{"content_id":"mtyke3yxdd","slug":"no-average-employee-customized-leadership","locale":"en","schema_type":"Article","category":"knowledge_base","category_name":"Knowledge Base","title":"There Is No Average Employee: Personalized Leadership That Preserves Strengths","summary":"An average is a statistic that summarizes a group, but it does not directly explain an individual's abilities or fit. This article examines the precise meaning of the U.S. Air Force cockpit study and explains how to adapt individual strengths and work environments while maintaining fair standards.","sponsorship_disclosure":null,"affiliate_disclosure":null,"commerce_disclosure":null,"author":{"name":"Injoys Editorial Team","url":"https://injoys.com/ko/about"},"key_points":["Group averages are useful for allocating resources and understanding current conditions, but using them as a standard model representing actual individuals can lead to significant errors.","Gilbert Daniels's research demonstrated the limitations of multidimensional averages, showing that almost no one fell within the average range across multiple body measurements at the same time.","Personalized leadership does not mean applying different performance standards to each person; it means adapting work methods and feedback environments so people can reach the same goals.","Do not generalize one low employee score to their overall capabilities; evaluate the combination of strengths, tasks, working relationships, and environment.","Leaders should not guess individual preferences but should validate adaptations through observable performance data and regular conversations."],"content_markdown":"Averages summarize a complex group in a single number. However, treating that number as a standard model of a real person can lead to misjudgments about team members’ strengths and job fit. Leaders do not need to eliminate averages, but to use them only as group statistics and draw conclusions about individuals from more multidimensional evidence.\n\n## Why the Term “Average Employee” Is Dangerous\n\nDifferent concepts are mixed together in what we commonly call an average.\n\n- **Arithmetic mean:** The sum of all values divided by the number of observations.\n- **Median:** The middle value when values are placed in order.\n- **Percentile range:** The range of values within a particular section of the overall distribution.\n- **Typical person:** An imagined individual whose various traits are assumed to be at ordinary levels.\n\nThe first three are statistical concepts, but the last is an interpretation or assumption. Just because a group’s average performance score is 70 does not mean that most employees score around 70 in every competency. A person with an analytical ability score of 90 and a presentation skill score of 50 may appear similar in an average-based table to someone with the opposite traits.\n\nAverages are therefore useful for questions such as:\n\n- Has the team’s overall processing time improved since last quarter?\n- Is there a difference in group performance before and after training?\n- Is workload or compensation concentrated in a particular group?\n\nBy contrast, averages alone are not sufficient for individual judgments such as:\n\n- What work should be assigned to this employee?\n- Is low performance caused by competency, role, resources, or collaboration?\n- What type of feedback helps change behavior?\n- What strengths are not being revealed in the employee’s current role?\n\n## What the U.S. Air Force Cockpit Study Actually Showed\n\nIn the early 1950s, Gilbert S. Daniels, who conducted anthropometric work for the U.S. Air Force, analyzed 4,063 aircrew members. For each of 10 body measurements, including height, chest circumference, and sleeve length, he defined the central 30% range and then examined how many measurements each person fell within simultaneously.\n\nThe results showed that no one fell within the average range for all 10 measurements. Even when only three measurements were applied, less than 3.5% fell within all the ranges simultaneously. This was because a person whose height was close to average might not have average arm or leg lengths.\n\nThe average discussed in this study was not a single arithmetic mean, but the central 30% range for each measurement. The key point is that even with a fairly broad range, the number of people who simultaneously met multiple conditions declined sharply.\n\n### Verified Facts and Claims Requiring Caution\n\n| Claim | Assessment | Explanation |\n|---|---|---|\n| Daniels analyzed data from 4,063 people | Evidence-based fact | This is a key figure confirmed in the relevant technical report. |\n| No one fell within the average range for all 10 measurements | Evidence-based fact | This shows that human traits are uneven across multiple dimensions. |\n| Cockpits should account for body-size ranges and adjustability rather than a single average point | Design principle derived from the study | It influenced the move toward adjustable designs for seats, pedals, safety equipment, and other components. |\n| This study alone reduced accidents by a specific amount | Causality requires verification | Because accidents involve many factors, including training, maintenance, aircraft performance, and procedures, the size of any reduction cannot be attributed to the study alone. |\n| Modern adjustable car seats were first invented as a result of this study | Claim lacking evidence | Attributing the origin of adjustable seats to this study alone requires separate historical verification. |\n\nThe lesson of this case is not that “averages are always wrong.” It is that designs that assume one fixed average model and impose the same environment on everyone are dangerous.\n\n## Human Competency Is a Combination, Not a Single Score\n\nAn individual’s ability to work cannot be arranged along a single axis like height. Analytical ability, speed, accuracy, persuasiveness, customer understanding, creativity, and collaboration skills are different dimensions, and their value also varies by work situation.