Ship of Fools: Time to out the Business jargon

Thread: Time to out the Business jargon Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024530

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I see a professional trainer of people going into e nursing / care work has lambasted the business model which is all about 'targets' etc. He said that caring people have the care dimension knocked out of them. Hence the appalling recent stories of what can only be called cruelty in some hospitals.

My view is that the Church suffers likewise. My own denomination has recently come up with a restructuring exercise and it is crammed full of the jargonese associated with agressive business models. It is presented as a 'progressive response to the movement of the Spirit'. In reality it is a cover-up for a cost cutting exercise when faced with bankruptcy in some departments.

So do shipmates think we should stop trying to emulate big business; get rid of the jargon associated with it, and get back to basics?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I suppose it depends on the targets. If the target is to ensure no patients miss their medications then it seems to be a worthwhile target. Why not have that written down and be measured against it?

Of course some business jargon is pointless or even used to hide things, but a lot of it is useful, which is why businesses use it.

Like anything, it has good and bad features. You mention carers lose the ability to care in the face of targets, but I would suggest that is simply poor managers setting inappropriate targets.

More controversially, in today's "care sector", which itself is a piece of business jargon, many people are employed who are not caring! Some people work in nursing homes because they need a job and that's what is available. So putting standards in place is important, so those who don't have a caring attitude know what is expected of them.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

1.So do shipmates think we should stop trying to emulate big business

2. get rid of the jargon associated with it,

3. and get back to basics?

As a former business consultant I say ....

1. Yes. The church is a laughing stock when it effects to join the business crowd, in talking the same language. What is needed is something counter cultural not "me too" theology.

2. Yes - kick the whole "reflection" and "engage" culture into touch and simply listen and do something positive and personal on the basis of what you hear.

3. It depends - will we all agree on what the basics are?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It's so nice to agree with Exclamation Mark.

Using business jargon just makes church leaders look pompous.

According to John's gospel, Jesus began his ministry by cleansing the Temple.

And a business model hardly fits in with this gospel passage.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I'd say yes and no.

There's always something we can learn from others. So the Church (as well as health care) will have something to learn from those engaged in for-profit business models. Some of the insights learned re: strategy, goal-setting, motivation, etc. may have some useful applications.

The problem is when you take it indiscriminately, apply it unreflectively, or assume that because insight A proved useful, business insights B & C will as well. Or that everything can be applied across the board w/o consideration of means, methodology, etc.

This holds true for other fields as well, btw. Both Eugene Peterson and Henri Nouwen have made insightful observations re: the problem of the church borrowing too heavily from therapeutic models, noting that the clergy/ spiritual director role can be confused with the therapist role in ways that are not all that helpful.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Tangent, but in 1995, the Conservative Education Minister of Ontario provoked outrage when he said he wanted to "create a useful crisis" in the education system.

Now, it's not beyond the realm of plausibility to think that this particular government would actually want to create an actual disaster in education. But I'd give the minister the benefit of the doubt and assume he was using the idea in a business-jarogony sorta way, along the lines of that pseudo-intellectual "crisis is te Chinese word for opportunity" slogan, beloved by management gurus on the rubber-chicken circuit.

Anyway, that's always stuck in my mind as a pitfall of using that kind of jargon in any field outside of management-huckstering.

link

[ 01. January 2013, 20:26: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Measurable and attainable goals.

Like, setting a budget and sticking to it?

Is there something wrong with that?

The question for the church isn't should the language of business be used. The church already is.

Its when.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

1.So do shipmates think we should stop trying to emulate big business

2. get rid of the jargon associated with it,

3. and get back to basics?

1. Not entirely, the church cannot afford to be so full of pride that they assume there are no lessons in leadership to be learned from outside their ranks. Being discerning about which lessons to adopt is important though, as is making sure that the right people are implementing them instead of clownish amateurs.

2. Yes. The problem with the "jargon" you're complaining about is that it's not, but it does have that effect when it's used by complete amateurs that churches have attempted to promote out of harm's way into senior leadership positions. Learning a lesson or two from the business world about performance management might help avoid this though.

3. That's not helpful, the phrase "back to basics" has no meaning in itself, it's usually just weasel words for some hidden interest.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The church is a laughing stock when it effects to join the business crowd, in talking the same language.

