Our regular readers will have noticed by now that we aren't posting as frequently as we used to. This isn't because we're losing interest in the subject; it's just that in three and a half years of posting we've said nearly everything we have to say. We have a few more items left to present, and--of course--this blog will continue to be available even after we have stopped adding to it. (We'll also still be answering emails.)
Before we entirely wind down, however, we'd like to know if there are any subjects our readers were hoping we would address that have not yet come up. If there are, or you simply have questions about something we've said along the line, feel free to let us know about these items either by email or in the comments. We will happily address all such subjects or questions before we're done.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
The Tools of Upper Management
What tools do the upper levels of the Adventist structure have to direct the course of the management levels below them?
Some believe the Church organization functions much like an army, and that the general can simply issue an order from the top to correct a situation anywhere within the ranks. Others also use the military metaphor, but they believe that the general may give directions only to his immediate subordinates, who then speak to their subordinates, etc., so that the direction eventually reaches the foot soldiers. Proponents of this view seem to believe that anyone down the chain of command who wishes to alter or negate an order along the way may do so (which rather destroys the metaphor since that isn’t the way military orders work). Neither view is especially accurate.
It is hard to find an analogy that perfectly describes Adventist structure, but to compare it to a corporation with locally owned franchises would come much closer to reality than a military comparison. Except for local congregations and divisions, each level of the Church organization is an independent legal body, with some things the higher levels of the organization can impact and others they can’t. As we saw in Our Roots, this arrangement is meant to facilitate the handling of local matters by local individuals who can be fully informed and involved in those matters and thereby free general administrators to focus on broader regional or worldwide matters. Unfortunately, it can also hinder action by general administrators in specific situations.
There are three tools that each level of the organization can use to influence the actions of the units of organization directly below it:
1. Providing counsel – the most commonly used tool, but it has the disadvantage that the counsel can be ignored. This item is self-explanatory—each level is supposed to talk to each other, coordinate their actions, and defer to the wisdom of those higher up in the organization. In practice, the leaders of a particular level may choose to ignore the counsel given, which is why we would classify this as a tool without teeth.
2. Administering election processes – intended to keep elections free of bias. The administering of election processes is accomplished by the president of the level above chairing the nominating committee when the subordinate level holds elections. In this role, the counsel of the president of the higher organization can carry great weight with the nominating committee and shape outcomes. This, then, would be a tool that does have teeth and is routinely exercised.
3. Expelling a unit from the Adventist Church – an extreme measure used only in exceedingly rare cases involving gross moral, ethical, or doctrinal violations by a substantial portion of the unit’s constituency. Expelling a unit would also be a tool that has teeth, but not one to be used for any but the very worst of situations. Since conferences and union conferences are legal entities apart from their membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, if expelled they would continue to exist as their own entities, though without the privileges of being part of the worldwide church.
These are the tools of the General Conference, divisions, and union conferences. These rather limited options (and the political capital that can be necessary to use them successfully) go a long way toward explaining why resolution of issues can take such a long time. An argument could be made that there is a fourth tool—money—depending on which direction the money is flowing (down to a poor lower unit or up from a wealthy lower unit). Aside from the double-edged nature of this tool, we are excluding it from the official list of tools because—unlike the other three—the granting or withholding of money is not sanctioned by Church policy as a form of influence.
The list of tools with which a conference influences local congregations is slightly different:
1. Providing counsel – as with the higher levels of the organization, congregations are supposed to counsel and coordinate with conferences in their actions. Also like the higher levels, congregations may choose to ignore the counsel given.
2. Hiring, assigning, and administering the work of pastors – as pastors set the tone in a congregation, control of the pastoral staff equates to control of the congregation. (It has become more common among large and wealthy congregations to hire additional pastoral staff with local funds, and these individuals would then answer to the congregation rather than the conference, but this scenario continues to be the exception rather than the rule.) This is the single most effective tool a conference has for managing the course of congregations—assuming they have the guts to use it. To put it bluntly, people pay attention to the will of the people or entity controlling their paycheck. If a pastor or pastors exceeding their authority understood from their conferences in no uncertain terms that failure to comply with certain boundaries would negatively impact their employment, there would most likely be a correction (or at least a show of correction).
3. Downgrading a congregation – usually a practical reaction to insufficient members or funding, but this action can also be taken as a disciplinary measure. Under the Adventist system of governance there are two classifications of congregations—the “church” and the “company.” A company is a smaller, usually younger, body that has not yet grown large enough to be a church in its own right. Companies are generally new plants made by nearby churches, and are overseen by those churches. When a company becomes a church it oversees its own affairs. It is within the power of a conference to make companies into churches, or churches into companies.
4. Dissolving a congregation – as with expelling an administrative unit, this is an extreme measure used only to address massive problems. Unlike expulsion of an administrative unit, a congregation whose collective membership is revoked ceases to exist and its assets are understood to be the property of the conference. (Members who are considered “loyal” may have their memberships transferred to other congregations, but the rest cease to have membership in the Adventist church should their congregation be dissolved. Who is considered loyal and who isn’t is a determination made by the conference.)
