What is a "missionary team"?  We have found this article by Steve Richardson to be helpful on defining ministry teams.

Third Dimension Teams

by Steve Richardson
(taken from pioneers.org)

{mos_sb_discuss:6}

Roger and Janice Dixon, veterans of thirty-five year's ministry to a large unreached people group in Indonesia, testify that prior to the mid-1980's they witnessed dozens of well-intentioned missionaries who came, stayed for a short time, and then returned to their homeland. The reasons varied, but the end result was the same in each case. Then, beginning in about 1985, a different pattern emerged. Young people continued to arrive, but now most stayed. In fact, whereas the Dixons had labored virtually alone among this people group for almost two decades, today there are approximately eighty international workers from several different agencies who have joined in the harvest. What changed in the mid-1980's? Did this Muslim people suddenly become more responsive? Were visas more easily obtained? Did living conditions improve overnight? As one of those who arrived and stayed, I suspect we have identified the most important single transformational element. The common distinguishing factor in West Java was that new arrivals after 1985 almost without exception were persons affiliated with organizations that prioritized, or were seriously endeavoring to develop, a team approach to ministry. Each of these organizations was characterized, in varying degrees, by a pervasive and integrated emphasis on nurturing biblical community among their personnel on the mission field.

Recent research in the area of missionary attrition confirms that "a low sense of organizational connectedness" is one of the most important factors contributing to the early departure of missionaries. If we lose our workers due to inadequate relational ties, does it not follow that we can keep our workers by excelling in this critical area of team building? Based on my own years of experience in developing and leading of a number of missionary teams, I will share some important observations that may help us see the way ahead more clearly. These observations fall into three streams of thought: first, we need to define "team." Second, we will make some generational observations. Finally, we will identify several key organizational considerations that will be helpful to those thinking of re-orienting their structures toward a team philosophy of ministry.

I. DEFINING THE OBJECTIVE:

WHAT IS A MISSIONARY TEAM?

Some time ago I spoke with an administrator of an organization which specializes in missionary teams. When I asked what he and his organization meant by "teams" he was at a loss for words. Perhaps my question simply caught him off guard, but I suspect many of us in the missionary community use terms like "team" loosely, assuming that everyone knows what is meant. A closer look at what exactly we are aiming for is a logical starting point on the journey toward developing dynamic teams. I have observed that when members of the mission community speak of "team," they are normally thinking of one of three different concepts of teamwork. For the sake of clarity, we may call these First, Second, and Third Dimension Teams.

A. First Dimension Teams

A " First Dimension Teams" team is a group of people who identify with one another on the basis of shared ministry calling and/or geographic and organizational affinity. Such "teams" consist of missionaries who happen to be with the same mission agency, or who work in the same geographical area, for example. They will normally share the same overarching goal, "reaching the tribes." An "Iron Man" sports event would be analogous to this kind of team. Those who compete participate together in the same race, but little interaction is required. In military terms, we might liken this model to "guerilla warfare." Strategic cross-pollination of ideas, experience, and resources is limited. Members tend to be individually task-focused, decisions and leadership selection occurs democratically, and elected leaders may wield authority somewhat hierarchically. The system tends to be policy-oriented, as there is little opportunity or desire for communication. The "team" is viewed primarily as a necessary and expedient platform by which each member may accomplish his/her assigned goals within a practical framework. A First Dimension Team normally attracts, and produces, a few shining "stars." These are exceptional persons who are able to rise to the challenge with little assistance. In this model it is especially important that new members have been well equipped for survival and effective ministry before they get to the field.

B. Second Dimension Teams

A Second Dimension Team, like the First, shares a common goal and geographic or organizational affinity, but to this combination a third priority is added: commitment to a common ministry strategy. Members of such a team are interdependently task-focused. Considerable time may be spent in working out the team priorities and work agenda together. Decision making on this kind of team tends to be more consensus based, people are forced to grapple more with each others' personalities and gifting, and the importance of working in concert takes on added significance.

In sports, American Football ("gridiron") might demonstrate this kind of teamwork. And in military terms, an army is built on this kind of framework. While Second Dimension Teams reflect a deeper level of interaction and mutual commitment, they are still largely dependent on outside life-support systems for their member development and nurture needs.

