Building a team with different work styles

Building a team with different work styles comes down to two things: making people's preferences visible, and agreeing on how you will work together. Differences in pace, structure and focus aren't good or bad in themselves. They become a problem when nobody talks about them, so the goal is to surface them early, then design around them.

No research says there is a perfect mix of work styles. What we do have is useful evidence on team composition, conflict and trust, and it points in a practical direction.

What the research says about team mix

Suzanne Bell's meta-analysis looked at how deep-level qualities of team members, such as personality and values, relate to team performance. The setting mattered a lot. In lab settings, personality effects on team performance were negligible. In field studies of real teams, several factors stood out as strong predictors, including team minimum agreeableness, team average conscientiousness and openness, and preference for teamwork.

Note what "team minimum agreeableness" implies. How the person lowest in agreeableness behaves seems to matter for the whole team, at least in those studies. Team relationships appear to be sensitive to how people treat each other, not just who has which talent.

This research isn't a recipe for picking people, though, and it shouldn't be. It is about groups, not individuals. Selfcarta's terms say that results must not be used for hiring or firing decisions, and we mean it. These insights are for working better with the people already in the room.

Friction: some of it helps, most of it needs care

Mixed work styles often lead to disagreement. So is that good or bad? For years, people suggested that arguing about the task was useful. Then a meta-analysis by Carsten De Dreu and Laurie Weingart found that both relationship conflict and task conflict had negative links with team performance and satisfaction.

A later and larger analysis by Frank de Wit, Lindred Greer and Karen Jehn, covering 116 studies, found a more mixed picture:

• Conflict about relationships and about how work gets done (process conflict) was consistently bad for group outcomes
• Conflict about the task was not strongly negative overall
• Task conflict was more positive where it was only weakly tied to relationship conflict, among top management teams, and when performance was measured as financial results or decision quality

In plain terms: disagreeing about the work may be fine, even helpful in some settings. It gets worse when it turns personal. And process conflict, which is where a lot of work style differences live, is worth sorting out early. "Who decides, and by when?" is much easier to answer on a calm Tuesday than at deadline.

Make it safe to say what you need

None of this will work if people don't feel able to speak up. Amy Edmondson's research on 51 work teams introduced the idea of team psychological safety: a shared belief that the team is safe for taking interpersonal risks. She found it was associated with learning behaviour, and learning behaviour in turn helped explain team performance.

So "I work better with more notice" needs to be something a person can say without it counting against them. Leaders can set the tone. Asking for honest feedback in front of the team is a good way to start.

Fit is partly in your hands

Amy Kristof-Brown and colleagues analysed 172 studies of how people fit with their jobs, organisations, groups and supervisors. They found that these kinds of fit relate to outcomes such as attitudes, performance, withdrawal, strain and tenure.

We read this as a reason to adjust where you can. You won't redesign every job, but you can often change how work is handed over, when people meet and how decisions are made.

Six differences to talk about

These are the six dimensions Selfcarta looks at. Every point on each one has its own strengths.

Pace

Some people move fast and iterate. Others go slower and get it right first time. Try: agree which tasks need speed and which need care. State it when you hand them out.

Structure

Some like a clear plan. Others do better with room to improvise. Try: agree on the fixed points, such as deadlines and owners, and leave the rest open.

Collaboration

Some think best with others around. Others do best alone, then share. Try: build in both, and don't assume that a quiet person isn't engaged. Our article on introverts and extroverts at work has more on this.

Feedback

Some want it straight away and blunt. Others prefer to have time and privacy. Try: ask each person how they want to hear hard news, and write it down.

Decision style

Some decide quickly on instinct. Others want more data. Try: say up front who decides, what they need and by when.

Focus

Some juggle happily. Others need long uninterrupted stretches. Try: set no-meeting blocks, and agree what counts as urgent.

A simple way to start

Here is a 45-minute session you could run this week:

1. Everyone writes a short "how to work with me" note. Keep it to five lines, with how you like to get information, give feedback and make decisions.
2. Read them aloud, one at a time. No debating yet. People will often be surprised.
3. Pick the top two friction points. Look for process issues, not personal ones.
4. Agree on one team rule for each. Try it for a month, then review it.

If you would like that note written for you, Field Guides turn results into do and don't advice that you can share. For a whole group, the teams page explains how Selfcarta maps a team. Managers never see a person's individual Second Sight results unless that person shares them.

Know your own style first

A team conversation goes better when each person knows their own preferences. The Work Style Expedition looks at all six dimensions and takes about five minutes. It is free to take with no sign-up. It uses Selfcarta's own questions, which are not yet independently validated, so treat your results as a way to start the conversation, never as a way to judge anyone's ability.