Review academically reviewed articles

Copyright 2017CEJ: Series 3, Vol. 14, No. 1

STRENGTHENING MINISTRY TEAMS: FACILITATING UNITY AND COHESIVENESS

Keith R. Krispin, Jr. fudson University

Abstract: The use ofteams is common in churches and ministry organizations. This article examines

one aspect 0؛ tea. development: t^e natwe 0؛ and facilitation of anity within a team. By reviewing

both tbe biblical fondations of anity and tbe social science research on the related concept of cobe-

sion, implications for ministry leadership are identified.

Key Words: teams, anity, cohesion, leadership

In their 2009 articles for CEJי Eguizabal and Lawson began a much- needed exploration of the theological and social science foundations of min- istry teams. Noting the frequent reference to “teamwork” and “team” in recent literature related to Christian ministry and leadership, they provide first a broad overview of key biblical texts and theological themes related to teams (Eguizabal & Lawson, 2009a), and second, an analysis of two broad studies examining the characteristics of effective teams (Eguizabal & Lawson, 2009b). These articles provide a helpful introduction to the nature and foundations of teams, pointing the direction for future research and analysis.

The purpose of this article is to continue this exploration by analyzing the nature of biblical unity in relationship to the team research related to CO- hesiveness, drawing implications for staff and volunteer teams in churches and other Christian ministry organizations.

Unity in Biblical Perspective

by Eguizabal and Lawson as foundational to team leadership is the emphasis on unity for God’s people, both in the Old and New Testaments (Eguizabal & Lawson, 2009b). In examining the primary biblical texts related to unity, one can see the multifaceted nature of the unity as well as the challenge it presents to the church.

43KRISPIN: Strengthening Ministry Teams

First, Christian unity has already been established through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Speaking of the division between the Jews and Gentiles in the early church, Paul says, “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostil- ity.... His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace” (Eph 2:14-15, NIV). Later in the letter to the Ephesians, he builds on this principle by instructing the church to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). The as- sumption is that unity is not something imposed on or developed in a Chris- tian community. Instead, it has already been established through the work of the Spirit (Snodgrass, 1996).

Commenting on Jesus’ prayer for unity among believers in John 17, Beasley-Murray (1987) concurs:

The basis of unity of the church is the nature of God and the reality of his redemptive activity. More specifically, it is an outflow of the rela- tions within the Triune God and of his action in and through the incar- nate Son.... The unity of the Church for which Jesus prayed accordingly proceeds from God and belongs essentially to his redemptive work in Christ. As such it transcends all human efforts at reconciling the con- flicting interests of people, including those of Christians in their endeav- ors to harmonize their own interests, (p. 306)

Second, Christian unity is rooted in shared spiritual realities. Once again in Ephesians, Paul grounds the unity of believers in the fact that Christians share participation in one body, spirit, hope. Lord, faith, baptism, and, ulti- mately, one God (Eph 4:4-6). The repetition of one emphasizes the oneness of Christians because of these shared spiritual realities, drawing Christians together despite differences of race, socioeconomic status, gender, culture, language, or age (Lincoln, 1990ذ Snodgrass, 1996).

Jesus, in his prayer for believers, also grounds unity in a spiritual reality: the participation of believers in the unified relationship between the Father and Son. Jesus prays, “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them be one. Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in US so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20b-21). So, Christian unity is a result of believers’ participa- tion in the fellowship within the Trinity through the work of Jesus (Beas- ley-Murray, 1987, p. 302). Burge (2000), also commenting on Jesus’ prayer, suggests that this spiritual reality should lead to actual oneness among Chris- tians. He states, “Jesus’ prayer, however, links the unity of believers to their interior spiritual life. In 17:20-22, Jesus says that the oneness we experience

Christian Education Journal44

with him should lead to a oneness we experience with one another” (p. 479). Perhaps this is why Paul challenges the Corinthian church to focus on Christ as the antidote to their divisions (1 Cor 3:21-23).

