Despite the integrity and good intentions of most people who use tools like Twitter, the low cost of usage and anonymity offered inevitably result in these systems being abused by people of questionable ethical standards. These people have no qualms about abandoning etiquette, stretching the truth, and attempting to manipulate the people the people that social media these tools allow them to access. All for personal gain. And because this behavior has a negative impact on those whose intentions are more noble, the “good guys” have started speaking out.

The dissent started out in the form of people publicly questioning the qualifications of self-proclaimed and self-important “Social Media Experts/Gurus/Ninjas/Gods“.

Some of the comments have been quite funny. One of my favorite examples is:

“‘Social Media Expert’? What does that mean? You’re really good at making Facebook profiles?”

You can find other examples by searching Google for “Social Media Expert”. I also recommend you check out Social Media Han Solo, which brilliantly integrates a Star Wars theme into its social media expert bashing. It’s funny.

How far has the pendulum swung?

Recently, the volume of critiques of social media efforts seem to be increasing. This new wave of criticism seems to be focusing on how people neglect the “social” aspects for social media.

Jeremiah Owyang recently drove this point home on his blog saying that companies should have a ‘Customer Strategy’ not a ‘Twitter or Facebook Strategy’.

Similarly, Amber Naslundm, director of Community for Radian6, in her post “Social Media Is Not the Disease” points out that it isn’t social media that’s the problem, it’s the people using it.

When you’re looking at whether or not “social media” is a blessing or a curse, remember this. It’s just the amplifier. The mechanism for the word, idea, attitude or behavior to spread faster and farther, and with less discretion. I’ve been thinking a lot about this for months, but my friend Linsday Allen’s post about a check skipper at a Tweetup hit on it once again. While the situation was unfortunate, social media itself isn’t the “fail” here, the people are.

The Fundamental Flaw

As much as I agree with these and other analysis of the shortfalls of social media, they themselves also fall short… (do you see what I did there?)

Social media tools enable people to connect with people in ways that previously were not feasible. As the the use of these tools increase, systems or networks start to develop based on how and why the members of that system participate. As these systems evolve, they become more focused, clarifying the value of participation and establishing their own conventions for participation.

This phenomenon is not unique to social media. The same pattern can be seen in the development of societies, in the evolution of business and trade, even in the evolution of religion. The world has a tendency to organize itself into systems to allow the members of those systems to achieve greater things than they could as individuals. This is not a bad thing.

The problem occurs when you and I, as individuals, are changed by our involvement in the system. We see this when we begin to focus (in our thinking and behavior) more on the system than on the components of that system. When the “means” of the system start to become “ends”. The flaw is that our awareness of the system overwhelms our awareness of what they system does for us.

That’s what’s going on with social media right now. People care more about the tools and how they work than they do about what they tools can accomplish.

Systems thinking

According to Wikipedia,

“Systems thinking is a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation.”

Systems thinking as a methodology became popular in science after discovery that the any act of measuring something changes that thing, thus making it impossible to know the true nature of that which you are studying. Thus, systems thinking focuses on the interrelationships of objects and seeks to define “systems” of objects by how they affect each other.

Systems thinking is a very useful strategy methodology as it provides a framework for anticipating the effects that strategic actions will create throughout an organization’s ecosystem. It is also very useful in problems solving as it can shine light on causes that otherwise might not have been obvious.

Systems thinking falls short when the relationships of objects within the system are overemphasized to the detriment of the objects themselves. The main way that this primarily happens is that the different aspects of a system are over-generalized and thought of as conceptual categories.

An example of systems thinking in my life.

I’ll give you an example. I do strategy work for a company in China that designs innovative and lean manufacturing processes primarily for glass products (ranging from decorative Tiffany-style lampshades to insulated drive-shaft sleeves for power tools). I relate the owner of this company in a number of ways but the primary two are as a service provider (vendor) and as an adviser.

As a service provider, I mentally describe this company and the owner with a number of general concepts that also inform how to engage with them: customer, overseas business, manufacturers, business owner… All of these descriptors apply with various degrees of accuracy.

As an adviser I tend to think of this relationship based on general descriptions of the owner himself: man, 60 year old, American, expat, Christian, leader, boss, mentor, friend.

But none of these, no matter how many labels I apply, will ever fully capture who Bill really is. There’s nothing wrong with objectifying Bill as I do, I would not be able to serve him if I did not.

But, in the busyness of the day-to-day or when trying to create consistent levels of excellent service to my customers, it is easy to forget that Bill is first and foremost a person. And when I lose touch with the “personal” Bill for the sake of my well-designed and well-defined system, I will always (without fail) marginalize him in some way.

You cannot operate a system that applies 100 percent of the time. There will always be outliers, exceptions to the rules. Someone somewhere will not “fit” the boundaries that we have defined. It’s inevitable.

