Leaders: Individual Geniuses or Team of Experts?

That discussion goes back to my initial years at the university: What matters the most? Having the best individual talent or a well-balanced group of experts? Putting it this way, it sounds intuitive: having a good team is better than having individual stars.

However, last week, I found myself in this discussion twice by reading "The Smartest Guys in the Room" by Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind and listening to an interview with Professor Miguel Nicolelis . The first is a book that tells the rise and fall of Enron decades ago and how a mix of accounting malpractices, mismanagement and uncontrolled geniuses made one of the ten largest US companies fall into disgrace and become a reference that changed accounting in the years after. The second is someone I consider to be one of the greatest living geniuses minds of our time, who made the brain-machine interface possible, which was represented by the kick-off of the FIFA World Cup in 2014 (unfortunately, an achievement that was more celebrated outside than inside of my country).

That discussion is also part of an embryonic project I am discussing to bring great minds to work together. However, that is a story to be told in the future.

The balance between deep expertise and big-picture vision is crucial, especially in managing large groups (which go beyond private profit-based companies). Drawing from my experiences managing teams of specialists and generalists, I've observed that the key lies in knowing when and where to apply specialised knowledge, often extending it beyond traditional boundaries. However, it is crucial to understand that a team of individual geniuses can turn into a very dysfunctional group and easily be surpassed by well-coordinated groups of "less" geniuses individuals.

Understanding the Role of Expertise

Expertise is priceless. Those who advocate that university and science are outdated and will be replaced by online practical learning must remember what brought our companies (and society) to their current stage.

Science and deep expertise drive innovation and ensure precision, replicability and continuous progress (for the good and the bad, I know).??

However, their impact is maximised when strategically applied. Specialists often bring unparalleled insights into their specific areas. Yet, they need direction to align their skills with broader goals—this is where the ability to see the big picture comes into play. (Side note: I am not advocating giving Science short-term financial metrics. Instead, I suggest considering the benefits of having someone with a big-picture perspective before and/or after.)

So, if expertise is "king", shared values, purpose, and coordinated experts are "King Kong!"

Early Career Insights: The Bakery Analogy

Early in my career, during an HR training session, we were asked, "If you have a bakery, what is the highest role the best baker could achieve?" Most answers ranged from different managerial roles. Despite of being a recently promoted Market Research Trainee, I proposed, "Make the person a partner! Give them a share of the company."

Well, my boss liked it, and I would still argue in favour of that nowadays. The essence is to create an environment where individuals can excel in their roles without being pressured to constantly change their business cards if that's not their aspiration. Recognising and valuing their contributions in their chosen capacity is crucial.

The Motivation to Thrive

For different reasons, some decades ago, I became more engaged with associations supporting highly gifted children, which taught me a lot about nurturing talent (and, well, also helped me blog for some years: https://ahsdblog.wordpress.com/).

Highly skilled individuals, when motivated correctly, can excel remarkably. Yet, expecting them to thrive in every area is unrealistic and misuses their energy. By the way, significant learning is that gifted kids face tremendous challenges throughout their lives because of the feeling of lack of belonging or because of others considering them as "ready to thrive in everything they touch". Through challenging moments, I realised that it is an act of evil to make children face such a responsibility without maturity or guidance.

Going back to the corporate world, if you have a genius on your team, do not expect them (and do not promise they) to be the next Vice Chairperson. During my dear GE times, we used to refer to those individuals as the contenders for the "Next JW trophy" (JW standing for Jack Welch)

Lessons from Chess

Leadership, like chess, requires foresight and strategic thinking. In chess, pawns can become queens only through careful planning and navigating the battlefield. As leaders, you've got to be Mr Kasparov: with a strategy in mind, winning each step of the battle by knowing our team members' potential and guiding them through challenges, helping them grow and maximise their potential (and anticipating or guiding your competitors' moves for sure).

Lessons from the Spectrum

I have had the challenge and privilege of working on projects with individuals on the autism spectrum more than once. At the same time, there have also been some ultra-social-shallow-expertise people with whom I have worked (maybe, if I go to Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, I cannot argue against seeing them as holders of a different set of skills). However, those might be two extremes I can refer to here for educational purposes.

On one side, people who can easily enchant others, sell ideas and are easy to deal with have their value. However, a company cannot survive with those only. On the other side, the deep expertise and unique perspectives of specific individuals like those on the spectrum I worked with have enriched our projects. The key has been to provide the right tools and guidance to harness their abilities, benefiting both them and the team. This experience underscores the importance of tailored support and understanding each team member's strengths.

Supporting Research and Insights

Daniel Kahneman's work on decision-making and cognitive biases highlights the importance of diverse organisational thinking styles (one of my best long-time friends, Alessandra Eng , a former Gallup Consultant, often refers to that). Combining deep expertise with a broad vision mitigates biases and fosters balanced decision-making. Additionally, Gallup's StrengthsFinder emphasises leveraging individual strengths rather than focusing on weaknesses. This approach aligns with creating environments where specialists can thrive without being forced into unsuitable roles.

Conclusion: A Balanced Approach

So... should we seek to have a team of experts or generalists? Individual geniuses or team players? By the way, are they mutually exclusive options?

Balancing is a "boring like the same as always sort of answer". However, it may be the best one here. You must be genuinely interested in people and know where they can do their best. I am not advocating for pure corporate anarchy; instead, knowing where to play what and giving people the space and environment to go further under the proper Northstar would be the way.

Sometimes, you hire someone for a job that is no longer required - you do not throw valuable resources (or skilled people) in the garbage, do you? Can such skills be applied elsewhere and benefit the team?

If not, be frank and discuss the person's next career (inside or outside the group).

Think about:

1. Strategic Application of Expertise: Know when and where to apply specialised knowledge.
2. Motivation and Fit: Provide the right motivation and environment for individuals to thrive in their roles and for others to learn from them.
3. Leadership Foresight: Guide team members through challenges, helping them grow and maximise their potential.

In nature, the alpha lion is the strongest individual in a group. However, when it comes to doing important things, you rely on a group of lionesses working as a team.