The FSAOF
is not responsible for the views and opinions expressed. They are the
contributors' own.
No
endorsement is implied.
The
below comments were posted in response to a blog article on Tuesday, 26 February, 2013
Anonymous said...
What have
I missed? I'm a newcomer to this discussion alerted to it by a fellow officer.
I
know many ex-officers and some have spoken with me about this group, but I
never realized that they represented such a large number of former officers,
and from so many territories.
Are our
leaders blinded by the numbers, the sophistication, the wisdom, the unique
insight, the growing strength, the pure resource that their FSAOF fellowship
offers? Am I to understand that no attempt has been made to enter dialogue?
The recruitment
and retention of officers is one of the most critical threats to our Army's
future. Let's move out of our complacency and accept the fact that we don't
always know best!
An offer of help has been extended - We don't have the
advantage of time on our side and need to accept this magnanimous gesture from
a group that seemingly has all the answers at their fingertips.
Active SA
Officer
USA
DHQ East
Anonymous said...
Maybe we could turn the Army's entire appointment system into a
lottery! After all, it was used to find a successor to Judas.
Anonymous said...
A
symposium of officers and lay people was held a number of years ago at
Jackson's Point Conference Center when the Canadian territory had two
relatively enlightened leader Christine McMillan was the TC and Glen Shepherd
the CS.
Out of that Symposium came a vision and recommendations for the future
of the Army in the Canadian territory. In particular there were recommendations
about changes in governance, transparency and accountability.
My
understanding is that McMillan and Shepherd presented these recommendations to
the General Shaw Clifton and they were turned down flat. Their successors in
the Canadian territory were the relatively conservative Commissioners - Bill
and Marilyn Frances from the USA.
Where
did the good recommendations from that symposium end up? Probably buried in a
filing cabinet somewhere. Such a shame - there was potential for significant
change after that Symposium. Instead the conservative reins were pulled in by
Clifton and TSA is far past the critical point.
We are
continuing to follow the path of the YMCA on route to becoming a social
organization with Christian origins run by employees. The fact that we still
exist is interpreted as God's blessing on us. How misguided can people be? Many
secular organizations run very successfully. Even as a charity in Canada we
have been publicly given C and D ratings in all categories - exception one B,
no A ratings.
The edge
of the cliff has long since been fallen off of - the time for change passed us
many years ago.
I guess miracles can happen but with this archaic autocratic
structure it makes even miracles impossible where loyalty and obedience to a
system is so valued.
Anonymous said...
Within hours of handing in my resignation and officer showed
up at the door of my quarters demanding the keys to the vehicle and giving me
three days to vacate the quarters. I got a fax from THQ giving me slightly
longer to vacate, but the car was gone that day.
After that? Never again
heard anything from the organization.
"Cherished"? I rather think not.
Anonymous said...
I fear
debate about the structure is to miss the point: the problem is the people
within it. I firmly believe that the current structure, at all levels, serves
the organisation well. I do not believe that the approach and attitudes of some
of the people that serve within it best further the cause of the movement in
either the presentation of who and what we are to the public or, sadly, enables
us to stride further and effectively in a cause ‘to win the world for Jesus’.
A
previous commentator is quite correct, the Canadian territory, at that time,
was led by ‘enlightened’ leaders; perhaps, ahead of the time but courageous
enough to see that the territorial situation demanded changed approach.
Unfortunately, the General of the day, and the succeeding territorial leaders,
were known for their conservative, risk-averse approach and, as stated, ‘the
time for change passed’.
Canada is
now led by a leader who was pulled out of relative obscurity and tracked up the
ladder by … General Shaw Clifton. It is therefore unsurprising that some of the
traits that obviously caught the previous General’s attention – conservative,
safe-pair-of-hands, - are now manifest in his leadership of the territory.
To my
mind, the issues of officer retention and recruitment hinges on trust and
confidence. Sadly, the movement is riddled, in every area, with deficiencies on
both wings. The structure is merely a framework and the problem is that many of
the people who sit-at-desks lack the skills and, in too many cases, the
personal integrity to allow trust and confidence to grow and flow from them.
The system seemingly, in too many cases, prospers, however that might be
defined, the wrong people: how can a field secretary that would not know the
truth if it hit him the face and, at the same time, be utterly bereft of
inter-personal relational skills end up at that desk? Yet it happens and far
too many times to make it an aberration. How do we end up with people in financial
management roles that, when they were corps officers, had reputation for being
somewhat opaque when it came to handling the corps’ monies and could not
complete a bank reconciliation either? How do we end up with a DC that when he
was a corps officer could barely manage to successfully and effectively command
his corps? Yet, we all know of the round-pegs that fill the organisational
square-holes. Too many, over too long a period of time and confidence
dissipates and trust breaks down and before we know such deficiencies are
endemic and we have a organisational culture defined by mistrust and fear.
