Exploring Team Member Differences: A Framework

Aug 30, 2024

Hoping for some input, I asked,

“What topics would be most helpful for us to cover next time we get together?”

Silence. Not the bad kind of silence. After a few hours of working together, I could almost see the wheels turning in their heads.

I added a little more.

“What”, I asked, “would make it easier to work in your teams?”

A trickle .... then a few more thoughts.

“Maybe something about how to work across age differences.”

“How to work with people who have very different educational degrees.”

“Collaborating with people in a different sector or environment, like the community.”

“How do you work a team where some members seem to like hierarchy and others prefer co-design?”

“Working across different disciplines can be hard when some people see their discipline as more equal than others.”

“We’re struggling to put some more contentious viewpoints and perspectives on the table.”

I felt like there was a neon sign flashing:

“differences”

photo by santa-barbara-tRVKb5sGBBs on unsplash

The fundamental value proposition of collaboration is that by bringing people together, with different talents and strengths, the team can do more than any individual acting alone. There are a multitude of differences at play. And somehow, the very differences that can be a source of communal strength, can introduce challenges and even unrecognized barriers in how the team collaborates.

I recently read a book called The Culture Map by Erin Myer* that sparked my thinking about the value of being explicit about differences. Building on what she does in her book, I could imagine how teams could leverage the framework, and flex it as needed, in service of their work together. I don’t think it is a stretch to integrate culture into the work of team science and research collaboration. In fact, after several conversations with a good colleague, I have come to think it is a tremendous benefit.

Below is an adaptation of The Culture Map’s framework. Adapted because I have re-ordered the elements and taken a bit of liberty with the descriptors. Each element sits on a continuum between two opposed characteristics. In her book, Erin Myer places countries along the continuum to give readers a sense of what the tendencies are across the globe.

If one were to take all of the tendencies to heart and apply them to people, without checking if they are indeed alive in and true for them, I would suggest that is stereotyping. Making assumptions about others, based what you know or think you know, without really knowing for sure.

Instead, my invitation is:

1. To develop an understanding of your own preferences:

“Where would you place yourself along each of the continuums?”

2. Have a discussion with your team and learn about each other:

“What are the preferences of your team members?”

3. Then discuss how to use all this information to learn how to work better together.

“What norms and processes should we revisit or develop, based on

the knowledge of these dimensions of difference across the team?”

Framework

Communicating

Low-Context < --------------------------------------------------------------------- > High-Context

Feedback

Direct Negative < ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Indirect Negative

Trusting

Task-Based < ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Relationship-Based

Leading

Egalitarian < ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Hierarchical

Deciding

Consensual < ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Top-Down

Disagreeing

Confrontational < ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Avoids Confrontation

Scheduling

Linear Time < ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Flexible Time

Presenting Ideas

Principles First < ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Applications First

Let me give you an example of how this approach can be valuable. I was working with a team interested in increasing their effectiveness and we started discussing trust. I asked each member to share where they saw themselves on the continuum between task-based and relationship-based trust. One of the team members, originally from Japan, articulated a stronger desire for relationship-trust building than he had been experiencing. For him this was an important part of developing task-based trust.

After everyone had shared, I circled back and asked him “What would need to be different in the team for you to feel like you were able to build that relationship-based trust that is important to you?” and he responded that he would value spending time with his team members not focused on work. I followed-up to ask what kind of activities he was thinking about. He suggested getting together after work or taking a couple hours and going for a hike.

Then, other members of the team started chiming in with ideas and offers having heard and better understanding the importance of relationship building for their teammate. One team member invited the group to a BBQ at their house and another suggested starting to meet for coffee once each week. Both of them admitted that making such suggestions had just not occurred to them before the present conversation.

Just imagine what you could learn about yourself and about your teammates by spending some time doing this exercise. And, how easy it would be to add some of the team’s own dimensions of difference to explore how people are experiencing them, what preferences they have about working across them.

All that information can be added to the pool of team knowledge and can increase the quality of the relationships and the effectiveness of the research.