Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Controlling
No-one in a position of responsibility wants to do a bad job. No-one likes being criticised (especially unjustifiably.) But because the nature of responsibility and accountability requires it, there is need for evaluation and measurement.
Administration, as noted, also involves the issue of policies and procedures. Where these are not followed, crisis or disaster may occur. Thus, there is need for control mechanisms to prevent inappropriate or unwise actions as much as possible. Yet, even when these are in place, there is no guarantee that the work will be done correctly. A recent newspaper article (Zimbabwe Independent, Ap. 7-13, 2006: p. 1A) will illustrate:
Government accountant general Judith Madzorere has expressed reservations in the way the state is managing its finances. In a special report by the Public Accounts Committee on Financial Management in the Public Sector, the committee quoted the accountant general as saying there was a lack of discipline in the way ministries handle their books, resulting in government failing to account for billions of dollars. Some ministries have not been submitting financial statement for three years. … She said government was losing billions of dollars because there were no adequate internal checks and balances. [No less than 11 ministries, including the President’s Office and the Ministry of Finance itself were named as having violated the laws.]
Quite apart from the obvious question of the missing funds, this raises important questions about the lack of administration: Assuming the policies and procedures were in place from previous years, and assuming the checks and balances were adequate (as evidenced from the past), why were they ignored and not followed now? Alternatively, if these were all absent, why were they removed (assuming they were in place previously)? What does this say –administratively – about those responsible for supervising, monitoring, evaluating and measuring? And, if there was any monitoring, what standards were used and why were they ignored? Presumably, there was no monitoring or standards – why not?
Moreover, no human endeavour can ever be perfect; there are bound to be mistakes somewhere at some time. And, even if a job is done very well, there is always room for improvement. We have also mentioned several skills associated with administration in particular, as well as with leadership and management. Obviously, where skills are involved, there is room for either high or poor performance. These are evaluated, in some cases formally but in many cases, informally.
Hence, within this fifth component of administration – Controlling – we include the twin elements of evaluating and measuring. And, within these, as additional sub-categories, we must also speak to the dual facets of correction and discipline. After all, the positive intent of all evaluation is improvement. Then, before one can criticise justifiably and prior to any corrective action or discipline, it is necessary to set standards – which is yet another factor. But, as with anything requiring measurement, what are the criteria? How do we measure and on what basis? While it is clear from the above that evaluation and measurement are universal entities, what is open to debate is whether the methodologies are culturally relative or not. This we hope to explore further. Are their worldview factors for the Shona and Ndebele that determine how evaluation is done, communicated and received? What measuring tools are considered appropriate given the respective worldviews? Why? How is discipline effected in the light of these worldview factors? And, lastly, in the Christian ministry context, what do Scriptural procedures for discipline say here? (This last question will be considered in more detail under the section on “Theology” and in Chapter Seven.)
The nature of evaluation is such that it can be viewed both positively and negatively. In daily life, we are constantly evaluating both ourselves and others in many small, informal ways. For instance, I might look in the mirror and notice a small tear in my shirt; I will evaluate the situation and determine whether I can continue to wear the shirt or not. Or I might comment to a work colleague that they do not look too well and ask how they are feeling. Or I might watch a programme on television and decide it is not worth continuing and either change channels or switch off altogether. Or I might glance at the front cover of a book and read the blurb on the back before deciding whether or not to read it. These types of evaluation tend to be nonthreatening and, therefore, we are not typically anxious about them. But where evaluation does become threatening – and especially where criticism may be hurtful – the sense of anxiety increases. This is most often seen in formal evaluations by superiors of their junior workers in annual reviews; it is commonly a nerve wracking time. Yet, in order to receive valid criticism from others, we must first be ready to critique ourselves – difficult as this may be.
In this regard, Barnabas says he listens to what people are saying. “That tells me where I’m going wrong. I listen to my Council and Wardens – that’s crucial. I have a monthly meeting with the Wardens and Treasurer, the sub-deacons and lay workers for the sick. Another area is responses to sermons.” While this provides some sound platforms for evaluation and correction, however, being willing to actually receive such criticism is a different matter. But is the way one responds to criticism culturally determined or part of one’s personality?
Theology
Since Chapter Seven will focus specifically on the development of a theology of administration, I will only make some preliminary comments here in the light of the introductory questions at this stage in the process. Somewhat more detail will be given in the focus group section later.
In including this topic in the individual interviews, I wanted to establish the degree to which there was any insight about administration from a Scriptural point of view and, more particularly, to ascertain whether any of my co-researchers had given any thought to this issue theologically. It was apparent, as I suspected, that virtually all of the pastors had difficulty articulating a theology of administration. They all attempted it, in varying degrees, but it was obvious that most have given this little, if any, prior thought at all. In one sense, this is not surprising since the Church, typically, does not challenge us to consider the topic. Nor, it seems, do Bible schools. Yet, as is becoming all too plain, administration, like the tentacles of a spider web, is inextricably linked to every facet of an enterprise’s operations. This suggests that, where the Church has not clearly articulated a theology of administration, she has inadvertently hamstrung herself. My co-researchers’ comments are insightful in this respect. I began this segment of the enquiry by asking if they saw God being interested in administration in any way.
Barnabas strongly affirmed this: “Yes. In the Old Testament, we see how the angel gave precise measurements for the temple [1 Kings 6:1-38]. The detail [is phenomenal]. The same with Noah’s Ark [Gen 6:14-21]. [Then there were] the seven years of drought with Joseph [who served Egypt] as the chief administrator.” [Gen. 47:13-26] As an afterthought, he added: “And God doesn’t like laziness.”
We see two insights here. First, there is recognition of God’s attention to detail which, as we have already noted, is a requirement of effective administration. Second, there is the interesting insight of laziness. I do not think Barnabas was suggesting here that all those who are not administrators are lazy, or that God was setting this as a unique standard for administrators. Rather, he was merely affirming that God’s expectation is for diligence, responsibility and sound stewardship – all hallmarks of solid leadership, management and administration.
Likewise, Chris agreed that administration is evident in Scripture. “I think it’s there. In the Old Testament, [we have] Moses and Jethro [e.g. Ex. 18:13-26]. In the New Testament, some brethren felt they were left out in the [food] distribution, but the Church appointed people to be responsible (Acts 6:1-6).”
Dawson, while also agreeing, took a different tack: “When God created the universe, the way in which the process of creation [is outlined in Genesis 1], it sounds like God showed us that administration is very important. [In fact], the system and process He set up to operate is described as very good. When He put man in the Garden and instructed him to do things, it sounds as if He is very keen [for proper order and systems].” In other words, he says, God’s acts of Creation demonstrate purpose, method and orderliness – all the hallmarks of an administrative mind-set.
Similarly, Dixon concurred: “Yes, it’s stewardship. God is interested in this. Paul tells Timothy [1 Tim. 5:17] that those who are working hard are worth double honour. The Scriptures talk about laziness (e.g. Proverbs) and the sluggard. [We are called to] learn from the ants [Prov. 6:6]. David led Israel with skill and integrity (Ps. 78:72). He was a skilful leader in organising his soldiers. [And we] see Jethro with Moses. »
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION: Identifying the Problem
1 The Thesis
1.1 The Problem Illustrated
1.2 The Problem Described
1.3 The Problem in Context
2. Research Approach, Positioning, Process and Errors
2.1 Research Approach
2.2 Research Positioning
2.3 Research Process
2.4 Research Errors
3. Summary
Chapter Two DESCRIBING THE PROBLEM: The Dimensions of Administration
1. What Does Administration Look Like?
1.1 The Broad Parameters of Administration
1.2 Administration in the Christian Context
Chapter Three ADMINISTRATION IN ITS CONTEXT – Values and Tasks
1. What Do (Christian) Administrators Actually Do?
1.1 The Participants
1.2 The Interview Structure
1.3 The Dialogue
1.4 Reflections on the Dialogue –
Chapter Four ADMINISTRATION IN ITS CULTURAL CONTEXT: Approaching the Task Personally
1 Exploring How Administration and Culture Mix – 1
1.1 Individual Interview Questions
1.2 Interview Questions (Appendix 2) –
Chapter Five ADMINISTRATION IN ITS CULTURAL CONTEXT: Approaching the Task Collectively.
1. Exploring How Administration and Culture Mix – 2
1.1 Focus Group Discussions:
1.2 The Dialogue
Chapter Six ADMINISTRATION AND WORLDVIEW: Connecting with Culture
1 What is Worldview
1.1 In General Terms
1.2 The Shona and Ndebele Perspectives
1.3 A Christian Worldview
2 A Parenthetical Note on Personality and Administration
3 Joyce’s Story
3.1 The Resulting Conversation
3.2 Reflections on the Dialogue
4 Beki’s Story
4.1 The Resulting Conversation
4.2 Reflections on the Dialogue
5 Conclusion
Chapter Seven CHRISTIAN ADMINISTRATION: Towards Contextual Theologising
1. Introduction
2. Discerning a Theological Method or Framework
3. The Dialogue
3.1 Our Presuppositions
3.2 Our Plan
3.3 Our Research
3.4 Our Goals
3.5 Our Discussion
4. Reflections
5. Conclusion
Chapter Eight INTEGRATING PRAXIS, CULTURE, THEOLOGY & TRAINING: The Way Forward
1 Introduction
2 Summarising the Findings
3 Identifying the Problems
4 Proposing the Solutions
5 Improving Our Training
6 The Place of Proverbs
7 Co-researcher’s Observations
8 Conclusion
SOURCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY
