What works best-a corps council, the Carver model or a mission board? It depends on what you want to achieve
When it comes to corps governance, one size doesn’t fit all. While there are advantages and disadvantages in the different models of corps governance, the reality is that almost any model will work reasonably well if certain factors are in place. Board members must clearly understand the function of the model, and there must be clearly defined roles and responsibilities. All members must have “buy in” to make it work and the chairperson should have good skills in facilitating discussion and decision making.

Congregational involvement in leadership is always difficult to analyze. There are different levels of participation and decision making in any governance model. The congregation at large can be involved in the selection of members to represent them on the board and may be involved in major decisions that effect the whole congregation, such as moving to a new location or undertaking a major building project. However, the whole congregation cannot sit at the table in the regular planning and operations of the corps. That’s why it’s important that members of the congregation are able to voice their opinions and concerns through the individual board members. The board and ministry team has a responsibility to report to the congregation on a regular basis on matters of strategic direction and results.

There are several basic systems of corps governance with many variations. For the purposes of this article, I will explore three models: the Carver model, the mission board and the traditional corps council.

Description:
The Carver model establishes policies based on the values and perspectives of the organization. It is based on the 10 principles of policy governance as identified by author John Carver (www.carvergovernance.com). The board develops clearly defined ends (results) to be achieved using three guiding principles: For what good? To whom? and At what cost?

The corps officer is a member of the board but not the chairperson. The chair is elected by the board members. The members of the board are nominated by members of the congregation, approved by the divisional commander and voted in for a two-year term by the congregation. The board members sign a document that requires a strong commitment to the board and the corps' ministry. Regular congregational meetings are held in order to report on the activities and successes of the corps' ministry.

Strengths:
The board does not become involved in the everyday administrative details of operation but rather confines itself to the strategic direction and leadership of the corps. Many boards and councils are so involved and burdened with the smaller issues of the operation they never get to the strategic direction of the corps ministry.

The board members come to a decision by consensus and speak with one voice. The clearly defined roles, ends and executive limitations provide good criteria and direction for evaluating the productivity of the officer and the ministry team. The board can only evaluate the effectiveness of the officer on the basis of the criteria previously set out by the board. In turn, this gives the officer clear parameters in which to work.

The officer reports regularly to the board on the progress of the ministry team.

One of the overall strengths is the built-in accountability within the board itself as well as between the board and the officers and their ministry team.
Challenges:
The Carver model at the corps level cannot contradict present Salvation Army policies, and, although it can make recommendations, it does not have jurisdiction over the appointment of corps officers.

Unlike secular organizations, board members in the corps also become involved in ministry. These two areas of involvement must be kept clear and distinct from each other.

It is important for board members, officers, the leadership team and congregational members to have a good understanding of how the policy board works in order for it to be effective.

Description:
The mission board model identifies three specific divisions of responsibility within the corps-pastoral, program and business administration-with a co-ordinator and committee for each. These three co-ordinators, together with the corps officers and corps sergeant-major, make up the primary decision-making body for the congregation. The corps officer is a member of the board, but usually not the chairperson.

The purpose of this group is to support the corps officers in their pastoral and leadership responsibilities. Board members are also expected to participate in strategic planning and policy making.

Strengths:
This provides a smaller and more efficient working group for decision making.

Co-ordinators are chosen because of their spiritual maturity and giftedness rather than a previously held commission or position. This model provides for greater individual involvement with a spread of responsibility across all programs and groups in the corps. It is flexible in that additional leaders can be included, such as a youth representative or the spouse in a husband-and-wife team. It can also be reduced in scope for a smaller ministry unit.

The co-ordinators each chair their respective committees, providing a good liaison between the senior leadership team and the front-line workers. Another strength in this model is that it allows ministry leaders to focus on their particular ministry without having to be regularly involved in the overall corps operation.

Challenges:
In a case where the corps officer decides to chair the board, accountability for board members and the leadership team can be effective, but accountability for the corps officer is less effective unless he or she encourages it.

In this model smaller corps may have difficulty finding skilled and gifted people for these positions. In larger corps there is the challenge of acquiring the commitment of time and energy to be effective with a large group of people.

Description:
The traditional corps council is comprised of commissioned leaders already active in the corps with the addition of several members at large. It functions mainly as an advisory body for the corps officer. Decisions are arrived at through consensus.

Strengths:
All sections of corps ministry are represented at the table. This provides for a good overall perspective for decision making and planning. This group often turns into a working force for the corps.

Challenges:
Some members may be on the board for many years only because of their position and may contribute little to the effectiveness of the board. The only way off the board is to remove the commission, which is not always helpful. If all corps ministries are represented, it makes for a large group; and adding new members may become unmanageable.
Conflicting views and group interest often make it difficult to arrive at a consensus in decision making. Experience has shown that this model leans toward management of the operation (small stuff) rather than developing strategic direction (big stuff) for the corps.

by Major Wilbert Abbott, Divisional Commander, Manitoba and Northwest Ontario Division