Spiritual Dimensions of Team

Alan N. Wright

• Publisher: Chalice Press
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9780827234796
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Liderazgo

Spiritual Dimensions of Team is the primary tool that will help churches become effective team-based organizations. Teams as dynamic units are important to organizations, and this book offers a new and unique approach to creating effective teams. By using parables and giving ways to put the insights to work, Wright gives you a toolbox of information that can change your church. This book brings together in one message a behavioral understanding of team effectiveness, specific biblical principles combined with those practices, and powerful learning exercises which will move teams from theory to life practice. A TCP Leadership Series title.

1

The Power of
Self-directed Teams

Michael Phelps became a media hero at the Beijing Olympics in his quest to be the first swimmer to win eight gold medals at a single Olympic games. However, only five of those eight medals were in individual events, while three came from team relay events. The 4 by 100 team relay event will stand out as a sports classic for years to come. Phelps, Garrett Weber-Gale, Cullen Jones, and Jason Lezak collectively set a new world record for the event. Each American swimmer was within fractions of a second ahead or behind their competitors in their respective legs. But, with the USA trailing France in the final leg, Jason Lezak swam the fastest 100-meter leg ever for a come-from-behind victory by 8/100ths of a second. The U.S. team beat the previous world record by four seconds. The team excelled and achieved a remarkable outcome. Every swimmer had turned in a world-class performance and, in the words of Jason Lezak, cited at the NBC Olympics Web site, “You know, this isn’t a 4 by 100, this is a 400. We’re a team.”

Teams accomplish great things by the combined efforts of their members. Each member contributes, but in different ways. Centuries ago the apostle Paul created the best team metaphor to describe the work of the church—“the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12–31). Different members of a team have different functions and that allows for the collective work to get done. “If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body” (1 Cor. 12:19–20). Teams accomplish visions by the contributions of their members. What distinguishes a team from a group is a pragmatic principle—getting something done. Implement visions. Achieve results. Change the world.

The Western church today faces a tremendous challenge. The number of committed followers of Christ in the U.S. is in decline, as measured by regular church attendance.¹ Almost every mainline denomination is in decline.² American clergy are aging and the younger replacement leadership is not there.³

A reversal in this trend is possible if churches and parachurch ministries shift to team-based organizations. If the Western church continues with its current approach to ministry, then growth, outreach, and impact on culture will continue to diminish.

Traditional Church Organizations

The vast majority of churches are not organized as team-based organizations (TBO) with a visionary agenda. The common church organizational model is staff-driven rather than team-driven with an outreach orientation. The average church in America is small. Seventy percent have a worship attendance of 125 or less.⁴ A church this size usually supports a professional staff (pastor) of one. Larger congregations add staff at a ratio of staff to membership of 1 to 59 according to an unpublished survey in 2006 by the Leadership Network. Pastors work extremely hard and the demand of providing “services” to the church membership is overwhelming. Clergy are working hard: giving of themselves, preaching, visiting the sick, and attending meetings. Today’s pastors entering church ministry after seminary are leaving in increasing numbers due in part to the excessive demands and burnout.⁵

Pastors are not laboring completely alone. Volunteers are present at the core of church life. Small groups of volunteers give extraordinary amounts of time to the church’s activities. While professional church staff still manage or supervise the bulk of church activities, and the additional management of these volunteers as part-time workers becomes a major time commitment for the full-time staff, these dedicated volunteers are vital to the success of congregations. No one has calculated the real numbers, but if “core volunteers” time was added up into full-time staff equivalents (40 hours per week), then the ratio of full-time staff to church attendees would rise. Still, the majority of attendees still remain on the edges as religious consumers, not passionately involved in the work of ministry.

Church organizations reflect the culture in which they live—less a generation or so. The church today represents an organizational pattern that came with the rise of modern industry. Though we think of churches as spiritual places with unique organizations, much of their look and function reflects the cultural context. I beg you to suspend traditional church language and theology for the moment and follow the parallel. Small business organizations (small churches) would have an owner (pastor) and a number of workers (church members). Larger business organizations (medium and larger churches) would have an executive leader (senior pastor) and multiple staff (managers) to supervise the key functional parts of the organization and its workers (church members).

