Article
Getting The Right People On The Bus
September 6, 2020
Factors That Distinguish Effective Team Members
Building the senior team is critical to the organization’s success and an important part of the leader’s job. But often, the criteria for selecting team members and the process for recruiting, interviewing, selecting, and onboarding are flawed or haphazard. Hiring decisions that are made with too great a sense of urgency can lead to disaster.
Today, the competition for top talent is intense. Chances are that you will have to balance the need to put someone in place with your desire to hire the best. Until the organization has a reputation/brand, and financial resources, it may be difficult to attract top talent. The competitive hiring market also doesn’t allow you to have “A” players in every position, although that may be desirable. However, there are certain things to look for that will give you a better chance at hiring successful team members.
Having too narrow a model of the kind of person you prefer, whether that be academic pedigree, experience at a well-known successful company, or a particular type of intellectual or interpersonal style, can be a trap. Some companies lean toward hiring people who are highly intelligent, while others have a preference for people with good interpersonal skills. One of my corporate clients over-indexed for hiring people who made a good first impression and had good interpersonal skills. They ended up hiring talent whose need to be liked was greater than their ability to execute and get results, and who also wanted to avoid conflict! Personally, I had to learn that people I resonated with on the level of ideas were not always the right fit for a job that demanded attention to details and execution.
So, what should you look for when choosing talent and/or constructing your own executive team? Through extensive research (explained in their book, When Teams Work Best)
Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson identified six factors that distinguish effective from ineffective team members. They are:
1. Experience
: Practical knowledge of the area or function, grasp of technical capabilities and needs, breadth and depth of experience and a record of success that is relevant to the organization’s major objectives.
2. Problem solving ability
: One of the functions of a team is to solve problems, so an effective team member must have the ability to identify and clarify issues, understanding the relevant facts and their implications. He or she must be able to stay focused, make decisions, and proactively solve problems.
3. Openness:
To get the most out of your team as a problem-solving group, you need people who are willing and able to say what’s on their minds and openly express their point of view, including having the courage to disagree with the leader and bring up issues that need to be resolved.As the leader, you need the courage to listen to, and honestly consider, ideas and strategies that differ from your own. This will create an environment conducive to an open exchange of ideas.
4. Personal Style:
The most effective team members inspire others with their positive energy and attitude. They have an infectious enthusiasm about the work and a likeable, friendly, cooperative style which makes everyone feel motivated and comfortable. People who are negative, combative, critical, and pessimistic do not help team morale. Some people who have strong technical and analytical skills can be intellectually aggressive, highly skeptical and critical of others without having awareness of the negative impact of these tendencies on their relationships.
5. Supportiveness:
A team needs people who have the motivation, and the capacity, to put the good of the team above their own individual ambitions. On an effective, high-achieving team, people are supportive of each other. They share a desire and willingness to help each other succeed, and express this through mutual encouragement, a willingness to pitch in and help other team members overcome obstacles, and by putting the team’s goals above any individual agenda. Put simply, they know how to be there for each other. They are sensitive, considerate, and easy to work with.
Some people have a hard time being supportive team players. They are self-centered, focused on their own needs, agenda, and career. Some are socially competitive and need to win and be right. Some are simply determined to get their way and will use intimidation to get it. Many people are so personally ambitious and focused on their own narcissistic agenda that they are unable to be helpful and supportive of others.
6. Action orientation:
It’s important that team members have a bias for action. People who talk about things but don’t do anything much are not the ones you need on your team. You want members on your team who are willing to take initiative, and who get things done, individuals who have a desire to set and achieve goals. By their example and speech, they encourage others to take action. In the interest of getting results, they are quite willing to experiment and try a different approach. This is important on all teams, but perhaps especially in a small company where the fuse is burning, you’ve got too much to do, and the money always seems to be running out.
Good To Great: Getting The Right People On The Bus
Leaders are ultimately responsible for getting the right people on the bus. An important perspective on team building comes from Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, Built to Last and other influential books. In an example that has since become famous, he compares a company to a bus, and the leader to the bus driver.
You are a bus driver. The bus, your company, is at a standstill, and it’s your job to get it going. You have to decide where you're going, how you're going to get there, and who's going with you. Most people assume that great bus drivers (read: business leaders) immediately start the journey by announcing to the people on the bus where they're going—by setting a new direction or by articulating a fresh corporate vision. On the contrary, Collins' research showed that leaders of companies that go from good to great start not with “where” but with “who.” They start by getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats.
One of the most important factors in creating a highly successful team is to have the right people. “Put ‘who’ ahead of strategy, ‘who’ ahead of tactics, ‘who’ ahead of technology, ‘who’ ahead of business ideas – ‘who’ ahead of everything!”
And as discussed above in the context of the LaFasto and Larson research, the people you want to gather around you, to put on your bus, are those who are both capable and inclined to put the good of the organization ahead of their personal goals, people who are not self-centered individualists who put their own career ahead of the good of the organization.
According to Collins’ research, “Level 5 leaders,” his highest rank of best leaders, “channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It’s not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious–but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves.” In other words, “We found that for leaders to make something great, their ambition has to be for the greatness of the work and the company, rather than for themselves.” .
share this
Related Articles
Related Articles
Introduction: The Brutal Truth About Change If you’re leading a company, here’s one brutal truth you can’t dodge: resistance to change isn’t just inevitable—it’s a gift. Most leaders don’t see it that way. They treat it like an obstacle to bulldoze, something to out-argue, out-maneuver, or silence. But resistance, if you know how to read it, is a living, breathing diagnostic tool. Every objection, every sideways comment in a hallway, every moment of awkward silence in a meeting—it’s all data. It tells you where the trust gaps are, where the communication breakdowns have happened, and where your people’s unspoken fears live. If you ignore that data, you’re flying blind. The hard numbers back this up: more than 70% of organizational change initiatives fail, not because the strategy was flawed, but because leaders underestimated what it would take to guide people through the emotional turbulence of transformation. If you want your next big initiative to succeed, the shift starts here: stop seeing resistance as the enemy, and start listening to what it’s telling you. When you do, you’ll discover that resistance isn’t a wall to break down—it’s a map showing you exactly where to go next. 1. Rethink Resistance: It’s Data, Not Defiance Let’s flip the lens. When people resist, they’re rarely doing it for sport. They’re sending up flares. They’re telling you something’s unclear, untested, or untrusted. For example, I worked with a CEO rolling out a sweeping technology overhaul. His first instinct when his managers hesitated was frustration—until we sat down and dissected the resistance. It turned out the managers weren’t doubting the technology; they were worried about the gap between the training timeline and the rollout date. They didn’t fear change—they feared being set up to fail. When you stop labeling resistance as “non-compliance” and start treating it like intelligence gathering, you find it points to the very levers you can pull to move the change forward.
Most startup founders are brilliant at innovation, disruption, and blazing new trails. They're visionaries, incredibly driven, and fiercely independent. Unfortunately, those same powerful traits often sabotage their ability to foster genuine collaboration—a critical ingredient in startup success. I've spent decades coaching founders, and one of the biggest blind spots I've observed is the gap between what founders naturally do well and what's required to create truly collaborative cultures. Understanding these tendencies—and knowing how to counter them—can mean the difference between startup stagnation and breakout growth. High Independence, Low Collaboration Founders thrive on independence. They love breaking rules, ignoring boundaries, and pushing limits. But independence can quickly morph into isolation. The very idea of slowing down to seek consensus or accommodate team input feels restrictive, even suffocating. Implications: This independent streak inadvertently sidelines team members, suppresses input, and reduces engagement. Talented people quickly learn their ideas don't matter, and teams become passive or defensive. Actions to Counter: Practice deliberately inclusive decision-making. Clearly define which decisions you'll make alone and where you'll solicit team input. Regularly check in to see if team members feel heard and involved. Dominance Isn’t Always Dominant Many founders naturally take a commanding stance. Their assertiveness, directness, and forcefulness can spark initial progress but, over time, it creates resistance. When team members feel steamrolled or fearful of speaking up, creativity vanishes. Implications: A dominant style shuts down communication, makes feedback difficult, and kills the very collaboration needed for sustained innovation. Actions to Counter: Make intentional space for quieter team members to speak. Foster psychological safety by modeling vulnerability and humility Balance assertiveness with curiosity—actively seek feedback rather than waiting for it. The Curse of Poor Delegation Delegation isn't just handing off tasks—it's handing off trust. But founders notoriously struggle with this, often believing only they can execute properly. Every task not delegated reinforces the message that the team isn’t capable. Implications: Poor delegation creates bottlenecks, slows execution, and demoralizes talented employees who feel undervalued and micromanaged. Actions to Counter: Start small by delegating lower-risk tasks clearly and thoroughly. Regularly check your impulses to micromanage; remind yourself why you hired capable people. Invest in mentoring and coaching rather than controlling. Communication Breakdown Founders are famously impatient. They think fast, act fast, and often communicate quickly or incompletely. What seems obvious to them might be totally unclear to their team. Implications: Poor communication creates ambiguity, confusion, and frustration, grinding collaboration to a halt. Teams waste energy guessing expectations rather than innovating. Actions to Counter: Slow down to clearly articulate the "why" behind your decisions. Confirm understanding by asking team members to reflect back their interpretations. Regularly solicit feedback on your communication style and clarity. Arrogance: The Silent Collaboration Killer Confidence is crucial. But confidence unchecked can veer into arrogance, leading founders to dismiss feedback, overlook critical insights, and alienate key contributors. Implications: Arrogance destroys trust, stifles dialogue, and creates a toxic environment where collaboration is impossible. Actions to Counter: Intentionally invite critique and respond openly and constructively. Regularly acknowledge your mistakes publicly to model humility. Actively seek alternative viewpoints before finalizing decisions. Conflict Avoidance (or Aggression) Many founders fall into two extreme camps: conflict avoiders or conflict initiators. Both extremes are deadly to collaboration. Avoiding conflict leaves critical issues unresolved. Aggressive conflict handling creates resentment and fear. Implications: Poorly managed conflict erodes team cohesion, undermines trust, and can spiral into prolonged dysfunction. Actions to Counter: Establish clear, structured conflict resolution processes. Practice direct yet respectful conflict conversations. Use neutral facilitation for emotionally charged discussions. Systems Thinking vs. Reactive Planning Startups prize agility and adaptability. But too much short-term thinking neglects the processes and structures that sustain collaboration. Without clear systems, teams fall into chaos. Implications: Reactive planning leads to burnout, inefficiency, and frustration as team members constantly fight fires rather than building strategically. Actions to Counter: Balance short-term agility with consistent investment in systems and clear processes. Regularly revisit and improve structures as your company scales. Empower process-oriented thinkers in your organization to build effective systems. Workaholism and Burnout Culture Founders set the pace. But when founders turn workaholic, they unknowingly create an environment of exhaustion, anxiety, and diminished psychological safety. Exhausted teams are seldom collaborative. Implications: Productivity drops, innovation dries up, and talented employees start to leave. Actions to Counter: Actively model sustainable work-life balance. Publicly recognize and reward collaborative, balanced behaviors. Regularly monitor signs of burnout and intervene early. Ambiguity Isn’t Always Your Friend Founders typically tolerate ambiguity better than most. But your team needs clarity and direction. Too much ambiguity creates stress and undermines collaborative execution. Implications: Team paralysis, lack of initiative, and increased frustration. Actions to Counter: Clearly define roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Regularly ask your team what clarity they need to be effective. Balance your tolerance for ambiguity with your team’s genuine need for guidance. The Collaboration Paradox Founders face a paradox. The same traits that fuel their success—independence, assertiveness, rapid execution—also sabotage the collaborative environments crucial for scaling. Acknowledging this paradox is the first step. The second is intentionally adopting behaviors that might feel unnatural at first: fostering inclusive communication, delegating with trust, managing conflict constructively, investing in systems thinking, and balancing your independent streak with genuine empathy. The good news? These skills are learnable. Great founders don’t have to become entirely different people; they simply need to expand their toolkit. Start today by picking just one area and committing to small, consistent improvements. Your team and your startup—will thank you.
The Recognition Paradox:
Why Truly Outstanding Leaders Thrive by Indifference to Personal Glory