“People strategies” miss the mark.

It’s encouraging to see a re-emphasis in our society on valuing the human- or people- aspect of how we act. Whether it’s the rise of “social” entrepreneurship or the emphasis on community among today’s churches. If Jesus teaches that “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40 ESV emaphsis mine), it stands to reason that valuing others is extremely important to God (second only to loving God).

But, integrating “people” generally into our “systems” will always fall short. No matter which characteristics we use to define “people” there will always be a person that exists outside of our system.

Note that the object of Jesus’s command is not general, it’s personal. Jesus isn’t saying “love neighbors”, he is explicitly clarifying that I am to love my neighbor. The specificity of this command points to what is often lost, that the target of our love is a person. They are a person in the same way that I am a person. And that is the extent to which I am to love them, encompassing every single thing about them. I am to love them as an individual.

What is your “person” strategy?

I feel the need to say again (for the record) that I am pro-system thinking. I am also pro-”people” strategies and pro-”social” social media. I’m encouraged when humanity is valued in any context.

That being said, it is infinitely more valuable for you and me to truly love and serve one single person than anything else.

Above all else, our strategies must be “person” strategies. That means that as we devise create approaches for reaching the least and the lost we MUST NOT value the individual less than the corporate. As we build systems that increase our ministry reach, scale, and efficiency, our mechanisms MUST BE able to be adapted to the specific needs and opportunity of ONE PERSON. Our strategic vision and focus MUST NOT overlook the individual.

Given the choice of impacting the person we are with versus focusing our attention on impacting hundreds or thousands through our ministry or business, we must choose the individual.

It may feel counter-intuitive but Scripture drives this message home again and again:

• Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. (Hebrews 13:2 ESV)
• Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. (Luke 15:7 ESV)
• What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? (Matthew 18:12 ESV)

What do you think? In your efforts to love and serve people, are you neglecting the person? How can we ensure that we don’t lose focus on individuals?

Thy Kingdom Connected by Dwight Friesen

[<Disclosure> I received this book to review through my participation in The Ooze's Viral Blogger program. I have not been compensated financially in any way for reading or reviewing this book. </Disclosure>]

Thy Kingdom Connected is written by Dwight Friesen, associate professor of practical theology at Mars Hill Graduate School in Seattle. In it Friesen uses Network Theory to describe various theological implications, perspectives and applications pertaining to the kingdom of God. Friesen’s goal in writing the book is to shine light upon the inter-connectivity of creation and prepare readers for “living into the image of God” and “incarnating the mission of God.”

I Like This Book, But…

I was very excited when I learned about this book. Judging it by its cover (what? you don’t judge books by their covers?) it appeared to be about things that I am passionate about: the kingdom of God, advancing the Church, and social networking. All topics that I discuss regularly on this blog.

And I discovered upon reading the book that Friesen does address these things, more or less. But a better tagline would have been “What Theologians can learn from Network Theory“, because in my opinion, this book is more a theological exposition built upon the concept of networks than a discussion of practical applications of insights from social media.

That being said, the book is interesting and important for Christians today. Network Theory is an interesting field that has helped to advance the thinking in many fields. By applying this type of critical thinking to the different aspects of Christian faith can yield numerous benefits and help shape how individuals seek to live out their faith… which is Friesen’s goal for the book.

To achieve his goal, Friesen goes through a number of different implications of network thinking applied to areas like leadership, Christian community, missional strategy, and spiritual formation. For example, in the chapter on missional strategy, Friesen makes that case that if we understand the fact that we are meant to be connected to others and that God intends the establishing of connections to ultimately bring people into relationship with Him through Jesus Christ, we will intentionally seek to be relationships and practice hospitality so as to establish and strengthen such links connecting people to Him. Makes sense to me.

What to expect from the book

The book is 178 pages long but I must warn you: Friesen writes like a college professor. He makes his points through effective but burdensome use of specialist language and complex thought processes. I found myself reading and re-reading passages just to make sure I was understanding what he was saying. The book is conceptual and the little narrative that Friesen includes is only used to introduce concepts. As I was reading, I imagined I was sitting in a lecture hall… do with that what you want. Me, I enjoyed being a student.

Implications for a Kingdom Strategist

At it’s core, this book explores very important truths about the kingdom of God. It offers a different perspective and in the process highlights key implications that will shape the way you think about how to strategical advance the mission of Christian organizations. Network Theory focuses on visually depicting the relationships between elements of a system, as you think strategically about how to achieve the goals of your organization or church it is helpful to visualize how the different people involved are related. Not only that but it is valuable to incorporate relational elements into those kingdom goals.

Overall, Thy Kingdom Connected is a good book. The premise is interesting and the discourse is valuable. The readability is lacking and thus it requires commitment to draw the value out of the book. But in the end, the investment of your time and attention is worthwhile.

