Managing Teams by Finding and Fueling Their Passions
I managed a team for a while where two of my best people couldn’t have been more different in how they worked.
One of them needed a clear spec. Give them a well-defined problem with measurable success criteria and they’d execute reliably, thoroughly, and on time. Give them something open-ended and their output would stall. Not because they weren’t capable. Because ambiguity made it hard to start.
The other was the opposite. A clear spec produced technically correct work that felt like it was produced under duress. An open problem with room to move? They’d come back three days later with something I hadn’t thought to ask for.
I spent too long managing both of them the same way.
Two Modes
Most people, when honest with themselves, want to know what success looks like before they start. That’s not a weakness. Executing reliably within constraints is a real skill. Most of what any team needs to get done benefits from people who follow a spec consistently.
But some people disengage when over-specified. They need to understand the problem, not the solution. Give them ownership of the question and they’ll find an answer you couldn’t have anticipated. Manage them like directive workers and you’ll get compliant output from someone who had a lot more to offer.
I’ve come to think of these as two different working modes. And in my experience, explorers are the minority.
Where It Comes From
This doesn’t seem to track with skill level or seniority. Some of the most capable people I’ve managed strongly prefer clear direction. Some of the most junior people I’ve worked with are natural explorers who need ownership before they can contribute fully.
It tracks more with how people are wired. Upbringing plays a role. People who grew up in environments that rewarded initiative tend to seek it out at work. People who learned early that success meant meeting a defined standard tend to want that standard before they start. Neither is wrong. They’re just different defaults that got reinforced over time.
The Leadership Failure Mode
The mistake is treating everyone the same.
Giving directive workers vague problems and then being frustrated they can’t self-start. Giving explorers rigid specs and then wondering why their output feels mechanical. Both failures are common. Both are the manager’s fault, not the employee’s.
Figuring out which mode each person works best in is the actual job. It shows up in how someone responds to ambiguity, how they ask questions, whether they push back on the scope of a problem or wait for it to be defined for them. It’s not a one-time observation. You learn it over time.
Once you know, you can give people the conditions they actually need.
For most of the team, that means clear expectations and well-defined success criteria. For the explorers, it means a hard problem, trust, and room to move. Neither group is easier to manage. They just need different things from you.
The teams that have produced the best work I’ve been part of had both. The directive workers got things done. The explorers found better questions. The job was knowing who needed what.