BIRKBECK COLLEGE

University of London

School of Business, Economics and Informatics

Department of Organisational Psychology

MSc in Management Consultancy and Organisational Change

“Building team effectiveness through psychometric profiling. A scientific reality?”

Sascha Michel

12819975

29th August 2012

ID No 12819975

I certify that the work submitted herewith is my own and that I have duly acknowledged any

quotation from the published or unpublished work of other persons.

Signature of Candidate: Date: 29th August 2013

WORD COUNT: 11940

(Excluding executive summary and references)

ID No 12819975

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge and thank the following important people who have supported me, not

only during the course of this project, but throughout my Masters degree.

Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Alistair Cummings, for his

unwavering support, guidance and insight throughout this research project.

I would also like to thank Stewart Desson from Lumina Learning. Without access to his network,

this research would not have been possible. Stewart's encouragement and belief in what he does has

inspired me.

And finally, I would like to thank all my close friends and family. You have all encouraged and

believed in me. You have all helped me to focus on what has been a hugely rewarding and

enriching process.

ID No 12819975

Executive Summary

In this digital age of advancing technologies and rapid change, successful organisational outcomes

are highly dependant on building teams that can work effectively cross-functionally and ‘virtually’,

across many different cultures. Teams consist of people with different skills, roles and personality

differences. Understanding more about individual differences and how personality impacts on team

effectiveness is becoming an ongoing research priority. A growing trend towards psychometric

profiling has emerged, as organisations look to build high-performing teams, that honour diversity,

resolve conflict and drive a performance objective. There has been extensive research focus on

proving psychometric tool validity, but little has been undertaken in understanding the practical

implications from a qualitative perspective. Given the rise of psychometric profiling use and the

importance of high performing teams, this research aims to:

Explore the impact of psychometric profiling on team effectiveness.

Determine if psychometric profiling can improve and maintain team effectiveness over the

longer term.

Evaluate the role of context in establishing an enduring view of psychometrics and personality

trait theory.

Formulate recommendations for the practical use of psychometric profiling as a determining

factor in team effectiveness.

The research methods consisted of a wide review of relevant literature on team effectiveness,

personality and psychometric profiling, coupled with the collection and analysis of qualitative

empirical data. The latter is based on thematic analysis of narrative interviews taken from a sample

of 12 individuals working in organisational teams across the UK, Slovakia, Canada and the USA.

The key outcomes of the results are:

Psychometric profiling impacts team effectiveness by way of a sequential process of

development, through individual ‘awareness’ creating environments for ‘openness’. This

leads to improvements in communication and collaboration.

ID No 12819975

Psychometric profiling provides individuals with a framework or ‘common language’, from

which to facilitate different approaches to conflict, difficult personalities and complex

situations.

Revisiting psychometric profiling repeatedly over the longer term ensures profiles are at the

forefront of an organisation, greatly improving and maintaining team effectiveness.

As a predictor for future change, psychometric profiling is a valid tool for improving team

effectiveness overall, even when profiling is conducted out of context or in a ‘laboratory’

setting.

The research concludes with key recommendations for ensuring psychometric profiling improves

team effectiveness over the longer term. As team effectiveness has become an important factor for

helping organisations to deal with the pace of change in uncertainty, developing proficiency in this

area is vital. Ensuring longer-term viability of psychometric profiling is paramount. The research

concludes with suggestions for further research.

ID No 12819975

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Research introduction 11.2. Research context 21.3. Overall research aims and individual objectives 3

2.1. Literature Review 5

2.1.1. Groups and teams 52.1.1.1. Groups 52.1.1.2. Workgroups to teams 5

2.1.2. Team effectiveness 72.1.2.1. Teams and performance 72.1.2.2. Models of team effectiveness 7

2.1.2.2.1 A process of team development 82.1.2.2.2. Functional and underlying models 92.1.2.2.3. Leadership, learning and mental models 102.1.2.2.4. A critical perspective 10

2.1.3. Teams and Personality 112.1.3.1. Personality and individual differences in teams 112.1.3.2. The five factors of personality 122.1.3.3. Understanding personality through psychometric profiling 13

3.1. Research Design and Methodology 15

3.1.1. Overview and approach 153.1.2. Data gathering and design 153.1.3. Sampling selection 163.1.4. Data collection 173.1.5. Qualitative data analysis 173.1.6. Methodological assumptions and limitations 183.1.7. Ethical considerations 19

4. Interview findings: Description, analysis and synthesis 20

4.1. Key team issues that impact on team effectiveness 204.2. A process of awareness 224.3. Understanding, awareness and individual differences 234.4. Indicating factors for improvement 24

4.4.1. Openness 244.4.2. Communication 254.4.3. Collaboration 25

4.5. Indicating factors for a framework of action 264.5.1. Different approaches 274.5.2. A Common language 27

4.6. Embedded learning over the longer term 284.7. Summary of findings 30

ID No 12819975

5. Discussion 31

5.1. Research objectives: Summary of findings and conclusions 315.2. The impact of psychometric profiling on team effectiveness 315.3. Improving and maintaining team effectiveness over the longer term 335.4. The role of context 34

6. Recommendations and suggestions for further research 35

7. Research limitations 36

8. Summary and conclusion 37

References 38

Appendices 41

ID No 12819975

Table of figures

Figure 1. Workgroups and teams 6Figure 2. Stages of Group Development 8Figure 3. Building effective teams 9Figure 4. Highest number of coded reference sources under team issues 20Figure 5. Highest number of coded source references post psychometric 22Figure 6. Highest number of coded references by respondent under the category awareness 23Figure 7 Highest number of coded references by respondent under the category improvements 24Figure 8. Highest number of coded references by respondents under the category new actions 26Figure 9. Highest number of coded source references under situational aspects 28Figure 10. Highest number of coded references over time under situational aspects 29Figure 11. Highest number of coded references over time under improvements 29

1. Introduction

1.1 Research introduction

As advancing technologies redefine the way we do business, organisations face fierce competition

in rapidly changing global landscapes. Virtual team-working and ‘cloud’ technologies are becoming

the norm, moving away from hierarchical structures. It is imperative for organisations to remain

competitive and deal with the pace of change, building cultures that foster collaboration and honour

diversity. At the heart of organisations are teams made up of individuals. Teams come together

cross-functionally, from different countries, backgrounds and cultures, yet with a need to be

effective, flexible and adaptive in how they deal with conflict and differences (Devine et al., 1999).

The value of teams working effectively is that organisations can adapt to uncertainty, focusing their

efforts to handle tasks more efficiently, as well as fulfilling employees’ social needs for interaction

and satisfaction (Riketta and van Dick 2005, cited in Richter et al., 2011).

To stay competitive in these dynamic times, organisations need teams to work effectively to enable

more rapid, flexible and adaptive responses to the unexpected (Katzenbach, 1994; Kozlowski and

Ilgen, 2006). Thus, research on team performance and personality is an ongoing priority (O’Neill

and Allen, 2011). Teams consist of individuals who bring different skills, personalities and unique

individual differences. Personalities imposed by situational and social variables can directly and

powerfully affect how teams function (Heslin, 1964; Moynihan and Peterson, 2001). Personality is

also becoming an important factor for accounting how employees behave in groups, strongly

affecting the way people work together in organisations (Jarzabkowski and Searle, 2004; Moynihan

and Peterson, 2001). Without mutual respect and a collaborative environment of shared

understanding, uncertainty and conflict rises, with the certain demise of the team fabric.

