Lecture
“The Leader as Group Facilitator,” lecture number 8 in our series. There’s a great deal to be said on this subject, and much of it you will read in other sources, I think, but it doesn’t take much of analysis when studying the synoptic gospels to see how group focused Jesus maintained his ministry. Certainly we find outstanding individual encounters, Zacchaeus, Nicodemus, Peter, the rich young ruler, but the broad-stroke picture of those three and a half years shows us Jesus with numerous small groups. Prominent among them we find the disciples, and, I think, herein lies one of the major faults of the lone wolf theory of leadership, which I deliberately assault at every opportunity.
The autocratic leader deliberately removes himself from other people and then complains how lonely leadership has become. The team leader always sees herself as a part of the team, even though she by a reason of title or responsibility serve as the dominant player. Romans 12:4–5 is so crucial here: “Just as each of us as one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ, we who are many, form one body and each member belongs to all the others.” Each member belongs to all the others. Now that’s a very, very important dimension, and we have to recognize that we’re dealing with this group relational kind of thing, this dimension of working together all the way through. Some Christian organizations are run as though each member belongs to a leader, whatever his or her title. Others operate as though the leader belonged to the group as a prized possession whose time and life they can control, but the mutuality of relationship is so beautiful and beautifully worded by the apostle in the text that I just read a moment ago.
What about the role of groups in leadership? Leaders must work with people or their leadership will not be effective. They must meet people, they learn from other people, they help people relate to each other, as well as to their leaders. Christian leaders who develop group facilitation skills, in my opinion, will be more effective and happier and respected, but more important than that, they’re following the pattern of the Lord.
Let’s work on a definition of a group. We can come up with dozens of these, but Bernard Bass of Louisiana State University claims, “A group is a collection of individuals whose existence as a collection is rewarding to the individuals.” In other words, according to Bass, a collection of moths around a lightbulb is not a group; that plurality means nothing. But a lamb and its mother, only two, do represent a group. Bass’s classic concept of group is shared by others. Kittel defines a group as an “aggregate of organisms in which the existence of all is utilized for the satisfaction of the needs of each,” and so it goes.
People have worked in groups throughout the history of the world, but thorough studies of their collective behavior have only been conducted since the mid-twentieth century, and now we have a phraseology that we use quite commonly called group dynamics given to us by Malcolm Knowles, the great adult education specialist. And that phraseology, that word, can be used in at least four different ways. It can refer to the complex forces which are at work in all groups at all times, consciously or unconsciously. It can refer to a field of study. It becomes then a branch of the social sciences. It can refer to that body of basic knowledge about group behavior. It can refer to the body of applied knowledge of technology, which translates into practical methods with which we work with groups.
There are variables in group work. Among the minor variables relative to this, we can list the background of the members; for example, the lifespan of the group, how long it lasts, and whether participation is required or voluntary. The point here is that the leader, whether emerging from the group, elected by the group, or appointed by somebody outside the group, has to take into consideration these variables, which to a great extent are the results of group activity. Now one new variable has burst upon the scene in recent years, and that is research regarding how followers form leaders. This is often called the “West Point Thesis,” because of research done by Litzinger and Schaefer on that campus.
Now thinking about that, let’s return a moment to earlier remarks about the disciples. Not one of them could be identified as a leader in their early days with the Lord. He knew that and they knew that, and we should know it. They learned leadership because leadership is learned behavior, and they learned leadership through followership long before people discovered that at West Point.
We talk a moment about the components of leadership groups. One of the basic functions of any group is belonging. Another component is role taking. Serious leadership teams allow for emergent patterns by the group members.
Groups also provide status and identity. How do group members perceive others in the group? What kinds of interpersonal relationships have developed? What are the attitudes of group members toward one another? Groups also develop some form of affection. There’s a lot of interesting ideas of what one can do in a Christian organization to develop not only affection but also a genuine agape among the members of the group.
And then a major component surfaces in the groups sensitivity to process. Give-and-take dimensions occur with greater frequency in a group setting, of course, and some understanding of how groups function is essential. Terminologies arise; group effectiveness describes the extent to which groups reward their members. Group attractiveness refers to the extent to which they are expected to reward their members. Interaction is an essential ingredient for effectiveness, and satisfactory interaction by the members of the group results in behavior which changes both sooner and to a greater extent than if such interaction had not taken place. Let’s remember that we don’t build effectiveness into a group, we don’t build dynamics, we unleash them; they are there before we arrived.
Understanding group behavior—business and industry spent millions and millions of dollars researching these dynamic factors we’re talking about. They want to control group behavior. More recently, the church has become more interested in group study and wants to train its leadership, either professional leadership or lay leadership, in principles of group work. Since we claim to be operating from a higher motivation, making people more like the Lord, our concern for getting it right ought to appear near the top of our priority list.
