Parochial Teamwork -
some thoughts and resources
"We believe that,
although many teams have come about as a result of pragmatics, there is a
theological imperative for Team Ministry that must not be lost. We regret,
therefore, that the reasons for Team Ministry given in the 'Chelmsford File'
[Chelmsford Diocesan policy statements] seem reactive rather than
proactive."
- opening sentences of
a Statement prepared by members of the 3rd Chelmsford Diocesan Conference on
Team Ministry, April 1992
"Since each active
priest must now minister in at least two churches every weekend, there will
inevitably be some re-tuning of service times in various parishes."
- translation of part
of the weekly news sheet of the Parochie H. Maria Hemelvaart, Aardenburg, NL
(28th August 1988)
"The present shape
of the ministry of the Church of England was largely determined by changes in
mid-nineteenth century society, where the professions as a distinct stratum
of the middle class achieved a position of prominence and importance. It was
the professional man - the doctor, the army officer, the lawyer, the colonial
administrator, the engineer - who became the 'cultural hero' of Victorian
society. Increasingly the clergy came to be regarded as members of a
profession.
"This development
encouraged individualistic understanding of the nature of ministry and still
exerts a major influence upon the clergy's understanding of their role and
the way in which this role is regarded by the congregation and wider society.
Like the services offered by the professional man, there has been since the
mid-nineteenth century a tendency to regard the public aspects of religion as
something which is done to and for the individual by professional personnel.
It has on the one hand encouraged those around him to leave matters entirely
in the hands of the clergyman, and on the other fostered dependency.
"The phenomenon of
the professional clergyman, particularly in rural areas, with time to devote
to the smallest details of Church and parish life, produced attitudes which
have inhibited the development of a more corporate understanding of the
Church and of shared ministry."
- Team and Group
Ministries Report (1985) - GS 660 - para 39
"Many of the
difficulties that have been encountered in Teams have followed from problems
relating to the style of leadership and in particular it has been felt by
some that placing all the rights and responsibilities of the incumbency on
the Team Rector has exacerbated the potential for conflict between Team
Rectors and Team Vicars. The suggestion has therefore been made that the Team
as a whole should be viewed as a 'body corporate', holding together the
rights and responsibilities of the incumbent."
- ibid, para 63 (The
'body corporate' proposal is further examined in paragraphs 67 to 71, where
in true C of E style it is deemed to be a good thing, but not yet... (deep
mutterings about Parliament and all that) - "However, if in the future
there is some major revision of the Pastoral Measure requiring the processes
of major legislative change, we recommend that the body corporate concept be
carefully and sympathetically considered then."
"Too easily the
local church has been built around the gifts of the incumbent. What will be
needed will be the building of churches around the rich mosaic of gifts,
insights and convictions of the whole of the laity. For this to happen, the
ordained minister will need to affirm, train and support such gifts as well
as, where necessary, confront the hidden power agenda that may be shaping
what is going on."
- Robert Warren,
contributing to ‘A Time for Sharing: Collaborative Ministry in Mission’
(1995) - GS Misc 465
“The days of independent ministers
and parishes must come to an end.”
- from ‘Re-imagining Ministry in the Diocese of
Chelmsford’, a policy document endorsed by Diocesan Synod in March 2013 as
part of the process set in train by the Diocesan Vision Statement, ‘Transforming
Presence’; having highlighted the need for “increasing collaboration and team
working”, the document goes on to promise that “this will be the hallmark of
all that we do.”
"Many organizations
are now moving towards self-management, by which many of the tasks formerly done
by managers and supervisors are becoming the responsibility of teams.
Experienced managers, supervisors and team leaders face new challenges as
their role shifts from that of initiator, controller and arbiter to that of
facilitator, enabler and coach.
"Organizations once
seen as rigid, hierarchical structures are now being recognised as emergent,
living systems which cannot be defined by traditional design and practice.
The established image of the single, strong, domineering leader is fading, no
longer appropriate for today's flatter, more flexible organizational
structures. The 'liberating leader' is one who develops and supports teams,
who frees staff to take responsibility and who leads by example."
- drawn from material
issued by the Industrial Society, 1998
Yet this is not as new
as might seem. In the early 1960's, Burns & Stalker produced their seminal
work "The Management of Innovation". With great
precision they identified the
characteristics of two highly contrasting systems of management:-
mechanistic (appropriate for
stable conditions)
and
organic (more suited to changing
conditions).
Mechanistic Management
System ~ distinguished by:
- the
specialized differentiation of functional tasks into which the problems
and tasks facing the concern as a whole are broken down;
- the
abstract nature of each individual task, which is pursued with
techniques and purposes more or less distinct from those of the concern
as a whole, i.e. the functionaries tend to pursue the technical
improvement of means, rather than the accomplishment of the ends of the
concern;
- the
reconciliation, for each level in the hierarchy, of these distinct
performances by the immediate superiors, who are also, in turn,
responsible for seeing that each is relevant in his own special part of
the main task;
- the
precise definition of rights and obligations and technical methods
attached to each functional role;
- the
translation of rights and obligations and methods into the
responsibilities of a functional position;
- hierarchic
structure of control, authority and communication;
- a
reinforcement of the hierarchic structure by the location of knowledge
of actualities exclusively at the top of the hierarchy, where the final
reconciliation of distinct tasks and assessment of relevance is made;
- a
tendency for interaction between members of the concern to be vertical,
i.e. between superior and subordinate;
- a
tendency for operations and working behaviour to be governed by the
instructions and decisions issued by superiors;
- insistence
on loyalty to the concern and obedience to superiors as a condition of
membership;
- a
greater importance and prestige attaching to internal (local) than to
general (cosmopolitan) knowledge, experience, and skill.
Organic Management
System ~ distinguished by:
- the
contributive nature of special knowledge and experience to the common
task of the concern;
- the 'realistic'
nature of the individual task, which is set by the total situation of
the concern;
- the
adjustment and continual re-definition of individual tasks through
interaction with others;
- the
shedding of 'responsibility' as a limited field of rights, obligations
and methods. (Problems may not be posted upwards, downwards or sideways
as being someone else's responsibility.);
- the
spread of commitment to the concern beyond any technical definition;
- a
network structure of control, authority, and communication. The
sanctions which apply to the individual's conduct in his working role
derive more from presumed community of interest with the rest of the
working organization in the survival and growth of the firm, and less
from a contractual relationship between himself and a non-personal
corporation, represented for him by an immediate superior;
- omniscience
no longer imputed to the head of the concern; knowledge about the
technical or commercial nature of the here and now task may be located anywhere
in the network; this location becoming the ad hoc centre of control
authority and communication;
- a
lateral rather than a vertical direction of communication through the
organization, communication between people of different rank, also,
resembling consultation rather than command;
- a
content of communication which consists of information and advice rather
than instructions and decisions;
- commitment
to the concern's tasks and to the 'technological ethos' of material
progress and expansion is more highly valued than loyalty and obedience;
- importance
and prestige attaching to affiliations and expertise valid in the
industrial and technical and commercial milieux external to the firm.
see:
Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M.,
The management of innovation,
London, 1961
(Tavistock Publications)
Inspired by the above, in
1999 (or thereabouts) I came up with the following set of criteria for
identifying "traditional" and "organic" ways of teamwork
within an institution (such as a local church):-
In a TRADITIONAL team ~
1.
the task is reduced
to a number of discrete operations; each operation has its boundaries, and
the more clearly these are defined then the more secure everyone feels
2.
the captain allocates
each team member to an operational area, where they are required to
concentrate their energies and faithfully discharge their prescribed duties
3.
the captain is a
manager who must be in control
4.
the captain may be
feared, despised or idolized, but is always to be obeyed
5.
reports, instructions
and decisions travel along set pathways within the hierarchy
6.
badges, uniforms and
labels are important - members ARE what they DO
7.
problems are a matter
for others and must await their instructions
8.
in the event of a
setback, members' sole responsibility is to pass clear reports onwards and
upwards through the hierarchy
9.
affiliations and
expertise in areas external to the team are perceived as a threat
10.
knowledge of where
the team is coming from is valued more highly than speculation as to where it
may be going, and anxiety is expressed if the team is felt to be less than
true to its original brief
In an ORGANIC team ~
1.
the task is published
as a vision statement; this generates excitement, more through poetry than
through precision
2.
members voluntarily
assume transient and dynamic combinations, frequently in concert with
non-members, in order to model an infinite series of expressions of their
corporate vision
3.
the captain is a
"playing coach" who works alongside others
4.
the captain is
neither omniscient nor infallible
5.
information, advice
and energy flow freely within the network
6.
idiosyncrasy and
spontaneity are valued - members ARE who they ARE
7.
problems may not be
referred upwards, downwards, or sideways
8.
in the event of a
setback, response begins at the point of impact, which becomes the "ad
hoc" control centre for repair and relaunch
9.
affiliations and
expertise in areas external to the team are encouraged and valued
10.
exploration and
re-definition of the vision in response to new insights and awareness is
welcomed as a sign that the team is alive and responding to real changes in
its environment
Further Keywords that I would suggest as being appropriate to the study of
mechanistic/organic institutions/events:
MECHANISTIC ~ ORGANIC
analytic ~ synthetic
differentiated ~
polymorphic
didactic ~ heuristic
covenantal ~ amphictyonic
confederal ~ federal
Parisian ~ Bolognan
caveat emptor ~ caveat
vendor
serial unitarianism ~
modalism
Finally, some thoughts about Innovation:
In March 2017 I attended a
networking session focused on 'EveryDay Innovation', courtesy of Wazoku, a
London-based producer of idea management software.
Wazoku describes itself
as "a trusted partner to organisations around the world, helping them to
achieve their innovation and engagement goals".
The company seems to be British through and through, and not Japanese – an
analogy here with 'SuperDry', maybe? 'Wazoku' is certainly more catchy
than their initial thought of 'I'd Suggest'.
We met 'innovation
champions' from Avis, Virgin East Coast and Hitachi. These organisations have
successfully employed Wazoku
software to crowd-source
innovative ideas from their
workforce, their partners, their customers, and beyond.
Effective implementation
calls for changes in culture along the lines already indicated above:
flatter, more flexible organizational structures that are fully committed to
listening and adapting.
The panel
represented three businesses possessed of varying degrees of native
capability to innovate. Given that speed of change is of the essence, I wondered what
might be the effects of:-
(a) system drag ~ arising from a perceived - or actual - need to maintain backwards
compatibility;
(b) premature release ~ in response to competitive challenges, thereby drawing
unwitting customers into beta testing amidst claims of insufficient time
available for sandbox trials.
|