I was recently facilitating a strategy discussion with a company in an industry that has a long tradition of hiring, celebrating and rewarding individualistic solo operators. In spite of that tradition, the company's leaders wanted to develop a company-wide reputation and strategy.
As we discussed the investments and initiatives necessary to pull this off, one of the "players" in the room asked: "Why would I want to do this. What's in it for me?"
(This is normal. The industry I was working with is only unusual in that people there actually say things like this out loud. In other industries and professions, they just think it all the time, without actually saying it!)
Anyway, as I worked to help the company -- and the individuals within it -- understand their choices, we came up with a categorisation scheme based on two dimensions.
The first dimension (or choice) is whether people actively want to be part of a team, with joint accountabilities, responsibilities, and rewards (team players), or whether, (as solo operators), they would prefer to be in situations where they can avoid being tied down, tied up or tied into working with other people, preferring to rise or fall or their own personal efforts.
I may have used biased language here, but the point is that people really do differ here as to how they want to live their lives. (Disclosure -- I admire the heck out of the true team players, and would bet on them to win, but prefer to be what I am -- a solo operator.)
The second dimension we explored was that some people have an appetite for high-investment strategies (invest a lot to get the chance to reap high rewards) while others are reluctant to invest that much, even in their own future. They prefer to focus on "winning today," letting tomorrow take care of itself.
Combining these two dimensions led us to analyse 4 kinds of preferences that individuals (and companies) have. The labels were developed in conjunction with "Linda." (Thanks.)
Type 1 is the solo operator who makes little investment in the future, but bets on the ability to catch fresh meat each and every day. Call this the Mountain Lion approach. "Pay me for what I kill today."
Type 2 is the individual who prefers to act in coordination, but doesn't like to invest too much. Call these people (collectively) the Wolf-Pack. "If we act together we can kill bigger animals, but it had better pay off soon or I'm joining another Pack!"
Type 3 is the individual who wants to act as a solo operators, not really enjoying collective action, but is interested in taking care of their future by investing resources to get somewhere new. We weren't sure what to call these people, but they remind me of Beavers building dams to provide a home for their family. (The reason I have difficulty coming up with the right species for this one might not only be that I'm a country boy, but also because this category is the one I think I'm in.)
Type 4 are individuals who want to be part of something bigger than they can accomplish alone, and have the patience, the ambition and the will to help the collective organisation invest in that future. I want to call this "The Human Race" since one of the rare things about Homo Sapiens that differentiates it (at least in scale) from other species is its ability to act collectively to build and develop. (It's called civilisation.)
However, Linda pointed out that Type 4 could also be a description of an Ant Community.
"Ant Community" doesn't sound very appealing as a self-image, does it? Yet it's what I and a million other business consultants and CEOs and political leaders are trying to get their people to do whenever there is talk about strategy -- join together for a common purpose and stretch for common achievement. Are we trying get people to be more fully human, or be like ants?
To many people, the OTHER types seem so attractive. Who wouldn't want to be a Mountain Lion and or part of a Wolf-Pack (so muscular, so strong, so energetic,) rather than an ant (or just a homo sapiens.) Why wouldn't you vote for that?
We had secret voting machines in the room which allowed people to remain anonymous, so I asked people which of these four preferences best described their own, personal desired way of behaving. (I took the vote before coming up with the animal labels.)
Guess what? All four groups were well represented. Only 10 to 20 percent in this particular company put themselves in the "I want to be part of something bigger than me that is working to build for the future." (I don't know if that's shockingly low to you, or matches your experience.)
What do you think the chances are of melding people that describe themselves that way into an institution that has a differentiated reputation?
I'm really interested in how misaligned the very concept of "strategy" can be for some companies with the type of people they attract, hire and retain. Firms and their leaders PRETEND and HOPE and SAY that they want to invest and build collectively, and everyone else pretends to go along as if that's what they want too.
But, when you look closely, that's not actually the truth about what the people in the company really want to do.
Can anyone help me make sense of all these thoughts? What do you think?
30 comments:
Is this going to become known as the "Wood Matrix" in business schools?
