NEW WINE, NEW WINESKINS  A PAPER
Personal Thoughts for Inquiry Task Force Meeting1 IN PROCESS
 

The Mennonite Central Committee Binational (MCCBN) leadership conflict in 2006 stimulated interest in revisioning MCC for the 21st century. The New Wine, New Wineskins (NW/NW) process, using the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) tool, was launched in 2007 providing the organization with an opportunity to initiate necessary changes in its mission, vision, values, priorities and structure. 
MCCBN operates in a ‘globalized’ world that requires a revisioning of the organization’s mission creating programs and structures that enable to it to express its mandate with passion and effectiveness. That revisioning task has been at the heart of the Wineskins process. The crisis that led to the NW/NW exercise should not be wasted by modest adjustments within the organization and in its relationship to the global environment!  
The recommendations arising from the NW/NW consultative process must be clearly stated and unequivocal in their call for decisive action.
The recommendations must be given energy by creative thinking, imagination, wisdom and courage – all of which is initially the task of the Inquiry Task Force (ITF) and thereafter the responsibility of the MCCBN Executive Committee and Board2.
The recommendations should result in a marked change in the vision, structure and culture within the organization while its mission remains intact.
The recommendations must lead to immediate and demonstrable change though some of the proposed changes may occur incrementally and through an iterative process that could cover a period of 3 to 5 years. At that point the ‘ideal’ positioning of the organization for the 21st century would be achieved. Though change may take longer to become firmly established it would be a mistake to avoid immediate, focused and determined action.
What follows are personal observations of what exists, statements of what must change and suggestions of what may emerge.

1. mcc’s complexity

There is an assumption that the current interconnectedness of the 12 MCC jurisdictions makes the organization virtually unmanageable. Gridlock exists but it is of our own making. Our institutional culture relishes flatness (active leadership held in low esteem), extreme reliance on consensus (‘everyone’ needs to participate in ‘everything’), priority on internal dynamics (e.g. anti-racism or equity) above focus on mission and program results and a reluctance (extreme caution?) in decision-making and prompt action.
We can do away with gridlock! A knitting analogy is helpful.
A particular knitted garment calls for “18 stitches and 24 rows” which should equal “4 inches (10 cm) in stocking3 stitch”. Why is it important to come up with 4 inches and not 3.5 (slightly less) or 4.5 (slightly more). Because the tension (or gauge) needs to be just right so that the pattern has the right appearance and there is sufficient ‘give’ to make the garment wear well.
Our presumed complexity does not lie in the fact that we have 12 jurisdictions but in the fact that the knit is too tight. Making the knit too loose isn’t going to be helpful either since it will create a different order of problems with the organization morphing into an unrecognizable mass (the sweater knit with a loose knit soon stretches to the point where it loses its shape and becomes nonfunctional). We have to get it right!
At this point the change that must occur will be driven by shifts in vision, structure and culture within the organization while the core mission remains.

2. MCC’s Mission and the international program

The current mission statement and core values provide the foundation for the work of all MCCs and represent the glue (soul?) which keeps the current jurisdictions together. The protection of the ‘soul’ and management of international program operations need to be seen as interdependent but distinct functions. They must be held in correct tension!
MCCBN, as it is currently positioned, is not there to lead all parts of MCC in establishing strategic direction other than where there is a common interest in the international program. In this aspect of its governance and related operations MCCBN must view all jurisdictions as partners and invite participation because of the constituencies’ commitment to applying the MCC mission to those in need in a global context.
MCCBN operates the international program as an expression of the mission, vision and values of MCC (all 12). It also has been given the mandate to coordinate certain functions such as Human Resources, Resource Generation and Communications, not administratively but in an ‘assigned’4 coordinating function.
MCCBN can serve the network best by inviting input to the development of its own strategic direction vis a vis international programs in a partnership arrangement that has integrity. That partnership will be knit carefully because of the resource generation issue and the need for MCCBN to be as responsive to donors as it is sensitive to the needs of those whom we serve because of its mission.
At the same time it can provide helpful input to the other jurisdictions in those areas where there needs to be cooperation and coordination of efforts vis a vis the international program but it does not dictate! And it might provide helpful counsel, if asked, to any jurisdictions domestic programs.
MCCBN must have its focus on the international program (IP). The Wineskins process is focused, as it should be, on the international program and the findings and recommendations arising from the process should address the international vision, structure and culture and begin to change the program and structure that currently exists.

3. The Wineskins Findings

There has been a call to globalize or internationalize MCC while also remaining ‘local’. In a report to the ITF Arli Klassen, Executive Director of MCCBN put it this way,

… there have been strong voices asking for MCC to be both truly global and truly local at the same time.  How do we manage the inherent tensions between strong local “ownership” of MCC (how local is local?), versus strong global “ownership” of MCC (what does global really mean)? How do we balance “global” and “local”  ownership and decision-making, with donor interest in direct connections with  international programming?  Can the support of the Canadian and US churches be maintained if the global churches take an “ownership” role in MCC? 5

In this paper, the nature and scope of domestic programming is not addressed because it has not been part of the Wineskins process. It is assumed, however, that domestic programming by the national, regional and provincial MCC jurisdictions must be in synch with the mission and values of MCC – it remains the church in action at the local level in the United States and Canada. The ‘soul’ of MCC is retained by all jurisdictions.
The Wineskins process appears to be addressing two fundamental issues – going global and retaining its accountability to the church. Both of these ‘findings’ will be addressed in this paper.
A component that has not been addressed, a least not adequately, by the Wineskins process is that of program, that is, how MCC responds to need on the global stage in the 21st century. While the Wineskins process has provided opinions on ‘where MCC has been at its best’ it has not seriously sought input on program- or needs-related issues. With that shortfall in mind some information on that aspect of our global economy has been included in this paper (see section 7).
A final issue that needs attention, and which, to this point, has not been addressed are factors relating to the internal culture of the organization which affect its competency in fulfilling its mission (see section 8).

4. MCC Global

To respond to the first ‘finding’ MCC on the international stage should be structured with three levels, namely, a Global Forum (MCCGF), an international board (MCCIN) and several national MCC operations (MCC Country). This format recognizes national interests, cultural diversity, the imbalance in resources, the global Anabaptist community, ownership by denominations and/or conferences, complexity of addressing needs, organizational dynamics, etc. The path is not entirely clear but some initial steps can be taken with confidence.

1. Global Forum (MCCGF)

A global consultative forum, a roundtable of stakeholders with a clearly defined interest in and commitment to the mission of MCC, should be established immediately. In order to remain ‘neutral’ MCC should not call this forum into being. Mennonite World Conference, in consultation with some of the key stakeholders (representatives of the MCCs, conference and denominational leaders, significant partners, etc.) should convene the forum, though not with the view of MWC becoming the owner of the outcome.

The intent of the forum would be to determine the viability (commitment, resources, etc.) of establishing an ongoing MCC Global Forum that is representative of the Anabaptist community (the global Mennonite and Brethren in Christ (M/BIC)) and other key stakeholders around the world providing counsel to both MCCIN (and MWC?) regarding mission, vision and values, remaining consultative in nature. MCCGF would be the ‘soul’ centre of all of MCC whether international, national, regional or provincial.6 The MCCGF would meet physically every three years but virtually on a more frequent basis (semi-annually?).

It is assumed that some form of an MCC Global Forum will be of interest to a sufficient number of stakeholders. If that is not the case then this structure should be set aside. 
 

ACTION: The convening of the initial global forum would be recommended by the ITF for immediate implementation.

2. MCC International (MCCIN)

MCCIN would have the responsibility of ensuring that the mission, vision and values of MCCGF are appropriately expressed through all international programs (again the domestic program is a separate issue). In addition it might address the matter of strategic priorities (see note 1 following).

The MCCIN board would have global representation (as well as conference/denominational and national (see 4.3)) and with a ‘secretariat’ that would serve a coordinating, but not management function, of the MCC national bodies.

The current MCCBN board and operations would need to be dissolved or split into two entities. One part would merge into MCCIN while the other would become part of a national body for international programs of the USA (see 4.3).

The representation and size of MCCIN would need to be determined. At this point the majority representation would be from those national bodies providing the primary financial resources for program to ensure constituency commitment but there would need to be significant and strong representation from the global ‘south’.

It should be noted that the current MCCBN board has significant Canadian representation but not MCC Canada representation. This ‘distorted’ partnership is perhaps at the nub of much of the ‘tension’ that exists between MCCC and MCCBN.

ACTION: The current MCCBN could immediately expand its membership on an ad hoc, but interim, basis to include international representation so as to begin to move towards an MCCIN. At the same time MCCBN would facilitate the development of MCC Nationals as proposed in 4.3, including the creation of MCCAK (see below) with responsibility for international program based managed from a USA base.7 
 

NOTE 1: MCCIN serves a coordinating role and not an executive function. Robert K. Greenleaf subtitled his book Servant Leadership as ‘a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness’. He went on to say that, “a new moral principle is emerging which holds that the only authority deserving one’s allegiance is that which is freely and knowingly granted by the led to the leader in response to, and in proportion to, the clearly servant stature of the leader”.8 The MCCIN’s ‘legitimate power’ is granted to it by the MCC national bodies.

National MCCs would work under the rubric of MCCIN perhaps in the manner of accepting ‘principles of engagement’ such as exist with respect to MCCC’s commitment to its current international programs. There would be a firm commitment of national bodies to programs that address worldwide need irrespective of religion, race, ethnicity, etc. while also engaging with the local church in its own development within the mission as defined by the MCCGF.

3. MCC Nationals

A series of national MCCs would be established that have an international commitment and/or a local interest. The creation of national bodies would require an interest on the part of national stakeholders and a commitment to both MCCGF and MCCIN. This development is illustrated by the national bodies listed below. The MCCC model is already a reality though in its early stages of that process. The reference to MCCEU and MCCIND is simply for purpose of example. MCCIND has been selected because of familiarity with the India context and the presence of a large M/BIC constituency as well as an MCC-like agency (i.e. MCSFI).

The development of national bodies might be akin to a franchising model, that is, any country can establish an MCC (National) if basic requirements set by MCCIN are met. MCCIN would also serve a coordinating function and facilitate meaningful partnerships between national bodies.

• MCC Akron (MCCAK)

In effect the current MCCBN International Program Department (IPD) would become representative of international program interests in the USA.9 To distinguish it from MCCUS at this point it will be referred to as MCCAK (as in ‘Akron’) with its operations confined by resources from its supporting constituency in the USA and, as otherwise agreed to, from other national bodies (primarily Canada?).

• MCC Canada (MCCC)

MCCC would become another national body involved in international programs with accountability to MCCIN in line with the current ‘principles of engagement’ already approved by the current MCCC board in consultation with MCCBN.

• MCC Europe (MCCEU)

If there is interest in among one or more countries in Europe a single MCCEU could be established or several entities might emerge depending on European stakeholder interest.

• MCCI India (MCCIND)

A national MCC India could be established by building on the current MCC structure in India or alternatively through the development of MCSFI into an MCC India or a merger of the two entities which currently operate separately.

A national body such as MCCIND would not likely have an international component since its operations would be based in India. The international/domestic issue would play out differently here. Perhaps the two arms of its program (if there need to be two) would be those that serve particularly the M/BIC constituency and those that serve the general public.

Other countries (Paraguay, Indonesia, Bolivia, Zambia, etc.) could establish their own national MCC entities as there is interest, commitment and resources.

The initial logistics of operating as a federation (see # 5 following) will be challenging but they are not insurmountable. If we are truly interested in a global organization then we must put our hands to the task. 
 

ACTION:  Establishing national bodies could be launched immediately with approval of, and facilitated by, the MCCBN in consultation with the other MCCs. 
 

NOTES 2:

• It is assumed that the current conference/denominational ownership of national bodies would be retained and there would be representation of these owners on MCCIN as well as MCCAK and MCCC (as it is now).

• Coordination between national bodies (e.g. Canada and USA) could occur through mechanisms such as the Project Review Committee (PRC) that has been established by MCCC (though in future, where true partnership exists, this could be done jointly).

• Further study should be given to ‘chaordic’ organizations, those that, among other things, combine competition and cooperation. As well concepts such as the ‘leaderless organization’ and the ‘learning organization’ need to be explored10; all of which is to say that the future development of MCC (or the MCCs) will need to ‘relentlessly innovate’!11

NOTE 3: With reference to MCC Canada (what it would look like):

• MCCC’s organizational vision would be to work cooperatively with Provincial MCCs and in fact more intensively engage with them in defining MCCC’s international program;

• Governance could remain essentially as it is currently since there is representation from all of the provinces on the MCCC Board, however, the scope of responsibility for the MCCC Delegate Body, MCCC Board and Canadian Roundtable should be revisited and clarified (modified?) to ensure effective and efficient operations (read – increase the level of decision-making and reduce the number of meetings!);

• Its mission and values would be those of MCC generally but it would need to define its ‘development strategy’ (relevant to both its domestic and international programs) and program vision (cooperatively with the provinces);

• The funding formula would need to be reviewed and renewed for greater flexibility and impact.

• MCCC’s approach would be proactive -- designing innovative programs, approaching donors for project support, leverage good will, etc.

NOTE 4: MCCBN, MCC Canada and the ‘national’ issue:

• The history of MCC Canada’s request to be recognized as a partner in international programs is long-standing and is in the process of being resolved through direct engagement in international programs; the current Canadian representation of the MCCBN board is not a partnership as only one of six representatives directly represent MCCC;

• The creation of MCCIN and a distinct and separate MCCAK (alongside MCCC and others) will both retain the one-MCC concept while also allowing for distinct international programs guided by a common mission, values and priorities (one-but-two (or more));

• The one-but-two (or more) can and will demonstrate unity and partnership, perhaps in a more forceful way than the current approach of ignoring distinct national and cultural entities (whether Canada or elsewhere);

• The one-but-two (or more) will unleash new energy, creativity and imagination; any changes in ‘efficiency’ and ‘effectiveness’ will depend on the dynamics of the new ‘system’ – if there is true partnership, cooperation, etc. then both efficiency and effectiveness will increase;

• Classic examples of the last point can be observed in the development of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank (CFGB) which the M/BIC continues to identify with and with which MCCC is a genuine partner though it has become multidenominational in ownership; and the separation of Ten Thousand Villages into Canadian (MCCC) and USA (MCCBN, oddly) operations with each experience almost exponential growth while retaining their commitment to the same mission.

5. Mcc and ‘going global’

The book Going Global, Transforming Relief and Development Organizations (Lindenberg & Bryant) provides insight into the experience of several international development organizations. A general comment from that reference text makes the following observations:

“It is hard to predict the future, but we believe that the Northern organizations interested in global emergency response and poverty alleviation will probably have to broaden their menu of global structural options to include the potential of networks, virtual organizations and asset-based models for cooperation. Only the broadest thinking will lead to even more effective strategies. They will have to think even more experimentally about relationships with organizations outside their own families and about creative new relations with the public and private sectors.” p 154

The Northern relief and development sector needs to move much more quickly and proactively to explore the potential of new partnerships and sectoral relationships if it plans to stay at the cutting edge of relief and development work. p 170

In the chapter on ‘emerging organizational structures’ in the book Going Global, Transforming Relief and Development Organizations several organizational models are suggested. The confederation and federation models (p 144) each have some relevance for MCC’s future.

