frequently to those in service - both employees and Officers in the field. Pretty “Value Statements” on the walls don’t mean much if they are not followed, and if there are no consequences for leaders who ignore them.

   While I agree with much that has been said above, I would say that at least employees have some protection and options when they are mis-treated. There is unionization, Provincial Employee Standards, engaging legal counsel, and so on. Officers have very few options and very little protection - and this is exacerbated by the Army’s position that Officers are simply “volunteers” and are not entitled to the rights of employees when it comes to the work place.

   I wonder if some of the negative treatment of staff by “Officers in Charge” is because the primary training that those Officers have received is what has been modeled by their superiors? Many senior leaders/Officers (not all thank goodness!) have for decades been emersed and shaped by a culture that is top-down, autocratic, non-consultative, and fear based. There are very few Officers at senior levels who have been trained in managing people and human resources. The vast majority have never worked outside of the Army and have no other frame of reference than to reflect on how they themselves were “trained”. Sadly, Training Colleges seem focused on turning out individuals whose primary leadership (and I use the term loosely) characteristic is compliance. At the heart of the issue is the reality that whether it is a Corps Officer with 3 employees, or a DC with responsibility for 100’s of staff - there is little or no accountability in place. When an employee is under-performing, we move them to dismissal. When an Officer is under-performing - we just move them. The time for change is long overdue, but the culture of fear that has been created and kept alive in the Army prevents many from acting and speaking out. I would suggest (thinking of you Andrea!) that a place to start is the development of an effective means for holding leaders accountable, and the development and implementation of a safe way for those who want to be heard to bring their suggestions, concerns, complaints, ideas, to the most senior levels of leadership … and get a resonse!
Mark on December 11th, 2008

Leave a comment