 |
 |
 |
 |
- Teamwork and the MBTI® Step II Results: Who Likes to be on a Team
- About the Strong Interest Inventory®: What's the Risk Taking/Adventure Scale?
- The FIRO-B™ and Team Roles: Clarifier, Director, and Encourager
- Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode (TKI): What's Good About Collaborating?
- Group Testing
- Have Brian Speak to Your Group About Myers-Briggs®
Most people who take the Myers-Briggs start off by taking the Step I, which is the 93-question version of the test. As people learn more about psychological type and personality, they often become curious about the Step II. The Step II breaks down the four basic scales into 20 subscales or facets. This gives us a far more precise picture of the individual and his or her preferences. It frequently clears up those cases when a person cannot decide if he or she is really an introvert or an extravert, for example. In many such instances, the person has two or three facets towards one pole and two towards another. This doesn't mean the person is well-rounded or has a split personality. It shows how the individual responded to the questions.
Organizational development experts have used the Step II to help determine who likes being part of a work team and why. The findings make a lot of sense as you consider what each of the facets or subscales on the Step II describe.
Researchers found significant differences on 15 of the 20 facet scales. The greatest differences showed up on the Extraversion-Introversion facets. Those who disliked teamwork tended to score towards the Introversion pole, or the facets Receiving, Contained, Intimate, Reflective, and Quiet. Those who liked teamwork scored towards the middle of the poles, indicating a wide variety of responses. However, there was a slight trend towards the Extraversion facets: Initiating, Expressive, Gregarious, Active, and Enthusiastic.
On the second scale of Sensing-Intuition there were differences on three facet scales. Those who liked teamwork tended to score towards the Concrete and Traditional poles, which are on the Sensing side. The other poles (Abstract and Theoretical) are on the Intuition side of the scales.
The Thinking-Feeling scale showed great differences in preferences, with a clear trend towards Feeling for liking teamwork and towards Thinking for disliking it.
On the final scale, there was a tendency towards Early Starting (Judging) and Open-Ended and Spontaneous, which are both Perceiving facets. Like the S-N scale, there was a mixture here of which preferences dominated in those who liked teamwork.
If we try to sum this information up to form a picture of who is more likely to enjoy working as part of a team, we would come up with four of the basic types: ENFJ, ESFJ, ENFP, and ESFP. From the information in this report, what is most important is not the basic four-letter type, but rather how the 20 facets scales on the Step II come out. This is another reason why the Step gives a far more accurate picture of the individual. The basic scales simply cannot show such fine discrimination in personality types.
Source: MBTI Step II Manual
Take the Myers-Briggs now
Take the Myers-Briggs Career Report (50 most and 25 least popular careers) now.
This scale was first added to the Strong in 1968, so it's been around for quite a while. It used to be part of the Realistic Basic Interest Scale, but has now been established as a Personal Style Scale. It measures things such as interest in physically risky activities such as racing, and other, more general, adventures such as travel.
This is a scale where there's a gender difference. Men score significantly higher on this scale than women.
Those with high scores tend to take risks, act on the spur of the moment, be spontaneous, and can act recklessly. They also tend to be independent, self-reliant, to be outgoing, enjoy being the center of attention, and doing things just for the fun of it. Those who score towards the opposite pole generally avoid danger and risks and try to maximize their personal safety.
People tend to score more towards the Play it Safe pole as they get older. For those over 30 who score towards the opposite pole, it might indicate an enduring attraction towards risky activities, rather than youthful exuberance.
Risk taking doesn't always mean physical risk. Some people are financial risk takers, for example. People who score highly on this scale tend to enjoy working on commission. It could also mean enjoying travel, or social risks, or just trying new things without a guarantee of success. Others want great independence and autonomy in their work and personal lives.
Those who tend towards the Play it Safe pole need careful planning and many guarantees before trying something new. Otherwise, they could experience extreme discomfort. Such people are often most comfortable taking small steps towards a goal, rather than jumping in with both feet. For example, if such a person were thinking about going back to college, rather than quitting his or her job and enrolling in a program, he or she could continue to work and take one or two evening classes to see how things go. If all goes well, the person could take more classes or try something else.
Here are some jobs people who score towards the Risk Taking pole of the scale: Athletic Trainer, Auto Mechanic, Carpenter, Electrician, Emergency Medical Technician, and Police Officer. Those who score towards the Play it Safe end of the scale prefer jobs such as: Dental Assistant, Dental Hygienist, Librarian, Mathematician, Nurse, and Speech Pathologist.