I fear
for the movement’s future. I would not go back: sadly, I think I could say that
if I knew then what I knew now, I would have not gone in the first place. I do
agree with the previous writer, I think we are past the critical point unless …
and it is a big ask, and I do not believe the time of miracles are past, there
is something that only the Almighty can do. The corresponding effort of those
of us ‘here below’ will have to be herculean and courageous.
I do
sense there is a move afoot: there is something stirring that is enabling
people to speak out. Forum such as this, energise and enthuse a far broader
constituency than the group was established to resource as it deals with issues
and approaches subjects that are dear to the hearts of many Salvationists who
might feel that the organisation marches to a beat that is not quite the same
as theirs. Pioneers rarely benefit, choosing to forge a path and create a
circumstance for the betterment of those who follow in their wake. It could be
that those who seek to make the biggest change succeed when they ensure that
their children do not suffer the same organisational injustices and personal
hurts as experienced by many of us.
Grace has
kept us and will continue to so. Let’s keep on, keeping on!
DW
Nearly 15 years ago, General Rader and then General Gowans set the
Salvation Army on a path that had the potential to address some of the concerns
from around the world concerning officer retention. In that process, they
actually surveyed all officers, had a commission on officership that made a
number of recommendations, and then the General issued a final paper on this, to
be carried out in the territories around the world. The proposals included
consultation on appointments, the potability of pensions, gender concerns,
single spouse officership, etc. It appeared at that time to be a first step in
addressing many of the issues. Sad to say, those recommendations have, for the
most part, been disregarded in most territories. That exercise stands as a
symbol to me that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it' mentality
continues to operate in TSA.
It seemed as though Rader and Gowans knew that officership as it
stood was in danger of breaking - and now, years later, that danger is even
greater.
Retired (early)
USA East
Anonymous said...
The
problems in Canada and symbolic of the issues that occur in any organisation
that values its structures and polity over mission and people.
In
Australia, in at least one of the Territories, married officers with children
are required to apply for a government benefit which, after recent policy
changes, they are unlikely to qualify for, because to qualify they are supposed
to be looking for or training work at least at the minimum wage. Officers
become effectively homeless because the Army cannot make quick effective online
rental applications, when almost all applications are online.
Saying
"the real estate agent has to wait" when there are 30 other families
seeking the same property is ridiculous. These people would not survive in open
employment with actual accountability, and they wonder why they lose officers
hand over fist.
Anonymous said...
DW
What an excellent post, It is obvious that in your leaving
the Army lost the potential for great leadership.
You ask how such present leadership can be? I am sure you know the
answer. Peter Drucker put it simply when he called it "The Peter
Principle":
"People rising to the level of their
incompetence"!
What an indictment you have made of the present leadership in
Canada and Bermuda: how very sad.
Former C&B <)))><
Anonymous said...
The
jhierarchical structure is a problem because its success depends totally on the
smarts and goodness of the people at the top. You'd think we might have learned
from the RC church that church governance based on hierarchy of rank and
position by its very nature is far more vulnerable to power abuse than a more
democratic structure.
We all
know the pitfalls of democracy and the tyranny of the majority but even with
it's pitfalls democracy has more accountability and is less vulnerable to power
abuse.
TSA
needed to change it's structure and governance system long ago. Its appointment
and transfer system might have been a good place to have started.
Drucker's 'Peter Principle' analysis can be applied to many
persons in any large organization, especially when their employees number in
the hundreds of thousands worldwide, as in the case of the SA.
Four decades on Drucker says; "The Salvation Army is
America's most effective charity" He gives the Army top marks for
"clarity of mission, ability to innovate, measurable results, dedication
and putting money to maximum use. No other charity "even comes
close."
Can Drucker’s observations be applied to today’s Army officer
leadership or is he referring to the overall achievements directed by advisory
boards guided by successful corporate leaders and professional staff, rather
than those in SA uniform? And do accolades for its effectiveness in fund
raising rest in the public’s long held nostalgic sentiment of 'hot coffee and
donuts' in the trenches, coupled with today's slick PR campaigns and media
releases?
Anonymous said...
Carrying
on from the previous two references to the Peter Principle, some will be
familiar with Rev. Richard Stazesky’s contributions in seeking reconciliation
in the UMC during the turbulent segregation era. Here’s a brief outline of the
characteristics of a highly effective leader as he illustrates Washington's
genius as a leader in his roles as commander in chief of the Continental Army.
(speech given in 2000)
'What
can we learn from him and how can we identify the “Peters” …
The
visionary leader, first of all, has very
clear, encompassing and far-reaching
vision in regard to the cause or organization involved. This vision includes
ideas and goals which remain constant no matter how long it takes to realize
them and regardless of the difficulties which the leader encounters.
Furthermore, the leader never allows any of the means or actions along the way
to violate or invalidate this vision and its constituent values.
Secondly,
the visionary leader is skillful in designing and creating an organizational
culture which will make possible the attainment of the leader's vision and
ideas. In fact, creating this organizational culture may be the most lasting
contribution of the leader for it will consist of the enduring values, vision and
beliefs that are shared by members of the organization.
Thirdly,
the visionary leader is also a person who can attract others to follow him/her
in seeking attainment of the vision. But more than that, this charismatic
person is able to instill in others the ideas, beliefs and values of the vision
so that they become empowered to move beyond the leader's and their own
expectations.
In
brief, the visionary leader has a vision into the far future, can develop an
effective organization and can attract others to strive also for the attainment
of his/her vision so that it becomes a shared vision and they all work together
in an organization that sustains the vision, its beliefs and its values.'
________
Where
and who are the ‘Peters’ who have violated and stifled actions and invalidated
the Army’s vision and its constituent values?
Former
US West
Status quo is the great enemy of leadership. Leadership is about
caring about something beyond yourself and leading others to a better place.
What we are seeing right now is people leading us to a former place, not a
better place. A return to the safe in the face of peril. It's a knee jerk
reaction to the present situation of decline - resort to the familiar and safe
place. "We need to get back to basics" is a common thought.
Yes, we were progressing toward something different here in
Canada. And any SA leader that doesn't think we have to make changes to the
officer culture is fooling themselves. Here in the West we are facing different
challenges than they are in the East and in South Asia and Africa.
People in our corps see what it's like for officers and don't want
that for their lives. We're smarter today about human psychology and the limits
of sacrifice. We know how much the current system affects our health, families and
marriages, ripping children from their families before their ready to leave and
separating them from their parents before they're ready to stand on their own.
Aging parents get left behind and right now, none of this is important.
I think if we kept all our officers' children we'd double the size
of our church here in Canada! (perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit) And in Canada,
you can be 3000-5000 miles apart in one move!
As for what the public thinks? I heard that someone on our
national advisory board didn't want us to change our uniforms because he loved
them. Not enough to join and wear one, though.
There's a disconnect, like Sven says, between the social and what
the public sees and what we really are. I've warned before about our national
ad campaign calling us the largest private social services agency in Canada. No
mention there of "spiritual" or "Christian" or even the
word "faith." What do we expect people to know about us? We complain
they think we're only a social service agency and then that's what we say we
are all over billboards, TV commercials and radio ads. I think you are what you
say you are.
I also notice with sadness, the number of people that comment
anonymously. While I respect each for how they feel about that and this is
certainly no criticism, it speaks to the lack of openness in our organization
and about the fear we all have. I threw caution to the wind years ago and I've
experienced the consequences of that. I can respect others who don't want to
take chances, especially those with children at home or near retirement.
I
hope someone is listening who can make changes.
I hope that IHQ will give territories more leeway to address
challenges in our various countries as they're all different, even here in
North America - Canada and the US have very different cultures. Even in Canada
alone, from coast to coast the issues are different. We have to adapt if we're
going to survive, never mind thrive.
I don't have all the answers. I'd just like to see everything on
the table and a willingness to change and embrace something new. Our founders
did that. Let's not let them down.
Anonymous said...
I sat and
listened to the TC in Canada tell us at our retreat that his answer to the
recruitment question is to ask the retired officers to stay longer.
Really?
That's the extent of his thinking on the matter? No other creative ideas coming
out of THQ?
Well,
what can we expect.
Right now officers in Canada are experiencing a roll back
to a more controlling and paternalistic method of dealing with officers. No
consultation, the trend of staying up to 10 yrs in an appointment in 3rd and
subsequent appointments gone out the window.
What a
different SA world it would be if there had been a different choice for
General.
Many are
tired, worn out and stressed out. We're going to lose far more in Canada than
just those retired.
We
almost became formers not so long ago and we now take each year, one at a time,
re-evaluating whether it's the time to go or do we stay. So far the Lord has
kept us in.
We enjoy
our work so much, we love the people we serve and the mission. We just can't
stand the system and it's self perpetuating nonsense.
Anonymous said...
As I read this article and subsequent comments the phrase: 'Where
there is no vision the people perish' comes to mind, and I am reminded of a DC
when asked what his vision was for his division responded by saying: 'Not to
close any Corps in the next twelve months'.
JoAnn Shade mentioned a survey of all officers, and a commission
on officership that made a number of recommendations. It is beyond my
comprehension that officers within the UKIT are asked every year to make sure
all lay staff return similar surveys so recommendations can be made and
followed through.
Do our leaders really have no idea how demoralising it is to
officers that the opinion of lay staff is valued - but not their officers.
Within the Church of England such a survey is sent out to every minister every
year, they have a 70% return because their ministers have seen action in
response to their comments and concerns.
Will we ever learn and respond to what we learn? I fear not, not
before it is too late and dear Salvation Army I fear we are quickly running out
of time. I believe God hasn't finished with us yet. But equally I believe it is
time for us to wake up smell the coffee and respond accordingly.
Struggling active UKIT
Anonymous said...
Sven, I
fear you and your colleagues are preaching to the converted. It is clear to me
that the SA leaders have their heads buried in the sand and are far more
concerned about their position of power than realistic changes that need to
happen for the Army to move forward.
Who in
their right mind would want to stay in such a movement?
Movement, that's a joke.
