An INTP on the Mission Field: Another look at "Teamwork"

I remember engineering school quite distinctly (despite seeming in some ways like a previous life, I suppose it wasn't actually that many years ago). They were fond of giving us "group projects," ostensibly to teach us ornery engineers (real engineers are born, not graduated) how to play well with others. The most important lesson we learned through these was perhaps unintentional on the part of the school:

Observable Principle 1. Teamwork is the enemy of productivity
Observable Principle 2. Teamwork is the enemy of efficiency
Observable Principle 3. Teamwork is the enemy of adaptability
Observable Principle 4. Coordinating schedules with others is like herding cats
Conclusion for the maintenance of sanity: Avoid group projects whenever possible

My experience of team work until graduating college was pretty much this.

Thankfully, workplace experience demonstrated to me that this may not always be the case; it largely depends on the people on your team. It can be both worse (a team in which certain members are literally destroying the project through a combination of incompetency and obliviousness and harming your career prospects), or, in the rare case you get a bunch of qualified and competent people on your team, it can be a pretty amazing thing that results in stuff like, you know, getting a satellite to rendezvous with a comet after 10 years and dropping a lander on it. Of course in that kind of situation, teamwork gets a boost from the endeavor that unites them. More on that anon.

A Task Too Immense for Solo Work

Not being a people person, I definitely spent some time in prayer before deciding to become a missionary. "God, if I'm going to do this, if my job is going to be 100% people focused, you're going to have to change my heart towards people." I was pretty happy as a computer programmer; I had a few friends I trusted and family members that I loved, and didn't bother with people much outside of that.

(Contrary to what most people think, computers are quite simple. It's all 1's and 0's, they never get their feelings hurt, and they do what you tell them unless something is broken. And if so, it's usually easy to tell what's broken. People are tremendously complicated, get hurt from all sorts of accidental issues, let alone intentional ones, and actively hide their broken parts from you.)

God answered that prayer, and though at times I long for a nice, simple, straightforward task like several dozen pages of broken source code to debug, I have changed very greatly in how I relate to other people, not to mention in how I come across to them.

In missions, working with a team of one sort or another is basically necessary. Being a "lone wolf" missionary might sound attractive to a lot of INTP's and others too, but practically speaking it tends to not work out very well at all. If anyone could have worked alone (in the human sense), it would have been Christ, but He instead chose to surround himself with men to disciple, who would go forth and build the church after His departure. So at very least, if one is so competent that they do not to be taught or trained by anyone, they should work together with other people, to disciple them. But Jesus is obviously a unique example. What if we want a merely mortal example, the kind of person who is competent enough to rely on themselves?

We could then look at Paul, a stubborn genius who quickly got impatient with those less motivated than he. He seems like a good candidate for a lone wolf type, but it turns out he hated working alone, and always went out with a team when possible (my next blog post will mention this more). Later we see him sending his team members away to address issues in other areas only reluctantly, even when there was no one else who could go, and pleading with others to come join him.

The nature of modern cross-cultural missions work is typically such that one has a team to send you, and a team on the field. For new arrivals, one of the first things a team does (or should do! I've heard horror stories...) is help them get settled in. One is often not capable of surviving (let alone thriving) on one's own in the new language and cultural environment, and at very least requires help in getting started.

Settling in is not really the main issue, however. One could theoretically hire locals or expats to help you do all that, and some people are nice enough to do it for free. So my point is not that you couldn't survive the settling in process without a team; perhaps you could. That's a personal challenge that leads stubborn and/or confident people to think "hmm, I'll bet I could manage it."That kind of confidence or even stubbornness can be a useful character trait on the mission field, helping you "stick it out," though of course overconfidence or false expectations can torpedo the whole thing.

But the point of a team and the cruciality of teamwork is related to what I mentioned about great endeavors. That is, you need a team because the Great Commission is too massive a task for any one person to pursue alone, even in a local context. The team is not for you, the team is united for a common purpose, a gospel vision. Now, you've probably heard something like this before. In the secular sense, one could say "fine, that's not my vision," and walk away. For believers in Christ, the overarching goal, the meta-vision, has been provided for us, in the command from and example of our King. We are to make disciples of all nations, and though that responsibility extends to each of us individually, it's not a task any individual can tackle alone, at least not in any long-term sense; for something like planting a church, or taking the gospel into new territory, if Paul needed a team, you do too.

A Team Not of Your Choosing

Missionaries cannot typically choose their coworkers. A new missionary might arrive on the field and find, in the words of C.S.Lewis, "just that selection of his neighbours whom he has hitherto avoided." (from The Screwtape Letters) The guy with the annoying laugh who tries to joke about everything; the old guy who can't see why everything can't just be done the way they did it back in the day, when people were sincere and hard-working; the lady who feels the need to play devil's advocate in every discussion... (Note: these are "archetypal" examples and don't describe any past or present coworkers)
So the challenge then becomes working for the most important cause of all, with people who you would never choose as coworkers. Thrust into similar circumstances with a different task, perhaps it would be more manageable. But when your goal is to do something highly complicated and difficult- bring the gospel across cultural and other divides, plant reproducing churches, etc.- and there is no clear-cut way of achieving your goals, meaning you might have to "fail" a few times before seeing progress, then you have a recipe for teamwork disaster. (And if your team is multicultural, there are even more potential pitfalls to avoid.)

Add to this the INTP propensity for critical thinking and quickly seeing flaws in a strategy, and team discussions can be minefields for us. We feel very strongly that not pointing out flaws in the plan early on (obvious to us, who constantly run scenarios in our minds to see how they'd play out, and also file away any real-life experiences to improve the accuracy of this ability) out would mean failure of the plan is our fault; something many people don't realize... we are not attacking you! We are trying to help your plan succeed. This is our oft misunderstood attempt to prosper everyone and bless our efforts by making our plan foolproof. It just gets taken the wrong way when people begin to feel they're the fool we're trying to proof it against.

And please do not say, good missionaries wouldn't or shouldn't struggle with this kind of thing. There are no "good missionaries," there are only redeemed sinners learning to walk with God and how to obey His commands. (among them the Great Commission) Sinners argue, hold grudges, sometimes fight. At very least, they disagree about proper approaches to problems. Those differences of opinion are hard to let go of when you feel strongly that the wrong approach might not only cause this effort to fail, but make subsequent efforts more difficult. If it was a new marketing strategy for hybrid cars, that would be bad enough, but this is the gospel.

Example: What is the balance between a gradual and long-term approach that seems quite slow to bear any fruit but allows the cultivation of deeper relationships with local people and respect in the community, versus a bold and active approach that is willing to let a few people be offended and possibly wear out your welcome but results in more people hearing the gospel with the possibility of a breakthrough?

There is no right answer to this question! But everyone will have an opinion on it. We trust God, but we observe from scripture that He's given all believers work to do, and we've got to figure out how to do it, one way or another.

So under stress from living in a culture that is not our own, speaking a language that is not our own, making decisions we often don't have enough information to make (an especially stressful factor for INTPs, who might prefer to balk in those situations and wait for more data before making a decision), working with people we might not always respect or see eye-to-eye with, teamwork is a tenuous thing, easily fractured. And that's not even going into how the enemy is constantly trying to fragment our fellowship and set us against each other; discord is one of his works. So much intentional effort must be put into maintaining "one heart and one mind."

Substitute satan for management (no doubt easy for some of you), and this is pretty much
what is always happening on this mission field. This is one reason we need prayer!

One of the best ways to build and maintain a strong team is praying together! Coming together into God's presence not to talk to each other, but to Him, lets the Spirit do some direct work on people's hearts. This is something my team does intentionally, and I think it's incredibly important.

Summary: INTPs and Teamwork on the Mission Field

Basically, as INTPs we must be wise to avoid the following scenario:

Strategy Discussion for a Particular Ministry:

Person A: Maybe we could try [plan that was tried last year and failed]
INTP: I think we've seen that doesn't work well, unless you think the situation has changed in a fundamental way since we tried it last that would make it a good plan now?
Person A: Uh.. I'm just throwing out ideas!
INTP: *thinks* "Why waste time by talking about obviously useless plans?"

