Microsoft_Word_Document1.docx
The Model
The Three Virtues of an Ideal Team Player
This section of the book is about understanding the ideal team player model, what it means, where it comes from, and how it can be put to practical use. Let’s start with the big picture.
In his classic book, Good To Great, Jim Collins talks about the importance of successful companies getting “the right people on the bus,”a euphemism for hiring and retaining employees who fit a company’s culture. It is a concept that is relatively simple and makes perfect sense, yet somehow it is often overlooked, as too many leaders hire mostly for competency and technical skills.
For organizations seriously committed to making teamwork a cultural reality, I’m convinced that “the right people” are the ones who have the three virtues in common—humility, hunger, and people smarts. I refer to these as virtues because the word virtue is a synonym for the nouns quality and asset, but it also connotes the idea of integrity and morality. Humility, which is the most important of the three, is certainly a virtue in the deepest sense of the word. Hunger and people smarts fall more into the quality or asset category. So, the word virtue best captures them all.
Of course, to recognize and cultivate humble, hungry, and smart team members, or to become one yourself, you first need to understand exactly what these deceptively simple words mean and how all three together make up the essential virtues of an ideal team player.
Defining the Three Virtues
Humble
In the context of teamwork, humility is largely what it seems to be. Great team players lack excessive ego or concerns about status. They are quick to point out the contributions of others and slow to seek attention for their own. They share credit, emphasize team over self, and define success collectively rather than individually. It is no great surprise, then, that humility is the single greatest and most indispensable attribute of being a team player.
Humility is the single greatest and most indispensable attribute of being a team player.
What’s amazing is that so many leaders who value teamwork will tolerate people who aren’t humble. They reluctantly hire self-centered people and then justify it simply because those people have desired skills. Or, they see arrogant behavior in an employee and fail to confront it, often citing that person’s individual contributions as an excuse. The problem, of course, is that leaders aren’t considering the effect that an arrogant, self-centered person has on the overall performance of the team. This happens in sports, business, and every other kind of team venture.
There are two basic types of people who lack humility, and it’s important, even critical, to understand them, because they look quite different from one another and impact a team differently. The most obvious kind is the overtly arrogant people who make everything about them. They are easy to identify because they tend to boast and soak up attention. This is the classically ego-driven type and it diminishes teamwork by fostering resentment, division, and politics. Most of us have seen plenty of this behavior in our careers.
The next type is much less dangerous, but still worth understanding. These are the people who lack self-confidence but are generous and positive with others. They tend to discount their own talents and contributions, and so others mistakenly see them as humble. But this is not humility. While they are certainly not arrogant, their lack of understanding of their own worth is also a violation of humility. Truly humble people do not see themselves as greater than they are, but neither do they discount their talents and contributions. C.S. Lewis addressed this misunderstanding about humility when he said “Humility isn’t thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.”
A person who has a disproportionately deflated sense of self-worth often hurts teams by not advocating for their own ideas or by failing to call attention to problems that they see. Though this kind of lack of humility is less obtrusive and obvious than the other, more negative types, it detracts from optimal team performance nonetheless.
What both of these types have in common is insecurity. Insecurity makes some people project overconfidence, and others discount their own talents. And while these types are not equal when it comes to creating problems on a team, they each diminish performance.
Hungry
Hungry people are always looking for more. More things to do. More to learn. More responsibility to take on. Hungry people almost never have to be pushed by a manager to work harder because they are self-motivated and diligent. They are constantly thinking about the next step and the next opportunity. And they loathe the idea that they might be perceived as slackers.
Hungry people almost never have to be pushed by a manager to work harder because they are self-motivated and diligent.
It’s not difficult to understand why hungry people are great to have on a team, but it’s important to realize that some types of hunger are not good for a team and are even unhealthy. In some people, hunger can be directed in a selfish way that is not for the good of the team but for the individual. And in some people, hunger can be taken to an extreme where work becomes too important, consuming the identity of an employee and dominating their life. When I refer to hunger here, I’m thinking about the healthy kind—a manageable and sustainable commitment to doing a job well and going above and beyond when it is truly required.
Okay, few team leaders will knowingly ignore a lack of hunger in their people, most likely because unproductive, dispassionate people tend to stand out and create obvious problems on a team. Unfortunately, undiscerning leaders too often hire these people because most candidates know how to falsely project a sense of hunger during standard interviews. As a result, those leaders find themselves spending inordinate amounts of time trying to motivate, punish, or dismiss non-hungry team members once they’re on board.
Smart
Of the three virtues, this one needs the most clarification because it is not what it might seem; it is not about intellectual capacity. In the context of a team, smart simply refers to a person’s common sense about people. It has everything to do with the ability to be interpersonally appropriate and aware. Smart people tend to know what is happening in a group situation and how to deal with others in the most effective way. They ask good questions, listen to what others are saying, and stay engaged in conversations intently.
Some might refer to this as emotional intelligence, which wouldn’t be a bad comparison, but smart is probably a little simpler than that. Smart people just have good judgment and intuition around the subtleties of group dynamics and the impact of their words and actions. As a result, they don’t say and do things—or fail to say and do things—without knowing the likely responses of their colleagues.