Source: SII Applications and Technical Guide
The FIRO-B measures several aspects of interpersonal behavior. One common use for the FIRO-B is helping teams work together better. There is a correlation between your expressed scores and the role you're most likely to take in a team.
If your highest expressed score is Inclusion, you're most likely to take the role of Clarifier in a team. You're likely to make sure everyone gets involved in the discussion, you'll pull ideas together, summarize and clarify points, and find ways to have everyone participate. You'll help increase collaboration, see other points of view, make sure the workload is fairly distributed, and help the group take stock of the discussion. Possible disadvantages could include putting people on the spot, seeing common ground where none exists, trying to hold a team together that needs to break up, and striving for unreal fairness.
For those who score highest on expressed Control, the main team role will probably be the Director. These people keep track of tasks and time limits, suggest closure, direct action, and offer structure for decision making. They help keep the group moving along, and focused on the task at hand. Because they are often conscious of time and resources, they push others to reach decisions. On the other hand, these people can also cut off discussion too soon, put unnecessary pressure on others, get distracted by competition, and can push people beyond their skill levels.
Finally, if your highest expressed need is Affection, you're likely to take the role of Encourager. Encouragers mediate conflicts, promote intimacy and engagement, harmonize within the group, and often can identify areas of resistance. They help the group feel supported, encourage open and frank discussion, make sure feedback is given and received, and manage to keep things going when the going gets rough. Potential pitfalls might be getting trapped in trying to resolve internal team conflicts, wasting time trying to achieve consensus when it's not needed, and misplaced commitment and loyalty.
If all of your expressed needs scores fall in the low range, it's more likely you'll have no consistent role within the team. Since others are likely to have at least one high expressed need, you might appear to be a loner to the rest of the group. There are other roles you could assume within the team. That will be the topic of a future installment.
Source: Participating in Teams
This month we'll look at the advantages of the collaborating style of conflict management. As in past issues, the discussion will center around when to use collaborating for best effect.
Many people think of win-win negotiation when discussing collaborating, and it's frequently used with this style. Benefits of this style include high quality decisions, strengthening relationships, and improving communication and group learning.
Collaboration is best used on the most important issues facing the group. When an issue is very important, the extra time and effort needed to come to a win-win solution makes up for the importance of the results to the group members. When rather diverse viewpoints or positions are involved, collaborating can bring in experts to help in the decision making process. The more viewpoints you can bring into the discussion, the greater effect the decision will have on the group, if everyone can agree on the outcome. Consensus building can require a lot of effort, but increases the commitment of others towards the goal. This style is quite useful in addressing relationship issues in a group, particularly things that have been unresolved for quite a while and have been boiling below the surface.
Some ways to be successful at collaborating include using "we" language instead of "I" or "you" and avoiding blame. Point out the benefits to all concerned of any solution you propose. Make sure the others are willing and able to address the issue at hand when you bring it up. If the timing is off, you could waste your time and frustrate others. The main strategy involves understanding and clarifying both your own and the other parties' positions or concerns. They must all be dealt with for collaborating to be effective. One question you might ask to introduce possible solutions to everyone's concerns is to ask, "How could we do both?" For example, how could you save money and increase spending on marketing. This helps get everyone thinking together on solutions that benefit all parties.
To improve your collaborating effectiveness, try to get as much information on the problems at hand as possible. Brainstorm to uncover new solutions. Find goals the entire group can agree upon. Aim for consensus. If you're unable to reach it, allow the most relevant senior person to make the decision. Otherwise, you could spend endless hours going nowhere in the futile search for consensus.
Source: Introduction to Conflict Management by K.W. Thomas, 2002
As some of you know, it's easy to test your group online. There is a discount for groups over 10 people. We can set you up and have your people take their tests in a short while. Their results will come via e-mail, as for regular clients. If you'd like to find out more, just send an e-mail with the number of people and which test(s) you'd like. Write to or call (858) 571-3931. Past clients have included Bank of America, Dow Chemical, Kaiser Permanente, and others.
Looking for a speaker or trainer for your next conference or workshop? Why not include a presentation about Myers-Briggs, personality types, conflict styles, leadership, or team building? Include testing your group online as part of your program. Call or write to find out how you can have a fun, practical, and insightful presentation for your group. Call (858) 571-3931 or write: