- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
OK — if you remember my own trigger for hitting this site and losing my commitment — it was over a much-needed release from a leadership calling in my Ward a while ago when I got burned out. After months of hearing nothing about my request for a release, and no action or communication from the Stake after a few polite inquiries on my part, they FINALLY released me. But I ended up destroying my reputation in the process since I just stopped functioning to it set off alarms and finally motivate them to do something. There’s more to it, but that’s it in a nutshell. Well, my wife is a leader in the Ward, and she’s done with her calling. She’s finding the Ward and Stake are making unreasonable demands now that she’s got a full-time job. She’s a bit fed up with her teachers and counselors who never keep commitments, never show up for classes half the time, and also, our new Bishop who is probably the most ineffective Bishop I’ve seen to date. He does things that upset the Ward council routinely, and people keep bringing up unsolicited unhappiness with his leadership all the time in conversation. So, she’s done with that part of it too. I’ve never seen her like this before. She’s been TBM to the hilt and this is the first time she’s ever talked this way.
Contributing to the situation is that up until 3 months ago, she was a stay-at-home Mom and had time. But now, she doesn’t have the space for it after 1.5 years in the calling — the third time she’s done it in her lifetime. We feel we need the money from her job. It’s a great job, and it will help us with benefits we need to pay for chronic care/benefits for our son, as well as getting back on track with having enough money for our needs when we are aged.
So, how does she go about getting released IN A TIMELY FASHION without having to stay in limbo for months upon months at a time like what happened with myself? I can’t coach her because if she just stops functioning as I did at the two month mark to create a crisis, it leads to ostracization, and led to a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs in my own case, including loss of reputation. Plus it’s just not leaderly.
Naturally, she can ask the Bishopric member over Primary or the Bishop himself for a release, and make a list of recommendations for repalcemen people to try to help the process. But she says herself — “they move slow as molasses on everything”. I’m expecting another repeat of what happened to myself, quite frankly.
Advice is welcome on how to get released, keep your sense of connectedness to the Ward intact, and see this happen on a reasonable timetable, say, a couple months tops.
I’d suggest the following. If there’s some part of her calling that she would be okay with continuing to fulfill, given her new circumstances, she should figure out what that is and communicate that to the bishop (or the appropriate counselor). The ball is then in their court. Maybe they’re okay with certain things not getting done, in which case they may leave her in for a while. If the prospect of everything not being done just right frightens them, then they know what they have to do. And not to minimize the importance of your wife’s calling, which I’m sure she takes very seriously, but if sometimes things don’t get done, people will live, the church will still be true, and everybody will be okay. I live in a fairly large ward, but my stake has a few units that are pretty small and isolated, and it’s a fairly regular occurrence for someone who was supposed to do something to not show up for one reason or another. Sometimes they have to improvise, but somehow they get by.
Doug — I like this. I think this is the missing piece that I needed back when I basically went on a hiatus as a Ward leader myself. I wish I had’ve done this back then. Basically, my wife could go to the Bishopric member, indicate that she has a full-time job now, and that the calling is too much for her. Tell him she’s tried to do it well for the last three months, but it’s not working with her new commitments. Explain her plan to retain basic responsibilities XXX and delegate responsibilties YYY to her counselors and presidency — including attending the Ward councils and interfacing with the Stake — two of her real sticking points. Hold her ground with the Bishop’s Counselor if he tries to convince her to stay in the calling.
After that, meet with her auxiliary presidency, divide up the responsibilities giving them strong ownership of responsibilities YYYY and let them know about her reduced role as auxiliary leader. Perhaps even mention the plan to Stake Primary after getting the Bishopric’s Counselor on side and have the Stake interface with one of her counselors going forward. If these counselors will not accept the responsibilty (which I think may well happen), then she emails the Bishop’s Counselor and indicates she has no one to do responsibilties YYYYY, and that she will be directing all inquiries to him on Ward Council and Stake Primary matters. She will stil retain responsibilities XXXX.
If her unreliable counselors accept responsibiities YYYY, then she has responsibly delegated them so they are accountable to the Bishopric. Their absence will not be a reflection on her.
Based on what she told me about her counselors so far, these unreliable counselors will drop the ball on everything, causing gaping holes in front of the Bishopric and Stake Primary, who will see the need for a release more clearly. It also has the potential to create a different kind of crisis — one where the Bishopric’s Counselor is overrun with work to do from the auxiliary below him, which tends to force swifter action.
