Dr. Barbara Kellerman

Dr. Barbara Kellerman, expert on leadership and followership and author of numerous books including, "Bad Leadership: What it is, How it happens, Why it matters", spent her day at SNC lecturing involved faculty and students on her developed perspective and experiences of leadership. Dr. Kellerman is very educated on the subject of 'Leadership' and has traveled around not only the United States but also around the world teaching the world about the knowledge she has on two very important subjects: Leadership and Followership. She has studied leadership for several years and received her PhD from Yale University in Political Science. Although Dr. Kellerman has a broad understanding of Leadership she chose to focus on the negative aspects of Leadership in her half hour lecture she presented at SNC. She began her presentation by introducing herself and informing us that "the leadership that we know and love is changing". Is this a statement that you would agree with? I personally agree with it because just like everything else, things change with time. Everything changes with time and there is no way of stopping it. However, I believe that the leadership changes are headed in a positive direction because the study of Leadership is a more recent study that is only going become more developed over time as our knowledge on this subject expands. Dr. Kellerman started a new blog called "Lame Leaders / Fed Up Followers", in her blog she likes to highlight a leader for each blog and criticize their failures. Through her examples of "Lame Leaders" I thought about times where maybe I didn't reach up to my full potential as a leader. Through these experiences, I was able to learn and grow from them which I think has given me a better perspective of Leadership. Do you think that a leader can fail in certain ways and learn from the experiences and grow into an even stronger leader? Can you think of a time where you failed at being a leader and turned your weaknesses into strengths? In her lecture she stated that, "we cant have good leaders with out good followership and we can't have a bad leader without bad followership". What do you think she meant by this statement? I think that I am just going to have to partially agree with this statement. I think that you can have a good leader and good followers but I don't agree with when she says that you can't have a bad leader without bad followership. In a group I am involved with at SNC, I have noticed throughout the three years I have been involved that the leadership is not as strong as it used to be, but because it is not as strong as it was I don't think that it is because of bad followership. I think that a good leader promotes good followership and it is easier to be strong with a strong leader, but if there is a bad leader in place, I don't think that it necessarily means that there is bad followership. I think that it puts the followers in a bind where it is not as easy to succeed but I don't think it automatically leads to bad followership. Can you share any experiences of good or bad leadership/followership that you have had throughout your life? Although I didn't agree with the negative style she used while talking about leadership, and I personally prefer focusing on good leaders to highlight good leadership I still think that it was important that we did focus on a lot of bad things within the leadership content. We can focus on good leaders and learn from many of their experiences and strategies but it is also important to study the negative parts of leadership for educational purposes as well. P.S. I dont know why it didn't space out my paragraphs, I cant figure it out so I'm sticking to one big paragraph!

Chapter 11: Developing Strategic Leadership

Many leaders receive feedback that they need to be more strategic. The text defines strategic leadership as "Individuals and collectives enact strategic leadership when they think, act, and influence others in ways that promote the enduring direction, alignment, and commitment of the organization." Treating strategy as a learning process allows individuals to work on thinking, acting, and influencing skills while focusing on how the organization strategically operates.
One way practice strategic leadership is through viewing strategy as a learning process. Strategic Learning Process (SLP) can be done in five steps: 1. Assessing where we are, 2. Understanding who we are and where we want to go, 3. Learning how to get there, 4. Making the journey, and 5. Checking our progress. Leadership must emphasize strategy as a learning process in order to develop a strong strategic culture inside an organization. This will help the organization focus on the right things to create growth and maximize resources, develop strategies, and create a learning culture that helps the organization perform at a higher level.
A personal example of strategic leadership is in my job as a Mary Kay Beauty Consultant. Although I am my own boss, I am a team member to my unit. We needed to qualify for a car in March, so around December we assessed where we were, and set a goal. Our Director (leader) helped us set individual goals as well as an overall strategic plan in order for our unit to reach our goal. We researched and used our skills in order to "learn how to get there." Individually, we made the journey by selling and recruiting (we had to sell about $5000 more product by March). We checked our progress at the end of March when we achieved our goal and became an 8-time car qualifying unit. Later, we discussed ways we each gained commitment through the process and ways that we could improve.
What do you think about strategic leadership? Does it discourage change? Whether it is using the five steps or an example of how a better learning culture was created, can you think of an example where an organization you've been involved in practiced strategic leadership? Any ways you or your organization can improve strategically?

