Rocket Scientist

Prima donnas don’t lead successful teams.  It seems obvious but it’s not.  Believe me, I’ve worked (indirectly) for the government for nearly 20 years and I’ve never seen a successful team lead by an egomaniac unless he (or she) was simply a much-humored figurehead.  In fact, when I’ve seen someone like that leading a team, I can bet there are one of two potential scenarios:

1. She’s a charismatic or influential individual with a good front and/or name but no actual involvement in the real work.  In some cases, the individual may not even realize they are not controlling things, as they are given side but harmless tasks where they can’t do any harm, while others come behind and clean up the mess. These can provide good results, but there’s no guarantee one way or the other.
2. He’s a control freak that needs to be in charge of every detail and either has good but frustrated, possibly antagonistic, folks under him or has “yes men” that never argue or offer constructive criticism.  In both cases, these groups rarely have any thing really useful or successful coming out of them, except, perhaps, the first one that sets the reputation.

If you find a successful team, you can bet there are certain characteristics attached to it:

1. Diverse and complementary talents in the team.  It’s not an effective team if one person is doing it all.  That’s a recipe for failure (and it makes the one good worker prime fodder for being snatched by someone else).  Team players should be able to pitch hit, but each player should bring something special to the party.
2. Honest interaction.  People have to be honest enough to work together effectively, but also to point out flaws.  If one is unwilling to point out drawbacks, the products will suffer, even if it seems friendlier.
3. Self-confidence, but not conceit.  Many confuse these traits.  There’s nothing wrong with knowing your own strengths, knowing your own worth, knowing your own limitations and being proud of what you can do.  That’s entirely different than thinking one is infallible, perfect, beyond criticism or question, completely ignorant of one’s limitations.  Rather than being the same, they’re more like polar opposites.  Here’s my litmus test.  If you can field questions/criticism without getting testy, you are confident not conceited. And you’re more likely to know your stuff.
4. Good leadership.  Good leadership does not mean micromanaging.  Good leadership means providing as much direction as needed to keep the project moving effectively, but trusting the team players to carry their own weight and use their own judgement as well.  If a leader has to do “everything” either he has a crappy team or she is completely deluded as to her own importance.  A good leader also backs their team players.  If a leader hog the credit or use the team players as scapegoats, that leader will not have much of a team before long.  There is often a labor shortage but talent and capability are always in short supply.

So, why is this important?  Well, leadership and teamwork are the key to successful science.  They are also an appealing formula for a fiction.  I have a tendency to do “ensemble” casts in novels, I think because I have really recognized the advantages of talented people working together.  Protagonists generally take leadership roles, but an effective team may not always have the same leader.
Food for thought.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS