Leadership and Life Essentials: Same Page or Same Blind Spot - Why Team Composition Matters More Than You Think

Jackie: Foreign.

Jackie: M welcome to Leadership and Life Essentials with Jackie, where I cut through the noise and deliver concise, actionable insights on effective leadership. I'm your host, Jackie Surgeon Ergaleoni from Leadership in Life by K Rec, Inc. In a world overflowing with information, this show offers short, focused episodes packed with tangible advice and tools to help you lead and live better. Let's dive in.

Jackie: Welcome to Leadership and Life Essentials. This is episode 89. Same page or same blind spot? Why Team composition matters more than you think Think back to a team that you've been on recently or in the past doesn't matter and see if any of these thoughts ring a bell. He and I are totally in sync. I love that he thinks just like me. Or maybe why does she keep saying the same thing over and over? Or lastly, why can't we ever just get straight to the point? And regardless of how you responded to each, your answers are giving you information. The frustration and the ease. The friction and the flow. They're telling you something about how your team is built. Yet most leaders haven't really stopped to think about that. We spend a lot of time thinking about what a team does. We don't spend nearly the same amount of time thinking about the consistency or the diversity on a team. Most teams aren't really designed. They just kind of accumulate. Someone leaves, you hire, a replacement project gets bigger. You add a person. You bring in someone you've worked with before because it was easy and it worked. And over time you end up with a team, but you never really have made a conscious decision about its composition. And then there's that other thing that happens without, uh, most leaders even realizing it. We hire in our own image. If you're a fast moving, decisive, big picture thinker, you probably draw into candidates who feel the same way. In an interview. They just click. The conversation flows. You think, yeah, this person gets it. What you may not be noticing is that you just added another version of yourself to the team. Some leaders do make intentional choices. They recognize a gap. We need someone who can slow us down, who will push back and sweat the details, and then they hire for it. That's deliberate team composition. That's intentional because their default is comfort. So what does that lead to? Broadly, two different types of teams. A homogeneous team is one where people think similarly, operate similarly, approach problems in a similar way. A heterogeneous team is the opposite, a mix of different perspectives, different working styles, and different instincts. Neither is inherently right or wrong, but each comes with its own strengths and its Own blind spots. Knowing which one you're leading changes how you lead it. Homogeneous teams have a lot going for them. Decisions get made easier because people are largely on the same page. Conflict is low. The team gets along because everyone kind of thinks the same. They kind of get each other. Meetings are smooth. It's kind of like a shared language. If you've been on a team like that, it can feel really good, efficient and easy. But that ease comes with a cost. When everyone thinks the same way. No one's catching what everyone else is missing. Blind spots go unnoticed because they're shared blind spots. And the absence of conflict isn't always a sign that things are going well. Sometimes it just means nobody's pushing back. Patrick Lencioni talks about this in the Five Dysfunctions of a Team. One of the core dysfunctions is fear of conflict, when teams prioritize harmony over honest debate. On a homogeneous team, that can look like alignment, it can feel like alignment, but it's often just comfort. The hard questions aren't getting asked because nobody's really wired to ask them. Decisions don't get made because no one feels rushed or pressured to make them. Or the opposite decisions are made quickly but without truly understanding the potential consequences and the result. Decisions that look solid in the room but fall apart in execution because nobody stress tested them. Or maybe the opposite decisions just never get made. Opportunities that are missed because the idea was outside everyone's natural frame. Problems that fester because pointing them out would disrupt the flow and the harmony. Heterogeneous teams are, uh, a different experience altogether. More debate, more friction, more time spent getting to a decision or certainly push back on the way. And if you've been on one of these teams, you probably have your own version of why does she keep saying the same thing? Or he keeps interrupting and it's driving me crazy. There's real friction and it doesn't feel productive when you're in the middle of it. But heterogeneous teams tend to make better decisions. More issues get surfaced, more angles get considered. The person asking the question nobody wants to answer is often the one saving everyone from a mistake down the road. The challenge is that these teams require more active leadership and an understanding of the different styles by those on the team. The differences that make the team strong are the same ones that cause friction. Someone has to manage that and everyone needs to have awareness of it. Left unmanaged, a heterogeneous team can splinter. The quiet ones just stop showing up fully. The fast movers steamroll everyone else. The detail Oriented people get dismissed as slowing things down. I worked with the team years ago, where once everyone understood their natural tendencies, everything shifted. Learning that one person's habit of interrupting wasn't dismissiveness, it was just how they processed broke down a wall that had been there for months. The team changed how they ran meetings so quieter members got more prep time before discussions. The dynamic didn't disappear, but it became workable because people understood the who they were dealing with. So the question is, do you know what kind of team you're leading? You can start by paying attention to the patterns that are already there. Who speaks in meetings? Who goes quiet? When was the last time someone pushed back on a decision? Really pushed back? How long does it take your team to reach a conclusion? And how does that process feel? Is there genuine debate or is there a lot of nodding? Disc is one tool that can help you see this more clearly. When you look at the behavioral styles across your team, you can start to see where there are similarities that are clustered and where the gaps are. A team of mostly D and I styles will look very different from a team heavy with S and C styles in how they communicate, how they handle conflict, and how they make decisions. That picture tells you something about the kind of team you have, but you don't need a formal assessment to start. You can do something as simple as a SWIC exercise strength, weaknesses, interests and concerns. It's like an individual swot. Each member of the team fills out a simple sheet, shares it with the group. It gets people talking about themselves in a structured way and surfaces things that might stay invisible. The goal isn't to label your team or to decide that one type is better. The goal is to know what you have so you can lead it well and also so you have clear visibility on blind spots. A homogeneous team needs a leader who actively introduces challenge and seeks outside perspectives. Someone who asks the uncomfortable questions on purpose because no one else is naturally going to do it. A heterogeneous team needs a leader who creates structure for the debate so the friction produces something useful instead of just wearing people out. Neither just run on autopilot, but both can be exceptional with the right attention. Reflect on the team that you're leading right now, or if you don't lead, one that the one that you're on, not the team that you want, the one that you're actually with. Where does alignment tip into groupthink? Where does friction tip into dysfunction? The composition of your team is either working for you or it's costing you. And either way, it's worth knowing which we're at the part of the show where we talk about what you can do and I have blog posts and radio shows and I'll link them on my show page. If you want more information on disc, I have tons of information and I'll link that too. Try reflecting on how your team was built. Were there intentional decisions or did the team just kind of accumulate over time? In the next few meetings, pay attention who speaks, who doesn't. When was the last time someone genuinely pushed back? Try a simple SWIC exercise again. Strength, weakness, interest and concern with your team. It surfaces things that usually stay invisible. If you want a clearer picture of your team's behavioral mix, a disc assessment is a great place to start. You can reach out and I can help you with that. For resources related to this show, you can visit my show page at Ah, LeadershipandLife CA show. And remember, the absence of conflict on your team isn't proof that everything's fine. Sometimes it just means nobody's asking the hard questions. Know what kind of team you have and then lead it accordingly.

Jackie: You've reached the end of another episode of Leadership and Life Essentials. If you want to learn more about today's topics, please visit LeadershipInLife Cat, where you'll find episode show notes and free bonus resources. I'm Jackie Sergener Gallioni, founder of Leadership and Life by Kreck, Inc. Where I strive to empower leaders with the skills no one taught them to create teams who want to work together. Thanks for joining me.