Chapter 6: Development Programs for Educational Leaders

 Education is something that is very important in the United States and around the world today. This Chapter focuses on teachers and the administrative side of leadership within the education system.  Personally this was a very different way to look at leadership. Was it for you? This chapter begins by describing the characteristics of an educational leader that the book describes as perceptions of their development. These characteristics are the leaders entry into the public schools as classroom teachers and their expertise as educators. Although, we have to look at educational leaders within a broad perspective which is called the sociopolitical context. This is defined as the external  forces that influence the process of education and the dynamics of leadership within a school setting. Personally, I see this as the things that occur outside the school setting that influence how our educational leaders act and lead within the classroom. Do you think what happens to an educational leader affects how they act within the classroom? I do, I remember during elementary school I had a teacher who was working for their masters and this defiantly affected her performance within the classroom.
This chapter also looks at the background and contextual factors that can affect and educational leader. How you are raised and what occurs within your background would definitely affect any ones performance within a job setting. Do you agree?
This chapter also looks at how if you are an educational leader that your world revolves around your students  and the opportunity to impact a students is what motivates many people to become teachers. I would love to believe this is entirely true, but I also think there are a lot of other motivators to become a teacher. Yes, if this was every ones main focus this would be a perfect world, but due to recent events that I have experienced outside of school I have to disagree. I'm not saying that this is not true for some people but i believe that this is very generalized compared to individualized. Any opinions on this????
It is also said within this chapter about how people who work in education can be scrutinized by the media. I believe this is very true, more in the public school system than the Private. The people who work for the public school system because they are funded through taxing. Therefore they are the people who would be targeted. I feel that it would be important to make sure that this information would relate to Private schools as well, instead of generalizing like it did within this chapter.
Honestly education is a very important to have. We  all wouldn't be taking this class if we did not have some interest in learning therefore for me personally reading this chapter was insightful, although to broad when looking at educational leadership. Personally, I  have never really thought of leadership through an education system.  I think of educators as leaders but not how they lead and what affects them. Reading through this chapter made me think of all of my past teachers and professors that have truly touched my life. Do any of you have a educator that has done that for you? What did they do differently that maybe another didn't?

Chapter 4: Leadership Coaching

Leadership coaching is a practice in which the coach and the person being coached, (the coachee), collaborate to assess and understand the coachee and his or her development needs. They also challenge current constraints while exploring new possibilities, and ensure accountability and support for reaching goals and sustaining development. The goal of coaching is to improve the leader as well as the team or organization in effectiveness.

Can you think of a time where you served as a coach or a coachee? How did you or your coach improve the effectiveness of the organization?

Personally, I can think of multiple times I have been a coachee, however, I have also served as a coach while training the new marketing associate at DuBois. I coached and trained Emily and helped her learn the job as well as let her perform the task on her own to stretch her. I have given her goals and tasks and she has performed them incredibly, improving the overall effectiveness of our marketing team.

The coaching framework is based on three key aspects: the relationship; the assessment, challenge, and support; and the results. In the relationship, it is important that the coach understands and takes the coachee's challenges seriously, and develops a mutual trust. Assessment, challenge, and support offer important development within the coachee as well as the coach. And in results, objectives and goals are defined and measured.

Which key aspect do you think is most important? Obviously all three are essential to proper coaching, however, which aspect might allow for the most support and effectiveness?

Personally, I think it is important to build and maintain a trusting relationship. With a relationship, it is simple to assess, challenge, and support, and then give results. But without the coachee able to trust and communicate it is difficult to do those two other aspects.

In the text, there are the principles of coaching. The principles include: create a learning environment, ensure the coachee's ownership,  facilitate and collaborate, advocate self-awareness, promote sustainable learning from experience, and model what you coach. The two principles that hit home with me were to ensure the coachee's ownership and model what you coach. I will surely be applying these two principles as well as the others when I lead and coach. I think it is important to always recognize and give credit where it is due. Also, it is important to live by your own standards and be true to your own word.

