“When leading a group, should the leader pay differentiated attention to individual members and the group as a collective simultaneously?” This is the question raised by Joshua Wu, Anne Tsui, and Angelo Kinicki in a recent Academy of Management Journal publication. Their study of 70 work groups in eight companies found that successful team leaders manage the team, not the individuals.
If you have bought the prevailing wisdom that managing the strengths of individual group members is the best way to manage your group, you could be making a big mistake. This study found that if you provide highly differentiated leadership to each member of your group, you will indeed increase the individual self-efficacy of those individual members. But the increased individual self-efficacy had a negative effect on the group’s collective efficacy, and a negative effect on the group’s effectiveness.
Group collective efficacy, on the other hand, had a significant positive effect on group effectiveness. The researchers measured collective efficacy with items that assessed the kinds of tasks the group might perform, not specific tasks any single group member might perform.
Group collective efficacy resulted from group-focused rather than individual-focused leadership. Group-focused leadership produced group identification, which in turn produced a collective sense of efficacy among group members. This is the type of leadership where group leaders specify the importance of group members having a strong sense of collective purpose and mission in working with the group as a whole.
Popular thinking on leadership asserts that effective leaders must not only inspire the group as a whole, but must also be attentive to the unique needs of each and every individual in the group. The results of this research suggest “that leaders who attempt to satisfy both individual and group needs may inadvertently compromise group processes and group outcomes” (p. 101).
If your individualized approach to leadership creates a group full of members where some have high self-efficacy and see themselves as “high potentials” while others do not, you are likely sub-optimizing the performance of your group as a whole. The differences in individual efficacy among group members affects how they feel about each other and their ability to accomplish things together. This is especially critical when group tasks require extensive interdependence among members.
When group performance matters, and people need to work closely together for the group to be effective, the belief that “we can do it” is more important than any individual’s belief that “I can do it.” If you lead a group like this, you probably want to keep that strength-based snake oil on the shelf.
Related Posts:
Leadership: The Value Of Shared Purpose
You should follow me on twitter here.
Hi Bret,
Thanks for sharing this research, that many of us would not otherwise be aware of.
I have felt pretty lonely as I have found the “Strengthsfinder Index” (an “assessment” of strengths spawned from “Now Discover Your Strengths”, a book promoted by Gallup that just won’t die) a sad commentary on individual strengths. This assessment is, frankly, a piece of junk. Every time someone takes it, they can come up with different “strengths” – all of which are very positive, and all of which we’d like to believe we have.(To the best of my knowledge, this assesssment has never been subject to any validity or reliability testing).
If leaders are basing their decisions to focus on individual strengths on the results of this assessment (as some of my clients are), they’re in for double trouble. It appears that not only should they be focusing on group strengths but they shouldn’t be assuming the “results” of the Strengthfinder assessment are “the truth”.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Glad you said this, MJ. Gallup always couches their snake oil with the claim of a “mountain of research” to support the tools they sell, but the truth is always a different story. The research I cite was done by some of the best in the Academy – Anne Tsui is a past president – and it was peer reviewed by other top scientists. I am with you, the strength based stuff needs to find a place on the shelf. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]
Bret – Thanks for engaging a discussion on this complex topic. The flip side of this coin ((encouraging group more than individual) occurs when the bar is lowered on individual performance, innovation, etc. for the sake of fitting in with the group. There is some older research from educational systems that suggests this occurs in classroom settings where there is a broad range of abilities. The bottom performers rise and the top performers fall. So I think there is a very fine balance to be struck between encouraging individual and group performance.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 8:42 am
Welcome, Anne! Your point about lowering the group expectations to accommodate individuals is a valid one. The point this research suggests is don’t expect your “high-potentials” to pull up the rest of the group. We’ve taught for years that the best functioning group will always outperform any individual member. Thanks!! Bret
[Reply]
It is definitely the power of the team that makes a big difference in productivity! The best leaders of course recognize this and act accordingly. Use of their time and leverage for collaboration are optimized this way. However, it is not an either/or situation to focus on team vs individual. Individuation in leadership is necessary depending on the task at hand and the development needs of the organization. Though leaders do well to strengthen the team aspect (thus creating a support system for individual members NOT based solely on the leader), that does not mean that they treat individual members in the exact same way. Its an art form to understand when to help an individual step up for the team with his or her strengths up front. Leaders that understand this instead of trying to “democratize” treatment of individual team members get the best of both worlds. Thanks for sharing this thought-provoking information and perspective!
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Welcome, Monica! Your point about it being contingent is very valid. The authors of the research talked about this in their discussion. I think the key is to start with leadership that focuses on the group and step in to do individualized leadership when necessary, instead of the other way around. I think we should also remember the power of a cohesive team to lead itself, and the power of a team dominated by strong individuals to fall apart. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]
I should have written a couple more lines in my original response. I don’t think a leader shouldn’t focus on strengths – but I do believe they shouldn’t accept poorly designed assessments and their results as “the truth”.
I think knowing individual and/or group strengths are of value. However, we as individuals and teams are so much more complex than that. To believe that a focus on individual strengths (and maybe even team or group strengths) is “the answer” can lead us down a path that is not sustainable.
We’re always looking or the easy button! Most of the time, when it comes to human behavior, it’s out of commission.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
well said about the easy button, MJ. I totally concur. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]
Bret,
I agree, Strengthsfinder results are a little too unscientific to be used as a basis for hard goal-setting or staff development, and I see how a group dynamic can be compromised by a manager who pays too much attention to them.
