Not everyone on your team can be a “red shirt” (and that’s okay)

I originally published this post on Medium. I copied it here in May 2024 to keep it alongside my other content.

We completed some interviews last week. And in response to one candidate, I sent the following image to a fellow interviewer:

My “Picard in the blue shirt” reference is from a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called “Tapestry” (S6.E13), in which captain Picard dies, but is revived by his nemesis Q and is permitted to go back in time to make different life choices, thereby avoiding his untimely death. However, Picard learns that making different — and safer — choices leads to a life he doesn’t recognize. Rather than becoming a history-making Starfleet captain, he becomes a competent science officer. He’s on the Enterprise, and is respected for his work, but he’s not a bridge officer, much less the captain.

Dissatisfied with his new blue-shirt life, Picard goes to (former subordinates) first officer Riker and counselor Troi to ask for a promotion into a command (red shirt) position, since he knows he’s capable of doing much more. It doesn’t go well:

The episode heavily suggests the best way to live is to work hard, take risks, and grab the “red shirt.” For Picard, that’s absolutely true — he’s not the Picard we know and love if he’s playing it safe.

But the red shirt isn’t for everyone.

Red vs. Blue candidates

So back to the interviews… We talked to a few candidates and the red/blue split quickly emerged.

One candidate type had taken charge in their careers, learning things, growing, and even taking some bold risks. The candidates we talked to had work experiences varying from entry-level to a decade or more, but it was evident these candidates were “owning” their work and careers personally. While they had frustrations on the job like anyone, they accepted what they couldn’t change and focused on work that moved their companies, teams, or their own careers forward. These were the “red shirts.”

The other candidate type also emerged — the “blue shirts.” These folks were smart, capable, and had accomplished some substantial work. But they were primarily passive, waiting for bosses to tell them what to do or give them permission to do things. They were more prone to complain about work they didn’t “get” to do, choices made by others, or changes they recommended, but were ignored. They definitely wanted to learn more or do more, but they didn’t want to take risks.

In the end, we liked all the candidates we talked to, and we could envision each one working out well on our team. But we were clear-eyed on what we could expect from the “red” and “blue” candidates once they arrived, and our management approach and expectations would have to be customized a bit.

Job hopping & interviewing benefits

Both red-shirt and blue-shirt candidates had histories of job-hopping, with short-ish stints in a variety of positions, which is pretty common in technology.

But there was a key difference.

Every job change for the red shirts added skills and locked in career advancements. Blue shirts changed jobs at the same rate, but they typically moved laterally and only gained skills or career bumps almost accidentally or in companies that rewarded longevity automatically.

In the interviews themselves, the red shirts also had an advantage. They typically projected more confidence and a willingness to take risks in crafting answers to our questions. That actually creates some risks for interviewers, though — it’s easy to hire a jerk or someone that overstates their skills or experiences. So you need to interview carefully.

By contrast, the blue shirts didn’t make wild claims, but they also didn’t tell their own stories that well. This also required some interviewing skill, as we had to be more aggressive in getting accomplishments out of them — they often had impressive stories to tell… they just didn’t tell them.

And to be clear, I’m not talking about the difference between introverted and extroverted candidates — most engineers we talk to and work with are introverted. Red shirts are simply more engaged with their careers, they’re willing to take risks, are more confident, and they accept they’ll make mistakes because they know they can recover from them.

Good teams are purple

I would argue a good team is a mix of red and blue — a good team is a purple team. Red shirts are needed to break through barriers, refuse to accept failure as the termination of work, and take charge of problems and opportunities. But blue shirts keep the lights on. Blue shirts are the stable, long-term, loyal players that power a team through as the red shirts move on or flame out.

I’m sure there are articles out there (I can vaguely imagine some HBR pieces) that make recommendations on the “right” ratios of red to blue shirts on a team. For me, all I know is it takes both kinds of players on the team. An all-red-shirt team could be chaotic or dramatic, with everyone vying to get out in front of the team. All-blue teams would have the reverse problem, with no one stepping up to new challenges.

So keep it purple out there, people.

---

Disclaimer: This post does not represent the opinions or policies of my current or former employers nor any organization or person I may assist as a consultant.