Third, Christian unity is to be nurtured and cultivated in a Christian com- munity. The spiritually rooted nature of unity leads to an obvious question: If unity has been established through the redemptive work of Jesus and the power of the Spirit, why is there so much division within the church, both on the denominational and local church level? The biblical writers recognize this di- lemma as well. While they affirm the foundations of Christian unity, they also challenge the church to make this unity a practical reality among believers. The fact that Jesus prays for the unity of future believers (John 17:20-23), his only specific request for the church in this prayer, suggests that he recognized the need to strive for unity. Paul implores the Ephesians to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit” (Eph 4:3). Snodgrass (1996) then translates “make every effort to” as “be zealous or eager to” suggesting that “we are asked to value unity, be attentive to it, and invest energy so that it is not threatened” (p. 197). And in 1 Cor 1:10, Paul appeals to the church to end the divisions and “be perfectly united,” which may be translated as “restored to unity” (Blomberg, 1994, p. 43). For Paul, then, unity is both a redemptive reality (Eph 4:3) and an outcome of the mutual ministry within the body (Eph 4:13; Snodgrass, 1996)

Fourth, Christian unity recognizes diversity. An understanding of bibli- cal unity must be balanced with an appreciation for the diversity of peoples within the church. Paul’s use of the body metaphor (1 Cor 12:14-26) suggests that though there is one unified, interconnected, interdependent entity, each part contributes to the whole in different ways. Perhaps that is why this pas- sage is followed by an exploration of the nature of love (1 Cor 13:1-13), which is essential for unity (Lincoln, 1990, p. 264؛ Snodgrass, 1996, p. 197).

Snodgrass (1996) would also go further and suggest that biblical unity does not necessarily require an organizational unity, where all Christians par- ticipate in one institutional hierarchy with complete agreement on all matters. Instead, Christians are to be unified in a “common commitment to Christ” (pp. 210-211). Fee (1987) agrees, suggesting that the agreement mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1 refers to agreement on “the fundamental nature of the gos- pel,” which is then described in 1:18-3:23 with the passage then encourag- ing the church to be “knit together” rather than torn apart (p. 54). Perhaps then, biblical unity is more foundational and relational in nature rather than requiring 100% agreement on all decisions facing the church. Likewise, in reference to this passage, Blomberg (1994) recommends consensus decision- making rather than majority voting on major items facing the congregation, with the challenge that those not in full agreement may need “to subordinate their interests to the will of the majority” (p. 48).

45KRISPIN*. Strengthening Ministry Teams

Finally, Christian unity is integrally related to the mission of the church. Jesus twice prays for the unity of future believers, that they would be one, like the Father and Son, participating in the oneness of the Trinity (John 17:20-23). Each time, he connects this unity with each other and with God to the impact this has on the world: “so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21) and “then the world will know that you sent me” (John 17:23). It is easy to see this connection. What an incredible testimony to those outside the body it would be if people with significant differences in ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, culture, generations, and opin- ions, can live together in unity within the church, through the power of Christ!

Cohesiveness in Teams؛ A Social Science Perspective

Whether in an individual ministry team, in a church or ministry orga- nization, or across various ministries, the cultivation of Christian unity is a chief concern for ministry leaders. In this effort, ministry leaders may benefit from the findings of social science research into the nature of teams. Though there is a vast amount of research related to the effective functioning of small groups and teams, of particular interest for this discussion is the social sci- ence concept of cohesiveness.

Cohesiveness: Definition & Types

Cohesiveness refers to the way that a team holds together in the accom- plishment of their collective purpose. It is the unity that a group experiences over time as they work together and relate with one another (Levi, 2011). In defining the nature of cohesiveness in teams, Carron, Brawley, and Wind- meyer (1998) suggest four characteristics for an understanding of cohesive- ness. They suggest that cohesiveness is...

٠ Multidimensional: There are many factors that can help a team re- main together, factors that may differ fiom team to team, even teams with a similar context and purpose.

٠ Dynamic: The factors that create and sustain unity can and do change over the life span of a team. For instance, at formation, a team may cohere around a unified attraction to the mission and goals of the team. But after several months or even years together, through regu- lar contact and interaction, social factors may more strongly influ- ence cohesion.

Christian Education Journal46

٠ Instrumental: Groups form with a purpose in mind. The nature of that purpose, whether social or task-oriented, will influence the way cohesion is developed and maintained.

٠ Affective: Teams are fundamentally relational in nature as people come together for various reasons. Sometimes strong relationships are present at the formation of the team, such as when team mem- bers form a new team from existing church members. In other cases, team members have little relationship with each other at the forma- tion of the team, such as when a team is formed using people from different congregations or from different campuses of a multisite church.