I think that in the scenario where you have a mix of the 4 types that you will see a lot of miscommunication (i.e., of the type that people will say one thing and then revert to type) and that most people will be frustrated and very little will progress along the lines of cohesion of efforts.
It strikes me that very few people or organisations have frank and open discussions about this kind of thing.
At least that has been my experience, and I have worked in professional service firms my entire career.
I suppose that I have become cynical: it seems that it is difficult if not impossible to get someone to change type.
Martin, if not this one ...
This situation represents the biggest challenge for law firm leadership -- defining "what kind of firm do we want to be" and then aligning recruiting, retention, compensation and all other systems with the answer.
Most firms either fail to define this, or more commonly, fail to align systems appropriately.
If a firm says that it is focused on teamwork but continues to reward individual business development through the compensation process it will never reach the stated goal.
One more thing ... it is much easier to recruit and hire lateral talent based on individual business development capability than based on teaming capability.
Very hard to measure the latter.
Hi Richard: WOW is my reaction to your post.
I'm in a consulting group that's part of a Fortune Organisation.
I'd categorise myself as the ant -- willing to give up short term gains (within reason) for long term growth I want to be a part of something tremendously bigger than myself.
However, I've been blinded by my own naivete.
Your informal poll with less than 20% Type 4s is a real shock to me, but as I think about it -- that coroberates my experience as well -- YET I'm almost always surprised and disappointed when i see it.
Certainly all points of view are valid, but I'm still a little shocked at the reality of it.
Careful, Brooks, I didn't say it was a law firm.
We're not a large firm but with 80 employees we have a mix of mountain lions, wolves, homosapiens and ants.
Most of the time I would expect the firm to benefit from the "ant" types.
How do you mix the types together when you have an "ant" project but need the skill sets of the Mountain Lions and Wolves?
Bob, the only way I've really seen biodiversity work in the real world is if different species are kept away from each other and do not compete for the same resources.
Translated, that means the wolf-pack is a completely separate department (preferably in a separate building) than the mountain lions who have their own "deal" (privileges, responsibilites, metrics)
Keep them away from the others!
But the whole thing falls apart when we try to mush them all together and pretend we're all measured and rewarded on the sam ehtings, we all have the same performance standards and we all play the same role.
I'd also offer as opinion that biodiversity works best when the vast majority of the animals are of one species (so we know what the core culture is) with only a few weird people playing different roles -- to perform the special tasks you refer to in your question.
You can't have a random, equal mixture of all types and make it work well.
No-one really knows the direction, the rules etc.
Use another metaphor: Some musicians want to be in a band, some want to be solo performers and in the spotlight.
The occasional "solo spotlight hog" will be OK if everybody else wants to play their part in the band arrangement, but if everyone wants to reserve the right to solo whenever the spirit takes them ...
Well, we need a BASIC understanding: are we a band or not?
If we are, we better be careful who we bring into the band.
Some firms spend months talking about strategy but get nowhere because there is no underlying consensus as to the type of partnership they want to form.
I think it's manageable to create such consensus when firms are created, if the founders seriously think about partnership values (we have done it in our firm, and it works).
My question to you, Richard, is how would you manage a situation when the firm has been in existence for a long time and is facing the impossibility to define a coherent strategy because there is no consensus on the partnership model in the first place?
I see two options: business as usual (which actually means inertia) or split.
Any third way?
Your observations reflect the different values people have.
The Clare Graves Value system says that on one side there are self-centred people (whose interests are in survival through to power/ ego and materialism/ rewards now) and on the other side those who believe in sacrifice (for the tribe/ safety and security through to community/ save the world and salvation/ die for the world).
Most people in business try to balance reward (now) and power with community and security.
The difficulty is acknowledging that everyone has different priorities at different times and either trying to change them or get them to work to their strengths.
I think you meld these groups and give them an incentive to work together by making sure that your compensation rewards the behaviour you say you want, and not some other behaviour instead.
Law firms in particular pay endless lipservice to motherhood statements, especially in their marketing to clients, but very few have examined their compensation systems to ensure that it is pulling in the same direction.
My experience is that law firm compensation systems not only don't help, but often encourage very different attitudes and behaviour.
And with automated accounting systems and lawyers already being conditioned to keep track of their minutes, it should be relatively easy to realign compensation systems but when you suggest it, nobody seems to want to ... "because it's always been done that way".
Random comments on all of the above: It is not hard to measure the individuals on a team -- if they all agree to be measured as a single unit.
But I've only seen that work once.
Most people do not want to be judged on anything except their individual performance.
10%-20% actually seems like a reasonable number of people who want to live their work lives immersed in a team.
I truly like working in teams -- but only on a project basis.
In between team projects, I need to "do my own thing" for a while.
Sometimes I think people say "but it's always been done that way" instead of "I don't know how to be successful in the new model" or "I'm not clear how the new way would work".
As George Washington said "One of the difficulties in bringing about change in an organisation is that you must do so through the persons who have been most successful in that organisation, no matter how faulty the system or organisation is. To such persons, you see, it is the best of all possible organisations, because look who was selected by it and look who succeeded most in it."
And yet, as several people have pointed out, organisations get more of the behaviours that they reward, regardless of the official cant.
As Lisa suggested, a lot to react to here.
To answer a directly posed question.
Antoine, the only "third way" (between ignore the problem and split up) is to wait for a leader courageous enough to make a choice, so that those who are undecided can rally around, and only a few leave because they don't like the new concensus.
However, by far the most common course of action is your first one -- paper over the differences, ignore the problem, or, rather complain about it all the time ("everybody wants different things, nothing gets done consistently") and do nothing.
I might take the other side of positions offered by David and Liz.
In David's case, there is a danger in referring to things as "values" if it means one side is right and one side is wrong.
(I don't think David does either, actually)
But look how loaded the language is: "self-centered" versus "sacrificing" -- it sure sounds like one side is morally correct and the other side is not.
And that's not what I believe.
Nor do I believe that it's mostly about pay schemes.
My experience (and the point of view behind this whole topic) is that (in my opinion) there are different kinds of people out there who have fundamentally different personality profiles, and you're not going to change their working behaviours through an incentive scheme.
They should either be in or be out of your organisation depending upon what you want to accomplish.
You can't (IMHO) turn individualists into effective team players by changing pay.
So, it ain't morality and it ain't pay -- it's about beginning to recognise that there are some fundamentally different kind of people out there, and you better be careful which ones you hook up with if you want your organisation to function.
Here endeth the opinion.
As always, an insightful categorisation.
I was reflecting on one of my own experiences when going through your categorisations and decided I was a wolf; when we were going through a potential split off of part of the organisation, I was too risk averse to go with them.
But I'm more like an ant in my willingness to invest in the future; I just don't like the risk that sometimes goes with that.
So I think your categorisation needs to acknowledge people's risk preferences -- does "the patience, the ambition and the will to help the collective organisation invest in that future" meant that those people are also willing to take risks with their own financial future (which I wasn't willing to do)?
Or does it more refer to people's patience with thinking about the long term?
Welcome back, Jennifer.
How's penguin-land?
Now let's think about your question, which is a good one.
I don't pretend that I've thought all this through, so bear with me as we do it together.
Originally, I thought the critical dimension (sfter the team question) was "short term" versus "long-term", but you are saying people can WANT to be long-term players (patience, ambition and will to invest) but either cannot or will not take risk.
In my article, I think that demotes you back to the ranks of the short-term operative who has good reason not to risk things, but is nevetheless as a non-investor, a non-builder.
A Wolf with a medal, but s sa wolf.
Richard --
This is a terrific post because it touches on a real question rooted in personality and culture.
I've studied and worked in South Africa, England, and now the United States.
And what I've realised is that an individual's ability to collaborate not only depends on their personality -- like personal preference 1-4 -- but also their cultural roots -- individualist or collectivist.
Those from collectivist cultures generally are able to collaborate better than those from individualist cultures -- how true is this?
What if we scaled cultural preferences 1-4 and made combinations of personal with cultural preferences?
What would our possible outcomes be?
Your type categories are interesting!
I'm wondering though how clearly we can define people's realities and the realities of organisations because of change.
Whenever I'm asked to complete a form of personality test or similar metric, I find myself reading the question and thinking:
"I can answer either question, it depends on context, and the context referred to is too ambiguous. There's nowhere to explain my reasoning on the sheet."