Although organisations may desire to build cohesive teams, interpersonal conflict and unexpected

behaviours are very difficult to manage. Overcoming these issues and reducing conflict can improve

interpersonal relations and improve team effectiveness, but only if individuals come to

accommodate each other’s differences (De Dreu and Van Vianen, 2001; Jarzabkowski and Searle,

2004). There are limits to human flexibility. Individuals find certain structures and operational

arrangements more congenial than others, and maximising organisational outcomes requires

ID No 12819975 1

knowing something about people, which means knowing something about personality (Schneider

and Smith, 2004).

1.2. Research context

Psychometric profiling offers organisations a way to unearth individual differences and measure

personality, creating a common language, from which employees can realise that someone who is

different is no less valuable (Varvel et al., 2004). Kline (1997) defines the psychometric model of

personality as the sum of an individual’s traits, an all-embracing view of behaviour, quantifiable

through rigorous sampling, statistical and factor analysis. Following decades of research in this area

of personality, a general consensus has been reached (see Digman, 1989; 1990, Goldberg, 1990,

Pervin and John, 1999) on a set of five personality dimensions called the ‘Big Five’ or five factor

model (FFM), from which we can measure all individual personality differences.

Despite many having a critical standpoint of FFM, relating to its descriptive and static view of

personality (see Pervin, 1994; Block, 1995a; b; Epstein, 2010), a plethora of FFM questionnaires

have been commissioned and implemented by leading organisations around the world, including

L’Oreal, Coca Cola, Pfizer, Adidas, Santander, British Airways and Goldman Sachs to name a few

(Lumina, 2012). Notwithstanding the critical views of this approach, much of the previous research

(see Digman, 1989; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; Goldberg, 1992; Block, 1995a;b; Epstein,

2010; Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011) in understanding personality in teams and psychometrics has

been about proving theories, factorisation and tool validity, rather than the impact on individuals in

organisations. Not much qualitative research, with the exception of McCrae and Costa (1987), has

been conducted on the perceptions, experiences and stories of those working in teams. This is

crucial to our understanding of teams, as members are exposed directly to personality conflict and

change. Teams are regularly under stress and the experience of individual members could shed light

on the real impact and validity for personality profiling. This study bridges this gap by exploring to

what extent FFM psychometric tools, from the perspective and experiences of individuals within a

team, help to resolve differences and improve team effectiveness overall.

ID No 12819975 2

If FFM personality profiling theories are effective even in uncertain dynamics of teams, then this

research could further support in reaching consensus on the validity of personality assessment. As

highlighted in the work of Block (1995) and Pervin (1994), there is also scope to evolve our

understanding regarding context and the situational aspects of traits and behaviour, to see whether

trait awareness in itself is enough to embed significant longer term learning and development. The

question is then, not only how personality and psychometric profiling impacts teams and

individuals, but also whether this awareness manifests itself in times of difficulty and change in the

longer term.

1.3. Overall research aims and individual objectives

The overall aim of this research is to advance an understanding of the impact of psychometric

personality profiling on team effectiveness and to explore this through qualitative study. In order to

understand how psychometric profiling impacts teams, it is necessary to gain an understanding of

groups and teams, what constitutes team effectiveness and the role of personality. To make sense of

the underlying dynamics of teams and personality, it is important to also take a critical view of

personality theory, the ‘five factor’ model and psychometrics. This dissertation will cover an in-

depth review of the relevant literature and the collection and analysis of qualitative interview data.

The section entitled research, design and methodology will cover the research strategy, data

collection techniques and analysis used to obtain and synthesise the research data. The proceeding

chapters will focus on the findings, discussions, conclusions and recommendations. The research

will focus on the following objectives:

1. Outline the theory, models and frameworks for defining team effectiveness.

2. Critically evaluate the ‘five factor’ trait theory of personality dimensions and the science of

psychometrics.

3. Explore the effect of psychometric profiling on team effectiveness.

4. Determine if psychometric profiling can improve and maintain team effectiveness over the

longer term.

5. Evaluate the role of context in establishing an enduring view of psychometrics and

personality trait theory.

6. Formulate recommendations for the practical use of psychometric profiling as a determining

factor for team effectiveness.

ID No 12819975 3

The first two objectives provide a critical overview of the relevant theory and literature; helping to

provide definitions, key historical and most recent theoretical underpinnings of teams, personality

and psychometric profiling. This understanding sets the context from which to explore, critically,

the qualitative research data, the impacts (objective 3), over time (objective 4) and the role of

context (objective 5) for psychometric profiling in teams. The research will contribute and evolve

our understanding of the nature of teams. This will help to demystify the role of personality and

psychometric profiling and the effect it has on building team effectiveness. The following chapter

examines the relevant literature pertinent to the objectives of this research, starting with an

investigation into groups, teams and models or theories that define team effectiveness.

ID No 12819975 4

2.1. Literature Review

2.1.1. Groups and teams

2.1.1.1. Groups

People use the word ‘team’ loosely and synonymously with groups. The ability to be precise about

what a team is and what it isn’t can help to understand more about team effectiveness and the role

of personality (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Wheelan, 2010). An entire workforce of a large or

complex organisation is never a team. Groups do not become teams just because that is what

someone calls them, however, that is often the case (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). Bass (1960 cited

in Adair, 1987) defines a group as a collection of individuals, who do not have to share common

goals or roles, shared behaviours or interactions. All groups (like persons), however, are individual

and develop ‘group personality’ over time, sharing certain basic common needs.

Workgroups, on the other hand, are deeply rooted in social experience. They are formed around

common task; defined membership, interdependence of goals and results, shared knowledge,

effective in organisations where individual accountability is important (Adair, 1987; Katzenbach

and Smith, 1993). A unified team, with established goals, can lead to significant performance gains.

The trick then is to learn more “about how workgroups function so that we can increase the chances

that work groups will become high performance teams” (Wheelan, 2010, pg.3).

2.1.1.2. Workgroups to teams

The key differences between a working group and a team is that team members share collective

purposes, leadership roles, supporting environment of mutual contributions, away from ‘silo’ or

individual group working for performance (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993) (see figure 1).

ID No 12819975 5

Figure 1. Workgroups and teams

Teams are the basic unit of performance in organisations. They require the combination of multiple

skills, experiences and judgements, getting better results than a collection of individuals

(Katzenbach and Smith, 2005). Teams can empower individuals to utilise their skills, allowing

managers to focus on strategic issues, rather than supervising, thus enabling them to improve

productivity (Christopher et al., 2003). Teams are seen as the “best way for marrying the fulfilment

of fundamental individual psychological needs with the managerial requirement for more

flexibility”, with less down time and more self-regulation (Fincham and Rhodes, 1999, Pg.209).

