Ideal Team Composition: Quadras, Roles, and Context
Sep 05, 2025
When the conversation turns to an “ideal team,” most people imagine a constellation of geniuses who push the project forward on autopilot. In reality, however, a team is not the sum of individual talents, but a living system with its own laws of balance. It always has a context: industry, product stage, risk profile. Early startup phases demand one rhythm, while mature businesses require a completely different one.
That’s why the real question is not “who to hire,” but “for which context are we building the core.” Quadras here are not abstract schemes but a language of collective values. The second quadra breathes struggle and speed, the fourth — peace and long horizons, the first — unrestrained creativity, the third — deal-making and survival. But a quadra is only the first layer. The second is the distribution of roles according to Model A: who takes responsibility for strategic direction, who for operations, and who for the interface with the external environment.
This is why assembling an ideal team looks much more like creating a unique chemical composition. A mistake in proportions or the wrong catalyst, and the system begins producing not results, but internal conflicts.
Two Extremes of Team Composition
In the search for the “ideal team,” it’s easy to slide into one of two extremes. The first is to assemble a mono-quadra community. On paper, it looks like paradise: shared language, aligned values, smooth processes. In practice, the team turns into a closed club of like-minded people, convinced of their own exclusivity. They start enjoying their own reflection more than their interaction with reality. External signals lose significance, and inside, everything functions like a sealed capsule—right up until the market demands flexibility.
The second extreme is to formally equalize the representation of all quadras. The picture resembles a parliament, where each faction defends its values. There is plenty of energy in such diversity, but it easily slips into constant conflict and struggles over who sets the rules of the game. Without an experienced moderator, such a group quickly turns into a street scene: the loudest take power, the most sensitive retreat into the shadows, and the rational ones spend their energy putting out fires.
These two scenarios illustrate a simple truth: neither pure homogeneity nor absolute diversity provides real stability. The true architecture of a team is built on dosage, not on extremes.
Team Constructor: The Matrix of “Context × Quadra Values × Functions”
Building a team should not follow the principle of “I like this person—let’s hire them,” but rather the way an engineer designs a system: starting from the task and the environment. At the center lies the context: it may be an early-stage startup with chaos and a race to market, a mature corporation where stability is key, or a team in a high-risk industry where the cost of error is measured in human lives.
Quadra values are selected for this context. Alpha provides exploratory drive and ease of communication, Beta — the energy of mobilization and struggle, Gamma — the pragmatism of deal-making and survival, Delta — the long horizon and care for quality. But values alone do not function unless they are connected to functional roles according to Model A. What matters is not simply the set of TIMs, but who in the team takes responsibility for strategy, who for operations, who for quality control, and who for communication with external stakeholders.
It is within this triple matrix that the working architecture is born: context defines the core, the quadra sets the language of interaction, and functions distribute the workload so the system does not overheat. Much like in cooking: salt enhances flavor, but you cannot eat it by itself. In the same way, rare “extra-quadra” inserts can play the role of a catalyst, correcting imbalances or adding resilience.
Role Patterns and Intertype Relations
Even within a single quadra, people differ not only by character but also by their position in the network of intertype relations. For a team, this is decisive: it is the connections, not the individual figures, that determine how quickly energy circulates.
The structural backbone comes from warm and reliable interactions — duality, activation, and business relations. These create basic cohesion: the team does not fall apart at the first contradictions but instead finds a shared rhythm. On this foundation, more tension-filled configurations can be layered. Semi-duality and mirage are useful for short sprints: they create sparks, push toward fresh solutions, but cannot withstand long-term pressure.
It is far more dangerous to place conflict, supervision, or social request relations at the core. Such pairings generate constant friction, and instead of producing results, the team produces draining drama. These kinds of connections are suitable only on the periphery — as stress tests or external pressure sources, but never as the foundation.
Role distribution is best viewed through the lens of Model A. For the strategic level, types with strong intuition and logic are needed: LII (INTj), ILE (ENTp), LIE (ENTj). Operations require reliable sensory-logical combinations: LSE (ESTj), SLI (ISTp). Quality control relies on sensory-ethical combinations capable of sensing details and atmosphere: ESI (ISFj), SEI (ISFp). And for the interface with external stakeholders, the ethical-intuitive wing is essential: EIE (ENFj), EII (INFj).
In the end, a team works like an orchestra: not only because the instruments are different, but because their parts are written to sound together.
Applied Compositions for Departments
The architecture of a team becomes especially clear when we look at specific departments. Here it is evident that different tasks demand different quadra accents and role distributions.
High-Risk Operations.
In crisis or force-oriented projects, a Beta core works best: energy of mobilization, decisiveness, readiness to act without lengthy approvals. However, such an environment tends toward chaos. To maintain balance, it is useful to introduce an LSE (ESTj) as the contour of procedures and discipline. Amid turbulent irrationals, this type may seem too dry or pedantic, but it is precisely this contribution that makes the system manageable. The key is to surround them with duals and semi-duals, creating a “protective” mode that relieves pressure and allows rational logic to operate at full capacity.
Accounting and Finance.
These domains demand predictability, attention to detail, and adherence to standards. That’s why Te/Si combinations naturally dominate here. They build stable processes, track numbers and infrastructure. Yet a purely logical construct can become rigid. To add a more human dimension, it is worth weaving in at least one EII (INFj): they soften boundaries, assist with contracts and compliance, and provide the necessary ethical layer.
IT Product.
Here both creativity and stability are vital. A research-oriented Alpha/Delta core — ILE (ENTp), LII (INTj), SLI (ISTp), EII (INFj) — creates a fertile environment for ideas and their consistent realization. But without market-entry energy, the team risks getting stuck in perpetual concepts. That is why adding a “piece of Gamma” — LIE (ENTj) with Te orientation and SEE (ESFp) with entrepreneurial drive — provides the bridge to go-to-market and revenue.
In each of these examples, it becomes clear: a team’s strength does not come from having the “best types,” but from aligning context, quadra values, and roles into a single coherent composition.
Implementation and Support Procedure
Even a perfectly designed team is not immune to fragmentation if it is simply assembled and left to drift. The system requires ongoing support, and this is not about top-down control, but about maintaining rhythms and rules of play.
The first step is the diagnosis of TIM and the distribution of roles. People need to understand who is responsible for what, where their strong function is fully expressed, and where it is better not to expend energy. The second step is a contract of interaction: explicit agreements on how we argue, how decisions are made, and how responsibility is distributed. Such rules eliminate the grounds for petty power struggles.
The third element is synchronization rituals. This could be a morning circle, a weekly retrospective, or a quarterly review cycle of the composition. Ritual provides predictability, and with it, a sense of security. Finally, metrics of “relational health” are needed: engagement, level of trust, number of unresolved conflicts. They reveal the extent to which the team remains a system rather than a collection of individuals.
Long-term motivation without external “bonuses” is possible only when the value core is aligned. For “foreign” elements, clear zones of responsibility and a protective framework are essential. Predictable rhythms, meaning, and a sense of safety become the currency for which people are willing to work every day without burning out and without needing constant “adjustments.”