To purchase the book from Amazon.com, click here.

…Just so you know, all the book links are affliiate links. So if you click them and purchase the book, I’ll get paid… like $0.04.

Me: “That’s not the best knife for cutting chicken.”
Also me: “We’re using the steak knife.”
Me: “Bad idea.”
Also me: “We’re using the steak knife.”
*Kid yells and our attention refocuses on getting dinner ready.

That’s the set up to this story: I’m tired, hurried, and distracted. And I just grabbed a tool that I know isn’t designed for what I’m doing… How do you think this story ends?

I cut my thumb. Nothing that a band-aid couldn’t fix but nonetheless, I cut my thumb.

Progress was slowed as I had to tend to my wound. Had the cut been deeper, it would have ruined the whole meal. And here it is a few days later and I still have a bandaged thumb and it aches every time I touch it against something. All of which could have been avoided if I’d just grabbed the right knife.

The Right Tool for the Job

You may not know this but the reason knife blocks come with so many different types of knives is that each one is designed for a specific type of cutting. Factors such as the blade length, cutting edge shape, hilt weight all affect how the knife achieves it’s core function: cutting. Each knife is purposefully designed with a specific function in mind and that design is informed by science, by research, and by years and years of and experience.

So it is with most tools.

Whether you’re a chef or an accountant, a childcare provider or physician, whether a pastor or a carpenter, your trade has specific tools and you have many options as to which tool you should use. Granted, selecting the wrong word processor does not have the same potential for danger as selecting the wrong knife, but you can still avoid some inefficiencies and frustrations if you follow these three simple steps when selecting the right tool for the job.

How to Select the Right Tool for Any Job

1. Slow Down

Yeah right. Often extra time is not a luxury that we have. But I can not stress the importance of slowing down.

First, it helps you maintain clarity of purpose. Maintaining focus in is crucial and slowing down is one way to fend off the hundreds of distractions that keep you from doing your job well.

Second, it creates an environment where instinct and intention can work together. In my story, I instinctively knew that the serrated blade of the steak knife was poorly suited for slicing raw meat. But I ignored instinct because I was in a rush.

Third, you’re better off in the long run. The five seconds I saved by not second guessing myself ended up costing me ten minutes to tend to my wound. Plus the inconvenience of a tender thumb has plagued me for the past few days. The potential cost of selecting the wrong tool plus the effort required to fix your mistake is always greater than the cost of slowing down and focusing.

2. Think Success

I’m not saying that you need to have a winning attitude, I couldn’t care less about your attitude in this context. I mean you need to know what success looks like for the specific task and larger job at hand. There are three ways you need to think about success: Strategic Criteria, Conditions and Assumptions. These will help you focus on what it is that you need the tool to do and provide a framework for evaluating different tools.

Strategic Criteria are the important goals that are the reason for doing whatever it is that you’re doing – both immediate and longer-term goals. In my cooking example, my short-term goal was to prepare a quick and healthy dinner. I needed a knife to facilitate the preparation of the different ingredients.

Conditions are the primary outcomes that are desired. I needed a knife to cut both raw chicken and an onion. I preferred to use one knife because less hardware means less clean up. I needed a knife that was convenient.

Assumptions are the underlying concerns that you might not think about when you’re doing your job but are important nonetheless. The assumptions in my example are I didn’t want anyone to get injured and I wanted my hardware to be clean (to prevent food-borne illnesses).

3. Consider Function Abstractly

When we evaluate tools we often think in terms of if a tool can do the basic job. If it is a knife, we ask, “Does it cut?” We want to know if it will work.

Once we’ve established that we rely on secondary indicators to help us determine how well a tool can do the job. Given the plethora of options available to us for most tools, it’s easy to be overwhelmed trying to select which ones do the job well. This is why marketers spend millions of dollars promoting all of the bells and whistles of their products. They overload your evaluation process trying to convince you that their product not only can do the job well but is the best.  Despite their best intentions and tons of consumer research and market analysis; ultimately you will be the judge of what is the best tool for you.

Have you ever thought about why a product is designed the way it is? Why developers added certain functionality to an application? Why some knives have serrated blades and others have  long, flat blades? You should because this kind of consideration of the intent of product features helps you truly determine how well a tool can do the job.Thinking abstractly will help you to understand how a tool does what it does.

When you think about a tool’s function abstractly you educate yourself about the different considerations that went into the design of that tool. For example, you learn that serrated blades are designed to tear meat while straight blades slice through meat. This means that while a serrated blade will be most effective for sawing through a tough steak, it doesn’t offer the precision and control necessary for slicing up chicken breast. You’ll also learn other things like proper knife handling techniques designed to minimize the danger of cutting yourself. This knowledge helps me to know that a steak knife is not the best choice while you’re making a quick dinner. (Unfortunately, I chose not to pay attention to what I knew.)

One Last Piece of Advice

Next time you’re picking a knife or whatever tool you need to do your job, slow down, think about what success looks like, and draw upon what you know about the tool functions. This will ensure that you pick the right tool for the job and make you more effective at your job in the long run.

And if you can avoid it, don’t do anything of strategic importance or that is potentially dangerous when there are hungry, cranky kids in the room. It seldom ends well.

———————————————————–

Update: Talk about great timing. On February 10, Tom Mylan published a great primer on the proper care and use of kitchen knives over at The Atlantic. Click here to read the article.

Creating Eternal Value through Strategic Management

Business as Mission Methodology – BAM Business Organization and Resource Coordination (part 2)

Impact of Company/Business Attributes on Business as Mission Objectives

Research suggests that links exist between respondents’ perceptions of how different attributes of an organization (development stage, size, and geographic focus) impact BAM goals (Exhibit 7). ^[1]
(Note: The colored bars on the scale reflects specific opinions pertaining to General Businesses (not explicitly BAM) [yellow], Missions Organizations [red], and Business as Mission Companies [blue], respectively.)

Key Insights:

Development stage (7.1-3)

• Respondents believe that start-up companies are more influential than established (95 percent agree start-up BAM companies are better; 87 percent agree start-up businesses are better). (7.1 and 7.2)
• The preference for start-up missions organizations is not as significant (only 64 percent agree). (7.3)
• Development stage is strongly linked to all Business as Mission objectives, with the greatest correlation with building the economy and blessing the nation.

Implication: the newness of an organization creates perceived benefits that are valued by the Business as Mission movement. Primary among these is the creation of new value in the form of products/service enhancements, additional wealth, and jobs in the economy. Start-up companies could also be assumed to be more dynamic and flexible which theoretically would make it easier for the company to incorporate BAM goals. Of course there is a trade off between the benefits of newness and the efficiencies and learning that a company gains as it develops. It makes sense that respondents seem to favor the benefits of maturity more for traditional missions organizations given that missions organizations do not create as much market value to offset early stage inefficiencies.

• The development stage of a missions organization is not correlated to profitability or the ability to provide access to locations. (7.3)
• The development stage of a company (both BAM and regular) is negatively linked with the ability to provide access to locations. (7.1 and 7.2)

Implication: the relationship between a company’s development stage and “Provides access to many locations” may result from closed-access countries valuing existing companies more than entrepreneurial efforts. The established size and structure of a mature business may lessen the government’s fear of exploitation.

Size (7.4-6)

• Respondents prefer large Business as Mission efforts to micro-enterprise.^[2] (7.4)
• In general, respondents favor large companies over small; however the preference is not as pronounced as it is for BAM companies. (7.5)
• Respondents prefer small missions organizations over large. (7.6)
• A focus on micro-enterprise is believed to limit the benefits that profit can create for the kingdom. Additionally, respondents associate micro-enterprise with the goal of providing access. (7.4)
• Larger companies are perceived to have a greater impact on building the local economy and blessing the nation. Larger companies are also perceived to have a negative impact on ability to evangelize and focus on developing nations. (7.5)
• Large companies are negatively correlated with providing access to many locations while large missions organizations are positively correlated. (7.5 and 7.6)

Implication: the preferences exhibited toward organization size highlight that size is proportional to perceived impact within a host country. However, the BAM movement strives to maintain a balance regarding size because of the perceived trade-off between size and ability to evangelize. The results suggest that there is a size at which it becomes more difficult for a BAM company to effectively evangelize. This belief (if validated) will greatly influence the goals set by the Business as Mission movement in terms of growth targets. Similarly, respondents may recognize that some developing nations or remote regions do not have the infrastructure needed to support larger companies, which tempers size preferences.

Geographic focus (7.7-9)

• Respondents overwhelmingly embrace the global focus of the Business as Mission movement. (7.7)
• Global presence is believed to impact all Business as Mission objectives. The biggest impact is believed to be on profitability and ability to build the local economy.
• Global presence is negatively correlated with providing access to many locations.

Implication: the results reinforce the central role that globalization plays in creating opportunities for Christians to further the kingdom through Business as Mission. The negative correlation between global focus and “Provides access to many locations” most likely is a consequence of reactions to the simplification of Business as Mission as a means for overcoming prohibitions against missionaries in closed countries.

According to a Jan 19, 2010 USAID Fact Sheet, at least 65,000 people are estimated to have died. Another 200,000 people have been displaced and the total population who has been significantly affected is approximately 3 million people. The global response to this crisis has been amazing. As of February 3, 2010, $644 million has been contributed to private non-profit organizations from US citizens (source: Washington Post). This is only part of the total world effort. Organizations like the American Red Cross, World Vision, and Compassion International have mobilized their base and are just some of the organizations contributing to the on-the-ground efforts.

