1. What Kind of Environment Do You have Today?

Every team has certain ways of working, from how often they meet to the way they communicate to what they value. Chances are, your team's current practices are creating an environment that's meeting the needs of some types better than others. Ask yourself, does our team's culture or way of working enable all types to thrive? This is important because, you can add all the diversity you want to a team, but if it's set up to work in a way that's more accommodating to some types than others, you're likely to get inconsistent performance. For example, a team that relies heavily on a consensus-based approach to decision-making may be so frustrating for a Driver—who is uber focused on moving things forward—that he or she checks out entirely. Likewise, a team with a very fluid process that changes direction frequently may make it tough for a Guardian to fully contribute.

In our experience, the way a team ends up operating is often more organic than intentional. Sometimes it follows the leader's preferences, or the dominant types on the team. Other times it is influenced by organizational culture. Whatever the source, your current team environment is your starting point, so it helps to give it a good hard look to know what, if anything, you might need to adjust.

When it comes to assessing the ways your team works, here are some questions you and your team members might ask yourselves:

• Do you typically dictate all aspects of a project? Or do you define what needs to happen and then set team members free to determine how they accomplish it? Pioneers, in particular, crave more freedom and autonomy, and your approach here is likely to impact them most.
• Are roles and expectations crystal clear? Does everyone know what a raging success or dismal failure would look like? Or are things left open to interpretation? These answers may be particularly relevant for Guardians, who perform best when they have clarity.
• Are those expectations also set high? Do you push your team to excel and then hold people accountable? These practices may be most critical for Drivers, who sometimes feel held back by what they see as the subpar performance of others.
• Is your door open? Really open? Is it clear to your team that it's okay for them to check in, ask questions, get your input, or even engage in a conversation that's a bit more personal? Knowing this is the case might be particularly important for Integrators, who thrive when they can forge real connections with people.

While those questions can give you a great start, there are many others you might pose to better understand whether your team's ways of working are more suitable for some types than others. Here are a few:

• Does your team rigidly stay the course or constantly change direction, go back on decisions, or chase the next big idea?
• Is it all teamwork all the time or are people working away in lonely solitude?
• Is making a mistake no problem on your team or is it grounds for banishment, punishment, or at least a good scolding?
• Is there a bias toward acting first and thinking later or toward looking before leaping?
• Do you check in with people to make sure things are A-okay, or leave them to their own devices?
• Are people recognized for contributions big and small, or are only heroic efforts worthy of acknowledgment?
• What does your team respect and reward? Individual or team success? Results or effort? IQ or EQ? Agility or expertise? Quiet competence or bravado? Putting out fires or preventing them?

We bet by now you get the picture. If you've realized your current team environment is more suited to some types than others, you have some work to do in order to get the most out of all types on your team. Don't be lulled into thinking you're sitting pretty as long as you're meeting the needs of most of your team members. As we'll soon discuss, meeting the needs of those in the minority may be even more critical to your team's success. We'll get to what to do about all of that soon, but first, now that you're more aware of your current environment, you can move onto the next question.

2. What's Your Team's Goal?

Each type has preferred ways of working and particular kinds of tasks that are likely to be more natural for them. Depending on what a team is trying to accomplish, certain types might add extra value. Need meticulous, high-quality work? A few extra Guardians might be a good idea. Looking for lots of big ideas? More Pioneers might be important. Need to navigate some tricky political waters? Maybe an Integrator-heavy team is what you'll want. Have a big goal to reach in a very tight time frame? You might benefit from including more Drivers.

So maybe it's just that simple? Who you want on a team just depends on what you're trying to do? Well, not really.

For one thing, it's important to recognize the complexity involved in reaching most any goal, which means it would rarely be ideal to have a team heavily dominated by just one type. As an example, we often associate Pioneers with innovation, but innovation involves multiple phases. Some phases require an expansive orientation where imagination and blue-sky thinking are really beneficial (that's where a Pioneering perspective is key). But other phases require an orientation toward narrowing down or prioritizing. In fact, in his book Originals, Adam Grant suggests that the biggest barrier to originality is not idea generation, but selection.² In these phases a more Guardian-like perspective, emphasizing practicality or thinking through implications in a detailed way, can really help.

Further, beware, our stereotypes about the value each type brings or doesn't bring to a team may prevent us from recognizing that people can flex as the situation calls for. Remember we cautioned you about this in Chapter 8? We shouldn't assume, for example, that an Integrator can't rise to the occasion of driving toward a big goal within a tight time frame, or that a Pioneer can't think through the detailed implications of a decision. Of course they can; it just might require them to put in a little extra effort.

So, if your team has goals related to innovation, transformation, collaboration, strategic re-engineering, sound decision-making, high productivity, or implementation of a complex plan—and what team doesn't—what you'll probably want is a good diversity of perspectives.

Now onto another question.

3. Who Are Your Primary Stakeholders and What's Their Perspective?

Most teams have a number of different stakeholders, from internal and external clients, to leaders within the team's overall organization, to the broader community. And just as your team is made up of individuals who have particular perspectives, stakeholders have perspectives too. Trying to get a sense of what they are can provide useful information for determining how your team can be most effective.

As we've discussed, sometimes it's easiest to work with those who are just like you. In those cases you get each other and things feel good because they go smoothly. For this reason a like-type team or individual may be effective when working with an important stakeholder. With those of the same type, your stakeholder is likely to feel at ease and to enjoy this working relationship.

Other times what stakeholders most need is a perspective that's different from their own. Your team's client might be a big-picture thinker, who needs help sorting through the details of an implementation plan. Or they might prefer to avoid conflict and want some support in making the right decision even when it's unpopular with others. In these cases, a different-type team or individual may bring more value, but only if you can offer a different perspective in a way that's palatable to the stakeholder. For example, this might mean providing a Pioneer, who prefers a big-picture perspective, with a summary that allows them to be confident you have all the details covered, but doesn't actually force them to get into the weeds with you. For help with getting the tone just right, a team with a stakeholder of a different type might seek out a friendly colleague who shares the stakeholder's working style to help prepare for that interaction. For example, if the stakeholder is a Guardian, check in with a Guardian colleague to determine whether a proposal includes the right level of detail.

Regardless of who the stakeholder is, understanding their perspective is an important first step. Then your team can attempt to work and communicate in the style of the stakeholder, but push their limits or offer a different take where needed (e.g, encouraging some risk-taking for a stakeholder who seems risk-averse to a fault). It may seem obvious that a diverse team could deliver the best of both worlds, but it's not always as simple as it seems. To get the most value from diversity, it needs to be actively managed. We'll talk a bit more about that soon. But first, onto our final question.

4. What's the Current Composition of Your Team?

While people often ask us about the best Business Chemistry composition for a team, we also hear that creating a team with a particular composition is more of a pipe dream than a real option for most leaders. Often you're stuck with the team you've got. Sometimes you might be able to change things up a bit, but there are many factors to simultaneously consider when choosing team members—like their knowledge, skills, and experience; who's available when; what the budget is; the balance of gender and other types of diversity; and a multitude of other complicating factors. So even if you wanted to select your team based on their Business Chemistry types, in most cases it would be a real challenge to do so. Instead, we usually recommend carefully assessing your team's composition in the context of the issues we just explored, and then actively managing it by making adjustments to how your team works. This fits in with Google's findings that what matters is not so much the specific combination of people on a team, but how everyone works together.

When it comes to team composition there are a range of possibilities, but they can mostly be broken down into two broad categories. Either your team will be relatively well-balanced across the various types, or it won't. If it's not balanced, that usually means it's primarily dominated by one or two of the types and lighter on the remaining types, or maybe even missing those types entirely. And there are potential benefits and challenges associated with any of these combinations. Let's start with the dominant scenario.

Not Balanced: Effects of a Dominant Type

One potential benefit of a team that has many people with the same type is that, because of their similarity, working together likely feels pretty good—at least for those in the majority. Similarity between people can contribute to group cohesiveness and more satisfied team members.^{3 4} When people on a team share a particular perspective, work is likely to go smoothly. People will tend to agree on what to do and how to do it and the team will feel connected. For example, a team dominated by Drivers will likely embrace a fast pace and revel in a feeling of accomplishment as they push hard to meet goals and deadlines. A team with Integrators in the majority will relish high levels of collaboration as they all focus together on connecting.

It sounds pretty good, right? Unless of course you're in the minority. Then you might feel a bit left out in the cold. We'll discuss that further in a moment, but it's not just the minority team members who are likely to suffer on an unbalanced team—the team's effectiveness may as well. Research suggests that while decisions made in a homogeneous team feel good, they're often inferior to those made in more diverse teams.⁵

Why? Well… picture a waterfall. And now picture trying to change the direction in which the water flows. Without a feat of engineering, it would be practically impossible to do so. This is how a cascade works on a team. Once ideas, discussion, or decision-making start moving in a particular direction, momentum often keeps them moving in that direction, regardless of whether it's the best direction.⁶ Even if some diverse views exist on the team, they're unlikely to divert the team's direction once it's been set, in part because people hesitate to voice disagreement with an idea that gets early visible support. While this isn't a great thing, it doesn't necessarily feel bad in the moment. In fact, it can feel pretty good when everyone is going with the flow.

These kinds of cascades can happen on a team for two primary reasons. Reputational cascades occur when people fear that voicing disagreement or a different perspective will make them look bad or even lead them to be punished in some way. Remember our discussion of psychological safety in Chapter 10? A lack of psychological safety could lead to a reputational cascade. Informational cascades, by contrast, occur when people assume early speakers who are in agreement with one another must know something they don't. In other words, people don't offer their differing opinion because they suddenly suspect they might actually be wrong. After all, their colleagues who spoke early and so confidently are smart people, right?

Either way, cascades lead those with differing opinions to self-censor, which means the team can't benefit from their diverse perspectives because they remain undercover. As a result, decisions made by the team end up looking more unanimous than they actually are. While those unanimous-seeming decisions feel pretty good, they're often not the best decisions. This phenomenon is commonly known as groupthink.

You might imagine it happening like this: A team of high-energy, outspoken Pioneers starts talking excitedly about a new direction for a project. They whiteboard frantically and speak in rapid-fire fashion, bouncing ideas off one another and possibly bouncing around the room. The sole Guardian in the group feels a niggling sense that the idea can't work, but it's hard for her to piece together exactly why when there are so many people talking at once. By the time she pinpoints the major flaw that she's been circling around, the Pioneers are well down the path with their idea. And they're so damn excited! So does the Guardian speak up and burst their bubble? Or might she first pause (she's a Guardian after all) to consider the potential personal benefits and costs of doing so, before deciding to stay silent?

The majority type often determines the form that groupthink will take, so understanding what perspective a team is likely to have can be as simple as identifying which type is most strongly represented.

While most of us find it easiest to work with those who share our type, when it comes to teams, it's far from a fool-proof recipe for success. It's important to note that an overwhelmingly dominant type isn't required for these things to happen. Sometimes a smaller concentration of members with extreme types can have a similar effect. Or even just a single person, for instance… a leader.

Potential blindspots and likely outcomes of teams dominated by each type

Potential Blindspot	Likely Outcome
A Pioneer-heavy team may get a little too outlandish with their ideas and fail to consider whether there's any realistic way to actually implement them.	Potentially a big waste of time and money.
A group of Guardians can get into trouble by falling into a state of analysis paralysis and erring toward keeping things the way they are rather than experimenting with something new.	May be left in the dust by their competition.
Together, a bunch of competitive Drivers may lock themselves into the fierce pursuit of a goal on a strict timeline.	Possibly fail to consider new information that suggests a change of direction would lead to greater success.
A team dominated by conflict-avoidant Integrators may adopt a subpar idea because no one wanted to criticize it.	May work harmoniously toward the wrong goal.

