False Positives

Members of this R&T category shove their unique views and actions into the faces of others. Leaders do not like that: because they expect willing acquiescence with the way things are usually done, often taken to the point of preferring conformity to imagination. R&T's account seems mainly about social interaction, as shown by their features:

● refusing to accept anyone's logic as "natural"
● acting in unconventional ways
● being unpredictable wild cards
● tending to ignore rules as irrelevant
● putting people's noses out of joint
● being a source of irritation to both colleagues and bosses

Yet…

● performing at great speed to excellent effect
● contributing a unique practical value

This account fits the reality-centred way of interacting-for-benefit fairly well. From the list of qualities, it is evident that such people are not leaders, indeed are positively unfitted to be leaders, except of small teams formed to do a time-limited project. More:

Their mental focus is on performance and contribution, not on leadership, followers, rules, authority or hierarchy—all of which are purely means that may or may not suit the particular situation. Reality-centred people can see through things and into people, which enables them to get to the essentials rapidly, and to cut through the guff, conventions and irrelevancy that clutter up most meetings and consume most people's time. That is why they become sought after as consultants—exactly like R&T's exemplar

Is «Individualist» a good label?

No: it's a poor label.

«Individualism» as a category generally refers to an approach based on self-reliance and self-interest. But that is not what R&T are evoking here. They seem to have derived their label from the notion of «individuality» i.e. personal distinctiveness.

The Interacting-for-Benefit framework is about how the ethic of individualism with its concern for oneself interacts with the ethic of communalism with its concern for others and the group as a whole. 

In this context, confusion around the label «Individualist» increases because being reality-centred is communalist in nature rather than individualist.  
Read more.

R&T define this category largely by negatives and neutral statements:

● much to offer in a support role
● work at the most junior rungs
● ignore conflict, are overly polite
● cannot give challenging feedback to others
● avoid initiating change even to the point of self-destruction
+
● loyal service
● seek to please higher status colleagues
● cooperate with group norms
● performing daily roles well

Q: Does this describe a leader? 

A: Surely not.  R&T implicitly confirm this view because their example shows the abject failure of leadership.

Q: Are such people found in leader roles?

A: Sure they are.

Q: Is «Diplomat» a good label?

Other Explanations of The Diplomat Category

Support Role:  Belbin's «teamworker» role is described as cooperative, perceptive and diplomatic. You can see this role with his others here. Such people may be worth their weight in gold.

Personality Type:  Difficulty in interacting is common in those who are inhibited, timid or shy. Yet most are perfectly capable of working productively in a supportive context. Such people do not see themselves as leaders, and nor does anyone else.

Power-centred: Many of the traits suggest someone of low status or low intelligence. Perhaps on returning home, the poor fellow looks forward to kicking the cat and beating his wife.

Anyone:   Most of the qualities are common traits of many staff within any large organization. They are almost prerequisites for being an acceptable follower of many would-be leaders.