why a great individual is better than a good team

8/6/2019 Why a Great Individual is Better Than a Good Team

1/27

Harvard Business Publ ishing | For Educators | For Corporate Buyers | Visit Harvard Business School

Get daily posts in your inbox | HBR Blog Network

JEFF STIBEL

Jeffrey Stibel is Chairman and CEO of Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp. and author of

Wired for Thought. Follow him on Twitter at @stibel.

EMAIL SHARE PRINT

HBR BlogNetwork

Why a Great Individual Is Better Than a GoodTeam2:28 PM Monday June 27, 2011

by Jeff Stibel | Comments (124)

Anytime a CEO, quarterback, engineer or author is paid ridiculous amounts of money, dozens of

investors, armchair quarterbacks, and scholars jump in to debate the value of individual contributors

versus teams. Bill Taylor wrote the most recent of many interesting pieces, where he argued

provocatively that "great people are overrated," in response to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's

comment that a great engineer is worth 100 average engineers.

I have heard plenty of people argue that no one individual is worth the price of many. But

interestingly, I have never heard it from a leader.

As a CEO, I have run public companies, private companies, startups, turnarounds, and divestitures

in each and every case, I have never seen a situation where quantity is better than quality when it

comes to people. Never. Great people are both hard to find and worth an infinite number of average

people.

And as a brain scientist, I know that great individuals are not only more valuable than legions of

mediocrity, they are often more valuable than groups that include great individuals. Here's

why:

The truth is, our brains work very well individually but tend to break down in groups. This is why we

have individual decision makers in business (and why paradoxically we have group decisions in

government). Programmers are exponentially faster when coding as individuals; designers do their

best work alone; artists rarely collaborate and when they do, it rarely goes well. There are exceptions

to every rule, but in general this holds true.

There is clearly not widespread acknowledgment about the benefits of individual contributors in

many ways, it goes against our inclination towards equality. And thank goodness, because that gives

those of us who understand the real value of great people a huge competitive advantage! But for

anyone interested in making better decisions about their teams, it is worth spending some time

understanding the science behind individual greatness.

In many ways, individual people follow an inverse rule relative to networks of people. Consider the

two fundamental laws of networks: both Metcalfe's Law and Reed's Law assume that as a network of

people grows, the value of the network increases substantially. (In Metcalfe's Law, the value of the

network is proportional to the square of the number of people in the network, whereas Reed's Law

demonstrates that the value for any individual within a network grows exponentially with every new

member.) But with individuals, the opposite is true: The value of a contributor decreases

24 HOURS 7 DAYS 30 DAYS

TOP MAGAZINE ARTICLES

Why Fair Bosses Fall Behind1.

Managing Yourself: A Smarter Way to Network2.

Defend Your Research: What Makes a Team

Smarter? More Women

3.

How Will You Measure Your Life?4.

Are You a Collaborative Leader?5.

What's Your Social Media Strategy?6.

Bringing Minds Together7.

All Most Popular

Facebook Twitter RSS iPhone

Newsletters LinkedIn YouTube Google

EDITORS' PICKS

JODI GLICKMANNobody Has Time for Interns

RITA MCGRATHOn the Pitfalls of Superstitious Learning

BILL TAYLOR

Great People Are Overrated

STAY CONNECTED TO HBR

HBR.ORG ON FACEBOOK

FOLLOW HBR:

Ali Akbar Hakim Subscribe My Account Sign out

Why a Great Individual Is Better Than a Good Tea... http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/06/why_a_great_in

of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


2/27

More blog posts by Jeff Stibel

EMAIL SHARE PRINT DAILY ALERT COMMENTS

PREVIOUS

Seven Personality Traits of Top SalespeopleNEXT

Making Onboarding Work

Like

disproportionately with each additional person contributing to a single project, idea, or

innovation.

This is true across all areas but only so far as there are discrete pieces of work to be done. To be

sure, there is clear value in having a marketing person work with a programmer on a project or a

biologist working with a chemist on a problem. Proper team building is a powerful thing. But when an

activity can be performed sufficiently by one person with adequate skills, doing the activity as a

group should be avoided.

The concept of declining incremental value is essentially a "power function" or, more technically, a

scale invariance where the greatest impact comes from the smallest proportion of the population.

There are numerous examples of power functions, including Stevens' law, Keplar's law, the long tail,

Zipf's law, and the Pareto principle (or 80/20 rule). And power laws explain plenty of events in nature

(i.e., earthquakes), finance (i.e., income distribution), language (word frequency), and even

ecommerce (i.e., book sales on Amazon). Virtually all complex systems follow power laws within the

system itself.

Here's how power functions relate to the brain. As described in my book Wired for Thought, the brain

is a complex network of neurons. There are around 100 billion neurons connected to one another in

the brain and they follow a network law the value of a neuron is exponentially more valuable as

the overall neural network grows. But when the brain becomes highly active, it reverts to a power law

where a spike in activity is followed by a lull. Informally called neuronal avalanches, these spikes

have been linked to knowledge transfer and storage, communication, and computational power inshort, intelligence.

The same is true when it comes to people. Our intelligence is incredibly complex and as a result, a

great individual can far exceed the value of many mediocre minds. This is why it is absurd to ask

questions like "how many mediocre people would it take to collectively beat Kasparov in a chess

match?"

Mediocre minds can also destroy the value or contribution of a great mind. No matter how good

Kasparov is at chess, he would not do well playing doubles with a mediocre chess player against

Bobby Fisher alone. Or take Michelangelo's David as an example. A second artist cutting into David

would cause massive destruction to the sculpture, even if that artist was Picasso. With each

successive stroke of the chisel from additional artists, David's value, beauty, and overall impact

would diminish. A perfect albeit destructive example of a power function.

Leaders need to make tough decisions all the time. One decision is easy: find the best people and

empower them to do great things.

More on: Leading teams, Talent management

COMMENTS

Showing 124 comments

Sort by Popular now Subscribe by email Subscribeby RSS

Whilst I can't fault the logic of the argument, it does fill me with a sense of sadness. I'm imagining

LoginYou need to be logged into Facebook to

see your friends' activity

A Roadmap to a Life that Matters - Umair

Haque - Harvard Business Review

1,382 people recommend this.

To Monetize Social Media, Humanize It - Amy

Jo Martin - Harvard Business Review

199 people recommend this.

Ten Principles to Live by in Fiercely

Complex Times - Tony Schwartz - HarvardBusiness Review

1,181 people recommend this.

Great CEOs are Born, Not Made - David

Aaker - Harvard Business Review

58 people recommend this.

Facebook social plugin

and 80 others liked this.

John Schonegevel 3 weeks ago


2 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


3/27

organisations acting as if they are panning for gold - endlessly searching through the dross and dregs

looking to find the occasional gleaming nugget.

And then if and when found, the 'brilliant' individual is given mystical and magical powers like a unicorn. All

our hopes and fears are invested in them which is bound to lead to disappointment when they fail to match

our expectations.

I'd like to suggest an alternative - brilliant people are not that rare, in fact they are present in their 10s, 100s,

1,000s in all organisations. It's just that we don't see them; because like Gulliver in Lilliput, they are tied

down by process, procedure, oversight, governance, endless reporting, rules and regulations. Tied down by

so much unimportant stuff that they challenge their passion and pride elsewhere. Just ask people what they

do outside of work and prepare to be amazed by the dedication, commitment, enthusiasm and shear

greatness of what they do.

Then ask yourself; why are we failing to channel this power? What can we do to unleash it? What would

need to change about how I think about people before I could tap into the boundless piles of golden nuggets

represented by their skills, creativity and commitment?

rengaraj sudarsanam and 79 more liked this Like

John - I think the point of the article is that it is not my responsibility nor yours to unleash someone

else's potential. Either that individual desires to be great or they desire to live in mediocrity.