© 2018. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

What people say about leaders of each type

	Strength “I enjoy working with Pioneers because they bring energy to the room and they're unbounded in their thinking, which pushes me to be more innovative.”
	Weakness “The Pioneers I've worked with are quite unrealistic and often very manic, jumping from idea to idea without pause.”
	Strength “They keep the team grounded and make sure ideas are feasible.”
	Weakness “I love big ideas and creativity, which can be stunted by the practical thinker in the room.”
	Strength “Drivers can take ideas from concept to action and keep the team on track.”
	Weakness “I feel bulldozed by Drivers.”
	Strength “They listen generously and bring people together.”
	Weakness “They're too concerned about what other people think and can't make a move without consensus.”

Not Balanced: Effects of Missing a Type

If your team has a dominant type or two then the other types will be more lightly represented or even missing entirely. And those missing perspectives can also have a major impact on the team's decisions and the way the team functions. For example, a team with no Guardians could be overexposed to risk without the more cautious perspective that Guardians are likely to bring. A team with no Integrators may have a tough time working through a difficult interpersonal challenge without the relationship focus that Integrators are likely to emphasize. A team with no Pioneers might miss opportunities because they aren't stretching their thinking enough. And a team with no Drivers might miss key deadlines without that Driver-like discipline.

Even if the team has a token individual or a small group of a particular type, it may not be enough to actually represent that perspective, especially if those people are not particularly outspoken. This is because of the cascading effect we discussed earlier. And even if these tokens are willing to state a differing opinion in the midst of a cascade, there's another effect that tends to make their bravery futile, a phenomenon known as hidden profiles.⁷ When working in groups we tend to focus on information that is shared by many and dismiss information that is held by a few, even if that exclusive information is the key to the kingdom. That means the minority perspective becomes virtually invisible (i.e., their differing profiles are hidden). As a result, we often benefit little from unique perspectives that could improve our decision-making.

It might look like this: Let's say a team of Guardians, who tend to stick with what's tried and true, intentionally seeks out the perspective of a Pioneer to help them expand their horizons. The Pioneer shares their thoughts and describes a vision of a bright new future. The Guardians smile and nod thoughtfully. But then Guardian A points out a potential risk of going in the direction the Pioneer suggests. And Guardian B piles on with another potential risk, followed by Guardian C. Then the Guardians look at each other and revert back to their prior, shared perspective (which now overwhelms the new, different perspective) and conclude that the Pioneer's idea is too risky.

Add to all of this that the types in the minority might be trying to succeed in an environment that feels like a poor fit, or even downright hostile to them—like the stories we shared in Chapters 12–15. If you answered the questions we asked about your team environment you might have identified some practices that are less ideal for some types than others. Together this all means that if you're not paying very close attention to the minority types on your team you're likely not benefitting from their diverse perspectives as much as you could.

A Balanced Team

After all that discussion about minorities and majorities, it seems like a diverse and balanced team would be the holy grail of team composition. Indeed, among the most powerful benefits of a balanced team is the potential to mitigate risks associated with cognitive biases like groupthink, leading to better decision making and problem solving. But while diversity enhances creativity and encourages people to search for novel information and different perspectives, it can also bring challenges like greater conflict, difficulties with communication, and lower levels of trust and cohesion.^{8 9 10} It can also be difficult for leaders and team members to navigate the many preferences of people on a very diverse team. The work environment that most suits a Guardian, for example (highly structured, detail-focused, solitary work), is the opposite of the one that most suits a Pioneer. As a leader, how can you provide them both with the environment that best enables them to succeed? How do you meet the needs of one type without turning the others off?

Working With What You've Got

Before we discuss what to do about all of this, we'd like to note that the value of the strategies we're about to suggest may be most obvious in a diverse team that's balanced across types. But they can be equally beneficial, and perhaps even more critical, on an unbalanced team, because to have any real hope of benefitting from the perspectives of your minority types, you need to create an environment that suits them. And yet, you obviously don't want to turn off the majority of your team.

