Manage Well - Dynamic Organizations

My heart yearns for peace in the Middle East, notably and particularly between Israel and Palestinians. Can we pray and hope for peace in our time? Is there any hope after Oct 7 and what has happened since then in Gaza and today in southern Lebanon? In response it is very encouraging to read a powerful book by Aziz Abu Sarah [Palestinian] and Maoz Inon [Jewish Israeli]. It is a remarkable testimony to their friendship and common cause: to bring a just peace between their people.

Early on in this book they emphasize that they are not creating an organization. As they put it, “Over time, even the most effective organizations can calcify. They become inflexible and entrenched in old habits, unable to break free and create change.” And then further on, “Our goal wasn’t to start another organization; we wanted to build a movement.” (p. 46 in “The Future is Peace.”)

How to respond to this particular observation? First, they are right: organizations can so easily be entrenched. Fair point. And second, I understand their motive or intent: they want a movement which they see as more powerful and effective than an organization. It is a classic stereotype regarding institutions. And they use a very engaging metaphor to make their point: they calcify!

And yet – I want to say to these two very able and obviously intelligent gentlemen: you mean well, but if you want long term results, if you want peace in our time, you will need to organize. Yes, organizations can calcify, but the solution is not to dismiss them but rather to ask what it is that makes an organization effective over the long haul.

In response, a proposal: what it is that makes organizations dynamic. Four working principles and practices in an intentional sequence.

First, and foremost the leadership that is not entrenched in their role. They serve for a season, they do their part. But they are not themselves institutioned. They don’t overstay. They practice limited tenure. They invest for the sake of the mission of the organization and then pass on the baton to others. Effective organizations are not caught up on the cult of personality. Organizations “calcify”, to use their word, it as often happens because they are no bigger than one individual. This is why some of us contend that an organization should never be named for a living person – perhaps the founder of the organization. The mission is always bigger and broader than any one person.

So I am very encouraged when the pastoral leadership of a large congregation in greater Vancouver insist that this congregation will not be branded around them; they are not the church. Their profile will not define the church and its ministry. And it reminds me of a congregation in Toronto that imploded after the pastor himself imploded.

I also wonder about academic leaders or congregational pastors that overstay. Or institutions that are defined by the founder or a long-serving executive leader.

Second, effective organizations name reality. One of the most basic responsibilities of a leader is to make sure that this happens. Dynamic organizations are not entrenched for a simple reason: they see that the times have changed, the environment is fluid and that they need to re-frame their vision and mission for the current reality. No nostalgia. No wishful thinking. We ask: at this time and in this place, what does it mean to be on mission together? Continuity and discontinuity marks us – we look back to our history and heritage, but then turn to the future and reframe our mission and vision for what lies before us.

Third, there is a culture of hopeful resilience. These are organizations where music and the arts sustain a vision for the possibilities of tomorrow. Hopefulness is evident in innovation and creativity. Typically hopefulness is fueled by the arts. The artists in our midst cultivate the creativity that is so essential to the capacity of a church, a business, a college to look to tomorrow with hope.

And finally, we are in this together: we learn together, we learn from one another. We listen to the voices that challenge our assumptions. We look for creativity and innovation wherever it emerges. We foster a culture of collaboration and mutual interdependence. I am not making the case for a flat organization. We need leadership including leaders who can make tough decisions. And yet, nothing quite kills an organization as the autocrat who merges power with their presumption of what an organization needs. I think of the brilliance of US senators who know what it is to work on legislation that is bi-partisan, Republican and Democrat working together in common cause for their constituents. I think of academic leadership that listens to faculty and those who are most engage with students. I think of business leaders who listen to their sales staff who are on the front lines. I think of congregational leadership that is attentive to those who may not be the powerbrokers in the community.

And on this score, trust is the glue: it binds us together and makes it possible for us to depend on one another and leverage our talents and wisdom in common cause.

Back to the book by Inon and Abu Sarah. I would so value a chance to meet these two gentlemen. What they are doing merits our enthusiastic applause and support. Their vision is compelling and alive with hope. But I wonder if we might be able to persuade them that a movement needs to be housed: it needs an organizational platform. That is the only way that a movement will get traction and make a difference in the long term. This movement is not just about them and they surely know that if and when peace comes to this region of the world, it will be after they are no longer the face of the “movement.” To that end, they need to form an organization with all the attributes of an organization that does not calcify — an organization that houses the vision they have for peace in our time.