Category: Unit 5

B, thank you for your post on “Servant and Team Leadership.” It was concise and well-written and I especially related to the questions you posed at the end.

Personally, I have been in similar situations over the past few years and I tend to be a naturally empathetic leader. Unfortunately, this has led some team members “taking advantage” and has forced me to learn to not “people-please” and also how to set clear rules, expectations and boundaries. I have definitely grown a “thicker skin” in the last couple years, because of some situations in ministry God has allowed.

I have found in some Christian ministries this question of removing members from a team ends up being very “touchy” subject and policies on it are vague. In normal secular job situations, if someone is not performing or meeting expectations, usually after a warning or two they are “out.” In ministry though, we seem to have more issues with firing people and to be honest it kind of bothers me. I also think it might be resulting in less effective ministries and teams. I think the approach you take to these sort of situations, would be very dependent on your specific ministry policy and culture. I will attempt to give some answers from my experience to your questions below:

When a leader has demonstrated too much empathy, for example, by allowing followers to not complete tasks due to personal issues, and this starts to affect the project, how should the leader continue to be empathetic towards this follower while simultaneously communicating the importance of the task?

In this situation, I have found it best to approach the person humbly and explain my own personal error (if there was an error on my part) of not clarifying my expectations in relation to the task. If this was the case, you could explain that your empathy superseded “the hat” you are responsible to wear in ministry, which is supervising them on the role they play on the team.

I think it is possible to both care for the person while also communicating the importance of the task. This can be done, by asking them about what is going on or what is causing them to be delayed in their deadline. The listening and even praying for them, relays that you do care. However, afterwards relaying the fact that they committed to this responsibility and ask them if in light of their situation, if they think that they will be able to continue with the tasks. It is also importance to remind them of the vision and purpose and their key role in it. I would ask them after doing so, what is possible for them to get done by __________ date and time? If they say “nothing” or not what you need to be done, than you either: 1) need to consider asking them to commit to do more, because of how their role affects the project; or 2) consider finding someone else to cover, all or parts of their role.

If the follower is unable to complete the task, what does it look like to continue to be empathetic but initiate discipline or if necessary removal from the team?

This is a tough one for sure and I am no expert! Again, this is dependent on the team situation and your ministry’s policy. I would convey that in light of their circumstances, that you actually think this added pressure of their role on the team is not healthy or good for them. As a result, suggesting that you wonder if they should be on the team anymore.

See how they respond, they might agree, if they do not I would seek to continue to persuade them (if you are convicted to do so). When speaking to them, it is important to convey that you appreciate them, value them as a person, but that this is not the right place for them at this time. If they do not listen and you have the authority to do so, telling them a clear “no” or bringing another authority or leader in, to do so is a good next step.

Let me know your thoughts?

Ministry situations like these are tough, because we often get very relationally involved with the people we work with. Ministries often do not let people go unless they had a moral failure, disagree theologically or renounce their faith. Also another issue, at least in my organization, is that staff semi-function as “volunteers”, since they raise their own support, so this can create a certain lack of respect for authority and lack of awareness that firing is even a possibility.

Monica

Spears (2010) outlines ten characteristics of servant leaders in his article and I would like to highlight three of those ten and discuss how they transfer into actions when coordinating a group project. The three characteristics I will be discussing are: listening, persuasion and commitment to the growth of people (Spears, 2010, pp. 27-29).

Listening

The quality of listening in a servant leader is described by Spears (2010) as “a deep commitment to listening intently to others” (p. 27). In listening the servant leader aims at clarifying a collective direction from the group for how to move forward (Spears, 2010, p. 27).

In my experience of coordinating group projects, if you want your team members to really be on board with the project, listening is essential. I think in the earliest states of conception and planning it is best to bring your team members in and allow them to help brainstorm and feed into the process. When they get the chance to be heard and understood, and they see their feedback is having implications on the project, their buy-in comes more natural. I have found you also end up producing a better project, because you utilize the different ideas, gifts and strengths of other team members.

Persuasion

Persuasion is when the servant leader looks to convince others of the importance of something, rather than just telling them to do it. Spears (2010) states that servant leaders rely, “on persuasion, rather than on one’s positional authority, in making decisions within an organization” (p. 28).

I think this is really important to apply this in a team project environment, as you could just tell people what to do, but again that will not help them gain motivation and also will produce less effective results. I have found the best way is to communicate the importance of the project  from the start and also consistently throughout the planning process.  I think the importance is best communicated when the need or the why of the project is clear, and as a result the vision. This consistent communication will help foster group buy-in.

