Team Chemistry

A couple of weeks ago I came across a reflective article in the EMQ Online site. It was written under the pseudonym Jordan Ellis and titled "Let's Get Real about M* Team Chemistry?" and published in the Oct 2005 issue.

I've read and reread it over many times since discovering it. The author, who has had some unpleasant m* team experiences, helps summarize some of my reflections over 14 1/2 years of cross-cultural ministry on a number of different teams, and particularly the last 5 1/2 years.

Working on teams is a buzzword in my business. The "t" word is part of the name of my organization. However, how this plays out in different contexts is extremely different in each case.

Here are some helpful excerpts from Ellis' article.

What is the theological explanation for a missionary team meltdown?

On the human plane, it is caused by the sinful imperfections of people—what the Bible calls “flesh.” Candidly, other “flesh” outside the immediate team may also add fuel to the fire. Then there is Satan and his horde of demons. Okay, and maybe we can throw in other stuff like personalities, preferences, opinions, convictions, beliefs and so on.

Therefore, why should we be surprised that an eruption in team chemistry may happen? Moreover, why aren’t we doing more to calculate the risk of forming missionary teams? And what about creating contingency plans if a team fails? Is bad team chemistry on the mission field a dirty little secret?

As much as we may loathe disunity, no matter how many interpersonal skills workshops we attend, the potential for failed team chemistry is here to stay. Pretending it couldn’t happen to me is naïve. A wise mentor once asked me, “Have you gotten over your idealism yet?” Working with people has its hazards. Hurt, disappointment, disillusionment and frustration are inevitable.

Unfortunately, good intentions may not be enough. Something may go horribly wrong. People get wounded. Partnerships fracture. It’s the reality of living in a fallen world. Admittedly, it’s less than ideal. Ultimately, the cause is prevailing human sin. But dare we forget to add, the devious incursions of spiritually dark forces? Yes, we live in a less than ideal world.

Sadly, proven and effective missionaries may choose to leave a mission agency, if not the mission field, because of poor team chemistry. Let’s be blunt: Who wants to work on a missionary team that’s your biggest source of daily aggravation and annoyance? Eventually, that arrangement wears you down. It saps your energy and leaves you spiritually dry.

Sucking it up is not the solution. Hanging in there, convincing yourself that you need thicker skin, trying to ignore the fact that the team has imploded, or acting like the problem will magically go away, isn’t the responsible solution. On this point, mission leaders need to take note: For the individual missionary, that hands-off approach feels like abandonment, especially when you as a leader with authority fail to intervene and end the misery in an equitable resolution. Therefore, mission leaders must act upon the knowledge that good team chemistry depends on proactive management, not just improving their missionaries’ interpersonal skills—however beneficial. Mission leaders must also demonstrate by non-retaliatory action that they understand the risk that is inherent to missionary teamwork, and that if it fails, it isn’t the end of the world or the missionary’s career in the mission agency!

Counter-intuitively, when team chemistry fails, mission leaders may discover that congratulating the missionaries for trying, even if the solution is disbanding the team, will in turn deflate the conflict. Ultimately, it will create an invigorating corporate environment for teamwork and release the missionary core to risk failure without fear of retribution. Such a climate will avoid the blame game, juvenile scolding and condescending finger wagging. Yet is that what happens? If not, it may be a major reason why missionaries, who already feel frustrated, abandoned, ostracized and in the lurch, resign. They feel that they have no choice. However, that doesn’t have to be the solution if mission leaders learn to effectively manage missionary scenarios where team chemistry fails to gel.

In a land far from me, I have an amazing missionary friend who is enjoying a successful ministry. The strange thing is, he’s almost completely cut off from the rest of his missionary field team. He’s a lone soldier, an isolated spiritual warrior. But it doesn’t seem to matter, and from what I know of him, I have only admiration. He enjoys a great relationship with the national leaders and the church he serves. In other words, the national leaders and that church are his team, not his fellow missionaries. Therefore, is it possible that this mixture of team chemistry (i.e., only one missionary unit working with nationals) may be the better solution in certain situations? Would some missionaries be better off not working with other missionaries from their own or a different mission agency? I wonder.

Team chemistry isn’t a game either. It’s very risky. However, unlike other types of chemistry, people chemistry will always risk explosion. Why? Because predicting how two or more people will respond to each other as a team is very difficult. Understanding personality profiles isn’t a failsafe predictor, as highly effective teams may be made up of very diverse personalities that, even under normal circumstances, rub each other the wrong way.

However, on the mission field, the composition of teams may be even riskier because missionaries who agree to team up may not have a prior history of working together. Culture, church backgrounds, convictions, beliefs, personalities—all of these are potential catalysts for conflict. Thus, no one really knows with any degree of certainty if the newly formed team is a good match. Trying is the only way to find out. If it works—great! Yet if it fails to work, then the mission agency must intervene in a timely and non-retaliatory manner to disband the team before an explosion erupts.

Thus, if it’s impossible to predict the chemistry of missionary teams with guaranteed accuracy, then how is it possible for mission leaders to know when it’s time to intervene before a ministry meltdown? What follows is a list of my suggestions for mission leaders.

First, at the beginning of a new missionary team, get the people together and do what is known as a preliminary hazard analysis. Openly discuss with team members the risk of working together. Risk assumes there is a calculated chance of success or failure. By all means, don’t be afraid to call it risky, because it is risky. Openly admit that while it’s hoped the team will gel, it’s also understood that it may not.

Second, mission leaders must set specific dates, spaced one to three months apart—or sooner if requested—to review with individual team members if they feel continuing the team is a good or bad idea. While teams may storm before they norm, individuals must be given the assurance that resigning from the team or disbanding it is an option. Storming never guarantees that a team will norm. We need to remember that. Often, storming is an excuse for prolonging the unnecessary agony of bad team chemistry.

Mission leaders need to insist that these reviews will happen periodically and with regularity. It only takes a week or one hurtful event for relationships to break down. That is why if a problem emerges, a meeting to discuss the viability of the missionary team must immediately take place. Postponement is never the answer—that is management by avoidance, and it is an unacceptable solution. Missionary leaders, if they want to be true leaders, must act decisively. Management by inaction is irresponsibility.

Finally, mission leaders must assure team members that resigning from or disbanding the team isn’t a sign of failure. Give your assurance, and then be consistent with your actions if that happens. As mission leaders, recognizing the dynamics of team chemistry must include written, documented, established procedures for forming and disbanding missionary teams in a timely and non-retaliatory manner.

I’m convinced that many missionaries would be spared the disgrace of leaving the mission field or the hurt of leaving a mission agency if mission leaders would take a hard look at how their organization manages poor team chemistry. My suspicion is that in Christian circles there is a tendency to do nothing, and then justify our inaction by appealing to God’s sovereignty. “Let God fix it!” we muse, while our missionary teams self-destruct and no one wins. Yes—God is sovereign, but we aren’t excused from responsibility either.

While the emphasis in this article is on the potential for poor team chemistry, the hope for great team chemistry lies just beyond the risk of failure. In a mission environment where missionaries know team failure is a manageable risk, and that it will be equitably managed, there will be a greater willingness to assume that risk. In organizations where team failure leads to retribution or inflicts ostracizing penalties, missionaries may give up on the idea of working in a team for want of personal preservation. However, that unhappy scenario is avoidable if mission agencies proactively manage team chemistry as a calculated risk with a clear exit strategy (i.e., disbanding the team).