\n\nFor example, suppose an employee handles customer inquiries more slowly than the team average. Based on speed alone, the employee might be classified as a low performer, but the judgment may change when the following data are considered together:\n\n- The percentage of issues resolved in a single interaction\n- The percentage of customers who contact the company again about the same issue\n- Cases in which the employee prevented a dissatisfied customer from leaving\n- The extent to which documenting complex issues saved colleagues’ time\n- Rates of policy violations or rework\n\nThis employee may be better suited to complex problem-solving or customer retention work than to simple inquiries. Conversely, the employee should not be allowed to continually fall short of essential processing standards merely because they are courteous. What matters more than the distance from the average is **the results a person produces under particular conditions**.\n\n## Three Average-Related Traps Leaders Often Fall Into\n\n### 1. The Error of Explaining Individuals Through Group Labels\n\nStatements such as “new employees lack autonomy” or “young employees prefer public communication” erase differences within groups. Age or position cannot fully explain an individual’s motivation and way of working.\n\nLeaders should treat group-level tendencies only as hypotheses. It is safer to decide actual work assignments after reviewing the individual’s experience, current competencies, preferences, and performance data.\n\n### 2. The Error of Turning What Worked for You into the Standard\n\nIf a leader applies public praise to every team member simply because it helped the leader grow, it may feel like pressure rather than recognition to some people. Detailed instructions may provide stability to some employees, but they may feel like unnecessary control to experienced employees.\n\nThe following aspects of feedback can be adjusted:\n\n- Public or private delivery\n- Verbal conversation or written communication\n- Detailed procedures or goal-oriented delegation\n- Short, frequent check-ins or reviews at longer intervals\n- Immediate feedback or a conversation after time for reflection\n\n### 3. The Error of Turning One Weakness into an Overall Rating of the Person\n\nBeing poor at presentations provides information about presentation skills; it is not evidence that analytical ability or leadership potential is also low. Leaders should guard against the halo effect or horn effect, in which one prominent trait influences the overall evaluation.\n\nWeaknesses should be divided into three categories:\n\n1. **Weaknesses that must be improved:** Problems related to safety, ethics, laws and regulations, or core job requirements\n2. **Weaknesses that can be compensated for:** Problems that can be managed through tools, colleagues, procedures, or division of roles\n3. **Weaknesses of low importance in the current role:** Problems for which leveraging strengths offers more value than the cost of improvement\n\n## Personalized Leadership Is Not Favoritism\n\nPersonalized management does not mean eliminating common standards or unconditionally protecting low-performing employees. To maintain fairness, leaders must separate **standards for results** from **the path to achieving those results**.\n\n| Elements That Must Remain Fixed | Elements That Can Be Adjusted |\n|---|---|\n| Safety, ethics, and legal standards | Method of delivering feedback |\n| Quality levels essential to the role | Work sequence and time allocation |\n| Commitments to customers and colleagues | Public praise or private recognition |\n| Evaluation periods and evidence requirements | Degree of autonomy and frequency of check-ins |\n| Decision-making principles that prevent discrimination | Work configurations that leverage strengths |\n\nThe same deadlines and quality standards can be applied while one employee receives frequent interim check-ins and another is given results-oriented delegation. If the difference is based on business needs and mutual agreement, and the evaluation standards are transparent, it can be distinguished from arbitrary favoritism.\n\n## Managing Teams by Looking at Distributions and Combinations Instead of Averages\n\nTo look beyond averages, leaders need recordable data rather than intuition.\n\n### 1. Define the Role’s Essential Results First\n\nInstead of using personality-based expressions such as “must be proactive,” specify observable results such as deadlines, quality, customer impact, and collaboration responsibilities. Standards that must be met should also be distinguished from competencies that are merely desirable.\n\n### 2. Create an Individual Strengths Map\n\nA strength is not simply work someone enjoys, but the ability to repeatedly produce valuable results. Examine the following evidence together:\n\n- Recent successful assignments and specific contributions\n- Areas in which colleagues frequently ask for help\n- Work performed reliably with little supervision\n- Situations in which the employee shows high concentration and rapid learning\n- Impact on customers, quality, revenue, or time savings\n\n### 3. Record the Conditions Under Which Performance Changes\n\nIdentify common features of situations in which an employee performed well or struggled. Examine how task complexity, distractions, collaborators, decision-making authority, and deadline pressure affected performance. This is a process of finding the relationship between performance and the environment rather than classifying people into fixed types.\n\n### 4. Experiment With Small Adjustments\n\nBefore completely redesigning the work, try changing one element, such as the frequency of check-ins, meeting participation, focused work time, document formats, or division of roles. Setting the trial period and success criteria in advance helps distinguish preferences from actual effectiveness.\n\n### 5. Examine How Individual Optimization Affects the Team as a Whole\n\nAn approach that is convenient for one person may increase someone else’s workload or block important information. Leaders should evaluate not only individual performance but also handoffs, collaboration costs, workload concentration, and team resilience.