Column Karen Stroobants: The sum+ team – more than the sum of its talents

By @karenstroobants1

‘Reflection’ is such a central part of ‘Recognition and reward’, and so it was a pleasant consequence of being invited to write and read this column that it’s pushed me to reflect on what it means to work in a diversified and talented team, and how the development of such teams can be incentivised.

Reflecting on my own experiences as a starting point, a key observation has been that the drivers that have held together the various teams I’ve been part of over time, and across sectors, have been wide ranging.

Some teams were only identified as such through having a common line manager, and, admittedly, a lot of shared frustration, and operated on a very individual basis to deliver their work. Others were driven by a strong sense to support one another and make contributions to each other’s work though still very much in a quid pro quo way and through the lens of individual achievement. And then there’s been the teams that were really held together by a shared commitment to a common goal, the teams that added up to more than the individuals within them.

This observation begs the question: what distinguishes the latter from the former? Personally, I’ve experienced the goal-driven team much more in roles outside academia, and in voluntary roles, and generally I have observed a persistent focus on the individual within university-based research teams. So, assuming my anecdotal understanding has any representative value, two options seem to present themselves for those who would like to be part of a team that’s more than the sum of its talents (I’ll refer to this as the sum+ team going forward). Either look for a role outside academia (and not just any role, you’ll need to be selective there as well) or contribute to a culture shift away from the individual and towards the sum+ team within academia.

Given the audience here today, I suggest we focus on the latter. As a starting point, let’s explore some of the characteristics of the sum+ team and then delve into how changes to recognition and reward can enable these. To more clearly illustrate what distinguishes a sum+ team, I took inspiration from Dennis Sherwood, who describes a high-performing team through comparison with a football team or an orchestra.[1]

If we think about what distinguishes a football team from a random group of people running after a ball, or a harmonious orchestra from a discordant one, key characteristics include

• that the football team or harmonious orchestra exists of a diversity of profiles that complement one another – the goalkeeper has vastly different skills from the striker, and the violinist has been selected for different strengths than the drummer; and
• that it is steered by a manager or leader who can think strategically about what competencies, talents and backgrounds are required to form the sum+ team and bring together their team around a common goal – the success of a football team is often associated with its coach, and no orchestra takes to the stage without its conductor.

Building on these two key characteristics, I’d like to finish with a few concrete suggestions, aimed at those in the audience who are responsible for the recruitment, development and fostering of one or multiple teams – with sum+ potential, dare I add. And if you aren’t in a position to do so today, please hold on to these recommendations for when you might be in the future.

First, I recommend that funders, institutions and departments give more weight to the people management competencies of the team leaders they hire, promote and fund. The assumption seems to prevail that a good researcher by default develops into a strong team leader, while the competencies needed to deliver on these roles are vastly different. A good striker will not always be a good coach, nor is a good tubist necessarily a good conductor. More efforts are needed to ensure that where management competencies are required to deliver in a role or on a project, this is reflected in funding, recruitment and promotion criteria. This should include selecting for leaders who are able to set a common goal and strategically think about which skills and competencies are needed to deliver on it.

Second, I recommend that funders, institutions and team leaders stop ‘desiring five-legged sheep’ – a Dutch expression meaning ‘to look for so many qualities in a person that they probably don’t exist’. Currently, what is often expected of an academic is the equivalent of expecting a star goalkeeper to also be a talented striker and master passer or a skilled violinist to at the same time be a virtuous pianist and gifted drummer. Active efforts are needed to develop and recruit for different roles that each form an essential part of the team. This could include the recruitment of co-group leaders who for examples provide scientific leadership on the one hand and managerial skills on the other. Different roles should also lead into different career trajectories, inside or outside academia.

Third, I recommend that funders, institutions and departments reflect on what is appropriate to assess at the individual versus the team level, in addition to which criteria are most suitable to do so. In a team where individuals truly complement each other, the success of the team is a shared success – as for an orchestra, delivering a stunning performance relies on the contributions of all musicians. While there is a clear rationale for assessing competencies at the individual level, for outcomes and impacts, which relate more closely to the common goal, these are arguably better evaluated at the level of the team. The INORMS SCOPE framework sets out useful steps to evaluate only where necessary and can be a helpful tool to determine where and what to assess and how to do so responsibly.[2]

That concludes my suggestions towards assessment for sum+ teams. Whether you subscribe to these approaches or not, I hope you can agree with me that aiming for teams that are more than the sum of their talents, and driven by a common goal over individual ego, is worth our while – and I wish that you all can further explore ways of achieving this during the rest of the festival today.

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/thermodynamics-teams-roysocchem-7xdfe/?trackingId=q7kgLiIOQVSMXOs2GG06UA%3D%3D

[2] https://inorms.net/scope-framework-for-research-evaluation/