Person B: How about [plan that flies in the face of how local culture does things]
Team Leader: (Fully intending to discard this idea): Ok, maybe that's something we can think about.
Person B: (Feels appreciated, doesn't care if the plan is not actually used because their goal was to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way)
INTP: (Doesn't understand this^) "But what about [x] culture factor? Wouldn't they have [a] and [b] objections?"
Team Leader: (trying to salvage Person B's having contributed) "Not necessarily, maybe it's worth trying to see what happens."
INTP: (Feels slightly embarrassed that the team leader has rejected their assessment, and thus defensive:) Presents a 5-min, airtight logical case, with multiple failing scenarios, demonstrating that this approach is totally at odds with the local culture and could cause any number of problems. Provides an unlikely scenario in which it might succeed, wanting to be diplomatic. Some people nod in agreement or chime in, wanting to demonstrate they also have been culturally observant and understand this issue. 
Team Leader: *Sighs* Cannot disagree because the statement was clearly accurate.
Person B: (Feels foolish and under attack) Strikes back defensively insisting it could work.
INTP: (Unfortunately B's statement, born out of hurt feelings, is more an emotional expression than a rational counter) Warming to the debate, has no trouble picking B's defense apart. Noticing that B is flustered, they reassure him that they are not taking any of this personally. The INTP is confused when this only makes things worse.
Team Leader: (Resigning to the inevitable) Well, INTP, what would you suggest?
INTP: Provides a very long and well-thought out plan, taking into account both abstract methodology and practical and cultural considerations. Talks too long because they answer all questions about the plan as if the person is suggesting they didn't think through a particular issue, which they did, and feel compelled to make sure that person is aware, not wanting to appear incompetent for having missed such an obvious point.
Person B: (Upset, criticizes the INTP's plan because if theirs got criticized it's only fair that the INTP's plan gets criticized too)
INTP: Explains why their criticism of B's plan was valid, whereas B's criticism of their plan was invalid. It's not about getting equal time, it's about the validity of one's thought processes.
Team Leader: Uh, let's wrap this up and move on to the next subject.

As they leave the meeting:

INTP - Thinks the meeting went well, though B is too sensitive. Talks animatedly with a few people about the cultural issues that got raised during the meeting. Later, goes back and reflects on B's comments, making sure any potentially valid criticism is taken into account so the INTP's own arguments can be that much more solid next time.

A - Thinks INTP was a little mean to B, needs to lighten up

B - Feels upset, and possibly has begun to regard the INTP as an opponent. Concludes they can't actively oppose the INTP in a meeting without being made to look stupid; begins to think of ways to counter their influence. The beginnings of a crack in the team are possible. If they struggle with self-confidence, they may be less inclined to strike back, but hesitate to share in future meetings, for fear of their ideas being shot down.

Team Leader - Tired. Wishes INTP would not subvert his attempts to keep the team happy, through probably is aware that it isn't on purpose, and may just feel the INTP has an overbearing personality without realizing why he acted as he did. (Doing a meeting with personality tests to understand where each person on your team is coming from might be helpful. Sometimes it doesn't matter that you understand why someone could think that way, so long as you know it's a personality difference and not intentionally directed at you)

An INTP can bring extremely useful skills to a team, if they will learn and always keep in mind those rules which don't come with our personality, as I mentioned in a previous INTP post. You must take into account that most people won't have your motives, or dwell so entirely in the world of ideas, or think that the person with the most logical or well-tested thoughts should be the one to talk the most. It also helps to be self-aware, and explain your own motives for speaking up if you have a comment on what someone else is saying. They might still not appreciate it, but at least you can move from being "that INTP" to "our INTP."
As I mentioned earlier, prayer is a key here. It's harder to criticize your teammates in a potentially abrasive way when one has been praying for them! Prayer will shift one's thinking away from only their ideas or contributions and towards them as people, sons and daughters of God, which is always important for us.

Finally, a truly servant-hearted INTP who has learned when not to speak, may find people are quite willing to listen when he does. We yearn for people to benefit from our insight; to communicate that insight we must first clearly communicate the love of Christ.