Building a High-functioning Team

When interviewing for leadership positions, the interviewer often asks, "How do you build a team?"

Several years ago, my company decided to take the Kolbe A Index to guide us in how we would best work together. In short, Kolbe A measures how you act when you are yourself, and it helps highlight the importance of understanding individual differences in cognitive styles and preferences when forming and managing teams.

?

Four Action Modes are measured in the Kolbe A Index: Fact Finder, Follow Thru, Quick Start, and Implementor. Each mode has three quadrants measuring how you act in each of these areas:

Fact Finder: How you gather and share information

• 1-3????? Satisfied with an overview
• 4-6????? Want the essential facts
• 7-10??? Need as much detail as possible

?Follow Thru: How you organize and design

• ?1-3????? Develop shortcuts and multitask
• 4-6????? Detect discrepancies and adjust procedures
• 7-10??? Design systems that organize everything

?Quick Start: How you deal with risk and uncertainty

• 1-3????? Stick with what already works well
• 4-6????? Check things out before trying them
• 7-10??? Experiment to see what will happen

?Implementor: How you handle space and tangibles

• 1-3????? Picture how things could work (envision)
• 4-6????? Keep things working the way they should (repair)
• 7-10??? Construct tangible solutions (build)

?

After taking the test, a facilitator trained on the Kolbe A Index led discussions with various groups, often comprised of single or multiple departments. I participated in a group discussion with a department dealing with copious amounts of data to create analyses. The most memorable point came when we discussed the Fact Finder mode.

The group discussion occurred in a hotel ballroom with carpeted flooring and multiple large medallion designs. The facilitator asked everyone who scored 1-3 (the overview) to stand on medallion #1, 4-6 (essential facts) to stand on medallion #2, and 7-10 (as many facts as possible) to stand on medallion #3. Not surprisingly, most people in our group of 30+ highly analytical people stood on the third medallion.

?

Our facilitator's response to the uneven distribution of the medallions shocked many. She started by explaining that none of these quadrants is better or worse than another. Instead, the distribution heavily weighted with people who wanted as many details as possible could be detrimental to making decisions within the team. She asked if we ever experienced "analysis paralysis" in team meetings. She was spot on! She recommended that we build our teams with more diversification.

?You may be wondering how I scored on Kolbe A. Below are my results:

??????????? Fact Finder – 6 – The essential facts are enough for me.

??????????? Follow Thru – 6 – I detect discrepancies and adjust my procedures.

??????????? Quick Start – 6 – I want to check things before trying them.

??????????? Implementor – 3 – I envision how things could work.

I expressed concern about my "middle-of-the-road" tendencies to the facilitator, and again, I was shocked by her response but found her analysis of me to be entirely accurate. She called me a "consummate mediator" who can see both extremes and often be the tiebreaker in a team debate over what to do. At that point, I became very aware of how others act and the best approach.

?

After returning from the group discussion, we received framed printouts of our results, which we proudly displayed on our desks to remind us how people are most comfortable when we engage them in discussion. The framed printouts were incredibly helpful as an immediate reminder when we walked into another person's office.

?

The two most extraordinary extremes were the differences between our Chief Client and Financial Officers. While I don't remember either of their scores exactly, I do remember their Fact Finder actions directly correlating to the Kolbe scores displayed in their offices:

• Chief Commercial Officer—He wanted just the overview. Our meetings often covered many topics, with questions and highlights provided in speed dating style! If I started to get long-winded, I began to lose his attention, as evidenced by his facial expression. A few times, a more significant discussion on a specific topic was warranted; however, he cut me off and moved on. It didn't take me long to tailor my approach, and I learned to schedule those deeper discussions where it was the only topic.
• Chief Financial Officer – He wanted as much detail as humanly possible. In preparing for prospective sales discussions, I often asked myself, "What will he ask, and what am I not thinking about?" I'm proud to say I never had a poor sales discussion with him and achieved his approval every time in the four years I worked with him. For people who didn't understand this, their conversations did not go well. Those conversations often resulted in him leaving the room angry and scheduling a required follow-up meeting. Because of this, sales opportunities were delayed so that the CFO would have the information he needed to decide.

?

Much like the department I participated with for the Kolbe group discussion, many companies take the same approach of hiring and building teams of people with similar tendencies. Those preferences tend to cascade down from the top of leadership. Building teams of people with similar tendencies is the worst way to create a highly functioning team. Everyone can act differently, or the company risks missing valuable insight to innovate and react quickly.

?

My pet peeve is when someone says, "This is how we've always done it." Introducing different styles and experiences into the organization offers a better chance of exploring new avenues with potentially better (or worse) outcomes. This is why some companies hire from outside rather than promoting within. While I favor sourcing internal candidates first, this can be problematic if they try to effect change in a stymied organization. Companies that continue doing the same thing without different styles and opinions will hinder results.

?

Return to the original question, "How do you build a team?" The answer is as unique as we are as individuals, but in the context of the Kolbe Index, I look for the following things when building my teams:

A. Desire to Succeed. Look for driven individuals motivated to achieve success. Their passion and commitment will propel the team forward, even during challenging times. Actions speak louder than words here.

?

B.??? Team Player. Seek individuals who prioritize collective success over individual glory. Team players collaborate effectively, support their colleagues, and are open to different perspectives and ideas.

?

C.?? Diversity. I'm talking about two different and particular types of diversity:

1)??? Information Processing Diversity: Strive for a balanced mix of individuals across the Kolbe Action Modes. Avoiding homogeneity in thinking styles reduces the risk of analysis paralysis and fosters more robust decision-making.

2)??? Knowledge and Experience Diversity: Assemble a team with diverse backgrounds, skills, and experiences. This variety enriches discussions, brings different viewpoints, and enhances problem-solving capabilities.

?

D.?? Initiative. Look for proactive individuals who take ownership of their work and are eager to explore new ideas and approaches. A blend of initiative types ensures innovation while maintaining stability.

?

By incorporating these principles into your team-building approach, you create a dynamic and resilient team capable of adapting to challenges, fostering creativity, and driving success. Your emphasis on understanding individual strengths and preferences, exemplified by the Kolbe A Index, provides valuable insights for optimizing team dynamics and performance.