How Can The Salvation Army Successfully
Recruit and Retain Officers in the Canada and Bermuda Territory?
In a recent
article written by the Territorial Commander for Canada & Bermuda, entitled
“Why Officership?”, Commissioner
Brian Peddle attempts to answer
the question on how to recruit officers in this present age. After reading his
words- perhaps the more appropriate questions would be not only how to recruit,
but also how to retain officers.
It has been said
over the past few years, that within this decade, the Canada & Bermuda
Territory will have more retired than active officers. It is also fact that many 'retireds'
are being called back to active service as many “ministry units” as Peddle
calls them need leadership. The
reality is and has been for the past decade at the least, that there are not
enough officers to fill all the appointments needing them!
Over the past 25
years or so, The Salvation Army in Canada has lost hundreds of active officers
to resignation and termination.
For those who resigned “in good standing”, we need to ask why? For those who were terminated, we also
need to ask- could something have been done to prevent this? While there may have been instances of
attempts on The Salvation Army's part to keep some of the before mentioned, how
many were simply lost?
As The Salvation
Army tries to figure out what to do to reverse their declining numbers, perhaps
there should be some dialogue with “Formers.” After all they have faced this problem head on.
As I read Peddle's
article I was amazed by what I viewed as his naïveté on the entire
subject. Is he that isolated that
he does not know why The Salvation Army has this problem in the first
place? I mean no disrespect to the
Commissioner, but seriously his comments in this article are in my opinion quite flawed.
He says in his
article that The Salvation Army is 'first and foremost a spiritual
movement.' Is that so? I certainly cannot and do not disagree
with this statement. However, do the majority of the population at least in
Canada agree? Not the ones I have
spoken to. Some responsibility on
the part of The Salvation Army to not getting this message out effectively has
to be acknowledged here. Is The
Salvation Army so insulated from the real world that they do not know this?
The Commissioner
then goes on to say that officers become “ a great gift to The Salvation
Army.” Really? If that is so, why are so many officers
resigning? How many Formers felt cherished in that way? Peddle states that The Salvation Army
needs to ensure it has officers for the future- duh!. Is this not a huge understatement? His answer to this need is to pray and ask God to give The
Salvation Army more. Aren't faith
without works dead? Does The
Salvation Army deserve more officers when it is perceived by some that they
were not treated well? Has God
decided that The Salvation Army has outlived its usefulness?
The Commissioner
then states that the Canada & Bermuda territory continues to be blessed by
God because they continue to welcome Cadets to their training college. Really? There are sixteen (16) cadets at present. During The Salvation Army's
heyday in the 1960's and 1970's sessions of cadets numbered in the 30 – high
50's in Canada. There is obviously
something wrong here.
Peddle states that
he does not believe that it is harder to recruit now. He states that part of the problem is that families are
having fewer children and so there are not as many individuals available for
future leadership. So the question
begs to be asked, what is The Salvation Army going to do about this? Praying is not be minimized. There is power in prayer and God still
answers. However, the Bible teaches very clearly that we
as His children can't just pray and then sit back and expect divine
intervention. We have a part to
play.
When Peddle
broaches the subject of why officers' leave, his response is non-specific. It appears that he does not know or is
unwilling to say. It is almost a
don't ask, don't tell scenario. He
states ; “ I wish I could point out a specific cause.... so that
we could respond to it...”. The
leader of The Salvation Army in Canada admits he does not know why officers
leave. But he remains hopeful as he states in his article. Perhaps he needs to start a dialogue
with some Formers to find out why they left. If officers are treated as gifts from God then perhaps The
Salvation Army would soon see a reduction in resignations and an increase in
the numbers of cadets filling the training colleges.
While the article
is at best an interesting read, in my view it lacks substance and any real
response to the question in the title.
In my opinion recruiting is only part of the real issue here. Retaining is just as important!
