The concept of "team" and "teamwork" has been high on the agenda for many of us during the past few years. "Team" has become a top priority and has been seen as an antidote to hierarchy and a way of encouraging a more "collaborative" way forward, but...
...there are a few problems with teams (and groups) - particularly when it comes to decision making: Firstly, teams can indulge in groupthink as "popular", "safe", "established" or "familiar" approaches are prefered; Secondly, there is a tendency for teams to talk themselves into more polarised opinion - In other words, once a team begins to move in a particular direction, members supports and encourage each other to share the same stance - The more "popular" a decision becomes, the more "true" it can seem; Thirdly, the need for "belonging" discorages eccentrics and radicals - who may actually have something important to say; Fourthly, teams can easily be dominated by people with higher status, who speak more, or who speak first... In other words the opinions of the most highly ranked, and the most vocal, will seem more significant than those of the quieter and more reflective members.
This may sound negative, but it's worth thinking about, since it's backed up by research.
Teams are very good at tasks and projects. When you're trying to achieve an objective it is far better to have a functional team - but teams are less good at decision making and leadership, although they can have a role in managing or fascilitating leadership and decision-making processes. As far as I can see the best decsions are made when a collective and collaborative process has been used - the more people involved the better!
I've been reflecting a bit on the way the LSM Project Group has functioned over the past year and a bit. Some may well say (with some justification) that it's been somewhat chaotic, with different people involved at different stages as the discussions have meandered backwards and forwards over a range of related topics. It's been exilarating, ceratinly, and a great group to be part of - but a terrible example of "getting things done". I think it would be fair to say it's been a rubbish "team", but...
...the strength of this conversation was the collective and diverse nature of discussions - I never knew where things were going to go next - or who was going to lob in which theological handgrenade! As convener it was a real learning experience to ride the collective thought flow... It's a mirracle (in some ways) that we produced anything coherent at all - although I suspect, in fact, that the results benefited greatly from such a broad range of contributions...
It was a rubbish "team" but a fantastic process! A really creative group of people who were absolutely brilliant at tackling a very tricky issue!
As the Project Group moves into a more formal phase I suspect we need to widen the circle of vision and reflection rather than tighten things up. The success of collaborative ministry in Milton Keynes may well depend on the use of a collaborative methodology - but where will the Church in MK lead us? I wonder?...
No comments:
Post a Comment