Three Ways to Look at Internationalization
Mission agencies must understand that each model comes with pro's and con's
When it comes to internationalization, many organizations are proud of their model. When I conducted surveys of different field teams operating in one, large Asian city, I found that one hundred percent of them saw their own organizations as decentralized. This was certainly not the case from my perspective, as large, highly centralized ministries made up the research pool. It led me to question how objective we can be in understanding the organizational models of ministry which we adopt.
A sober look at the pros and cons of various internationalization models can be beneficial. Most ministry design is a reaction to growth and the need to manage well as relationship-driven management breaks down. In any growing ministry, there are points of decision that will dictate the future behavior of the organization. Another way to understand this is to say, “Structure impacts outcomes.” Ministry growth tends to be more organic and less directed than growth in business entities, thus making structure an embedded construct rather than one imposed by leadership onto the organization. This points to the need for leaders to take seriously the way they choose to organize their work at the early stages of development. Changing structure in a ministry affects relationships, which are far more central to execution than they are in a business setting.
I am going to define internationalization as “the process of purposefully incorporating leadership outside the founding culture’s influence.” This definition is not binary. A ministry is always more or less internationalized.
With the advent of globalization that started in the 1990s, many mission agencies began to purposefully incorporate leaders from the non-founding culture. This movement is distinct from the indigenization movement that started in the late 1800s through the influence of Nevius and others. The latter was an attempt to put indigenous leaders in place in local ministries. Internationalization was the incorporation of leaders into global ministry leadership.
Here are three dominant forms of internationalization that I see ministries undertaking today. No single one is better than the others. They have pros and cons and fit different situations.
Globalized
Ownership is transferred to a global council which coordinates the work.
Highly empowered International Director, typically with a budget and staff
International council with representation by participating entities.
Field reporting structure to the global council.
Pros
Empowering for non-majority people, people feel involved/included
Provides for leadership participation, development and multiplication (lots of leadership roles)
Cons
International structure is dependent on other offices for funding
Disconnects the resourcing bases (sending, funding) with field ministry (creates complex org charts)
Governance is handled mostly by staff – good non-profit governance usually requires an outside board of governance
Multi-National
Ownership is held by a primary entity and subsidiaries report to it.
Highly empowered main office
Global ministry includes funding from the primary office
Field and administrative sending/mobilizing offices report to the primary office.
Pros
High levels of organizational alignment
High levels of accountability
Creates strong vision, mission, and execution which funders often look for
Cons
Dominated by a single country/culture
Limited by the resources of the primary entity
Does not empower local leadership
Fraternal
Ownership is held by localized groups that work together and autonomously coordinate their relationships with each other.
Loose council which is representative and facilitative
Typically have simple working agreement and common statement of faith
Field reporting typically goes back to the sending entity
Pros
High levels of local ownership
Allows for local empowerment and contextualization of the work
Cons
Poor organizational alignment
Limited by the resources of the individual entities which exercise control over these resources
We all want to think that all the “pro’s” of each model work in our situation. This is not going to happen. If you want good alignment, you by definition need more hierarchical control. If you want more empowerment, you must relax a bit on alignment.
Not all missionary agencies are (or should be) internationalized. I note that there is a large number of denominational agencies that have avoided internationalization for theological reasons. On the other end of the spectrum, some internationalized agencies became that way because they felt it was a theological imperative.
The question is not, “Which model is best?” but “Which model aligns with God’s missions for our work?”