Recognizing the multidimensional nature of cohesiveness, theorists and researchers have identified three types of cohesiveness (Carron et al., 1998; Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009; Forrester & Tashchian, 2004, p. 209):

٠ Social cohesion refers to the motivation of group members towards establishing and maintaining the social relationships and activities within the group. This is sometimes conceptualized as interpersonal attraction referring to a “shared liking for and attachment to the members of the group” (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2002, p. 995). This type of cohesion can be seen in the earlty church, where Christians spent time together, building relationships (Acts 2). Paul also notes his affection for and relationships with the Thessalonians (lThess2:8).

٠ Task cohesion or task commitment is the shared motivation towards achieving the team’s goals, objectives, and tasks. The apostles were called to cohesion around the accomplishment of the Great Commis- sion (Matt 28:18-20; Acts 1:8), lived out as the earlty believers evange- lized and prayed for boldness (Acts 2:24).

٠ Group pride, a less-researched type, refers to the attraction group members have toward the status associated with group membership, the ideologies that a group represents, or the importance of being a member of the group. Though the word pride may evoke negative connotations in the Christian community, a more positive under- standing is related to having a strong and distinct group identity, such as the nation of Israel as God’s people or the earlty church as “a chosen people, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Pet 2:9).

47KRISPIN: Strengthening Ministry Teams

Cohesion and Team Effectiveness

Team researchers have sought to discern whether cohesion has a posi- tive impact on team effectiveness. Though still emerging, the research gener- ally supports the positive impact of cohesion on the outcome of a team (Ko- zlowski & Ilgen, 2006). For workplace teams, the impact of cohesion on team performance is an important justification for the resources being expended to utilize teams in business. While achievement of the mission is important in churches and other Christian organizations, cohesion, at least in how it re- lates to biblical unity, is an end in and of itself, as noted in the biblical analysis above. If cohesion has no impact on performance, businesses may have diffi- culty justifying the investment of valuable resources. In the church, however, cohesion is a goal to be pursued based on the biblical importance placed on unity.

Facilitating Cohesion in Teams

While the factors influencing the cohesion of a team are just beginning to be explored (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006), the research literature provides some direction for team leaders who desire to foster cohesion in a team. Research- based insights, and their implications for team leadership, can be organized in the following categories:

Team Characteristics. The nature of a team, as well as the character- istics of its members, impact team cohesiveness. Levi suggests that smaller teams are generally more cohesive than larger teams, though agreement on an ideal number is illusive. The isolation of a team from others and having strict requirements for joining a team can also contribute to cohesiveness, as this allows the team to develop a unique group identity. Finally, having sue- cess as a team bonds the group more tightly (Levi, 2011).

Moore and Mamiseishvili (2012) found that teams are more cohesive when there is a high level of emotional intelligence among the members. In addition, O’Neil and Kline (2008) suggest that some team members come to the team with a predisposition for effective team work, thus boosting cohesiveness.

To foster cohesiveness, the team leader can carefully select members for the team in the formation stage of development. In this process, the leader must balance the size of a team, ensuring it maintains a manageable number where relationships can form and be productive, with the expertise and posi- tion of group members, ensuring the team has the collective knowledge to

Christian Education tournai48

accomplish the task. In addition, the team leader should also consider the in- dividual members’ teamwork skills and emotional intelligence, which are es- sential for successful group work. It can be a delicate balance. With that said, the Christian team leader can also depend on the power of the Holy Spirit to meld diverse team members into a unified whole.

Goals and Methods. The nature and clarity of the team’s goals and methods also impact cohesiveness. Wheelan (2016) suggests that when goals and methods to achieve them are clear, cohesiveness increases. Levi (2011) concurs and adds that training in group goal setting can help facilitate cohe- siveness. In their study of ministry executive teams, Hartwig and Bird (2015) also found that clarity of purpose enables a team to build trusting relation- ships and to work together to accomplish the goals of the church. Knouse (2006) suggests that to increase task cohesion, goal achievement should re- quire interdependence and draw on the various skills of group members.

For the team leader, the nature of the task should determine whether it should be assigned to a team or to an individual. Tasks that require a variety of skills and input are more appropriate for a team. At the formation of the team, the leader should then facilitate discussion of the team’s purpose and processes to ensure clarity regarding goals, outcomes, and patterns of interac- tion. Teams then can return to these founding principles in times of discus- sion and even conflict.

