Inc. presents the results of an interesting study regarding human resource management. You might want to take a look at this and get some ideas:
My boss showed me a list of the members of a project team. On paper, their inclusion made sense: Each person was talented, creative, and experienced.
But each person — and I mean this affectionately — was also basically a jackass. Especially Mike. Great operator, but boy — and I also mean this affectionately, since he and I got along great — he was a jerk.
“You know they’re going to kill each other,” I said.
“No doubt,” my boss said. “Left alone, they would be& be a disaster. So I’m going to add Rita to the team and put her in charge.”
On paper, that also made sense. Layering in someone like Rita — empathetic, intuitive, possessor of off-the-charts emotional intelligence — is a standard team-formation move. Smart leaders try to include at least one bridge-building, collaboration-fostering, interpersonal skills superstar to every team.
Unfortunately, adding Rita didn’t work. They didn’t kill each other, but the project went nowhere.
Time-honored management traditions aside, failure shouldn’t have come as a surprise, since it turns out a team’s collective intelligence and effectiveness doesn’t hinge on its most emotionally intelligent member (like Rita). A team’s collective intelligence doesn’t even hinge on its average emotional intelligence.
Nope: Research shows a team’s collective intelligence hinges on its least emotionally intelligent member.