Every organization needs a visionary, a rationalist, and an action-taker. Not one is above the other in regards to essentiality; not two are complete without the other.
The perfect team consists of members with different attributes, talents, skillsets, and roles. Simply placing a bunch of “superstars” in one team does not equate to a sustainably winning organization. Winning, in the team sense, needs to also provide personal satisfaction—bringing fulfillment at the aspirations of each individual in the team.
Watching a bunch of superstars playing in a sports team is surely entertaining to watch—like an “all-star” game in the NBA—but will it work in for an extended period of time? Will each superstar be okay coming off the bench, possibly only getting a fraction of the playing time they usually get? These individuals will eventually feel unappreciated and underutilized, which could result in them quitting the team or worse, not leaving, but is a source of toxicity and negativity.
These points can also be argued within a corporate organization—from an enterprise-level structure, down to the individual team level consisting of a manager and their direct reports.
Of course, ‘perfect’ is relative. For this post, I’d like to make the point of perfection as a state where there are no functional and visceral clashes between team members, that impede progress and the ability to attain the purpose of their organization.
In hiring individuals in building teams, I focus mainly on the three C’s of a cultural champion: Confident, Competent, and Compassionate. At a macro level, the types of individuals I’m looking to hire have successfully demonstrated these attributes or exhibit strong potential. To me, the three C’s complete an individual, regardless of their roles. After identifying the three C’s in a candidate, it’s now important to categorize them according to the three components to create a perfect team.
In the book, “In Search of Excellence,” Tom Peters and Bob Waterman talks about the work of the late Harold Leavitt, of Stanford University, who talks about the interactive flow of these three variables in the management process. These variables are crucial components to a ‘perfect team.’
· Pathfinding (visionary)
· Decision-making (rationalist)
· Implementation (action-taker)
Pathfinders are visionaries. They are creative and innovative. They ‘imagine.’ Start-ups are fueled with these types of individuals. They can conceptualize potential consumer needs, solving everyday problems. Many leaders have this attribute in them. They’re able to envision bigger and grander things for their teams to look forward to as a vision. Many pathfinders are artists, musicians, writers, entrepreneurs, and are usually great storytellers.
Decision-makers are all about analysis and “the numbers.” They ‘think.’ These individuals are intellectually strong and are ‘super’ smart. They usually have advanced degrees or are well-accomplished academically. They focus in the facts and are good at using different analytical models to make sense of their business. Many decision-makers have MBAs or doctorate degrees. They’re analysts, engineers, or scientists.
Implementors are action-takers. They simply ‘do.’ They pick things up, and they run with it. They’re self-starters and self-motivated. They love working with people, pulling energy from every interaction. They roll-up their sleeves—grinding—getting things done. Nothing’s stopping them from moving forward. They’re action-oriented, and their success relies upon their interactions and their constant movement. Implementors are sales people, social workers, teachers, and even doctors whose practice require much interactions.
As mentioned earlier in the post, ‘Not one is above the other in regards to essentiality; not two are complete without the other.’ The visionary pathfinders probably couldn’t get things done. Implementors keep going with no vision—they usually miss the bigger picture. And, decision-makers keep deliberating, lacking action. They suffer with analysis-induced-paralysis. Decision-makers tend to focus on graphs and chart, versus looking at the wisdom of experience.
To have a perfect team, you’ll need a healthy medley of these variables. If you’re one of the few excellent leaders out there, you may have each variable in you. You’re able to turn each variable on or off depending on the situation.
Don’t focus solely on education when hiring for your team. Look at relevant work experiences that show wisdom. Don’t get too impressed in bright and shining ideas. See if they’re able to act on those ideas into fruition. If you’re looking for individuals who can help lead your team through a transformation, you’ll need a pathfinder—someone who sees past the day-to-day operations and are open to new ideas.
Crowdsourcing FTW
Looking back at your current team or teams you’ve had in the past, can you pinpoint individuals who play any of the three roles? Knowing how each component plays a role in orchestrating a ‘perfect team,’ would you do anything differently on how you hire for your team? If you’re fortunate enough to have each of these in your team now, what would you do to ensure they work well together? And, how would you take your team to the next level? Please do share in the comments below.