This greater range of options gives a conference much more flexibility (and leverage) to address issues that may crop up in the congregations they administer. Unfortunately, whether through disinterest, prioritization of the pastor’s well-being over that of the congregation, cowardice, or some other motive, it is rare to see a conference intervene in a troubled congregation.
The limits to what the higher organization is willing or able to do only serve to emphasize the importance of the membership using their tool for impacting the direction of their church—active and informed participation and voting in the business meetings of their congregations and larger constituent organizations.
Some believe the Church organization functions much like an army, and that the general can simply issue an order from the top to correct a situation anywhere within the ranks. Others also use the military metaphor, but they believe that the general may give directions only to his immediate subordinates, who then speak to their subordinates, etc., so that the direction eventually reaches the foot soldiers. Proponents of this view seem to believe that anyone down the chain of command who wishes to alter or negate an order along the way may do so (which rather destroys the metaphor since that isn’t the way military orders work). Neither view is especially accurate.
It is hard to find an analogy that perfectly describes Adventist structure, but to compare it to a corporation with locally owned franchises would come much closer to reality than a military comparison. Except for local congregations and divisions, each level of the Church organization is an independent legal body, with some things the higher levels of the organization can impact and others they can’t. As we saw in Our Roots, this arrangement is meant to facilitate the handling of local matters by local individuals who can be fully informed and involved in those matters and thereby free general administrators to focus on broader regional or worldwide matters. Unfortunately, it can also hinder action by general administrators in specific situations.
There are three tools that each level of the organization can use to influence the actions of the units of organization directly below it:
1. Providing counsel – the most commonly used tool, but it has the disadvantage that the counsel can be ignored. This item is self-explanatory—each level is supposed to talk to each other, coordinate their actions, and defer to the wisdom of those higher up in the organization. In practice, the leaders of a particular level may choose to ignore the counsel given, which is why we would classify this as a tool without teeth.
2. Administering election processes – intended to keep elections free of bias. The administering of election processes is accomplished by the president of the level above chairing the nominating committee when the subordinate level holds elections. In this role, the counsel of the president of the higher organization can carry great weight with the nominating committee and shape outcomes. This, then, would be a tool that does have teeth and is routinely exercised.
3. Expelling a unit from the Adventist Church – an extreme measure used only in exceedingly rare cases involving gross moral, ethical, or doctrinal violations by a substantial portion of the unit’s constituency. Expelling a unit would also be a tool that has teeth, but not one to be used for any but the very worst of situations. Since conferences and union conferences are legal entities apart from their membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, if expelled they would continue to exist as their own entities, though without the privileges of being part of the worldwide church.
These are the tools of the General Conference, divisions, and union conferences. These rather limited options (and the political capital that can be necessary to use them successfully) go a long way toward explaining why resolution of issues can take such a long time. An argument could be made that there is a fourth tool—money—depending on which direction the money is flowing (down to a poor lower unit or up from a wealthy lower unit). Aside from the double-edged nature of this tool, we are excluding it from the official list of tools because—unlike the other three—the granting or withholding of money is not sanctioned by Church policy as a form of influence.
The list of tools with which a conference influences local congregations is slightly different:
1. Providing counsel – as with the higher levels of the organization, congregations are supposed to counsel and coordinate with conferences in their actions. Also like the higher levels, congregations may choose to ignore the counsel given.
2. Hiring, assigning, and administering the work of pastors – as pastors set the tone in a congregation, control of the pastoral staff equates to control of the congregation. (It has become more common among large and wealthy congregations to hire additional pastoral staff with local funds, and these individuals would then answer to the congregation rather than the conference, but this scenario continues to be the exception rather than the rule.) This is the single most effective tool a conference has for managing the course of congregations—assuming they have the guts to use it. To put it bluntly, people pay attention to the will of the people or entity controlling their paycheck. If a pastor or pastors exceeding their authority understood from their conferences in no uncertain terms that failure to comply with certain boundaries would negatively impact their employment, there would most likely be a correction (or at least a show of correction).
3. Downgrading a congregation – usually a practical reaction to insufficient members or funding, but this action can also be taken as a disciplinary measure. Under the Adventist system of governance there are two classifications of congregations—the “church” and the “company.” A company is a smaller, usually younger, body that has not yet grown large enough to be a church in its own right. Companies are generally new plants made by nearby churches, and are overseen by those churches. When a company becomes a church it oversees its own affairs. It is within the power of a conference to make companies into churches, or churches into companies.
4. Dissolving a congregation – as with expelling an administrative unit, this is an extreme measure used only to address massive problems. Unlike expulsion of an administrative unit, a congregation whose collective membership is revoked ceases to exist and its assets are understood to be the property of the conference. (Members who are considered “loyal” may have their memberships transferred to other congregations, but the rest cease to have membership in the Adventist church should their congregation be dissolved. Who is considered loyal and who isn’t is a determination made by the conference.)
This greater range of options gives a conference much more flexibility (and leverage) to address issues that may crop up in the congregations they administer. Unfortunately, whether through disinterest, prioritization of the pastor’s well-being over that of the congregation, cowardice, or some other motive, it is rare to see a conference intervene in a troubled congregation.
The limits to what the higher organization is willing or able to do only serve to emphasize the importance of the membership using their tool for impacting the direction of their church—active and informed participation and voting in the business meetings of their congregations and larger constituent organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)