Assessing the “Success” of Business as Mission: A Case Study from Central Asia

by Samuel Lee

Drawing on my field research, I wanted to create a definition of goals for BAM activities and begin the process of identifying concepts for a measure of spiritual transformation.

MY INTEREST IN BUSINESS as Mission (BAM) was borne out of a personal missionary experience in a central Asian country for ten months in 2007. Al (pseudonym) is the largest city in this central Asian country. After a non-fruitful experience of ministering in the country using more traditional missionary strategies, I realized the value of non-traditional approaches.

The term “Business as Mission” was adopted at the Lausanne 2004 Forum Business as Mission Issue Group. From its inception, the strategy has used business to assist in fulfilling the Great Commission. In least-reached nations where people are hungry for business acumen and earning potential, BAM’s unique approach has created a door for missions in hostile environments. Yet, despite its use, there is no specific definition for the concept. R. Paul Stevens highlights the definitional problem when he identifies five ways of how business and missions can be related: business and mission, business for mission, business as a platform for mission, mission in business and business as mission (2006, 80).

Concurrently with BAM’s use is an attempt to assess its performance. Typically, evaluators utilize business metrics to measure outcomes. This approach addresses the business dimension, but leaves the missional aspect untouched. Very few BAM practitioners are able to identify specific, measurable indicators for kingdom transformational development that are comparable to normal business or not-for-profit standards. The full utility of BAM is limited without being able to determine what is being accomplished in fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Several books have provided evaluation tools for the financial assessment (viz. Van Duzer 2010, Swarr and Nordstrom 1991, and Eldred 2005). Sociologists and cultural anthropologists can help develop measures concerning the social and environmental changes needed for societal transformation. BAM is too important not to have effective ministry evaluation strategy in a world not open to more conventional missionary approaches. Effective evaluation can increase its utility for reaching the lost as strengths and weaknesses are identified. 

Research Question 

Measurement of kingdom transformation is central to BAM success if missions is to be legitimately retained in BAM accomplishments. As different models of BAM are pursued, it is important that there is a tool to assess outcomes in business and in missions. Drawing on my field research, I wanted to create a definition of goals for BAM activities and begin the process of identifying concepts for a measure of spiritual transformation.

Methodology 

Since little exists that provides measurement of the spiritual dimension of kingdom transformation, I did exploratory research using the case study approach. Exploratory research was warranted at this point given the variety of definitions which existed for BAM and the lack of empirical research on the spiritual dimension. I had no hypotheses so as not to limit my focus. The setting was Al, the largest city in a central Asian country, and clearly an economically developing region. The country classifies itself as open to religion, but maintains vigilant security. In 2007, I spent ten months in Al as a short-term missionary and returned for the purposes of this research in July 2014 for two weeks to conduct the interviews.

There are many different mission organizations working in the area, with about ten mission agencies using BAM. The exact number using BAM is unclear as there are fifteen other ministries using a tentmaking approach which may or may not use the BAM model. (Note: Tentmaking is related to BAM, but is different in terms of its implications. One of the main differences is that while tentmaking focuses on job-takers, BAM creates jobs.) 

I used a two-phase process for selecting my subjects. Phase one was the identification of ten BAM sites in Al by colleagues. Phase two was the determination of voluntary participation in an interview by each of the ten. Security concerns and other commitments left seven people at BAM sites agreeing to be interviewed. I then set up interviews with each, which I arranged by email and telephone. The strength of this approach was that I was able to find seven mission endeavors representing six different mission organizations that were using BAM.  

The benefit of a multi-case study increases the generalizability of the findings and enhances the understanding of the interplay of variables. I conducted a semi-structured interview lasting about one and a half to two hours with a representative from each project. Each of the subjects was actually a CEO of the enterprise, but I recorded below in the Position column how each person self-identified him or herself. All interviews were recorded. See Chart below for subject demographics as they were self-reported. I asked each subject the same questions, probing to get a complete answer. The questions are provided below.

Description of Subjects

The sample’s chief weakness is that all the subjects were Korean except for the lone Canadian. While the mission organizations may vary in theology and size, the dominant cultural bias cannot be overlooked. As Korea has assumed the status of being the nation sending out the second largest number of missionaries, the sample is more representative than one might think initially.

I asked the following three questions during interviews:

1. What considerations prompted you to use the BAM model?

2. With regards to the business enterprise you have established, how do you define success in terms of kingdom transformation?

3. How do you measure this (kingdom transformation) success?

The questions addressed three primary areas: goals of the BAM model (Q #1), theoretical definition of kingdom transformation (Q #2), and operational definition of success of kingdom transformation (Q #3). The following discussion is based on the responses each subject provided.

Data Results

A common theme found in most of the statements except for Mr. James was that a business is simply a means of gaining access to people who need the gospel. Mr. James saw business itself as a divine calling and disciple-making ministry. It was also clear that the day-to-day exchanges in the workplace were expected to provide opportunities for witnessing, either directly or indirectly, by having the employees observe Christian values as they guided action. Among these subjects, there was no stated interest in the financial line, but more on kingdom transformation. With the goal being one that has a spiritual focus, it was important to consider their definitions of success. 

The definitions of success did not lend themselves to easy measurement as they were qualitative statements. Only Mr. Song addressed the issue of a business that can survive financially with obvious implications for measurement. The others mentioned “exerting a good influence on the neighbors” or “making . . .disciples” or “providing full support for him/her to grow into the image of the Lord.” All of these markers of success are consistent with a kingdom transformation perspective.

Additionally, among the seven definitions, reference was made to two major components of transformation: relational restoration and community formation. This issue will be discussed more thoroughly below. It appears that the definitions of success are consistent with their initial goals.

One of my concerns in this research was to develop an operational definition of success that would capture the dimensions of kingdom transformation.

Answers to question #3: “How do you measure this (kingdom transformation) success?” indicated how each practitioner determined success. One of the themes that emerged from their statements was a focus on relationship. There was a concern to form and maintain a relationship with their employees. As Song said, “Continuity of relationship (about three years)” is key. However, he did not specify how to initially develop and maintain a relationship. James provided specifics of how to grow a relationship: “Being involved in their lives.” 

The other factor in the determination of success was involvement with a Christian community. Mere salvation was not enough. There was concern that the person become connected to a community of faith where spiritual nurture could occur. What then emerged as indicators of BAM success were development of a personal relationship, relational continuity, personal commitment to a spiritual community, and appropriate use of finances, so there was no indication of greed. The seven BAM practitioners made it clear that if a BAM business was to be successful, they could not focus only on profit or the empowerment of the individuals. Rather, the subjects’ comments highlighted that real BAM success is relational and communal. 

Discussion 

Consideration of the above findings leads us to propose that success in BAM includes two critical components: (1) relational restoration and shalom through (2) true community. Relational reconciliation refers to the reconciliation of four broken relationships: God, self, others, and creation. True community, on the other hand, refers to the triune God and missional community in relationship with the missio Dei. The restoration of the four major relationships always starts with access to true community such as God the Trinity and the Christian community. Without the access to true community, the opportunities for other kinds of relational restoration and well-being are extremely limited. 

How, then, do we know when we are close enough to a state of kingdom transformation in all aspects of life? What measurements of indicators work when a BAM practitioner seeks to reach goals of kingdom transformation?

The following principles for measuring the quality of a BAM company’s stakeholder relationships have been adapted from Michael Schluter and
David Lee’s book, and from the Relational Proximity Framework (RPF). In The R Factor (1993), Schluter and Lee introduce the measurement tools that evaluate the quality of relationships among stakeholders in business. On the basis of those relational principles and the advice of a certified consultant of the RPF in Boston, kingdom transformation indicators were created to measure success in evangelistic outcomes of BAM companies. 

The proposed indicators are subject to change in context and improvement both in quantity and quality. The following indicators are based on four characteristics as follows:

•  Accessibility: the degree of access to unreached and ungospeled people in a relationship

•  Continuity (the currency of relationships) & multiplexity (the breadth of knowledge in relationship): openness in relationships

•  Commonality: shared sense of identity and goals, which improve the extent of relationships

Transformation always starts with access to true community such as God the Trinity and the Christian community. Therefore, BAM practitioners should ask the following questions: What percentage of {type of} Muslims have any proximity to BAM companies? How many Muslims do you know on a first-name basis? How accessible are BAM companies to {type of} Muslims? How many of {type of} Muslims would regard BAM practitioners a friend or acquaintance? How many national workers would invite BAM practitioners to their home? 

Here are some things to think about with respect to BAM companies regarding the degree of accessibility. First, for those who would like to assess the accessibility of BAM companies, one should consider what type of BAM business it is. Each type of BAM business has relational characteristics which may influence how the BAM business can fit into God’s mission. 

Second, some BAM businesses have few regular clients for a long time, while others have many fleeting clients. Third, some businesses engage with stakeholders face to face, while others deal with them remotely. Fourth, some businesses engage with other organizations as suppliers and customers, while others deal with small farmers and retail customers. Finally, some need high staff turnover to thrive, while others expect to have people for the whole of their working lives. Obviously, the way one will assess the accessibility of a BAM business’ relationships will need to be influenced by the type of relationships typical and actual for that business.

These indicators are able to show the key relationships a BAM company has with all its stakeholders. They demonstrate both sides of the relationship, and they encourage BAM practitioners to think about the spiritual context in conjunction with the market state.  

Assessment 

The following spectrum may apply to the conceptualization of describing degrees of spiritual success consistent with the idea that one does not immediately establish a church upon arriving in a locale. Depending on the diagram above, it will help to identify the relational change that occurs during the process of social interaction.

The continuum suggests the end points in the definition of success where finding ungospeled people to work for an outsider is the beginning.

Point 1: Hiring ungospeled people to work
Point 2: Having regular conversation at work about work, family, and local area
Point 3: Inviting workers into your home
Point 4: Spending time with workers outside of work
Point 5: Worker(s) asks questions about your faith
Point 6: Engage in regular conversations about subject’s faith, invite worker to a worshiping community
Point 7: Talk to worker about personal salvation
Point 8: Worker develops a personal relationship with the Lord
Point 9: Worker has a common purpose and identity, bound together by his or her commitment to advancing “foretastes” of the Kingdom of God and bringing shalom and justice to his or her communities and society (Commonality).

When we reflect on the statements made by Mr. James, it become clear that he sees the eventual step of a worker becoming a Christian as one only after a succession of encounters where there is growing intimacy and trust in the relationship. Mr. Song, Mr. James, Mrs. Kang and Mr. Shin all mentioned the continuity of relationship. Mr. Shin thought a continuous relationship was needed for three years. The continuum would be easily operationalized to provide a quantitative metric for success complemented by comments. It is important to recognize that there may a specific time when a person establishes a personal relationship with the Lord.

Conclusion 

There has been a lot written about Business as Mission in missiological and business journals and books. As more mission organizations move into developing countries with the gospel, it is important that their evangelistic arsenal provide a variety of approaches to fit the different circumstances given political, environmental, and social factors. I chose Al for this study because it is the country’s economic center and is open to mission endeavors. BAM is a good fit as an increasing portion of the country’s budget is devoted to supporting private and small enterprises and it has the potential for kingdom transformation.

Based on interviews with seven BAM practitioners in different industries, the research findings came as a response to two main questions: (1) How do you define success in the area of kingdom transformation? and (2) How do you measure this success?

Despite the different definitions and variations in the metrics of success, the findings show consensus and clarity that a relationship between the missionary and the workers is key. It is only as the workers become Christians that they experience a restored relationship with God, others, creation, and oneself through true community. The second major finding is that the best measure of success is the quality of relationships. The behaviors associated with the quality of relationships and the perception of relationships were suggested as indicators of kingdom transformation: accessibility (access to ungospeled people), story (management of openness), time, and purpose. 

Having the vision of relational success would be encouraging in producing more kingdom transformation fruits. In terms of kingdom transformation, it can be said that BAM companies may be productive by helping to reconcile people to God, self, others, and creation through Christian communities that promote a new ethic of love and social responsibility. Moreover, the concept of “success” in kingdom transformation should center on relational dimensions, specifically: (1) the degree of access to ungospeled people in a relationship, (2) openness in relationships, (3) time, and (4) common purpose and identity.

References

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532-550.

Eldred, Kenneth A. 2005. God Is at Work: Transforming People and Nations through Business. Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books.

Nordstrom, Sharon Bentch Swarr and Dwight.1991. Transform the World: Biblical Vision and Purpose for Business. Richmond, Va.: CEED.

Schluter, Michael and David Lee. 1993. The R Factor. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Stevens, R. Paul. 2006. Doing God’s Business Meaning and Motivation for the Marketplace. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Van Duzer, Jeffrey B. 2010. Why Business Matters to God (and What Still Needs to Be Fixed). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

. . . .

Samuel Lee is a PhD Intercultural Studies student at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. His dissertation research focuses on a model that embraces both a viable business and an effectual church birthing. He can be reached at samuel.lee@asburyseminary.edu. 

EMQ Jan 2016, Vol. 52, No. 1 pp. 56-64. Copyright  © 2016 Billy Graham Center for Evangelism.  All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ editors. for Reprint Permissions beyond personal use please visit our STORE (here).

Comments are closed.