Selecting Youth Ministry Team - Essay Example

SELECTING YOUTH MINISTRY TEAM + Success in many areas of life is characterized by an existence of a team working together with a common goal and commitment to achieve it. While some people prefer working alone, almost all institutions encourage teamwork in their operations. Normally, there are strengths and weaknesses associated with teams especially at the beginning. Even though teams can achieve tremendous results within shorter a time in comparison to individuals, it takes time for groups to stabilize. This is especially the case when it comes to ministry-related groups since the leader has to balance between leadership and their beliefs. In this paper, the focus will be on how one could begin to develop a team approach for a youth ministry. Since there is no existing youth ministry in the respective placement, the paper will how the development of such a team would be conducted. When it comes to the recruit of teams especially religious related, the challenge is often more complex than is the case with other organizations. Mainly the complexity arises from the fact that people expect a certain approach when it comes to selecting such a team. In the past there have numerous theories and models used in trying to explain how teams grow into maturity. The first mistake often made by organizations when it comes to developing teams, especially voluntary teams, is assumption that the individuals will flock as soon the announcement is made1. Thus, to overcome this challenge, the organization in need of volunteers has to make its own initiative to look for these members. Therefore, the first step to be taken in developing a team approach would be to announce the need for volunteers followed by identification of individual. That is to say, there would be no time to wait, but rather immediate steps would be taken to pinpoint the individuals whom the leader thinks would be productive in the team. Secondly, the gathering of the individuals would be the next step where introduction and interaction of the members would be encouraged. It was noted that there is a tendency for the team to undergo the inertia stage at first until the tension between them all is broken. To ensure this seemingly hurdle is overcome, it is recommended that the leader ensure all members are free to interact with each other right from the start2. The challenges of such a team do not stop at selection; it takes a process for groups to mature and persist in their goals. Like other subjects, this one too has many models and theories that seek to explain the process. In integrated Model of group development, Susan Wheelan makes some very vital observations about group development. The first stage characterizing every group is the dependency of the members on their leaders. That means that the members forming the team will not feel their responsibility yet, and instead rely heavily on their leaders to guide them3. Often, when this is not happening the member might form a tendency of doing ‘pseudo-work’, which simply means they talk about irrelevant issues contrary to the goals of the group. In light of the above, the formation of this youth group would be approached in a way that right from the beginning the members clearly understand the expected roles. Talking about irrelevance in a youth ministry is one thing to avoid but this is only possible if there is a strong leadership from the onset. Therefore, as the leader the team approach to employ in such a placement would be to provide strong leadership from the beginning by a way of detailing the goals of the group. Fighting and counter dependency comes as the second stage of every group where the teams are characterized by fighting and disagreeing on various issues. Normally, the source of the fight is about the goals as well as the procedures to be followed. This occurrence is often rampant in the teams where the membership is rather big in comparison to others. In a study conducted in the US consisting of 329 teams that worked in non-profit and for-profit organizations, the results were evident: the higher the number, the more the complexities and disagreements. For instance, in the study it was noted that teams that had a membership of nine and above individuals were least productive. Groups made up of between 3 to 7 members were somewhat productive in comparison to the first one. Conversely, the groups that had only a 3 to 4 members were exceedingly productive4. Thus, the conclusion made was that team-size is imperative in determining productivity and development of each team. For that reason, the selection of a youth ministry team would keenly consider these findings with an aim of ensuring that conflicts are minimized. Worth noting, though, is that conflict is inevitable in either of the groups. However, the groups with smaller membership tend to quickly resolve arising conflicts quicker than the rest because of the time taken to agree. A vital consideration to make is that conflict does not always imply stagnation or a negative thing for the group. In fact, it was noted that when the leader allows the members to disagree freely it creates an atmosphere of trust that members can disagree with each other so long as the process is not detrimental to the development and success of the team5. Also, the issue of the number of teams affect the ultimate outcome with the larger the number the less the development unlike the case with smaller groups. First, for a group’s productivity to increase cohesion is an imperative; sadly, this is not the case where large teams exist. Secondly, intimacy, which implies the clinging of other members on the goals, in the teams subside significantly where large teams are present. Teams made of larger teams were found to be less unified, more argumentative and less unified hence ultimately less productive6. Clearly, there is need for any team-selection to consider these findings, and in the case of the youth ministry team, this will be vitally considered. Once the second stage is overcome, any group irrespective of its size can comfortably settle in the third stage. There are a number of terms used in the description of this stage including consensus, trust building and emergence. However, each of these terms is used in describing the stage of the group where members now after overcoming the often-tenuous interactions and strenuous brainstorming in the previous stage, members commit to the goals7. Here, there are fewer arguments, strong cohesion, almost zero animosity levels. Instead, members show the willingness and tenacity in achieving the goals, and this often results in open communication between members. In addition, negotiations instead of arguments characterize the stage, and