Professional Shule Management
There is an article by Yossi Aron in the AJN (also reposted in comments below) that reignites a favourite soapbox topic that I have previously addressed on this blog.
I used to agree wholeheartedly with the position outlined, that our shules need to transition their administration from voluntary to professional roles. In the USA there are tremendous facilities that support activity and growth due to the full time accountability associated with employment. The resources are in place to ensure that communal activity is cohesive, far reaching, and all encompassing.
As Reb Yossi points out, Shules can be small to medium sized businesses. This analogy cannot be dismissed. If you look at the functions of facility management, accounts, communications, governance, sourcing supplies etc etc, then there is a modicum of activity that would not be out of place in the structure of any Small to Medium Enterprise.
However in recent times I have had second thoughts about the idealism of professional shule administration, particularly in the Australian context where there are only a small number of Shules with the financial resources to justify a full time administrative executive.
At the end of the day there is still the matter of community. Community is contingent on volunteerism. In the same way that you cannot run your family like a business, so too, you cannot make your community a commercial enterprise. There has to be give and take. A professional body means that the membership are all about take, and there is no need to give. Put another way, a community that is a not-for-profit enterprise organisation is a community without a natural heart.
It is true that in any communal settings some people are unfairly burdened, over-extended, and do more than others for the sake of ensuring that goodwill prevails. Often it is these people, communal stalwarts, that are unable to find a means of succession, and are left for years, if not decades, with a huge voluntary responsibility. When the time comes for someone to take over, and nobody can be found, suddenly it is discovered that a remunerable position is required.
We live in an age where volunteerism is hard to sustain. The cost of living and the need for family committment overtake our capacity to serve publicly. But I am starting to realise that solving this issue with a structured business mentality is not the best form of response.
I would argue that if a community cannot resource itself to socially provision for its needs on a voluntary basis, then it does not deserve to be a community. Paying somebody to do a job is nice if you can afford it, but it loses the personal connection that is required in a community setting. It also introduces politics, as the employer-employee relationship then requires definition. Jewish communities are not well reputed for getting this balance right.
People also need to feel valued. In a community, if you look long and hard enough, often people are more than happy to be involved, but they are either not approached, not valued, or not given the true opportunity to contribute. By that I mean the archtypical committee where the acclaim and credit is taken by one person who manages to get other people to work while they stand in the limelight. Volunteers often need to be able to inject creative worth, guide outcomes, and inject individual style in order to acheive in a communal setting.
Both sides of the argument have merit. Perhaps elements of both voluntary and professional guidance are needed, and the balance will change for each and every shule. One thing is for sure and that is that the current models of Shule administration in Australia are not delivering effective growth or the optimum level of output commensurate to a Shules resource base.
As always your thoughts are welcome.
Here is the article text by Yossi Aron
A new model for congregational management
YOSSI ARON
AT this time of year, many congregations hold annual general meetings with a view to electing new boards of management. With each passing year, it is becoming more and more difficult to find candidates willing to put their names forward and stand for election to office.
While this is not generally a problem in the younger congregations, at the moment of writing I am aware of three long-established Melbourne congregations that lack a person to take over as president.
I assume that the same problem applies in other cities. How many such congregations are seeking other executive office bearers – and, for that matter, are able to fill all slots for board members?
Certainly one can understand why this is the case. The pressures of family and professional work are increasing fewer people have the time for running a congregation. Additionally, the legal responsibilities of running communal organisations have become more complex.
Who wants to “face the music†communally or even legally, if things go wrong or existing modus operandi are challenged? But the fact remains that the very existence of congregations cannot be taken for granted if no-one puts up their hand to volunteer to do the necessary work.
I suggest that it is time to re-examine the existing operational model for synagogues.
Traditionally, synagogues have been run by an executive and board. Most employ a secretary to do the office work, including receiving payments, paying salaries and carrying out a host of other day-to-day tasks.
A caretaker (or, more recently, a maintenance company) also dealt with certain matters. Nevertheless board members – particularly those on the executive – still continue to be heavily involved in day-to-day shul affairs.
But the time for such reliance on honorary officers to manage congregations has passed. Contemporary congregations are small- to medium-sized businesses.
As has been recognised in at least some Jewish communal organisations, the management of entities so long provided by volunteers, needs restructuring to recognise that reality.
I believe it is now time for broader adoption of a new administrative model, which has, to some extent, been recently adopted in a few larger congregations.
That model involves a lesser reliance on volunteer board members and in its place, appointment of an executive director rather than (or, where justified by congregational size, in addition to) a secretary.
In this model, only a smaller board is required to set policy, while so much more of the day-to-day running of the congregation is in the hands of a competent paid employee who becomes part of the management team.
I suspect that improved management outcomes aside, the knowledge that the tasks of honorary board members are made less onerous by such an appointment may well reduce the hesitation of some who might otherwise not stand for boards.
Of course, effective operation of such a model in turn presupposes that appropriate persons are available for appointment to management positions. And in that regard, many questions will need to be answered. What are the requisite skills for such an appointee?
What is an appropriate package of salary and conditions that will attract the right appointees, keep them in such professional positions and allow them to develop a career structure providing personal satisfaction. The answers will vary from case to case, but asking those questions is the first step to achieving results
In recent times, we have seen the beginnings of concern in various community organisations (including the Jewish Community Council of Victoria) for professional development for communal public servants. But much more could be done.
Perhaps the synagogue roof bodies could provide a forum for exchanges of ideas in this regard and even for facilitation of professional development.
Rabbis get together from time to time, as do shul presidents – perhaps there could be a forum for such shul professionals to meet? I could envisage discussion at such a forum of matters ranging from modes of managing donations for aliyot and dealing with debtors to the appropriateness of particular computer programs and ways to publicise shul activities.
Consideration of proposals along these lines may indeed assist in the essential task of bringing shul management into the 21st century.
August 31st, 2008 at 8:54 pm