\n\n## Language and Evaluation Forms Can Limit Potential\n\nExpressions such as “below average,” “passive,” or “lacks leadership” may sound like observations, but they are often interpretations. Such labels can also affect future work assignments and training opportunities.\n\nEvaluation language should describe behavior, context, and impact rather than a person’s identity.\n\n| Expression to Avoid | More Precise Expression |\n|---|---|\n| Has poor communication skills | Failed to share key risks in the last three meetings, delaying schedule adjustments |\n| Lacks initiative | Works independently on assignments with defined goals but frequently seeks clarification before beginning ambiguous assignments |\n| Is a below-average employee | Processing speed is below the team median, but the rework rate and repeat customer inquiry rate must also be reviewed |\n| Lacks leadership | Coordinated colleagues well in small technical reviews but lacks experience giving formal presentations |\n\nMaking evaluation statements more specific in this way makes it possible to identify both the behaviors that need improvement and the strengths that can be leveraged.\n\n## Limits to Observe When Applying Personalization\n\nPersonalized leadership can also cause problems if applied incorrectly.\n\n- **Do not lock people into personality types.** People’s preferences and competencies can change with experience and circumstances.\n- **Not every preference can be accommodated.** Customer requirements, security, safety, and collaboration standards may take priority over individual preferences.\n- **Do not abandon averages completely.** Group statistics are necessary to identify workload concentration, pay gaps, and evaluation bias.\n- **Do not rely solely on informal impressions.** Highly visible employees may receive higher evaluations than their actual contributions warrant.\n- **You must be able to explain the reason for personalization.** Adjustments should be based on business needs, verifiable effects, and reasonable support requirements.\n\nA good team is not an organization that makes everyone the same. Nor is it an organization that applies separate rules to every person. It is closer to an organization that keeps shared responsibilities clear while adjusting the environment so each person can perform.\n\n## Questions for Leaders to Review\n\nIf any of the following questions are difficult to answer, you may be treating team members as average people.\n\n- Can you describe the work in which each team member repeatedly produces good results?\n- Have you distinguished competency problems from environmental problems when examining low performance?\n- Have you used observable behaviors in evaluations rather than expressions that make assumptions about personality?\n- Have you distinguished core standards from adjustable ways of working?\n- Have you directly confirmed individual preferences regarding public praise, autonomy, and the frequency of check-ins?\n- Have you reviewed whether an adjustment for one person places an unfair burden on colleagues?\n- Have you examined distributions, exceptional cases, and the quality of work as well as averages?\n\nAn average is a map that shows a team from a distance. But assigning actual work and designing growth paths require a closer look at each person’s strengths, tasks, relationships, and environment.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eAverages summarize a complex group in a single number. However, treating that number as a standard model of a real person can lead to misjudgments about team members’ strengths and job fit. Leaders do not need to eliminate averages, but to use them only as group statistics and draw conclusions about individuals from more multidimensional evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#why-the-term-average-employee-is-dangerous\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"why-the-term-average-employee-is-dangerous\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eWhy the Term “Average Employee” Is Dangerous\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDifferent concepts are mixed together in what we commonly call an average.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eArithmetic mean:\u003c/strong\u003e The sum of all values divided by the number of observations.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eMedian:\u003c/strong\u003e The middle value when values are placed in order.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003ePercentile range:\u003c/strong\u003e The range of values within a particular section of the overall distribution.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eTypical person:\u003c/strong\u003e An imagined individual whose various traits are assumed to be at ordinary levels.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first three are statistical concepts, but the last is an interpretation or assumption. Just because a group’s average performance score is 70 does not mean that most employees score around 70 in every competency. A person with an analytical ability score of 90 and a presentation skill score of 50 may appear similar in an average-based table to someone with the opposite traits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAverages are therefore useful for questions such as:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHas the team’s overall processing time improved since last quarter?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs there a difference in group performance before and after training?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs workload or compensation concentrated in a particular group?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy contrast, averages alone are not sufficient for individual judgments such as:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat work should be assigned to this employee?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIs low performance caused by competency, role, resources, or collaboration?