It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
A question I've been pondering for some time; when we look at the make up and balance of internal teams and work groups, which situations call for more homogenized teams, and which situations call for more balance?
I've noticed in my career that having that balance is a critical component to well reasoned thinking and third party perspective, and often those who can take a bit of a different view than I or others in the group can give revolutionary insights and forethought that our team may not have come to without the different perspective. Similarly though, if those points of balance aren't given support, they can feel disengaged, dissuaded, and as though their view is drowned out.
I've also seen that with far reaching, difficult but attainable goals, teams that need to move at high velocity and are more homogenized tend to outperform balanced teams that struggle to make more quick and collective decisions. The similar thought, focus, and commitment can help that team focus and drive with clarity towards its goal.
What patterns have you noticed behind homogenized teams and well balanced teams? Is one always better than the other, or how should internal team creation be managed and supported?