We could speculate
that retention of officers is more difficult now than 30 – 40 years ago due to
a number of issues. These issues
range from sacrifice of one's personal freedom to live and work where they
choose, financial, family needs ( being far removed from family, children's
educational needs etc.)the very military structure of The Salvation Army is not
an easy thing to live in this day and age. The list could go on. Regardless of the reasons why the
numbers have and continue to decline, The Salvation Army must take
responsibility and try to fix it or the alternative is a continued decline and
imminent death of the movement.
Addressing this
will not be easy. No one likes to
admit failure. The Salvation Army
does not like to air its dirty linen! There are hundreds of Formers in the
Canadian territory. Many of these
have no current connection with The Salvation. This is not always a bad thing. However, why is it that The Salvation Army has so much
difficulty reaching out and embracing those who once served in its ranks? Why do so many Formers not feel welcome in The Salvation
Army? When an officer leaves they
suddenly find themselves, jobless and homeless. Often there is no financial help. It has been said by some over the years that The Salvation
treat those it serves ( i.e.- the alcoholic, the pregnant teen, the
prisoner) better than its
officers.
If The Salvation
Army is truly concerned about recruiting and retaining those they view as
'great gifts', then in the mind of this writer, they need to change how officers are
treated when difficulties occur.
If the relationship must end, The Salvation Army should and must feel
some responsibility to the spiritual, emotional and financial well being of
these individuals.
Why Officership? Why indeed? It is my fervent prayer that those posing this question will do more than pray. They will seek to have an honest dialogue with those who have left. If they do not address these issues, then the bleeding will continue.
Why Officership? Why indeed? It is my fervent prayer that those posing this question will do more than pray. They will seek to have an honest dialogue with those who have left. If they do not address these issues, then the bleeding will continue.
Former Officer
Canada & Bermuda
20 comments:
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 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
A brilliant piece: very thoughtful, very carefully and well argued and very challenging to the dear fellow.
I wonder whether Mr Peddle could be invited to respond? In plain English?
Maybe we could turn the Army's entire appointment system into a lottery! After all, it was used to find a successor to Judas.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
<)))><
The jhierarchical structure i9s a problem because it's 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 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 and media releases?
________
?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.
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.
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
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 if 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.
Thiѕ pіece of wгiting wіll assist the
internet viewеrs for settіng up new wеb site or even a blog frоm ѕtaгt to end.
simply click the next site
My web page - simply click the next site
Just to add to the stories of ill-treatment of Officers - although slightly outside the main stream.
My father-in-law was an Auxiliary-Captain in the then Salvation Army Assurance Society in the UK. A full-time appointment with provided quarters.
He had a heart-attack and died very suddenly one morning at 5.50am. At 10am that same day my mother-in-law, instantly and unexpectedly widowed and left with two youngish children, had a letter from the Area Superintendent containg a few trite words of condolence and a request that she vacate the premises as it was needed for the next appointee!
There is nothing new about the Army's callous treatment of Officers and their families.
A similar scenario played out in Canada. A very capable, popular young officer was heading up a capitol financial campaign in Vancouver, while his wife and small children were in Toronto. He had a heart attack, dying on the spot. The next morning the Personnel Secretary arrived at the quarter's doorstep and informed the widow that she was to pack up and leave as an officer couple would be taking possession the next day.
She was homeless, but was able to rent a one bedroom unfurnished apartment. The mother and the children slept on the floor, until the TC heard about it from some of her colleagues. He was outraged. Apparently, the TC had a discretionary fund, so he gave her a cheque and told her to go out and buy the furniture she needed. Do I need to say there were no further promotions for the PS, he found himself in a dead end job.
I can vouch for the truth of the story, because I heard it from the widow herself.
Peddle "... states that part of the problem is that families are having fewer children and so there are not as many individuals available for future leadership." Well thank God for someone watching out for our planet and stopping the ridiculous no longer necessary large family dynamic. So the world changes and the Army does not? Therein lies (one of) the problem(s).
Post a Comment