Download pdf - Personality type as predictor of team roles

Personality Type as predictor of Team Roles An overview of a Masters Disserta0on research findings presented to the

Industrial Psychology Conference (incorpora0ng the Psychometric Conference) in June 2000 organized by the Society for Industrial Psychology

(SIP) -‐ a division of the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySA).

By Malcolm Gabriel MBA; MA (Org. Psychology)

About Malcolm Gabriel Profile: www.linkedin.com/in/malcolmgabriel

Blog: www.malcolmprestongabriel.wordpress.com

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

1

Masters Disserta0on Supervisor: Dirk Geldenhuys

Department of Industrial Psychology, University of South Africa

A copy of the publica0on can be found the University of South Africa Public Library

Previous research focused on the effects of personality type on:

Management styles

(Hartston, 1975)

Management level and job

foci (Church & Allie, 1986)

Speciali0es of medical students twelve years

later (Myers, 1976)

Job sa0sfac0on (Williams, 1975)

Area of art study of senior art students (Stephens, 1973)

Career Pa\erns (Coetzee, 1996)

career success in the accoun0ng profession

(Jacoby, 1981).

Career choices (Hanson, 1980)

Teaching styles (Cunningham,

1962)

Management level and job

foci (Church & Allie,

1986

Role foci of leaders

(Church, 1982)

Student survival in law

school (Miller, 1967)

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

2

Very li\le research on personality types as predictors of team roles

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

3

The ideal team

•  A tradi0onal team composi0on •  An ideal team requires a balance of team roles where certain roles would be accentuated at certain stages of the team’s development

•  Tradi0onal approaches to selec0on and assessment do not have a provision for fit within a team

•  A new emphasis should therefore be placed on predic0ng an appl icant’s fit and contribu0on within a team as well as maintain a balance of team roles within a team. M

alco

lm G

abrie

l, M

A (I

ndus

trial

& O

rgan

izat

iona

l Psy

chol

ogy)

, U

nive

rsity

of S

outh

Afr

ica

4

Purpose & Aims

Purpose 1.  Expand our understanding of human behaviour in teams by

focusing specifically on personality types as predictors of team roles.

2.  Leverage findings to advance the effec0veness of teams by assessing an applicant’s fit to a team

Specific Aims 1.  to determine whether personality types predict team roles 2.  to formulate recommenda0ons for the use of personality types

in future selec0on and teambuilding Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

5

Research Questions

1.  what is personality type as a concept and what constructs are involved?

2.  what is a team role as a concept, and what constructs are involved? 3.  is there a theore0cal rela0onship between personality types and

team roles? 4.  can personality types act as predictors of team roles? 5.  what conclusions and recommenda0ons can be made with regard

to the use of personality types to predict team roles for selec0on and teambuilding?

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

6

Relevant Paradigms

•  the literature review on personality was presented from the psychodynamic paradigm

•  personality types was categorised according to Jung’s four scales of eight personality types

•  the literature review on team roles was presented from the behaviouris0c paradigm

•  teams are extracted from the TeamBuilder model developed by Peter Milburn (Murphy, 1998).

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

7

Steps in empirical investigation

Step 1: A random sample of 80 par0cipants comprising corporate managers and professionals in commercial and government sectors will be selected to par0cipate in the research project.

Step 2: The Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator Ques0onnaire and the TeamBuilder Ques0onnaire will be discussed and mo0vated as a test ba\ery to assess personality types and team roles, respec0vely.

Step 3: The Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator Ques0onnaire and the Team Builder Ques0onnaire will be administered to the sample of 80 par0cipants

Step 4: Formula0on of the research hypothesis.

Step 5: The psychometric data will be analysed using a correla0on and regression analysis, and the results will then be reported and interpreted

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

8

Steps in empirical investigation

Step 6: Integra0on of research findings.

Step 7: Limita0ons and conclusions of the research.

Step 8: Recommenda0ons for future selec0on and teambuilding.

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

9

Jung’s Personality Types

Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I)

Sensing (S) or Intui0ve (I)

Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)

Judging (J) or Perceiving (P)

Extension of Jung’s Personality Type theory Combina0ons of aitudes and func0ons

16 Personality Types

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

10

Organizational Relevance

• Organiza0onal Type impacts organiza0onal culture •  collated types of employees •  collated types of managers • new employee type

• effects of personality types in work situa0ons

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

11

Team Roles

•  team roles can be defined as the tendencies to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in certain dis0nc0ve ways within a team

•  an effec0ve team depends on each member’s understanding of his or her role and the rela0onships between that role and other roles held by team members (Francis & Young, 1992).

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

12

Characteristics of effective teams •  Weiss (1990) defines an effec0ve team as mee0ng a specific set of goals or objec0ves, and is organised around a predetermined set of iden0fiable roles related to ac0vi0es that accomplish the team’s goals and objec0ves

•  An effec0ve team requires a balance of team roles and that certain roles would be accentuated at certain stages of the team’s development, depending on the situa0on

•  a balanced team is more likely to be effec0ve than one that is homogeneous in terms of individual roles

•  in order to achieve a balance, it may be necessary to ask some members to adopt secondary roles, and the appropriate behaviours can be learned and developed

•  an individual’s preferred team role will be valued at certain stages, and their effec0veness in their role will be determined by the fit between the individual and their role.

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

13

Belbin’s research on teams •  several highly significant experiments on team roles •  subjects par0cipated in a lengthy management course and then formed into teams to complete a management task

•  Belbin, using a range of psychometric tests, studied the personali0es and mental capabili0es of team members and

•  discovered that each person had a strong tendency to play a dis0nct but limited set of roles

•  pa\ern of role balance had a crucial effect on the outcome •  poor balance produced a poor outcome, and •  teams with competent members would not necessarily produce favourable results since the balance might be wrong

•  Belbin iden0fied nine basic team roles •  successful teams’ membership was broad enough so that all the necessary roles were filled

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

14

Nature of Team Roles

•  Team Role and Func0onal Role •  Role Versa0lity and Role Priority •  Coherent and Incoherent Role Profiles •  Role Suppression •  Eligibility and Suitability

Suitability

Suitable Unsuitable

Eligible Ideal fit Poor fitEligibilityIneligible Surprise fit Total misfit

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

15

Belbin’s model of team roles

Coordinator

Shaper

Plant

Monitor Evaluator

Implementer

Team Worker

Resource Navigator

Completer

Specialist

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

16

Critique of Belbin’s model •  team roles outlined by Belbin are represented as requiring varying degrees of intellect •  eg: the “plant” requiring a higher intellect, and co-‐worker lower levels of intellect

•  language used by Belbin is male oriented and presented in a prescrip0ve way •  eg: “you are a….”, thereby labelling and categorising team members as a Plant or a Monitor Evaluator

•  implies that individuals are restricted to these roles without the possibility of extending beyond them.

•  Belbin’s (1982) model iden0fies an apparent link between a Shaper and a Company Worker, but refers to it as a boss / subordinate style of rela0onship and not colleagues applying a process together.

•  Belbin’s (1982) model does not regard each team role as sequen0al and interrelated with each other.

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

17

TeamBuilder as an extension of Belbin •  TeamBuilder as an alterna0ve model •  draws on the original work done by Belbin •  outlines a team process for geing things done which is non-‐judgmental, not hierarchical, non-‐threatening, makes no prejudicial assump0ons of intelligence, and no assump0ons about management skills (Murphy, 1998).

