25. Reducing the Size of Zones 

Problem or situation. My 150 or so missionaries were divided into six zones named after the city in which they were centered: Tokyo, Shizuoka, Fuchu, Machida, Yokohama, and Fujisawa. I had six sets of Zone Leaders, each set being responsible for the 24 or so missionaries in four to six districts of each zone. Because the Zone Leaders often resided in different districts as companions to new missionaries rather than companions to each other, they divided their zones so each Zone Leader had responsibility over the 12 or so missionaries in his side of the zone. In effect, it was as though we had 12 half-zones with one zone leader presiding, each half-zone containing two to three districts of four to six missionaries each.

Even though they had additional administrative duties, the Zone Leaders were among the most effective, productive proselyters in the mission. And I had many more qualified missionaries who I felt could carry out the duties of Zone Leader right then. Since the Small Units were working well, I decided to try a similar approach with the zones. 

Action taken. (10-79) SPLIT EACH ZONE IN TWO TO ORGANIZE TWICE AS MANY "SMALL ZONES." (Productivity label: Organizational.)

I formally divided each zone into two zones and called 12 new Zone Leaders. At the same time I began reducing the size of the districts. Up to this point, I had normally had four to six missionaries in a district. Now I began to reduce six-missionary districts to four and some of the four-missionary districts to two. 

Results of the action. Small was truly beautiful. Within four months each of the new small zones was achieving approximately what the previous larger zones had been doing. The productivity of the mission doubled. This is not all attributable to the small zones, but I believe part of it is. By reducing the size of the zones, I was able to give twice as many missionaries the opportunity to fulfill leadership positions as Zone Leaders and District Leaders. And with the smaller numbers of missionaries within the zones and districts, these leaders were able to give them more immediate and personalized attention, help, and care. 

26. Obtaining Immediate Communication with the Field 

Problem or situation. Even though some good things were beginning to happen, I still didn't feel we were accomplishing what we should and could be doing. I noticed that at the beginning of each month missionaries set goals representative of the mission vision. If, by the middle of the month, they had been unable to get their expected number of new investigators, or if several of their promising investigators had "fallen through," in their disappointment and discouragement, they began to give up.

But if things hadn't gone well that first week, I did not know about it until I received their letters sometime in the middle of the following week. By then they had usually given up on having much success that month. At the next zone conference or interview, they could be re-motivated and encouraged and go out again with renewed determination, but by then, a month had been lost. I felt I needed to know what was happening--how missionaries were doing, what they were feeling, what barriers and disappointments they were experiencing--much sooner. 

Action taken. (10-79). ORGANIZE A DAILY CALL-IN REPORTING SYSTEM AND AN INVESTIGATOR "FALL-THROUGH" ANALYSIS. (Productivity label: Motivational/ Information.)  

Two facts helped me in these actions: (1) my mission was relatively small geographically, and (2) Japan had a good telephone system. The daily call-in system operated like this: at the end of each day, each companion set reported to their District Leader, each District Leader reported to the Zone Leader, each Zone Leader reported to one of my assistants, and each assistant reported to me. Over a period of time, the timing was worked out and the process refined so these call-ins occurred very quickly and smoothly, and by approximately ten o'clock each evening I had a brief report on every missionary in the mission, and every missionary had had contact with his file leader.

Several items were reported: proselyting activities such as numbers of new contacts made, introduction and regular lessons taught, etc.: missionaries' health, physical well being, and state of mind: missionary successes that day which could be shared with others, etc. One of the items reported was the baptisms which occurred that day and the scheduled or expected baptisms for the rest of the week. I soon noticed that only 40 to 45% of those expected baptisms actually occurred. If a baptism that had been expected did not occur, I wanted to know why, not for the purpose of criticizing, but for

the purpose of helping solve the problems. I set about investigating this by doing what I called a "fall-through" analysis. I simply had the missionaries report the reasons why those expected baptisms did not happen.

I found there were many reasons why expected baptisms did not happen. I felt some of the reasons were beyond our control; I felt we could do something about part of the others. I categorized the reasons into nine general problem areas, each main area divided into sub-categories. The main areas were: 

            1.  Investigators had problems with commandments.

            2.  Investigators were sick or injured.

            3.  Investigators were underage and couldn't get parental permission to be baptized.

            4.  Investigators hadn't yet attended church.

            5.  There were timing problems for the baptismal service.

            6.  The investigators didn't show up for the baptism.

            7.  The investigators had not progressed far enough.

8. The investigators were "Ghosts" (the missionaries had no specific investigators in mind but had high hopes) .

            9. Other: Anything not included in the other categories.

Results of the action. The most important result was that daily two-way communication was established. The other results need to be looked at not only from the point of view of immediate impact of this two-way, communication, but also in terms of all the other changes I was able to carry out through and because of this item.

If there were specific problems or discouragements, I could attempt to solve them immediately. Zone leaders and assistants could usually buoy up and encourage most missionaries during the calls themselves. If necessary, I could call some of them myself the next morning. Also, if someone had had an exceptionally good day, we could respond appropriately to that, as well, and encourage other missionaries by spreading that success story immediately.

            With regard to the fall-through analysis of expected baptisms, as I received more information as to why people were not continuing all the way to baptism, I began to understand better what the missionaries needed and how I could help them. This became valuable information to me in planning newsletter messages, zone conferences, and other training meetings. And the missionaries themselves, in having to report why an expected baptism had not occurred, were compelled to analyze what was happening themselves. When they began doing this on a regular basis, they began to understand their own problems better and were able to solve many themselves.

             One of the first things I observed was that for almost every category, there were some missionaries who almost never had the problem. These missionaries knew how to solve it or prevent it from occurring in the first place. I began asking them to share their ideas with the other missionaries. In the regular pass-off conferences, I asked the most productive missionaries to demonstrate how they taught the commandments so they were better understood and accepted, how they invited investigators to attend church so they did attend, how they obtained parental permission, and how they planned and coordinated the baptismal meetings.

This sharing not only helped those who were experiencing the problems; it simultaneously recognized and reinforced the successes of those with solutions. Gradually, more and more missionaries began looking for solutions to problems themselves rather than waiting for someone to bring the solution to them.

27. Obtaining a Clearer Perspective on Missionary Activities 

Problem or situation. The daily call-in system gave me daily information about missionary activities. Now I felt I needed to put that information into better perspective. I was seeing the trees up close; now I needed to see the trees in relation to the forest. The letters and reports I received each week from each missionary were still my primary means of seeing their activities in perspective.

The form had two sides. On one side the missionaries reported their daily activities. On the other side they wrote a personal letter to me. I read each letter carefully and studied the activities and results of each companion set for that week. I had modified the reporting part of the form several times over the past year in my attempts to obtain the information I felt I needed to better guide the mission and the missionaries. I had added a place for the missionaries to report their convert baptism goals and their progress and results toward them. I had a place for them to report their weekly goals and results for finding new investigators, for teaching lessons, for performing baptisms, and for teaching after-baptism lessons. Each companion set accounted for their activities for each day and summarized them into weekly totals.

But I felt there was still something I was missing in reading and studying the reports. I determined that this "something" was really two things. First, even though I knew, from the reports, what each companion set had been doing that week, I couldn't see that week in perspective. For example, a companion set might have had a long string of bad weeks but be on the verge of making breakthroughs and be very positive when they wrote their weekly letters. With almost 200 letters to read each week, I couldn't remember what had happened the week before and the week before that, etc. For all I knew, they could have been saying the same things for the past several months.

Second, I didn't know who in the companion set was doing what. Several times during interviews with individual missionaries, I found that even though the companion set had been successful in picking up new investigators, it was due primarily to the efforts of only one of the companions. There was nothing in the reports to indicate that.

Action taken. (10-79) CHANGE THE LETTER-TO-THE-PRESIDENT FORM TO REPORT THE SUMMARY ACTIVITIES OF THE PAST 4 WEEKS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL MISSIONARY. (Productivity label: Information.) 

            I made two changes in the report form. First, instead of having the missionaries report their daily results and weekly totals for only the past week, I had them also report a summary total of their results for each of the past three weeks. Thus, at a glance, I could see the details of the past week in perspective of their summary totals for the past four weeks. Second, instead of reporting only totals for the combined companionship, I had each missionary report only what he himself had done. In most cases the activities were the same for both companions, but in some instances they were different. For example, in street contacting-which was becoming a primary source of new investigators--the missionaries found it much more effective for each companion to work individually, a few feet apart. With reports of individual activities, I could now tell who was doing what.

Results of the action. Through this new report form I was able to put the activities of the past week in perspective of what had been happening during the past month. It was not uncommon for even the best missionaries to have a bad week now and then. But when "bad weeks" continued for several weeks, it was a concern to me. Now that I could see these trends, I was able to do something about them. I could either make direct contact with the missionaries and discuss what was happening, or I could assign a district or zone leader to work with them. By taking some action, we prevented problems from going on and on without resolution. Also, by requiring the missionaries to report the past four weeks, they began to see their own trends and take corrective measures to get back on course if necessary.

The result associated with having each missionary report only his own activities (independent from his companion) was mainly in the area of street contacting. Through this new report form I discovered there were some missionaries who virtually never contacted anyone. Instead, they waited for their companions to do it. For example, previously when I had received a report that a companionship had taught 15 introductory lessons to new investigators, I assumed that each missionary in the set was doing an equal share. With the new report form I might discover that one of the companions had contacted 14 of the 15 and the other only 1. This was quite a different picture, for if both of them had been actively contacting, they might have taught 25 to 30 introductory lesson rather than 15. Knowing this put me in a position to do something to help.

In many cases the situations corrected themselves. Those missionaries who had been waiting for their companions to do the work could see the inequity on their own reports. Most of them did not want to be reporting 0 or 1 for themselves when their companion was demonstrating that much more could be done. The reporting requirement itself prodded many of them to get more involved and start doing their part. In some cases, where it was a problem of know-how, proper training solved the problem. In other cases, a change in companions helped correct the problem. The information from the new report form was essential in both solutions.

This change and refinement of the report form gave me the information I felt I needed to guide the missionaries. This revision proved to be my final one. I used this form essentially unchanged for the remainder of my term as mission president. (See Figures 14 and 15.)

Return to previous page