Multiple-choice exams are similar -- they want a right or wrong answer and are not interested in the process of reason to get to the result.
Another dilemma in the workplace setting or in universities is when an individual evaluated by a group is a minority personality-type or cultural-type.
Their reasoning and ideas vary from the majority in the group and yet their contribution is outstanding if only valued for its difference/ innovation/ out-of-the-box approach.
Worst still is when only one personality or cultural type is conducting the evaluation!
Depending on the organisation and how they've taught teams to function/ collaborate together in terms of values -- that they're functioning with awareness -- teams either function optimally or unsuccessfully.
The "Types" you are suggesting is a means of teaching people to recognise their preferences and the preferences of others so that they can function with "awareness".
Awareness of who they are and who the people they are working with are -- then the collaboration may be better understood and valued in contribution.
The types you are describing are created too on the basis of competition and how they create competitive advantage through strategy whether alone or with others.
What is incentive to one may not be incentive to the others.
Who each person in the team is and what makes each person tick is important to the collective whole when working towards an organisational goal -- all cannot be viewed the same or be expected to respond the same to the result.
Richard --
I really blasted you with a whole lot of thought there.
It was my initial reaction to your post.
But if I take a look at your "Types" again -- step-by-step -- this is what I would contribute:
Type 1: Someone who makes little investment in the future lives for enjoying today -- tomorrow will take care of itself.
They have faith.
These people are more than likely hard workers but wouldn't necessarily want to work overtime (they're not accruing for the future).
Also, not building up for the future means they do view risk (as one of the other commenters mentioned) differently.
So, in terms of working in teams, you are right -- their incentive isn't as strong, unless you find what it is their daily routine/ weekend routine includes.
Do they like going to baseball/ football games?
Or do they enjoy weekend fly-fishing trips?
Do they enjoy reading subscription magazines/ journals, etc.
If teamwork is needed, and this person is needed to be a team player, the incentive reward/ compensation could be the "item" of their passion.
The type of team project given to this person should also be carefully selected.
Certain parts of team projects can have "solo" aspects to them and then be combined into the team.
Type 2: This type you describe appear not to be able to give their full focus/ commitment to a team's goal -- "the grass might be greener on the other side".
Your first part of your description is: "If we act together we can kill bigger animals" -- so these characters believe what they have is of value to a pack.
If the pack/ team does not value it, they'll give it to a pack/ team that will!
How you act/ respond to this Type is important -- they need to feel that you sincerely value what they are offering to the team.
What they give is a big deal to the team.
If you respond right, then to this Type, the team is right and a big deal.
I'll get back to you on Type 3 and Type 4 a little later.
Your posts are so interesting, Richard!
Before you go onto Types 3 and 4 Fiona, let me give you soem reactionsn to your comments about Mountain Lions and Wolf Packs (Types 1 and 2) because we may be using the terms differently.
You don't "get to" the Mountain Lions I was trying to describe by exploring their weekend actvities.
I have specific people in mind, and you get to them if and only if you show them "what's in it fot them, right now".
Everything else is a waste of breath.
You've met these people, too, I'm sure.
Similarly, the Type 2 (Wolf Pack) people in my client firms do NOT need to feel that you "sincerely value their contribution".
They need to be convinced that the pack they are in is a winning pack, or they'll take their efforts elsewhere.
I DO accept completely your prior posting that how people react is culturally formed, and may be context specific.
Richard --
My font size is a bit out -- sorry about that.
Will type directly.
Here's the rest on my contribution to your "Types":
Type 3: You say that "Type 3" wants to act as solo.
This means that this type would like to act solo but doesn't always act solo.
Why do they hold back?
And how do they feel as a result of this when working collectively?
How does what they feel impact the team?
From this we can assume that this type have a lower tolerance to risk and ambiguity.
When they do work collectively, they don't really enjoy it -- they're not comfortable with it.
So how do firms create a teamwork environment that feels comfortable for these types?
Is it possible, Richard?
You mentioned you fell in this category I think.
Also, if investment in the future is important to Type 3, then they like security.
Although we know that no job is guaranteed, how can a firm give this Type a sense of security using "future investment" as an incentive?
Richard, what would work here?