•  5 team roles of equal value compared with Belbin’s 9 team roles that are dis0nguishable by status, importance, and intelligence

•  Further outlines an individual’s preference for contribu0ng within a certain role, rather than labelling and categorising them as their preferred role (Murphy, 1998)

•  assump0on that an individual develops a primary preference for a team role within the model

•  an individual’s sustainable contribu0on to a team is primarily determined by the team member’s sa0sfactory fulfilment of his preferred team role and the team’s need for that specific team role

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

18

Components of TeamBuilder

TeamBuilder Preference for team work

Preference for team roles

Projected or communicated

team role preferences

Awareness of preferred team

role

Team role preference under

pressure

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

19

TeamBuilder model of Team Roles

Driving Onward Developing concepts, direc0ng

ac0on, innova0ng ideas

Planning Ahead Strategic planning, es0ma0ng feasibility, scheduling tasks

Enabling Ac0on Resourcing and promo0ng the team, nego0a0ng for support

Delivering Plans Producing output, coordina0ng the team, maintaining team

morale

Controlling Quality Monitoring progress, audi0ng methods, evalua0ng results

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

20

Organizational Relevance

•  the pa\ern of role balance within the team has a crucial effect on the team’s effec0veness

•  a poor balance would produce a poor outcome •  the concept and roles outlined in the TeamBuilder model is therefore of cri0cal importance to the evolving significance of a team’s contribu0on to organisa0onal success.

•  compa0bility with Project Management Phases

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

21

Theoretical relationship between personality types and team roles

• People demonstra0ng a preference for the Driving Onward team role exhibit preferences for seeing “big picture” opportuni0es,

• ins0nc0vely reaching conclusions rather than making a detailed analysis of a situa0on, and open making decisions intui0vely.

Intui0on

• Driving Onward exhibits preferences for developing concepts, direc0ng ac0on and providing the team with innova0ve ideas (Murphy, 1998).

• corresponds with Jung’s descrip0on of people who prefer Intui0on, and is described as seeing the big picture, new possibili0es and different ways of doing things (Hirsh, 1993).

Driving Onward

The corresponding similarity between the behavioural descriptions of Intuition and Driving Onward allows for a tentative postulation that people who fall into the

Intuition personality type are more likely to display a preference for the Driving Onward team role.

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

22

Theoretical relationship between personality types and team roles

Personality Type

Team Roles

Extraversion (E)

Enabling Action

Introversion (I)

Sensing (S)

Controlling Quality Delivering Plans Intuition (N)

Driving Onward

Thinking (T)

Planning Ahead; Driving Onward

Feeling (F)

Enabling Action

Judging (J)

Planning Ahead

Perceiving (P)

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

23

Sample description

n %

Gender MaleFemale

3020

6040

Age 20-29 years30-39 years40-49 years50 years +

1518107

30362014

Length of service with the Organisation Less than one year1-5 years5-10 years10-15 yearsMore than 15 years

6221363

124426126

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

24

Sample occupational group

10%

28%

24%

38%

Technical ProfessionalNon-technical professionalManager (technical)Manager (non-technical)

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

25

Psychometric Battery •  Biographical ques0onnaire •  cover le\er

•  Myers-‐Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) •  Form G •  paper and pencil ques0onnaire •  no 0me limit

•  TeamBuilder Ques0onnaire •  self-‐administering computer-‐based ques0onnaire in form of “s0ffy-‐disk”

•  no 0me limit

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

26

Distribution of participants’ team role preference

46%

10%10%

20%

14%

Driving Onw ard Planning Ahead Enabling Action

Delivering Plans Controlling Quality

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

27

Distribution of participants’ personality types Sensing (S) Intuitives (N)

Thinking (T) Feeling (F) Feeling (F) Thinking (T)

- ST - - SF - - NF - - NT -

I -- J ISTJ22% (n: 11)

ISFJn: 0

INFJn: 0

INTJ6% (n: 3)Introvert

I -- P ISTP2% (n: 1)

ISFPn: 0

INFPn: 0

INTP12% (n: 6)

E -- P ESTP4% (n: 2)