To illustrate how you might work toward creating a team environment where all types excel, we'll focus on meetings, because let's face it, most of us spend more time than we'd like in meetings. Endless. Meetings. There are many aspects of what makes a meeting successful or not (and in fact we spend a lot of time studying that in the Deloitte Greenhouse). Here, we'll offer just a few practical perspectives that have particular relevance to Business Chemistry. We hope these examples, paired with the questions you previously answered about your current team environment, will set you on a path to exploring many different aspects of how your team works now and might work differently in the future. First, some level-setting.

We all know what a meeting is, right? You gather in a conference room with a group of colleagues. If you're lucky there are some windows, but you're not always lucky. You sit in chairs around a table that has some less-than-fresh bagels plopped in the middle of it. You don't want to eat those stale baked goods but you do anyway—because they're right there in front of you and you're possibly a bit bored. People may or may not have their laptops open, depending on the culture of the team, and some people may be half asleep due to the bagels (or are they surreptitiously looking at their phones? It's hard to tell). You talk to each other around the table, or maybe watch and listen to someone presenting a PowerPoint deck. (Or you don't, because you're too busy with your phone. Or the bagels.) Maybe someone takes notes. Maybe there are handouts. Or, maybe it's a conference call and absolutely everyone is multitasking whenever they're not actually talking. We've all been there and that's just how meetings are, right? We'd suggest, no.

Meetings don't have to look like that, and if your meetings do, then you're probably not meeting the needs of any of the types on your team! We won't go through all the ways you can engage different types in meetings, but we will make some suggestions that can set you on the right path. Who knows? Maybe you'll even manage to make meetings enjoyable, or at least more effective.

Nail the Essentials

Everybody has preferences for the way they like things to be, but each Business Chemistry type has specific things that are essential for them to be able to contribute to their fullest potential. Your meeting structure and approach should address as many of these “bare minimums” as feasible to engage all the types.

For Guardians, what's essential is having a clear agenda with specific expectations sent out in advance. This helps them plan ahead, from what they'll bring to how they'll contribute. If you have pre-work or materials they can review, even better. Guardians, in particular, process things more deliberately than other types and are more reserved about sharing their thoughts. Making sure they have a chance to do some of this processing in advance is a gift to them more than a burden. Finally, start and end on time!

For Pioneers, what's essential is having visuals that bring the content to life. This will hold their attention and spark their imagination more than text or number heavy presentations. As much as possible build some flexibility into your agenda to allow for a tangent or two—Pioneers tend to shut down when they feel too boxed in. While few people love boring conference rooms, Pioneers in particular will appreciate a less confining setting with natural light.

For Integrators, what's essential is having time for interpersonal connection and sharing of ideas. Make sure that you make room for a bit of small talk or connecting in smaller groupings (like pairing up for some discussions versus only plenary settings). If you want a decision made, you'll not only need to make time in your agenda to accommodate people's input, but you should also factor in time for Integrators to get input from others, either teeing the topic up prior to the meeting or building in time after the meeting so the Integrators have an opportunity to make their rounds.

For Drivers, what's essential is having clear objectives, and achieving them. Articulate how the various pieces of the agenda are contributing to meeting those goals and push for some level of closure before moving on to the next topic. Include data to back up any key points, and provide opportunities for productive debate. Bonus points if you can conclude the meeting early.

Provide Options and Create Hybrid Approaches

Once you address the essentials for each of the types, you'll then want to make sure that meeting the needs of one doesn't come at the expense of another. You can do so by making various aspects of your meetings optional, and by creating hybrid approaches that are designed to meet the needs of several types at once.

Make Pre-Work Optional

Pre-work, one of our Guardian essentials should be optional to review. You don't want the success of your meeting to depend on people doing pre-work, because certain types aren't likely to do it, and asking them to may tint the whole event the color of drudgery. Guardians will likely welcome the opportunity to prepare in advance, and alone, so that they're more able to fully participate when with the group. Integrators, too, might appreciate the chance to consider issues in advance and maybe even discuss them with others before they're asked to comment in a meeting or to make a decision. Providing these opportunities will benefit the whole team by getting more concerns out in the open early, speeding up decision making, and reducing the likelihood of revisiting decisions since they've been thoroughly considered in advance by those who prefer to do things that way. All of these benefits are likely to be appreciated by Drivers, and by Pioneers too. Offering the option of prework without forcing the issue is likely to mean everyone gets what they need and everyone wins.

Make Brainstorming Smarter

Some people love a good brainstorming session, where energy is high, the pace is brisk, and ideas bounce around, collide, and shoot for the moon. But others, not so much. With their more reserved natures, introverted types sometimes find it challenging to contribute in this kind of setting, either because they can't get a word in edgewise with all those Extroverts talking, or because they don't feel safe sharing their ideas (as we discussed in Chapter 10). And it turns out that on-the-spot group brainstorming is actually not the most effective way to get the highest-quality ideas, (or the largest number of ideas, for that matter); individual brainstorming is.¹¹

That doesn't mean your team should never engage in those kinds of brainstorming sessions, especially if some members of your team find it valuable. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, meet the needs of more of your team members by adding some additional bells and whistles to the way you brainstorm. One idea is to let people know in advance what you want to brainstorm about in an upcoming meeting. Like offering the option of pre-work, giving people a heads-up as to a brainstorming topic will allow those who have a hard time being creative in the middle of a hurricane to get a head start. That will likely increase the chances of getting some of their ideas into the mix before a cascade takes hold of the discussion. And it can have an added benefit—research has shown that people tend to be more accepting of creative ideas if they've first tried to get creative themselves.¹² So give those more practical types—Guardians and Drivers—the chance to do so and some of the more innovative ideas proposed by others might go down a little easier!

But if the more introverted types feel less safe offering their ideas, they might not share even if you make space for them to do so. To address this challenge, consider making the initial stage of brainstorming confidential, so those who feel less safe sharing won't hide their light completely under a bushel. There are many digital tools, for instance, that allow people to provide input anonymously. Once some of these techniques have been implemented to help surface the ideas of those who're more hesitant to fight for the floor, you can go ahead and hold a free-for-all brainstorming discussion as your Extroverts might prefer.

Make Detailed Tasks Visual and Interactive

Sometimes there are tasks that simply need to be accomplished—like creating complex work plans or Gantt charts—whether or not someone on the team thinks it's boring. And you can't always relegate these tasks to your Guardians or Drivers alone. But instead of everyone sitting around together squinting at tiny fonts in tiny boxes, could you accomplish these kinds of tasks in a way that gets the job done but also integrates elements of movement, visuals, or interactivity? Imagine creating your work plan on a huge wall chart where various pieces can be added, removed, or relocated during the discussion. Your Guardians will get the focused attention to details that they need and the Drivers will clearly see how the goals are going to be accomplished. This would also be an easy way for people to see individual points within the broader context, something important to Integrators. Even your Pioneers might be able to stay on task while working through details in more interactive and engaging ways. And all without straining anyone's eyes.

Make Stage Crew an Acceptable Choice

When working through a really tricky problem, there are lots of ways to approach it. You could have a long discussion, bring various experts in to share their perspectives, or review a few reports and position papers. Or, you could ask your team to try out techniques such as role plays, skits, improv, or other versions of play, which can increase cognitive fitness and enhance creative problem solving.¹³ If you're a Guardian, those last activities may strike fear into your heart (they do for Suzanne and she'll do just about anything to stay off the stage). If you're a Driver maybe they feel a bit frivolous. But Pioneers and Integrators, in particular, often love the opportunity to actively engage with an idea or challenge by getting up and acting it out. For many of these folks, the chance to use their creativity and acting chops keeps them interested.

