3.1.1 Mintzberg's „Pure Missionary Configuration”

Considering „Designing Effective Organizations”, Mintzberg offers also a „Pure Missionary configuration” (Mintzberg 1983: 294-296), of which he claims in its „pure form” to come „close” to „ideological religious movements” (Mintzberg 1983: 295). Mintzberg does not restrict this configuration as applicable to production and service organization, but explicitly proposes it as a means to perceive „ideological religious movements” (Mintzberg 1983: 294). Sociologically, the movement is a religious movement (Saperstein 1992: 2-5, Zaretzky 1974: 361-362, Duyvendak 1992). Yet, in spite of Mintzberg's claim, this configuration appears only partially to apply to the movement, probably because of the notion of a „shared” corporate culture. This becomes more obvious by relating a few main features of this configuration to the movement.

For the „missionary configuration” Mintzberg states a „pull to evangelize on the behalf of the organization” (Mintzberg 1983: 294). Such statement poses the organization itself prior and superior to evangelization. While evangelization may be the main unifying factor of the differentiated movement, one could rather state the opposite for the movement as a whole. It appears the movement reveals a pull to organization on behalf of evangelization. Still, Mintzberg's claim appears to apply to individual groups of the movement. Of them, at least some reveal a pull to evangelise on behalf of their organization.

Mintzberg regards socialisation as the main „coordinating mechanism” and defines socialisation as „standardization of norms” (Mintzberg 1983: 294). Though this view may apply to particular groups and parts of the movement, it does not apply to the movement as a whole. The ecclesiastical and synagogal types represent very different patterns of socialisation. Socialisation in the movement becomes even more pluriform by considering the charismatic watershed. If Mintzberg's dictum that missionaries intent on changing all organizations except themselves, applied to the movement, then its internal differences would be unresolvable. Yet at least for evangelisation the movement overcomes its considerable internal obstacles.

Mintzberg defines ideology as a system of beliefs of a group about itself by which it differs from its surrounding (Mintzberg 1983: 294). Not even within one Israeli Messianic Jewish group a system of beliefs appears homogenous and static enough to please Mintzberg's view. Also Messianic Jews joke that „if you ask two Jews, you get three opinions”. Even within one group ideological differences can appear unresolvable, due to different hermeneutics applied to common issues. Furthermore, the systems of beliefs of the various types of the movement do not only distinguish them from parts of their environment, but also link them to their environment.

Only where Mintzberg speaks of a „pull to evangelize on the behalf of the organization” he depicts the common denominator of the movement. In other aspects one can observe considerable variety, which becomes plausible by the very different historical and denominational beginnings and shifts within the individual groups of the movement. In addition, the programmatic change from Hebrew Christian to Messianic Jewish started a process whose end is not yet in sight. One may regard the movement as still young. Currently the third generation of Israeli believers prepares to enter leadership functions. Often the first generation is still at the rudder.

While the movement as a whole appears „loosely structured” (Mintzberg 1983: 295), particular groups appear even autocratic governed. The movement has no „simple mission”, no „simple technical system” and is surely not „free of the need for expert skills and all the status differences”. One can observe a „loose division of labour” and some „job rotation” among the laity, yet the roles of the religious specialists depict even a sharp division of labour and all but an absence of „distinction between ... line and staff”. Neither social-structural „design parameters” nor „situational factors” can be regarded to be „harmonious”. In spite of Mintzberg's claim, his missionary configuration fails to come „close” to a clarification of the Israeli Messianic Jewish movement, as it has neither a central leadership nor a harmonious corporate culture. I will next turn to organization theory that considers cultural and social-structural complexity and by that appears better able to perceive certain aspects of the movement.