Be Yourself, But Not Too Much: The Challenges and Benefits of Individualism in the Team

There is no I in the Team.
That's what we've been hearing for quite some time now.
I wonder if there is space for strong individuals in the team.
My name is Mike.
And it's Yuen.
Welcome to the Imperfect Clinician.
Why are we talking about this today?
In life, we tend to display more individualistic qualities, or sometimes we tend to be more
like team players.
But in between all this attitude to how we approach our tasks, life, work, or our nature
in general, in the middle of it, there is a workplace.
And the mixture of talent is supposed to work out both for the individuals and the team,
and between the team, all the dependencies and influences.
So you would consider as a leader that both of those values, teamwork and being individualistic,
both antonyms are quite desired, because you want to have strong individuals, but on the
other hand, you want to have a strong team that collaborates between each other.
And how do we make this happen?
Because those two ideas seem to exclude each other.
I think that the proportion of those qualities in the workplace determine the team culture,
and further on affects the health in a team.
So let's start with what is individualism?
I would like to describe it with certain characteristics or certain qualities that are commonly associated
with individualism.
So I made a little list, and I think that covers quite a wide spectrum of the ideas
and just bouncing certain attributes that you would normally describe people who display
more individualistic traits.
So independence is one of the top ones for me.
So you want to see people who are independent, people who value high personal performance.
Usually it's underlined by creativity.
So with diversity, because people who are individuals displaying individualistic traits
are quite diverse, they all seem to be quite unique and different.
Personal accountability, those people usually are quite dependent in that respect.
They usually have their own initiative.
They tend to be innovative, autonomous as well.
They often display individual identity.
One of the characteristics that describes them would be self-reliance, but also self-interest
that motivates and provides them with a job satisfaction.
Those people in a team prefer individual rewards, individual recognition, and even accolades.
They can cause friction.
That's one of the downsides of them, because in most cases they seem to know better.
They also tend to be quite competitive and they get quickly demotivated if there is lack
of praise, if there is a lack of results, and if there is insufficient appreciation,
and that can potentially reduce their self value.
In the long run, individualistic people tend to have probably more stress and are more
prone to exhaustion because they seem to carry the whole burden of the project, of the ideas
on the shoulders.
They also are quite judging, quite judgmental, but they also feel judged most of the time
by others.
That's why they want to perform to the best ability.
Yeah, that's what I would consider quite a wide spectrum of qualities of individualistic
people.
So it sounded to me there is some overlapping with people who show individualism with people
who struggle with perfectionism, because they are high achievers or want to be because they
are afraid of being judged.
I'm pretty sure that if you start disassembling or individually looking into people who are
from more collective and more individual sort of side of the spectrum, you're going to see
some traits of perfectionist in people who are working more as individuals.
I think that maybe not comes hand in hand, because I'm pretty sure that those people
also could have brilliant organizational skills and it can make it into success.
But I think that this veers onto the idea of being more perfectionist.
Yeah, and it feels like it's more fear-driven.
Like you've mentioned about reduced self-values, needing praise, might take on too much of
the things themselves, leading to stress and exhaustion.
Another thing I think is quite important to understand this concept is because it's good
as a leader and as someone who works in a team, which all of us would do, is to be aware
that people like this do exist and the type of support that they need would be different.
So it's a bit like when you are a teacher.
The students that you speak to, they have different learning styles and learning abilities
and you try to cater or adapt to them as much as possible so everyone has good progression
based on their own learning needs and you're able to support them with that.
And I think when you're a team leader or a team member, having sight of this is important
for you to manage team health.
So what's the opposite then of individualism?
Is it teamwork?
Yeah, teamwork.
And the people who are more comfortable in a team display more collectivism sort of traits
that define them in a way or define their nature as such.
So collectivist approach focuses on mainly on group benefit and the team needs are more
important over any particular member of the team, over the individual.
They tend to create group identity and that matters more than individual people involved
in the project.
They tend to be more interdependent and through that it encourages collaboration.