C. Third Dimension Teams

A Third Dimension Team adds one further important element to the mix. This element involves a deep interactive commitment on the part of the members to one another, to the development and health of each member. They are committed to doing the work in relationship. This mutual commitment is not seen simply as a means to a greater end, but as a valid pursuit in its own right. Such teams are interdependently task and member focused. Jesus exhibited this kind of love and concern for the members of his team. He ministered to the multitudes, but never lost sight of the twelve. He was not simply using them to accomplish a greater objective. He was interested in developing them as people, while training and equipping them to do the work of the ministry. This kind of team takes on characteristics of a living organism. It can develop, over time, its own integrated and holistic life-support system whereby it detects its own needs and sees that they are met, be they spiritual, practical, or strategic. In short, these teams have learned the value of incorporating basic principles of church body-life into their group dynamic.

A Third Dimension team behaves more like a basketball team. Players rarely know what will happen next, but are able to fashion an appropriate response to any situation. A "special forces" commando unit also has to develop this kind of mutual commitment and understanding to be effective in its mission. Third Dimension Teams are better equipped to develop people, both personally and professionally, on location. Members need not "sink or swim." Persons from varying backgrounds and representing various levels of preparation can be incorporated more readily. Ideally such teams are developed within the context of an interdependent network of Third Dimension Teams.

I once heard a mission administrator comment on one of his missionary teams, "If our whole agency dissolved, this team would quickly regenerate the necessary infrastructure and continue with its work, hardly missing a beat." It was a generous compliment. The team of which he spoke was clearly a Third Dimension Team. In summary, our definition of team is an important starting point for addressing the problem of missionary attrition and related issues. One contemporary team-oriented agency uses the following concise definition: "A team is a group of three or more missionary 'units' who are committed to one another and to their common task."

II. GENERATIONAL OBSERVATIONS

The importance of developing Third Dimension missionary teams is highlighted when we consider the kind of people who now make up the "harvest force." Youth of today have been described as the 'with' generation. I have found a "third dimension" concept of team to be powerfully appealing to them. And when they arrive in the cross-cultural ministry context, young people not only survive in very difficult circumstances, but can actually thrive, if they have the support of this kind of team.

A. Today's missionary recruits want community

Young people wanting to serve the Lord today are not only asking "what" and "where" but "with whom?" One young lady recently mentioned that she would be taking an English teaching job in Bali. "Oh," I said, "We have a team of tentmaker missionaries there. Would you like to be part of a team?" "Why, yes!" I could sense excitement in her voice. "How do I join?" Three weeks later she was with the team. Virtually every young person I speak with about serving in missions wants to participate in a dynamic team. Many young people today feel insecure. They understand the importance of being part of a group. They recognize that they will not be able to do the job on their own. Surveys show that a "sense of belonging" is more important to most people than a particular job or a particular location.

B. Today's missionary recruits need community

Workers today normally come with emotional "baggage." Perhaps they did in the past, too, but we did not recognize it as such, nor speak of it as openly. What do we do with people who have had the necessary theological training and obviously have much to contribute, but carry with them emotional scars and response patterns that will take years to correct? Do we delay their departure indefinitely? Third Dimension Teams, I believe, are part of the answer to this question. On the long-term church planting team in which my wife and I served, we had members from almost every imaginable background. Some had been involved in drugs and gangs, others in rock bands, some had been suicidal, or had been abused as children. One had seen four different step-fathers come through the home, while another had been employed as a bar tender and simultaneously operated a large illegal gambling racket in the United States. "And such were some of you," the Scriptures say. Yet, despite apparent handicaps that would intimidate most anyone - not to mention visa pressures, tent-making pressures, cultural and political hurdles - this team of approximately thirty-five young adults continues to be a dynamic spiritual force among a major unreached people group.

C. Today's missionary recruits are experts at detecting genuine community (as they define it).

One successful and highly respected missionary couple shared with me the trauma of their rejection by an agency some years ago, and their subsequent acceptance into a Third Dimension Team with another agency. "We felt so rejected by the one, and so embraced by the other," they recalled. Sometimes the potential recruit may not even be able to articulate what attracts him/her to one group, or repels him/her from another. This sense of whether there is a genuine teamwork, a genuine caring, a deep valuing of each individual, is often at the heart of it. Are you able to articulate your organization's philosophy of community? Does it measure up? Today's agencies must grapple seriously with the concept of community among their members, both at home and abroad.

III. ORGANIZATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

Having looked briefly at a working definition of "team" and at the importance of pursuing this path in today's generational context, the question naturally arises, "How do we do it? How do we go about building Third Dimension Teams?" A few observations from my own experience may be helpful.

First, I would suggest that teams are best built within the framework of a team-centric organizational culture. The best and most effective way to restructure and re-orient, I believe, is for the whole organization to begin thinking "team" from top to bottom. Leaders, administrators, recruiters, and workers in the field must all be thinking "team" together, and consciously integrating principles of biblical teamwork into the localized structure of which they are a part. What is the "psychological center" of your organization? What is the most important part, where does the power lie? Is it the board of directors? The "home office"? The individual missionary? I would suggest that it should be the teams in the field. The concept of teams should be written into the mission statement or core values of agencies that are serious about developing teams. It is very difficult and any success is often short-lived to "append" a Third Dimension Team onto an organizational structure or culture that by its very nature mitigates against such teamwork, or is threatened by it. First Dimension structures tend to resist Third Dimension elements much like a body rejects incompatible transplanted organs. This does not mean that there is no need for strong leadership in a team-based organization. On the contrary, strong and capable leadership in teams and team-oriented organizations is critical. But the manner in which these leaders are chosen, conduct themselves, and wield their authority, is different.

Secondly, we must begin viewing the team as the primary locus of personnel development, including member care. For too long we have thought of care as coming primarily from the outside, from "home." That fellow missionaries should be "burdened" with the care of a missionary has sometimes been thought unwise. Perhaps they are deemed unqualified to do so, or their work too important for such distractions. Who is primarily responsible for recruiting new personnel in your agency? For determining ministry qualifications? For mentoring missionaries and developing them with appropriate accountability over time? For crisis management? The team should play an important role in these activities, in concert with other back-up systems in the organizational structure.

Thirdly, responsibility and authority must be divested to teams, within the context of an inter-dependent network. Teams must be "liberated" if they are to be truly effective. A new team should be treated like a young adult, with respect and with the freedom to try, and to possibly fail, in order to ultimately succeed. Decentralization of responsibility and authority is critical in a team-oriented structure. Who allocates personnel? Who fashions the ministry strategy? Who determines ministry roles, establishes financial guidelines, approves furlough scheduling, develops field policies? To what extent does the team engage in these activities? For agencies that have not traditionally thought in these terms, the first steps in this direction may be traumatic. Mistakes will be made by youthful or inexperienced personnel. But in time they will rise to the responsibility, and feel a greatly increased sense of ownership and belonging.

Fourthly, leadership development, at both the team and regional levels, should be the primary concern of an agency's upper level management. In any structure where responsibility and authority are decentralized, it is critical that leaders be thoroughly mentored and equipped for the task. In a conventional structure, only a few leaders need be trained. In a team-oriented structure, many local leaders must be trained for the task. In one team-based agency of approximately 500 full-time workers, for example, there are 60 Team Leaders and 7 Area Coordinators. Everything depends upon the skill with which these leaders are able to facilitate the needs and ministries of the teams. While this may seem like an overwhelming task initially, tremendous energy and initiative will be unleashed in the process. In time, the organization will have no shortage of trained, capable leaders available to assume positions of broader responsibility.

Conclusion

Over a ten-year period, the "Boomer and Buster" church planting team that was launched in Indonesia in 1985 has multiplied into ten new teams throughout Indonesia. Workers were recruited primarily by the Team Leaders themselves, with significant help from mobilizers in sending countries. One regional coordinator now oversees fifteen such teams in Southeast Asia, representing approximately 150 long term missionaries. Their average age is about 35. The attrition rate has been relatively low, despite the fact that visas are not readily available for these countries. A similar phenomenon has occurred with this agency (and a few similar agencies) in other parts of the world. How is this possible, in a day when many organizations are having great difficulty recruiting young people, much less keeping them on difficult fields for any length of time? Third Dimension Teams are an important part of the answer, they are worth the effort!