Team of Teams - a blueprint to finish the task

Previously, I wrote up some scattered thoughts on the benefits of decentralization after reading The Starfish and the Spider. After doing so a few people encouraged me to read “Team of Teams” and do the same. Here’s the result.

Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World was a great read. It had well-written stories that kept you reading and then direct applications from those stories. At the same time, the overarching story of the US armed forces taking on Al Qaeda in Iraq in the 2000s weaves its way through the book. (This battle against terrorists was the reason for the lessons they learned, the changes they made, and eventually the book.)

Two notes to start:

One, I had a great Zoom call with a few others about the book, so anything good in this article is probably from them.

Two, a special note on books like this, Starfish and the Spider, or any other number of social science, business, or leadership books: We’re not elevating these resources above Scripture. We see that the authors captured Biblical principles, most likely without knowing it. We want to celebrate those principles and when possible, use the practical handles a modern author gives to help us better put Biblical principles into practice.

So what is Team of Teams about? The military forces in Iraq realized that their paradigms for winning wars were no longer adequate. They were built to be efficient within organizational silos. And, to be fair, they were more efficient than the Al Qaeda network they were trying to defeat. But ultimately efficiency wasn’t helping them win their war with Al Qaeda. What the military learned, through much testing, re-testing, and failing forward, was how to become less and less centralized. They learned how to become a decentralized network like the one they were trying to defeat. In short, they became a team of teams.

Why are these concepts instructive for movement work today?

First, we have an even higher calling than defeating a terrorist network. We have been called to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations… so every people, tribe, tongue, and nation can give glory to God.

Second, the kingdom has always grown by giving it away. We see stories throughout Acts when people, without a directive from an authority figure, bring the Gospel to a new area, make disciples, and start churches. (Acts 11:19-26 comes to mind).

If these are both true, we should learn how to do it as effectively as possible. The team of teams concept provides a great framework for leading and laboring as we long for a vision that is beyond any one person, group, church, team, organization, or network.

Here are my takeaways, and I hope they inspire you to read (or re-read) Team of Teams through the lens of Scripture and apply it to the pursuit of multiplying disciples, churches, leaders, and movements in your context.

Shared consciousness

This concept was worth the price of the book. (I borrowed my copy for free from my local library, but the point still stands). From a single individual to a large network, no one has access to or the ability to manage all of the information available to them. Even if they could contemplate all of the data, it’s impossible to accurately predict what will happen in the world. The world is too complex.

Therefore, the more information that everyone has access to, the smarter everyone becomes. We work together and improve our individual work just by the very act of sharing information.

Withholding what we know does not move the mission forward. I often hear of security concerns in pursuing movement. While I know those are real concerns, I would call us to not use security as an excuse to hide learning and sharing with others pursuing the same vision to see everyone reached with the Gospel. Even when there are security concerns, you want to be as open as possible, trusting that those involved will have the vested interest to keep secure things secure. General McChrystal, the author and leader of the armed forces during this time, encouraged his people to share information until they were afraid it was immoral or illegal. I’d challenge the great commission community to share your information up to the point that you become afraid it could hurt someone.

What do we need to share? Here’s a shortlist:

• What tools are reproducing and in what contexts?

• Where are the gaps? Who has not yet heard the Gospel?

• Who are the faithful laborers? Where are they and what is the status of their work? How can we connect and encourage them?

A great picture of what shared consciousness looks like is this: During the effort to defeat Al Qaeda, the armed forces had a daily stand-up call that sometimes had up to 7000 people listening in. (I did not hit an extra zero. Seven thousand people on one video call with extremely sensitive information). I’m not necessarily advocating the great commission world needs a daily stand-up call, but I do think we need to do a better job of sharing consciousness across and within networks.

A question for you and your organization/network to consider: Is your default posture sharing or withholding?

A question for all great-commission networks and organizations to consider: How can we better connect, network, and overall give away our knowledge to any and all that want it?