In my experience, I also think it is important (if possible in the situation) to allow for a democratic process. You could allow team members to vote on whether to move forward with the project and/or create space to allow team members to share honestly what they think, whether excitement or concerns, before starting a project. This action helps to gauge who is on board with the project and hear people out on concerns.

Commitment to the Growth of People

Spears (2010) states, “the servant leader is deeply committed to the growth of each and every individual within his or her organization” (p. 29). This characteristic in a servant leader can look like: taking an interest in the employees personal and professional growth and making funds available for that, showing interest in the input of ideas from all employees, encouraging everyone’s involvement in decision-making, and helping employees that were laid-off to find other positions (Spears, 2010, p. 29).

When it comes to helping people grow in a group project, it is important to make sure you delegate well. Delegation requires thought and insight to know who would be the best fit for a certain role and it is different from “dumping” tasks on people. Delegation also involves trust and some risk-taking (Simmons, 2015). Simmons (2015) principle of delegation is, “If you have someone on your staff who can do this task 80 percent as well as you can, delegate it.” This is very important to do as in a group project setting because if you do not delegate you will slow down and hinder progress, as everything ends up getting bottle-necked with you (Simmons, 2015). Delegation grows employees confidence and their professional skills as they feel trusted to take on a role that they are responsible for. I have found you have to be prepared to deal with any personal issues of “perfectionism” when you delegate. Personally, I am a “perfectionist”, so I sometimes find it hard to trust something to someone, if I know they might only do the job 80 percent as well. However, if I functioned in that way, I would be burned out and my staff would not feel trusted or experience professional growth.

In conclusion, the four actions I would recommend a team leader do to integrate servant leader characteristics, while coordinating a group project would be:

1) Allow team members a say early on in the planning process (listening).

2) Communicate a compelling vision/purpose/why for the project and give your team members time to get on-board (persuasion).

3) If possible in the situation, allow for a democratic process before starting a project, so team members have a say in moving forward (persuasion).

4) Help employees grow by trusting them through delegating aspects of the project well (commitment to the growth of people).

I would love to hear people’s thoughts or experiences with delegation, if you would be interested to respond to the questions below:

Question 1: When is delegating not helpful to an employee or how much risk can you take?

I ask this because sometimes I find it hard to gauge or predict, which people on the team could do the job at 80%. At times, people only come through at 60% or 70%, is that considered a fail in delegation? What if they really grew from the process?

Question 2: How would you distinguish between delegating well and “dumping” a task on a team member?

 References

Simmons, Mark (2015, February). The 80 percent rule for delegation. Thinking Bigger: Business Media Inc., 24 (2). Retrieved from https://ithinkbigger.com/80-percent-rule-delegate/;;

Spears, Larry C. (2010) Character and Servant Leadership: Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring Leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2010, 25-30.

Critical Functions of Team Effectiveness

Performance and development are the two critical functions of team effectiveness (Northouse, 2018, p. 375). Performance is described as
“task accomplishment” and as Northouse (2018) states, “refers to the quality of the outcomes of the team’s work” (p. 375). Development is described as “team maintenance” and measures the connectedness of the team, as well as team member satisfaction of their individual needs, while relating and working well with team members (Nadler, 1998). When teams manage these two things: 1) performance and 2) development well they become accomplished in “getting the job done and maintaining a cohesive team” (Northouse, 2018, p. 375).

After doing a study on different teams LaFasto & Larson (2001) found 8 characteristics consistently associated with excellent teams. These characteristics are the following: 1) clear, elevating goal, 2) results-driven structure, 3) competent team members, 4) unified commitment, 5) collaborative climate, 6) standards of excellence, 7) external support and recognition and 8) principled leadership (Larson & LaFasto, 1989).

In the current team I am working on in the context of Christian ministry I have seen evidence of three of LaFasto & Larson’s (2001) characteristics: 1) clear, elevating goal, 5) collaborative climate and 6) standards of excellence.

Clear, Elevating Goal

Hackman (2012) describes this characteristic as “A compelling purpose [that] energizes team members, orients them toward their collective objective, and fully engages their talents” (p. 437). Team goals need to be clearly laid out so team members know if their objective has been reached (Northouse, 2018, p. 376).

The organization my team works for has a reputation for having a high vision and clear mission. We want to “help people know Jesus and experience his power to change the world.” This vision has been energizing and motivating for my team members and I, because we truly believe that Jesus changes everything. We know Jesus can change and transform a life and as a result, that person can make an impact in the world. I have had the privilege of seeing evidence of this vision and mission happen already in my ministry. I have seen people come to know Jesus and as a result help others around them know Jesus. They have even gone and shared how Jesus has changed their life with family and friends in other countries.