The key when asking a group to try some of these less traditional activities is to offer multiple ways to participate. Don't force a more introverted person onto the stage or in front of a video camera—instead of a healthy stretch this may be too far for comfort. And if someone's totally preoccupied by performance anxiety, they're probably not focused on learning. While some people can't wait to get into the spotlight (ahem, Pioneers), others are more comfortable participating offstage, developing a script, suggesting an improv scenario, creating a prop, recording a video, cheering their colleagues on, or summarizing learning in a wrap-up conversation. Offer these as ways to be part of the action.

Make Your Meetings Work for Humans

From our work in the Deloitte Greenhouse, we've discovered that there are lots of other ways to make meetings better by focusing in on some of the basic things that can enhance the human experience regardless of Business Chemistry type (but in ways that traditional meetings don't always address). Consider things like movement and comfortable seating options; humor and use of metaphor; lighting, music, even scent. And one last tip for your meetings: While we agree people need sustenance, if you want your team energized rather than in a carb coma, you might want to rethink those bagels.

Creating a Whole That's More (Not Less) Than the Sum of Its Parts

To bring to life how you can get the most out of a diverse group in real life (#BizChemIRL), let's look at an example of two companies going through a merger, we'll call them Piotech and Newco. Piotech was a large software company with a reputation for being bold and innovative. They were acquiring a start-up, Newco, known for its commitment to quality, deep relationships with customers, and industry-leading brand loyalty. The integration team was made up of people from each organization, with joint leads representing each company.

Claire (an Integrator-Pioneer) was the lead for Piotech. She was outgoing and enthusiastic, constantly rushing from one commitment to the next, leaving a trail of Post-Its and pens behind her as she went. Her Newco counterpart for the integration was John (a Guardian-Driver), a strong silent type who always carried around his own coffee mug stamped with one word: Java. Overall the working team had a relatively good balance of types, which sounds like a positive thing, but it didn't seem to be working in their favor if you take one of their first meetings as the case in point.

As the two leads tried to establish priorities and expectations it was almost as if they were speaking different languages, which of course, if you think of working style as a language of sorts, they were! John was quiet, almost withdrawn, except when he spoke up to aggressively critique a point. Claire was speaking even more rapidly than her usual rabbit pace and seemed flustered as she kept bouncing between topics.

While the leaders were caught in an unproductive back and forth, the team wasn't faring much better. The Pioneers were shooting off ideas for how things could proceed without waiting for input from anyone else. The Drivers were having a side debate about one particular aspect of the deal. The Integrators kept tentatively suggesting things that everyone ignored. And the Guardians just kept to themselves. One of the team members told us after the meeting that it was like trying to learn calculus during lunch in a high-school cafeteria. None of it was working.

After learning a bit about Business Chemistry, this team committed to trying out some new techniques. Claire made an effort to put in more structure, clarify responsibilities, and define desired outcomes more explicitly. John began trying to spend more time with the members of the integration team and other employees, gathering and incorporating feedback. He also tried to be more open to adjusting priorities based on emerging needs.

Together, Claire and John began experimenting in team meetings with dividing up responsibilities and playing distinct roles that reflected their complementary styles. Claire would open the meetings with a quick, usually funny, story about the team's progress to date. Then John would lay out the agenda for the meeting, which they had shared with the group in advance (to give the Guardians in particular time to prepare). He then would start with a brief summary of key stats relative to objectives (designed to satisfy the Drivers in particular). After that summary, they wouldn't necessarily follow the agenda sequentially. Instead, Claire would call on people in a random sequence to mix things up (keeping things a bit more interesting for the Pioneers). And they always had a “wild card” portion of the agenda, which provided open time to talk about whatever was on the group's mind (which the Integrators in particular loved, but everyone appreciated).