Yes.

The reason that it becomes a laughing stock is that the business paradigm assumes clear measures of success. But when it comes to churches, not only is their success usually doubtful to begin with, but the measures themselves are questionable.

So churches are almost always in a position of weakness with regard to business jargon. It is the language of failure.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The church is a laughing stock when it effects to join the business crowd, in talking the same language.
Yes.

The reason that it becomes a laughing stock is that the business paradigm assumes clear measures of success. But when it comes to churches, not only is their success usually doubtful to begin with, but the measures themselves are questionable.

Exactly. For ten years or more UK schools have suffered from the business mentality.

It doesn't work.

If we really used the business model and the output were not on target we'd change the raw materials. Can't be done.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If we really used the business model and the output were not on target we'd change the raw materials. Can't be done.

I think that gets at the heart of it. If it really were a business we would get another business.

Which is not to say that churches can't be successful or shouldn't be concerned about their lack of success. It's just that the pathways to success that are the inherent implications of business jargon are not always consistent with what religion is all about.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
In reality it is a cover-up for a cost cutting exercise when faced with bankruptcy in some departments.

Well it looks like you're faced with some real business issues!

If the church can get by without using money then there's no need for business thinking. If you're going to start committing to paying for things, like premises and staff salaries, then you're in the business world. Once you're there, you need a language to talk about the concepts. That's what business jargon is for.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
If you're going to start committing to paying for things, like premises and staff salaries, then you're in the business world. Once you're there, you need a language to talk about the concepts. That's what business jargon is for.

I would say that business jargon is about improving performance and increasing revenue.

This is what makes it such a trap for churches, because everyone wants to improve.

Churches, however, don't sell things and make money, nor do they exactly provide a service for which they are paid. Rather, they are a community of believers with an elected or appointed leadership. People voluntarily contribute money to the church based on their own devotion to the faith, their confidence in the organization, and, of course, their ability to contribute.

The issue is that the people who have the most ability to contribute are often people who have experienced success in business, who are immersed in business jargon, and who are disappointed in the church's performance. They often believe that if only the church would "clean up its act" the membership and contributions would climb dramatically.

It is hard to argue with this, because any organization can improve, and improvement usually brings good results. So boards and leadership are often enthusiastic about the prospects for changes suggested by the jargon.

My experience is that this is often an exercise in frustration for two reasons:

1. The business model suggests culprits for a lack of "performance" that are often unrelated to the true cause. "Disco" did not go out of style because it had a bad business model. Beliefs go to the very core of our cultural being. The larger cultural trends that influence what people do or do not find believable are hard to predict. Nor can churches change their teachings to match these trends.
2. Unlike businesses, which are often controlled by a small number of people, churches tend to be community entities controlled, in the end, by the entire membership. This makes the kind of "hard" changes in direction or policies, which are often advocated by business leaders, almost impossible to pull off.

My experience with the kind of changes suggested by business jargon was with the Jim Collins "Good to Great" model. The book sounded fantastic, the supplement about non-profits was even better. But key aspects of the program wreaked havoc with my church organization. The simple idea of getting the right people on the bus, and its corollary of getting the wrong people off, was murder. The "big hairy audacious goal" almost destroyed us. The reactions of our membership eventually brought the whole thing to a standstill alienating many of our largest contributors.

I don't blame it all on business jargon. I do blame it partially on the business mindset that imagines that if you can sell cars you can sell religion.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

Freddy, there is more than just who sells how much to delineating a successful business from a failed business. There's a lot that has to go on behind the scenes before you get to the point of making the sale.

For example, many churches would do well to pay a little attention to which businesses have the highest levels of employee morale. They should then apply the lessons learned there in improving the way that they treat volunteers.

In these times where the church is no longer the only option as the social centre of a community, less staff (both clergy and other non-clergy staff) means that those who are left will need to be more efficient to handle their workload. That means getting in some expertise on time management, again something that would best come by looking outside the box.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

If I was going to try to use a business model, I would be inclined to look more to John Lewis than John Kotter.

They are a partnership business with a social ethic, outperforming the market - but oddly you don't seem to see miracle business books being marketed in their name. (AFAIK !)