Despite the tremendous magnitude of these first-response efforts, the road to recovery is going to be long and difficult. The challenges facing the country prior to the earthquake were great. The country is the only country in the Western Hemisphere (North America, South, Central, and Latin Americas and the Caribbean) on the U.N.’s list of the World’s 50 least developed countries¹ (source: UN-OHRLLS). According the the CIA World Fact Sheet, 80% of the population of Haiti live below the poverty line. Additionally the country is plagued by drug trafficking and human (both forced labor and sex) trafficking.

The need in Haiti is great.

The lives of the men, women and children there were hard before January 12th. They’re even harder now. They face threats and hardships every day that we are isolated from. Things you and I can not even imagine. Hope for progress has suffered a major set back. Before people were struggling to make the most of their existence given how little they had to rely on and work with. Now what little they had has been destroyed.

As I sit and write this I don’t have to think about where my next meal is going to come from or where I’m going to sleep tonight. I do worry about the safety of my family but the threats I imagine are exactly that: imagined. Although it’s tenuous these days, I still am fairly sure the bills will get paid. I’m confident that there is work to be had.

Not only that but I live in a world where the things I need and want, the conveniences of life, are available. To get to work this morning I had a car to drive, roads to drive on, and gas to power the car. My computer is plugged into the wall, I don’t think twice about whether the lights will turn on when I flip the switch. Not only is there going to be plenty of food at the grocery store but there is a store to go to! There is food on the shelves because there is this amazing infrastructure that connects the farms from around the world to processing and packaging facilities to distribution centers to stores. And I don’t see any of it, I just trust that food will be there.

The message of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37 ESV) is that we are to love our neighbor. Our neighbor is identified any person we meet on our path who is in need. We are to show mercy to those in need.

But what is interesting is that the Samaritan shows mercy in two phases. First he bandages his wound and brings him to shelter — he tends to his most immediate needs with compassion. But what he does next is even more amazing (the importance of this is often lost): he invests in continued care and rehabilitation.

³³But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. ³⁴He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. ³⁵And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’

See, he doesn’t bring him to the inn and drop him at the door. No, it explicitly states that the Samaritan “took care of him” at the inn. It is after this intense investment of caring for the man himself that the Samaritan make additional provision for continued care, making a down payment with the innkeeper and promising to return and pay for whatever the man needs.

How are we planning to invest in continued care for Haiti?

There are a number of ways to do this, but I want to highlight two in particular that must be a priority.

First, it is important that we build up the Church in Haiti.

Whatever your views on the spiritual history of Haiti, the people of that country are utterly and completely in need of Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord just as you and I are. And it is local churches — proclaiming the Gospel of the kingdom of God, caring for the physical and spiritual needs of the people, and coordinating and leading people to live their lives as children of God — that the love and redemption of Christ will flow through.

I want to draw your attention to Churches Helping Churches, an organization founded by James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll to “address the immediate and long-term needs of churches when disaster befalls a country, region, city, or people in the spirit of Galatians 6:10—“…let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” If you are interested in how you or our church can support local churches in Haiti, I highly recommend you check out Churches Helping Churches.

Second, it is important that we build up infrastructure in Haiti.

This means investing in the physical structures, services, and facilities necessary for the Haitian economy to develop. Recent studies have argued that foreign aid doesn’t work. At the same time, a lot of attention has been given to the role business plays in developing economies. In recent years, Christian business men and women have been leveraging the power of business in order to spread the Gospel in countries whose governments are hostile toward Christian missionaries. The global Business as Mission movement has developed as more and more people are awakening to how God can use their business talents as part of his redemptive plan.

Haiti needs Business as Mission companies now more than ever.

The need and opportunity to develop creative business solutions to many of the problems facing the people of Haiti is great. If you believe that this is a way that you can get involved I want to encourage you to do something. I wish I could point you to specific ways that you could help but I don’t know of any right now. Many organizations are rightfully focused on meeting the immediate needs in Haiti. But as the dust settles our efforts must not lose momentum.

To help spark ideas about potential business opportunities I’ve include some facts about Haiti below. These factors will help identify what opportunities for business exist  in Haiti. Obvious needs are infrastructure and construction. Additionally, the Haitian people will need resources to get back on their feet, so opportunities for micro-finance might exist. I’ve also included quality of life statistics in the hopes it might spark some ideas about opportunities to address some of the less critical issues facing the people there.

If you or your organization are serious about engaging in Business as Mission, I offer a number of services that will help you develop an appropriate Business as Mission strategy and maximize the impact of your efforts. You can contact me through my company website: http://www.unconventionalmethod.com/contact/.