Chapter 2: Learning From Experience

This chapter begins with the idea of effective managers in organizations reverting back to challenging job assignments, developmental relationships, and adverse situations, when identifying events that have had the greatest impact on how they lead and manage today.  I believe this is a common situation when describing how leaders develop.  When leaders are faced with any of these situations listed above, this is what determines true leaders.  Do you agree with this idea?  Look at your past experiences with these types of situations.  Personally, I can say that adverse situations in my life have made me who I am today.  Looking back at challenging job assignments, developmental relationships, and adverse situations in my life, I believe that they have molded me into a better person.  An example of this is in my current job, I was given a project by my manager.  My manager on purposely did not give me a lot of direction, challenging me to work through uncertainty.  In the end, I completed the project and was complimented by my manager.  This showed me that I can work through problems without necessarily having a mentor guiding me through every step.  I will carry this idea mentioned above throughout my personal and professional life, knowing that hardship will more than likely lead to prosperity.

Another topic in Chapter 2 involves diversifying experiences across organizational boundaries.  In this, executive success in organizations highlights the need for cross-functional or lateral moves throughout the organization.  In other words, success in organizations has a direct correlation with moving people from job to job in an organization.  This will give the person(s) a better view of the organization as a whole, and it also gives them a view on how other people lead and manage.  The book claims that, "While traditional career paths that are focused within a singular function may serve the needs of developing technical experts, the development of leaders requires one that zigzags across vertical, horizontal, and stakeholder boundaries.  Do you believe this statement is true?  Personally, I believe it is important for leaders to be well-rounded in their perception of how an organization runs, and lateral moves within an organization can accomplish this.

Chapter 10 In the Minds of Followers

Think about the difference between what a leader means, versus what leadership means. In chapter 10 this same idea is discussed but in the context of a follower, versus followership. Like leadership, a follower evolves into the the area of followership. As discussed in the reading we start to develop our followership pattern in early childhood and we begin to mold our perception of a leader. As a follower, we tend to form a generic category of leadership which solidifies into our memory.

On pages 343-346 an important part of leader categories is discussed which addresses the issues of perception, or perhaps stereotypes, of leadership based upon experience and cultural context. Cultural values can have a direct influence on ones style of leadership and can trigger new perceptions and reactions from followers who may not be familiar with those cultural differences. If our perceptions, as a follower, of leader are formed in early childhood how could being able to adjust to a unfamiliar style of leadership effect us as followers? At some point in time, with increased globalization and ethnic blending within our culture, leadership dynamics based upon one majority culture will change. Is it hard to overcome stereotypes and perceptions about a different culture that may not be familiar to you?

I can admit that growing up in a African American household, with my parents and relatives being my leaders and role models, it was hard to adjust in school and sports teams where I saw no one who looked like me but were yet my leaders . They had different experiences and values than me in many ways, but I too shared many similar experiences with them. I have been so heavily integrated in the environment in which I live, but if you were put into a whole new surrounding or culture, how easy would it be for you to reformulate your memory or perception of leadership?

Chapter 11- Shared Leadership

When we think of leadership we usually think of it as one person leading a group of individuals towards a common goal.  In Chapter 11, we shift that focus to a type of leadership called shared leadership.  As defined by the book shared leadership is " a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both."  More simply put by the book shared leadership occurs when group members actively and intentionally shift the role of leader to one another as needed by the environment or circumstances in which the group operates. 

The main idea of shared leadership is that the role of leadership does not belong to one person but it belongs to the entire group as they move towards the organization's goal.  This is very different from traditional theories of leadership but I really like this theory.  I agree that leadership is not always one person's responsibility it can come from any part of the group depending on the certain situation. I feel that if a group limits itself to having only one leader then they are holding themselves back from making any type of advancement.  If group memebers know that their voice and opinion will be heard then they will be more motivated to work for their group.  I believe an organization or team that has a group of leaders is more powerful than a organization with one leader. For example, if a group has a bunch of different leaders who have different talents then they can put forth their talents when the group needs them.  It can depend on the project or situation at hand.  What do you guys think? Do you think shared leadership is a good thing?

Finally, have you guys ever been apart of a team, organization, or job where this was happening?  If you have then do you feel it benefited or hurt the group?

Chapter 9: The Nature of Relational Leadership

This chapter begins with a very long quote from Ellen Berscheid. The quote is from an article in American Psychologist. The main summery of the long quote is that behavior influences the context of relationships more than most people expect. This view is shared by many people, many people are interested in these views because relationships are central to our social lives. How do you think that relationships are affected by the different behaviors that people bring to relationships?