Type 4: I like Type 4.
Okay.
Has anyone seen the "Ant Bully" movie?
It's got a Type 4 moral to it.
My understanding is that this Type gets it -- they're good team players/ leaders -- and understand the processes & strategies of working collectively.
The challenges this Type may face is that their "vision" may not always be grasped by the team -- their communication skills are essential for team acceptance and "buy-in" to their strategies.
This Type have the ability to make the collective whole move as one to achieve long term sustainable strategic advantage.
The words "Teamwork" "Collaborate" and "Collective" are used to describe working together to achieve specific objectives for a group.
But they mean different things to people from different countries and I can't stress this enough.
This past week, I sat in class where we were expected to present an introduction on another person in the class.
Our class is quite diverse.
Towards the end, an Asian gentleman burst forth and introduced the "skills, knowledge, values, and dreams" of another class mate in front of the class totally against usual accepted norms.
Many students reacted by laughing and mocking.
What they didn't realise is that it shamed the person making the introduction and the person being introduced.
They were from other "collective" cultures and you could see it on their faces.
In the "collective" culture I am originally from, we may have whispered to one another -- get so-and-so to take him aside and teach him that's not how we do it here.
And while they're at it, teach him about dress.
But in an individualist culture, that does not happen.
In an individualist culture that claims to teach "teamwork" and "collaboration".
The reason?
In an individualist culture -- the difference is viewed as the weakness that gives them the win.
They step on it.
Another example: Last semester I was in class where the whole class was expected to work on one group project to present to a non-profit at the end of the semester.
We were raising finance for them and also developing methods for training, etc.
The "team" worked on separate aspects of the project and ultimately the project did take off by the end of the semester.
The reason?
The segments appeared to "refuse" to share information.
Why?
Because the separate segments were separate teams being graded separately.
That's a problem when you want the ultimate project to succeed.
Thank you, Richard, for correcting me on Type 1 and 2.
I made a mistake in last post with the non-profit example -- the project didn't take off at the end of the semester as it was supposed to.
Fiona, Type 3 (Solo but willing to invest to build) does NOT suffer from "a lower tolerance to risk and ambiguity".
It's team settings they avoid, not risk.
And therefore your question "how do you create team play with people who don't like team play?" is almost zen-like.
Actually, if I am an illustration of this type, there is an answer.
It is to structure a (temporary and if possible voluntary, self-selected) group with a well-defined mission with clear target dates.
It turns out that I (and other Type 3 people like me) can be very good collaborators if it's well defined.
Just don't make me feel "locked in" permanently to a group of people I disn't choose, with an ambiguous purpose for an uncertain period of time.
Richard --
We experienced a cross-over when you asked me to pause my commentary on Type 3 and 4.
But I'm glad in a way because you've certainly given me a clear understanding of what you mean by Type 1-4.
It's easy to read words and picture a scenario interpreting a different meaning to what's intended.
Your clarifications cleared that up.
Thank you for that!
I'm a 4 -- it's got to serve a higher purpose.
Leo Bottary and I exchanged an email a while ago about career preferences, and that was one of the criteria I mentioned that I looked for in work/ projects.
You are referring to personal profiles and there are a number of "metrics" out there for measuring personalities and work fits.
Do you see your "profiles" as a similar measure?
And do you think customised/ personalised reward systems work as incentives?
I don't have a metric for the categories I propose.
I was relying (perhaps falsely) on people knowing themselves and the context in which they feel most comfortable.
But it took me years to know and accept what I am, so maybe a diagnostic test is needed.
Anyone got a favourite one which is likely to reveal these differences?
I do think reward systems have a role to play, but as I argued in my podcast in the last series ("You can't Manage through Pay Schemes") -- I'm getting a little depressed about how quickly everybody wants to rush to pay as a solution to everything.
It's a very blunt instrument, and can only create very broad effects, not fine detail ones.
The whole point of this post is to say that pople have strong personalities and psychological profiles and ignoring that by tinkering with incentives is not going to get you very far.
By the way, I'm still in need of a better species name for type 3.
Apart from being a Beaver, working away building for my future, is there another name to describe the solo builders?
Richard,
You may be interested in this book (which features lions & ants): http://organizationalzoo.com/
To what extent are professional services firms fortunate in that they can focus around one "personal profile"?
Manufacturing corporations require different functions (sales, production, finance) which may require different attributes.
And any thoughts on how different professional services firms might be dominated by different profiles?
I can imagine audit firms having lots of ants, high-end law firms having lions, IT consulting having a lot of wolves, etc.
The comment to made about ants is that they only seem unimpressive if you have never encountered a full ant (or termite) colony in the wild.
They can occupy huge parts of an ecosystem without drawing too much attention to themselves.
In contrast, lions & wolves are endangered species in many parts of the world.
Richard --
Thank you for your feedback.
On the topic of incentives, the reason I brought it up is because it's what seems to drive so many of the students I come into contact with daily, and I find it frustrating.
There are things in life that carry greater value than money like having time to spend with family, loved ones, or friends.
Or having time to contribute to community events/ projects not related to work.
We all need to survive and earn -- but if we could choose the form as employees -- would that not be a bit kinder than some of the inflexible packages going?
That was what I was getting at.
Something that suits our person better and adds value to life -- not a buy-off to work.
On the animal front -- here's an article that may interest you from Forbes (you may have read it): http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/20/pz-myers-work_cx_pzm_06work_0523myers.html
What about Bears?
Don't bears provide and invest for their families?
They're giving a lot of fisherman trouble in the woods and lakes areas now a days!
Fiona
About the diagnostic tests --
We're using two at my school at the moment 1.
The Big 5 -- Extroversion, Emotional Stability, Orderliness, Accommodation, Intellect 2. MBTI -- our reader is "Type Talk At Work"
I discovered this site -- http://similarminds.com/-- not sure how good it is but it sure lists a number of personality tests!
If I may ask -- Are you a sensory-type (as defined by MBTI), Richard?
Enjoy your evening!
Fiona
Here's a quote from Type Talk At Work by Otto Kroeger with Janet M. Thuesen and Hile Rutledge on the difference between a Sensor and an iNtuitive:
Sensor: "Go to the end of the hall and turn left, through the revolving door. You'll pass a set of red doors marked Electrical Closet No. 3. Go another twenty-five feet and you'll see a fire extinguisher. The copy room is right next to that. Go in, the copier's on the left."
iNtuitive: "Follow the hall around to the left. It's down there on the right. You can't miss it."
I'm an iNtuitive, Richard.
Richard,
At our recent seminar you held for my company, I asked you a question regarding individual incentives and you instantly categorised my question as the "what's in it for me" category.
Actually, my question was quite different than how you took it.
The question was "How do we articulate to our colleques that the team approach is in their best interest".
A sublte difference.
If only, 10-20% of individuals want to be part of "something bigger" to build for the future.
I feel it is critical to be able to articulate to each team member why their role within the will help them individually.
Thus by relying on and working with others, they will be able to achieve their personal goals.
As long as the individual goals are alligned with the organisational goals, this is a framework for success.
It also makes hiring individuals to become team members easier as the goals should be aligned.
To use a football analogy.
First we must define what our "Super Bowl" is -- what we wish to accomplish, second we should define what wins and losses are, and finally we should find the players that can help us (and want to!) win games and reach the Super Bowl.
Brit, thanks for pointing out my misinterpretation.
Unfortunately, "Twisting" a question into a different one is an old (and naughty) facilitator's trick, and I confess that I did it to you to get the discussion to a place I thought it needed to get to.
(The floor is now open for comments on Richard's consultation skills or lack thereof)
You and I do, in fact agree.
I have previously written descriptions of the optimal management process which are very close to what you have written: once you have determned that they want to be part of something, sit down with each individual, play to their passions and strengths, help them find a role, and help them see, as you say, why paying that role will not only help the teram but help them in their careers.
Precisely!
Now, if it were only actually being done that way in most places.
Richard, great article.
I am curious about your feeling about personality profiling by HR in the corporate setting.
Assessment tools such as DISC (among others) have been used for years with some success in getting team members to work together better; and to some degree, helps individual employees understand their own shortcomings and strengths better.
Have you written an article about these kinds of tools yet?
Thanks for the excellent resource!
Post a Comment