Although team members are committed to one another, driven by the pursuit of demanding

performance challenges, this does not mean that teams are void of interpersonal challenges

(Katzenbach and Smith, 2005). Members can be supportive and helpful to the extent that protecting

feelings becomes more important than getting things done. Nevertheless, real teams do not have to

get along. They get things accomplished and seldom seek consensus (Katzenbach, 1994).

Interestingly, consensus may happen now and then, but it is not the litmus test for a team's

performance (Katzenbach, 1994).

2.1.2. Team effectiveness

2.1.2.1. Teams and performance

Team effectiveness matters to individuals and organisations. Rapidly changing structures of work

and interdependence of life in the global society has increased the importance of teams. This

highlights the need for designing teams that can facilitate the highest levels of performance

(Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006).

Effective teams unify around a common purpose, negotiating difficulties and challenges of the day,

with members feeling supported, honoured and respected for their contributions. Hackman (1990)

invigorates further, defining effectiveness as being formed around the quality of team outcomes,

performance and the perceived satisfaction of the needs of team members. Whilst there is a need to

deliver performance objectives, there is also a responsibility of individual personalities to satisfy

ID No 12819975 6

each other’s human needs and values, linked to backgrounds, cultures, and individual differences.

However, contributions are not evaluated on personality alone and the teams that succeeded are the

ones that recognise how each person can contribute to team goals (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993).

How well a team performs is dependent on how they strive towards goals,

resolve task demands, coordinate effort and adapt to the unexpected

(Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). Team performance output has three facets; a)

performance judged by relevant others external to the team, (b) meeting of

team member needs and (c) viability, or the willingness of members to remain

in the team (Hackman, 1987 cited in Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006).

2.1.2.2. Models of team effectiveness

While performance output for teams is an organisational imperative, achieving effectiveness or

‘getting there’, dominates much of the literature surrounding teams. Key research in the field of

team effectiveness covers an enormous array of different models and perspectives. These include;

stages of team development processes, setting functional goals or structures around roles and

activities, as well as the more ‘messy’ underlying learning and mental models at the behavioural

and social level.

2.1.2.2.1 A process of team development

Many writers suggest a common process of development that groups or teams need to pass through

in order to reach effectiveness (see Tuckman, 1965; Adair, 1987; Fincham and Rhodes, 1999). This

process develops through interactions or changes in the flow of activities, established through active

involvement of its members. Teams essentially go through four stages of development, including

forming, storming, norming, performing (see figure 2).

Figure 2. Stages of Group Development

ID No 12819975 7

Successfully progressing through these stages is dependent on the stability of group membership

and the ability of members to resolve interpersonal difficulties (Fincham and Rhodes, 1999). While

these perspectives are helpful in our understanding of group processes, they do not provide any

practical solutions on how to resolve conflict and move forward through the process of ‘storming’,

ensuring teams achieve ‘performing’ objectives.

2.1.2.2.2. Functional and underlying models

Building team effectiveness can be dependent on a number of functional factors. These include;

setting specific performance and purpose related goals (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Hackman,

1990), committing fully to the task and understanding the task characteristics (Hirokawa, Cathcart,

Samovar, & Henman, 2003; Fransen et al., 2011; Katzenbach and Smith, 1994), composing or

designing teams based on the right abilities and roles (Hackman, 1990; Day et al., 2004; Belbin,

2000; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006), and ensuring the correct structure to generate feedback

(Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). Salas, Sims, and Burke (2005), suggest a set of more ‘social’ factors

for building team effectiveness, such as; team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup

behaviour adaptability, team orientation, as well as coordinating shared mental models, closed-loop

communication and mutual trust. This reflects the competencies (knowledge, skills, abilities) that

members need toward the more underlying behaviours and attitudes, to achieve team effectiveness

(Day et al., 2004). While efforts have been made to understand the underpinnings of performance,

as behaviour (see Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006), the emerging theories support the ‘underlying’

aspects as key leverage points for enhancing team effectiveness (see figure 3).

Figure 3. Building effective teams

ID No 12819975 8

2.1.2.2.3. Leadership, learning and mental models

Team leadership is important when complex and adaptive challenges are experienced. It’s

imperative to have a leader who can define team goals in response to team needs (Day et al., 2004).

Strong Norms and operating procedures promoting interdependence can integrate contributions and

promote positive team performance (Gully et al., 2002; Katz-Navon and Erez, 2005; Zaccaro et al.,

2001). Team learning enhances performance, because individuals, rather than organisations, are the

fundamental learning unit in modern organisations. Continual learning into work processes and

sharing of knowledge, enhances team performance (Christopher et al., 2003; Senge, 2006;

Decuyper et al., 2010). Mental models describe an awareness of team functioning, and the expected

behaviours of both the team and its members, in relation to each other (Fransen et al., 2011). With

well-developed mental models, team members may be better able to anticipate each other’s actions

and reduce the amount of communication required for team performance, especially in complex,

ambiguous environments (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993; Zaccaro et al., 2001). Mutual trust along

with mental models can be shared between members at the team (i.e. social) and task (i.e. cognitive)

levels, protecting the interest of all-important actions and allowing the sharing of information

freely. However, too much time spent on protecting, checking and inspecting behaviours, rather

than collaborating, can reduce mutual trust (Fransen et al., 2011). Finally, interpersonal skills pave

the way for members to develop effective communication and constructive conflict, in how they

interact with each other. This includes helpful criticism, objectivity, active listening, feedback, and

when to step in and change behaviour, in response to the needs of the team (Cannon-bowers et al,

1993, cited in Zaccaro et al., 2001; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993).

2.1.2.2.4. A critical perspective

When we investigate team effectiveness through the lens of behaviour in ‘social’ systems, this

challenges the orthodoxy for the more traditional perspectives. A simple list of functional

approaches, which many advocate, don't account for the unknown, ‘messy’ and unpredictable

environments, which lead to variances of member responses to behaviour. Interestingly, Hackman

(1990) validates further, suggesting we focus on conditions rather than managing behaviour.

ID No 12819975 9

Equally, not all performance strategies will work for all groups. Higher performance levels carry

greater risk to deep-seated individualism and the reluctance to trust one’s fate to the commitment of

another (Hackman, 1990; Katzenbach and Smith, 1994). The tension felt between commitment,

trust and individualism, accounts for members not being fully aware of each other, directly linking

to personality, which drive group process and team behaviour.

The array of models above are useful for defining team effectiveness, but they

do not go far enough to deal with arising tension and conflict, when

personalities collide. The models also fail to specify the ‘teamwork’ or practical

frameworks, which teams can use to navigate challenges (Gully et al., 2002).

There is little research looking at the interaction of personalities in relation to

team effectiveness (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997), and current theories are

prescriptive, based on case studies that have little empirical evidence to

support them (Furnham, 1995). Naturally, to understand more about this

relationship between personality and team effectiveness, one needs to delve

further into current theory in relation to teams and personality.

