The secret to driving success: a balanced team
Have you ever struggled with a leadership team that just wasn’t delivering the results you needed? A team that was slow to execute, too focused on vision without follow-through, or simply not aligned on what success looks like? I know most leaders will relate to this frustration.
Right now, I’m working with several organizations that are navigating private equity (PE); one client is focused on elevating their existing executive leadership talent, another that’s looking to assemble and develop a top-notch leadership team. In the world of private equity, acquiring a company is just the beginning; the real value comes from transforming it into a higher-performing asset. The key to that transformation? The right people.
As part of this work, I met organizational psychologist Kevin Somerville, developer of The Leadership Style Indicator® (LSI), an assessment tool designed to help leaders understand their natural leadership approach and how they interact with others at work. He knows the value of a collaborative, balanced leadership team—and he was kind enough to sit down with me and share his perspective for this week’s newsletter.
What really drives results
When you and your team aren’t getting the outcomes you want (or need), many leaders push a bit harder. They demand more, or even yell and scream in an attempt to propel their team to better results, but that strategy rarely works. The teams that are truly achieving organizational success—those in the top 25%—are the most well-balanced, with a diversity of views, strengths, and expertise. In my experience working with groups to develop better collaboration, this is consistently the case, and it echoes Kevin’s experience. Since 1984, over 900 companies and 10,000 executives—all the portfolio companies of PE firms—have taken the LSI, and the results consistently reinforce the importance of assembling a team with complementary talents. “It's the balance that delivers the power,” Kevin says. “It's the balance that is more likely to be consistent with high levels of performance.”
Assembling a new leadership team—or leveling up an existing one—is a lot like developing a recipe. Every ingredient plays a role in creating a successful outcome, and too much (or not enough) of one thing can throw the whole thing off. A team with too much similarity of thought can lead to blind spots. This is especially common in venture capital-backed startups, where teams are often filled with visionaries who dream big but struggle with operational execution. “They're thinking about possibilities, they're thinking about a product or service that there's no market for yet and they've got a whole new approach. Fine. What's one of the main reasons these companies fail? They spend too much money. They're not realistic, they're not grounded enough, they're not practical enough,” Kevin says. However, on the flip side, teams with extreme differences can experience too much friction, causing nothing to get done. That’s why it’s so important to carefully build, assess, and optimize who gets a seat at the table.
Ask yourself: Am I missing an essential ingredient on my leadership team?
Uncovering strengths
Assessments like the LSI can help leaders gain clarity about the skills, leadership style, and expertise they really have on their teams. Five critical leadership style factors contribute the most to a team's complexity and strength, each existing on a spectrum.
Strategy (How leaders develop strategy): This continuum ranges from 'conceiving' to ‘applying.’ Those whose scores lean toward ‘conceiving’ will be adept at generating innovative ideas and envisioning possibilities, in contrast to those whose ranges favor ‘applying,’ who tend to focus more on practical implementation and a grounded approach.
Executing (How leaders go about getting things done): Here, the spectrum spans from 'driving'—those on this end assertively push initiatives forward—to 'collaborating,’ which emphasizes teamwork and collective input.
Process and Methods (How leaders use processes and methods): This factor contrasts 'structuring’ and ‘adapting,’ with ‘structure referring to the establishment of clear procedures and frameworks and 'adapting’ having to do with the demonstration of flexibility and responsiveness to changing circumstances.
Information Gathering (How leaders collect and use information): The range extends from 'contemplating'—engaging in thorough analysis and reflection—to 'interacting'—actively seeking information through dialogue and networking.
Relationships (How leaders use relationships at work): This scale goes from 'evaluating' to ‘engaging.’ Those whose results lean to ‘evaluating’ will excel at assessing and maintaining professional boundaries, while those whose lean to ‘engaging’ will be better at building close, trusting relationships with their colleagues.
There is no definitive "right" or "wrong" result in an approachlike this. Each leadership element brings its own set of strengths and potential challenges. The challenge is to identify and recognize these diverse styles and to successfully integrate them—with the qualities of their colleagues, the progress of the company’s evolution, and their individual roles within the organization.
Ask yourself: Where do I fall on each of these scales? How do my strengths and skills compare with my fellow leaders?
Why balance matters
The pace of change is dictated by the opportunity cost of maintaining the status quo versus the potential gains of transformation. A great example of this comes from a digital payment organization, who used the LSI to improve their results after being acquired by private equity. The original founder built a team by hiring people she personally connected with—baristas, favorite restaurant servers—creating an incredibly collaborative culture where everyone moved at the pace of the slowest member. “It was a love fest,” describes Kevin. But once private equity stepped in, the business struggled. While they were great collaborators, the organization lacked rigor, discipline, and a results-driven mindset. To turn things around, they began adding leaders who maintained the company’s cultural cohesion while also bringing a more competitive, execution-focused approach. A new CEO was brought in, followed by a COO and CMO who were more driven and results-oriented, which helped to shift the company toward greater accountability and performance.
“Birds of a feather flock together,” doesn’t just apply to our avian friends—it’s true of humans, too. Affinity bias—an unconscious tendency to prefer those who are like ourselves—can easily result in a homogenous team. Affinity bias may tell us to hire those they can "see themselves having a beer with," but true high-performance teams require cognitive diversity. Leaders must intentionally build teams with a mix of strategic thinkers, executors, and pragmatists to balance out the dreamers. It’s this combination of complementary skills, mindsets, and leadership styles that drives organizations to the next level.
Ask yourself: What leadership style is underrepresented on my team?
While the instinct to hire individuals who mirror one's own style and preferences is understandable, it is not conducive to building a high-performance team. To quote Stephen R. Covey, "Strength lies in differences, not in similarities." Leaders equipped with insights into their team's composition can provide targeted feedback and coaching, facilitating growth and increasing overall effectiveness. As we navigate the complexities of today's business landscape, let's remain mindful of the power inherent in diverse, balanced leadership teams. Embracing this approach not only propels our organizations forward, it also cultivates inclusive cultures where varied perspectives are valued and leveraged for collective success.