How different are your team members? Do opposites really attract? Do they work well in a team setting? Of all of the commentary I’ve heard over the years regarding team building on mission teams, perhaps the most succinct is that building a cohesive team is elusive. One effective team building strategy is to volitionally create a team with individual members that have developed the personal strengths of contrasting personality types. Although a mixture of this sort has the potential to sabotage all productivity, it also could maximize effectiveness. Just imagine leading a team with personalities ranging from Mikhail Gorbachev, an ENFJ, to Clint Eastwood, an ISTP (Know Your Type, 2002). Together they could minimize each other’s greatness, or they could lift the team to an even greater level than that for which the individual members are already known. Both could tear down walls, but they might approach the problem in different ways. It makes me wonder what kinds of biblical models for teaming we can find in the New Testament. For some reason, I cannot imagine the apostle Paul whispering through gritted teeth, “a man has got to know his limitations,” but he did not have a problem eliminating Timothy (or Barnabas) when he needed to.
Teams are made up of individual members with unique personality types that influence their leadership styles and decision-making processes. Among the Russian IMB teams with whom I have the privilege of interacting, I cannot think of any who have strictly homogenous member traits. On the contrary, they are “members of one body” (Rom 12:4), but they are as vastly different as thumbs and knees. Not only should a team leader be aware of those various Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) types, but he or she should also build a team intentionally with as much representation from each of the sixteen types as possible. When a team can be led to recognize and capitalize upon opposite strengths, that team can reach maximum potential for obtaining and processing data. The differences among team members do not necessarily have to be competitive or at odds but rather the one strength could complement and fill in the gaps for what the other lacks.
Since a team may be defined as a “number of people… who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 45), I propose that team function (purpose, performance and evaluation) might be enhanced by intentionally highlighting the strengths in each of the four Myers-Briggs dichotomies. Myers (1998) only briefly touches this team leadership approach as she applies the usefulness of allowing various types to play certain roles in the problem-solving process. Her seven steps to problem solving using types are excellent, and she develops the possibilities of type strength by asking bipolar questions (p. 39). These possibilities can be expanded further into the functions of teaming.
Some have metaphorically described the E-I dichotomy in terms of batteries. Whereas a car battery is recharged through driving the car, a cell phone battery is drained through ongoing use. Extraverts “receive energy from interacting with people and from taking action” while introverts receive their energy through quiet time and introspection (Myers, 1998, p. 9). A team leader may maximize team effectiveness by allowing extraverts the opportunity to rejuvenate themselves through actively interacting to define the team’s purpose. A leader can capitalize on the strengths of extraverts through group action and interaction throughout the performance process as well. Extraverts can also help to evaluate how the team did as a whole in fulfilling its mission and to provide feedback through verbal evaluation.
A leader could also push a team forward by allowing introverted members to develop a synergy with group purpose through their own personal experience. As introverts “take initiative when the situation or issue is very important to them” (Myers, 1998, p. 9), they can catch the vision that what the team is doing is personally important and help the process to run accordingly. This inner creativity can help especially in the evaluation of how individual members performed. Leading a Bill Gates to energize a group through his extraverted interaction while at the same time allowing a Jimmy Stewart’s introversion to help personalize the group’s processes could only enhance the team dynamic (Know Your Type, 2002).
Myers (1998) defines the N-S dichotomy as the data intake portion of Jung’s mental function (p.8). Whereas intuitive persons tend to see “the big picture”, sensors tend to see what is “real and tangible” (p. 9). A true leader can use both for a well-rounded team. Intuitive people can be the strategic visionaries for team purpose. They can push the team to perform farther than their current goals. They can also be led to help transition a team from the evaluation stage to the next level of attainable goals. A leader can use sensors to give concrete facts for the purpose of the team. Definitive behavioral objectives are one of sensors’ greatest achievements. Sensors can also provide the framework for a solid evaluation checklist. With Mikhail Gorbachev’s intuitive vision and Clint Eastwood’s concrete sensing, a team could be directed to restructure all visible barriers into new paradigms while helping the team know their own limitations and work within that structure.
If the N-S dichotomy describes the data intake portion of the mental function, then the T-F dichotomy describes the data processing portion. Both thinkers and feelers can be piloted to “complement each other, filling in each other’s blind spots and balancing decision-making” (Myers, 1998, p. 30). Combining the “most incisive analysis” with the “most skillful understanding and handling of people” produces the most productive team (Myers, 1998, p. 31). Thinkers can discover the logical purpose in meeting a particular need. The rational steps for completing the task set order to the team’s performance. Accordingly, there are reasonable consequences for each action evaluated. With feelers on the team, a leader can help to create an atmosphere of purpose-driven interpersonal enjoyment. The team must enjoy the process of functioning, and feelers can bring this out. Sometimes the best evaluation is based upon rewards and punishments, pleasure and pain; feelers can sense this course in advance. While leading a team to coordinate Madonna’s thinking preference with Mother Theresa’s caring strength might seem ridiculous, it could be reconciled for the greater good.
The J-P dichotomy describes the application of the mental process. A team leader can bring out the best in team members with perceiving preference, those who prefer “taking in information”, and in those with judging preference, an inclination for “organizing that information and coming to conclusions” (Myers, 1998, p. 6). Judgers can be used best to organize team purposes into logical mission statements. They can create systematic and scheduled action plans for group procedure. A leader can use these members to make the final decision for evaluation.
Since perceivers are spontaneous, flexible, and would much rather experience than control, a team leader could empower them for marketing the team’s purpose and vision casting. They can handle any unforeseen events within the performance context, and their spontaneity could seize any unanticipated needs for mid-stream evaluation. Colin Powell’s judgment would be a useful asset on a team that needs control, and Walt Disney’s unique perception of reality could provide the flexibility for that team’s success.
Since teams are composed of people who often vary widely in personality types, it behooves a team leader to draw out the strengths of each member’s type. Rather than run away from opposite personalities, an effective team building strategy is to celebrate and combine those differences and infuse their strengths into a complementary team. Although the world may never see a team with such stark differences as Madonna and Mother Theresa, a leader can harness and harmonize such individual strengths for a team that is stronger than just one member’s type. Do you know your own team members’ personality preferences? How could you use them to make your team stronger?
References
Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. New York: Harper Collins.
Know Your Type. (2002). Famous types. Retrieved May 14, 2002, from http://www.knowyourtype.com/famous.html
Myers, I.B. (1998). Introduction to type (6th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
No comments:
Post a Comment