Smart simply refers to a person’s common sense about people.
Keep in mind that being smart doesn’t necessarily imply good intentions. Smart people can use their talents for good or ill purposes. In fact, some of the most dangerous people in history have been noted for being interpersonally smart.
The Three Virtues Combined
If you’re thinking that these three virtues seem somewhat obvious, I would be the first to agree with you. Looking at them one by one, I’m reluctant to present them in any way that would suggest that I believe they are novel or new. What makes humble, hungry, and smart powerful and unique is not the individual attributes themselves, but rather the required combination of all three. If even one is missing in a team member, teamwork becomes significantly more difficult, and sometimes not possible. Before we get into that, this would probably be a good time to explain how the ideal team player model came to be.
What makes humble, hungry, and smart powerful and unique is not the individual attributes themselves, but rather the required combination of all three.
The History of the Model
Back in 1997, a group of colleagues and I started our management consulting firm, The Table Group. Because we had worked together in a department I led in a previous company, we had an easy time agreeing on our core values: humble, hungry, and smart. These were the principles that guided our department previously, and we wanted to maintain them in our new firm. So we committed to hiring only people who embodied these concepts and to avoid making any operational or strategic decisions that violated them.
In the consulting work we did with clients, we not only helped leaders build better teams, but we also assisted them in clarifying everything from their strategies, tactics, roles, responsibilities, meetings, and, most important for this conversation, values. In the course of discussing values, clients would inevitably ask us about ours at The Table Group.
Now, we didn’t publicize humble, hungry, and smart. They were nowhere to be found on our website or in any of our collateral. We felt that as long as we understood and stayed true to them, no one else really needed to understand them. However, when clients asked us, we felt compelled to share them. And when we explained humble, hungry, and smart, something strange would often happen: clients would declare that they were going to adopt those values, too.
Of course, we would immediately protest and explain that an organization’s values can’t be copied or borrowed; they need to be true reflections of the unique history and culture of that organization. We often attributed our client’s interest in our values to expediency, or perhaps even laziness—their desire to grab the first set of positive-sounding words, so that they could declare their search for values over. Well, we eventually discovered we were wrong about their motivation and that there was a logical explanation why our clients wanted to adopt humble, hungry, and smart.
First, our firm’s culture was all about teamwork, both in what we did with clients and in how we tried to behave internally, because we had always vowed to practice what we preached. Second, virtually all the companies that engaged our firm were already interested in teamwork, which makes sense given that we were best known for the book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. So, it shouldn’t have been terribly surprising to think that our hiring criteria and core values would make up the very definition of a team player, even if we didn’t realize it at the time.
Once we made this realization, we started to look at the relevance of humble, hungry, and smart for other organizations in a different way. Those words weren’t necessarily core values, but they were critical hiring and development criteria for any organization that wanted teamwork to be central to its operations.
To make sure we weren’t deluding ourselves, we asked the question, Could a person fully practice the five behaviors at the heart of teamwork (see the model on page 214) if he or she didn’t buy into the idea of being humble, hungry, and smart?
The answer was a resounding no.
A person who is not humble will not be able to be vulnerable and build trust, making them unable to engage in honest conflict and hold others accountable. And they’ll have a hard time committing to decisions that don’t serve their interests. A colleague who lacks hunger will not be willing to engage in uncomfortable conflict, hold peers accountable for their behaviors, or do whatever it takes to achieve results, choosing instead to take an easier path. And a person who is not smart about people will most likely create unnecessary problems in the entire teambuilding process, especially when it comes to tactfully engaging in productive conflict and holding people accountable for behaviors.
After reviewing, discussing, and using the model in our own firm and seeing our clients try to adopt it in theirs, we became convinced that any leader who wants to make teamwork a reality should find and/or develop people who are humble, hungry, and smart. To do all of this, leaders need to understand how these qualities work together and what happens when one or more of them are missing.
The Ideal Team Player Model
The model on the following page depicts the intersections between humble, hungry, and smart, with the central overlapping piece representing the combined qualities of an ideal team player. That is not to imply that a person in that middle section will be consistently perfect in all of these virtues, or in any one of them, for that matter. No one is perfect. Even a person who is humble, hungry, and smart occasionally has a bad day, or a bad week, or even a bad time in their life. These are not permanent characteristics embedded in a person’s DNA; rather, they are developed and maintained through life experiences and personal choices at home and at work.
When team members are adequately strong in each of these areas—when they possess significant humility, hunger, and people smarts—they enable teamwork by making it relatively easy for members to overcome the five dysfunctions of a team (see model on page 214). That means they’ll be more likely to be vulnerable and build trust, engage in productive but uncomfortable conflict with team members, commit to group decisions even if they initially disagree, hold their peers accountable when they see performance gaps that can be addressed, and put the results of the team ahead of their own needs.
Only humble, hungry, and smart people can do those things without a great deal of coaching. Those who don’t have all three virtues are going to require significantly more time, attention, and patience from their managers.
Let’s take a look at the various categories of people, starting with those who have none of the required qualities and moving to the ideal team players who have all three.