Facts about Haiti

source: originally published at The Resurgence; Data from the CIA’s World Fact Book

Location and Size

Caribbean, western one-third of the island of Hispaniola, between the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean, west of the Dominican Republic (which is two-thirds of the eastern side of Hispaniola). The terrain is mostly rough and mountainous.

17,243 sq miles (slightly smaller than Maryland).

Natural resources

bauxite, copper, calcium carbonate, gold, marble, hydropower

Agriculture products

coffee, mangoes, sugarcane, rice, corn, sorghum; wood

Industries

sugar refining, flour milling, textiles, cement, light assembly based on imported parts

Labor force

agriculture: 66%
industry: 9%
services: 25% (1995)

shortage of skilled laborers, abundance of unskilled laborers
widespread unemployment and underemployment; more than two-thirds of the labor force do not have formal jobs
80% of the population is below the poverty line

Population

9,035,536

Age structure

0-14 years: 38.1% (male 1,735,917/female 1,704,383)
15-64 years: 58.5% (male 2,621,059/female 2,665,447)
65 years and over: 3.4% (male 120,040/female 188,690) (2009 est.)

Ethnic group

95% black, 5% mulatto and white

Urbanization

urban population: 47% of total population (2008)
rate of urbanization: 4.5% annual rate of change (2005-10 est.)

Literacy

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 52.9%
male: 54.8%
female: 51.2% (2003 est.)

Government

Type: Republic
Port-au-Prince (capitol)
Independence from French in Jan 1, 1804
Their constitution was approved March 1987

Note: Suspended June 1988 with most articles reinstated March 1989; constitutional government ousted in a military coup in September 1991, although in October 1991 military government claimed to be observing the constitution; returned to constitutional rule in October 1994; constitution, while technically in force between 2004-2006, was not enforced; returned to constitutional rule in May 2006

Infant Mortality

total: 59.69 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 37
male: 66.18 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 53.01 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.)

Life Expectancy

total population: 60.78 years
country comparison to the world: 181
male: 59.13 years
female: 62.48 years (2009 est.)

Total Fertility

3.81 children born/woman (2009 est.)

HIV/AIDS-adult prevalence rate

2.2% (country comparison to the world: 28)

Living with AIDS

120,000 (2007 estimates)

HIV/AIDS deaths/year

7,200

Major Infectious Diseases

degree of risk: high food or waterborne diseases: bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, and typhoid fever vectorborne diseases: dengue fever and malaria water contact disease: leptospirosis (2009)

Natural hazards

lies in the middle of the hurricane belt and subject to severe storms from June to October; occasional flooding and earthquakes; periodic droughts

The following is another excerpt from the BAM Survey 2007 Report. The BAM Survey 2007 Report is an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

Who are the Business as Mission leaders? (part 3)

Business as Ministry

It is clear from the survey results that the belief that missions/ministry work can be done in the business context is widely accepted (Exhibit 4). In fact, as many survey respondents believe that Business as Mission is beneficial to the kingdom as those who believe Missions work is beneficial to the kingdom (96 percent agree with each) (4.1 and 4.2). However, it is not as widely accepted that general business (operated ethically) is beneficial to the kingdom (only 60 percent agree and 21 percent disagree) (4.3). The fact that 83 percent of all respondents agree that Work in a business is a ministry (4.4) suggests that the Business as Mission movement distinguishes between the impact a business (organization) can have and the impact that individuals within a business have.

Business as Mission is more than just doing business ethically

It’s particularly interesting that respondents in the Business, Non-Profit, and Education fields all agree to the same extent that Work in a business is a ministry (82 percent, 82 percent, and 85 percent respectively). However, fewer Business respondents agree that Any ethical business is beneficial to the kingdom (59 percent) compared to Non-Profit and Education respondents (64 percent and 63 percent respectively).

This may point to an increased awareness among Christian businesspeople of the importance of being intentional in using business as an opportunity to minister. Whether this is a result of experience or in response to increased scrutiny and criticism the business world receives as a result of the sacred/secular divide is unknown.

In Business as Mission, the company itself is a part in the ministry

One of the core distinctions between Business as Mission and other approaches to integrating business and mission/ministry (e.g. workplace ministry, tent-making, micro-development, etc) is that in BAM some or all aspects of the business (organization) contribute to the missional purpose. Business as Mission involves the manifestation of a missional purpose at both the individual level and the organizational level. What the missional purpose is and how it is manifested at both levels is influenced by many different factors.

Given that respondents universally accept the benefit of Business as Mission (4.1) but do not completely accept individual (4.4) and organizational (4.3) impact in business implies that some people do not understand how Business as Mission incorporates both. Only 53 percent of all respondents agree that Work in a business is a ministry and that Any ethical business is beneficial to the kingdom. Additionally, 22 percent of respondents who agree that Work in a business is a ministry did not agree Any ethical business is beneficial to the kingdom.