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat type of feedback helps change behavior?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhat strengths are not being revealed in the employee’s current role?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#what-the-us-air-force-cockpit-study-actually-showed\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"what-the-us-air-force-cockpit-study-actually-showed\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eWhat the U.S. Air Force Cockpit Study Actually Showed\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the early 1950s, Gilbert S. Daniels, who conducted anthropometric work for the U.S. Air Force, analyzed 4,063 aircrew members. For each of 10 body measurements, including height, chest circumference, and sleeve length, he defined the central 30% range and then examined how many measurements each person fell within simultaneously.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results showed that no one fell within the average range for all 10 measurements. Even when only three measurements were applied, less than 3.5% fell within all the ranges simultaneously. This was because a person whose height was close to average might not have average arm or leg lengths.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe average discussed in this study was not a single arithmetic mean, but the central 30% range for each measurement. The key point is that even with a fairly broad range, the number of people who simultaneously met multiple conditions declined sharply.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#verified-facts-and-claims-requiring-caution\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"verified-facts-and-claims-requiring-caution\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eVerified Facts and Claims Requiring Caution\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eClaim\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eAssessment\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eExplanation\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Claim\"\u003eDaniels analyzed data from 4,063 people\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Assessment\"\u003eEvidence-based fact\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Explanation\"\u003eThis is a key figure confirmed in the relevant technical report.\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Claim\"\u003eNo one fell within the average range for all 10 measurements\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Assessment\"\u003eEvidence-based fact\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Explanation\"\u003eThis shows that human traits are uneven across multiple dimensions.\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Claim\"\u003eCockpits should account for body-size ranges and adjustability rather than a single average point\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Assessment\"\u003eDesign principle derived from the study\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Explanation\"\u003eIt influenced the move toward adjustable designs for seats, pedals, safety equipment, and other components.\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Claim\"\u003eThis study alone reduced accidents by a specific amount\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Assessment\"\u003eCausality requires verification\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Explanation\"\u003eBecause accidents involve many factors, including training, maintenance, aircraft performance, and procedures, the size of any reduction cannot be attributed to the study alone.\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Claim\"\u003eModern adjustable car seats were first invented as a result of this study\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Assessment\"\u003eClaim lacking evidence\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Explanation\"\u003eAttributing the origin of adjustable seats to this study alone requires separate historical verification.\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe lesson of this case is not that “averages are always wrong.” It is that designs that assume one fixed average model and impose the same environment on everyone are dangerous.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#human-competency-is-a-combination-not-a-single-score\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"human-competency-is-a-combination-not-a-single-score\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eHuman Competency Is a Combination, Not a Single Score\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn individual’s ability to work cannot be arranged along a single axis like height. Analytical ability, speed, accuracy, persuasiveness, customer understanding, creativity, and collaboration skills are different dimensions, and their value also varies by work situation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor example, suppose an employee handles customer inquiries more slowly than the team average. Based on speed alone, the employee might be classified as a low performer, but the judgment may change when the following data are considered together:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe percentage of issues resolved in a single interaction\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe percentage of customers who contact the company again about the same issue\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCases in which the employee prevented a dissatisfied customer from leaving\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe extent to which documenting complex issues saved colleagues’ time\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRates of policy violations or rework\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis employee may be better suited to complex problem-solving or customer retention work than to simple inquiries. Conversely, the employee should not be allowed to continually fall short of essential