Let’s remember that people behave differently at different times because their perception of things to which they react differs. If those perceptions can be changed, then the behavior can be changed. People feel satisfied when they realize that their perceptions and consequent behavior are considered correct in the eyes of the group.
What kinds of forces which form group behavior can we list and describe? Let me try some of them. One is background. No group operates in a vacuum. Its members bring to it certain attitudes, behaviors that they’ve cultivated as individuals, their contact with others groups. Some may feel essentially involved in the success and ongoing of the group. Others may be participating only because they’re forced to, like draftees, but that’s important. Background is crucial.
Participation pattern is another very important feature. Howdoes this group function? That depends largely on the style of the leaders involved. Is it basically dictatorial, one person does all the talking while the group members passively agree or silently disagree? I hope not.
Free communication is the third element here, and in this context, the word communication describes how group members relate to one another. How they transmit their ideas, their values, their feelings, their attitudes toward matters which the group decides. Obviously some of that can be and will be nonverbal. Standards. Every group operates with some code of acceptable behavior. This could describe anything from being quiet in church to shouting and jumping as a member of the cheerleading squad. These standards are obviously always written, and they may not always show high quality, but all groups embrace some kind of determination of group conduct.
Then experts refer to sociometric pattern. Every group contains formal or informal subgroups. Group members react differently to some members than they do to others. Any church committee meeting will demonstrate the fact that group members tend to identify with and support people they like and disagree more frequently with people they dislike. Procedures is another key component here. Formal groups may use formal procedures; informal groups may use informal procedures, but all groups operate with some kind of function.
Goals. The effectiveness of the group links to its goal achievement. You’ve heard that many times already in this course. In turn, goal achievement influences goal clarification. A group of women gathered on Tuesday morning for coffee has its goal. It may only be to share the latest information about their families, but that’s important to them and that certainly reflects goal achievement.
We talked earlier about unleashing group dynamic. Let me come back to that. I’ve reviewed leadership definitions by Gardner and Burns and Bass and so on and so forth. In fact, all of this comes from a single source, Clark and Clark, which is in the syllabus bibliography, and almost every definition, the process of leadership in organizations involve leaders, followers, members, subordinates, or constituents as they interact, create visions, become inspired, find meaning in their work and lives, and gain in trust and respect. So when Christians get together in groups, these individuals that form the groups must allow the Holy Spirit to control the activities of the group. There’s just two different things here. Allowing the Holy Spirit to control you as an individual is one thing.
Allowing the Holy Spirit to control you within the context of a group is something else, because there is a whole new dimension here. It’s sort of like saying the husband and the wife are individuals, but when they are together, they are also one, so that’s a third personage of some kind, and a group is like that just as well. So we want to facilitate, as I said earlier, the unleashing of group dynamic. From a supernatural point of view, the spiritual level and maturity of group members determine the control of the Holy Spirit, but within that context, there are human factors which clamor for our attention, and I want to deal with some of those.
First, and you’ve heard this before, and you’ll hear it again, clarify the group’s objectives. We want to focus on this absolute essential of leadership effectiveness. The group not only has objectives, but those objectives have to be understood and subscribed to by all the members. These objectives influence the choice of leaders, and they are the most significant collective factor which guides the group through its procedures and functions. A stagnating group is one whose objectives belong to the leader only. Keep that in mind.
Second, consider the group’s hedonic tone. Hedonic tone describes the way the members feel toward their participation in the group. Is this a happy experience? Do the group members like one another? Do they spend time with each other outside of the group? Is the atmosphere informal and friendly? All of these things are hedonic tone. You want to know the hedonic tone of the group and how it’s working.
Third, construct patterns for group interaction. As people interact, behavior changes and groups achieve. Effectiveness is inseparably linked to adequate interaction patterns. These patterns are never complete when any group minority or even an individual does not effectively participate in group procedures.
Next, crystalize the group’s achievement. Achievement is just another word for effectiveness. The same quality might be described by the word productivity. Serving Christ and conformity to God’s Word is the ultimate objective of every Christian group. Its achievement is measured by its allegiance to biblical patterns of service. That’s why we cannot be totally pragmatic and say, “Well, this is good because it works.” We have to ask first of all, is it biblical?
Creating a fair system of evaluation is also a matter of planning the future on the basis of the past. Recognizing that creative groups try out new ideas and forge a vision for the future and are heavily involved in a willingness to look for better ways to do whatever it is that they have been asked to do. Groups have been described as monolithic or ideographic, dynamic, unleashing, or stagnating, power inhibiting or power releasing, and so it goes. I won’t trouble you on this tape with all of the information that could be provided for that.