Empowered execution

This was easier to understand practically, and much of what I took from Starfish and the Spider could be said here. We want to push the decision-making down as far as it can possibly go: Give the authority to the front-line workers.

The caveat and connection to shared consciousness is this: Those making front-line decisions should have an accurate understanding of the big picture and how their decisions will bring consequences (good or bad) across the network.

Usually, we do a great job of empowering people. (It’s part of the heartbeat of movements: “Give away the Kingdom”.) But are we effectively training up people with a common ideology that comes from shared consciousness? Or do we just give a potential leader a few tools, a little excitement, and turn them loose with no further connection?

It would be like a front lines SEAL operative having no knowledge of anything else going on in the military. The special ops guy needs shared consciousness to be as effective as possible, and I would argue disciple-makers and church-planters need the same.

We want the work decentralized, but we need a centralizing ideology (consciousness) that keeps people encouraged and connected.

Geography is not the highest priority.

Our work happens in real places, but the relationships, which can happen online across hundreds and thousands of miles, are a higher priority.

By way of example, as I was writing this article…

• I took a call from Josh in Iowa, who lives two hours away from me.

• We connected through Josh in India (recently on the Movements podcast).

• India Josh had been training Iowa Josh. When India Josh reached out to his NPL contacts…

• A mutual friend (usually residing in India but currently in Texas due to Covid) put us together.

• Iowa Josh was about to start a gathering in his home. I found out he didn’t need me because…

• Iowa Josh was already getting coaching from an NPL church planter in Utah.

Are you following these connections? The geography somewhat matters, it’s easier for me to meet with Josh in person than for him to get to India. But his pathway to being a local laborer in his harvest field has nothing to do with geography.

Question: How can we make better maps? As we pursue spreading the Gospel to every people and every place, are we drawing lines of relationships on those geographical maps?

Lead like you’re a gardener.

One of the last chapters in the book tackled this question: How do you lead in the complex world we find ourselves in? How do you lead a team of teams? (Indeed, does a Team of Teams have or need a leader?)

The truth is that the world is too complex for a traditional top-down leadership structure to be effective.

I think of myself when I led a small non-profit for a few years. I could be involved in managing everything (barely), but the result was employees that just did what I asked them instead of leaders I could turn loose.*

An illustration from the book worth keeping: We don’t need expert chess masters who are directing each move of the organization. We need caring gardeners: Leaders who enable people rather than directing them.

It would be mistaken to see this as passive, however. This is an eyes-on/hands-off approach. The leader creates and maintains the ecosystem in which the organization or network operates.

Lastly, where do we see this in Scripture? One of my friends from the aforementioned call pointed me to Colossians, so I thought I would share a few thoughts from Paul’s letter that relate to this conversation.

1:1 - Paul wrote the letter alongside Timothy. Paul nearly always co-writes his letters. He says “We” throughout most of the epistles.

1:7 & 2:1 - Paul didn’t plant the church in Colossae. Epaphras did and was most likely sent out from Ephesus during the Ephesians 19:8-10 era of incredible multiplication. The same is true for the Laodicean church.

4:7-9 - Paul sends Tychicus and Onesimus along with the letter as personal representatives.

4:10-14 - Aristarchus, Mark, Justus, Luke, and Demas were all with Paul as he was writing. Oh, and Timothy was as well!

4:12 - Epaphras, who started the church, cannot be with the church personally right now, but is struggling for them in prayer.

4:15-16 - Paul wants the Colossae church and the Laodicean church to exchange letters.

4:15 - He also specifically greets Nympha and her house church as well as sends a personal message to Archippus.

Aristarchus, Timothy, and Luke are two of Paul’s traveling companions from Acts 20:4 as he is wrapping up his last missionary journey.

Do you see the web of relationships? Not just personal ones, but between churches and groups of people? We could do this with just about every letter Paul wrote. As Paul functioned in his apostolic role, he was also connecting people together, helping relationships become stronger, and encouraging a sharing of knowledge.

Are we doing the same?

*These were top-notch employees that did their work well. This statement was a judgment of my leadership, not on their work.