Member Care Exexutive Summary
PROFESSIONAL
REVIEW
MEMBER CARE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
[Click
HERE to access th Member Catre Narrative and Analysis.]
Rand Guebert
This material is strictly confidential.
It may not be reproduced in any way or shared without the explicit
written permission of Dr. Kelly O’Donnell and Dr. Michèle Lewis O’Donnell.
*****
The field of member care has been
developing since the 1970’s. Visibility
increased in the 1980’s with attention given to MK’s and TCK’s as well as the
emotional health of missionaries. One of
the many noteworthy contributions was the 1997 publication by the World
Evangelical Fellowship (now World Evangelical Alliance or WEA) of a book on the
REMAP study of missionary attrition, Too
Valuable To Lose, which highlighted the importance of effective member
care.
The O’Donnells had been
“released” by YWAM in 1994 to pursue a transnational and interagency ministry
in member care, which became the primary focus of their work. While many sending organizations and mission
leaders had member care responsibilities up to this time, the field was not
very well organized. There was a need
for more member care workers with better training and resources and more
coordinated effort. Also about this time
member care work was beginning at Le Rucher near Geneva.
During July of 1996 the
O’Donnell’s sent an email summons to over 40 colleagues expressing “a need to
deliberately join together with a core group of like-minded colleagues in order
to further develop the member care field, especially within frontier
missions.” This summons was based on the
need to see cooperative efforts around the world to further develop member care
resources.
A global member care group
(MemCa) formed in 1998 as part of the WEA-Mission Commission with Kelly
O’Donnell and Dave Pollock as coordinators.
It continued to develop internationally and helped practitioners, senders
and regional affiliates connect with each other. One of the strongest regional affiliations
was Member Care-Europe [MC-E]. Kelly
O’Donnell was instrumental in forming MC-E, and at the request of the MC-E
group, initially functioned as it’s coordinator until 2001. Earlier in 2000, the O’Donnells moved from
their base in Oxfordshire to the Geneva
area to join forces with the Le Rucher staff and the Spruyts in an effort to
make YWAM’s Le Rucher base a European member care center that could serve
mission clientele from different organizations.
Kelly and Dave worked effectively
together as coordinators of MemCa until the untimely death of Dave’s son in
January 2002. Kelly and Dave were world
class networkers who established relationships with member care workers around
the world. Between them there was a
focus on both functional and relational development--functional in the sense of
wanting to develop resources (as an example, Doing Member Care Well was published in early 2002), organize
conferences and run training seminars--relational in the sense of wanting to
provide ongoing support and encouragement for each other. As Dave’s participation was waning—related to
grief over the death of his son--Kelly contacted Bill Taylor of the WEA in
February 2003 with the express desire of strengthening Bill’s role as an
advisor and accountability partner.
Kelly also sought to develop a Leadership Team (LT) for MemCa in 2003,
in order to provide diverse input and distribute the work load.
Organizational development has
many challenges and pitfalls, many of which the O’Donnells and others
encountered between 2002-2006. People
had different priorities, emphases, loyalties and time constraints. During 2002 the vision of Le Rucher began to
blur with management dysfunction leading to the departure of the majority of
staff, including the O’Donnells in January 2003. The very positive developmental potential of
the previous years at Le Rucher began to be supplanted by leadership friction
and dysfunction at Le Rucher, and laterally at MC-E, of which the Spruyts had
also been members.
Soon thereafter, in early 2004,
MC-E became divided over whether the Spruyts should be part of the group or
not. There was also tension over the
manner in which the MC-E Coordinating Team (CT) of Marion Knell, Arie Baak, and
Siny Widmer was handling this matter.
Even though Marion Knell was
principal coordinator of the group, Arie Baak seemed to have significant
influence behind the scenes, perhaps because of his position as chairman of
EEMA. Sentiment in MC-E grew over time
in favor of the Spruyts until they were finally invited back in to membership
by the CT in December 2005 in spite of the concerns of the O’Donnells and two
other members about the way this was being done. The O’Donnells became marginalized in this
dispute.
The mistrust and friction that
developed in the MC-E dispute carried over into the MemCa LT as Marion was a member of
this group by virtue of her being coordinator of MC-E. In South Africa in June 2006 the
mistrust and friction resulted in a confrontation at a private meeting of the
six members of the MemCa LT. This
confrontation led to Kelly’s dismissal/resignation as coordinator and his
dismissal as member of the MemCa LT and member of MemCa itself.
The fallout from the events in
South Africa were exacerbated when Kelly and Michele were also unexpectedly
dismissed several days later from MC-E by Cees Verharen, the new director of
EEMA, to which MC-E was now accountable.
This dismissal was undertaken with no due process or right of
appeal. The isolation to which Kelly was
subjected was reinforced by his surprising exclusion from the COMIBAM
preconference retreat and from active involvement in the member care meetings
in Spain
during November 2006, and by the puzzling disciplinary letter sent to him by
the WEA Mission Commission on 17 November 2006.
The O’Donnells repeatedly requested to meet with Bertil
Ekstrom and Bill Taylor of the WEA-MC during 2007, but
without success. Kelly was finally
dismissed from the WEA-MC in December 2007 for his lack of attention to what he
and Michele deemed to be inappropriate requests and assertions in the aforementioned
disciplinary letter.
In spite of these developments
the O’Donnells have continued to pursue their international member care work
with long standing colleagues.
What observations, conclusions and
recommendations can be drawn
from these events and the
accompanying narrative?
- The O’Donnells
have made a lasting contribution to the member care field, both in the
resources they have developed and the people they have influenced.
The O’Donnells are world class
networkers, at their best when they are able to use their talents strategically
as both practitioners and organizers.
Many people from around the world have testified to the significant role
that they have played in their ministries and training.
The O’Donnells had academic
qualifications as psychologists which allowed them to work in unique ways with
both professional member care workers and those who entered into this ministry
more through life experience and specific courses. They could see the benefit of professionals
working with their extensive training in a clinic or ministry hub, as well as
the benefit of trained field workers of every nationality ministering to those
on the front lines around the world.
Both specialists and mission personnel have played important roles in
providing member care.
The O’Donnells also modeled a
balance between the functional and the relational in their ministry. They sought to be productive, but they also
made time for people. They also had the
energy to travel extensively and the curiosity to engage with people from many
cultures.
The O’Donnells should build on their natural talents and experience to
continue the work they have been doing, particularly with skilled colleagues
who can further develop and extend member care work in different locations
around the world.
- MemCa and MC-E
each had ongoing challenges to identify what would be the best structure
for itself--whether it was, or should become, an affiliation or
partnership or network or association.
The world wide organization of the member care field is still
evolving.
Both MemCa and MC-E developed as
different types of affiliations. MemCa
started as a task force of the WEA and continued to be accountable to the WEA
as it developed into a loose affiliation of member care colleagues, many of
whom represented networks from around the world. Today, in 2008, MemCa has been renamed the
Global Member Care Network. MC-E began
as an informal affiliation of colleagues from different European countries,
which eventually adopted a more formal constitution and became a part of the
EEMA. The O’Donnells had a strong
concept of partnership in mind when they helped found both groups.
While different people will give
different definitions to these organizational terms—affiliation, partnership,
network, association—in general we can assume that affiliations and networks
presuppose less structure than partnerships and associations. Further, partnerships usually work on the
basis of consensus and peer respect, while associations usually have an
executive hierarchy and clear membership criteria. Depending on the circumstances each of these
organizational models can be highly appropriate. Kelly is fully capable of
being a partner, yet his greatest talent is as a networker.
Because the member care field has
many practitioners with varying backgrounds and
training there can be tension between those with professional training
and those relying principally on their practical experience and background as
mentioned above. In an affiliation or
network these differences are often not important, and this played to Kelly’s
strengths. As organizations develop more
structure, tension stemming from different preferences related to background,
nationality and desire for hierarchy increase.
Simply put, all organizations, even Christian ones, have some level of
politics since every group must deal with issues of power and control.
Leaders in the member care field, including the O’Donnells, should
review the status of different existing organizations and group structures, and
consider how these, or new ones, might develop during the next ten years in
light of other aspects of globalization.
Attention should continue to be given to honoring and supporting the
contributions of all types of practitioners.
- The
organizational development issues cited above led to specific challenges
for MC-E, in particular, and MemCa
as well. These type of
challenges—leadership development, conflict resolution, membership
criteria, cultural sensitivity—are common for young, international
organizations having to make choices as they grow.
Leadership development is an
important task in any organization.
Enterprises usually develop under the direction of an entrepreneurial,
motivated leader. Many enterprises never make or survive the transition to new
leaders. Different talents and skills
are required as organizations mature and adapt to new circumstances. Kelly was very desirous to pass on leadership
and coordination responsibilities to others in MemCa and MC-E, although it was
not always clear which persons would be available and which structures would be
the most helpful. In MemCa for example,
the LT in fact functioned more as an advisory group than an active leadership
team.
In general, most of the members
of MemCa and MC-E did not seem to have the time to pursue the vision and goals
that Kelly and the other members themselves helped to cast for these
groups. The groups in fact had much more
of a desire for personal and work-related support rather than functional
initiatives. Perhaps in a longer time
horizon more of the goals that were set could have been accomplished or adopted
more effectively.
MC-E in particular had sad
experiences in conflict resolution.
Attempts were made by a few facilitators, but these efforts foundered on
a lack of common agreement on the “facts” and a lack of willingness to
independently investigate the matters in dispute and follow through on
commitments principally regarding how to proceed together. There was never a clear understanding of what
happened at Le Rucher during 2002-2003, and the important legacy of mistrust
that those events set in motion. MC-E’s
claim to be impartial in the dispute involving the Spruyts inexorably led to
them siding with the Spruyts.