[ 02. January 2013, 20:23: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If I was going to try to use a business model, I would be inclined to look more to John Lewis than John Kotter.

They are a partnership business with a social ethic, outperforming the market - but oddly you don't seem to see miracle business books being marketed in their name. (AFAIK !)

I have used Kotter extensively in training my ministry interns, and have found his work quite helpful in helping them navigate the inherent difficulties in "leading change" in congregations. But, again, it can't be used indiscriminately or unreflectively-- it must always be a dialogue where you're considering what aspects are helpful/apply to Christian ministry and which do not. Sometimes it's a matter of recognizing "this is the way things are" but not "this is the way they should be". For the latter, I often draw on
Henri Nouwen's work

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think Kotter's approach (well certainly the iceberg version) is fairly profoundly unethical - especially having lived through it in practice.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If I was going to try to use a business model, I would be inclined to look more to John Lewis than John Kotter.

They are a partnership business with a social ethic, outperforming the market - but oddly you don't seem to see miracle business books being marketed in their name. (AFAIK !)

John Lewis was my first employer. They do have some very radical ideas about ownership of the company, which means that the shares are held in trust for the employees. In practice, that means that you get a healthy bonus when the business does well, and management get a lot of stick from both sides when the business does poorly. It did lead to a slightly enhanced sense of ownership of what you did, but it also led to some silly penny-pinching policies, like head-office employees having to provide their own pens. At the end of the day, the value of the bonus was factored into your pay packet, so they could afford to pay you 15% less than the market and you'd still be happy to stay. I stayed 20 months; but then I was a young graduate keen to go out and see the world.

(There were some interesting policies too, but they've dropped most of them - like not using TV advertising.)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think Kotter's approach (well certainly the iceberg version) is fairly profoundly unethical - especially having lived through it in practice.

I would love to hear more specifics about this (not cuz I doubt it at all, but because I'm interested and it would be useful to my work). Can you give some examples?

Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :

My initial reaction is that the church is the embassy of the Kingdom of God, not a business entity. As such we represent the Kingdom of our Christ to the world around us, allowing our unbelieving neighbors to "taste and see that the Lord is good."

From time to time business may have ideas for us to consider, but I think to simply jump onto a business bandwagon is inappropriate. Our conference leaders, as leaders of other UMC conferences, have become paranoid over the dramatic losses in the past decades. Now in a frantic attempt to plug holes in the sinking ship already half full of water, they are latching on to business books and their ideas to save us. We do The First 90 Days when we begin a new appointment, and we do StrengthsFinder 2.0 so the appointive cabinet can make good placements (yea, right).

Our last bishop issued edicts for change, placed all the responsibility on the clergy (because they can't really hold the lay people accountable for anything), deemed us ineffective when we couldn't part the Red Sea, and departed for book promotion tours. The result was a demoralized, dispirited clergy.

Jesus comes closer to a military metaphor than a business one. He will gather his qahal, assembly of warriors, to take on the strongholds of the Hades, and the strongholds will not prevail. His weapons are words and ideas, propagated by making smaller gatherings of disciples to teach and lead. In the vernacular of the internet, the Kingdom "goes viral."

I think we should drop the business focus, stop trying to be "culturally relevant" (worldly), and simply be the Kingdom of God, representing Christ in the restoration of the world, one person or community at a time. Invade Hades by removing shadows of death and defeat, and assault the enemy by conveying words of love, peace, and restoration.

I know. Easier said than done, but I believe that is what we are to do.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Freddy, there is more than just who sells how much to delineating a successful business from a failed business. There's a lot that has to go on behind the scenes before you get to the point of making the sale.

Yes, good point. I'm not suggesting that churches are not in need of improvement. Good organizational culture is important whether you are a business, a non-profit, or a church.

What I'm saying is that the direction suggested by the application of a business mindset, and its jargon, can be counterproductive in the context of a church.

That has been my experience. I'm sure that there are cases, on the other hand, where it has been helpful.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

IMO business is directed at "what works". If it doesn't work then jettison it.

In addition the business model is aimed at giving the people what they want -- regardless of whether they need it. In fact much of the advertising which is an integral part of business has as its aim to convince people that they want what they dont really need.

