Skip to main content

Networks and Community

Sometimes I read something and want to respond with a “duh!”  It is even funnier when some very smart, high-level people “discover” something that I was sure would be true.  That happened to me recently when I was reading the alumni magazine from one of the institutions of higher education that granted me a degree.  Arguably it is one of the most well known universities in the land.  No one would deny some of the world’s smartest people teach there.  So when they conduct research and report their findings, it is usually received with utmost respect.
           
I do not doubt or put down this perspective.  In fact, I am delighted to be an alum of that university and read the magazine with regularity and appreciation.  Very interesting learnings come from those pages.  The recent short article that is referenced here is given the catchy title, “What Makes Teams Tick?”  I have played sports and been part of a myriad of groups, so I was eager to jump into reading the little report.
           
The article begins with something I am sure is true.  The big issues of our time---like climate change---will require what is called “interdisciplinary solutions.”  That is to say, biology alone or chemistry or even politics alone will be insufficient to effect the kind of change necessary.  It will take people from a variety of disciplines---academic talk for departments.  Something like climate change is a science issue, a political issue, a social issue and, perhaps even, a religious issue.  All this will be brought to bear to create a solution.  In effect, teams are going to be need---cross-disciplinary teams.
           
The question the study focused on is what makes successful interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary teams.  Or if we want to put it in business language, how do cross-functional teams in a business work well together?  What makes some teams very effective and other teams less effective?  All the people studying this conclude it is not simply talent alone that makes great teams.
           
Of course, anyone who has every played sports knows this.  Some basketball teams, for example, which clearly have the most talented players do not always win.  A team with highly talented athletes may not be a very good “team.”  There can be egotism, selfishness, etc. that prevents highly talented teams from winning.  Good, effective teams apparently require more than simply talent, whether that be the best shooter for basketball or the smartest for a big human problem to be solved.
           
What emerged in the study as a key factor was the “emotional aspect.”  In other words, it is not brains alone that make effective teams.  Duh!  The authors of the study focused on interdisciplinary teams---networks---to see what made them tick.  In addition to the intellectual factor, they found “also emotional and interactional elements” made a huge difference. 
           
I can appreciate the intellectual language the study used, but find it can be off putting to non-academics.  For example, one author found that effective groups or teams experienced a “collective effervescence!”  This means they liked each other and got along.  Duh!  Another one of the authors is quoted as saying, “What our study suggests is that we need to pay special attention to something that we sometimes take for granted or forget…”  Her conclusion is clear: “Successful collaboration requires the construction of a group identity.”  In my simple words, if all the “me’s” can become “we,” you got a strong team in the making.
           
Finally, the authors of the article were able to become simple.  In describing what makes teams tick, one of them notes, “They really like each other…”  Duh!  I don’t want to belittle the fine study.  For me it confirms what my experience and common sense already told me.  What makes good teams is more than brains or talent.  They have to really like each other.
           
My spiritual language for this is community.  Community is what you get when a group moves through the formation process just described.  Authentic community is where every individual knows the community is more important than any one individual.  There is mutual respect, caring and sharing within the community.  The community often provides meaning and purpose to the individuals.
           
High performing teams or communities know that succeeding is more fun because the group did it.  And failing or even suffering is tolerable because the community is still intact.  I have experienced this especially in my spiritual communities.  In my own Christian tradition, this is precisely what Jesus wanted when he gathered his disciples together and used the image of body to talk about their unity.  The community was one body make up of many members.  There is power in this communal reality.  They could withstand persecution and, often, martyrdom.
           
I wonder if spiritual communities are not still potential powerful players in the “big solutions” needed for our world problems.  I think so and I hope so. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I-Thou Relationships

Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber.   I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s.   It was already a famous book by then.   I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it.   It has been a while since I looked at the book.             Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks?   I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece.   I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation.   I wish more people read him and took him seriously.           ...

Spiritual Commitment

I was reading along in a very nice little book and hit these lines about commitment.   The author, Mitch Albom, uses the voice of one of the main characters of his nonfiction book about faith to reflect on commitment.   The voice belongs to Albom’s old rabbi of the Jewish synagogue where he went until his college days.   The old rabbi, Albert Lewis, says “the word ‘commitment’ has lost its meaning.”    The rabbi continues in a way that surely would have many people saying, “Amen!”   About commitment he says, “I’m old enough when it used to be a positive.   A committed person was someone to be admired.   He was loyal and steady.   Now a commitment is something you avoid.   You don’t want to tie yourself down.”   I also think I am old enough to know that commitment was usually a positive word.   I can think of a range of situations in which commitment would have been seen to be positive.   For example, growing up was f...

Inward Journey and Outward Pilgrimage

There are so many different ways to think about the spiritual life.   And of course, in our country there are so many different variations of religious experiences.   There are liberals and conservatives.   There are fundamentalists and Pentecostals.   Besides the dizzying variety of Christian traditions, there are many different non-Christian traditions.   There are the major traditions, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.   There are the slightly more obscure traditions, such as Sikhism, Jainism, etc.   And then there are more fringe groups and, even, pseudo-religions.   There are defining doctrines and religious practices.   Some of these are specific to a particular tradition or a few traditions, such as the koan , which is used in Zen Buddhism for example.   Other defining doctrines or practices are common across the religious board.   Something like meditation would be a good example.   Christians meditate;...