Relationships and Conflict. The team leader can build cohesiveness by facilitating increased communication among team members (Wheelan, 2016), providing time together allowing the team to “develop common in- terests and ideas” (Levi, 2011, p. 64), and training in the relational skills of listening and conflict resolution (Levi, 2011).

The team leader can also foster cohesiveness by tailoring the approach to conflict resolution efforts based on the type of conflict the team is experiencing. Task conflict, disagreement and differences regarding the goals and methods of the team, requires little intervention and should be encouraged at times, help- ing a team refine efforts and avoid groupthink. Relational conflict, such as per- sonality differences and personal hurts, can be destructive to team cohesiveness and effectiveness, thus requiring more active management (Tekleab, Quigley, &Tesluk, 2009). Biblically., the team leader can encourage interpersonal con- flict resolution that leads to forgiveness and reconciliation, concepts on which the team research literature is silent. In the end, successful conflict resolution can create trust within a team, strengthening cohesiveness (Wheelan, 2016).

Leadership Style. Finally, the team leader can foster cohesiveness in the group through the use of transformational leadership, of the six transfor- mational leadership factors examined by Callow, Smith, Hardy, Arthur, and

49KRISPIN: Strengthening Ministry Teams

Hardy (2009), three factors demonstrated a relationship with team cohesive- ness: fostering acceptance of group goals and promoting teamwork, high per- formance expectations, and individual consideration. To demonstrate individ- ual consideration, the transformational team leader can treat team members as individuals as well as members of the group, recognizing individual needs and developing the individual’s strengths and skills. To foster acceptance of group goals and to promote teamwork, the transformational team leader can encourage team members to focus on group goals and encourage members to be team players. The transformational team leader also communicates high expectations for individual and team performance, not settling for second best.

Conclusions

While Christian unity and cohesion are not identical conceptually, they provide complementary insights for ministry team leadership. This review of both the biblical foundations of Christian unity and the literature on team CO- hesion points to several conclusions with implications for ministry practice.

First, unity is essential for an effective, healthy ministry team. Both the biblical foundations and the team development literature recognize the im- portance of unity for the effective accomplishment of the team’s mission and goals. The lack of unity will confound team efforts and reduce the benefits of teamwork. For Christian ministry teams, it will also reflect poorly to outsid- ers who are watching to see whether the truth of the gospel can overcome human conflicts.

Second, true Christian unity is attainable only through the work of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Though unity and cohesiveness are overlapping concepts, the key difference between the two is that Christian unity is a spiritual reality established by the work of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit. This provides a unique source of power that can help team members overcome a variety of differences. Team members may be from different cultures, generations, gen- ders, or socioeconomic strata, but in Christ, they are unified. Though tensions may be significant, this does not change the spiritual reality that members are brothers and sisters in Christ. Further, the Holy Spirit gives team members the ability to treat each other with love, kindness, and humility. Is there any other way to truly overcome differences in an effort to be truly unified?

Third, the actualization of unity within a team is facilitated by the team leader. While Christian unity is grounded in spiritual realities, there is much that the team leader can do to make this unity real in practical and tangible ways. The team leader can foster discussion on team goals and strategies, provide training in conflict management and communication, structure the team for effectiveness, use transformational leadership strategies, and much more. Unity must be cultivated in a team.

Christian Education tournai50

Fourth, the multi-dimensional nature of cohesion can guide the team leader in the facilitation of team unity. The team leader can assess the needs of the team based on the three intertwining aspects (task, relational, or group pride), and then design interventions to strengthen each as appropriate. One team may need to develop greater clarity of purpose in order to become more unified and effective. Another may need training in conflict resolution. The needs of the team then drive the activity of the leader.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion:

1. As you assess the unity and cohesiveness of your ministry team, what steps can you take to strengthen the group based on the literature?

2. How compatible is the literature on team cohesion with the biblical foundations of unity? How are they overlapping concepts? How are they different?

5. Of the t^es of cohesion (social cohesion, task cohesion, group pride), which is most important in a ministry team setting?

4. Given the biblical importance of unity within the church, why is there so much perceived and actual division in the body, both locally and globally? What steps can ministry leaders take to restore unity?

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Windmeyer, w. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesive- ness in sport groups. In Joan L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology mea- surement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, wv: Fitness Information Technology., Inc.

Chiocchio, E, & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohe- sion and performance: A meta-anal^Tic review of disparities between project teams, produc- tion teams, and service teams. Small Group Research, 40(4), 382-420

Eguizabal, o., & Lawson, K. E. (2009a). Lead- ing ministry teams, part 1: Theological reflec- tion on ministry teams. Christian Education Journal, Series 3, 6(2), 250-264.

Eguizabal, o., & Lawson, K. E. (2009b). Lead- ing ministry teams, part 2: Research on effec- tive teams with implications for ministry team leadership. Christian Education Journal, Series 3, 6(2), 265-281.

REFERENCES

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. Jo & McLendon, c. L. (2003). Cohesion and per- formance in groups: A meta-analytic clarifica- tion of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989-1004.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (1987). John. Word biblical commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Blomberg, c. L. (1994). 1 Corinthians. The NIV application commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Burge, G. (2000). John. The NIV application commentary.. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Callow, N., Smith, M. ا.ل Hardy, L., Arthur, c. A., & Hardy, j. (2009). Measurement of transformational leadership and its relation- ship with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied sport Psychology, 21(4), 395-412.

51KRISPIN: Strengthening Ministry Teams

O’Neil, T. A., & Kline, T. ]. B. (2008). Person- ality as a predictor of teamwork: A business simulator study. North American Journal of Psychology, f 0(1), 65-77.

Snodgrass, K. (1996). Ephesians. The NIV application commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, R E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team ef- fectiveness. Group & Organization Manage- ment, 54(2), 170-205.

Wheelan, s. A. (2016). Creating effective teams: A guidefor members and leaders (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

AUTHOR

Keith R. Krispin, Jr. (Ed.D. in Leadership - The Southern Baptist Seminary) serves as Professor of Christian Ministries at Judson University and Director of their Master of Leadership in Ministry program. E-mail: [email protected]

-The first epistle to the Corinthi .(ר<י ans. The new international commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Forrester, w. R., & Tashchian, A. (2004). Char- acteristics of work groups and their relation- ship with social and task cohesion in student teams. Psychological Reports, 95(1), 207-214.

Hartwig, R. T. & Bird, w. (2015). Teams that thrive: Five disciplines of collaborative church leadership. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

Knouse, s. B. (2006). Task cohesion: A mecha- nism for bringing together diverse teams. International Journal of Management, 23(3), 588-596.

Kozlowski, s. w., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). En- hancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Inter- est, 7(3), 77-124.

Levi, D. (2011). Group dynamicsfor teams. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, A. T. (1990). Ephesians. Word biblical commentary.. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Moore, A., & Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). Ex- amining the relationship between emotional intelligence and group cohesion. Journal of Education for Business, 87(5), 296-302.

YXcewse Äwd Ve٣m١ss\b\e Vise UcAXce

Tese mate٢ials a٢e provided to you by the American ًا heo logical Library Association (AT LA) in acco٢dance with the te٢ms of ATLA'S ag٢eements with the copyright holde٢ o٢ authorized distributor of the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holde٢ of these materials.

You may download, print, and sha٢e these materials fo٢ you٢ individual use as may be pe٢mitted by the applicable ag٢eements among the copyright holder distributors۶ licenso٢s, licensees, and use٢s of these materials (including, fo٢ example, any ag٢eements ente٢ed into by the institution o٢ othe٢ o٢ganization from which you obtained these materials) and in acco٢dance with the fair use principles of United States and interoational copyright and othe٢ applicable laws. You may not, fo٢ example, copy o٢ email these materials to multiple web sites o٢ publicly post, distribute fo٢ commeroial pu٢poses, modify, o٢ c٢eate derivative wo٢ks of these materials without the copyright holderis exp٢ess prior written pe٢mission.

Please contact the copyright holde٢ if you would like to ٢equest pe٢mission to use these materials, o٢ any pa٢t of these materials, in any manne٢ o٢ fo٢ any use not pe٢mitted by the ag٢eements described above o٢ the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and othe٢ applicable laws. Fo٢ info٢mation ٢ega٢d¡ng the identity of the copyright holder refer to the copyright info٢mation in these materials, if available, o٢ contact ATIA at [email protected].

Except as othe٢wise specified. Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.