I have worked at many organizations that make key leadership decisions
based on personality assessments, like Myers Briggs and Predictive Index.
Always seems more counter-productive than effective for many reasons. Not
the least of which that personality is dynamic not static; contextual
factors significantly influence emergence or suppression of personality
traits. For example, a natural introvert may be emboldened in certain
social situations with certain people.
In addition to not effectively considering situational factors, personality
assessments fail to properly consider individual choice and self
management. For example, in attempting to determine the personality
characteristics for coping in remote and harsh environments like arctic
winterovers, research generally shows that personal choice, volunteering,
usually trumps personality characteristics.
Also important to consider is the Foyer Effect, also know as the Barnum
Effect. The Foyer Effect is the tendency of people to believe general
statements--like those in horoscopes--describe them, as long as the
statements are favorable. For example, whenever I use Myers Briggs, DiSC or
any other personality assessment in a class I ask the students to tell me
to what degree they think the results correctly describe them. I invite the
true believers--100%, it nailed me, it perfectly identified my
personality--to share their style with us. The true believes are usually
eager to share. I then say, "so, according to that style you are..." I then
read characteristics from all personality classifications than the one they
received in their test results. Almost always--actually, never seen it
happen differently--the student will say something like "absolutely, that's
me". I then divulge that I read excerpts from every other personality type
but the one the test identified. I then explain the Foyer Effect and
encourage them to critically assess the assessments.
I dont' say this to debunk the assessments; I say it to encourage
professionals and students to consider OTHER factors--do not make decisions
about a person based entirely on a personality assessment that, at best, is
a snapshot of a moment in a dynamic phenomena. These types of assessments
are ideal for self reflection and team development.
For example, consider conducting a team exercise like the following:
- Have the teams study conflict styles
- Have each individual privately self-identify his or her personal
conflict style, then record his or her perception of the conflict style of
each team member.
- Have the individuals discuss their perceptions with their teams,
considering questions like:
- What is your dominant team conflict style?
- What are the differences between individual self perception and the
perceptions that others have of the individual?
- What are areas of potential dysfunctional conflict, and what are
your rules of engagement for leveraging dysfunctional conflict for
individual and team growth?
- What are areas of possible functional conflict that you can use to
foster individual and team performance?
In short, avoid categorizing and judging people based on personality
assessments alone. Consider limiting the personality assessments as
opportunities for self reflection and team development.
Regards,
Brent
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Sharona A. Levy <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> One of my colleagues Elisabeth Brauner, an organizational psychologist,
> had this comment on the original post which I forwarded to her:
>
> "The team/group research folks are divided about the importance of
> personality because often team dynamics override personality differences. I
> would also be careful to use this as a recommendation because teams in real
> life are seldom composed based on the compatibility of their personalities."
>
> - - -
> Sharona A Levy
> Brooklyn College / CUNY
>
> On Apr 21, 2013, at 15:53, "Jim Sibley" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > The vocabulary piece is why I have seen it used
> >
> > These inventories personally make me uncomfortable because of there
> close relationship to the failed construct of learning styles
> >
> > See
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/parents-of-nasal-learners-demand-odorbased-curricu,396/
> > For some fun with learning styles
> >
> > Jim Sibley
> >
> > Sorry for brief message -sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 2013-04-21, at 12:21 PM, "Albright, Alexandra W" <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> I use Myers-Briggs fairly often to create teams, especially when I
> really have not much else to work with. Not because I think it is
> incredibly predictive to make fabulous teams, but because it gives students
> some vocabulary to talk about their differnces in approaching problems. My
> students have had fun with it. Here is the link to the test I have them
> take.
> >>
> >> http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Jim Sibley
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:39 AM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: Using "personality types" in team formation...?
> >>
> >> Hi Mark
> >>
> >> Pete Ostachuk in Mech Eng has been using Myers-briggs for over a decade
> to help in Forming his tbl teams....he has also done some nice research on
> it as well
> >>
> >> You can contact him at ostafichuk@ mech.ubc.ca.....I know he is about
> to head out on sabbatical....once he finishes the book chapter he owes me
> :-)
> >>
> >> Jim Sibley
> >>
> >> Sorry for brief message -sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On 2013-04-21, at 8:27 AM, Mark Stevens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This message was originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the
> >>> TEAMLEARNING-L list at LIST.CTLT.UBC.CA. If you simply forward it
> >>> back to the list, using a mail command that generates "Resent-" fields
> >>> (ask your local user support or consult the documentation of your mail
> >>> program if in doubt), it will be distributed and the explanations
> >>> you are now reading will be removed automatically. If on the other
> >>> hand you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will
> >>> have to remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you should be able
> to contact the author of this message by using the normal "reply"
> >>> function of your mail program.
> >>>
> >>> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (30 lines)
> >>> ------------------ Hi all -
> >>>
> >>> I've been thinking a lot about "personality types" lately, and how
> they might relate to team performance. I would guess that teams with a
> mixture of different personality types might perform better than those
> whose students all have the same personality type, and I would also think
> that it would be good experience for students to have to work with people
> that have different personality types from their own, independent of
> whether exposure to different types serves to increase performance.
> >>>
> >>> I am curious to know if any of you use personality type (e.g.
> Myers-Briggs) information to help form teams, and if so, whether you think
> it's worth the effort. Do you form the teams on the first day of class?
> When do you ask the students to complete a personality type questionnaire?
> Do you try to make sure that the personality types are evenly-distributed
> across the teams, or do you use some other kind of distribution strategy?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Mark Stevens, PhD, MCIP
> >>> Assistant Professor, School of Community & Regional Planning
> >>> University of British Columbia
> >>> 223-1933 West Mall
> >>> Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada
> >>> http://www.scarp.ubc.ca/profiles/faculty/Mark%20Stevens
> >>> 604-822-0657
> >>>
>
--
-----
Brent Duncan
Yomitan Village, Okinawa
Mail:
PSC 80
Box 20171
APO AP, 96367
---
Phone:
Japan 090-6049-8483
USA 831 440-8483
Skype brentad