In my last blogpost, I talked about the three common approaches to problem solving, and how the best teams combine all three approaches. But beyond how they approach problems, different people have different styles of how they like to work, and in particular in how they work best with others. Understanding these various styles can help in creating and maintaining a productive team.

While there are many ways to characterize people’s preferred interaction or social style, one I find particularly useful draws on the work of the German psychoanalyst Karen Horney, and was further developed by the Deep Coaching Institute. This social typology divides people into three groups, which can be labeled Initiators, Cooperators, and Soloists.

Initiators, also known as Assertive, like to get started, “get the ball rolling,” and learn as they go along. They like action, diving in, being engaged, and getting involved, but want to cut through the unnecessary details. They are seen as less well-organized at times, sometimes duplicating efforts, and maybe stepping on others toes. They tend to talk fast and possibly talk over others. 

Cooperators, or Dutiful, want to take time to find out who the team is, understand the framework, what is behind it, and clarify the expectations, rules, and guidelines in more detail. They have more questions about who is in charge of what, and explore potential conflict with differing expectations. They tend to be more predictable and can get overwhelmed by too much material or fast change. 

Soloists, or Withdrawn, tend to want to spend some time independently, thinking about a situation and feeling their way to an inner understanding of it. Others may perceive them as being withdrawn, not inclusive, or even aloof. They like to take their time and may over-delegate in their desire to be a little bit removed. They can more easily take the role of “devil’s advocate.” Having to be in a lot of meetings may drain them.

"All three types can contribute to a successful team”

All three types can contribute to a successful team, but misunderstandings between the styles can lead to conflict. Presented with these definitions, most people naturally know which one most speaks to them, and there is a lot of benefit to knowing your own style and that of your colleagues. This knowledge can help set expectations, and suggest which roles are most appropriate for each member of the team.

For example, I recently worked with a team and introduced them to this framework. They decided to use this information in a two ways. When they were working on a project with a strong time pressure, they went with their instinctive roles. Initiators would get things going and lead the team; Cooperators would work together and make sure things got done and met the project’s requirements and timelines; and Soloists would be given independent side projects that supported the overall work.

When they weren’t under time pressure, however, the team switched up roles—for example, a Soloist took on an Initiator role, and lead a project. This allowed the team members to grow their skills by providing a safe space to do something that made them uncomfortable. Walking in another person’s shoes in this manner also allowed the team to move beyond an intellectual comprehension of different styles to a more visceral understanding. This understanding gave them more respect for their colleagues, and even when they fell back into their usual roles for a rush project, it greatly reduced the interpersonal conflicts that can arise when people with different styles clash. The conflicts that did arise then tended to be constructive, intellectual conflicts that moved the project forward.

This team’s approach is just one way to use knowledge of social styles to improve a team. It can also be useful when creating a team, making sure you have the right balance of people to fit the required roles.

What’s your style?