ESFP2% (n: 1)

ENFP4% (n: 2)

ENTP12% (n: 6)

E -- J ESTJ20% (n: 10)

ESFJ2% (n: 1)

ENFJn: 0

ENTJ14% (n: 7)

Extravert

Total % 48% (n: 24) 4% (n: 2) 4% (n: 2) 44% (n: 22)

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

28

Correlation Analysis Personality Type (X variable) Positive/Negative Correlation Team Role (Y variable)

Extraversion Positive Driving Onward

Extraversion Negative Delivering Plans

Sensing Negative Driving Onward

Sensing Positive Delivering Plans

Intuition Positive Driving Onward

Intuition Negative Delivering Plans

Thinking Positive Controlling Quality

Judging Negative Driving Onward

Judging Positive Planning Ahead

Perceiving Positive Driving Onward

Perceiving Negative Planning Ahead

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

29

Multiple Regression Analysis Personality Type (X

variable)

Positive / Negative

Predictor

Team Role (Y

variable)










Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

30

Lack of supporting evidence for theoretical postulations for:

Personality Type

Team Roles

Extraversion (E)

Enabling Action

Introversion (I)

Sensing (S)

Controlling Quality Delivering Plans Intuition (N)

Driving Onward

Thinking (T)

Planning Ahead; Driving Onward

Feeling (F)

Enabling Action

Judging (J)

Planning Ahead

Perceiving (P)

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

31

No theoretical postulations for: Personality Type (X

variable)

Positive / Negative

Predictor

Team Role (Y

variable)










Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

32

Limitations of Research •  a limited amount of literature with reference to team roles exists; •  research on the linkages between team roles in work seings are limited and s0ll need further explora0on;

•  a limited amount of literature exists on the rela0onship between personality types and team roles;

•  a limited amount of research exists for the reliability of the TeamBuilder instrument

•  the sample size was too small to draw significant conclusions and therefore limited the poten0al for generalisa0ons of the results;

•  the sample represented a only a limited work seing; •  the MBTI requires an individual frame of reference of repor0ng one’s natural preference, and not one’s “work self” or “ideal self”.

•  difficult to monitor par0cipants’ frame of mind when answering the MBTI, and could have influenced the results;

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

33

Limitations of Research •  Only the raw scores of the MBTI preferences were u0lised for the purposes of this research;

•  the research focused on Jung’s personality type groupings, and not on the 16 personality types.

•  The dynamic interrela0onship between team roles and the 16 personality types might have provided more meaningful insight;

•  strength of the preferences for each team role was also not taken into considera0on in the data analysis

•  only the raw score of the preferences was u0lised for the purposes of this research.

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

34

Recommendations •  both the Personality Type theory and the Team Role model can be used as a process of self-‐enlightenment towards more effec0vely being able to contribute to a team.

•  personality type profiles can assist in predic0ng a team member’s preferred team role.

•  prac00oners must take cognisance of the impact of personality types and team roles in the overall effec0veness of teambuilding interven0ons and ini0a0ves.

•  focus on enhancing self-‐awareness of team members’ by iden0fying their true personality type, thereby enabling them to predict their preference for a team role;

•  Tradi0onal selec0on and assessment methodologies does not make provision for assessing whether job applicants are an appropriate fit within a team.

•  The outcome of this research makes it possible to predict team roles from the assessments of personality types

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

35

Recommendations •  prac00oners can simultaneously assess and select a balance of team roles to a project team; thereby reducing reliance on team role measurement;

•  Each team role descrip0on in the TeamBuilder model can incorporate addi0onal relevant behavioural descrip0ons of the personality type that is a significant predictor of the team role.

•  Similarly, each personality type descrip0on can incorporate addi0onal literature on a personality type’s probable preference of a team role in team seings.

Mal

colm

Gab

riel,

MA

(Ind

ustri

al &

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

sych

olog

y),

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th A

fric

a

36