People who desire greatness will not let paperwork, office politics or endless reporting to halt their

journey to achievement.

Jorge Barba and 19 more liked this Like

This article clearly doesn't present greatness as the sort of thing someone can simply decide to

go on a journey to achieve. That confuses "greatness" with "achievement." They're not

synonymous in this discussion. This article is talking about innate greatness, which, if handled

appropriately, can result in great achievements, and which, mishandled, may produce little.

However, no amount of journeying or standing up to paperwork will turn an ordinary mind into a

great mind.I think John has a real point. The great ones don't always, as Susan asserts, "leave in

search of better prospects." Oftentimes they stay, but apply their best energies elsewhere (think

of history's various stevedores, patent clerks, church organists, or governesses, who turned out to

be oh, say, world-famous composers or authors "on the side"). It doesn't really count as leaving in

search of better prospects if you only leave because you're "discovered" after living out your

greatness in a secondary arena for years.Monte, I don't think the article had much at all to do withwhose responsibility it is or isn't to unleash potential, and it certainly didn't speak about how a

person, great or otherwise, desires to live. "Desiring" to be great or to live in mediocrity doesn't

have a whole lot of bearing on whether one actually *is* great, or not. We all know people of

mediocre talent who not only desire to be great but, indeed, believe themselves already to be so.

On the other hand, I don't know anyone who actively desires to live in mediocrity, regardless of

personal ability.

1 person liked this. Like

Monte: When we are looking for good in people we'd like to explore each opportunity to find great

people. When I have many great people and I can't take all then I'll find most cost effective one.

Searching for great people is fundamentally looking like that eternal soul mate, great job, dream

company which will actually lead to life long chase.

When I'm at helm then it is my responsibility to help people do best which includes overhauling

their environment. And it is not easy to work around around constraints, otherwise all would have

been Great already.


Don't worry about the Great people drowning in the paperwork. The Great ones leave in

search of better prospects. As they should.

Reply

Monte Cox 3 weeks ago

Reply

JenInBoston 1 week ago

Reply

Gaurav Kapil 3 weeks ago

Reply

SusanRubinsky 2 weeks ago


3 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


4/27


I think one problem is that large organizations have to be designed for the mass of mediocre people

that inhabit it. If everyone played by the same rules as the geniuses, the reulst would be chaos. The

problem is that when the genius plays by the rules of the mediocre, the results are, well, pretty

uninspiring. One question is, as an organization and as a culture, how do we cultivate more people to

become truly amazing? I believe everyone has the potential to do great work.

David Kaiser, PhD

Time Management Coach to C-level Consultants

www.DarkMatterConsulting.com

Akweli Parker and 9 more liked this Like

Dead on. But then, I don't think an organisation of geniuses would be very productive (they tend

to disappoint in masses). So, a talent distribution that follows the power law could be

appropriate: Geniuses should be surounded by people who can work with them, who would

provide support with proportional quality - if not equal creativity and vision.

Exceptional people are usually slowed down by people who don't appreciate what they

say/do/etc. when they try to do something. It is like selling a design to a blind person, or a hit song

to a tone deaf, the genius can see something so clearly and is really frustrated to show it topeople who cannot. That's why some societies have somewhat to restrich respect mechanisms,

so that you value something that you cannot, by yourself, see the value of.

Like

I couldn't agree more. Stibel's Law is probably dead on but how sad for the masses. But the truth is

this is not much different than evolution and we have survived as a culture because the fittest have

propelled us all forward. We are probably lucky to live in a society where the great people push the rest

of us forward.

6 people liked this. Like

Jeff's original thesis makes perfect sense:"why a great individual is better than a good team," when

considering thought at a very physiological level; one's ability to think at an individual level is impeded

by introducing miscellaneous variables( in the form of other people)in turn impeding a finite conclusion

or decision. I think that indecision within many organizations by virtue of the necessary 'collective' is

detrimental in many instances. This, however, is one view which focuses on pure logic based decision

making at an individual level.

A book called the "The Perfect swarm" by Len Fisher is a very compeling looking at the ability of groups

in nature to deliver good decsions through gathering experiential data. One good example is how bee's

'decide' on a good new nesting place, and consequently swarm on mass.

This book uses such examples as models for the business place. In other words, how the experience of

(mediocre) groups can be used to arrive at very good decisions, because of the 'diversity' of the

information supplied.

In agreement with John's comments on many gold nuggets' theory,' I think that what we as

organizations are failing to do is unleash the unique experiences of individuals. It is this diversity

aftreall; that, provides the fitness, if you will, of a company- in other words a company's ability to

reamain competative in a changing environment( if you follow, in principal, at least, Darwinian

evolution...)

Kerry Roberts


Reply

David Kaiser 3 weeks ago

Reply

Kadir Peker 2 weeks ago

Reply

Janet 3 weeks ago

Reply

Kerry Roberts 2 weeks ago

Reply

Kerry Roberts 2 weeks ago


4 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


5/27

CORRECTION on the book title that I referenced.

The book title is, in fact, " The Smart Swarm," How Understanding Flocks, Schools, and Colonies

Can Make Us Better at Communicating, Decision Making, and Getting Things Done

by Peter Miller.

Like

John thanks for your interesting comments. I think your question What can we do to unleash it? is

exactly the right question to ask. In my opinion, one of the things that distinguish merely good leaders

from the truly great is the ability to unleash the power of their teams.


Can't agree better with you John. That is what every organisation have to look into. May be if the author

were to say that it is difficult to find a Genius I would have agreed , but as you have rightly put it , it is

defnitely not difficult to find brilliant people.

Vinod.


Outstanding post!

"I have heard plenty of people argue that no one individual is worth the price of many. But interestingly, I

have never heard it from a leader."Unfortunately, that's because plenty of people don't want to achieve

greatness, resent those that do, and propagate collective nonsense, which destroys greatness.Thanks for the

good work.

Alejandro Morel Ramos and 34 more liked this Like

I

am officially a believer in "Stibel's Law". More than 100 to 1, a great hacker is

worth an infinite number of ordinary people.


If Zuckerberg believes in Stibel's Law, count me in. I have to admit, it doesn't sit well to know that an

individual can do better than a group but it also makes a lot of sense.


The problem with "Stibel's Law" is that it means companies who hire the best programmers (and there

are only a few) will always win. And when those programmers leave to go elsewhere (like what

happened to Google when there best went to Facebook), the company will suffer. Pretty scary thought

and I guess it means tons of money will go always go to the best people.


Reply

Jeff Stibel 3 weeks ago

Reply

Vinod 3 weeks ago

Reply

Vince Skolny 3 weeks ago

Reply

Mark Zuckerberg 3 weeks ago

Reply

Sarah 3 weeks ago

Reply

Steve Johansen 3 weeks ago

Reply


5 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


6/27

Putting all your eggs into one basket can be very risky. There's probably some sort of balance

that needs to be achieved between 'great leaders' and 'ordinary' people depending on the project,

the people, and the setting.There's the potential for greatness in many 'ordinary' people that can

be brought out - but it shouldn't happen at the price of a great leader.

Chuks_Stan and 3 more liked this Like

Mark (if it really is you), thanks for the kind words

and I of course agree. That said, Bob Metcalf deserves his own law; I can't say

the same thing for me or necessarily for this argument. The Power function has

been around for a long time, just as has been the Pareto. Anytime someone comes

up with a new use for it, they claim it as their own and a new law is named

after them. I'll politely pass but thanks as always.


What's missing from the article is the factor of TIME. While I agree that one great performer can be a

huge asset, typically that performer's value is actually only "great" for a short period. This is where

great team's come into play - they raise the performance level of all team members which has a more

lasting impact. IMO, this is just a comment about short vs. long term value.


Thank you Jeff for making my day. A great leader cannot implement his Vision, Innovation, Design, or

Organizational direction without the following of an empowered team that catches the wisdom of the his/her

leadership, and brings it into production. Many years ago I was assigned as a designer to the team that was

to work with a prestigious consulting firm who had 'expertise' in energy billing systems. After hearing that they

could not design a system to bill more than 20 % of our revenue (although that was 80% of the customer

count), I publicly accepted their blatant challenge that if I could design such a system, they could build it. I did

design a system that used 'stored logic' to break any billing process down to a series of 'Price times Quantity'

calculations connected by simple Boolean logic. As it turned out, 3 years later the system was in place,

functional, and now 20 years later, has survived as the winning system through 3 major mergers at Excl

Energy. The team could not innovate the design, but as an individual I could not implement the design. There

is the secret.

Badri Ravi and 7 more liked this Like

All your sharing are highly appreciated .I don't have enought experiences in this area.

Here is my viewpoint:A leader(individual)is surely very important for decision-making.But implementing

part might need effecient delegation/distribution and team work.

Like

The article would have been better entitled "WHEN a Great Individual Is Better Than a Good Team" because

there are times when this is so. But there are just as many times when it is not.

We should endeavor to be, to cultivate and to hire the best possible people that we can, but this misguided

idea that a stellar (in some capacity) individual is so much better than a team of good individuals, leads to

much organizational grief. If teams are so much worse than individuals, then why are so many companies

so large? Shouldn't we then be doing more to enable small businesses, rather than large multinational

Jeff Dilley 3 weeks ago

Reply


Reply

Calvin Colbert 3 weeks ago

Reply

DocReimer 2 weeks ago

Reply

willliu 2 weeks ago

Reply

Andrew S. Baker 3 weeks ago


6 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


7/27

conglomerates which are almost entirely composed of teams (sometimes *large* teams)?

The team has its place, as does the individual. Large teams can easily be counterproductive, and thus should

be avoided whenever possible, but that is a separate issue from glorifying the individual at the expense of the

team.

As written, all this serves to do is allow CEOs to justify why they are worth soooooo much more than the

teams and individuals they're supposed to be leading, managing, and nurturing.


Andrew I am the 1st to say that there are many CEOs who are vastly overpaid, especially in cases

where CEO compensation has been completely disconnected from performance. One need only look at

executive compensation at GM and Chrysler as both companies were imploding.

Clearly, there are some tasks that can only be done by teams and in those cases we should endeavor

to create the best teams possible. The Golden Gate Bridge is one such example. A team did not

design the bridge, but only a team could have built it.

As for smalll businesses, you and I are in strong agreement. I believe small businesses are the

foundation of our economy and I have written multiple articles calling for banks and other institutions to

do more to promote small business growth. In fact, my current company is dedicated to helping small

businesses.


tl;dr: mostly wrong, except for sometimes when it's right.

Except the Golden Gate Bridge wasn't designed by just one person, but by a team--with some of

the "team" headaches that your article indirectly implies. No one person today understands every

component of a large, complex and interwoven system, be it a sky-scraper, a bridge, or a large

software product. But the Golden Gate is still a magnificent creation and still is one of our world's

modern engineering marvels.

I consider myself somewhere in the middle, but I know where I am and I am good at clearing the

way for my peers who are great, and I can recognize a dysfunctional team and help clear that too.

But the team is essential--the work I do in higher education (see also: Government) impacts

hundreds of thousands of individuals. We have laws and regulations to satisfy. We have students

to support and bolster. We have HR professionals concerned with finding the greatest individualsthey can, hampered by what the government will allow HR to pay. Finance people who must

satisfy auditors, legislators, and executives alike. All cogs in a big machine, and each has a place

and a certain amount of importance. My own cog--information security--touches many, can quickly

interfere with all, and requires great individuals who can be part of many different teams at once.

One "great individual" playboy with an excessive ego does more damage to my group and my

mission than ten "mediocre" staff who may miss a thing or two, and take longer.

My situation is a particularly bad place to measure this from, I realize. And I have seen and

worked with other great individuals who performed wonderfully without meetings, and miserably

with. A programmer writing something like a mobile app or a smaller utility will do better alone.

Each line of code is art either way, but mediocre coders produce high school sketches while a

great, experienced programmer sells their sketches. But here's the thing: you're right and wrong

at once. A great individual can educate each "mediocre" member. More than that, they can inspire

and nurture growth in each of those mediocre individuals. THAT, and only that, is where the

"great' truly provide value far beyond the production of the average.


Well said Andrew. But the question is when the genius CEO's drive the company to profit, they mint

money, when it falls, the bottom tier of the employees get the hit. shouldn't it right to start downsizing

from the top when its profits down? At the same token one should ask, when the best of the breed earn

bonuses why its' frontline workers(sales persons) languishes in minimum wage barely making both

ends meet?if a worker's marginal productivity is zero, still he or she should receive the fair-share of the

pie.

Reply


Reply

jth 3 weeks ago

Reply

Hassanquashem 2 weeks ago


7 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


8/27

Like

Great Article!

I absolutely agree that great minds have an uncanny ability to identify and capitalize on opportunities that are

invisible to mediocre minds...and usually those opportunities are the catalysts that make a team, an

organization, or a product awesome! What is interesting to me, is that many organizations want more and

more collaboration, almost to the point where they "collaborate to death" all of the catalysts that have thepotential to make them great. I understand the value that collaboration can bring, because it provides

different perspectives; however, in my opinion too much collaboration is one of the most

destructive dynamics in organizations and on teams because it undercuts the great minds' ability to spread

their wings. Too many good ideas, on a great idea, make it a bad idea really quick.


Stephen - I like the phrase "collaborate to death" which does a good job describing the destructive

effect a team can have upon an individual or upon a great idea. Well said.


Excellent article.

I've found that the value of a great individual is magnified when decision-making is involved. Decisions by

committee -- regardless of the intelligence and capabilities of the individuals participating -- are almost always

inferior to those made by a single person who knows what they're doing.


Tom - I would agree. While a wise individual can and should solicit the opinions of trusted advisors,

decision-making as a process is ultimately best done by individuals. We all know the phrase decision

by committee and we think of that phrase as a pejorative for good reason. Groups can offer great

advice and generate excellent ideas, but only an individual can act upon that advice decisively.


I know of at least one instance where a commitee produced a great work _ the King James Bible

of 1611, produced by 47 scholars. Its publication is regarded as a turning point in the evolution of

the English language. Also, I would like to know from you as to why the front-runners in the two

versions of the Netflix Prize were never individuals, when the format (a coding contest) provided a

great setting for individual coding legends to strut their stuff.

Like

Ayn Rand fans are forever preaching this stuff. And they are usually wrong.


@Crimsongirl: do you have any facts or examples to back up your assertions?


Reply

Stephen Hitt 3 weeks ago

Reply


Reply

Tom Nagel 3 weeks ago

Reply


Reply

Georgy Thomas 3 weeks ago

Reply

Crimsongirl 3 weeks ago

Reply

Dagny Taggart 3 weeks ago

Reply


8 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


9/27

... you are certainly correct that Ayn Rand would agree that one great person is better than a

hundred mediocre ones... but I'm just wondering about your statement that they're usually wrong.

Not trying to be rude, I'm sincerely curious about your argument, as an Ayn Rand fan.


Was just going to mention her :D

Like

Good article Jeff. I do agree with Deborah, though, that a great individual can really help a team and can

raise those individuals up a notch or two - hopefully into that 'great' category. At least into the 'very

productive' category. Often what people in a group are lacking is a great leader.

John R. Sedivy and 4 more liked this Like

Brad - I would agree that a great individual absolutely can bring out the best from a team - that is one of

the hallmarks of great leadership. Having said that - I'd still prefer a small team of exceptional people to

a team 5x as large composed of mediocre individuals.

When it comes to excellence and achievement - I will pick quality over quantity any day.


Steve Jobs is a great person. Apple is his team. I find it impossible to imagine how, alone, he would

have been able to contribute all that he's contributed with the support of this great team.


The team is just the "leverage" of the great person. While they are essential to success and

valuable in their own right, their role is, unfortunately, not respected enough in business nor

compensated enought at times I'll grant you. I have always practiced sharing the wealth of my

leveraged successes and will continue to do so.


This must occur over time as shifting from average to great requires a change in state of mind. Also the

members of the team must be open to this change, not everyone has a desire for greatness and are

content with mediocrity.


Excellent article. I agree with the author, when he says that

when an activity can be performed sufficiently by one person with

adequate skills, doing the activity as a group should be avoided. It

not merely saves time and resources but yields results in excellent fashion.

Dagny Taggart 3 weeks ago

Reply

Timothy Gaweco 3 weeks ago

Reply

Brad Egeland 3 weeks ago

Reply


Reply

BarbaraLBowen 3 weeks ago

Reply

Curtis Havlin 3 weeks ago

Reply

John R. Sedivy 3 weeks ago

Reply

Kumuda Gururao 3 weeks ago


9 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


10/27

As suggested, best people

must be empowered to do great things.


I am a public school teacher sadly complying with the directive to employ "group work" as a strategy for

learning. It is good up to a point, but......

It is nice to read an argument I interpret as promoting individual excellence in the classroom as opposed to

learning how to work in a group as a primary objective.


Does it have to be "either or" team or individual? A great team is a group that recognizes when and where

their teammates are great leaving lots of room for each of us as individuals to do what we do best -- working

alone at times and together with others, watching each other's back, not shying away from conflict, sweating

it out together and getting it done.

That spark of creativity, greatness and genius is in all of us. The problem with the solo hero great individual is

that it often contributes to mediocrity in others. Imagine raising your kids that way!

What's the cost of having 100 average engineers, disenchanted and disengaged when you could have 60, 70and more upping their game.

Granted building a great team takes work but the rewards of having lots of people doing good work is far

better than a bunch watching from the bleachers as only a few get to play.


While a great read, there is a basic fallacy in the core argument. Extreme care has been taken to quantify

mathematically the dominance of a few, but absolutely no sound reasoning as gone into the quantification of

sweeping terms like "mediocrity", "great minds", etc. The net effect is to create a 'new royalty' or ' super-class'based on arbitrary precepts just because it fits empirically into a 'power function'. It is important to bear in

mind that the true value of the decision is never immediate. Perceptions of excellence can be aggressively

promoted for focused short term gain... and excellence over the long term can be invoked by collaboration.


Good piece and debate. And a lot of "apples" and "oranges" mixing (ridiculous examples like a time

constrained chess game, which is non-divisible task). Some of the issues are coordination issues (big team

working on divisible tasks), some can be resolved via modularisation. Lots of research that shows

complementarity in teams stimulating superior performance of the individuals. To summarise: a)Most task

and activities are better done by teams; b)Fewer bigger heads is always better than more smaller heads, for

numbers >2; c)conceptual genius is almost always individual. Leadership is a different issue altogether,

different "intelligence," e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. When discussing scientific breakthroughs, better to stay

away from leadership.

Dr. Martin Bartonitz and 2 more liked this Like

Hi Oscar,

Do you have any links to the research you mention ?

Reply

Waynedrum 3 weeks ago

Reply

Suzanne Daigle 3 weeks ago

Reply

LES 3 weeks ago

Reply

Oscar Hauptman 3 weeks ago

Reply

Bcrucq 3 weeks ago


0 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


11/27

Thanks.

Like

Sometimes, one great individual can raise the bar for the whole team by mentoring or demanding higher

quality from otherwise average individuals. This, over time, can raise those average individuals into the

"great" category. True greatness rarely just appears; it is more often crafted through exposure to great

individuals.

So while it can be true that a great individual can get lost in a sea of mediocrity, it is equally true that a great

individual can create more greatness within his/her organization by working in mediocre teams and changing

them to great teams. To say the world works one way or another is very black and white.


Deborah - good point, setting high expectations can bring more from a team and mentoring can play

have a strongly positive impact. However, it is worth noting that while many great achievers owe much

to great mentors - the same is not true of the reverse. Not every student from a given mentor becomes

a great achiever.


True. And Leslie's later comment adds onto your point. There can be a period where a great

individual is underperforming while brining up a team to greatness. However, it's a trade-off a

company makes: short-term vs. long-term benefits and also risk vs. return. That's why I think

there's still value in putting together an "okay" team and placing a great individual at the helm.

The results can either be disappointing or surprising, but either is a valid strategy.


I could not agree more with this article. It is infuriating to have an idea at work, and rather than be asked to

"run with it" or to develop a plan, managers bring on a team to "help" execute the idea. Before you know it

you are catering to ten others' ideas, then the project is running in a direction that is anything but what youhad envisioned, with no way to control the result.

To the first post, John, I could not disagree more. The traits of a leader, to me, are hardly "I'll just wait here

until someone comes to find me." If I were running an organization I would want my leaders to know how to

navigate away from paperwork and politics on their own. Leaders should know how to pass paperwork and

politics on to folks who are happy doing that (because there are many people who are), and spend their time

leading and innovating.


Great article. A couple of observations. "Great people" are usually only "great" at a very narrow skill, so I

think that one should be very careful giving such people scope outside of their fields of expertise. These cults

of personality can be very dangerous.

I happen to have off the chart abstract reasoning capability - top .3% of the population kind of stuff. For my

entire b2b hi tec sales career, I've been told by many people that I handle impossible situations in ways that

amaze them, but it's simply because I can see patterns where others cannot, and also can quickly

hypothesize what's going in a situation and test for it, and do that whole thing iteratively while appearing to

engage in just normal conversation. I did spend years developing very solid sales/communication skills as

well as learning how organizations work, so I developed skills to leverage this innate ability, which helped. I'm

above average in most other measures of intelligence, but nothing terribly special.

This actually makes it much harder for me to work in groups, however. I often can solve problems in

non-linear intuitive ways which others don't even understand, and am resented and criticized for it. As well,

Reply

Deborah Fike 3 weeks ago

Reply


Reply

Deborah Fike 3 weeks ago

Reply

Lindsay Schroeder 2 weeks ago

Reply

Glenn Donovan 2 weeks ago


1 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


12/27

I'm not particularly emotionally empathetic or patient. As a result, while I do very good sales work, my

success in groups has been limited. The reflection I made was to try and learn how to work in groups better,

but really that just meant sitting back and keeping my mouth shut. If the problem was in a domain that my

particular talent lent itself too, it would be painful for me to watch others struggle when I could see 5 steps

ahead to the/or an answer. I tried being more "inclusive" to no avail. My solution? I do "contract sales" as a

consultant, lone wolf rain-maker. I can use what I'm good at in any way I see fit without concern for how

others are going to react to me "dominating" or "taking over" and get better results. It does sadden me

though, as I feel like if these companies had used me for what I am good at, we'd all be better off, but sadly, I

only found a dynamic like that a couple of times. When it worked, it was great, my colleagues would kind of

collect problems they knew I could solve and just let me do it. Tricky/losing deals, complex negotiations,

belligerent clients - just give 'em to me and I'll work it out in ways you can't even dream of. But that wasn't

enough to make me successful in organizations.

Question: How can organizations properly leverage such people instead of frustrate them?


Great article. I've always found that once a group exceeds 5 people, it becomes difficult to manage. When

people are allowed to work autonomously, they get along better at the key times when collaboration is

needed.


A brilliant mind can be destroyed by many mediocre minds that hold power (resources), true or false?


For the most part, this is a great article. I think the author is dead on in general. However, I think there is a

lot more complexity to this argument. I typically like to use sports analogies, because most people tend to

get them. In sports, a great player can cause a mediocore or poor team to win on occasion, but a great team

will typically beat a mediocore team with one great player most of the time. There are levels to this analogy,

but in general, I think that there are different rules and dynamics to different industries/ markets and walks of

life that dictate whether a team truly is needed, or whether a talanted and great indivual will suffice. I will

leave you with this thought though, that goes with what Stibel is saying and that is that no team has ever won

inspite of the coach.


What about scalability? It is all well and good to have a super-star looking after one area of a business when

the company is small, or a small group of great people when the company is growing - but how can the

needs of a large company be met by heroes rather than team players?


Thanks for stimulating this debate Jeff. I like it.

Well over 2000 years ago Euripides wrote, "Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head." He

did not suggest one person acting alone could achieve the same feat. But its also true that some tasks are

best done solo.

Jeff Stibel has certainly proved one thing. To get lots of comments on your blog, give it a contentious

headline that is both plausible and incomplete. In reply to debbi louison lavoy, Jeff wrote, there are certain

realms of achievement that can be produced only by great individuals and not a team. Im sure that if this

had been the original heading the debate would never have got off the ground.

The original assertion is somewhat lop-sided. Its pretty obvious that a great team will achieve more than a

good individual. Would it be as easy to argue that a great individual is better than a great team? Would

Reply

Cgy596 3 weeks ago

Reply

knowledgenotebook 3 weeks ago

Reply

Gpdavis32 3 weeks ago

Reply

Guest 3 weeks ago

Reply

Patrick Esson 1 week ago


2 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


13/27

anyone have bothered to comment if the headline had been, Why a good individual is often better than a

good team.

Many statements in the myriad of comments are true, including several of Jeffs. To me, the following are the

most telling:

Exceptional people are usually slowed down by people who don't appreciate what they say/do/etc. when they

try to do something. (Very similar to Jeff's belief that, Mediocre minds can destroy the value or contribution of

a great mind)

The team has its place, as does the individual.

[in the vast majority of cases] an individual cannot succeed without a team to support him.

Some individuals have exceptional talent to do things and others are full of bright ideas (described by Belbin

as Plants). Enabling these potentially great individuals to contribute fully is one mark of a great leader.

However, in a complex organisation there are few opportunities for individuals to achieve much without the

consent or support of others. For the vast majority of people, their overall effectiveness rests not just on being

effective as individuals, but also being effective in their interaction with others. This is the nub of Stephen

Coveys thesis in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Its also why, in this short video clip

http://youtu.be/PQ2dxe1XfzA I suggest that if you really wish to improve the way an organisation performs,

you need to focus on this capacity to work well with others.


A lot of people having been calling this Stibel's Law. Probably because Zuckerberg used that term but is thisreally a law or just a rule of thumb?


Stibel's law is really interesting. The more I think about it, the more it completely makes sense. I get why

networks need to be big, but it is so hard to build teams of people all working on the same thing. Creativity

clearly doesn't work well in groups (there are no artist teams) and peak performers tend to work best alone. I

am big fan of this one.


The arguement produced does not reflect the richness of human interaction or collaboration. It is fair to say

that the painting of the Sistine Chapel may not lend itself to a team but the nature of alot of work is that

collaboration does enhance the outcome.

In the book outliers, Gladwell highlights that there is a diminishing return on IQ after a certain level and other

traits kick in.

In the book, the History of Innovation by Steven Johnson, he cites work by Koestler which looks at real time

studies of breakthroughs in labs, Key breakthroughs were made in meetings.

In their book, the A Method for Hiring, Street and Smart cite the story of the Americas cup in the 90s where

marquee sailors were omitted in favour of stronger team players and won the race.

A great individual is not universally valuable and any selection process should bring more complexity to the

hiring decision.


I disagree JD.

Stibel's Law is just saying that IQ is an individual measure and intelligence doesn't work well in groups.

breakthroughs are made in meetings, as Johnson cites, because the meetings are cross-functional

teams not people doing the same thing. Stibel's Law focusses on something very different and even

Stibel acknowledged that proper uses of teams is a good thing.


Reply

Yoseph Jacob 3 weeks ago

Reply


Reply

JD 3 weeks ago

Reply


Reply


3 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


14/27

Great article to explore the best decision scenario, via collective wisdom or great individual's hearts and guts.

I think if the leader happened to be the great people, they may also need accumulate the wisdom via your

own learning channels (which already take advantage of the collective wisdom), and she or he could make

better and faster effective decision than collective decision making scenario ( politics or the leaders

surrounded by "YES" men). But maybe, in today's turmoil economy, not so many leaders are great, then the

collective wisdom could be the safe bet, still, the group of decision maker should be diversified talent, with

expanded lens of view, and above average. So the point is how to cultivate and empower the great individual

and teams. thanks.


Celebration of the single great achiever. Nice. While these individuals certainly deserve accolades, it's

disturbing to me that "everyone else" is mediocre and, if you buy some of the comments here, is mediocre

because all of them choose to be. The myth of the great man or woman rising above everyone else persists,

though I don't know why. That does happen, but I want to know: what role did others play in helping to make

that happen? Even the greatest leaders attribute some of their success to others. If CEOs, managers, and

supervisors were really doing their jobs, they would be serving as the "others" who find, nurture, and set free

the many people who could be great but who need an objective third party to show them why and how.


You're young. You'll learn.


I think he's right to a certain degree, but not because his premise is correct. It's actually because of the

dysfunctionality of corporate creative culture, if it can be called that. I don't think he exactly understands how

creative people do their work.

Truly great employees are often very creative people who are also very disciplined. Creative people do in fact

work in teams quite often, but how most corporations think of "teamwork" vs how a creative individual works

in a team is operationally very different. The film industry is a perfect illustration of this:

You have a director, a cinematographer, a supervising sound editor, a film editor, a composer, a production

designer, (and the list goes on), all of whom primarily work by themselves (or as heads of creative "teams").

However, not one of them can or does the entire film alone. They are "a team" in a very real sense (in that

they must do their work in relation to what everyone else has done hitherto on the project), unified by the

director's vision. They work side by side, or in conjuction with one another, feeding off of each other's

creativity The key difference is that they do THEIR own creative work largely by themselves, yet in the

context of a larger whole. They are generally given a wide berth as far as their individual craft goes, but it

must be subordinated to the entire scope and aesthetic of a project, and all of them know this. What's even

more interesting, is that once a film is finished, these creative individuals then "team up" with often

completely new individuals on the next film project (i.e., the staff members change), yet, they still generally do

a very good job of "teamwork". The film industry is not an historically unprofitable industry, and has operated

this way for 80 years.

Great individuals are worth their weight in gold in the context of corporations as they currently exist, but that

existence is very dysfunctional, and generally antithetical to people of strong opinions (as all creative people

are). Managers desperately need to let creative types "do their work", while providing strategic guidance and

operational support in order to let them actually do this. In advertising, for example, you'll have a creative

director who will come up with the idea for a commercial, but you'll have a producer who will handle the

operational aspect of it. Both need the other, and both can be superstarts. If you try to get two creative

people to work in the same "sphere of influence" on a project, yes, it will break down, because essentially you

have two decision-makers, not one. If you split them up so that they have ownership of two separate, distinct,

but synergistic aspects of a project, you will get quite a lot done than by any one individual. And the both of

them could be superstars.

And, like the film industry, in the end, it's all about the credit they get.


Pearl Zhu 2 weeks ago

Reply

ldrider 3 weeks ago

Reply

TheRankingMissP 3 weeks ago

Reply

Neil Uchitel 3 weeks ago

Reply


4 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


15/27

The most individual minds in business always win! Branson, Trump, Obama, Buffett, Jay-Z, Oprah, Michael

Bay, Steve Spielberg, Michael Jordan, Michael Schumacher, the list goes on. They are mavericks at work. I

don't recall reading about their entourages? They will themselves and a small circle around them to literally

out do entire global enterprises that they compete against.


There are moments when the skill of the right individual has no substitute.

Delusional, grandiose imagination of superior competency is commonplace ... especially among

programmers who have never been challenged by the task of building and maintaining a hard real-time

system. Genuinely superior excellence in actual productive, technical ability is rare. But it does exist. So,

although there are a few superstars out there, but mostly the herd of programmers is populated by dorks who

imagine that they are superstars. Systems that really, really need to work (e.g. DoD systems, not Twitter or

Facebook or iPad apps or some social widget) have been built by "ordinary" programmers who are members

of capable, mature teams (i.e. "capability" and "maturity" as in the CMMI acronym).

Generally, over the long-term, capability and maturity of teams matter ... comparing talented individuals to

quantitatively-optimized capability and maturity in organizations is like comparing any brave hero to the force

assembled for Desert Storm. The likelihood that any given individual programmer is more productive than a

capably-managed team of X ordinary "good enough" induhvidual programmers [who were probably members

of the National Honor Society in high school, in upper half of their college class] is probably something like

1/X^2. For example, the likelihood that any given programmer is more productive than a capably-managed

team of ten qualified programmers is approximately one in a hundred; the likelihood that any given

programmer is more productive than a capably-managed team of 100 is one in ten thousand. Einstein did

exist ... there were not billions or millions or even thousands of Einsteins ... exceptional skills are the

~exception~ ... yet there have been billions of humans who have accomplished productive, useful things on a

routine, daily basis and managed to feed themselves and their families.

Of course, we should value savant-like skills, spectacular ability but we should be cautious about extending

any entitlement to the merely bright or precocious, above-average youth ... as a general policy, it is

dangerous for us to promote individual effort more than we promote abilities to build, understand, measure,

analyze, and optimize teams ... the cream has always found its own way to rise to the top ... we should not

imagine that spectacular individual talent is somehow common-place or ordinary enough that we can rely

upon it to confront more serious challenges we face. We would be better served if we instructed people to

downplay the role of ego and remembered that for the majority of those people who have sought election into

Mensa, their greatest life achievement was only being recognized as a member of Mensa.


This post support the argument that even introverts are good for organizations! but don't u think we are

generalizing the fact, (either way!).

-Anshul


Quite true. While we need masses/hordes of people and other organizational tactics/means to herd the

regular folks. It is individual effort that has led to both great inventions and terrible things. While delving into

examples here is not necessary, we need to clearly identify and keep learning to identify brilliance from

mediocrity, especially in this age of social network where mediocrity is glorified.


Transient Identiti 3 weeks ago

Reply

Mark Bruns 3 weeks ago

Reply

Anshul Gupta 3 weeks ago

Reply

Tarry Singh 3 weeks ago

Reply

Martin 3 weeks ago


5 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


16/27

No mention of competence!

One competent (qualified, trained, experienced) professional is worth more than a room full of amateurs.


The article reflects the popular proverb "too many cooks spoil the broth", but there is always a head chef. I'm

bit curious to know if the author is trying to refer to a leader as the great individual. A leader is always, oneindividual and we can never have many leaders leading a team.

But on the contrary when it comes to a team , a good leader would prefer to go with not

so talented individuals who are good at executing the orders and execute his plan, rather than one arrogant,

heavy headed, extremely talented sub ordinate.


Jeff - I'm on a call right now with www.executivenetworks.comthat is featured http://www.jaygalbraith.com/.

We talked about your blog post earlier and this notion of individuals or stars being embedded into a system.

Sometimes when these 'stars' leave they may not have the same impact. I'll email the post over to Jay to

allow him to comment further.

Regards, Lauren Klein


This is a great article, however it seems to assume that there is no such thing as a great team builder. There

are people out there who can draw out the best from a group. Unfortunately, businesses tend to place the

great individual performer in the position of leader and then be suprised by the poor output of the team.

I believe that as the leader of a team if you need the best individual performers you probably are not a great

team builder (no offence intended the you is the universal kind and not a personal attack).

Your thoughts on this point would be appreciated.


I follow Jeff's Twitter stream online, I've read 'Wired for Thought' and also wrote a detailed review of the same

in Amazon. This is a very thought provoking article.

My doubt is about the Netflix Prize. Individual contestants were allowed to match wits with teams. But I

haven't read about an instance where a great, superachieving coder working on his own emerged as a front-

runner, at least for a while.

Your article specifically mentions about programmers being able to code exponentially faster when working

alone. The context of the Netflix Prize had everything in favour of such coding legends. Yet, it was teams

which prevailed.Can the Stibel Law account for this?


It all depends on the nature of the activity to perform and

the objectives to achieve.

Jeff Stibel writes: " when an activity

can be performed sufficiently by one person with adequate skills, doing the

activity as a group should be avoided" and I fully agree. But

what when the activity can not at all be sufficiently performed by one person, but only by a

team?

Take the following example: Barcelona CF plays much better soccer

Reply

Madan S 3 weeks ago

Reply

thelaurenklein 3 weeks ago

Reply

Bonadventure 3 weeks ago

Reply

Georgy Thomas 3 weeks ago

Reply

Ricardo Agudo Vivas 3 weeks ago


6 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


17/27

than the Argentinean national team, even if Lionel Messi plays for both (you

may take any team game other than soccer). Why is that?

And any of those two teams would

beat a team made of 11 clones of Lionel Messi. Again, why?

In both cases the answer is the same, the team output is bigger/better than any individual performance can

be, because of the nature of the activity.


We are all unique individuals and I believe it takes a rare type of leader to really understand intrinsic versus

extrinsic movitvators to create the conditions which allow individuals that work within the larger construct of

team/business unit/organization in order to allow them to 'do great things'. Thanks for the conversation - it's

been enlightening.

Lauren


Excellent article. I wish more companies realized this. I think Apple, Inc. does and that, at least in part, is why

they have done so well!


Its a good read.I agree that group/team dynamics affect a great individual's performance and that leaders

should recognize and empower great employees.Teamwork has its own repercussions such as

polarization,de-individuation,groupthink etc and results in mediocre output/performance, and sometimes

leads to production block phase.

I have seen that in a team,members tend to comply and commit to knowledge based great individual who

tend to be senior to them in age as well rather than a relatively new/young and great individual, without

resentment. Moreover,great individuals face tough and immediate opposition not only within the team but

also from their immediate managers who see and fear great individuals as their rivals,often if not always.


Adding to the comment from Brad and Deborah...a great person can benefit a team in the long run,

sometimes very long run. But, for that period of time, Jeff's point holds. That great person is not performing

at his greatness. He, as an individual, is under performing. It's a fundamental point of Project Management,

adding

manpower to a late project only makes it later.

I agree with the basic premise, find the best people and empower them to do great things, but will add that

one of those things must be to repeat the process; hire great people...


What happened to Xerox PARC, they did not lack great people, however as an organization they did not

succeed. I can't imagine why anyone would strive for mediocrity, however it needs more than hiring "great"

people for an organization to succeed.

Like

Interestingly enough, read the article "Great people are overrated" by W. Taylor.

If you have to hire a top manager or top engineer to innovate and succeed, you better get it right straight

away. It is not such an easy task.

Reply

Executive Networks 3 weeks ago

Reply

artnnature 3 weeks ago

Reply

Kjubei 3 weeks ago

Reply

Leslie J Grau 3 weeks ago

Reply

Pushkin 1 week ago

Reply

Rodi Basso 2 weeks ago


7 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


18/27

If you build up company culture on the Team, you are more luckly to have a longer term success.

Like

1 great engineer may be worth more than 100 avg engineers, but 5 great engineers are better than a

thousand avg. ones.

And that's the whole thing about teams.

Like

Love the article and love the comments!

My only two cents is this... in our super PC new era - it is bold to have the headline you have and I am glad

you have it.

What you say in this article is true and when we try to "make everyone happy and play nice" and water down

our true thoughts/ideas/concepts - well we don't always get the results. Results are what matter and how you

get those results matter even more. Great individuals know and have mastered this "art" - that's why they are

GREAT.

Thanks for the discussion...

Like

I could not agree more!At the heart of the debate is the IQ Vs EQ discordance.It is not my premise that all

people with gifted IQs have a poor EQ or vice versa.If they do have a complementary high EQ,well and

good!If not,please,please don't send them away as a 'High IQ,low EQ' sore as a thumb,a#$%%!!

Instead,train them and soon you will have a polished diamond in your hands.IQ without EQ may be

difficult,EQ without IQ will give you pleasant teams with no results!

Like

The problem here is the assumption that greatness, or mediocrity, is a general trait. Not all great people aregood at everything, not all mediocre people are mediocre at everything. This is a task or trait based

proposition. The fact that companies pay big bucks for great people means nothing. Remember, tulips cost

$100,000 each at a particular time in the 17th century. Generalizing from one's personal experence is just

that, not science. If the author has never heard a CEO prefer the many to the one, all that means is that he

needs to talk to more CEOs. This piece reads a lot like the fox lobbying to keep the chicken coop open. It is

self-serving.

Like

Team work is magical. But i think we need to put the golden egg to think and make decisions. Other

members should follow him and work towards the goal. Giving the right team to that special one is very

important.

Like

Whilst I agree with the concept (as many of the commenters did) I would like to hybrid the central proposition

that an individual must work in a vacuum to reach maximum potential.

I would modify this, by including communication to a set of team (subsidiary/subservient)

members who then can implement, execute or convey said field of genius to those actors that are needed to

realize the pronouncement.

Reply

Varun 2 weeks ago

Reply

Denise W. Barreto 2 weeks ago

Reply

rengaraj sudarsanam 2 weeks ago

Reply

Codainc 2 weeks ago

Reply

Subramanian K 2 weeks ago

Reply

Wayne Spivak 2 weeks ago


8 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


19/27

Team work does indeed work however there is ALWAYS a team leader. Why not blend what works (superb

individuals and teams) and strengthen the concept?

Wayne Spivak

SBA * Consulting, LTD

www.sbaconsulting.com

Twitter:

Like

A great team always beats a great individual. And what makes a team great is not always a stellar individual.

All this article really says is that excellence beats mediocrity even with superior mediocre numbers. That is

not surprising.

What the article did not say was that excellent teams csn exceed in performance the an excellent individual.

Restating, a team with members just slightly shy the skill of a superbly skilled individual can still beat the

pants off a that superb individual.

Even worse, great individual cannot overcome a bad team.

CEOs have to make tough decisions because they create the environment that requires them to make tough

decisions. There are plenty of examples where a great CEO has created an environment where their need to

make a tough decision is significantly reduced? How? By fostering a great team.

Like

The idea seems to be most used in the investment banks where 'individuals' were unleashed to create great

profits for the company as well as themselves and it worked pretty well for good amount of time untill the

'greatness' corrupted the minds and greed took over. The end result as we all know caught unaware many

'mediocre' people and put them out of jobs and in terrible financial situation. The 'great' people still managed

to do well for themselves and their companies and are very much back to prosperity and excess as it was...

... So, while its good for companies and leaders to have great individuals, but at some levels they need to be

'regulated' in their greatness to protect some humble 'mediocre' people....

Like

NIce post... just want to clarify some technicalities regarding how our brain transforms from exponential

function to a power function. You said, each neuron is naturally connected to billion others and is powered by

a network law - which means that each neuron enhances in performance when more and more such neurons

join the network or in other words, are put to use by the brain. But if more and more neurons are brought into

the network, it should ideally be called a highly active stage. But according to you, high activation makes our

brains turn towards power functioning, which reduces its productivity and brings a 'lull' after the storm. My

question - if bringing of all/most neurons into a network is not high activation of brain, then what is?

Like

This post reinforces a myth of the lone inventor or Steve Jobs being "the guy".

There are market visionaries like Jobs who have spent 30+ years informing a signal for where the market

can/should go. We need visionaries and leaders within our organizations to help us understand where "there"

is.

That said, it takes a lot of people to make "there" not just "there" but a new marketplace reality. And that work

is rarely about lone work, but about group work. And not just group work, but specifically about thinking

smartly together so we can do our own work better. This allows people to then make sure nothing gets

dropped between "silos" or cracks in the business. Groups can think better together (plenty of research on

HBR to prove that). And allowing groups to collaborate has proven results in business outcomes.

Apple is not Apple because of Steve Jobs alone. Apple is Apple because they have a great vision (which,

Reply

V. Kellen 2 weeks ago

Reply

Abhishek Jain 3 weeks ago

Reply

Abhimanyu Singh 3 weeks ago

Reply

Nilofer Merchant 3 weeks ago


9 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


20/27

rightly, we can credit to Steve Jobs) AND because they have an entire organization of smart people who

know how to create the kind of value, together.

The future is not created; the future is co-created. That's a truth.

Nilofer

Like

Nilofer - I think your point is a good one. To be truly great - a company needs both great leadership as

well as great people throughout the overall organization.

Like

I find this piece far too broad and sweeping in its conclusions and utterly nonscientific. "I have heard plenty of

people argue that no one individual is worth the

price of many. But interestingly, I have never heard it from a leader." -- Hmm, particularly when negotiating a

compensation package. CEO pay may follow a power law, but I think you'll find that people's intelligence

quotients are in fact rather normally bound. While intelligence and talent follow a more complex pattern than

say, sprinting speed, I think it's more likely to follow a normal bell curve than a true power law dynamic.

However, Hollywood and our irrational human imagination are more likely to fill in the blanks when admiring

someone's "off the charts" abilities. What's probably more surprising is actually the limitations in theintelligence of even the most capable of us. It's another way of saying that there's a healthy dose of luck and

contagion that affects even the most brilliant of businesses. The flipside is that this argument that the great

ones among us are worth stadiumfuls of the rest of us has contributed to some of the most egregious,

nonproductive forms of narcissism seen this side of Nero in the corporate world. Ill-conceived

self-perceptions of greatness have contributed to some of the biggest failures of the last 20 years.

Like

Sure, Jeff. Everybody is unique. By giving these examples you make comparisons that can be true. Although

there are many that are different. It depends on the example. Of course I can't (do not want to) run a big

business. Do I understand all (incl. human) processes ? Yes, I dear saying that. There's is always

the discussion as we may see - as far as you're well-known with Spiral Dynamics. There's what plays more or

less analogue. The "We" (pluralis) vs"I". I signed up my ideas about them in the context that may be

representative here. Big grz from Holland

https://www.box.net/shared/9le...

https://www.box.net/shared/234...

Like

A Individual capacity varies Of course...But an individual comes up with the required qualities and knowledge

... The question is who will be the person to judge that individual in and out to access his calibre and make

him a leader , I mean a wholesome leader . Then also It doesn't stop ...Never ever one individual can alone

change things ..It requires lot of other talents for that individual to get things done in a diplmatic way . Tha era

of dictatorialship had gone ...Now That leader should have a very larger vision and things has to be in control

and harmony has to be maintained . This is my view point .

Like

A Individual capacity varies Of course...But an individual comes up with the required qualities and knowledge

... The question is who will be the person to judge that individual in and out to access his calibre and make

him a leader , I mean a wholesome leader . Then also It doesn't stop ...Never ever one individual can alone

change things ..It requires lot of other talents for that individual to get things done in a diplmatic way . Tha era

of dictatorialship had gone ...Now That leader should have a very larger vision and things has to be in control

and harmony has to be maintained . This is my view point .

