Questions and matters for further discussion:

1. In the area of governance, what would be the respective roles of the Board and staff of a national movement that is generally weak, either because it is a new work or it may be an established movement struggling with a fragile financial base, inadequately trained staff and a limited pool of volunteers? What lessons can be learned that may apply to the pioneering of a new work in another country?
2. What options are available for the training and orientation of Board members, taking into account its situation based on the phase of development of the national movement? Discuss possible areas or topics that may be addressed as part of an ongoing training programme.
3. The need for staff evaluation and performance reviews is generally accepted and practised in many national movements. Do you think that evaluation of the Board is also useful and/or necessary?  If so, Why? Discuss ways in which the Board may conduct a self-evaluation. What benchmark indicators may be used? What role, if any, should be played by the staff and the Regional Secretary in helping the Board in this process?

These paragraphs are intended to assist in our reflection on some aspects of governance of a national movement within the family of IFES. While issues of governance transcend all areas of the movement, this discussion focuses on the role of the Board, as the final level of authority for the work, under God.

A fundamental role of a Board is the establishment and maintenance of the enabling environment in which staff and volunteers can fulfil the mandate of the movement, in particular evangelism, discipleship and mission, on campuses of educational institutions. As such, the Board’s responsibilities would include ensuring that (i) the institutional and legal framework in which the movement operates fully satisfies the requirements of IFES, as well as national legislation; (ii) the leadership of the movement subscribe to the Statement of Faith; (iii) financial, human and other resources are available to fulfil its mandate; and (iv) administrative arrangements and systems meet the needs of the organization.

Board members, like everyone else, operate in a secular environment on the job, in which the achievement of the goals of the organization is paramount. Board members are generally themselves employees, professionals or business persons where the focus is on “getting things done through people” with an eye on the bottom line. Persons are seen primarily as resources to be managed to achieve the objectives of the organization.  Subject to the prevailing culture and to varying degrees, persons are treated as units of production. They are valued in terms of the outputs they deliver and are dispensable without much thought to their intrinsic worth.

For the Board members, this orientation to measurable outputs or observable outcomes in their professional lives would seem to stand in contrast to the person-centred and relational imperatives inherent in the message of the Gospel and the national movements they are called to lead. While the ministry requires a businesslike approach in the management of its affairs, the wellbeing of the staff should not be seen as an afterthought. Rather, the Board should ensure that the “Fellowship” in our name is demonstrated through adequate provisions for pastoral care for staff and volunteers, as appropriate.

Finally, a review of the challenges and opportunities facing many national movements suggests that nearly all of them progress through different phases. These may loosely regarded as (i) the pioneering and establishment phase, including necessary research to identify needs and opportunities, establishing contacts, basic training/orientation and initiation of the work; (ii) the consolidation phase, focusing on basic policies and procedures and building the support base; (iii) maturity. The Board will need to respond and operate in the context of the challenges unique to that phase. For example, the Board and staff of a movement in its infancy will require extensive training and orientation, while the Board of a mature movement needs to guard against stagnation. While growth to maturity is the desired goal, the effects of internal and external factors sometimes result in decline and dormancy followed by either death or revival. Accordingly, the challenges faced by the Board of a stable and adequately resourced ministry would necessarily differ from those of an emerging movement, or of one in decline. The classical allocation of functions whereby the Board sets policy and gives oversight while the staff administers and implements, would therefore not be appropriate in all cases.

This Ministry Forum at IFES World Assembly 2012 was facilitated by Leon Harris.

Tweet