What about expectations of group members? Well, if followers create leaders and if leaders come from the ranks of followers, and both of those statements are true, it seems obvious that group members provide a major contribution toward group achievement. What can a missions committee chairman in a local church expect of his group members? What can a college president expect from a cabinet? Though the level of intensity may vary, group expectations contain an amazing similarity regardless of size or setting.
Attendance. What do we expect of groups? We expect them to come to the meetings. Do you remember Romans 12:5? Each member belongs to all the others. If that’s true, group members betray their commitment to the cause by repeated absence or tardiness. What does Nike say? Just do it! And when it comes to being involved with group work in a Christian organization, just being there is a very important first step.
Affirmation is a second. Mature group members learn to disagree without being disagreeable, as the old line goes. They can express their opinions honestly, expecting what other colleagues will receive them and consider them fairly. Confidentiality, you would expect that. We can call this loyalty. Group members, particularly Christian leaders, dare not appear vitally interested in the group only at its meetings and then bad mouth the group or the group members outside the conference room. That would be awful.
Learning is a component of this whole dimension here of what we’re trying to get at. Imagine a church missions committee. Chances are pretty good that members elected for a given year are not experts on global evangelization and the contextualization of the gospel, but they can learn through reading, through asking questions, and through making every attempt to understand what the group is supposed to achieve. If you’re going to be a part of this team, hey, learn how to play the game.
Responsibility. What do we expect of group members? We’d expect responsibility, and this goes beyond attendance. Seriously committed group members find themselves saying with some frequency, “I’ll take care of it.” And if you’ve chaired as many committees as I have, you silently or audibly pronounce that person blessed and thrice-blessed when they do what they say they are going to do.
Then I think avoid defensiveness is important here. Don’t link your person to your ideas and don’t link another member’s ideas to his or her person. Be willing to critique and evaluate objectively without turf guarding or without serving some special interest like a pork-barrel congressman.
Well, let’s move ahead to the next section, “Roadblocks to Effective Group Work.” Research in group dynamics demonstrates that a number of dangers or difficulties can arise in group activity to stifle the dynamic which can and should provide the very lifeblood of the group’s achievement. As we control and alleviate these problems, we raise the level of effectiveness. What are the roadblocks to effective group work? Forgetting the individual is one. Old-style communism may be gone every place but Cuba as I speak these words, but maybe a little bit in China as well, but whatever it is or was, we know that it subordinated and sacrificed individuals to the interest of the group. We see this same mistake in some group process, particularly when one or two individuals always find themselves in the minority of a question. I think the leader and the group at large must safeguard and encourage recognition of each member’s viewpoint, and especially members in a minority viewpoint.
What’s another roadblock? Expecting too much from group dynamics. Because of the emphasis which has been placed on group process in sociology and psychology and education in the last two or three decades, some people tend to think of group work as some kind of solution for all the problems that the church or the organization faces, and this overexpectation gives birth to that death knell of traditionalists. We tried group work and it didn’t work.
Another problem here is wasting time. If the group’s objectives are not clear and the problem is not properly specified, and we don’t know what our budget is and we don’t know how long we’re supposed to meet or what they want from us, group work may be unfruitful and unsatisfactory. I am sure it will be. The group fumbles around with various approaches to the problem that finally bogs down in its own discussion. Unless leaders plan for satisfactory group meetings by thorough preparation of agendas and essential documents, the group will waste a great deal of time.
I think another problem is letting group dynamic become an activity of the flesh. As in any ministry effort, dependence upon the Lord is essential here. Just as the individual Christian yields to control of God’s Holy Spirit, so the entire group yields its collective mind to that divine control.
Another problem is handling problem people. Calvin Miller talks about six difficult souls. I’m quoting him here, “The chronically arrogant, the congenitally belligerent, the non-negotiator, the nitpicker, the wielder, who needles leadership confidence, and the yes butter.” He notes, “Difficult people are those who stand between you and the realization of your objectives. They are determined to the earliest possible achievement of your God-ordained dreams.” Obviously leaders deal with difficult people all the time, and team leaders are sensitive to group process, and so they ask why people behave that way. Sometimes we can’t find an answer. We simply move on without them. But often the sensitive leader can pick up strains of loneliness or longing, which create negative attitudes unrelated to what the group is all about. So to win over a difficult person is a significant leadership achievement.
The ultimate test of Jesus’s discipling group ministry was the way the Twelve led the early church. Acts shows us how they understood what He was trying to teach them about team leadership and group behavior. In fact, that’s why I’m so taken with the book of Acts as a book for studying leadership patterns. Here you have a group of people who listened specifically to the Lord Jesus. All right, we know they did that, now what did that change in them? How did they respond when they’re on their own trying to make a church work, what do they do that shows us how they interpreted what Jesus said? I think that’s extremely important, hermeneutic if you will, in approaching the whole book of Acts.
So in any Christian organization, especially in a church, new people out to feel the dynamic of those already working together in the bonds of Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. A mature congregation is not any longer centric. A centric group is one focused on its own needs and goals rather than the wider group, but has become radic, which describes a selflessness which fosters the achievement of group goals.
Let’s remember, too, that the church and Christian organizations of any size contain within them many subgroups. An analysis and understanding of group dynamics and group behavior, as well, seems essential to me for any Christian leader who wants to serve God effectively.
There’s group climate and identity that we can talk about under this section. The group climate refers to the atmosphere that exists within the group, and current research reveals that the ideal group climate offers a permissive, flexible, noncritical atmosphere in which each member feels fully accepted in the group and feels free to speak his own personal opinions and ideas. In this kind of environment, people accept and evaluate contributions on the merit of the idea, not on the status of the individual.
Group identity. Ordway Tead and now an ancient books of thirty or forty years old, in one of his earliest books, in fact, he wrote several books on leadership and administrations, indicates that a leader ought to capitalize in every way possible on the conscious awareness of each member that he is in the group. Members also recognize their relationship to other members of the group upon whom support and cooperation they can rely.
Well, let’s move on to leader/group relations. Earlier in the tape I raised a question relative to the leader’s position in group activity. Let’s return to that question. If leadership is not some kind of innate trait in which some people are born and some are not, but is rather a series of services which a group member performs for and in that group, then many traditional concepts of leadership need to be reexamined. Traditional authoritarianism must be replaced by a move toward team leadership, which encourages member participation and responsibility. Team leadership consists of coordinating efforts toward group goals, not dominating group activities. When the leader acts as boss, he or she plans and controls and directs and decides all by himself. The group submits and conforms with some kind of passive assent, but when the leader acts as a guide, that person allows and encourages the group to be self-determining, and that’s a very, very important dimension of group work.
Leadership styles, of course, as you know, we talked about these earlier, in traditional patterns are nomothetic which places emphasis on requirements of the institution and its role, its expectation rather than the needs of individual. The ideographic style, which concerns itself with the requirement of the individual, and third, is a balance between these which attempts to bring them together in some kind of synthesis or maybe a better word is transaction and that’s called transactional style. Such a leader would attempt to bring into harmony the rationales of an institutional organization and the human needs of its workers, and we will come to this again. This is an important aspect in our whole understanding of group work and leadership.
What about stages of group growth? The nature of the group largely determines the type of leader it needs at that point. Groups are rarely static but rather possess changing needs and interests to which a leader must be sensitive. Let’s just review just two phases of . . . I’ve already mentioned these, but we’ll come back to them now. Remember the centric, the word centric? The centric group. Centricity tends to mark a group at its immature or its infancy stage. Individuals are more concerned about their own needs and goals than those of the group. The group attractiveness may have been somewhat high, but now effectiveness is low because members of the group simply don’t pull together.
That kind of group is characterized by wide heterogeneity and objectives and incompatibility with each other, sometimes with the leader, and we see a general resistance to authority, a lack of uniformity, and all the bad things, so we want to see them to move on to becoming a radic group. Radicity marks a group concerned with more than just its group activities. These members exhibit a conscious altruism, a receptive teamwork. It’s actually contagious to new members coming into the group. There is some conformity in behavior in a radic group, but not certainly in the way they think. Members surrender selfishness to the achievement of group goals, but they do not sacrifice their own personalities and their own viewpoints on the altar of collectiveness.
A group progresses from centricity to radicity through careful team leadership, which takes the emphasis off force and authoritarianism and extends the limits of freedom as the group is able to effectively use it. Sometimes self-inspection on the part of the group and evaluation of its motives and objectives are valid procedures. Christian ministries ought to be radic rather than centric. New members coming into a congregation, for example, ought to feel the dynamic of people who already work together there under the control of the Spirit and in the bonds of Christ.
So ministry groups of any kind—a group of Sunday school teachers, the board of a college, the field council of a mission—these ought to be attractive and effective in carrying out their ministry. We’re not talking about some idealistic, unobtainable goal here, we’re talking about something the Bible calls for and demonstrates how it can be done. Read the early verses of Acts 13 when they sent out the first missionaries. We’re talking about a very radic group, talking about a group with an enormous hedonic tone. They’re losing their senior pastor and their assistant pastor and rather than grouching and grumping and mumbling and complaining, they are saying, “Great, hey, send these guys off. Let them spread the gospel all around the Mediterranean world.” Great stuff.
Well, that’s about it for now. Some additional sources you might want to check: Paul Tournier is always good on this subject. Joseph Luft, a classic book published in 1970, Introduction to Group Dynamics, is also useful. I like J. Grant Howard’s book, The Trauma of Transparency, published in 1979. These are not necessarily new works, but they’re good works, and they will increase your understanding of this whole idea of how leaders work with groups.