2.1.3. Teams and Personality

2.1.3.1. Personality and individual differences in teams

Personality is an important factor for determining team effectiveness. Organisations that want to

develop effective teams need to “analyse personality-type compositions, help individuals to

understand their own personal attributes as well as appreciate the contribution of the other team

members” (Bradley and Herbert, 1997, pg.8). Personality is the sum of an individual’s traits,

explaining behaviour, the essence of a person and a pattern of enduring ways in which a person

thinks and feels, equivalent also to personal reputation, being perceived by others along with

stylistic consistencies in behaviour, reflecting inner structures or processes (Furnham, 1995; Kline

1997; Allport, 1937, cited in Moynihan and Peterson, 2001; Pervin, 1980, cited in Moynihan and

Peterson, 2001; Schneider and Smith, 2004).

Personality is also an influencing factor in the way that members relate to each other, indirectly

effecting group (i.e. collaboration), team level and emergent state (i.e. cohesion) processes

ID No 12819975 10

substantially (Heslin, 1964; Barry and Stewart, 1997; Moynihan and Peterson, 2001; LePine et al.,

2011; O'Neill and Allen, 2011). Certain traits in personality are known to be linked to job

performance, due to the interactive nature of work and the emphasis on social functioning (Barrick

& Mount, 1991, cited in O'Neill and Allen, 2011; LePine et al., 2011).

There is also clear evidence of a link between personality and social behaviour, which can

positively affect group processes (see Heslin, 1964; Lord et al., 1986; Toegel and Barsoux, 2012),

and “what goes on at work is formally identical to what goes on in life” (Schneider and Smith,

2004, pg.13). Hogan (1991, cited in Toegel and Barsoux, 2012) argues that the propensity for a

person to behave in a certain manner and successfully interact with others is a function of

personality. Using the personality trait approach to understanding teams enlivens our ability to

distinguish between those traits that we all share and those that are dissimilar. As team members

gain familiarity of their individual differences, they come to accommodate each other, which is an

important strategic capacity linked to performance (Heslin, 1964; Jarzabkowski and Searle, 2004).

Bradley and Herbert (1997) elaborate, suggesting a balance of these differences or personality

types, toward greater team effectiveness. Although the personality trait view suggested here creates

greater team effectiveness, there are a number of critical standpoints, which need to be addressed.

Toehel and Barsoux (2012) warn that traits, effective in one context, may become redundant or

counterproductive, when situations change. Some researches such as Pervin (1994), Kenrick and

Funder (1991, cited in Schneider and Smith, 2004), and Varvel et al (2004) agree that a trait model

cannot predict performance in teams; as it presents a static view of the individual, predicts

behaviour only in relevant situations, expressed in some situations rather than others and is matched

to situations by people who choose different settings. Critics aside, the research has forged on

regardless, towards a general consensus for defining personality and a validating theory for

successful assessment.

2.1.3.2. The five factors of personality

Following decades of research in the area of personality, a general consensus has been reached on a

set of five overarching dimensions or Five Factor Model (FFM), from which we can describe

personality and its structure (McCrae and Costa, 1987; Digman, 1989; 1990; Goldberg, 1990; 1992;

1997; Pervin and John, 1999). FFM developed over 60 years of factor-analytic studies, derived

ID No 12819975 11

from everyday language that people use to describe each other, starting with a master list of nearly

18,000 personality descriptors, boiled down to a few fundamental ones (Toegel and Barsoux, 2012).

The five dimensions are known as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional

stability or Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience (Digman, 1989; van Vianen and De Dreu,

2001). McCrae (2010) goes on to elevate the basic tendencies of FFM, conceptualising the

dynamics of personality as, occurring (a) over time, interacting with the environment to create

characteristic adaptations, and (b) at any given moment, interacting with the environment to

produce behaviours and experiences.

Validation of the FFM approach offers a “broad-based, empirically manageable, and demonstrably

relevant avenue for examining personality in work organisations” and part of its appeal is in

suggesting consistent relationships between FFM and job performance (Barry and Stewart, 1997,

pg.63). These dimensions can be measured, with high reliability and impressive validity, answering

to the question of personality structure (Goldman, 1990). Whilst the rhetoric here is about an

undeniable, quantifiable system for synthesising personality traits into a few general ones, this does

raise the question around the fundamental nature of trait theory, being a static view of behaviour,

disregarding context and the dynamic nature of personality.

Epstein (2010) calls for FFM to be measured on different occasions or context, and that too much of

a static description versus the emotional, is way short of providing a foundation for a complete

theory. Block (1995a,b), McAdams (1992) and Pervin (1994), argue for a more conceptual view of

FFM, questioning whether in its current ideology of static or typical behaviour, is able to capture

the dynamics of personality and account for exceptions in general traits effected by unusual

situations. If so, how does trait awareness manifest itself in atypical organisational situations?

Contrary to critical views, FFM underpins many of the most recent psychometric tools used to

measure personality. Together with this resurgence in research, psychometric profiling has seen a

major uptake in organisations as a determining factor for driving higher performing teams (see

Lumina Learning, 2012).

2.1.3.3. Understanding personality through psychometric profiling

ID No 12819975 12

Building effective teams is dependent upon members being able to clearly recognise and adjust

themselves to different personalities, qualities and strengths in a team (Belbin, 2004). If there were

no means to asses personality in teams, then individuals could perceive traits that differ from their

own as threatening rather than trustworthy, while shunning ambiguity and resorting to stereotypes

(Moss et al., 2007). Psychometric profiling currently offers organisations the best way to obtain

valuable knowledge about different personalities, quantifiable through decades of research, large

sampling and rigorous statistical analysis (Kline, 1997). Musselwhite (2012) urges for regular

assessment, enabling self-awareness about similarities and differences, ‘to let us see blind spots’,

intentions and behaviours, creating cultures of feedback, reflection and learning. In turn, building

synergy and trust in teams. Positives aside, there are a number of critical issues that relate to the

field of psychometric profiling.

According to Buss (1989, cited in Fontana, 2000), it is difficult to assess for how people will behave

in situations. Personality is not enduring or consistent, but rather fluctuating, as people move from

one environment to another (Fontana, 2000). Also candidates can ‘fake good’, showing themselves

in the best possible light, with work-related behaviour being determined by both personality and

contextual factors (Fontana, 2000; Schneider and Smith, 2004). Talleni (1987) urges caution,

because the skills needed as an assessor to identify counter transference as part of the data to be

interpreted, is not within the capacity of a computer. Finally, Toegel and Barsoux (2012, pg.58)

shed light on individuals’ ability to move beyond what a psychometric tool may suggest, taking a

more adaptive stance, saying “we are not prisoners of our personalities. Personality is about

preferences-preferred ways of behaving-and we can behave in ways that run contrary to our

personality”.

While these views raise some doubt, this has not impacted on the demand for psychometric use in

organisations. Many FFM questionnaires have been developed and used by leading organisations.

These include the revised NEO-PI, Big Five Inventory, Insights Discovery Model, Goldberg’s 100-

trait descriptive adjectives and Lumina Spark (Goldberg, 1992; Pervin and John, 1999; Lumina

Learning, 2012). With the importance of understanding more about personality in teams and the

emerging trend for the use of psychometric profiling, this research aims to advance a deeper

understanding of the impact of psychometric profiling on team effectiveness. Using qualitative

methods, this research also explores the role of context and whether personality profiling improves

and maintains team effectiveness over the longer term too.

