Does the Carver model suit Mennonites?



A retired veteran of Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) management put it bluntly (off-record): “MCC is not a priesthood of all believers.”
I don’t know if any Mennonite organizations are. Most, like this magazine, are hierarchies, and many use some version of the Carver model of governance. While such matters may be boring for many readers, this technical, behind-the-scenes stuff affects lives.

On paper, the Carver model, also known as Policy Governance, involves 10 key principles and lots of training. In my experience, the “Carver” term is often used loosely to refer to a system that concentrates power in the hands of a board chair and executive director who work closely together. It tends to be associated with controlled flow of information, adherence to rules and clear chains of command.

Board members generally do not interact with staff or constituents, and boards operate behind closed doors.

This way of operating—which in some cases may stray from actual Carver principles—provides policies and procedures to guide action and to duck behind when the heat is on.

Sometimes strictures, which have their place, get in the way of a more relational, restorative and transparent sit-down-and-work-it-out approach.
Twenty-five years ago, when I worked at MCC headquarters in Winnipeg, board meetings were wide open to staff. We presented to the board at times, we listened in, we mingled during breaks and some of us met regularly with a subgroup of the board. It wasn’t the priesthood of all, but it felt relatively open.

Those days are mostly done. And not just for MCC. Most of my magazine colleagues have no interaction with our board members.
Norm Kauffman, who, over the years, served as dean of students at Goshen College and city manager of Shipshewana, Indiana, among other roles, says the Carver model, as commonly used and sometimes “distorted,” does not align with church values or common sense. It tends not to be sufficiently collaborative, open or restorative, though he does appreciate that it is policy-driven.

Kauffman was part of an ad hoc task force of well-placed Mennonites who set out to examine the Carver model 25 years ago, at a time when it was becoming more prevalent in church circles. The task force never fully got off the ground, but Kauffman is not alone in informally tracking how Mennonite institutions govern themselves.

As a city manager and dean of students, he encouraged staff under him to go over his head, to his superiors, if they saw a serious need to do so.
In more recent years, observers like Kauffman see the increasing power of HR departments as a related phenomenon that sometimes sacrifices a restorative approach for organizational expediency.



Leave a Reply