Skillsets are diverse, they should complement one another and value is subjective. One of my best hires in my career was a 3 hour per week contributor at our front desk when I worked at the YMCA, and she was 83 years old. Why? She wanted to be there, she wanted something to do and she was willing to be plugged in anywhere we could fit her. She filled a prime need in the middle of the day that allowed me as a manager to take care of some important operational tasks.

So often we want “that hire,” you know, the one where you can parade them to others and boast about how you landed a superstar for your team. It’s understandable, and having high level assets on a team makes everyone’s job easier. The problem is, we spend too much time chasing just those types of people.

We lure ourselves into a trap, thinking that we need to be wowed into hiring someone, that if they don’t pop off the screen, they may not be successful long term. This ideology couldn’t be further from the truth. I always got a chuckle from people I interviewed for jobs with who said they wanted all-stars or “A players” for their team. It sounds great, but it’s not realistic in any team setting to have a bunch of elite skillsets and personalities for a multitude of reasons.

Teams rely on mixed skillsets, collectively working together to create a functioning body. Teams look different in every situation and there are great teams and poor teams. The person in charge of personnel is an engineer, an architect, they’re the person with the vision of how the parts will work together as a fine-tuned machine.

To determine the needs of your team, make a list of all essential functions and roles. Note where there are gaps or overload. Bring team members into the process by asking them what skills or support could help them thrive. Also assess whether part-time or cross-trained roles could fill needs in a novel way.

I like to think that I am generally good at selecting personnel based on the situation. People as a monolith are very simple, individuals are complex. Impulsive or emotional decisions are not the best way to make any decision let alone a choice on personnel. Building a team is a nuanced process and sometimes it’s easier to have a part missing in the machine than to have a part that is operating in the wrong place.

Philosophically there are a multitude of ways to build a team and there is none better than the other. Team building is situational, and it’s an imperfect science. The difference between good and great teams is the acknowledgment that you won’t get every decision right, you just need to get it right more than you get it wrong, and when you do get it wrong, you have it right in so many areas that it covers up the mistake.

In any interview I conducted for a job I was hiring for or for a recruit I wanted on my team, I assumed that if we were having the conversation, they were at a baseline interested in knowing more. I didn’t necessarily want to know just how they fit into what I was doing, but what else they did that could amplify what we were doing.

Building an effective team is a complex balancing act. Focus on assessing and filling the practical needs first. An “unconventional” approach to personnel will encounter outside skepticism at times. Have confidence in your vision and continue making adjustments to optimize the machine.