These days, “marching orders” are preceded by direct consultation with officers and local leadership.

In recent months I have been purging personal files in an attempt to downsize, even before retirement demands it. Amidst the outdated illustrations, information and programs gathered in 38 years of ministry as a Salvation Army officer, one particular file caught my interest. In a sense it was like a panorama of our officer career. The contents disclosed “marching orders”-documents that advised us to farewell from one appointment and move on to another.
It caused me to ponder the changes in the appointment process over the years. Most have been minimal. However, in July 2004 the leadership team of the Canada and Bermuda Territory embraced a new system based on pre-consultations with officers and local leadership in the ministry units. How is this change being received by all parties involved?

From my perspective, with engagement in the process, I sense it is being received as fitting the times we are living in, creating stability and offering dialogue with those who are most impacted. It speaks of leadership that is in tune with our post-modern world, leadership that cares about the future of officers and their families, as well as their appointment units.

Positive factors of the new appointment process include:
• an understanding of a minimum appointment stay of five years (unless exceptional circumstances arise) with extended stays of two-year increments
• personal and private consultations with the officer in respect to the appointment tenure
• consultation with the ministry leadership team and, if a move is recommended, the completion of profiles for both the appointment program needs and the personnel position
• an evaluation of the gift mix of the officer and the appointment needs

These considerations give stability, both to officers and their families as well as to the appointment. It also means that officers and their people must work together to resolve conflict, rather than attempting to solve a crisis by moving the officer. In the past, some officers may have been “tipped off” by their divisional commander about a move. Under the new process, all officers are interviewed and a recommendation made.

I have been encouraged by the response of officers and leadership teams to this process. In every case in which I’ve been involved, leadership teams have expressed their appreciation of the new process and the openness of the new system. To be included in the decision making-while understanding its exploratory nature-creates a sense of ownership and engagement. After all, laity are key stakeholders in the ongoing leadership decisions of their local ministries. Officers and laity alike appreciate the consultative approach rather than the “top down” leadership of the past. While there is no guarantee for or against an officer move, leadership issues are considered together by laity and key divisional officer staff and understanding is created. This working together atmosphere is healthy and beneficial.

Does the new appointment process have hidden concerns? Of course. It’s a new venture. Dialogue, experience and time will care for its pitfalls. The challenges are in the following questions:
• What happens when the officer wants to stay but the leadership team wants a change? Or vice versa? What rationale carries the day?
• How does a leadership team feel when, for sound reasons, a recommendation can not be carried through? Will they say, “What’s the point of our feedback? Nothing has really changed?”
• If there is openness on the decision to move an officer, when will the leadership team want specific input on the replacement? To what extent will the Army be able to meet their stated needs?

It’s obvious as we proceed with this new process that longer stays (which are desirable and healthy) limit the choices to place officers who have to move out of sequence for special reasons. Uprooting one officer purely to accommodate another doesn’t respect the process.

In spite of these challenges, I believe that we are headed in the right direction. How much wider can we open the door for even greater dialogue, ownership and decision making by Salvationists? Will the day come when an officer is chosen by his congregation, when résumés are posted, especially for professionally skilled positions? God will always light our way.

As I see it, the new appointment system is sensitive to officer and appointment needs, and is flexible when circumstances require it. It is still a useful system in God’s hands to achieve our mission. Where his people are prayerful, called, committed and available, there is no system that can hinder his work.

by Major Audrey Rowe, Divisional Director of Women’s Ministries and Divisional Director of Personnel, Newfoundland and Labrador East Division