At that level, I just do not think experience in one particular mission arena is superior to experience in another.
FWIW, I'm not saying that one experience is superior to another. I'm simply saying that they are different, and that the skills learned in one do not necessarily well translate into the other.
Ideally, the head of missions would have 20 years experience in Bongobongo, 20 in mission development in Podunk, NE and 20 years of military chaplaincy (preferably Navy, of course). Then all the bases are covered. Unfortunately, he also would be close to 90 years old.
Nobody's expecting this. For one, we have already established that the mission department does very little to oversee chaplains outside of endorsing them as being of their faith tradition. There is no day-to-day supervision required or any strategizing because that's taken care of by the military, so chaplain experience would not be necessary for the position. What would be of value is the experience in Word and Sacrament ministry, however.
Also, ministry experience in Podunk, ND, would also be fine, but ministry in Bongobongo would be quite different than Podunk, and so again overseeing overseas missions would be best done by those who understand what it means to transition cultures fully.
So, again:
1. Does the individual shares the elected president's vision of what mission should be?
Why is this a qualification? Do we shift mission directors at the whim of the president? Is this to be a fully politicized position? Shouldn't he rather share the vision of the synod by being certified for ministry by her and within the bounds of her belief and practice rather than merely by agreeing with the views of a person who happens to be the president of the day? Further, I thought that he was chosen by a board and not directly by the president, though perhaps I'm mistaken. But why is this particular criterion important?
2. Along with that, can he lead?
Part of leading is understanding your followers and what their experiences are. So while it's certainly possible for this knowledge to be gained, just because one is a good, say, senior VP of a medical devices company does not necessarily mean that they would be able to be, say, academic dean of a liberal arts college. What is key, however, is willingness to learn. If this is present, then leadership is certainly a possibility.
3. Can he manage complex programs and budgets?
Ok.
4. Will there people with experience in other mission fields also on the staff?
As long as they are present and actually have impactful input, then their presence can certainly help train the new leader in the way he should go -- but there will be a considerable learning curve in running an organization that does something you have never experienced directly at a lower level. Again, the example of rising through the ranks to being a senior VP of a corporation and then transitioning immediately to the role of an academic dean would be jolting and involve a steep learning curve, to say the least.
Oh, I forgot to add: You jerk.
Poll