Churches that operate with this traditional organizational pattern (with variable degrees of hierarchy and bureaucracy) will fall into one of two categories. Mission and vision will be inward focused or outward focused. Writers critical of the declining church point to the predominance of inward-focused versus outward-focuses churches.⁶ The difference is critical from a missional perspective, but not from an organizational one. The organizational pattern is the same—staff-driven, linear, and hierarchical. A traditional inward-focused church will have pastors supervising how to meet the needs of the current members of the congregation. A traditional outward-focused church will simply have key pastors supervising volunteers to meet the needs of the external community who are not currently members.

The distinction between an outward-focused versus the inward-focused church is an important one from theological and missional perspectives. Theological arguments could be made on either side of the divide. In one sense, the dichotomy is a false choice, as a church should have both an inward and outward focus. But genuine balance is impossible. The church will tip one way or the other—usually a significant tilt. My clear bias is that the primary missional DNA should be outward focused (with an ongoing scramble to address inward issues). I raise this debate because it is important for reversing the current decline. However, I fear that even if magically all the churches became outward focused, the traditional organizational patterns would limit the impact.

The point of this chapter is to determine whether or not the church is a team-based organization. Change in how the church does ministry is imperative. My point is that team-based organizations offer a healthier, more effective way to accomplish the mission of the church.

The Team-based Organization (TBO)

What would happen if the church were a team-based organization (TBO) rather than a staff-supervisor style of organization? A TBO empowers teams to accomplish the mission rather than directing individual staff and volunteers to carry out that mission. There is a debate in organizational circles about who creates better vision and mission, the key leader or a visionary team. But let’s avoid that debate and assume that the church embraces a compelling vision of a preferred future (whoever puts it together). The TBO creates a network of teams who are given the authority to accomplish all or parts of that compelling vision. TBOs have higher involvement, less turnover, faster implementation, and greater outcomes or results. TBOs also have less rigidity and more chaos, while gaining more creativity.

This is the bottom line for the church—teams have a multiplying effect. More people will accomplish more. Imagine if the team model replaced the traditional model of the church. Instead of an inner core of 10 percent of church members volunteering what they can do while pastors are doing all they can do, imagine 80 percent of church members volunteering what they can do. The role of the pastor changes tremendously in the TBO. The role of the volunteers (members) changes drastically as well. The missional results of the church are multiplied.

Teams bring more to churches and parachurch organizations than just productivity. Spiritually healthy teams also provide a secondary benefit of a vibrant sense of community. Effective teams create positive relationships, and people appreciate one another more. Teams also provide a key place for spiritual formation. The potential for significant growth in faith occurs in all organizational contexts. Spiritual issues are foundational to effective teams, so the potential for growth and discipleship is heightened.

Four Keys to Teams Working in Ministry Organizations

Key Leaders Need to Believe in Teams

The primary reason team-based organization fails in churches (or in business) is the lack of belief in teams. If the executive leadership (senior pastor or parachurch executive director) does not have a deep commitment to a team philosophy, the organization will not become a TBO. If the pastor is not fully committed to a team philosophy, teams won’t work.

When I began working as a team consultant and coach, I would respond to any organization that wanted to do team development or team training programs. I no longer provide services just based on request. My new guideline is that assessment of executive leadership in the organization must occur before proceeding with team development strategies. There must be support for a TBO.

Leaders need to overcome the “everybody believes in teams” myth. Everybody wants the camaraderie and feel-good side of teams. Leaders and pastors want to have a team reputation. But team empowerment and a team-based organization is often not a core value. Many people believe they already have a teams philosophy in their organization. So what happens is that the consultant comes in, creates a great training program, staff get excited about new skills and new possibilities, and then executive leadership strips the team of genuine power and morale takes a nosedive. Middle managers or team leaders call the consultant and say: “I guess we weren’t serious here about doing team.” Meanwhile, executive leadership continues to live in the delusion that they support teams. Or executives develop a been-there-done-that belief and teams are relegated to a passing trend.

TBOs can have great variability in the format and structure of teams. Teams require certain values and the key leaders or the board need to see these values as central to who they are. Here are a few expressions of team values (not in order of priority).

• Power in the organization is shared (decentralized versus centralized).

• How things get done must enable teams to function (i.e., form must follow function—procedures, rules and regulations, etc.).

• Teams require effective leadership.

• A level of chaos is okay.

• Good function in teams is essential to avoid chaos.

• Spiritual development is central to teams.

• Creativity is good.

• Critical thinking is good.

• Results are important.

• Teaming requires training.

So let’s assume for the moment that organizational assessment has taken place. The organization and its key leaders have a genuine commitment to embrace the values of a team organization. A commitment exists to empower teams to make key decisions and to implement their plans. Executive leadership will support and embrace these new ventures with the risk that some will be wildly successful and some will be significant failures. Bring on the training program. Let the teamwork begin.

Don’t Confuse Team Development with Conflict Resolution

Key leaders must not confuse team training with conflict resolution. Organizations cannot expect team building and movement toward a TBO to resolve group conflict. Many believe that creating team building or team spirit will resolve interpersonal or organizational conflicts. Leadership mistakenly believes that a team program that makes people feel more connected will solve this unrelated organizational problem. That won’t work. Conflicts in the church are probably anchored in issues that have little to do with organizational structure.

However, although TBOs are not the ultimate solution to conflicts, they can help an organization to work more effectively with conflict. Therefore, resolve the conflict issues first and then launch your program to transition to teams.

Overcoming the Attitude That Teams Don’t Work

Churches can fail to develop team-based organizations because of a growing attitude that teams simply don’t work. Many staff or volunteers in your organization will have been previously immersed in some kind of a team environment. At least, they went through something that was labeled a team. As the “team” buzzword has grown, more and more people have had a bad experience with a team process. Selling genuine teams is getting harder due to a negative stereotype in certain settings. Staff needs to be convinced that being team based will really make a positive difference.

One experience that gives teams a bad rap is the committee structure of many church organizations. Most committees are not teams. A committee can function as a very powerful team, but that is usually not the case. Some churches have renamed all their committees as teams, but then are surprised by the lack of results. What would be the difference between a traditional committee and a traditional team?

Committees classically manage predictable routine, whereas a team is focused on change. If the project is repetitive, such as an annual task within the organization, a team approach is focused on how that task can improve. Improved results are specific and clear. A team will keep the best of what has been done or perhaps reinvent the entire process. The results orientation is the key characteristic that separates teams from committees. Committees rarely measure results and cannot clearly define success or failure. Teams know their results.

Perhaps the most significant distinction between committee and team is how decisions are made. A team’s results are tied to effective decision-making at meetings. Committees have a reputation for prolonged decision-making and endless meetings: “I can’t believe how long last night’s meeting went!” “Can you believe what people said at that meeting? I’m thinking of resigning from the committee.” Effective teams do not have painful meetings. Death by committee (or ineffective team) is a terrible fate. Effective teams replace bad processes with healthy process.

Positive team meetings are an issue of both skill and spiritual maturity. Team meetings are discussed later on in chapters 7–8 and 13–14. Meetings can be stimulating and enjoyable. The real issue is convincing people that there is hope when we speak...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Editor’s Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• 1: The Power of Self-directed Teams
• 2: How to Create Spiritually Transformed Teams
• 3: Sharing Power in Teams
• 4: Spiritual Issues of Shared Power in Teams
• 5: The Coach’s Toolbox: Power Tools to Encourage Sharing Power
• 6: Achieving Results in Teams
• 7: Spiritual Issues of Moving the Rock
• 8: The Coach’s Toolbox: Tools for Achieving Results in Teams
• 9: Creating the Emotional Climate for Team
• 10: Spiritual Dimensions of a Team’s Emotional Climate
• 11: The Coach’s Toolbox: Creating Positive Climate for Teams
• 12: Vitality and Energy Level for Teams
• 13: Spiritual Issues for High-Energy Teams
• 14: The Coach’s Toolbox: Tools to Maintain Vitality
• 15: Team Development: Getting the Right Start
• Notes