this makes the leader’s work pretty easier8. With full understanding of the above, as the leader of the team, there will be positive mind in understanding the process. In other words, having understood how difficult the second stage could be, there will be much considerations and patience on the side of the leader when tasked with creating this youth ministry group. First, the selection of this group will consist between 3 to 7 members then the selection will be done in a way that individuals will made aware of the team’s goals from the onset. Secondly, the encouragement of members to show cohesion as opposed to contention will be emphasised by the leader. Productivity is the next stage that groups undergo, but it is very much dependent on how the last two stages were overcome. Often, if a team overcomes the second stage, which is characterised by arguments, disagreements and low levels of ownership, the productivity stage is not complex. At this stage, every member has understood each other, has committed to the goals and there is less destructive arguments. Consequently, solving problems becomes somewhat easier and all the team’s energy is geared toward the realization of the initial and other emerging goals9. As indicated earlier, this stage’s result is mainly dependent on how the group handled the previous stages. If a team took much time in-group two, the productivity could be delayed. However, where the opposite was the case the results will be faster in the productivity stage than where groups were stalled by the infighting. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the stages do not interfere with the goals especially where these teams have a limited time to achieve their respective goals. At this point, it is important to point out a couple of other issues that might affect a group’s productivity levels besides ability to overcome the mentioned hurdles. First, there is a relationship between a team’s task and development level. That is to say, a group’s productivity will not always be solely determined by the ability to handle the stages. Often, a group’s task could render it less productive if the number of the members is less than the task9. While many members might try to work hard in order to realize the goal, if the size does not correspond to the task, the productivity levels might be affected adversely. Secondly, a team could be influenced by the frequency of meeting where the more a group meets the higher possibility of success. Since there is no further less productive discussions and disagreements, members are only focused on the goals ahead. The exchange of ideas becomes a norm and this has tremendous results on the overall aims of the groups. However, this is only made possible if the teams meet regularly to iron out arising and foreseen issues that might act an as impediment to the success10. As a leader in the youth ministry, this will not only be considered but also applied to ensure the teams meet regularly. Notwithstanding the above assertions, it is vitally important to understand frequent meetings have to be accompanied by positive verbal patterns. It was noted that the frequency of meeting by teams is important to the realization of the goals, but it has to remain optimistic. Normally, each team has a task to complete, and this becomes a challenge when there is a feeling of impending impossibility. Nonetheless, it is important to balance the task with the size since optimism alone cannot be credited for success. Therefore, this youth ministry team will be built on full understanding of these findings. Wheelan’s theory ends with the last part of the team’s stages called final and in other models, it is called closure. It entails the last part and imminent termination of the group. It is often characterized by disputes, disruption and conflict. Mainly, these issues are catalysed by a lack of understanding or the intended success. It was reported that if a group did not meet the goals it was tasked with, blame-games might be evident in this stage10. That, however, does not mean it is uniform in all groups because not all of them fail in their tasks. In other groups, it was reported that members tend to share the final moments, and could be characterized by some prolonged hugs as a way of releasing the pain of separation. Because members had bonded, it becomes a painful affair for them to separate irrespective of the outcome. In conclusion, the selection of the teams is a process that ought to adhere to some of the suggested rules in this paper. When selecting a team, one needs to ensure that the individuals selected clearly understand the tasks of the group. Thus, as leader, this ought to be done in a way that shows commitment by both the leader and the members. Once this is done, the second stage entails members struggling to understand each other; cohesion is not easy to come. However, if the members succeed in being cohesive, the third stage sees many members now embark on the mission. Communication and interaction is evident on the fourth stage, which results in success. Bibliography Chen, P. and Hsieh, S. (2013). When the voluntary mind meets the irresistible event: Stimulus– response correspondence effects on task selection during voluntary task switching. Psychon Bull Rev, 20(6), pp.1195-1200. Colombini, C. and McBride, M. (2012). “Storming and norming”: Exploring the value of group development models in addressing conflict in communal writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 17(4), pp.191-195. Feyzioğlu, O. and Büyüközkan, G. (2008). An integrated group decision-making approach for new product development. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 21(4), pp.366-367. Ito, J. and Brotheridge, C. (2008). Do teams grow up one stage at a time?. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 14(5/6), pp.214-232. Pazos, P. (2012). Conflict management and effectiveness in virtual teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 18(7/8), pp.401-417. Pisani, R. (2013). Large, Small and Median Groups in Group Analysis. Group Analysis, 46(2), pp.132-143. Marlin, D., Ritchie, W. and Geiger, S. (2009). Strategic group membership and nonprofit organization performance. Nonprofit Management Leadership, 20(1), pp.23-24. Vuori, T., Healey, M. and Hodgkinson, G. (2011). When People Agree Whilst Disagreeing: Implicit And Explicit Mental Models In Group Cognition. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2011(1), pp.1-6. Wheelan, S. A. Group Size, Group Development, And Group Productivity. Small Group Research 40.2 (2009): 247-252. Wheelan, Susan A. An Initial Exploration Of The Internal Dynamics Of Leadership Teams.. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 55.3 (2003): 179-181 Read More