Want to Avoid Organizational Nightmares? Have a Clear Vision!

Governance: Who's Really in Charge?

everyday eyeglassesAs I noted in the last post, defining mission precedes developing vision. The mission is like the acorn and the vision is the tree. Or to take an example closer to home, the “mission” of the Jewish people is “to be holy” (am kadosh) and our “vision” of what that looks like includes living in the Messianic era: an age characterized by complete justice, peace, compassion, dignity and equality for all human life, respect for animal life and the environment and, more specifically, the Jewish people living peacefully in its historic homeland.

A congregational vision should answer the questions:

  • By virtue of our work, what do we want the world to ideally look like?
  • Through our collective actions, how can we take the world as it exists and make it approximate more of the world as we wish it to be?

By being disciplined about mission, while some of the more lofty aspirations of the vision may be far off, more immediate parts of it become achievable. Why? Because your mission keeps pointing you to that desire future and keeps you from having organizational A.D.D., chasing the newest idea instead of keeping a steady hand on the helm. When your mission is tight, it will guide the creation of a beautifully crafted vision, and together they will remain an ongoing source of energy to complete the work that your congregation or organization has been called to do.

Having a compelling congregational vision motivates people to become involved and act because it gives them a positive alternative future toward which they can work. You were very helpful in sharing your experiences around congregational mission. Now-please share your experiences with congregational vision.

  • Does your congregation have one? How often does it inform your organizational actions?
  • What was the process for developing that vision?
  • If your congregation needed a new one, how would you go about creating it?

Thanks, Rabbi Herring

image from Flickr NCBrian

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Larry Kaufman  •  Feb 11, 2010 @3:59 pm

    I still find missions and visions like those described above a little more grandiose than most of us lay leaders can handle. The problem is that most of us can sign onto our neighbors’ mission and vision statements as blithely as our own, and ignore them just as blithely too.

    Whom do we want to serve, and how are we going to serve them differently from the guys down the street? Just because it’s a goof thing to do, is it a good thing for us to do? (I write from the perspective of the good-sized urban synagogue, where Jews have many synagogue choices, and therefore where no one needs to worry about neglected constituencies. )

    Case in point, heightened by this being Disabilities Awareness Month. Shouldn’t we be “signing” our Shabbat services for the hearing impaired? We had a trustee who thought so, and he found funding. Clearly we brush aside the objections from those who found it distracting, or esthetically displeasing. More compelling was the argument that we would be competing with and thus hurting the congregaton down the road whose mission was outreach to the hearing impaired. But, the advocates tells us, many in the target group want to be mainstreamed. So — the mitzvah-motivated win out, we hire a signer, we advertise and promote to the hearing-impaired community, — and nobody comes. An off-mission mishugass. If you build it, they will come. Not necessarily.

    I submit that this is different from the synagogue that provided the special tutoring etc. to provide bar mitzvah training for two severely developmentally disabled youngsters in the congregation. They didn’t set out to serve the idsabled — off mission. They set out to serve their congregants — on mission.

    Distinguishing between those two situations is easy for me, and, I submit, not necessarily clear to the balabatim who approve the budget.

    So my missioning-visioning questions tend to be along the lines of who are we and who do we want to be, and how does this make us different/better/a more compelling choice for the Jew out there seeking a synagogue affiliation. Maybe even, how does this make casting their lots with us attractive to the Jews out there who hadn’t been seeking a synagogue affiliation — but that’s tougher, and I’d rather concentrate on the more reaadily achievable.

  2. ALLEN G. GOLDIS  •  Feb 17, 2010 @1:49 am

    THIS IS A GREAT STEP IN GETTING SHULS TO UNDERSTAND WHO THEY ARE AND WHERE DO THEY WANT TO GO IN THE LONG RUN — RATHER THAN OPERATING FROM THE SEAT OF THEIR PANTS AND FROM DAY TO DAY.

  3. Kerry Olitzky  •  Feb 21, 2010 @6:05 pm

    I got one for you-which may be relevant to this post. What about the name of the synagogue (or, for that matter, any institution? While we know that some names are not self-evident and dont really help the newcomer to understand the nature of the institution, how important is the name? And (in the case of brand recognition, to borrow a term), who is the name of the institution really for?

  4. Larry Kaufman  •  Feb 22, 2010 @9:16 am

    I’m glad someone besides me is interested in the relationship between a synagogue’s name and its values. I posted about this on the Reform Judaism blog http://blogs.rj.org/reform/2009/01/god-and-man-at-shul.html and the response was zip. Maybe Rabbi Olitzky’s question will move me forward on my dormant plan to write more on the topic.

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>