Chapter 9 also focuses on 2 leadership views. These topics are, Leader-Follower Relationships: Postpositive view & Rationality in Leadership: Constructionist Views.

In the Leader-Follower Relationships: Postpositive view, the key points are that followers are vital for this process to work. It is an interpersonal process where leaders provide resources in order to help the group with goal achievement. In this process leaders also encourage loyalty and trust.

Rationality in Leadership: Constructionist Views, this view uses a different theory of knowledge, social constructionism, to consider the meaning of leadership relationships. This view uses approaches that are qualitative and inductive. The lens that this view is seen through is more social and cultural instead of a psychological approaches that are commonly used in leadership studies. Relational leader scholars in this view shift attention from a single dyad as a point of interest to structures of relationships.

What view do you prefer to follow? What view do you feel would be more successful? Have you ever seen either of these views in action?

Transformational and Charismatic Leadership

Chapter 8 begins with a quote reading "Leaders have a significant role in creating the state of mind that is the society. They serve as symbols of the moral unity of the society. They can express the values that hold the society together. Most important, they can conceive and articulate goals that lift people out of their pretty preoccupations, carry them above the conflicts that tear a society apart, and unite them in the pursuit of objectives worthy of their best efforts" (J.W. Gardner). The authors explain that this quote is how people view the importance of leadership.The chapter focuses on how Transformational and Charismatic leadership are two main types of leadership that make up the field of leadership, without them it would be hard to understand how a leader influences their followers.

Transformational leaders focus more on the morals of their followers.  Leaders connect with their followers by trying to get them to see their own sense of identity. Transformational leaders feel inspired by their followers. They allow the followers to fully understand their strengths and weaknesses  in order to improve their performance and in turn that of the groups.

A charismatic leader is one who takes risk by setting high goals. They use communication techniques and image-building strategies to seem powerful and confident. Charismatic leaders are looking out for their followers by making it easier to understand by using positive, negative, and nonverbal strategies. A charismatic leader knows how to use their voice and body gestures to become good storytellers. Have you been in a situation where you or someone within your group showed characteristics of a Charismatic leader? Do you believe that someone who shows Charismatic leadership characteristics more powerful than others within the group?
 
 Do you think in the future, as the times change these two types of leadership will change? Do you think both styles of leadership are moral?

Ch. 7 - Contingencies, context, situation, and leadership

This chapter looked at contingencies, contexts and situations - which all mean generally the same thing, with certain, somewhat overlapping distinctions.  These three terms can range from gender and culture, to organizational climate and group composition.  The authors and the researchers all seem to take different views of what each term means exactly and address them in different ways.  For example, one theorist defined context as an external component surrounding a phenomenon, however, others argued that gender, which is internal, can function as a context or as a contingency, as well, in influencing leadership.  If you had to define each of these terms - contingency, context, and situation - differently, how would you differentiate them? What is inherently similar about them?

The chapter also address two different categories of how leadership can be assessed or defined.  The first is the relationship between leader traits and the situations and outcome; the second is leadership behaviors, the situation, and the outcomes.  The authors made it a point to emphasize that leader traits are directly related to personality, where behaviors function more indirectly.  On one hand, I find it a little strange that they would make such a distinction between traits and behavior because it would seem that as functions of personality (although to varying degrees) they would go hand in hand.  Later on, however, they did make distinctions between ideal and typical behaviors and perceptions, as well as what the situation dictates.  What do you think about this distinction?  Are traits and behaviors two related to be separated, or is the situation powerful enough to modify leader behavior, despite inherent traits?

One point in the chapter that I liked was the concept of in-match and out-of-match leaders.  Though this concept was in the section about leader traits, I think it pertains to leader traits, situation, AND behaviors.  In addition to that, the idea of interaction and perception on the leader and subordinate ends are important in this match.  This got me wondering whether the subordinates should change for the leader, the leader should change for the subordinates, or there should be compromise.  What is your opinion?  Before answering that, however, think about the points that the author makes about the different criteria of goal-achieving.  Is quality more important than relationships in the group, and what are the resources available?  Given that, is there a universal answer to my question?

