Group personality and activity

Every group has its own personality. Philip Douglass wrote specifically about the personality of church groups in his book, "What Is Your Church's Personality: Discovering and Developing the Ministry Style of Your Church." Douglass is the first person that I know of who has assigned personality typing (He uses the MBTi.) to groups. And though it's generally not quite as clear cut as determining the personality of an individual, I think it is possible to generalize about a group of people and I think it's helpful to understand a group in this light. Just as when typing a person, there are advantages to knowing and understanding what strengths and weaknesses are natural and to be expected from a body of people.

Of course, the ideal (in my opinion) in any group is to have such a diversity of personalities represented that the group winds up right in the middle of all 4 of the Myers Briggs indicators. This would give the group access to all of the strengths that are described by personality typing. But I have yet to find such a group. What generally happens is that a leader, or a group of leaders, form the group initially. Their personalities dominate the group in the beginning phase. As the group grows, it is quite common for people with similar personalities to be drawn to the organization. The personality of the group, therefore, stays about the same.

Once in awhile, however, someone with a very different personality will join the group (either because they were hired to fulfill a position within the group - new pastor, new secretary, new principal, new admin assistant, or because they've stumbled upon the group - invited by a friend, joined along with a spouse whose personality does fit the group, etc.) and that causes tension. The group can go a few different ways at this point. When the new personality is in a position of leadership, there are often explosions within the group with the result that a chunk of people end up leaving. If the new personality is not a leader, they may eventually drift away, or they may hang on within the group but never feel like they quite fit in. It's a rare group that is faced with strongly different personalities and yet still manages to find a way to work together despite that. (One would think that in the church, this would be a common event. It is, after all, a core tenant of the gospel that Jesus brings unity where once there was enmity. Unfortunately, churches are full of humans and another core tenant of the gospel is that humans are bunch of selfish dorks.)

Lately, an aspect of group personality has been tick tocking around in my brain - activity. There's probably a better word for it, but that's what I've come up with so far. Maybe "method of activity" or "format of activity" or "mode of operation" would work better. Feel free to throw thoughts out there on what exactly I'm talking about. But the main idea is that groups do things. The PTO raises money for the school, encourages communication between staff and parents, etc. The garden club plants things, teaches gardening, and harvests. Churches worship, disciple, evangelize and fellowship. Every group, no matter how similar, probably approaches even similar tasks in different ways, reflecting the specific personality of that group.

Like I said, I'm just at the beginning of thinking about this, so I'm sure my diagram could use a lot more arrows and activity types, but this is what I've been fiddling around with so far.


I'm sure there are inactive groups, but those are essentially dead, so I didn't even go down that road. Among active groups, I figure there are some that plan out exactly what they're going to do before they do it. Any fundraising group needs to do that or they're not going to make enough money to blow a bubble at. But there are other groups that just kinda take what gets thrown at them and they deal with issues as they come. They're more reactive than proactive. (Actually, the fundraising example is very specific. What I'm really trying to focus on is the bigger picture - group goals, vision, purpose, etc. So when I give specific examples, I don't mean to. They just show how I'm still just thinking all this through.) The reactive group may have a general sense of its purpose, but it approaches activity within that purpose more from an intuitive perspective than a scripted or planned point of view.

I suppose most groups are a mixture of these methods, but I think every group falls into one of these categories more often than the other by design. Even the most well scripted PTO can suddenly be faced with something unexpected that they have to deal with. But their intention is to be a completely prescribed group. While a girl scout group leader might only plan from meeting to meeting without having any overarching organization or goal for the year.

There is value from being organized and there is value in being flexible (S vs. N) and any group that is too much of one or the other risks being so straight-jacketed that they can't bend to accommodate new situations or so loosey-goosey that things only get done haphazardly. (The "traditional church" vs. the "emerging church" come to mind, although I think even emerging churches are often more scripted than they'd like to admit. The least scripted church I've ever known was a house church in San Francisco. Though they had traditions and overarching goals for periods of time, they were ultimately flexible and ... slowly dynamic, for lack of a better term.)

Given that we're talking about groups, and groups generally have leaders, I think the top-down effects of being too far one way or the other are that either the group is shoehorned into following the style, format and goals of the leader, or they're left without any leadership at all and everyone just does what is right in their own eyes. I think ideally the leadership would provide a blend of direction/goals and leeway for people to innovate and achieve the goals in a way that works for them. I suppose what I'm saying is that leadership should help to provide a framework that will help the group achieve their goals in way that's in keeping with the personality of the group.

Random vs. Organic vs. Programmatic

A group with an unintentional framework and a random means of accomplishing tasks, still accomplishes some tasks. But it can be so hit or miss that the group is unreliable and though maybe not ineffective, at least untrustworthy.

A group that is programmatic can achieve quite a bit, especially on paper. Schools are programmatic. They have programs of coursework that need to be completed in order to progress either to another level or to graduation. Large churches tend to be programmatic. People that I know who attend large churches can often list several of the programs that the church provides. Hierarchy is important in a setting like this. A clear cut pyramid of authority helps the programmatical structure to run smoothly.

A group that is organic often doesn't look nearly as accomplished as a group that is programmatic. In order to get a sense of the achievements or growth within an organic group you often have to stick around awhile and see it in action to "get" what's happening. End results are often not as clear cut in an organic group as compared to a programmatic group where programs have very clear beginning and end points and ending is often seen as a success irregardless of what the individuals within the program got out of it. People that I know who attend more organic churches can often list several, if not all, of the group members by name. The group often operates more like a bunch of cells in a body. Everyone knows what their own roll is and when they get the word, they move into position and set to work. Leadership in this case is often a matter of communicating a need from one part of the body to another so that those who can fix the problem are alerted to move into action. A lot of the training for action happens in one-on-one relationships or in small groups. 

As a T, I think I gravitate toward programmatic formats as they're often a compact and intensified means of learning or doing something. Attending the University of Michigan suited me to a T because the size of the institution meant they could afford a plethora of programs that I could partake in. But what I've learned in the last couple of decades is that organic formats often take an idea or an action to a much deeper level. For example, a programmed week of intensive building at an orphanage in Mexico can mean a new and important building that will affect many lives. But an organic relationship with an orphan from Mexico can intimately change both their life and mine for the rest of our lives. Both are good things. They're just different in form and function.

Programmatic formats are much easier to advertise, much easier to quantify, and much easier to scale. Organic formats are often in such small groups that they aren't advertised at all, they're hard to quantify, especially if you're not in the group and don't have a handle on what exactly the group has been doing or learning or talking about, and they're much harder to scale... and once they're scaled large they often turn into programs.

I should add that just because something is programmatic doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to be compact or intensified. There are long programs and there are programs that I've been involved in that were nothing but a waste of time. Nothing got done, nothing got learned, nothing happened but lots of hot air got blown around and participants were largely idle or just going through the motions. And just because something is organic doesn't mean that it's going to be deeper or better integrated. Sometimes organic situations feel like you're just spinning your wheels or biding time.

But I do think that sometimes certainly personalities fit better with better styles. As I said before, the T in me loves programs for fast and intense learning. But the I in me has learned to appreciate the connectivity and personal interaction of organic systems. I don't know where F's fall, and I suspect that F's and P's could both add categories to my little chart above that haven't even crossed my mind.

I think it's important to remember that these styles aren't necessarily better or worse, they're just different. They have their own strengths and weaknesses. But I do think it's important to be aware of the different styles and to see that they do both have value.