1. Federation

The authors suggest that in a federation, “the center [has] strong powers for standard setting and resource acquisition but affiliates [have] separate boards and implementation capacity”.

The application of this to the proposed model (MCCGF and MCCIN) would be that the one (MCCGF) would set the ‘standards’ (mission, vision and values) for the whole while the other (MCCIN) would do that only for international programs though in synch with MCCGF.

The matter of resource acquisition would not be the responsibility of MCCIN. Each national body would do the gathering of resources and each in their own way, as is the case now. 

The authors touch on both some strengths and weaknesses of the federation several of which are highlighted here (p 144):

• Economies of scale and efficiency through central support services such as finance, procurement and human resources management;

• A strong global identity, scale and quality control;

• It can be overly rigid, stifle creativity and block unique adaptations to national identity.

2. Confederation

On the other hand the confederation model (p 145) “blends members’ ability to project their national identity within their own countries with a system of lead-member operational oversight and cooperation at the field level”.

Again some pros and cons are listed, namely:

• Eliminate the problem of duplication of support systems, staff and process that the competitive, independent organizations do experience;

• The levels of frictions around normal compliance can be quite high;

• Political infighting around the allocation of territory;

• Tension between members’ need to project their national identity for fundraising purposes and to sole operational independence and the need for the confederation to project one image;

• Performance mistakes of the weakest member can determine the overall image of the organization;

• Slower in emergency response

 
All of which suggests that MCC is not alone in revisioning its future structure and also that there are some models, and subsequent experience, that should address MCC’s situation.

6. Church

This section on the church is not extensive as it has not been given the thought put into the ‘global’ section.
There are some who would make a very clear distinction between conference/denominational ownership and church ownership. In fact there seems to be a prevailing (?) view that the conferences/denominations are not owners having given up that responsibility in the early ‘80s. There is, however, a strong commitment among Wineskins participants that MCC should remain church-owned.
It would be well for some theologians to weigh into this part of the Wineskins’ process. MCC’s positioning vis a vis the church is no less significant than its global positioning.
Arli Klassen has made the following observation:

“… there have been many voices asking for MCC to be strongly connected with the church.  Should MCC be an agency  within the church, with MCC’s purpose to enhance the mission of the church? Or, should MCC be an “arm of the church”, with a mission distinct from that of church?  What role should Mennonite World Conference (MWC) have in MCC’s identity and ownership/stewardship, given that MWC is the global organization representing the global Anabaptist church?12

At this point several comments will suffice but the bottomline is to affirm a strong and renewed commitment to the church.

1. Ownership

Global ownership of the whole of MCC should be expressed through the Global Forum – though the nature of that ownership would need to be clearly defined. National conferences/denominations would retain direct ownership of the national bodies allowing them to give attention to both global and local concerns.

The Wineskins process has ‘forced’ good communication with conference/denominational leaders. This direct communication should continue.

2. Missional

The term ‘missional’ has become popular and may or may not fit here. Recent reference to some thinking by Lesslie Newbigin comes to mind. He spoke of the relationship between gospel, church and culture. Does the relationship of those three factors need to be re-examined as part of revisioning process?

Jack Suderman’s paper13 should be a reference document that might well inform further MCC’s position vis a vis its ‘being the church’.

Is it time for MCC to explore this more deliberately at the level of the Global Forum, with MWC and with national bodies such as CIM (USA), CCAL (Canada), MCSFI (India), etc.?

Obviously more work on this part of the paper needs to be done here!

3. Church and Development

The mission of MCC and MWC may overlap but there are distinctions too. The matter of ‘development’ itself needs examination (and redefinition?) as part of the revisioning process. More specifically, as (not if) MCC moves more strongly towards identification with (or as?) the church the nature of development needs to be reviewed with those who currently represent the ‘word’ (MWC, conferences, denominations) so that MCC’s task (mission, vision, values, et al) is understood.

But this section too needs more thought!

7. MCC’s Task in the 21st Century

Though defining function/program was to be one of the key outputs of the Wineskins process it has not received the attention it deserved. What is it that makes sense for MCC in the 21st Century, given the current and projected ‘state of the world.’? Charting that course is an urgent and fundamental need. It is at the heart of MCC’s reason for being! But we have not asked what is to happen when the ‘rubber hits the road’ in the field (that is wherever we are ‘called’ to serve).
The world has indeed changed and in some respects is ‘flat’. A recent article on World Trade Organization (WTO) 14 notes the benefit of ‘freer trade’ and suggests a decline in the level of poverty. Whether the analysis is accurate or not we need to be informed by global trends as we chart a course for MCC’s development work in the 21st Century.
Arli Klassen has put it this way,

“How focused should we be in our programmatic priorities?  How can we be responsive to local need, while creating a clear sense of MCC’s mission and purpose?  Is “relief, development and peace” sufficient as a set of priorities a focus for MCC, or are there shifts needed in these priorities for the 21st century? What is an appropriate balance between service to/by the member churches, and to/by the broader population?

These are fundamental questions that need not only the general input of the generalists that have informed the Wineskins process to this point but also resource persons that can combine global and in-depth perspectives.
Another factor that has been ignored is an exploration of whether MCC in the 21st century ought to continue to be an organization that is more committed to ‘experience’ that it is to ‘outcomes’. Should there be a better balance? A revisioning of these factors might lead to a two-track task with one continuing to see service workers (placement of volunteers) as a high priority and the other becoming more ‘professional’ with a career perspective for its personnel. This dual-track approach might be viewed as ‘doing good better’.
Though those questions need further discussion this section of the paper turns to a description of the world as it is with some comments on the ‘status of human development’15
Two sharply different patterns of population change are evident in the world: little growth or even decline in most wealthy countries and continued rapid growth in the world’s poorest countries,16 with Africa’s population growing faster than any other major region. While an ageing population is a dilemma for developed countries, unemployed youth is a growing concern for developing countries.
The rapidly growing population in poorer nations puts huge stress on already glutted job markets: of the 1.1 billion young people aged 15 to 24 worldwide, one out of three is either seeking but unable to find work, has given up the job search entirely or is working but living on less than US $2 a day.17 The highest regional youth unemployment rate was observed in the Middle East and North Africa at 25.7 per cent - an area that holds concern for the rise of religious extremism.18 One billion youth are expected to enter the global labour market in the next decade, mostly in developing countries, and labour experts predict only 300 million new jobs will be created over the same period, leaving an employment gap that could exacerbate poverty, worsen public health and dampen economic growth in countries already struggling to provide the basics to their citizens.19
This trend is ‘temporary’ in that while youth are about 29 percent of the total population in developing countries, they are declining as a proportion of total population.20 Recent population studies indicate that the present global population of 6 billion will level off by 2050 at 9 billion, and that by 2075 it will have declined by 500 million.21 Although the highest proportions of older persons are found in the more developed regions, this age group is growing considerably more rapidly in the less developed regions. As a consequence, the older population will be increasingly concentrated in the less developed regions. The young-old balance is shifting, and ultimately the least developed countries will have the least time to prepare for the shift. 22 
 
This section provides a status update on the human condition – based largely on the first six Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as reported in the UN’s 2008 Progress Report,23 24 along with information from the recent ‘High-Level Event’ that was held at the UN Headquarters on September 25, 2008.25  Analysis of these MDGs provides insights into development gaps and challenges at the regional level. More in-depth country-level information is available in the cited documents.

1. Extreme poverty and hunger

One billion people live in extreme poverty of <$1 PPP26 and at the current rate of progress, this absolute number will not change by 2015.27  Underlying these poverty statistics, decent work is most scarce for women and youth – and more than half the world’s regions will be unable to deal the with growing demand for jobs.

2. Access to primary education

Most regions will achieve the goal of universal primary education by 2015 – with the exceptions of SSAfrica and Western Asia. Within the statistics, however, there are stark exceptions for groups of children who are: refugees, workers, female or those living in rural areas.

