A couple of years ago I was introduced to Patrick Lencioni’s Working Genius assessment and went through it. I later ended up going through it with the members of a board of trustees I was on. But I had never read the book and I have tried to read everything Lencioni and his organization put out. I have long appreciated the work they’ve done in trying to simplify and clarify different areas of organizational health for leaders at all levels. I was able to visit with him at their office a few years ago and it was a real thrill to ask all the questions I had been holding onto related to some of his books (I wanted to explore the transferability into the Asian context of some of his models such as the 5 dysfunctions of a team).
I finally had a chance to read The 6 Types of Working Genius: A Better Way to Understand Your Gifts, Your Frustrations, and your Team. I enjoy all of Lencioni’s books because of their narrative, fable style with clear presentation of the underlying model. I also love them as audiobooks as most of his books were read sitting in long hours of Manila traffic over the years. This book was similar in style, but enjoyed that it included both a business and a church/ngo expressions of the fable/story. Lencioni has done a lot of work related to parish renewal in the Catholic church which has a lot of relevance for other faith-based contexts (search for his amazing parish resource site).
The 6 types of working genius are as follows and represent the 6 major dimensions or contributions needed for any endeavor to get off the ground and succeed.
Wonder
Invention
Discernment
Galvanizing
Enablement
Tenacity
On one level, I do not see this framework as revolutionary. I just don’t because there’s something that feels obvious. Strengths finder in a lot of ways highlights contributions that match some of these areas. Spiritual gifts in church and ministry settings also have historically helped people and teams think about how to best leverage each member’s strengths for the maximum synergy and outcomes of the team and effort.
But this book and assessment have taken off in a lot of different contexts. I think one reason is that it captures strengths and contributions in a process model that is simple and intuitive. Other models have existed – I’ve seen some build off of the MBTI model that sought to do similar things. But the working genius puts it in a process and linear framework that gives hope for progress while at the same time empowering and releasing the talent and gifts of the team members. It fits well in business and bottom-line contexts, whereas some of the other personality-based tools aiming to capture such a process maybe fell short. People can easily see themselves in this framework without having to know abstract or nuanced personality preferences (like sensing or intuition in the mbti). I think we also like being told we have a genius even more than we like being told we have strengths!
But this is a really helpful tool for personal reflection, development, and career planning as well as for team building and strategy/resource allocation. I think it brings a process to teams that sometimes struggle to understand or map out the full process of work initiatives. Many teams struggle in one of these areas because they do lack someone who can lead the charge and provide the needed energy and behaviors that move the ball forward. But from wonder to tenacity (finishing), it helps to see the progression of skills and gifts that need to be brought to bear in a team.
The challenge of this framework relates to the dynamics of authority and leadership that seeks to create a more flat or egalitarian team context to make these “geniuses” go. This only works if a leader is leading in that direction, sharing power, empowering others, and is secure enough in their own authority. While these geniuses would be just as true in places like Asia and Africa, the assumptions about what teams look like and how team leaders lead are quite different. Check out Erin Meyer’s The Culture Map for a quick survey of all the differences related to hierarchy, decision-making, communication, conflict, and several other things.
As a professor of Team Leadership, teaching students in Asia, I wrestle with some of the assumptions of this model because it assumes western preferences and leadership styles. I think the working genius framework can be lived out in Asia, but it really is at the mercy of how the leader wields authority and how they use their power. There are all sorts of red flags in tapping into others’ working genius in Asia. How does one use their discernment working genius if they don’t have a voice because they are so far down the totem pole or hierarchy? How does one ask the big questions and “wonder” when the risk of shaming others runs so high?
So personally, I don’t disagree with the power of this model given how I see team leadership and in light of my own preferences or style. I just have a lot of questions as to how teams are empowered and released to truly work in these ways. It is a very different approach to leadership in teams in many parts of the world and there’s a lot more leadership development needed to be explored to help leaders actually lead this way in such contexts.
Meyer specifically calls out Lencioni in her book for not attending to how important cultural dynamics are in his frameworks of leadership and organizational health. I heard firsthand Lencioni argue that many cross-cultural differences are overblown in these areas. I agree on some level that this is true, but I think Lencioni is greatly underestimating cross-cultural realities in how he presents a lot of his frameworks. It doesn’t mean they aren’t valid or even transferable to other contexts, but sometimes they require a lot of work or additional leadership development for those ideas to have a chance to succeed. I think this is true with the working genius framework as well.
In the West, this book and framework is going to continue to resonate deeply with teams. I am curious about its global resonance and how other cultures navigate it. I think most will find it attractive and promising, but living it out in team context, relationships, and structure requires a lot more than just recognizing who is good at what and then letting them do it. I wish it were that simple!
Personally – my working genius areas were wonder and discernment. That makes sense to me. I think I regularly excel in those areas, though I think quite often my wondering and discernment is not heeded or recognized. My areas of competence (areas I have learned to be good, but in areas that are draining over time) are galvanizing and tenacity. Basically, I have learned to manage and finish, but it takes a lot out of me. My areas of frustration are invention and enablement – generating new and novel ideas or solutions and providing encouragement and exhortation to people to keep going. They exhaust me. So I found the assessment to be pretty true to my experience and the feedback I’ve gotten.
Check out the assessment here or buy the book. But I think it’s worth picking up at some point if you lead or work in teams regularly.