Thus, a majority of people understand the individual aspect of BAM transformation; but, a significant portion of the movement does not understand or agree with the organizational aspect. In order to address this disconnect, it is important how BAM leaders run their companies to create impact. In the next section we look at four aspects of Business as Mission strategic management: objectives, organization and coordination, metrics, and resource allocation.
********************************************************

Did you enjoy this? Click here to purchase the full survey report. Enjoy instant access to the full survey report, including more in-depth analysis, charts, graphs and figures. Only $14.99. Purchase your copy today!

This is the third installment sharing highlights from the BAM Survey 2007 Report. Today we take a closer look at the global leaders of the Business as Mission movement and the beliefs that drive their efforts in spreading the Gospel through global business entrepreneurship.

The BAM Survey 2007 Report is an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

Who are the Business as Mission leaders? (part 2)

Embracing the Priesthood of Believers

Our research shows that businesspeople around the world are enthusiastically responding to God’ s call for them in the workplace (72 percent of respondents believe they are called to business) and are forging ahead to use their business activities to create transformation (83 percent of respondents believe that Work in business is a ministry^[1]) (Exhibit 3).

Results highlight a greater prevalence of being called to business versus being called to missions.

• Nearly three-quarters of all respondents indicated that they believe they have been called to the business world (72 percent). A slightly lesser percentage of respondents believe they are called to Business as Mission specifically and to missions (69 percent and 67 percent respectively).
• 86 percent of respondents from the Business field feel called to business compared to 72 percent of Non-Profit respondents that feel called to missions.
• Of survey respondents that indicated they are “Very Familiar” with Business as Mission, 82 percent indicated that they feel called to business compared to 75 percent that feel called to missions.
• Of survey respondents that indicated they are either “Not Very Familiar” or “Not At All Familiar” with Business as Mission, 63 percent indicated that they feel called to business compared to 43 percent that feel called to missions.

Respondents from different age groups demonstrate different degrees of feeling called to business, missions, or Business as Mission.

• Of respondents in the 18 to 29 year old group:
  • 66 percent feel called to business.
  • 64 percent feel called to missions.
  • 58 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
• Of respondents in the 30 to 44 year old group:
  • 75 percent feel called to business.
  • 72 percent feel called to missions.
  • 79 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
• Of respondents in the 45 to 59 year old group:
  • 71 percent feel called to business.
  • 63 percent feel called to missions.
  • 67 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
• Of respondents in the 60+ year old group:
  • 71 percent feel called to business.
  • 74 percent feel called to missions.
  • 66 percent feel called to Business as Mission.

Feeling called Business as Mission is linked to feeling called to either business or missions.

• Respondents that feel called to business (relative to those who expressed no opinion or do not feel called to business) are 2.6 times more likely to feel called to Business as Mission (84 percent compared to 32 percent respectively).
• Respondents that feel called to missions (relative to those who expressed no opinion or do not feel called to business) are 1.4 times more likely to feel called to Business as Mission (76 percent compared to 54 percent respectively).
• Of respondents that feel called to both business and missions (45 percent of all respondents):
  • 91 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
  • 2 percent do not feel called to Business as Mission.
  • 8 percent expressed no opinion.

We’re continuing with sharing excerpts from my BAM Survey 2007 Report, an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

Today we look at the demographics of the survey respondents in order to get an better idea of who makes up the global Business as Mission movement.

Who are the Business as Mission leaders? (part 1)

For the first time, the survey results enable us to describe the community of BAM leaders that has formed around the core elements that define Business as Mission (Exhibit 2). Of survey respondents that rated their understanding of Business as Mission as “Very Familiar”

Our data reveals that the 30 to 44 year old group has the ideal temperament for facing many of the challenges of the next stage of the Business as Mission movement — 75 percent feel called to business and 79 percent feel called to Business as Mission. What’s more, this group’s support networks (church, social communities, and companies) understand and pray for Business as Mission more than any other group’s.

However, it is clear from the data that the 45 to 59 year old group is driving the movement forward and paving the way for the next generations of Business as Mission leaders. The 45 to 59 year old group:

According to a 2005 Market Audit Survey by Claritas, the median net worth of 45 to 54 year olds is greater than twice that of 35 to 44 year olds (Table C). The median net worth for 55 to 64 year olds is nearly four times greater than that of 35 to 44 year olds. The improved financial position of the 45 to 59 year old group suggests two benefits: a greater ability to invest capital in BAM and a more stable financial base to endure challenges in operating a BAM company.

Due to their experience, positions and access to resources, the 45 to 59 year old group is the most prepared to create impact in the world through Business as Mission. This group is the key to executing Business as Mission and leading the movement as it faces new challenges.
********************************************************

Did you enjoy this? Click here to purchase the full survey report. Enjoy instant access to the full survey report, including more in-depth analysis, charts, graphs and figures. Only $14.99. Purchase your copy today!

The following is an excerpt from the BAM Survey 2007 Report, an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement that I wrote while developing the consulting services division of EC Group International. The report is based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries.

Though based on data collected in 2007, many of the insights contained in this report are valuable in understanding the state of the Business as Mission movement at the beginning of 2010. That is why over the course of the next several weeks I will be posting excerpts from the report on this blog. Additionally, you can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99.

Whether you are a BAM practitioner, a church or missions organization that supports Business as Mission, or an individual who is curious what Business as Mission is… this report will provide you with a comprehensive view of the global Business as Mission movement as well as an in depth analysis of many of the issues and trends that are shaping the future of BAM.

Introduction: Defining the Business as Mission Movement

In recent years the Business as Mission (BAM) movement has been mired by debate over the central principles of this special expression of ministry and missions that is occurring in the global marketplace. As individuals with traditional business or missions/ministry backgrounds approached Business as Mission, points of contention arose from the efforts to integrate the alternate worldview. Primary among these were issues with the implied/intrinsic inferiority of secular (or “lay”) vocations and with the sanctity of profit. Efforts to resolve these conflicts have been hindered by immature language and misconceptions among each group about the other. Feeling rejected for believing in the transformative power of business and facing difficulty in gaining acceptance, those who embraced Business as Mission disengaged from the church and proceeded in building their businesses.

During this period, the concept of Business as Mission was shaped by the relatively few kingdom companies in operation and was subject to much debate. Due to the broad scope of what it means to be a business and to be a mission, even within the growing BAM movement it was difficult to identify generally accepted interpretations of key issues and elements. This has been complicated by the tendency within the movement to personalize the definition of Business as Mission, manipulating it to encompass the particulars of one’s situation, to account for personal worldviews and goals, and to support personal agendas. Efforts to organize and address the subtle nuances and layered complexities created by the integrating business and missions have had limited success.

As a result, BAM practitioners have been operating without a generally accepted framework for describing what many feel is their calling in life, further isolating them from their communities and limiting their ability to get support on many of the challenges they faced. In 2004, the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization hosted the 2004 Forum for World Evangelization: Business as Mission Issue Group, which produced the Lausanne Occasional Paper No. 59 (PDF). This paper for the first time defined the Business as Mission movement’s identity by clarifying many of its terms and addressing what Ken Eldred refers to as “significant barriers to the idea of Kingdom business being a viable missions tool.”^[1] One of the outcomes of the Lausanne conference was that Business as Mission was affirmed as a major effort of the evangelical church.

Since that time, Business as Mission has increased in popularity, particularly among traditional missionaries who recognize its potential for achieving their various goals. These events have helped to raise the level of awareness of BAM, especially within the church. As more and more people join the growing Business as Mission movement a number of things are beginning to occur:

Business as Mission operators are having their calling validated – affirming their beliefs and recognizing the challenges they still face in overcoming barriers.

Missions organizations are integrating Business as Mission into their strategies and operations – testing the compatibility of key elements of the business and missions worldviews and (in some cases) developing alternate approaches for BAM operation and support.

The roles the church will play in the BAM movement are being established - beginning to address the church’s own barriers and determining how it can identify and offer what the movement needs.

Support networks are forming – Business as Mission courses is being offered; capital is being raised for BAM investment; BAM “industry groups” are forming; the number of BAM publications is increasing.

The Business as Mission movement is entering a growth stage that, like any maturing industry, is marked by economies of scale, increased awareness, and new participants emerging. Given that the history of conflict that has shaped Business as Mission, it is important to study these changing dynamics in order to identify new challenges facing the movement.

For this reason, we set out to develop the first ever Business as Mission Survey with the goal of identifying how the BAM movement has addressed a number of its historic challenges as well as uncovering new ones that merit further research. The survey was sent to over 10,000 individuals in over 40 countries and received responses from 497 people in 38 countries (Table A). The survey was designed to be preliminary research across Business as Mission broadly and was not intended to be representative of all issues, components, geographies, or interest groups. We believe that survey data are suggestive of developments and trends in the Business as Mission movement and will serve as the basis for further research.

The practitioners, educators, and supporters of Business as Mission, as reflected in this survey, are coalescing in their understanding/views of what Business as Mission is. Light is being shed on previously divisive issues and the movement faces a tremendous opportunity to overcome many of the challenges and limitations of the past. But in order to capitalize on this potential, BAM practitioners and the church must put aside their differences, seek to understand each other, and work together leveraging the strengths and experience of each.