As these process changes started to become their new way of doing things, they also asked people to take on specific lenses as they worked through the integration, lenses that were essential to the team's success and which also suited their individual strengths. One of the Integrators was asked to be the “Voice of Employees,” a Driver was asked to be the “Voice of Competitors,” a Pioneer was asked to be the “Voice of Customers,” and a Guardian was asked to be the “Voice of the Market.” This construct provided them with a platform not only to contribute valuable insights from their assigned “voices”, but also to ensure that their own voices would be heard as well.

Fast forward several weeks, and Claire and John had turned a corner in their relationship. Beyond just acknowledging that they came from different perspectives (which in and of itself helped a lot), they both were flexing toward the other. Claire learned to view John's directness as a sign of his dedication to the project, versus a criticism of her. John in turn made an effort to connect with Claire more often, not just when he needed something from her.

As you can imagine, all of this contributed to the success of the integration, but the feedback from the team also indicated that it was one of the more productive and enjoyable projects they'd ever been part of. Win–win!

Don't Try This on Your Own

Whatever your team's composition, you don't have to do any of this alone—and you really shouldn't! Bring others into the effort by letting them know what you're trying to do. Learn together about the Business Chemistry types, adopt a common language for talking about working styles, and get a sense of each other's styles and those of your most important stakeholders. Where are the similarities and differences? Where are the points of complementarity and conflict?

There are several reasons for making this effort an ongoing team project or way of being. First, there's no reason for you to carry the burden all by yourself when you can share the load with others. Really, sharing is not just for Integrators. Carrying heavy stuff can be exhausting! And you need your energy to do lots of other things.

Second, chances of making a meaningful difference in the strength of your working relationships and the effectiveness of your team are much higher when you're all working from a common point of reference. Say you have an Integrator team member experiencing challenges with a particular colleague. If you point out that it seems a like a classic Integrator-Driver conflict that they could address by flexing a little bit in the Driver's direction, it's going to be a lot more helpful if they already understand what an Integrator is, what a Driver is, and how their preferences differ.

Third, people are likely to have a lot more patience with team practices and ways of working that go against their natural preferences when they understand that you (and everyone else on the team) are trying to accommodate diverse needs so that everyone can succeed together. Kim mentioned in Chapter 13 that she finds it challenging to organize herself in advance of a meeting so her Guardian colleagues can get what they need, but she makes the effort because she understands that it matters. With such a shared goal, most people are more willing to go along with things, if not always good-naturedly, then with fewer complaints.

Ultimately, an effective team leader can learn a lot from a great choir conductor. Give the group shared sheet music with multiple parts. Celebrate different ranges and contributions of members. And let them discover the power of the resulting harmony as they start weaving their diverse voices together.

References

1. 1. Duhigg, Charles. “Group Study.” The New York Times Magazine, February 28, 2016.
2. 2. Grant, Adam M. Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World. New York: Viking, 2016.
3. 3. Hackman, J.Richard. “Group Influences on Individuals in Organizations.” In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology edited by M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough. Vol. 3 (2nd ed.) Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1992.
4. 4. Hogg, Michael A. “Group Cohesiveness: A Critical Review and Some New Directions.” European Review of Social Psychology 4 (1) (1993): 85–111. doi:10.1080/14792779343000031.
5. 5. Rock, David, Heidi Grant, and Jacqui Grey. “Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable ' and That's Why They Perform Better.” Harvard Business Review. September 22, 2016.
6. 6. Sunstein, Cass R. and Reid Hastie. “Making Dumb Groups Smarter.” Harvard Business Review. December 2014.
7. 7. Ibid.
8. 8. Page, Scott E. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
9. 9. Phillips, Katherine W. “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter.” Scientific American. October 2014.
10. 10. See Note 5.
11. 11. Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas. “Why Group Brainstorming Is a Waste of Time.” Harvard Business Review. March 2015.
12. 12. See Note 2.
13. 13. Gilkey, Roderick and Clint Kilts. “Cognitive Fitness.” Harvard Business Review. November 2007.
14. 14. Asch, Solomon. “Studies of Independence and Submission to Group Pressure: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority.” Psychological Monograph 70. 9 (1956): No. 16.