I love it Doug — it basically creates a more visible crisis in front of the Bishopric and the Stake, while doing so more responsibly than simply quitting while in the calling.
We could also morph this — if she can stand it, she could simply suggest the release to the Bishopric, with no division of responsibilities XXX and YYY implemented. Give it a reasonable time for the Bishopric to find a replacement — maybe a month — if there is no action within that time, and no communication, THEN implement the division of responsibilities approach you have suggested. Who knows, she may get released faster than she thinks so the division of responsibilities approach may not even be necessary — but at least she has a plan.
I also think it’s time I started being more proactive in getting my family together for weekend campouts over the next month or so….
We’ll see what my wife says about this. Like most suggestions, she’ll probably only take a few of them, but at least it’s a start — and I have finally have a viable approach to handling my own releases in the future, if I ever need them.
I was going to start a different thread on this, but felt it really is just a continuation of this thread…. I like Doug’s suggestion above, however, I thought it might be worthwhile to brainstorm other methods of getting released when a calling is doing more harm than good and Ward/Stake leaders don’t feel the same urgency. In my wife’s case, she wanted a TBM approach as much as possible….and Doug’s approach fits the bill — but I see other possibilities for people with different criteria.
Here are a few I’ve seen people use over the years:
1. They indicate they are moving as of a fast-approaching date, get released, and then report the move has fallen through.
2. The indicate they will be away for the next three months due to the fact they are being required to work on Sundays or be in a different city. So, given their inability to manage the calling remotely, the Bishopric/SP might as well release them. They stop going to Church for a month, get released, and then their work situation miraculously changes and they are back at Church again.
3. They move their records to their parents Ward for a while, indicating they are moving in with them, get released, and then move their records back into their own Ward after the release is effected. This way they use the “attend where you live” rule to their advantage. There is not way people should be functioning in callings if their records aren’t in the Ward!!! What if the Stake Presidency finds out!!!
4. One person indicated his work transferred him for a 6-month assignment. He got released, and then told everyone it fell through. He was in the Stake Presidency at the time.
You can’t do this too often, however, or people will figure it out, and I think it raises certain ethical issues as well. I think it represents some ways of dealing with the tendency for Ward and Stake leaders to call you to positions, and then leave you languishing in a damaging situation for months on end — and appearing not to care. At least you maintain some control.
I don’t know if anyone else has run into other ways people have gotten action in the past. I have never done any of these methods, but I’m seeing now that these situations are as much strategy on the part of people as bona fide situations. I suspect that in many situations, they are not bona fide.
I like doug’s suggestion – and your follow-up comment. I really like the division of responsibilities option – REALLY like it. It’s my first reaction in most situations like this – and you can explain it as a brother of Jared approach (taking the initiative to present a way it can work and putting the responsibility on the leadership to enable the plan). I don’t like any dishonest or disingenuous justifications – unless all other avenues have been tried and there doesn’t appear to be any other option.
SD, I think you’re on the right track. As Ray said, honesty is important. My experience is that reasonable leaders respond well to openness and honesty and will try to work with you. But ultimately it’s your (well, your wife’s) decision and she gets to call the shots. I know that runs contrary to generally held beliefs that “callings are from the Lord”, but that paradigm doesn’t work for me any longer. I’m not sure how you feel about it. To illustrate, I am very impressed with (and grateful for) my current stake president, and his approach to extending callings, which is to ask the person (and spouse, if applicable) in to discuss a calling that he is
consideringoffering to the person. Only after discussing the issues and options and finding that the person is well-disposed toward accepting the assignment is the “calling” actually made. I realize that the distinction is a fine one, and the approach may be considered wrong by some, but I like it for two reasons. It doesn’t rely on the presumption that the church leader knows everything there is to know about the person (by revelation), and it doesn’t put the person in the uncomfortable position of having to “turn down a calling” when it turns out there are things that would prevent the person accepting the calling that the leader didn’t know about. This is a more pragmatic and modern approach, and the way I see things being done in the future.
doug, my current and most recent stake presidents both operate under that model – and it was the approach that was taken when I was called into my current position. The counselor talked with me about my current situation, and they ended up waiting for just over a month to see how my job and finances played out before extending the calling officially. That’s the approach I have taken in the past – and which I will take if I’m ever in a position again where I am extending callings.
I like the approach as well, because it gives the leader reasonable information on which to make a decision. However, do you think it’s wise to let them know you are considering them for a specific calling? What if the person wants the calling, and you decide they are not suitable for some reason based on their answers — doesn’t this have the potential to cause a different kind of conflict? Just curious what you think.
I was never told exactly what the calling was – just that I was being considered for a calling. I should have made that clear. Old-Timer wrote:I was never told exactly what the calling was – just that I was being considered for a calling. I should have made that clear.
Yes, that makes the most sense. I would never preview the calling. Someone did it once to me, and when they didn’t give it to me I was disappointed. Apparently they heard I’d been a Cub Master before and wanted to talk about calling me to it. In the interview, they discovered I’d never done it before, only that it was a calling I thought I’d like to do.
They didn’t call me as a result — and I was a bit disappointed, but not disturbed in any way. Everyone may not react the same way. I think a general interview is best.
Just to be clear, in the situation I was referring to, the precise calling isthe topic of discussion. Wouldn’t make sense otherwise. Priesthood leader invites you in for a talk. A specific calling is discussed. The person is invited to ask questions and express concerns. If you both feel good about it, the calling is extended. If not, it isn’t. The underlying understanding is that the priesthood leader has already decided that they would like to extend the calling, but that this is a chance to bring out reasons why it might be too much of a burden for the person to accept, not to see if they have the proper qualifications. The idea of it being like a job interview seems crazy, SD. I can’t believe someone really did that to you.
As I’m writing this, I’m becoming more aware of the contradictions that arise in this model. The preisthood leader
doeshave the inspiration to know that you are the right person for that calling, but doens’thave the inspiration to know that you might have life situation issues that would prevent you from doing it. I think a lot of people would balk at that and prefer the old model where the calling is directly from the Lord, period, and you have an obligation to accept it or else. I prefer the former, with all its messiness and contradictions. It seems to fit with my conception of other aspects of the church and spirituality in general. SilentDawning wrote:Well, my wife is a leader in the Ward, and she’s done with her calling. She’s finding the Ward and Stake are making unreasonable demands now that she’s got a full-time job. She’s a bit fed up with her teachers and counselors who never keep commitments, never show up for classes half the time, and also, our new Bishop who is probably the most ineffective Bishop I’ve seen to date.
You don’t need permission from the bishop, or an official release, to cut back on calling demands. You give as much as you can give, and that’s all. The other problems are not hers to deal with.Family comes first, so that card can always be used.
If they are asking unreasonable demands, there needs to be push back to say no. Leaders’ problems of figuring out how to get things done does not need be become your wife’s problems.
If she needs to say no to doing more, perhaps there are ideas she has of others in the ward who are underutilized…call on others to help out.
Sometimes we get caught up into callings and titles too much, and lose sight of all the resources available to get done the important things. Ineffective leadership can really be a trial of faith. Good thing callings have time limits.
doug wrote:As I’m writing this, I’m becoming more aware of the contradictions that arise in this model. The preisthood leader
doeshave the inspiration to know that you are the right person for that calling, but doens’thave the inspiration to know that you might have life situation issues that would prevent you from doing it. I think a lot of people would balk at that and prefer the old model where the calling is directly from the Lord, period, and you have an obligation to accept it or else. I prefer the former, with all its messiness and contradictions. It seems to fit with my conception of other aspects of the church and spirituality in general. At first I liked the idea of the “separation of inspiration” approach you provide here — where the leader has limited inspiration — inspiration for whether the person has the skills or ability to do the job, but not whether the calling is right for them at that time in their life.
But even then, when I was a priesthood leader, I often made mistakes on the first half of it — whether the person had the skills. We had one brother who continually impressed me, and so, I felt “impressed” to call him as a secretary. I learned almost immediately it was his wife that was helping him — he had severe memory issues and couldn’t seem to follow-through on anything without his wife’s help and involvement. He didn’t have the ability — only the appearance of such.
But I do think this idea of partial inspiration has some merit. It relieves the priesthood leader of always being right, and the person being called of being totally obligated just because someone had a bright idea.
By the way, my wife has taken the “grin and bear it” approach to her calling. She’s stopped complaining for a while, and has decided to just wait until they release her. She’s concerned about the “never ask for a release” value in our culture. We shall see. She wouldn’t take any of the suggestions above, unfortunately.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.