Suppose someone's CV / resume says "I lead a team of 3 specialists". Would this mean:

  1. There are three specialists. This person is the most senior, line managing the other two.
  2. There are three specialists, and one manager. This person is the manager. They are not necessarily trained in the same specialisation as the three specialists.
  3. It is ambiguous. It could mean either, and there is no one "correct" usage of this phrase.

To illustrate - which of these would it imply?

enter image description here

1. is true for me. I want to be sure that, when I'm describing this, I'm not accidentally saying something that could be interpreted as being deliberately misleading.

I've read What differentiates a manager from a team leader? and it sounds like there's no universal convention about whether "team leader" as a role is different or the same as "manager", so I suspect 3 is true, but this isn't my area of expertise.

  • 1
    I doubt that the reader and evaluator of the resume really cares whether the answer is two or three. I think they care if you might fit as a leader of a team of five or twenty or fifty. – chili555 Feb 1 '15 at 15:54
  • Two software developers have now posted comments/answers to that effect. I don't doubt you're right about your own sector (software development) - but in my sector, teams are always very small (5+ is almost unheard of), and in my profession, leading two peers would imply a very different type of role to managing three subordinates. – user56reinstatemonica8 Feb 1 '15 at 19:18

While it could be argued as marginally ambiguous, the phrase definitely implies there are 3 subordinates.

Saying I look after 20 children doesn't imply you are one of the twenty.

  • 2
    "Look after" is very different to "lead" - it's common for a team leader to be a team member. But after browsing LinkedIn profiles etc that include similar phrases, it seems like when someone is in the team they lead they make it explicit, like "I lead a team with N other specialists - so it looks like it may be 2. – user56reinstatemonica8 Jan 31 '15 at 22:13
  • The meanings are close enough. Alternatively try 'I lead 20 men into battle'. Again, it implies you're number 21. – Dan Jan 31 '15 at 22:23
  • That's a better analogy, +1, and it's backed up by what I found from trawling professional profiles. – user56reinstatemonica8 Jan 31 '15 at 22:30

I researched this by browsing professional profiles such as LinkedIn. These are typical quotes.

In every case I could find with additional information, "I lead a team of N" meant scenario 2, that there are N subordinates, who the author is separate from:

I lead a team of 3 people who work on projects to...


  • Managing a team of 3 reportees...

In cases like scenario 1 above, where the author leads a team which they're also a hands-on member of, people find ways to make it explicit, such as:

Realtor. I lead a team with 3 realtors, myself, and an executive assistant...

As Head Instructor I lead a team of 3 other instructors...

I am the lead in a team of 6 individuals who...

I couldn't find any examples equivalent to the first example where someone said "I lead a team of N specialists" then clarified that they are one of the N specialists, leading the others.

So it seems it is incorrect to say "I lead a team of N" when you are also one of the N.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .