I’m jumping into this conversation kind of late but…I think you’ve hit the T-shaped nail on the head. It’s not that “T” is better “I” or a “bar” or “Ï€” shaped or whatever we want to label people as. What we’re talking about is the way in which people engage the world and their capacity to do so. In my work, we help people and organizations develop “T” and, after “T”, “H-shaped capacity which is similar, perhaps, to the way in which you describe your ability to integrate. These labels, though, are just that and we caution people not to get stuck on the types and the characteristics of a particular “shape.”

What is important is the recognition of and respect for a diversity of worldviews and the ability of the team or organization to innovate and stay flexible and loose. The more the team can learn from and capitalize on their differences the stronger, happier and more productive they will be as a whole.

Recognizing the strengths and weaknesses we all bring to the meeting table is essential. We don’t want to get hung up on people “I” “T” “M” “W” or whatever we want to call ourselves. But, we do want to appreciate and understand who we are working with, how they see the world and how we can work well together. If the shaped based analogies work, great. If not, let’s find a better way to relate and communicate.

Another way I’ve thought about is based on the typical People/Business/Technology triad, arranged as 3 circles in a Venn diagram. I think of “kidney-shaped” people. In other words people who cover one of those main three areas and then spread to overlap one or both of the others to a degree. If you can imagine a kidney bean running around the perimeter of the Venn diagram.

OK, a bit hard to visualize, easier with a drawing…

Who is the “user” of these categorization systems?

Well, for the person being characterized, it always either (a) rings very false, missing the mark completely, or (b) it is so empty and flattering to the ego that it could describe anyone, like a horoscope saying “you are creative and will find happiness” (Peter, you are probably one of the few people who has ever read about T-shaped people and actually didn’t think immediately “Yes, I am definitely one of those awesome T-shaped people!”.

Conversely, for a person evaluating another person based on such simple characterizations, for example an employer or a team-builder, it enables laziness and shallow people-reading. It lets us forego real investigation and learning about people’s strengths and weaknesses.

So what use is any discussion of T-shaped people? Such instruments are the tools of giant lumbering corporate HR departments and of course the military, where their main objective is to weed out the sociopaths as best they can (a low bar indeed), but they are hamfisted bludgeons for people who want to build small, creative, and energetic teams of highly skilled and talented people.

Peter, your gut distrust is right on. Go all the way with it: Let’s stop defining people’s shapes!

I went off on the “T-shaped” metaphor myself a while back: http://ryskamp.org/brain/creativity/against-tshaped-people

I liked the “Tetris” analogy I heard about—did that come from you?

Also, I’ve evolved my thinking on this since I put that stake in the ground a couple of years ago. I know “Sun Shaped” doen’t sound as sexy a “T-shaped” but take a look as it speaks to your point about Passion.

http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2007/04/tshaped_sun_sha.html

And on teams:
http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2007/04/collaborate_the.html