Another thing I appreciate about our team is that we aim to try to set measurable goals and objectives on projects we do. In a ministry context, when you are working with people, it is hard to see tangible results like in a business context. Therefore, setting measurable goals and objectives that fit our context helps team members feel some sense of accomplishment in a job that does not easily show results.

Collaborative Climate

The collaborative climate characteristic is the ability of the team to relate and work together towards team effectiveness (Northouse, 2018, p. 377).  There is freedom for risk taking, an attitude of helping each other, members staying focused on a problem, as well as listening and understanding one another (Northouse, 2018, p. 377).  Larson and LaFasto (1989) point out that this kind of environment first involves building trust by having “relationships based on honesty, openness, consistency and respect.”

On my team I see this characteristic of collaborative climate because though we have two teams that work in different areas of the city, we meet every Monday to pray and plan together. During these meetings we collaborate on major events or projects we host throughout the year. We all usually take up different roles on these major initiatives, that are assigned and monitored by the key leader and we all work together. We like to try new ideas, encourage each other to take risks, and aim to understand and listen to each other. One area we could grow in is staying focused on a problem. We find this difficult, because we encounter many problems in our particular area of work and it is hard to know which ones to focus on. These problems are complex and difficult to understand because they involve understanding people and a rapidly changing culture. We are aiming to improve in “focusing on problems”, by planning to do research to understand these particular problems and tackle it.

Standards of Excellence

The characteristic of standards of excellence means people on a team know how to function and behave, and they have an understanding of the team’s code of conduct (Hackman, 2012). Performance is regulated and there is a certain pressure to perform at their highest level with clear and concrete standards (Hackman & Walton, 1986). Expectations need to be clear and feedback consistently given for this characteristic to take place (LaFasto & Larson, 2001).

In the last five years on my team I have appreciate how we have applied this characteristic by having a document we go through a couple times a year to remind us of team expectations and team functioning. The document has grown in size, but has really good team norms and appropriate behaviour in planning and communication. One example is we say, “your failure to plan, does not constitute an emergency on someone else’s part.” An example is, if a team member who is in charge of something asks another team member to do something last minute, the person being asked has the freedom to say no. This creates an environment where we value well-executed planning that encourages quality work ethic and results.

Our team could grow in learning how to give clearer expectations and regulating performance, but one thing I appreciate is how we evaluate and give feedback on every project or event we do. We do this so we can improve and we always keep those documents for the next person who plans a similar initiative.

Principled Leadership

Zaccaro et al. (2001) describes principled leadership as “the central driver of team effectiveness, influencing the team through four sets of processes: cognitive, motivational, affective and coordination.”

In the cognitive process a leader is aiming to help their team understand the problems they are facing (Northouse, 2018, p. 379). The motivational process is the leader setting their team up to “become cohesive and capable by setting high performance standards and helping the team to achieve them” (Northouse, 2018, p. 379). The third process, affective, is about the leader’s ability to help their team deal with stressful situations through “providing clear goals, assignments, and strategies” (Northouse, 2018, p. 379). Lastly, coordination is the process of a leader organizing team activities and roles to match team members skills. As Northouse (2018) states, “providing clear performance strategies, monitoring feedback, and adapting to environmental changes” (p. 379).

In regards to the cognitive process, this summer the ministry organization I serve with decided to make some significant cultural, structural and financial changes. I am one of the area leaders and so the national leaders took time aside after our staff conference in the summer to help the area leaders cognitively process the reality of the problems we are facing as a ministry, based on research they had done. During these meetings they helped us understand why we need to change so drastically, both internally and in how we understand and relate externally. I appreciated that they emphasized the need for why we have to change and the reality of the issues we are facing. These meetings motivated me to go beyond the mediocre and explore and take risks. After the meetings, I had a clearer picture of the problems we were facing, but no clear direction of how to solve them. Our national leadership encouraged and equipped us to go learn about and better understand our specific local context, so that we could tackle the problems of our rapidly changing culture.

References

Hackman, J.R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 33, 428-444.

Hackman, J.R. & Walton, R.E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In P.S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 72-119). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

LaFasto, F.M.J., & Larson, C.E. (2001). When teams work best: 6000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Larson, C.E., & LaFasto, F.M.J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Nadler, D.A. (1998). Executive team effectiveness: Teamwork at the top. In D.A. Nadler & J.L. Spencer (Eds.), Executive teams (pp. 21-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Northouse, P.G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L., & Marks, M.A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451-483.