Reply


Reply

S Kim 3 weeks ago

Reply

LinkedIn 3 weeks ago

Reply

Binujacobpeter 3 weeks ago

Reply

Binujacobpeter 3 weeks ago


20 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


21/27

Like

"One can't work hard at intelligence. It is a given-neurons and everything. If it is a given, how does it make a

person great because of his/her intrinsic intelligence? Awesome coding makes a person great? "That's just

half (or less than half) a story. The real intelligence is not just a cognitive or biological version. i.e. I'm at my

best when there's chaos in my head, when I'm strongly unfathomable.http://nl.linkedin.com/in/euphoria

Like

"artists rarely collaborate and when they do, it rarely goes well"? really? most music is performed

collaboratively.

Like

MJcraig the performance of music is often collaborative, its creation is not. It takes a full orchestra to

perform Beethovens 9th symphony but an orchestra did not write the 9th symphony, or any other

symphony for that matter.


Hi Jeff,

Since you used a programmer in some of your examples, I'm curious to hear what you think of Pair

Programming. It's advocates claim that you get far superior quality and functionality as a result of working as

a pair.

Thoughts?

Like

What about utilizing that one single individual to build up a team? In organizations we like to multiply things:

products, efficiency, revenue, and great talents. If organizations only run under one man show, how can the

overall value of the company increase?

Like

Evelyn - I very much agree that one individual can raise the overall output of a team. Again, my

argument is not that teams have no value. To the contrary, having run and built many companies over

the years I am a strong believer in the value of teams. Rather, my argument is one about the unique

capacity of outstanding people to lead teams. One has never heard of a team leading a team. Instead,

one hears of a leader leading a team.


I fullly agree with the role of a super individual. As I may say I am one. I notice all commotions about my way

of thinking, The great benefit is that I do not have to gather information and discuss lots of ways of thinking,

simply because in my mind all happens at the same place at the same time. No team that can compete with

that. Read former philosophers about this phenomenon, they "agree" as well. Those who can't stand it, live

mostly too strong from Ego.

BR Wil'fred Bastiani - Anthroposophist/Philosopher/Psychologist/Diagnostican/Profiler & Innovator

Reply


Reply

Mjcraig60 3 weeks ago

Reply


Reply

armond_m 3 weeks ago

Reply

Evelyn 3 weeks ago

Reply


Reply



21 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


22/27

Like

Wil'fred Bastiani I do not share your view that there is such a thing a super individual but rather,

certain people of exceptional talent and even then such excellence is usually confined to a limited set

of skills. Steve Jobs has proven himself remarkable at conceiving of products and developing whole

markets. iTunes is a prime example. But there is nothing to indicate that Steve Jobs will ever have a

song on iTunes. John Lennon & Paul McCartney are now highly downloaded on iTunes, but I doubt

either could have run and grown a company like Apple.

Like

One can't work hard at intelligence. It is a given-neurons and everything. If it is a given, how does it make a

person great because of his/her intrinsic intelligence? Awesome coding makes a person great?

Like

Essentialwitness No amount of intelligence is a substitute for tenacity and hard work. Those who have

achieved much, including people we would call geniuses, would have achieved little if their intelligence

was not matched by focus and determination. Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Mozart, Steve Jobs all

of these people were exceptional not only in their intelligence, but in their drive and focus as well.


Jeff - if you have not already done so I suggest you research the body of knowledge left to us by the late

Elliott Jaques and his Requisite Organization model. (See "In Praise of Hierarchy" HBR 90107) "There is a

hierarchy of four ways, and four ways only, in which individuals process information: declarative, cumulative,

serial and parallel processing. Each of these processes corresponds to a distinct step in potential capability

of individuals. The existence of the managerial hierarchy in all post-tribal societies for the past 3,000 years is

a reflection in organizational life of discontinuous steps in the nature of human capability." Jaques defines

how organizations should be structured and staffed based upon the hierarchy or stratum of work/task

requirements and upon the current and future-potential capability of individuals.

How this relates to your point: all teams should fall under the auspices of an accountable manager. (don't get

me started on how some teams "report to" multiple managers...a unicorn!) Accountable managers, in order to

provide true value-addedness to his/her team, must demonstrate human capability one level above that of

the team members. Example: if a team of stratum III capable individuals is working on a stratum III time-span

task/project, then that team must be managed by a stratum IV-capable manager. The manager will be the

person held accountable for the results and the working behaviors of the team. It's not that a great individual

is better than a good team; it's that roles should be stratified by time-span tasks and that accountable

managers with requisite capability should lead teams. Both roles and their associated tasks are important. If

not, then the organization has other, more serious matters to deal with.

I enjoy the discussion.

Like

Hello Jeff.

When I read a blog post, I also read a lot of the comments. Your article has stirred up a lot them, so I'll try to

keep this on succinct. -- A group of people may be called a team, but the 'Quality' of their teamwork is what

determines their performance -- A leader may have acquired a great reputation, but if the leader is not also a

great team player, he or she will not get the best performance out of the team-- Some people are

fundamentally anti-synergistic: they sap the energy of the leader, and of the team (we've all seen this

happen--but sometimes the effect is only recognized after it's too late)-- Rather than giving blanket praise to

'great leaders' or dismissing teams as 'mediocre', consider what would happen if both leader and team

members could ALL be reliably selected for their 'fit' to the mission of the team, and for their innate positive

'team-player' qualities.-- There is a completely new technology (neither a personality trait test nor an

Reply


Reply

Essentialwitness 3 weeks ago

Reply


Reply

Kevin Earnest 3 weeks ago

Reply

Mtalaba 3 weeks ago


22 of 27 07/22/2011 10:21


23/27

'engagement' or 'strengths' survey) that can do this. I think you would be interested to check it out. It's called

Role-Based Assessment, created by The Gabriel Institute.

And, by the way, I agree that sometimes an individual can achieve much more than a group. However, on a

truly synergistic team, each person is free to perform as both an individual contributor AND as a team

member.

Like

How about we learn to put the right people to the right task?

Like

Technology innovation and business adventure need both super-talented individual/leader and a great team

of synergy.

Like

I think folks need to re-read the article from last week asserting Teams work better. The suggestion wasmade that teams made up of very good people can outdo those with singular champions. I believe someone

earlier asked the question regarding all of the people that fit between great and mediocre? As someone also

stated referring to the Barcelona Soccer Team how about the

Bruins and The Mavericks? Great discussions, thanks,

Like

Good article !!

You can take it like this that a piece of copper wire is on table and when we measeure the current passing

through it ,it will be zero .

thought it has a Team of electrons but the movement is random and cancelling the individual effect.

Every one have positive and negative characteristics and in a Team , in general the positives f individual

doesnt sum up totally ,rather the negatives nullify the positive characteristics .

Vinod dubey

India (mumbai)

Like

I'm assuming you're referring to visual artists? You've painted with such a broad stroke it's difficult to tell. But

I've heard John, Paul, George and (sadly) Ringo's solo efforts. Individually, The Beatles they were not.

You've given yourself the convenient escape hatch of "the are exceptions to every rule" for your unsupported

assertion, but the list of successful collaborative artists is quite long.

I enjoyed your article and can't help but think there are areas where it's *more* true than others. Personally,

I'll take an average team with exceptional hustle over a brilliant individual any day. But I am an average dude,

so...

Thanks for the great morning read, Jeff!

Like

Jay the case of the Beatles is an interesting one. Clearly the collaboration between John and Paul is

a case of where collaboration brought out the best in two artists. But more precisely, its also a case

Reply

Peter Niu 3

why a great individual is better than a good team

Documents