Apart from that danger, it sounds like you might consider that the Strengthsfinder could be a tool for building cohesion by promoting awareness of a spectrum of diversity within a group of strong personalities. I’d like to offer a case example of how that can be done.
In my group’s experience, acknowledging each others’ “Top 5 Strengths” was very useful in this way. We used it as part of an offsite team-building activity. Here’s how it worked:
The team was admittedly full of diva types and never very functional to begin with. Moreover, it had been through some change and had acquired a couple of new people. There were some tensions between old-guard and newbies.
Prior to the offsite, each team member took the Strengthsfinder survey. Then each shared the results of his or her survey with the rest of the group during a round-table discussion. The group facilitator also encouraged each person to share their own reactions to the survey, pro or con, so there was freedom to either accept or reject the survey tags… thereby giving respect to the person as an open-ended entity, not a mere strength-stratified stereotype (as you metnion, this is the easy button temptation, and it needs to be guarded against).
The Strengthsfinder provided a neutral canvas on which all participants, both old and new, could paint themselves in a fresh light. The response was good, as barriers seemed to come down all around the table. During the work sessions that followed, people naturally made reference to each others’ strengths amid easy-going banter.
Based on the group’s overall positive response to this activity, our manager delegated our admin to publish a table of each others’ “Top 5″ and encouraged us to celebrate each others’ differences and tap each other for project collaboration and feedback. based on our acknowledged strengths.
We found that this exercise, and this suggestion from our manager, helped validate team members to each other and frame each one in a positive perspective, setting the stage for an even playing field, acceptance, openness, and better communication all around. Most participants agreed that they came away from the experience with an enhanced awareness and appreciation for (and tolerance of) each others’ different affinities and proclivities.
Privately, I have also concluded that the session provided us with a proto-strategy for dealing with future conflict within the group. (Awareness of each others’ different work approaches had the effect of disarming negative assumptions and defusing irritation with behavioral pet peeves, while promoting a more tolerant understanding of style disparities.) With a knowledge of each others’ Strength Profile characteristics, we generally have been able to anticipate and contextualize each others’ behaviors more constructively.
By allowing us to have a shared positive understanding of each others’ strong suits and idiosyncracies, the Strengthsfinder has been a helpful enhancement to our group identity since we employed it this way a few years ago.
Admittedly, that’s about all I would use it for, though. As a self-mentoring tool, the Strengthsfinder profile (and its attendant advice in the Stength profiling books) seems to have taken on different levels of personal relevancy to each one in our department. It has not been revisited formally since. We have not used it in peer reviews. And it has NOT been used by our manager to micro-manage individual performance or set hard “strengths-based” goals in work output, career development, etc.
I would consider it to be, not searingly solid science, but insightful intriguing input when used as a navigation tool toward mutual respect and appreciation.
Just some added thoughts for the pile.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Welcome, Elizabeth, and thanks for the extensive comment! I would only say that the exercise of finding strengths seems like an odd way to get a cohesion. The research would say that it had the opposite effect. Thanks for sharing! Bret
[Reply]
Thanks for sharing this research. I’m a huge fan of the strengths-based approach however, I’ve never really been a fan of StrengthsFinder. I think MJ is right that it creates a different result every time. Buckingham appears to take an approach more in line with Appreciative Inquiry when discovering strengths.
Still, this research makes a compelling case that SBL only really has a positive effect on individual performers.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Thanks for weighing in, David. I’m not a big fan of strengths and not at all of the Buckingham approach. This is an interesting case of being able to read the research. Just looking at the title of the article, one might not discern that there was strength based counsel in there. I had to read down to the item level on their measures to know they were asking these types of questions. The researchers were writing for other researchers and I think missed the fact that there was a huge message for an approach people are using in the real world. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]
Hello all and thanks to Bret for his intriguing and informative site. Not to mention his no BS attitude. I’m coming a little late to the discussion but as a relatively new leader (at least formally) I’ve been doing some research into leadership for self-improvement purposes. My boss turned me on to the strengths based leadership and I found it appealing in many ways. But, i am naturally a skeptic (is that a strength?) and one of the first things I always do whenever I come across somethign that seems good is to look for the other side of the story. Didn’t take long to find a lot of criticism on the strengths approach. A few comments:
First, I can’t stand it when people make strawmen just to try to knock an idea idea down. So many of the criticisms of the strengths based approach seem to treat it as if strengths basde = weakness ignoring. Not in the materials I have read. I certainly agree that ignoring weaknesses, particularly important ones, is a bad idea. But that does not invalidate a strengths based approach.
I think part of the reason the strengths based approach resonated with me is my basic believe that any approach to any aspect of life (leadership or whatever else) that does not take human nature into account is destined to fail. The strengths based approach acknowledges what to me is an obvious truth: different people are different. They have different strengths and weaknesses.
That being said, I tend to be a big believer in balance. In any situation you have to find the right balance to succeed. Depending upon a persons particular situation, focusing on certain strengths, improving certain weaknesses, or more likely, a combination of both may be appropriate.
Finally a quick comment on the research that was the subject of this article. Again, seems like a strawman to me. Their is a HUGE difference between a leader recognizing a team is made up of individuals with different strengths and showing differing or preferential treatment in some manenr of the team members as is implied by the synopsis. For a team leader not to recognize his teams individuals have different strengths is dumb. But to not manage the team as a team is also dumb. The two aprpoaches are not contradictory. In fact, I’d say doing both is probably the best approach to success.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Welcome, Lance. I like how you have given this a lot of serious thought. That’s the way it should be. I love an informed and passionate debate on the merits of ideas. Thanks for contributing! Bret
[Reply]