Is leading a team of individuals an oxymoron?

The common mistakes in leading diverse teams 

First, let’s investigate some of the problems that stem from managing people with different personalities, motives, values and backgrounds. The first is about ignoring the fact that differences exist. Research on colourblindness demonstrates this well: some people assume that the best way to end discrimination is by ignoring differences and treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to culture, ethnicity or race. In fact, recognising and cherishing people’s differences satisfies their individual needs far more than ignoring them. Managing diversity is less about turning a blind eye and more about embracing difference.

The second problem applies to cultural diversity. When diversity feels uncomfortable there’s a tendency to ignore the reasons behind our differences. Blanket disregard for people’s backgrounds and heritage can lead to misunderstandings. On the flip side, if too much emphasis is put on individuality and the benefits of differences, a diverse team may suffer from a lack of common identity. You need a balance of both and you can achieve this by creating a common sense of ‘we’ that allows difference within it.

Strand one: focus on individual differences

Understanding individual team members and their motives and personalities is a cornerstone of leadership, so the first strand is about focusing on individual differences. The starting point for the Leading Teams for Emerging Leaders programme we teach on is that you must take the time to understand your own personality. We offer a framework for leaders to work through Lewis R Goldberg’s “Big Five”. 

1. Emotional stability, whether you have a tendency to worry or whether you’re generally calm 
2. Extroversion, how socially engaged and dominant you are 
3. Agreeableness, whether you desire harmonious relationships and your willingness to trust others. Interestingly, this is not always what we associate with leaders, but if collaboration is your objective, this trait has positive links to leader effectiveness 
4. Conscientiousness, your interest in leading a structured and organised life 
5. Openness, your intellectual curiosity and openness to different perspectives.

There is no one best way to be. Rather, there are both strengths and weaknesses associated with being higher or lower on the above factors. The goal is to have an understanding of where you rate higher or lower so that you can play to your strengths and manage your weaknesses through small tweaks in behaviour. 

Changing your own behaviour takes enduring effort. It’s not easy dialling up and down our personalities. The “rider and the elephant” metaphor, coined by social psychologist Jonathan David Haidt and developed by authors Chip and Dan Heath, helps. The “rider” is rational and can plan ahead while the “elephant” is irrational and driven by emotion and instinct. You can appeal to the rider by being specific and setting clear goals about what change you want to make. Energise the elephant by visualising the reward and end result. 

There is also a third element to the rider and elephant model: the path. Clear the way in order to achieve your goal. Also, be realistic. Personalities are on a continuum and if you're at one extreme end, you’re unlikely to ever reach the other extreme. That’s not the point. The aim is to adjust your behaviour, bringing out the best in yourself and in your team. 

Once you understand how the framework applies to you, you will start seeing these traits in your team members. You might think that this sounds suspiciously like stereotyping, and of course, you can’t put individuals neatly into a category box. But this exercise is helpful if you’re willing to put in the time and effort to educate yourself on personality. Even from snatches of interactions with people you can pick up on subtle cues. When you slow down and begin observing people, from very little information you can start to get a sense of who a person is and how they like to work.

When an individual’s motives – say, the need to belong, the need to be distinct – are satisfied and their personality is understood, it can benefit the team’s level of communication. Research shows, for example, that when people feel a sense of belonging in their group, they’re more attached to it, they participate more, and they’re likely to stay. Conversely, those who feel distinct from the group feel less attached and may leave.

Strand two: focus on the social group characteristics

Understanding yourself and your team members’ personalities, motives and backgrounds, can help teams perform better, but it’s not enough. Before even walking in the room for your first team meeting you should ask yourself five simple questions.

1. What is the team’s objective? It might seem obvious, but it’s critical you have clarity on what it is that you’re striving to achieve
2. Who’s on the team? Do your people analysis using the “big five” framework. What makes them tick? What are their needs? Even if you can’t change the members on your team with careful planning, you can still foster the ideal dynamic
3. What is the task and how complex is it? 
4. Based on the task and the people on the team, what roles are required? Don’t underestimate the power of roles and responsibilities. Evidence shows roles are motivating and they help to focus people
5. What type of culture will help to get the work done? Culture can be defined as “the way we do things”. Although most companies have an overarching culture guiding behaviour, sub-cultures tend to form in every team – that’s where you have the power to influence the way things are done. To decide on the most helpful culture you need to circle back to question one: what is your team’s objective? What kind of culture will help to get the job done? Imagine, for example, that you’re leading an R&D team and the task is about creativity: you would need to encourage individualism. 

Answering the above questions should help your team have that “ideal dynamic” but does too much groupiness sap individuality? Not always. Cultural norms that focus on individuality can allow group members to feel they both belong but are also distinct from one another. And when people don’t feel distinct enough in their group it can actually lead to more creativity as they make an effort to stand out.

Let’s return to the original question: is leading a team of individuals an oxymoron? We believe not. It is possible to satisfy both the need to belong and the need to be unique in an individualistic group by having strong, consistently-held values that help unite a team. To do that, construct a model that says: “We’re all individuals, we’re all united.”