0 for 3

Those who lack all three qualities, who are markedly deficient in humility, hunger, and people smarts, have little chance of being valuable team members. It would take great effort over a long period of time for them to develop the capacity for all three, let alone two or even one. Fortunately for managers, these people are very easy to identify and rarely slip through interviews and make it onto teams. Unfortunately, life can be very hard for them.

1 for 3

For those who lack two of the three in a big way, it's also going to be an uphill battle—not impossible, but not easy. Let's look at these three categories, the ones involving a team member who is only humble, hungry, or smart.

Humble Only: The Pawn

People who are only humble but not at all hungry or smart are the “pawns” on a team. They are pleasant, kind-hearted, unassuming people who just don't feel a great need to get things done and don't have the ability to build effective relationships with colleagues. They often get left out of conversations and activities, and have little impact on the performance of a team. Pawns don't make waves, so they can survive for quite a long time on teams that value harmony and don't demand performance.

Hungry Only: The Bulldozer

People who are hungry but not at all humble or smart can be thought of as “bulldozers.” These people will be determined to get things done, but with a focus on their own interests and with no understanding or concern for how their actions impact others. Bulldozers are quick destroyers of teams. Fortunately, unlike pawns, they stand out and can be easily identified and removed by leaders who truly value teamwork. However, in organizations that place a premium on production alone, bulldozers can thrive and go uncorrected for long periods of time.

Smart Only: The Charmer

People who are smart but sorely lacking in humility and hunger are “charmers.” They can be entertaining and even likeable for a while, but have little interest in the long-term well-being of the team or their colleagues. Their social skills can sometimes help them survive longer than bulldozers or pawns, but because their contributions to the team are negligible, they often wear out their welcome quickly.

2 for 3

The next three categories that we'll explore represent people who are more difficult to identify because the strengths associated with them often camouflage their weaknesses. Team members who fit into these categories lack only one of the three traits and thus have a little higher likelihood of overcoming their challenges and becoming ideal team players. Still, lacking even one in a serious way can impede the teambuilding process.

Humble and Hungry, but Not Smart: The Accidental Mess-Maker

People who are humble and hungry but decidedly not smart are the “accidental mess-makers.” They genuinely want to serve the team and are not interested in getting a disproportionate amount of attention and credit. However, their lack of understanding of how their words and actions are received by others will lead them to inadvertently create interpersonal problems on the team. While colleagues will respect their work ethic and sincere desire to be helpful, those colleagues can get tired of having to clean up the emotional and interpersonal problems that accidental mess-makers so often leave behind. In the fable, Nancy was the accidental mess-­maker—a relatively egoless, hard-working employee who lacked interpersonal dexterity and created unnecessary problems on the team.

Though the accidental mess-maker can definitely be a problem, of the three types that lack just one of the characteristics of an ideal team player, this is the least dangerous to a team, as accidental mess-makers have no bad intentions and can usually take corrective feedback in good humor.

Humble and Smart, but Not Hungry: The Lovable Slacker

People who are humble and smart but not adequately hungry are the “lovable slackers.” They aren't looking for undeserved attention, and they are adept at working with and caring about colleagues. Unfortunately, they tend to do only as much as they are asked, and rarely seek to take on more work or volunteer for extra assignments. Moreover, they have limited passion for the work the team is doing. Because they are generally charming and positive, it's easy for leaders to shy away from confronting or removing lovable slackers. After all, they're lovable.

In the fable, a minor character referred to as Tommy was a lovable slacker. He was neither a jerk nor a complete sloth, but did only what was expected of him and no more. Tommy had passion about various pursuits in his life, but none of this passion was directed at work.

Lovable slackers need significant motivation and oversight, making them a drag on the team's performance, more so than the accidental mess-makers. But they don't represent the most dangerous of the three types who lack one of the virtues; that would be the skillful politician.

Hungry and Smart, but Not Humble: The Skillful Politician

People who are hungry and smart but lack humility are the “skillful politicians.” These people are cleverly ambitious and willing to work extremely hard, but only in as much as it will benefit them personally. Unfortunately, because they are so smart, skillful politicians are very adept at portraying themselves as being humble, making it hard for leaders to identify them and address their destructive behaviors. By the time the leader sees what's going on, the politician may have already created a trail of destruction among their more humble colleagues who have been manipulated, discouraged, and scarred. Most of us have worked with plenty of skillful politicians, as they tend to rise in the ranks of companies where leaders reward individual performance over teamwork.

In the fable, Ted Marchbanks was the skillful politician. He was professional, charismatic, and motivated, which is why Jeff and his team almost hired him. Ultimately, Ted turned out to be much more interested in himself than on the people around him.

WARNING: Now is probably a good time for a few important warnings. First, keep in mind that accurately identifying people as bulldozers, charmers, pawns, accidental mess-makers, lovable slackers, or skillful politicians is not always easy, and shouldn't be done flippantly. Wrongly labeling a team member, even in private or jest, can be damaging. Second, don't assign these labels to colleagues who are truly ideal team players simply because they are relatively stronger in one of the three areas. For instance, don't refer to an ideal team player who is slightly less hungry than she is humble and smart as a lovable slacker. These classifications are reserved only for people who are significantly lacking in one or more of the three traits.

Managers will need to be “smart” about how to use the terms with their employees. And remember, the real purpose of identifying these types is not to pigeonhole people, but to better understand what constitutes ideal team players so we can recognize or develop them on our teams.

3 for 3

Humble, Hungry, Smart: The Ideal Team Player

Ideal team players possess adequate measures of humility, hunger, and people smarts. They have little ego when it comes to needing attention or credit for their contributions, and they are comfortable sharing their accolades or even occasionally missing out on them. Ideal team players work with a sense of energy, passion, and personal responsibility, taking on whatever they possibly can for the good of the team. Finally, they say and do the right things to help teammates feel appreciated, understood, and included, even when difficult situations arise that require tough love. Most of us can recall having managed or worked with ideal team players in our careers, as they are quite appealing and memorable.

Now that we understand each of the three virtues and how they fit together, we can look at how the model can be applied.