The Categories
0 for 3
Those who lack all three qualities, who are markedly deficient in humility, hunger, and people smarts, have little chance of being valuable team members. It would take great effort over a long period of time for them to develop the capacity for all three, let alone two or even one. Fortunately for managers, these people are very easy to identify and rarely slip through interviews and make it onto teams. Unfortunately, life can be very hard for them.
1 for 3
For those who lack two of the three in a big way, it’s also going to be an uphill battle—not impossible, but not easy. Let’s look at these three categories, the ones involving a team member who is only humble, hungry, or smart.
Humble Only: The Pawn
People who are only humble but not at all hungry or smart are the “pawns” on a team. They are pleasant, kind-hearted, unassuming people who just don’t feel a great need to get things done and don’t have the ability to build effective relationships with colleagues. They often get left out of conversations and activities, and have little impact on the performance of a team. Pawns don’t make waves, so they can survive for quite a long time on teams that value harmony and don’t demand performance.
Hungry Only: The Bulldozer
People who are hungry but not at all humble or smart can be thought of as “bulldozers.”These people will be determined to get things done, but with a focus on their own interests and with no understanding or concern for how their actions impact others. Bulldozers are quick destroyers of teams. Fortunately, unlike pawns, they stand out and can be easily identified and removed by leaders who truly value teamwork. However, in organizations that place a premium on production alone, bulldozers can thrive and go uncorrected for long periods of time.
Smart Only: The Charmer
People who are smart but sorely lacking in humility and hunger are “charmers.”They can be entertaining and even likeable for a while, but have little interest in the long-term well-being of the team or their colleagues. Their social skills can sometimes help them survive longer than bulldozers or pawns, but because their contributions to the team are negligible, they often wear out their welcome quickly.
2 for 3
The next three categories that we’ll explore represent people who are more difficult to identify because the strengths associated with them often camouflage their weaknesses. Team members who fit into these categories lack only one of the three traits and thus have a little higher likelihood of overcoming their challenges and becoming ideal team players. Still, lacking even one in a serious way can impede the teambuilding process.
Humble and Hungry, but Not Smart: The Accidental Mess-Maker
People who are humble and hungry but decidedly not smart are the “accidental mess-makers.”They genuinely want to serve the team and are not interested in getting a disproportionate amount of attention and credit. However, their lack of understanding of how their words and actions are received by others will lead them to inadvertently create interpersonal problems on the team. While colleagues will respect their work ethic and sincere desire to be helpful, those colleagues can get tired of having to clean up the emotional and interpersonal problems that accidental mess-makers so often leave behind. In the fable, Nancy was the accidental mess-maker—a relatively egoless, hard-working employee who lacked interpersonal dexterity and created unnecessary problems on the team.
Though the accidental mess-maker can definitely be a problem, of the three types that lack just one of the characteristics of an ideal team player, this is the least dangerous to a team, as accidental mess-makers have no bad intentions and can usually take corrective feedback in good humor.
Humble and Smart, but Not Hungry: The Lovable Slacker
People who are humble and smart but not adequately hungry are the “lovable slackers.”They aren’t looking for undeserved attention, and they are adept at working with and caring about colleagues. Unfortunately, they tend to do only as much as they are asked, and rarely seek to take on more work or volunteer for extra assignments. Moreover, they have limited passion for the work the team is doing. Because they are generally charming and positive, it’s easy for leaders to shy away from confronting or removing lovable slackers. After all, they’re lovable.
In the fable, a minor character referred to as Tommy was a lovable slacker. He was neither a jerk nor a complete sloth, but did only what was expected of him and no more. Tommy had passion about various pursuits in his life, but none of this passion was directed at work.
Lovable slackers need significant motivation and oversight, making them a drag on the team’s performance, more so than the accidental mess-makers. But they don’t represent the most dangerous of the three types who lack one of the virtues; that would be the skillful politician.
Hungry and Smart, but Not Humble: The Skillful Politician
People who are hungry and smart but lack humility are the “skillful politicians.”These people are cleverly ambitious and willing to work extremely hard, but only in as much as it will benefit them personally. Unfortunately, because they are so smart, skillful politicians are very adept at portraying themselves as being humble, making it hard for leaders to identify them and address their destructive behaviors. By the time the leader sees what’s going on, the politician may have already created a trail of destruction among their more humble colleagues who have been manipulated, discouraged, and scarred. Most of us have worked with plenty of skillful politicians, as they tend to rise in the ranks of companies where leaders reward individual performance over teamwork.
In the fable, Ted Marchbanks was the skillful politician. He was professional, charismatic, and motivated, which is why Jeff and his team almost hired him. Ultimately, Ted turned out to be much more interested in himself than on the people around him.
WARNING: Now is probably a good time for a few important warnings. First, keep in mind that accurately identifying people as bulldozers, charmers, pawns, accidental mess-makers, lovable slackers, or skillful politicians is not always easy, and shouldn’t be done flippantly. Wrongly labeling a team member, even in private or jest, can be damaging. Second, don’t assign these labels to colleagues who are truly ideal team players simply bec