This chapter was very complex, and went through a lot of theories and conceptual frameworks.  While there were methodological flaws in some, and lack of evidence in others, each still had components that I'm sure we've all seen as tried and true.   Some of them were prescriptive as opposed to descriptive, in order to guide behavior rather than just explain it.  Is one better than the other?  What are some key components of the models we've been exposed to that you feel are most important in terms of constructing frameworks for the topic(s) discussed in this chapter?

Chapter 5: Leader vs. Follower

Evolution psychology enables humans to solve many different problems.  It is important to recognize your individual preference whether you prefer being the leader or the follower; but how do we truly know?  Are we taught?  Is it natural?  Is it something that can change throughout life?  Studies have shown that traits can have an effect on whether a person will be a leader or a follower.  For example, a person with more testosterone is more likely to be a leader.  There are also other physical indicators, such as age and height that can also have an effect.  Fortunately, our society has been pulling away from always choosing a leader who is a tall, older, and masculine man.  We now have women who are holding positions in the government, police force, etc.          

I find it extremely interesting that so many people view leaders as having certain physical aspects.  If I were to show you different pictures of people (male, female, tall, short, glasses, bald, white, black, etc.) and you had to choose one to be your leader, what would you base your answer off of?  Then, what would you want their personality to be?  Does it seem more appropriate to choose a leader based off of their physical traits or their personality/strengths?

Chapter five also talks about the importance of why people are followers.  People tend to become followers in situations that they do not know what to do or they feel threatened.  For example, we do what police officers tell us to do without questioning because we could face negative consequences if we do not.  This also explains that people choose to be followers in situations to keep peace.  When was a time that you chose to be a follower to avoid conflict?  Do you feel you made the right decision?  

It is impossible to know exactly why people are either leaders or followers, but I feel that it is important to know how people view the “normal” leader.  This created awareness to me as a follower to make sure I base my decision of a leader off of their interests and personality.  Choosing a leader this way will be much more beneficial to me.  This also makes me more prepared for the future knowing that I am not the “normal” leader.  I am a woman who will probably have to work harder than most men to convince people that I am a good leader.  I will need to make sure I stand out in a way that people will see past my physical attributes.   

Chapter 6: Individual Differences in Leadership

In chapter 6 we take a look at the individual difference in leadership based upon certain traits, also known as the “Trait” or “Great Man “theory.  In the chapter the authors create a model of individual differences in leadership (fig 6.1) based on prior trait research.  In the model they distinguish the difference between leader emergence and leader effectiveness, and look at leader’s individual traits and styles.  Do you believe there are certain traits that a leader needs to have in order to be a  sucessful leader?

The authors break the leader’s traits into “bright” and “dark” traits.  Bright traits are traits that are socially desires and are likely to be valuable for leader emergence and leadership effectiveness across situations.  The bright traits are: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness.   These same traits can also be counterproductive in some situations for example if you are agreeable, you might be easily rolled off course by influential followers.   

 Dark traits are traits that might compromise leader effectiveness in general, but actually might enhance group survival and fitness.  The dark traits are: narcissism, histrionic, dominance, machiavellianism.  For example, someone who is histrionic is overly concerned with looks, overly sensitive to disapproval, and attention seeking.  However if you are histrionic you have a benefit of being more likely to emerge as a leader, or more likely to be viewed as charismatic and innovative.  Have you ever been in a situation where you have seen a “dark” trait being displayed?  Knowing what you know now about how “dark” traits can have benefit, was the trait being used in a good or bad way?

In the chapter the authors debate about how you should truly measure leadership.  Critics point out research often places to much emphasis on how leaders are perceived by their peers and not enough on how the organization actually performs.  Do you believe that leaders should be measured more by their influence on others or their overall organizations performance?

Chapter 4 - Leadership Development

Day and Antonakis wrote chapter four about Leadership Development. Of course all of you have read chapters 1-4 to this point so you have an understanding of the flow of the text, right? Well, chapter four begins with talking about your own definition of leadership development. I began thinking about my definition and I thought of words such as learning from others and strengthening your skills in leadership. Day and Antonakis talk about how everyone truly will have different definitions of what it means to develop as a leader. But what is central is that it usually involves more than one person and they are looking to achieve a common goal in the end. What would your definition of leadership development be? What key words or phrases come to mind?

The chapter next looks at the different structures in which leadership development can take place. There are three major types: individual skill development, socialization of organization values, and strategic leadership initiatives. When I think about leadership development I think essentially about individual skills because these are the areas in which we can improve on our strengths and weaknesses. By developing our skills we can then use these skills in different leadership positions such as groups or organizations. On the other hand, being a part of an organization can be a great experience to help develop your leadership skills. I do not think it is good enough to work on some leadership qualities such as communication, if you don't actually try to use them in leadership situations. So applying these skills in socialized environments can help you develop as a leader. 

There were also many studies that were talked about in terms of leadership development. The study about twins shows that 30% can be traced to genetics in terms of leadership traits. This means that research still finds that nurture is the major reason for how leaders develop today, but 30% showing nature is a large reason is very interesting. I am a twin myself, and I know first hand how similar my brother is to me. We have been involved in many similar and different leadership organizations and the experiences we learned from these different experiences definitely played the biggest reason in how we are different types of leaders today. I can relate more to the AT&T study well. I would agree that leadership motivation is one of the most important things for leaders to be successful. If you aren't motivated to do something or the people you are leading are not motivated, you are already starting on a rough beginning. 

What are some outside factors that you can think of that affect leadership? How have you developed as a different leader than your friends? Family members? Twin??

Leadership Identity Development Model

I have some reservations about this model, but overall I really like it. The main thing that I do not like about it is the fact that it is hard for people to be honest with themselves about where they are on this model. By looking at the model, we can clearly see that it is better to be towards the right. So we trick ourselves and others and say that we are a few stages past where we really are.

I first saw this model in a workshop Shelly taught my Sophomore year. the next year I used this model with a group of freshmen I worked with in Emerging Leaders. I asked them where they saw themselves on this model and they all said stage four or five. I observed them closely and knew that they were clearly all in stage two or three. Liars. They were still very focused on positional leadership and such. So my first question is, do you think we can ever be truly honest with ourselves on what stage we are really in?

With that aside, what I love about this model is the idea of positional leadership. I hate seeing people on campus who bogart all of the "top positions" on campus. That may seem hypocritical coming from me, who is serving in what many see as the top leadership role on campus for a student. But the truth is that it's not. Every position is what you make out of it. But it's clear to me that there are many people on campus who feel the need to define themselves by their position.

The main reason why I see a need to educate people on the fact that positional leadership is BS is the fact that you can be a leader in social situations. For example, Mike Fabrizio kicked ass at the talent show tonight singing as Danny Zuco from Grease. There was no position there, he was just being a leader on campus as himself. I'm sure we all have examples of how we have served as leaders without a position, or served a position without being a good leader.

For me, I feel that I have been the best leader that I have been when I have reached out to other younger students as a mentor. I have helped a few freshmen work on issues with alcohol and grades and helped a lot of kids find their own leadership abilities. I never did any of that because of a position, it was always just because I thought I could help. I feel like that made more of an impact on campus than anything I've done as SGA President.

I wish a lot of people would realize that they don't need positions to be leaders. That way, you can be a leader amongst your friends, when you obviously don't have a position over them. this would help in social situations a lot.

Second Question, how have you served as a leader without holding a position for it?

Stengths-Based Leadership

I think it is safe to say that we have all been aware of some of our strengths as we grow up.  Not only do others point out our strengths and weaknesses, but we recognize them in ourselves as well.  After completing the StrengthQuest they were able to narrow down each of our strengths to point out the top 5 of 34 themes.  How do you feel they did on analyzing your strengths? Do you agree or disagree with how they described you? I found it to be pretty accurate as far as my themes go.  However, after taking their evaluation I would have thought some of their other themes described me better than the top five they narrowed it down to.

Furthermore, I wish there would have been a way to show us our lowest scoring strengths based off this evaluation.  Not only is it important to know our well developed strengths but also our lower strengths that need to be improved upon.  By being a good leader I think it would be important to know your weaknesses so that when working with others we are able to find people that fill in the areas we lack.  Do you think that focusing on the strengths is better than spending time to work on our weaknesses?


After spending time in class reflecting in class on our signature themes and how we use the talents in them, did you talk to anyone who shared the same themes as you but viewed them differently? Or similarly? Also, when it comes to picking our groups, how important is it to you to work with others that share your strengths? Or would you rather work with those who have different strengths than you?