And "success is judged by measurable outcomes.

On all three counts the Church can hardly go along with this model. And the jargonese which is so essential to it.

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

I find this an interesting thread, because our Diocese has been busy implementing change in recent years, with communications that seem to be an unhappy combination of spiritual and business jargon.

As others have pointed out, some ideas in business apply directly to the church, like paying debts promptly and in full and being open and transparent about financial affairs. Jargon laden justification for change does not sound convincing to me (a former business consultant with a high sensitivity to BS) or to many people in the pews.

What the diocese seems to be saying is: "In the future, the people in the pews are going to have to pay more, to get less. We are re-organising now to give us structures to spread the people on the ground more thinly, while having lots of specialist advisors paid for in the centre." You have to read several pages of pseudo-spiritual and pseudo-business buzz words to distil this piece of truth from the plans.

BS Bingo anyone?

Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :

I am beginning to see an inconsistency here. The former bishop referenced in my previous post loved to attack capitalism at every opportunity. He lost no opportunity to criticize "George Bush's America."

Yet he routinely adapted business books and ideas into our ecclesiastical organization, as I described before. And he was hard-nosed about it, using benchmarks tracking attendance and giving to make decisions about the effectiveness of clergy. In effect, we hire, promote, fire, and demote based on the numbers alone, as in big (capitalist) business. The name of the game is "nickels and noses."

If capitalism is so evil, why would we use the standards and language of capitalism to organize the work of the Kingdom and measure its success?

Posted by sewanee_angel (# 2908) on :

For me, the problem with adaption of business language and approach to non-business entities (eg churches, schools) is the trend in many businesses to value profit/dollars saved over people & the impact of policies on people. The church (and schools) must, imo, value people over money.

Does that mean massive waste is acceptable to me? Of course not. But what I've seen w/ business mindset entering into these other fields is loss of understanding of the true purpose--and the spreadsheet of money becoming the top priority.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Personally I'd quite like to see a lot of the business speak banished from business, never mind the church...

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:

As others have pointed out, some ideas in business apply directly to the church, like paying debts promptly and in full and being open and transparent about financial affairs.

In my world, these are concepts business needs to borrow from the Church, not vice-versa. YMMV.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sewanee_angel:
For me, the problem with adaption of business language and approach to non-business entities (eg churches, schools) is the trend in many businesses to value profit/dollars saved over people & the impact of policies on people. The church (and schools) must, imo, value people over money.

Yes, but it isn't just that. All employers care about people and don't necessarily value money over people, whether in business or not.

To me the more difficult issue has to do with the expectation of success. My experience is that successful business people have the expectation that there is a linear, measurable relationship between programs aimed at improvement and numerical church growth. They can be overly optimistic in their projection of results, and then overly critical when disappointed in the aftermath.

While the expectation that improvement will bring results seems like nothing more than common sense, it can be frustrating in church work since there are so many factors involved.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Another area where we've seen the unreflective transfer of business concepts to ecclesiastical affairs problematic is the utilitarian aspect of business methodology/ ethics. An example would be Homogenous Unit Principle (HUP)-- the notion that churches grow faster in culturally homogeneous groups than they do when crossing cultural lines (has this been discussed on Ship already?). I've had an opportunity to study this concept in depth recently, and believe it is inevitably problematic, both on the mission field (where it originated) and even more so as it was adapted in the 1980s to the Church Growth Movement. It's theologically problematic (contrary to Eph. 2, etc.) and has yielded a lot of bad fruit IMHO. Yet it continues to be staunchly defended because "it works"-- meaning it's effective in meeting a very narrowly defined goal ("butts on pews")-- even if the collateral damage is significant. All of that I think owes something to the utilitarian ethics found in business models.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think Kotter's approach (well certainly the iceberg version) is fairly profoundly unethical - especially having lived through it in practice.
I would love to hear more specifics about this (not cuz I doubt it at all, but because I'm interested and it would be useful to my work). Can you give some examples?

Off the top of my head; "creating a sense of urgency" with the implied - by misleading people if necessary. The idea of forming a guiding coalition and then sticking anyone you find irksome in there so you can ignore them - whilst publically saying how valuable their role it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

gotcha. Yep, problematic.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0