3. Gender equality and women’s empowerment

Poor rural girls and women are the most disadvantaged groups, and SSAfrica the worst-off region. Almost two thirds of women in the developing world work in vulnerable jobs as own-account and unpaid family workers – over 80% in SAsia and SSAfrica. Moreover, even paid employment is often at reduced hours, lower wages and without benefits.

4. Child mortality

Children under five still die at high rates in developing countries; 15% in SSAfrica and 8% in SAsia. Many of these deaths are related to malnutrition and preventable diseases, and mortality rates are higher for children from rural and poor families, or whose mothers lack a basic education.

5. Maternal health

SSAfrica and Asia account for 90% of the world’s maternal deaths. In SSAfrica 1 in 22 women die from causes related to pregnancy and birth (compared to 1 in 7,300 in developed countries).28 Statistics tell us that the presence of a skilled health care worker at delivery is the key to survival of the mother – and consequently the welfare of the household and its children.

6. HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

The highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS continues to be in SSAfrica (almost 8% prevalence compared to less than 2% elsewhere); in 2007, 5,500 people died each day and 7,500 contracted the virus. A minority of people receive treatment in SAsia, East Asia, CIS and SSAfrica (between 14% and 30%). Gains have been made in malaria prevention – with vastly increased numbers of young children sleeping under nets – but coverage is still as low as 6% in some countries. Tuberculosis is on the decline, but has increased in SSAfrica and CIS.

8. The MCC CULTURE

In this section the paper addresses a whole raft of issues which should be addressed internally by MCCBN (& MCCC for that matter) together with its emerging global and renewed church commitment.

1. Governance

There is already a move to adopt an ‘Anabaptist Carver’29 model and that should be pushed with vigor. It must be clear that the EC/Board has the responsibility for governance and as such should deliberately and assertively establish strategic policies that impact operations; policies that exude passion for the poor and demand results. It is necessary to decomplexify bureaucracy (responsibility, authority, accountability; transparency about ‘failure’)

2. Management

There must be a far greater emphasis on the urgency of need coupled with the expectation of results; responsibility assigned, authority provided and accountability expected. Program design and delivery not internal concerns are primary.

“Authority, responsibility and accountability (ARA) are the primary components of all relationships. Limitations (of authority) and expectations (of responsibility) are the secondary components.” 30

The working relationships between jurisdictions need to be both loosened and tightened. The loosening should provide each jurisdiction with the flexibility to move with confidence in developing new programs, enlarging existing ones or curtailing those that have run their course. The tightness will come in adding authority and accountability to the responsibility of each jurisdiction.

• Authority

The MCCs have together defined the sphere of activity of each of the jurisdictions. The authority to function within that sphere should be granted with a minimum of strings (limitations) attached, if any, other than to implement the mission of MCC.

• Responsibility

Responsibilities within each jurisdiction should be described by terms of reference, job descriptions or by outlining expectations.

• Accountability

Accountability is the neutral process of monitoring progress and measuring results. It is suggested that the Roundtable serve as the auditor of this process. 
 

It might be well to mention at this point that the ARA might address some of the MCC myths -- low overhead, 90% of resources go overseas, it is a lean organization. That is, reality and myth might come closer together.

3. Driving Force

The organization must be known for its passion, commitment and energy directed at support for those in need. Creativity. Imagination. Flexibility.

4. Strategic Planning

“The necessary outcome of strategic planning is not analytical insight but resolve”.31

5. Learning Organization

We must be ahead of the agenda; in the forefront of response; engage in research; establish public presence and profile; establish useful connections; nurture partnerships; engage with private sector; take balanced positions, etc.

6. Leadership

We must appreciate leadership and develop a more dynamic understanding of servant leadership and consensus decision-making. Leaders must in fact lead!

