Category: Teaming Page 1 of 6
Recently, the International Leadership Team (ILT) of SEND International went through an exercise to identify our strengths and weaknesses in relation to Patrick Lencioni’s model of the Five Dysfunctions of a Team. (Yes, Lencioni wrote a book about this, and it definitely is worth reading.) This framework has been widely used in leadership development because it highlights common barriers to team effectiveness.
The Five Dysfunctions of a Team
Lencioni’s identifies these five dysfunctions:
Absence of Trust – Team members are unwilling to be vulnerable.
Fear of Conflict – The desire to preserve artificial harmony stifles productive, ideological conflict.
Lack of Commitment – Without clarity and buy-in, decisions lack support.
Avoidance of Accountability – The need to avoid interpersonal discomfort prevents members from holding one another accountable.
Inattention to Results – Pursuit of individual goals erodes focus on collective success.
Fear of Conflict and What Leaders Can Do
Fear of conflict… Read the whole post
A couple of weeks ago, I facilitated a panel discussion on multigenerational teaming at the SEND Europe Conference in Spain. As I’ve prepared for this conversation, I was struck again by the richness and complexity that generational diversity brings to our mission teams. Drawing from Tim Elmore’s A New Kind of Diversity:Making the Different Generations on Your Team a Competitive Advantage, I want to share a few reflections that I hope will resonate with SEND missionaries serving across generations—from Boomers to Gen Z.
Not Just Cultural—But Generational Diversity
As global workers, we’re trained to observe and adapt to cultural differences. But how often do we apply that same curiosity and intentionality to generational differences within our teams?
SEND teams today often include four generations:
Boomers (1946–1964): Loyal, experienced, and deeply committed to the mission.
Gen X (1965–1980): Independent, pragmatic, and often the bridge between generations.
Millennials (1981–1996): Collaborative, purpose-driven, and fluent in digital… Read the whole post
Image by Michal Jarmoluk from Pixabay
In mission work, when engaging unreached people, working in teams is essential. One person cannot do it alone. However, not all mission teams are the same. Over the years, we have observed four main types of teams on the mission field: basketball teams, track teams, X-teams (expedition teams), and combo teams. Each type has its own unique characteristics and purposes. I have written about each of these in a series on types of mission teams, but I thought it might be helpful to summarize our thinking into one post.1 The SEND U wiki also provides a Word document summarizing these 4 different types of teams in point form.
Basketball Teams: Working Closely Together
A basketball team is a tightly-knit unit, where five players work closely together on the court to defend and score. Similarly, in mission work, a basketball team consists of team members who interact constantly with each other, sharing a common goal. They live near each other and target the same people or neighborhood. This type of team emphasizes collaboration and synergy, with each member playing a specific role in achieving the team’s objectives.
A biblical example of a basketball team is Jesus and his disciples. They worked and lived together, experiencing both the joys and hardships of proclaiming the good news. Like the disciples, missionaries on a basketball team rely on each other, hand off responsibilities, and watch each other’s backs. They sacrifice their individual autonomy for the greater good of the team.
To ensure success, basketball teams require a well-defined objective, a committed team leader, and regular communication. Team meetings, conflict resolution, and collaborative decision-making are essential for the smooth functioning of the team.
Photo by MART PRODUCTION
I have taken many different personality and strength assessments over the years. Myers-Briggs, Grip-Birkman, MinistryStyles, StrengthsFinder, DiSC, Enneagram, and 5 Voices are a few that stick out. Part of my motivation in taking these assessments was to evaluate their effectiveness. I wanted to see how well they helped team members understand one another better. Would they help us in our training of new cross-cultural workers? But I have to admit a big part of my motivation was just my innate curiosity to understand myself better.
Shortcomings of personality assessments
Each of these assessments has their strengths. I have learned something from each of them about how I am wired. They have helped me to understand the challenges I face in working with colleagues of different personalities.
But none of the ones above helped me understand what specific personalities / strengths are needed on a team. How do the different personalities work together to accomplish the work of innovating, developing, launching and finishing a project? None of them helped me clearly identify what parts of a project I personally would find most frustrating and what type of tasks I would find most fulfilling.
Photo by PNW Production from Pexels
In a supportive community, it is easier to remain resilient. Thus far in our series on resilience for cross-cultural workers, we have talked primarily about the resilience of individuals facing adversity and stress. But we all realize that we are more resilient when we face that adversity together with others.
As Ecclesiastes says,
Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.
Ecclesiastes 4:12
Jesus relies on his friends
Yes, Jesus is our inspiration as we seek to become more resilient and persevering. He persevered despite great suffering and merciless opposition. He demonstrated unfailing reliance on his heavenly Father. But our Lord also had his small group of close friends and disciples who walked with him through the hardships and rejection he endured. So, it is no surprise that he insisted on bringing Peter, James, and John with him to his place of prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (see Matt 26:36-39).