Thinker Unplugged

You might think assembling a proper team requires finding the best people. I've found it requires knowing precisely what “best” means in context, and that definition changes depending on whether you intend to succeed or simply to be seen succeeding.

The distinction is rather important.

Most organisations approach team-building as theatre. They seek impressive credentials, articulate candidates, people who interview well. What they are really selecting for is plausible deniability. When the initiative fails, as it inevitably will, the hiring committee can gesture at the CVs and say “We brought in the best.” No one can blame them for that. The team's brilliance becomes their alibi.

I take a different view.

A proper team is not built around talent. It is built around function. Not what people can do, but what they will do when no one is watching. Not their skills on paper, but their instincts under pressure. Most critically, not their individual brilliance, but their collective predictability.

Brilliant people, you see, are exhausting. They have opinions. They question things. Furthermore, they want to understand why before they execute how. All very admirable in the abstract. Entirely useless when you need something done on Tuesday.

What you actually need is simpler than most leaders admit.

First, someone who finishes things. Not perfectly. Not elegantly. Just finishes them. The person everyone describes as “dependable” with that faint note of dismissal, as if reliability were a character flaw. This person is your foundation. Everything else is negotiable. This is not.

Second, the quiet one who sees problems before they become disasters. That colleague in meetings who asks the inconvenient question everyone else was hoping to ignore. Organisations call these people “negative” right up until the moment they are proven correct. Then suddenly they are “insightful.” Keep one close. They will save you more often than they annoy you.

Third, a translator. Someone fluent in the gap between executives and engineers, between what was promised and what is possible, between the plan and reality. This role requires neither technical brilliance nor political savvy. It requires fluency in disappointment, delivered without emotion. Rare skill, that.

Fourth, and this is the one most teams lack, someone expendable.

I do not say this cruelly. I say it practically. Every initiative that matters will encounter a moment where someone must take blame for something that is no one's fault or everyone's fault, which amounts to the same thing. When that moment arrives, the team needs someone whose sacrifice does not cripple its function. Someone competent enough to be credible but dispensable enough to be replaced.

The person in this role rarely knows they occupy it. That is also by design.

What you absolutely do not need are visionaries, innovators, or anyone described as a “thought leader.” These people are decorative. They generate energy in the room and entropy in the schedule. They propose brilliant solutions to problems you do not have whilst ignoring the ones you do. If you must include one for political reasons, give them something tangential to work on and check in quarterly. They will be happier, and you will accomplish more.

The question, of course, is who assembles such a team?

The official answer involves committees, job postings, interview panels. A lovely bit of theatre. Reassures everyone that the process was fair. But you and I both know proper teams are not assembled through fair processes. They are cultivated through careful observation and strategic patience.

Watch who actually delivers when deadlines approach. Note who asks the questions everyone else avoids. Identify who can explain a technical failure to a board of directors without triggering panic or, worse, follow-up questions. Then arrange, very quietly, for these people to find themselves working together on something that matters.

If done correctly, they will believe it was their idea.

The uncomfortable truth is that proper teams are not built to innovate or inspire. They are built to execute, to absorb pressure, and to protect you from the consequences of decisions you may need to disavow later. Teams built for any other purpose tend to achieve any other result.

Most leaders cannot admit this, even to themselves. They speak of collaboration, empowerment, shared vision. All very uplifting. All entirely beside the point.

But you are still reading, which suggests you understand the difference between what we say about teams and what we actually need from them. That is promising. It means you might actually build one that works, rather than one that sounds good in the announcement email.

One last thought.

If you find yourself on a team and cannot identify who occupies each of these roles, it is worth considering which role you were brought in to fill. The answer might be illuminating.

Though you might very well think that. I could not possibly comment.