When asked to address the issue of the primary task of leaders, Peter Drucker, responded with the comment that the task was fairly simple: to define the core business of the enterprise and to ensure that the right people were in place to do the job. If MCC can get these two factors right then the task of leadership becomes relatively straightforward!

7. Communication & Participation

The Wineskins process has engaged many in the global community in dialogue about the future of MCC. This level of communication and participation need not end with the end of the Wineskins process; it must be built into the very fabric of what MCC is. Current and emerging technologies and practices (e.g. facebook, texting, twitter, etc.) need to be utilized in order to maintain broad participation, particularly youth who are most comfortable with, and practitioners of, new communication systems.

8. Service Workers and Professionalism

There is lack of clarity with regard to the traditional service worker (volunteer) and professional (salaried) staff. Put another way, is MCC’s primary interest in providing placement for volunteers in meaningful international settings or running programs that have depth and scale and require long-term and professional (i.e. expertise) staff. Should MCC consider a two-track development program – one driven by ‘our’ need and the other driven by the ‘their’ need, that is, the needs of the poor and disposed (economically, politically or whatever)?

9. conclusion

The Wineskins process can lead to a challenging new paradigm for MCC. Whether that occurs or not depends in large measure on our ability (ITF, EC/Board) to think creatively, use our imagination, share wisdom and act with courage. Arli Klassen has expressed that kind of thinking in some Wineskins’ website comments:

“I’m convinced that we have exciting opportunities here, as the church gains understanding of what it means to belong to a global community of faith. God calls us to “interfere” and “intervene” in each other’s communities, and to do that in a way that honours the dignity and knowledge and experience that all members of the partnership bring to that interaction and engagement”. 

Several further references32 are instructive:

Vision has three components: first, raison d’être, which tells us why we exist and expresses our commitment to a far-reaching purpose; second, strategy, which defines our distinctive competitive advantage that will bring the organization closer to its reason for being; thirdly, values and principles, which help us build the foundation of the culture we want.

Jim Collins (From Good to Great) suggests that a well-conceived vision consists of two major components: core ideology and envisioned future. The core ideology does not change and expresses aspirations that will require major change and progress if we are to attain our envisaged future. The core ideology consists of core values (a small set of timeless guiding principles) and core purpose (the organizations fundamental reason for being which should last for decades).

The envisioned future consists of two elements. The first is an ‘audacious goal’ which has a time frame of 10 to 30 years and is clear, compelling and easy to grasp. The other is vivid descriptions of the envisaged future, full of passion, emotion and conviction. Those descriptions should portray vibrantly, engagingly and specifically what it will be like to achieve the ‘audacious goal’, enabling people to see rather than hear the vision.

In most cases visions should avoid the logic of metrics and quantitative performance measure. Those are appropriate to detailed strategic planning, but a vision should be thought of as a compass rather than a map.

In their 2004 article. The Vision Thing, Ken Blanchard and Jesse Stoner explained that a clear vision, well communicated and constantly reinforces can enable strategic direction with operational autonomy.

One of the most common problems affecting corporate visions is that they fail to reach far enough. They may even reach backward into the organizations past to articulate what they were good at or known for. Or the vision is too small or un-ambitious to inspire. Or the vision is hard to distinguish from those of competitors, being too generic for people to engage with and thereby lacking in vitality.

Finally, for executives gamely tackling the unfamiliar challenge of creating and communicating an effective, inspiring vision, we would recommend looking into the literature of ‘appreciative inquiry’ for an open and yet structured means of uncovering positive aspects of the organizations that may be perfect to inspire a renewed corporate vision.

And finally, a thought for the road ahead …

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system.  For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.” 33 
 

I’m hopeful, even confident, that the sentiments expressed by the last quotation will not be our experience but the challenge will be to (I’ll say it again) think creatively, use imagination, apply wisdom and decide and act with courage to establish a visionary future for MCC in the 21st Century.

.
 An In Process Paper
 Neil Janzen
 This Version: February 20, 2009
 and likely final before the ITF meeting in March