processing standards merely because they are courteous. What matters more than the distance from the average is \u003cstrong\u003ethe results a person produces under particular conditions\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#three-average-related-traps-leaders-often-fall-into\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"three-average-related-traps-leaders-often-fall-into\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eThree Average-Related Traps Leaders Often Fall Into\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#1-the-error-of-explaining-individuals-through-group-labels\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"1-the-error-of-explaining-individuals-through-group-labels\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e1. The Error of Explaining Individuals Through Group Labels\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStatements such as “new employees lack autonomy” or “young employees prefer public communication” erase differences within groups. Age or position cannot fully explain an individual’s motivation and way of working.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeaders should treat group-level tendencies only as hypotheses. It is safer to decide actual work assignments after reviewing the individual’s experience, current competencies, preferences, and performance data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#2-the-error-of-turning-what-worked-for-you-into-the-standard\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"2-the-error-of-turning-what-worked-for-you-into-the-standard\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e2. The Error of Turning What Worked for You into the Standard\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf a leader applies public praise to every team member simply because it helped the leader grow, it may feel like pressure rather than recognition to some people. Detailed instructions may provide stability to some employees, but they may feel like unnecessary control to experienced employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following aspects of feedback can be adjusted:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePublic or private delivery\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerbal conversation or written communication\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDetailed procedures or goal-oriented delegation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShort, frequent check-ins or reviews at longer intervals\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eImmediate feedback or a conversation after time for reflection\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#3-the-error-of-turning-one-weakness-into-an-overall-rating-of-the-person\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"3-the-error-of-turning-one-weakness-into-an-overall-rating-of-the-person\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e3. The Error of Turning One Weakness into an Overall Rating of the Person\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeing poor at presentations provides information about presentation skills; it is not evidence that analytical ability or leadership potential is also low. Leaders should guard against the halo effect or horn effect, in which one prominent trait influences the overall evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWeaknesses should be divided into three categories:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eWeaknesses that must be improved:\u003c/strong\u003e Problems related to safety, ethics, laws and regulations, or core job requirements\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eWeaknesses that can be compensated for:\u003c/strong\u003e Problems that can be managed through tools, colleagues, procedures, or division of roles\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eWeaknesses of low importance in the current role:\u003c/strong\u003e Problems for which leveraging strengths offers more value than the cost of improvement\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#personalized-leadership-is-not-favoritism\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"personalized-leadership-is-not-favoritism\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003ePersonalized Leadership Is Not Favoritism\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersonalized management does not mean eliminating common standards or unconditionally protecting low-performing employees. To maintain fairness, leaders must separate \u003cstrong\u003estandards for results\u003c/strong\u003e from \u003cstrong\u003ethe path to achieving those results\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eElements That Must Remain Fixed\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eElements That Can Be Adjusted\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Elements That Must Remain Fixed\"\u003eSafety, ethics, and legal standards\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Elements That Can Be Adjusted\"\u003eMethod of delivering feedback\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Elements That Must Remain Fixed\"\u003eQuality levels essential to the role\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Elements That Can Be Adjusted\"\u003eWork sequence and time allocation\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Elements That Must Remain Fixed\"\u003eCommitments to customers and colleagues\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Elements That Can Be Adjusted\"\u003ePublic praise or private recognition\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Elements That Must Remain Fixed\"\u003eEvaluation periods and evidence requirements\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Elements That Can Be Adjusted\"\u003eDegree of autonomy and frequency of check-ins\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Elements That Must Remain Fixed\"\u003eDecision-making principles that prevent discrimination\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Elements That Can Be Adjusted\"\u003eWork configurations that leverage strengths\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe same deadlines and quality standards can be applied while one employee receives frequent interim check-ins and another is given results-oriented delegation. If the difference is based on business needs and mutual agreement, and the evaluation standards are transparent, it can be distinguished from arbitrary favoritism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#managing-teams-by-looking-at-distributions-and-combinations-instead-of-averages\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"managing-teams-by-looking-at-distributions-and-combinations-instead-of-averages\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eManaging Teams by Looking at Distributions and Combinations Instead of Averages\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo look beyond averages, leaders need recordable data rather than intuition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#1-define-the-roles-essential-results-first\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"1-define-the-roles-essential-results-first\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e1. Define the Role’s Essential Results First\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstead of using personality-based expressions such as “must be proactive,” specify observable results such as deadlines, quality, customer impact, and collaboration responsibilities. Standards that must be met should also be distinguished from competencies that are merely desirable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#2-create-an-individual-strengths-map\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"2-create-an-individual-strengths-map\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e2. Create an Individual Strengths Map\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA strength is not simply work someone enjoys, but the ability to repeatedly produce valuable results. Examine the following evidence together:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRecent successful assignments and specific contributions\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAreas in which colleagues frequently ask for help\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWork performed reliably with little supervision\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSituations in which the employee shows high concentration and rapid learning\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eImpact on customers, quality, revenue, or time savings\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#3-record-the-conditions-under-which-performance-changes\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"3-record-the-conditions-under-which-performance-changes\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e3. Record the Conditions Under Which Performance Changes\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIdentify common features of situations in which an employee performed well or struggled. Examine how task complexity, distractions, collaborators, decision-making authority, and deadline pressure affected performance. This is a process of finding the relationship between performance and the environment rather than classifying people into fixed types.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#4-experiment-with-small-adjustments\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"4-experiment-with-small-adjustments\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e4. Experiment With Small Adjustments\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore completely redesigning the work, try changing one element, such as the frequency of check-ins, meeting participation, focused work time, document formats, or division of roles. Setting the trial period and success criteria in advance helps distinguish preferences from actual effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#5-examine-how-individual-optimization-affects-the-team-as-a-whole\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"5-examine-how-individual-optimization-affects-the-team-as-a-whole\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e5. Examine How Individual Optimization Affects the Team as a Whole\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn approach that is convenient for one person may increase someone else’s workload or block important information. Leaders should evaluate not only individual performance but also handoffs, collaboration costs, workload concentration, and team resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#language-and-evaluation-forms-can-limit-potential\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"language-and-evaluation-forms-can-limit-potential\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eLanguage and Evaluation Forms Can Limit Potential\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExpressions such as “below average,” “passive,” or “lacks leadership” may sound like observations, but they are often interpretations. Such labels can also affect future work assignments and training opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEvaluation language should describe behavior, context, and impact rather than a person’s identity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eExpression to Avoid\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eMore Precise Expression\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Expression to Avoid\"\u003eHas poor communication skills\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"More Precise Expression\"\u003eFailed to share key risks in the last three meetings, delaying schedule adjustments\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Expression to Avoid\"\u003eLacks initiative\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"More Precise Expression\"\u003eWorks independently on assignments with defined goals but frequently seeks clarification before beginning ambiguous assignments\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Expression to Avoid\"\u003eIs a below-average employee\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"More Precise Expression\"\u003eProcessing speed is below the team median, but the rework rate and repeat customer inquiry rate must also be reviewed\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Expression to Avoid\"\u003eLacks leadership\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"More Precise Expression\"\u003eCoordinated colleagues well in small technical reviews but lacks experience giving formal presentations\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMaking evaluation statements more specific in this way makes it possible to identify both the behaviors that need improvement and the strengths that can be leveraged.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#limits-to-observe-when-applying-personalization\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"limits-to-observe-when-applying-personalization\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eLimits to Observe When Applying Personalization\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersonalized leadership can also cause problems if applied incorrectly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eDo not lock people into personality types.\u003c/strong\u003e People’s preferences and competencies can change with experience and circumstances.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eNot every preference can be accommodated.\u003c/strong\u003e Customer requirements, security, safety, and collaboration standards may take priority over individual preferences.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eDo not abandon averages completely.\u003c/strong\u003e Group statistics are necessary to identify workload concentration, pay gaps, and evaluation bias.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eDo not rely solely on informal impressions.\u003c/strong\u003e Highly visible employees may receive higher evaluations than their actual contributions warrant.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eYou must be able to explain the reason for personalization.\u003c/strong\u003e Adjustments should be based on business needs, verifiable effects, and reasonable support requirements.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA good team is not an organization that makes everyone the same. Nor is it an organization that applies separate rules to every person. It is closer to an organization that keeps shared responsibilities clear while adjusting the environment so each person can perform.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#questions-for-leaders-to-review\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"questions-for-leaders-to-review\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eQuestions for Leaders to Review\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf any of the following questions are difficult to answer, you may be treating team members as average people.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCan you describe the work in which each team member repeatedly produces good results?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHave you distinguished competency problems from environmental problems when examining low performance?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHave you used observable behaviors in evaluations rather than expressions that make assumptions about personality?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHave you distinguished core standards from adjustable ways of working?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHave you directly confirmed individual preferences regarding public praise, autonomy, and the frequency of check-ins?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHave you reviewed whether an adjustment for one person places an unfair burden on colleagues?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHave you examined distributions, exceptional cases, and the quality of work as well as averages?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn average is a map that shows a team from a distance. But assigning actual work and designing growth paths require a closer look at each person’s strengths, tasks, relationships, and environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n","tags":["Psychological safety","Leadership","Organizational culture","Decision Making","Motivation"],"faqs":[{"question":"Does this mean that averages are not useful?","answer":"No. Averages are useful for summarizing a team's overall changes, workload, costs, processing time, and so on. However, if a group average is regarded as a standard model for actual individuals, or if an individual's placement and growth potential are judged by a single average, important differences may be overlooked."},{"question":"Was there really not a single average pilot in the U.S. Air Force study?","answer":"When Gilbert S. Daniels applied the middle 30% range to each of the 10 body measurements he selected, none of the 4,063 people met all the conditions simultaneously. This does not mean that no one was close to average in any measurement, but rather that no one was average across multiple measurements at the same time."},{"question":"Does personalized leadership mean applying different evaluation criteria to each employee?","answer":"No. Core standards such as safety, ethics, quality, and deadlines should remain consistent. Personalized leadership is an approach that reasonably adjusts the method of feedback, frequency of check-ins, autonomy, role design, and so on in the process of reaching goals."},{"question":"How can employees' strengths be identified objectively?","answer":"Rather than asking only about their preferences, data such as tasks in which they have repeatedly succeeded, requests from colleagues, customer impact, error rates, and learning speed should also be reviewed. It is practical to define a strength as the ability to consistently produce valuable results under specific conditions."},{"question":"Should we not point out below-average performance?","answer":"Necessary performance feedback should be provided clearly. However, a low result on one metric should not be generalized to a person's overall value or potential. Instead, the specific behaviors that fall short of the standard, their impact, the causes, and the improvement plan should be explained separately."},{"question":"Wouldn't management become complicated if every employee worked differently?","answer":"Applying personalization without limits can increase complexity. The management burden can be limited by standardizing shared outcome criteria and collaboration rules, while adjusting only a small number of elements that have proven effective."},{"question":"What should we do if individualized adjustments seem unfair to other employees?","answer":"The work-related purpose of the adjustments and the shared evaluation criteria should be explained transparently. Even without disclosing personal information, employees should be informed about what types of support and work adjustments can be made available to anyone through a reasonable process."},{"question":"Can personality type tests be used for personalized leadership?","answer":"They may be used in a limited way as a starting point for discussion, but test results should not be treated as a fixed identity or as the sole basis for work assignments. Actual behavior, performance data, changes depending on the situation, and the individual's own views should also be considered."}],"sources":[{"url":"https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/there-is-no-average-pilot-143315687/","title":"There Is No “Average” Pilot — Smithsonian Air \u0026 Space Magazine","type":"data_point"},{"url":"https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/16/02/beyond-average","title":"Beyond Average — Harvard Graduate School of Education","type":"source"},{"url":"https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful-google-team/","title":"Five keys to a successful Google team — Google re:Work","type":"source"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011","title":"Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work","type":"source"}],"images":[{"id":983,"url":"https://injoys.com/rails/active_storage/blobs/proxy/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6MTM0ODYsInB1ciI6ImJsb2JfaWQifX0=--f17a98ff1eeaa3d795cf999c18b86d4d86199de9/ai-5a619f1b.webp","is_representative":true,"generation_method":"ai_photo","license":"ai_generated","mime_type":"image/webp","translations":{"ko":{"alt":"소형 항공기 조종석에서 교관과 함께 조종 장치를 익히는 여성","caption":"교관이 조종석에서 여성 조종사의 실습을 세심하게 지도하고 있다.","description":null},"en":{"alt":"Woman learning the controls of a small aircraft with an instructor in the cockpit","caption":"An instructor guides a woman through hands-on flight training in the cockpit.","description":null},"ja":{"alt":"小型機の操縦席で教官とともに操縦装置を学ぶ女性","caption":"教官が操縦席で女性の実地訓練を丁寧に指導している。","description":null},"es":{"alt":"Mujer aprendiendo los mandos de una avioneta junto a un instructor en la cabina","caption":"Un instructor guía a una mujer durante una práctica de vuelo en la cabina.","description":null},"id":{"alt":"Perempuan mempelajari kendali pesawat kecil bersama instruktur di kokpit","caption":"Seorang instruktur membimbing perempuan dalam latihan penerbangan langsung di kokpit.","description":null},"pt":{"alt":"Mulher aprendendo os controles de um avião pequeno com um instrutor na cabine","caption":"Um instrutor orienta uma mulher durante o treinamento prático de voo na cabine.","description":null},"zh-hant":{"alt":"女子在小型飛機駕駛艙內與教練一起學習操縱設備","caption":"教練在駕駛艙內細心指導女子進行實際飛行訓練。","description":null},"de":{"alt":"Frau lernt mit einem Fluglehrer im Cockpit die Steuerung eines Kleinflugzeugs","caption":"Ein Fluglehrer begleitet eine Frau beim praktischen Training im Cockpit.","description":null}}},{"id":984,"url":"https://injoys.com/rails/active_storage/blobs/proxy/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6MTM0OTIsInB1ciI6ImJsb2JfaWQifX0=--84df13378d6f225707109642d4ab526e4277edab/ai-a78a2cbc.webp","is_representative":false,"generation_method":"ai_image","license":"ai_generated","mime_type":"image/webp","translations":{"ko":{"alt":"중앙의 맞춤형 의자와 원격 근무자들, 직원별 데이터 대시보드를 살피는 관리자의 일러스트","caption":"관리자가 직원마다 다른 업무 환경과 강점을 데이터로 파악해 맞춤형 리더십을 설계한다.","description":null},"en":{"alt":"Manager viewing employee dashboards, with remote workers arranged around a customizable central chair","caption":"A manager uses individual data and work settings to tailor leadership to each employee’s strengths.","description":null},"ja":{"alt":"調整可能な中央の椅子と周囲の遠隔勤務者、個別データを見る管理者のイラスト","caption":"管理者が一人ひとりのデータや働き方を捉え、強みに合ったリーダーシップを考えている。","description":null},"es":{"alt":"Gerente ante paneles de datos, con trabajadores remotos alrededor de una silla central ajustable","caption":"Un gerente analiza datos y entornos de trabajo para adaptar el liderazgo a las fortalezas de cada persona.","description":null},"id":{"alt":"Manajer melihat dasbor data dengan pekerja jarak jauh mengelilingi kursi pusat yang dapat disesuaikan","caption":"Manajer memakai data dan pengaturan kerja untuk menyesuaikan kepemimpinan dengan kekuatan tiap karyawan.","description":null},"pt":{"alt":"Gestor diante de painéis de dados, com trabalhadores remotos ao redor de uma cadeira central ajustável","caption":"Um gestor analisa dados e ambientes de trabalho para adaptar a liderança aos pontos fortes de cada pessoa.","description":null},"zh-hant":{"alt":"管理者查看員工數據儀表板，遠距工作者環繞中央可調式座椅","caption":"管理者依據個別數據與工作情境，設計能發揮每位員工優勢的領導方式。","description":null},"de":{"alt":"Führungskraft vor Personaldashboards, umgeben von Beschäftigten und einem anpassbaren zentralen Stuhl","caption":"Eine Führungskraft nutzt individuelle Daten und Arbeitsumgebungen, um Stärken gezielt zu fördern.","description":null}}}],"published_at":"2026-08-31T13:31:47+09:00","updated_at":"2026-08-31T13:31:47+09:00","license":"cc_by","translation_status":"reviewed","available_locales":["ko","en","ja","es"],"data_locales":["ko","en","ja","es","id","pt","zh-hant","de"],"url":"https://injoys.com/en/articles/no-average-employee-customized-leadership"}