Most people are also quite loyal to the team and to the organizations and they have usually
strong dedication to the project because they feel a bit more comfortable around others.
That being said, others may feel like they're sort of a part of a group motivation scheme
where people feel obliged to contribute because they've been well audited by others by the
lack of better description.
Because people who work in a collective situations in teams always are going to contribute at
a different level.
There are people who contribute more or less within certain projects on a certain day,
on a certain agenda, for example, that can potentially lead to the motivation of others
and people who are being carried by the more contributing ones and that might be displayed
by putting less effort than others.
That can also generate issues if values of the team are different from values of individual
team members.
That can then create problems with, well, basically not put enough effort into supporting
things that are not in line with your own personal beliefs or your own personal purpose.
Potentially that can lead to anxiety and feeling of being judged and that can also be a result
of, in the longer run probably, of losing identity.
The difference between those two groups are that people who display more individualistic
traits, they are much less likely to ask for help and they need a different support
comparing to people who work in a collective.
Usually people in a collective, all the groups vary and people are different, but as a rule
of a thumb, shall we say, people in collective may need some more social support, meaning
improvement of communication between the team members, moral support, or community effort.
Whereas the support for individualistic people, you would probably focus more on helping one
to one, but one to one in terms of helping with the project itself rather than the social
aspect of it, because they might come across stumble on certain projects that they took
on and they might struggle to ask for help.
So there's a bigger role of trying to identify those sticky points so that you use the full
potential and you don't create the barriers in progression of the project in general.
So then how do you go about it when you have an imbalance in the group where some thrives
in creativity and individualism, whereas some don't?
Balance is the nature of life and it is very hard to have a perfect balance all the time.
There will be situations where balance is better than at other points and I think let's
go back to a little bit of a disclaimer.
It's very hard to find people who are only working or displaying individualistic traits
and it's very hard also to find people who only work in a team, especially in our field.
We come across people who are well educated, often experienced and they have got some sort
of background and to some extent they can display probably both characteristics.
There are some, probably professional, I don't quite know that much about people who work
completely as individualistic.
Probably you would look at some artists, probably you'd look at freelancers, probably you can
look at, I don't know, architects who work only by themselves on their own projects.
But then again, if you want to work on a slightly bigger, more complex situations, you would
need to collaborate a little bit more.
So I think that the main idea that surrounds people within a team, whether they display
individual or team characteristics is the purpose and gathering around the purpose of
the team or of the project can probably give us the best chance of trying to get people
to work on the same page, to the same great ability to fulfil the purpose.
So to break it into example, I will list examples in my head and you can tell me whether I'm
in the right direction of what you're talking about.
So let's say the group project is helping to deal with population health.
And when you assess the group, you can see individualistic characters where let's say
somebody is more data driven, somebody is better at thinking ideas in the head, somebody
else is good at collaborating with external parties.
There is another person who is good at galvanising all of these different ideas and make it all
into one and that person might be a more teamwork person or collectivism, like you said.
And so how to utilise each trait or talent of different people in the team to make the
project a success.
Does it make sense?
Yeah, it does because people have got different abilities and strengths.
Absolutely.
So am I thinking in the right format based on what you've discussed so far?
Yeah, potentially.
I mean, most of the people that you mentioned would probably skew towards the individualistic
traits rather than a team as such, but then gathering people around the same purpose shouldn't
stop us from playing to individual strengths.
So it's the role of the leader to make sure that we understand people and that communication,
open channel of communication, I think it's worth also noting that people who are more
individualistic, they prefer slightly flatter structure of the organisation where people
tend to be more equal and those leaders are not as clearly defined, not as bureaucratic
and it tends to be slightly more the country of equals, yeah, in that respect, whereas
with the team, usually that structure where there is a defined leader is probably preferred.
So first of all, for me, it's a matter of understanding individuals, how can they contribute?
What are their strengths?
It probably requires a little bit of digging, even starting at the moment of recruitment
of the people, even when we're employing people, we need to consider what sort of qualities
they can bring into the team.
If you are looking for somebody in particular, I think you're going to look for a very long
time, so it's better to discuss what strengths and probably start with a bit of personal
unpacking the baggage to understand why certain behaviours are or could potentially be displayed.
But I think at that beginning level of engagement with the team, it doesn't matter whether you
are more collectively working, whether you are more individualistic working, it's important
for leaders to understand what's their forte.
Okay.
So then does it lead to selfishness or unhealthy competition when you have too much individualistic
people in the team?
Because like you said, they want personal accolades.
It can do.
Yeah, it can do.
And that's the thing.
Imagine that you have got a group of people who are working to be the brightest star amongst
the team and everybody wants to feel important and you have all the group of individuals.
So is there a place for a team made of individualistic people?
I think that yes, provided you're not going to gather them around targets, which are probably
achieved in a more combative way, but if you gather them around purpose, that can mean
that the competitiveness can be more friendly and that can encourage the healthy competition.
Provided we can encourage healthy competition based on the purpose, then that can lead to
more collaboration and not, you know, combative display of power who is more important because
that can lead to the situations that are going to lead potentially to problems with retention
and people leaving, despite, you know, if led in a slightly different way, they might
contribute to the best ability.
And so that will reflect in the way that how the reward system works in that organization
or that team.
And also what supports we provide.
Yeah.
Because if you are rewarding qualitative behaviour instead of quantitative behaviour.
So let's say you are rewarding the numbers instead of caring qualities, compassion and
showing or demonstrating inclusivity, that's what you're trying to promote with the type
of reward that you're focusing on as an organization.
Whereas if you focus on you achieved 50, whichever target, and the other person did 55, I'm going
to reward the other person and completely ignore the other.
It feels that you are doing divide and conquer instead of partnership.
Whereas if you reward compassion and team working whilst acknowledging individual strength,
you are essentially promoting it via action.
And I think that this is the most complex approach to it.
Complex in a good way?
In a good way, because you are not looking at the team or individuals in a zero one perspective.
You want to acknowledge people's strengths, you want to acknowledge people's achievements,
and you can acknowledge and celebrate success of individuals by all means.
But that success leads to fulfilling some sort of purpose that you set up in the first place.
And you get there by providing the right support, by providing the right communication channel
and understanding of where everyone is.
Otherwise you're going to get out of control and it's been very difficult to organize and
to gather people around the same place.
Why then we named this episode as Individualism in the Team, whereas we're talking so greatly
about teamwork.
Is there a space for individuals in the team?
Is there a future for strong individuals if we want to encourage collaboration and working
between others?
And I'm going to say that there's absolutely a future in appreciating individuals, in making
sure that people who are strong individuals can be recognized as valuable partners in
the team and that they are a very, very important talent in the organization.
Everybody's talking about teamwork, make the dream work, about there is no I in the team
and all these slogans that we hear in many organizations.
But deep down inside, I believe that we have to remember that we are all individuals and
we all at some level appreciate acknowledgement of what we're doing, appreciate thinking independently
and whether we are more or less collaborating with others, we ultimately are individuals.
And I think that is also steeped in culture that you are brought up in because there are
certain cultures that will be more collectivism focused and some cultures, for example, the
Western culture will be more individualistic approach.
So it's important to see how you are conditioned when you're growing up and how does that affect
your view and your approach.
SL. Absolutely.
I think there's also one more thing that just sprung to my mind.
I think people who are more individualistic, they can stumble as well as the project goes
on because of a few reasons.
One, the project might be too complex for one person.
Two, they might accept too much responsibility for what they're doing and that can burn them
out much quicker.
But working in a team may allow this level of there be more heads and the more eyes looking
at the problems and they can spot more flaws in it.
Sometimes if you're working on your own, you're so engrossed in your project and driving
it forward and making all the work that you can't really see the detail that can trip
it up.
You haven't got always the right safety netting of the project and that's why you need others
to support you.
So recognizing that is also one of the roles of the leader, I guess.
So I guess it's important to identify what drives those individualistic behaviour.
Because if it's fear-driven, like you said, then we are leaning towards more perhaps perfectionism
or wanting to do well because I don't want to be judged perspective.
And it can be people who are not as fear-driven because we all are to some extent, but people
who are more confident, less fear-driven, but having that individualistic traits and
it might not be, like you said, their strength to be a team worker.
That's very true.
But I'm going to say that as you're joining the team, as you're starting to work in the
organization, as you are surrounded by a new group of people, because we can't avoid being
around others, let's face it, it's very, very hard.
I think the sooner the leaders allow us to realize that we can grow by expanding our
traits to the opposite, to gain a little bit of that collaborative approach from the other
team members to our individualistic traits, that's going to benefit us and also improving
this individualism in the team members that prefer more collaborative approach can expand
our horizons and enable us to look at the problem from a slightly wider perspective.
And I think that this is where the long-term success of the team and the long-term team
health can be achieved by making sure that people grow.
And that's our role.
That's making sure that people understand where they are and, more importantly, where
they come from, what's causing that perfectionist, what's causing that need to hide behind the
team to collaborate, why people lack, for example, confidence, because some people who
prefer working in the team may have not enough confidence to have an individual voice.
And by working in a group, they still are able to produce a great result, but not necessarily
take the responsibility of that individual hit and accountability for what they're doing.
So why do you think and how do you attract a diverse pool of skills?
Or is it, let's start with the fact, is it better to have a diverse teams or diverse
talent in your organization, or would you prefer to focus on one kind, have only people
who are collaborating in the team or only work with individuals that are going to deliver
the tasks that you're going to ask them to do?
So I'll answer the why first, because if you don't have a diverse pool of skills, what
will happen is you'll see that people think alike and they shouldn't alternative viewpoints.
So then the focus very easily turns narrow and it loses perspective.
So whether you're getting one group of any one profession, so let's say you're getting
a group of GPs or you're getting a group of physiotherapists, what they see is their
specialty.
Whereas if you get one GP in a room, you get physiotherapists in the room, you get pharmacists,
you get nurses, you get OTs, you get a wide variety of people that is crucial to the topic
that you are discussing.
One can give you a different perspective.
So when you're looking at patient care, it's not going to be just a one-sided perspective.
You're covering more grounds, essentially.
So the second question in terms of how do you attract, I think it's important to have
diversity in the interview panel.
So if you are in the room as an interviewer, just look and reflect on the panel.
Have I got diversity in the panel?
And if not, how do I achieve that?
Because it might be that you don't have diversity in the interview panel because there isn't
sufficient people who have got the skill set.
This is something that you need to work on in the organisation, why the progression is
not equitable for everybody.
And if there isn't, then maybe having an observer who is able to give you a different view to
ensure that you are allowing an inclusive recruiting process.
And I'm sure people, when I go to events, I do look at the interview panel, or when
I've been asked to go to interviews in the past, I do look at the interview panel and
see how diverse it is and whether it's something that they acknowledge is not good enough because
if it's just a one-sided fit all, and it reflects on the organisation's value and perhaps also
their future planning.
And you're talking about diverse interviewing panels or people who are creating a team.
And that means that the more recently we are dealing with the issues, problems, projects
that are much more complex.
And I think this is where we are led to believe that teamwork is better rather than to have
stronger individuals.
And some leaders may believe that only by collaborative approach of people who are just
going to work together, you're going to achieve their success.
Whereas I think that individualism in those teams can add that creativity, can add that
sparkle of, you know, a bit of flair and a bit of flamboyance is a big word, but I want
to say a bit of vision, a bit of wider perspective that is different from the point of view worked
out by the team.
I agree.
I think diversity, we're not only talking about racial diversity, we need to think about
skillset, gender, sexual orientation, religion, any protected characteristics, experience,
and taking all of that into account because, again, the broader perspective of people that
you have, the more grounds you're going to get covered.
So how do we look after those individuals in the team, those people who like to have
things their way?
We were talking about encouraging healthy competition by working on a purpose, but I
would add to this as well, allowing people to personalize their workspace, their schedules,
organize it in the way they prefer to work.
So judge them essentially by the results.
We need to step away from people who prefer to not be micromanaged, in my opinion.
But maybe not step away and like leave them be, but just give them a bit more space.
Give a bit more space.
There is no necessity very often to catch up, you know, six times a day with them.
I think that avoiding micromanaging, if anyone's got that time, yeah, that's another story.
But creative individuals contribute more than collectivists in creative tasks.
We have to acknowledge that and play to those strengths.
So by also allowing personalization of workspace, it makes people more welcome in that space
and that allows people to stay longer with the team to retain them better.
I think personalization of workplace in general, regardless of their innate qualities or talent,
it's just something that people would feel that they belong.
Like that is my space, regardless of whether they're a team worker or not.
And this is why I say that to some extent, we are all displaying those individualistic
traits.
This isn't, you know, only teams that we manage.
There are people, individual people.
We are not just, you know, numbers of people that are supposed to do the tasks.
We want to contribute.
We have our own opinions and I think those should be listened to.
And this is where we're talking before about one of the most important skill of the leader
is to listen.
So I wonder if someone is high performing, but poor in teamwork, should they be kept
as part of the team?
The first answer to that question would be, it all depends.
Okay.
And yeah, I'm covered in that respect.
But I think that understanding individuals and wanting and willing to let people grow
can not necessarily mean that we have to get rid of people that we don't get on well
or the team doesn't get on well.
You have to remember that it's very hard to find talent that can contribute to the team.
It's very hard to find professionals these days.
So once you get one, sometimes it's easier to work with them and allow them to grow and
allow them to expand their horizons, trying to understand their sort of meaning of life,
if you like.
And that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to all of a sudden part ways with everybody
who doesn't share your point of view.
So then the follow up question, what if that person's highly performing, one of the best
breaker of any target that has ever been achieved consistently, but also a bully?
I think there is no place for bullying.
Agreed.
And off.
The situation where workplace is not a safe space should not happen.
And I agree that they can bring the great value to the company or to the organization
because they can achieve whatever they dream of.
The problem is that usually it's short lived.
And by creating the right culture and the right safe space and the place of belonging
for people in the team that is safe from bullying, safe, all those negative emotions that can
lead to a long term success of the organization, of the team and of the company.
I am a true believer that bullying should be the thing of the past and we should acknowledge
that if it exists, to acknowledge it and fight it.
It's very hard to let it be for a very long time.
I mean, there are numerous examples from all sorts of different organizations where this
just doesn't work.
And unfortunately, it's still happening, unfortunately, it's still happening.
It is going to happen because people have got some unresolved issues that lead to wanting
to be more powerful than others.
But also, I think we probably have seen it numerous times throughout our career that
people who are highly performing were given like a jail free pass because they're able
to achieve what the company or the team or the organization wants to achieve.
And so any action that is deemed unacceptable are then pushed under the carpet.
And that's why the purpose of the team or of the organization should be based on universal
values that are shared by everybody, not those values that are negative, not those
behaviors that are just simply not acceptable.
So how would you manage someone who is new and junior and wanted to start making changes
before understanding the system?
I think that it would be a very good idea to try to understand them first.
I think that it can be a very positive thing as well.
It may highlight and you'll revive the team.
I am quite cautious when you have people that are starting in the organization and they
shadow others or start to observe what everybody else is doing and then they become like everybody
else.
So the standard is not necessarily lifted by the addition to the team, it's just sort
of ending up on the level that the team is already there.
We want to improve and we want to progress and we want to be better.
And I believe that given opportunity, it can be a wise thing for the leaders to do.
Now, this can break up the balance of the team, but then as we said, there is always
going to be some sort of imbalances just depending on which directions we are heading.
If somebody is coming in and trying to avoid the risks that they observe there or wants
to see an easy way to boost their productivity or collaboration or start, oh, do you know
what?
Instead of sending mail pigeons, why don't we start using email?
That's a brainwave that should be supported, I believe.
So any suggestions should be listened to and not belittled even though they're new and
junior?
Sometimes the initial reaction for somebody who's more senior is just like, don't even
get started, understand the system before you try to implement changes.
And then you just grow into the system and you're part of the system.
I can see pros and cons in both, to be fair, because without understanding the system and
then wanting to change it, you might not understand the cogs that make the system work and implement
system changes that will be more sustainable instead of just high in the sky idea.
But also there is merit into taking their suggestions into account and say, this doesn't
work because of X, Y, and Z.
Go and find out about the system, understand where you're coming from.
When you understand the system, come back to me and tell me what are the ways that can
be improved.
So encouraging that behavior, but help support any gaps.
Very true.
Now, there was a good example of how things are organized in those teams that have to
be as tightly working together as they only can, but they consist of people who are usually
quite individualistic.
So the tightest groups I can think of that have to work together, apart from people working
as surgeons in the theatre, would be musical groups.
Everybody's playing a different instrument and they are all individuals.
Everybody has to be really good at what they do in order to achieve a success, but they
have to still play together.
You can't have complete chaos because it's going to lead to nowhere.
And imagine somebody new coming in and says, right, I think we should do things completely
differently.
And gathering their ideas amongst other individuals as well and trying to take all of this into
consideration can be seen as a bit of a power struggle to start with, but then it can work.
It can be improved.
There are some examples of musical groups that had an addition of a new person that
changed, transformed the sound, added instrument, added the flair.
Usually we see the people in the front, there are some vocals that are doing it.
Yes.
However, that needs to come with engagement.
If that person come in and just dictate change, that wouldn't work.
They're not going to last long.
Absolutely.
So the engagement is really important.
And communication.
And that's what I meant in regards to how the suggestions are made instead of why don't
you do this?
So if they come in and say the changes should be done and this is going to happen going
forward, I don't think it's going to be received very well because there is no understanding,
there is no curiosity, and there is no engagement.
But for the right engagement, you need the right communication, so you need the right
reasoning.
Yes.
That's what I said.
And this is what can make it work.
That's what I meant in terms of demonstrating curiosity.
Because if you do that and you start asking questions, it's coming from a place of help
me understand instead of judging this is not good enough.
What if an individual doesn't have their confidence and we can see it as leaders?
Would you encourage that to grow that confidence in one way or the other?
I see it all the time, usually comes from people who are less experienced.
And they always say, oh, once I get more experience, I'm more confident.
And a lot of the time, that is not the case.
And so I tend to work with them to find out what is actually causing that.
What's the barrier?
Where's the barrier?
And again, what fear is in the driver's seat?
And then help them be aware of it.
And then they need to do the work with guidance to help to overcome that with time.
Very true.
So now, do we want individuals in the team?
Yes, and we need both.
And I think we all are individuals deep inside because we all want to be respected and valued
by people who work with us.
And yeah, well, tell us your thoughts.
Let us know what teams you've been working with, what individuals you couldn't stand
or those that inspired you, because there's usually a bit of both in all of us.
So now we're going straight to Yuen Reads and we'll see you next week.
Bye bye.
It's about time for Yuen Reads.
In today's Yuen Reads, it is Emmanuel Acho's Uncomfortable Conversation with the Black
Men.
Conversation about race is usually difficult, but much needed, hard to digest, but vital.
Emmanuel seems to have a gift of breaking down defensive barriers to those who either
listened or read his book.
He starts with compassion and understanding, and I feel he created a space for everyone
to be vulnerable so learning can happen without blame or guilt or shame.
I strongly recommend his book alongside his video series too, that explores white privilege,
cultural appropriation, reverse racism, and much more.
We take to heart the ratings, reviews and comments.
The best way we can repay you is by making this podcast better and by reaching and inspiring
more people like you, like us.
Until next time.