Article

Getting The Right People On The Bus

September 6, 2020
A man in a suit is pointing at a light bulb with a person in it.

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

Why smart leaders are the hardest to to work for.
By Rich Hagberg March 30, 2026
Some of the smartest leaders you will ever meet are also some of the hardest people to work with.  They are fast, perceptive, and unusually strong at solving hard problems. They see patterns others miss. They cut through ambiguity. They grasp systems, strategy, and complexity at a very high level. In many cases, those gifts are exactly why they became founders, technical leaders, or senior executives. And yet many of these same people leave a trail of strained relationships behind them. Their direct reports feel unseen or intimidated. Peers experience them as dismissive, impatient, or controlling. Their bosses admire their intellect but hesitate to trust them with broader leadership responsibility. At home, partners often feel emotionally alone. Over time, the leader becomes puzzled. They know they are smart, committed, and often right. So why do people keep pulling away, withholding the truth, or failing to fully follow them? The answer is that many high IQ leaders are working from an incomplete model of effectiveness. They assume that if they think clearly, argue logically, work hard, and produce results, the rest should take care of itself. That model can work for a long time in school, in technical roles, and in the early stages of a company. But eventually leadership becomes less about the quality of your own mind and more about your ability to work through the minds, emotions, motivations, and limitations of other people. That is where many smart leaders start to fail. The Core Problem Intelligence is not the problem. It is an asset. The problem is that intelligence often creates distortions. It can make a leader overestimate the power of logic, underestimate the importance of emotion, and develop habits that quietly damage trust. It can also create a subtle arrogance. Not always the loud kind, but the quieter assumption that if other people are slower, less rigorous, or more emotional, they must be the problem. Once a leader starts living inside that assumption, interpersonal trouble becomes almost inevitable. Five Common Patterns 1. Overreliance on reason Many bright leaders treat relationships as if they are mainly cognitive systems. If there is disagreement, they explain more. If someone is upset, they analyze the issue. If morale is low, they offer strategy. If a direct report feels discouraged, they give solutions. In their minds they are being helpful and efficient. But the other person often feels bypassed. Their emotional reality is treated as noise rather than information. Their need to be heard is mistaken for a need to be corrected. This is a major blind spot in analytical leaders. They often do not realize that understanding is not the same as persuasion, and problem solving is not the same as relationship building. A person can agree with your logic and still not trust you. They can accept your decision and still lose commitment because the relational cost was too high. 2. Impatience High horsepower people often process faster than the people around them. They see the answer early. They get bored by slower thinking, frustrated by repetition, and irritated when others need more context than they do. This can make them decisive and productive. It can also make them hard to work with. They interrupt. They jump ahead. They finish other people’s sentences. They push past concerns before others feel understood. They make those around them feel slow, clumsy, or not worth listening to. This teaches the organization something dangerous. It teaches people that the leader’s mind is the only one that really counts. The safest strategy becomes speaking briefly, deferring quickly, or waiting until the leader has already decided. Then the leader complains that the team is passive or not taking ownership. What they often do not see is that the culture has adapted to them. 3. Emotional underdevelopment hidden by cognitive strength Very bright people can use intellect as a defense against emotional discomfort. They can analyze instead of feel. They can explain instead of reflect. They can argue instead of absorb. They can move to abstraction when the deeper issue is shame, fear, insecurity, hurt, or loneliness. They are often unaware this is happening. They do not experience themselves as defended. They experience themselves as rational. But leadership requires emotional range. Not sentimentality. Not therapeutic language. Real range. The ability to notice your own reactions before they control your behavior. The ability to tolerate feeling wrong, uncertain, criticized, or less competent than you want to appear. The ability to stay present when another person is disappointed, anxious, or angry without immediately shutting it down, fixing it, or counterattacking. Leaders who cannot do this often become brittle. They look composed until challenged in just the wrong way. Then out comes defensiveness, coldness, contempt, withdrawal, or overcontrol. 4. Low interpersonal curiosity Smart leaders are often highly curious about ideas, products, markets, and strategy, but not necessarily about people. They know how to interrogate problems, but not always how to explore another person’s inner world. They ask what happened, but not what it felt like. They want the conclusion, not the hesitation. They want the output, not the psychology. People do not trust leaders simply because they are competent. They trust leaders who show that they are trying to understand them. Interpersonal curiosity communicates respect. A leader does not have to agree with someone to make that person feel seen. But when the leader skips that step, people feel reduced to functions rather than treated as human beings. 5. Weak awareness of impact Many smart leaders are genuinely surprised by how strongly people react to them. They tell themselves, “I was just being direct,” or “I was only asking a question.” In their own minds, intent carries most of the moral weight. If they did not mean harm, then the reaction seems excessive. But leadership does not work that way. Impact matters because power magnifies everything. A passing comment from a founder can ruin a weekend. A skeptical look from a senior executive can silence a room. A blunt critique can stick in someone’s head for months. High IQ leaders often underestimate this because they evaluate themselves from the inside while everyone else experiences them from the outside. That gap sits at the center of many 360 feedback problems. The Identity Trap There is another layer here. Some smart leaders have been rewarded for being exceptional for so long that they quietly build their identity around being the smartest person in the room. They may not say it out loud. They may even dislike arrogance in others. But inside, being quick, insightful, and right has become central to their sense of worth. Once that happens, other people’s competence can feel threatening. Feedback becomes harder to absorb. Collaboration becomes more performative than real. The leader listens selectively, especially when they believe the other person is less capable. They become invested in remaining the mental center of gravity. That is a dangerous place to lead from. It turns intelligence into status defense. It makes humility feel like loss. It makes genuine curiosity harder. And it makes the leader lonelier than they realize, because very few people feel close to someone who always has to occupy the top intellectual position. The Shift That Matters The good news is that these problems are workable. In fact, smart leaders often improve quickly once they see the pattern clearly. Their intelligence then becomes an ally rather than a shield. But improvement requires a shift in model. Leadership is not just about being right. It is about creating enough trust, clarity, and psychological safety that the best thinking of the group can emerge. Your job is not merely to contribute your intelligence. It is to increase the total intelligence of the system. That means treating emotions as information rather than interference. It means becoming curious about your own interpersonal signature. What happens to people in your presence when you are under pressure. Do they get more open or more cautious. More honest or more political. More energized or more tense. Those are not soft questions. They are the real scorecard of leadership impact. It also means slowing down your certainty just enough to make room for other minds. Ask one more question before concluding. Stay with the other person’s frame a little longer. Notice when you are moving to solution because you are uncomfortable with uncertainty or emotion. Let people finish. Reflect before rebutting. And it means understanding that warmth and strength are not opposites. Many analytical leaders fear that becoming more emotionally intelligent will make them softer or less respected. The opposite is usually true. Leaders become more effective when people experience them as both rigorous and fair, both clear and human, both demanding and safe enough to tell the truth to. Practical Experiments A few simple practices can help. In your next one on one, spend more time understanding than advising. In your next disagreement, summarize the other person’s view in a way they agree is accurate before stating your own. In your next leadership meeting, track how often you interrupt, redirect, or signal impatience. After a difficult conversation, ask yourself not only whether your point was valid, but what emotional residue you likely left behind. Ask two trusted people what it feels like to disagree with you, and listen without defending. Final Thought Human beings are not engineering problems. They are not solved by superior reasoning alone. They need respect, steadiness, dignity, trust, and emotional attunement. That is why so many smart leaders struggle. Not because they are too intelligent, but because they have leaned on the wrong part of themselves for too long. At a certain point in leadership, your mind stops being the main differentiator. Plenty of people are smart. What becomes rarer is the ability to combine intelligence with self awareness, candor with sensitivity, high standards with trust, and authority with emotional maturity. That is when a smart leader becomes someone people actually want to follow.
The Courage to Confront: How Real Leaders Balance Candor and Care
By Rich Hagberg December 16, 2025
(Part 2 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
Integrity as an Innovation Strategy: Why Moral Clarity Drives Creativity, Not Just Compliance
By Rich Hagberg December 9, 2025
(Part 1 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
ALL ARTICLES