Within the MemCa LT, the
confrontation that arose at the meeting in South Africa in June 2006 was not
solely Kelly’s responsibility, but was in fact the responsibility of the WEA-MC
EXCO as well as the MemCa LT itself.
Kelly and others was aware that matters were coming to a head in South Africa. Kelly was looking for assistance in resolving
this ongoing conflict, but not enough substantive assistance was
forthcoming. It is sad to see the WEA-MC
EXCO attempt to blame Kelly for the conflict in South Africa when members of the
EXCO were fully aware of, and had given ongoing counsel into, the stance he was
taking.
There were also issues of
cultural sensitivity and confidentiality that were never appropriately
addressed in MC-E. European propensity
for structure and hierarchy can clash with American informality. Requirements for discretion can escalate into
confusion over confidentiality. Issues
such as these that are normally easily resolved by the members then became
flash points of conflict in the atmosphere of mistrust that developed.
MC-E, MemCa and the WEA-MC should review their handling of these issues
in 2004-2006 for their own organizational health and integrity.
- Leaders and
executive groups have a responsibility to each other to exhibit integrity,
good judgment and good practice.
They should be held accountable for their actions and honored for
their contributions.
The deaths of Dave Pollock’s son
(2002) and Dave himself (2004) played a pivotal role in this story. Dave modeled member care personally and
turned out to be an irreplaceable partner for Kelly. While people mourned the death of Dave, it is
not at all clear that anyone reflected on the impact this would have on Kelly
and his work in member care. This was as
much a leadership transition as any that would occur subsequently. It is probably safe to say that if Dave were
still alive today Kelly and others would have found other ways to deal with the
legacy of Le Rucher.
During 2003-2006 the MC-E CT had a
significant conflict of interest in allowing Arie Baak to be both a member of
the MC-E CT
while also serving as chairman of EEMA.
For Arie to be a member of MC-E was acceptable, but to be on the CT was
probably not. At crucial points during
2003-2005 Arie was able to assert his influence to advance the return of the
Spruyts and control events in MC-E without appropriate group process.
While Brent Lindquist, the
Staffords, and Peter Nicoll all
attempted to act as facilitators and/or advisors at different times, it was
essential to also help set up a proper investigation of the facts in question,
along with an extended time together for mediation/discussion, in order to
better understand and deal with the group dysfunction in MC-E.
Although distrust had developed
between the O’Donnells and the MC-E
CT, it unfortunately carried over into the MemCa
LT by virtue of Kelly and Marion both being on the MemCa LT. The WEA-MC EXCO had a major responsibility to
help find a way forward here, especially in the run up to the 2006 meeting in South Africa. Every leader knows that he/she cannot solve
such problems alone, and Kelly was relying on the help of the WEA-MC EXCO,
especially Bill Taylor, for assistance.
Unfortunately Bill was very busy with many of the RSA06 conference
details and other challenges, and it would seem unable to give consistent
advice to Kelly. It would also seem that
his primary focus at RSA06 was on maintaining harmonious relations with various
groups and not letting the ongoing tension in the MemCa LT interfere with this.
It would further seem that as
matters developed in 2004-2006 Bill found it challenging to maintain his
relationships with both Kelly and leaders related to the EEMA. On three separate occasions during this
period Bill had to retract positions he had taken on issues involving MC-E,
leaving Kelly and Michele in an even more vulnerable place. Finally in the context of RSA06, Bill went
from being an advocate of Kelly and promoting his actions to distancing himself
and WEA-MC from him at RSA06, and later seriously criticizing and denigrating
him. This is not honorable and should be
objectively reviewed by Bill’s superiors in the WEA, as the WEA-MC had no
effective grievance procedure to which Kelly could appeal.
Opportunities should be sought for the O’Donnells to reconnect with
individuals in MC-E, the MemCa LT, and the WEA-MC EXCO, and to take the time
necessary to exchange perspectives and clearly understand what happened. Perhaps this professional review and the
resolution of the NCI scandal will provide a basis for this.
Also, the dismissal of the O’Donnells from MC-E by Cees Verharen in
July 2006 and of Kelly from MemCa in June 2006 does not seem to be at all
warranted. The O’Donnells acted with
integrity while expressing their views—there is no evidence to justify these
drastic steps. Being intense and firm in
a meeting is not a justification for being dismissed from a group—where would
the world be if this was normal procedure?
Also the O’Donnells have attempted to reach out to their former
colleagues in order to meet with them since the events of 2006, but without
success—perhaps the day is soon coming when this will occur.
*****
In conclusion, there is a great need in the member care field for
strategies suitable to the 21st century missionary endeavor. One of the most important strategies for
member care workers is to maintain and model healthy relationships with one
another. Missionaries and others will
continue to work in stressful cross cultural situations that create a need for
member care. The provision of services
and resources to meet these needs is still evolving, with the O’Donnells having
an important role to play in this.
[Click HERE to access th Member Catre Narrative and Analysis.]