ID No 12819975 13

3.1. Research Design and Methodology

3.1.1. Overview and approach

The researcher has proposed a qualitative research design strategy for this research, using narrative

thematic analysis based on grounded theory. The aim is to understand how different personalities or

individuals in teams make sense of themselves and each other, and to what effect this impacts on

team effectiveness post psychometric profiling (Maxwell, 1996; Biggam, 2011). The first stage of

the strategy is narrative or story telling design, forming the basis from which to conduct interviews

and gather research data. This approach is used to develop real life scenarios and social situations,

accounting for the different personalities found in teams. From a situational standpoint, narrative

can help to establish how people order events, episodes and place meaning to action (Riessman,

1993). These accounts help to establish the context and situational aspects to explore the validity of

psychometric profiling over the longer term. The final stage of the research design strategy is data

analysis. Once all the data is collected, a thematic analysis takes place, applying grounded theory to

the coding of themes and categories, forming an interpretive conceptual framework. This chapter

will cover in detail the strategy and approach, starting with the data gathering design, collection,

sampling selection, analysis, limitations and ethical issues.

3.1.2. Data gathering and design

Using a narrative approach to interview design, the researcher is aiming to understand how people

subjectively make sense of themselves and each other in socially dynamic and ambiguous

environments i.e. teams (Cassell and Symon, 2004). This approach is firmly rooted in the

interpretive epistemological perspective, which, through a dynamic process of social interaction,

different groups come to create different worlds, which are presumed not to be static (Cassell and

Symon, 2004). As part of the process of interpreting the interview findings, the researcher will need

to understand that people conduct narrative accounts as part of a sensemaking process, preserving

information and creating meaning, by way of telling stories (Gabriel et al., 2010). Retrospectively,

these stories will give accounts for specific situations, which exhibit different or difficult

ID No 12819975 14

personalities within teams, as well as the changes experienced from the perspective of the

protagonists.

3.1.3. Sampling selection

The data was taken from a sample of 12 individuals, who currently work in a number of

organisations in the UK, Slovakia, Canada and the United States (see Appendix D). Respondents

were selected as either being a manager, leader or member of a team, all of whom have taken part in

a facilitated FFM psychometric assessment. Respondents were selected with the support of Lumina

Learning, who developed the ‘Lumina Spark’ psychometric profiling tool. Although there are

particular features of the tool that its publishers highlight as distinguishing it from other

competitors, it is, in terms of using it for this research investigation, a typical and representative

FFM tool, following the same theoretical foundations as many others. Rather than focus on the tool

itself, the researcher made special attention to investigate psychometrics, broadly and generally,

hence not quantifying tool validity. Furthermore, the researcher ensured respondents were selected

as having recently taken an assessment, as well as those that completed one in no less than 12

months prior. The purpose is to explore context and situational aspects over the longer term.

To ensure objectivity and minimal bias, the respondents have had no previous relationship with the

researcher. The sampling approach was one of non-probability, known as convenience sampling.

While it cannot be claimed to be fully representative of the larger population, this form of sampling

can be acceptable in exploratory research, as the ideas and insights learned can lead to more

detailed and representative research (Biggam, 2011). The researcher was able to gain access to

respondents indirectly, with the support of Lumina learning and their accredited practitioners. The

participants that came forward did so voluntarily, while stressing an interest in the research. It is

likely, given their keen interest for taking part, that respondents had a strong view of psychometrics

and had something to talk about. One can assume that this raises the issue of bias, linked to the

possibility of respondents having a positive view of psychometric profiling.

ID No 12819975 15

3.1.4. Data collection

Semi-structured, open-ended interviews took place and with prior consent, were recorded and

transcribed. The interviews were designed to extract stories, covering broad situational and personal

themes, introduced first by establishing trust, through introduction and gathering facts (see

interview design Appendix E). Respondents were asked to give their account of personal

experiences of working in teams, exploring different and difficult team situations, behaviours and

change scenarios. This was done to establish the context’, before and after assessment. Following

this approach of facilitating context and open-ended storytelling exploration, as Reissman (1993)

suggests, evokes narrative and reveals important moments, encouraging respondents to ‘let it all

out’. The challenge of this approach, however, is making sure respondents don't veer too far from

the research questions. To counteract this, the researcher ensured that the facilitation was guided by

the research themes. This entailed active listening and questioning in order to navigate each

interview. No interview was the same, and this approach of ‘not asking direct questions for opinion

or attitudes’ but rather ‘what happened before, after, and then?’ ensured an effective storytelling

technique, while still having a goal in mind (Resissman, 1993; Bauer 1996; Czarniawska, 2000).

3.1.5. Qualitative data analysis

The researcher opted for a CAQDAS program called Nvivo, in order to systematically develop

themes within the data set, to aid continuity, increase methodological rigour and provide clear and

transparent tables for reporting (Saunders, 2000). An inductive, grounded theory approach to

thematic analysis was used, in order to promote explorations of themes and codes as they

developed, from which to create a conceptual framework. The aim was to generate a descriptive

theory or framework, from which to explore the impact of psychometrics on team effectiveness and

the issues of context.

First, the data was read, imported into Nvivo and then read again systematically in order to develop

themes or codes as they emerged. The process of developing these themes is known as ‘open

coding’, where the data is desegregated into conceptual units and provided with labels, meaning the

analytical process can develop towards a more manageable and focused research project (Saunders,

2000; Mason, 2002). This process is based on Grounded Theory, which starts from uncovering the

ID No 12819975 16

conceptual scheme in a contextual way, without any predetermined theory or framework (Biggam,

2011). In practice, however, the labelling of themes was influenced deductively from what

respondents had said and what arose from the literature review (Saunders, 2000). The themes were

then organised into integrative categories, which through a rigorous process of many rounds of

analysis of the transcriptions and themes, were developed further and refined to describe the

impacts, before and after assessment, situationally over time. The resulting thematic framework is

represented in descending order of importance in Appendix F.

The final stage of analysis involved developing a comparative method to analyse the data. The

researcher created a flow chart for each respondent and in turn, diagrammatically linking all themes

for each respondent, according to their relationship to each of the top-level categories, as depicted

in Nvivo. This allowed the researcher to analyse and explore relationships between themes and

categories, from the perspective of a system or process view (see Appendix G).

3.1.6. Methodological assumptions and limitations

A narrative approach to interview data collection assumes that people make sense of reality

socially. Riessman (1993, Pg. 3) suggests that narrative is an everyday part of life and if not

interrupted, respondents ‘hold the floor for lengthy turns and sometimes organise replies into long

stories’. On the contrary, the experience of the researcher was that some respondents found it easier

to elaborate than others about situations in their organisations, sometimes providing very concise

accounts. In these cases it required the researcher to listen deeply and to revert to a set of more

structured questions, to help extract narrative accounts, deviating from the traditional narrative

form. The researcher adapted the approach midway through the data collection phase in order to

ensure that all research questions could be answered for each respondent, using a more hybrid

approach.

For future research, it may help to consider ways in which to prepare respondents for narrative

study, i.e. giving respondents time to prepare beforehand and making clear the intentions and

expectations of evoking stories. Narrative in its purest form may better suit an investigation of

specific crisis and trauma situations in organisations. Although it is becoming more frequently used

in organisations, narrative interview is still in its infancy. Data collected in semi-structured

ID No 12819975 17

interviews require less accuracy and are often less important than the established points symbolise

(Gabriel and Griffiths, 2004, cited by Saunders et al., 2000).

Finally, it was mentioned in the section on sample selection, that there could be a slight potential for

bias with the research findings. The results in this research are limited by the fact that respondents

might have a predisposed positive view on the impact of psychometric profiling, and this could

distort the final conclusions.

3.1.7. Ethical considerations

The researcher has given serious consideration to ethics and how this might limit or influence the

overall research design and methodology. Human participants were the focus of the empirical

research, with the core principles of transparency, confidentiality, voluntary and impartiality having

been considered (Biggam, 2011). All participants were issued consent forms and information packs

prior to the interviews. The purpose of the research was clearly explained and respondents were

given adequate time to respond with questions. Involvement in this research was voluntary.

Participants were able to withdraw at any time and refrain from answering any questions.

Confidentiality and anonymity was discussed at the beginning of each interview. It was agreed that

all results, discussions and findings, remain only within the domain of the researcher. Participants

were informed that instead of using names, each would be assigned a unique respondent reference

code. Finally, the researcher aimed for impartiality, conducting interviews only with participants

with whom no coaching, facilitation or working relationship had been conducted in the past.

ID No 12819975 18

4. Interview findings: Description, analysis and synthesis

This chapter reveals the findings from the interviews as described in Research Design and

Methodology. These findings shall introduce each of the themes as they evolved during analysis.

These themes outline the environment before psychometric profiling, the impact on teams, and how

context plays its part in enabling embedded learning. The gathering of empirical data for this

research is based on exploratory interview and to allow analysis of the results in a set context. To

maintain confidentially, all reference to respondents and their companies will remain anonymous.

Any reference to respondents follows the classification index depicted in Appendix D. Analysis of

the interviews helped to build a thematic map (see Appendix F), representing themes in descending

order. The top-level themes accumulated the highest number of coded source references for each of

the different categories. This thematic map offers an overall reference point for each of the

subsections of this chapter.

4.1. Key team issues that impact on team effectiveness

This section covers the findings that arose through comparative analysis of the

state of team environments before personality profiling was carried out. The

main issues that individuals and teams experienced were big ‘larger than’

personalities, issues relating to communication, opposing

Figure 4. Highest number of coded reference sources under team issues

ID No 12819975 19

objectives, and tensions created between different teams and departments.

Figure 4 shows the total number of coded references found for each of these

issues or themes. The themes in red highlight the highest count of coded

references, while those in green highlight the least. The highest numbers of

coded references were found for the theme ‘Big Personalities’. These results show

that ‘big personalities’ have an impact on team effectiveness. Team members feel threatened and if

directed in the wrong way, cause friction and disturbance in the team. Members can resort to non-

compliance techniques, which in turn lower the ability for teams to work well together and achieve

their goals. Respondent 10 captures this succinctly,

“There was a person in risk who really was a little bit, I wouldn't say bullying, but a bit

assertive. He liked to cross his level of boundaries and was doing stuff that was not his job.

He was giving messages to his peers and people in my area that was not the right tone.

Nobody wanted to work with him, in a way his approach was unpleasant and everyone

wanted to avoid him. He always created an issue in terms of how he shared information

and always pushed himself in the foreground rather than being a bit more humble”.

This reflects what Moss et al (2007) and Moyniham and Peterson (2001) describe: that people

perceive others within a group with traits dissimilar to their own as a potential threat, and that

people are less inclined to like someone who does no share similar personality to others in the

group, leading to performance defects. Tuckman (1965), Adair (1987), Fincham and Rhodes

(1999) also refer to this stage of team development, when members begin to build norms of

understanding through conflict or ‘storming’. Accordingly, this finding shows that while

conflict can be seen as a natural order for team development, without any means to understand

where individuals are coming from, detracts from the building of cultural norms, that help to

speed up the process towards greater team effectiveness.

The second key issue that teams were facing was communication. In these challenging ‘storming’

periods the environments were such that learning and cohesion could not be fostered. The language

used was very accusatory. Teams were resorting to covert tactics, conducting meetings ‘in the

parking lot’ and there was an overall unknowing resistance to communicate at a deeper level of

understanding (Resp 5; Resp 7). Poor communication, in this way, can be blamed when a broad

ID No 12819975 20

range of personality differences meet, and without a process of respect and understanding for each

other, creates tension and misunderstandings (Culp and Smith 2001, cited in Varvel et al., 2004).

The third and final key issue that teams experienced were tensions caused by opposing objectives

when teams came together cross-functionally. Some of these oppositions were resultant of teams

‘talking a different language’ (Resp 3), or thinking in different ways, ‘because programming work

from the heart and sales people work from the head’ (Resp 11), with examples of members ‘being

more pro-self than other’ (Resp7). These issues show that there is room for knowing more about

each other, personally and socially, and that understanding personal attributes and contributions can

help develop much more effective teams (Bradley and Herbert, 1997).

4.2. A process of awareness

The thematic analysis led the researcher to develop three overarching higher order category themes.

These categories subsume all the other themes, and help to gain an overall insight into the impacts

of psychometric profiling. These categories are ‘awareness’, ‘improvements’ and ‘new actions’ (see

Appendix F). Subsequently these categories developed to suggest a more sequential process to these

findings, rather than a nonlinear one. Figure 5 outlines all themes coded at each category. The

themes highlighted in green are the ones depicting the highest number of coded references, whereas

those in red depict the least.

Figure 5. Highest number of coded source references post psychometric

Every respondent reported to some degree an impact of awareness, leading to improvements and

new actions. More than half of the respondents made references to the top theme for each category,

ID No 12819975 21

for example, under Awareness (Understanding each other, eight respondents), Improvements

(Openness, eight respondents) and New Actions (Different Approaches, eight respondents). The

three following subsections of this chapter will cover each category in more detail, with the first

section covering the category ‘awareness’.

4.3. Understanding, awareness and individual differences

Nearly every respondent cited examples of situations where psychometric profiling impacted on

levels of awareness. The top themes that featured the most were ‘Understanding Each Other’,

‘Team Awareness’ and ‘Individual Differences’ (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Highest number of coded references by respondent under the category awareness

At times there were significant breakthrough moments of individual awareness, where the process

of awareness “really moved the group, because suddenly they had to look at themselves and before

we didn't understand where people were coming from” (Resp 5). At this early stage of awareness,

respondents alerted to the concept of there being “a framework that helps people to understand

themselves” (Resp 4), referring to the “roles different people play and how that fitted in with their

personality” (Resp 12), as well as being able to “know your team in a more structured way” (Resp

9). Within the context of teams, these findings show that, with a more structured understanding of

each other through team awareness, team members can come closer together, which is an important

factor for establishing mutual trust. Heslin (1964), Varvel et al (2004) and Jarzabkowski and Searle

(2004) are united in this finding, in that, as team members gain familiarity and come to

ID No 12819975 22

accommodate each other’s differences, skills or preferences, they improve trust and

interdependence. This is an essential characteristic of an effective team.

What is clear from the process of ‘awareness’ is that it acknowledges the need to build acceptance

and gain respect of each other. Through learning and awareness, one can understand the skills and

strategies of the team more clearly and utilise individual difference as an element of strength, rather

than individual conflict. As Musselwhite (2012) describes, understanding through reflection and

learning, gives us the ability to see blind spots, intentions and behaviours, which in turn builds

synergy and trust in teams.

4.4. Indicating factors for improvement

The second higher order category that evolved through the process of thematic analysis, is that of

‘improvements’. Figure 7 clearly shows the themes within this category that have the highest

number of coded references across all respondents.

Figure 7 Highest number of coded references by respondent under the category improvements

Every respondent had to some degree experienced improvements post psychometric profiling, with

nearly 3 1/4 of those, referencing themes relating to improvements in ‘Openness’, ‘Communication’

and ‘Collaboration’.

4.4.1. Openness

ID No 12819975 23

The findings show that in creating environments of ‘openness’, respondents were able to finally lay

things out in the open, to trust and to talk freely. This enabled teams to build an environment for

sharing knowledge safely, and getting the best out of their teams, by acknowledging which

individuals were best suited to a task. In an environment of openness respondents started to “use

each other as coaches and the framework became and still is an everyday language” (Resp 3), while

breaking down barriers and allowing individuals to feel supported and safe, where they can “talk

very openly about what they are feeling” (Resp 11). Other respondents reported similar incidents,

where meetings were more valuable “because all voices were now honoured” and people “had more

courage to talk and it gave permission to have more courageous dialogue” (Resp 5). These findings

indicate that profiling can create safe places of acceptance, creating ‘environments for change’.

Interestingly, this is what Hackman (1990) refers to as ‘conditions for performance’, but he also

warns that these standards are set within the group social system by members, based on their

versions of realities, styles and performances.

4.4.2. Communication

Although ‘openness’ creates positive conditions, improvements in ‘communication’ can drive “less

conflict and get things resolved faster” (Resp 6), breaking down silos and providing the fabric for

building accepted models or ‘norms’ of interpersonal interaction. This drives better interactions and

builds team effectiveness. The impact of ‘communication’ means that individuals are more

empowered. They can work with information in a different way and for example, as Respondent 9

suggests, “we brought this into everyday language, even with our clients it is important and the way

that people receive information and present it and liaise with, it’s different”. In relation to team

effectiveness, being able to develop communication or interpersonal skills is important, as it helps

individuals to work more effectively and co-operate more with team members (Motowidlo and

Schmit, 1990, cited in LePine et al., 2011).

4.4.3. Collaboration

The final key theme that arose during analysis is indicators that show improvements in

‘collaboration’. With improvements in ‘collaboration’, teams, with different goals, opposing

objectives and hierarchical structures, can come together to support each other and build team

ID No 12819975 24

effectiveness. Psychometric profiling provided “a way of tackling change and difficult issues no

matter what social or leadership skills you've got. It’s united multi departments” (Resp 3) and “even

though we are working in different companies with different goals” (Resp 1), “we were seeing the

three of us do the meeting rather than just me, working together rather than be seen to be a

hierarchy that doesn't function as a team” (Resp 9). These findings show an evolution in the

process for building effective teams. This is a process of ‘awareness’ towards an environment

where teams are able to dissolve hierarchical structures, work better cross-functionally, and with

improvements in communication work to different agendas in a much more collaborative way.

Collaboration in this way recognises how each person can contribute to the team goal, by resolving

task demands and co-ordinating effort, which is essential for team effectiveness (Katzenbach and

Smith 1993; Kozlowski and Ilgen 2006).

4.5. Indicating factors for a framework of action

The findings so far have shown that ‘awareness’ through psychometric profiling can lead to the

building of environments for ‘openness’. This environment, along with ‘improvements’ in

communication, drives greater team collaboration. This sections looks at the final stage of impact,

which falls under the category ‘New Actions’ (see Appendix F). The preceding categories of

‘awareness’ and ‘improvements’ pave a way for cementing a rigid framework or ‘common

language’, from which individuals can take ‘New Actions’ or ‘Different Approaches’, in response

to challenging team situations. Under this category, more than half of the respondents reported

taking ‘different approaches’ to dealing with difficult situations, with half of these citing the support

of a ‘common language’ (see figure 8).

ID No 12819975 25

Figure 8 Highest number of coded references by respondents under the category new actions

4.5.1. Different approaches

The findings show that following psychometric profiling, at least 3 1/4 of respondents were able to

take on ‘different approaches’ to challenging situations. In many cases the ‘different approaches’

did not come naturally, but the ‘awareness’ gained through the process of learning and

improvements in the team fabric, allowed respondents to be more considerate of differences and to

try out new approaches. Some of these actions did not always come easily as Respondent 1

highlights, “I did feel stressed inside because it’s not my natural behaviour, but I realised that I

needed to do it to sort the situation out”, whereas others, supported by the knowledge gained

through awareness of themselves, acknowledged their impact on the team and how a ‘different

approach’ can be a new way forward towards changing behaviours. “Knowing what everybody's

personality was at the time and what group they fit into, I now try to take that into consideration and

to approach each case in a more direct way than I used to” (Resp 12). Approaching people in new

ways also includes being aware of the impact of language and how it can impact on the team.

Respondent 4 suggests, “coming from the perspective of people understanding themselves and

having feedback from others of the effect of what they say, while modifying the language to be

much more inclusive of the creation of ideas, instead of going away and tying to prove that person

wrong”. This leads on to the important concurrent theme found throughout the analysis, the

importance of a ‘common language’ or framework, which helps to drive ‘new actions’ within the

confines of a safe container.

4.5.2. A Common language

The findings show that a ‘common language’ has the ability to provide an accepted framework,

from which to navigate difficult conversations and behaviours. Respondents were able to use this

framework; to discuss difficult people related issues, whilst driving effectiveness through free

expression and awareness. This ‘common language’ is not something completely new but rather

structured to facilitate change, as Respondent 6 describes, “some of the things it tells you we

intuitively know but there was now a structure in your head to analyse it, therefore this facilitated a

lot of progress, being able to understand why and be able to work more effectively”. As suggested

here, this ‘common language’ is a directional framework of accepted ways of describing and acting

ID No 12819975 26

on different personalities evident in a team. This helps to understand where individuals sit within a

framework, in turn, aiding supporting conversation towards ‘new actions’ and greater team

effectiveness. This framework helps team members to be effective in how they interact and deal

with conflict, constructively, and through helpful criticism, objectivity, active listening, feedback

and monitoring teammate behaviour, whilst knowing when to step in and when to change behaviour

(Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Cannon-bowers et al, 1993, cited in Zaccaro et al., 2001). So far the

findings have shown that psychometric profiling impacts on team effectiveness in a number of

ways. The final section looks at the role of context and whether these findings impact on existing

theories for predicting trait behaviours, maintaining effectiveness not only in the short, but longer

term too.

4.6. Embedded learning over the longer term

The literature review raised a number of issues relating to context and the situational aspects of

change, which may hinder the viability of psychometrics to deliver long-term learning and team

effectiveness. Figure 9 represents the total number of coded references for each theme under the

node ‘situational aspects’.

Figure 9. Highest number of coded source references under situational aspects

The colour green is used to depict those themes with the highest number of coded references,

whereas red shows the least. The themes ‘keeping it at the forefront’ and ‘need to be refreshed’,

ID No 12819975 27

represents the actions that teams undertook to ensure that any learning garnered from profiling was

maintained over the longer term. To ensure transference, post the initial ‘aha’ experience of going

through a personality profile, half of the respondents ensured the profiles were ‘kept at the

forefront’, with many including an ongoing program of one to one coaching. These teams “always

had something to report on, there was always something that was keeping it buoyed in the

organisation and this was further embedded with coaching in place” (Resp 11).

Furthermore, the results in Figure

10 show that a greater number of

persistent actions were taken

between 12-36 months; ensuring

learning was embedded and

maintained over the longer term

too. This correlates closely with

the results in Figure 11, showing

that after 12 months, along with a

concerted effort to embed the

learning, that much higher levels

of awareness, improvements and

actions were achieved.

Figure 10. Highest number of coded references over time under situational aspects

Figure 11. Highest number of coded references over time

under improvements

This does not imply that teams who do not

employ actions to embed learning will not

show signs of improvement, but rather

that, with a greater effort to transfer

learning, much higher levels of

improvements can be maintained. This is

highlighted by Respondent 9, who, in

response to an imminent merger and

without any programme of embedded

ID No 12819975 28

learning, noticed that within nine months of administering the profiles, individuals were already

“reverting to old behaviours, not sharing portfolios and having arguments”.

This concurs with what Bloom (1964, cited by Pervin, 1994) and Toehel and Barsoux (2012)

describe, that when situations change, personality traits becoming redundant, showing a greater

evidence of stability over shorter periods than over longer ones.

4.7. Summary of findings

Overall, these findings suggest a number of different ways that psychometric profiling impacts on

team effectiveness. Firstly, as part of a sequential process of development, starting with individual

and team ‘awareness’. Secondly, conditions are created to support environments of ‘openness’,

leading to interpersonal improvements in communication and collaboration. Finally, with an

underpinning framework or ‘common language’, individuals and teams are well-placed to facilitate

new approaches to difficult situations, thus impacting on team effectiveness overall.

These findings also evaluated context and the longer-term viability for psychometric profiling. The

findings showed a number of tactics that were employed to transfer and embed the learning. Teams

that kept the profile at the forefront were shown to deliver much higher levels of improvements and

team effectiveness over the longer term.

ID No 12819975 29

5. Discussion

5.1. Research objectives: Summary of findings and conclusions

The overall aim of this research was to advance an understanding of the impact of psychometric

profiling on team effectiveness, particularly exploring teams in organisations, through qualitative

study. The specific research objectives, within the context of teams, were to:

Explore the effect of psychometric profiling on team effectiveness.

Determine if psychometric profiling can improve and maintain team effectiveness over the

longer term.

Evaluate the role of context in establishing an enduring view of psychometrics and

personality trait theory.

This chapter will revisit the research objectives above; by summarising the findings of this research

and offering conclusions based on these findings. Recommendations for the practical use of

psychometric profiling will be put forward, along with implications for future research and how to

progress this area of research. The viability of psychometric profiling in building effective teams

will be clarified. By following this structure, it is intended that this research will be concluded to

reflect on whether or not the objectives have been met, including considerations on the value of this

study.

5.2. The impact of psychometric profiling on team effectiveness

The literature review outlined an array of perspectives and models relating to team effectiveness.

These included, team development processes; functional roles, goals, abilities; and underlying

interpersonal and mental models. Little emphasis, however, was made on the interaction of

personalities and the important part it plays in relation to the accepted models for team effectiveness

(Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997). In exploring this further, the findings in this research show that

psychometric profiling affects teams and individuals in a number of ways.

ID No 12819975 30

Firstly, psychometric profiling creates an opportunity for individuals and teams to gain greater

awareness and learning. It provides a framework for understanding the self, each other, and the

different personalities that make up a team. In many cases, these realisations can support existing

assumptions of character and personalities, while others, they can be very surprising. Secondly, this

framework for understanding creates environments for openness, where individuals feel supported

and honoured in their differences, as well as difficult behaviours. In these environments, supported

by an effective model for safe feedback and ‘common language’, team members can explore new

ways of communication and resolve differences and conflict. These improvements lead teams to

perform more effectively. With new awareness and improved ways of communication, teams can

resolve conflict and challenges of opposing objectives or functional silo working, through better

collaboration.

As individuals come to accommodate their differences through learning, they can overcome issues,

reduce conflict, and further improve team effectiveness (De Dreu and Van Vianen, 2001;

Jarzabkowski and Searle, 2004). Lastly, with these conditions creating an environment for change,

through openness, communication and collaboration, teams and individuals are well-placed to take

new actions and approaches, and to deal with difficult behaviours, big personalities and conflict.

This newfound framework is essential for understanding behaviours, how to navigate tricky

situations and help bring teams together, especially when individuals come from different

backgrounds, experiences and have diverse personalities. This framework helps individuals and

teams to ‘see the blind spots’, intentions and behaviours, creating cultures of feedback and trust,

reducing ambiguity and enabling them to navigating challenges as they arise (Moss et al, 2007;

Gully et al., 2007; Musselwhite, 2012).

Overall, these findings suggest a chronological process from awareness to improvements and

different approaches, but in reality one can only assume that this is the case. The route to

effectiveness is not as simple or clear-cut as Tuckman’s (1965) team development model suggests.

Personality profiling, however, can support his model, for example, as an intervention tool at the

‘storming’ stage of development, providing a language from which all members can be understood,

respected and supported, contributing to a much faster development process towards greater team

‘performance’ or outcome.

The main conclusions that can be drawn from these findings are that the impact of psychometric

profiling is not purely a performance objective, but rather a process of awareness and learning. This

ID No 12819975 31

process can lead to creating conditions for change, and in turn, to greater team effectiveness.

Individuals and teams learn to adopt a shared mental model from which underlying difficulties and

challenges can be navigated. This process can be instrumental in unearthing the underlying complex

nature of people and teams, but it does not serve as the primary solution, rather it is simply

complementary to the more accepted models of team development as suggested by Tuckman

(1965). One could argue that without a fundamental awareness, core framework or ‘common

language’ for navigation, other models merely describe functional composition attributes and

processes of team development, rather than solutions. Although key proponents in the field of team

effectiveness argue that their models provide the best ‘all-encompassing’ solution towards

understanding and developing effective teams, in fact what this study shows is that the process of

change and development is much more protracted, and cannot alone be reliant on a single approach.

A sensible approach would be to view the development of team effectiveness as being a process

which is much more interrelated and holistic. Here, all perspectives are held as valid, supportive and

equally essential to our understanding of teams, effectiveness and ourselves overall.

This study has shown that personality profiling and the process of helping team members to

understand their own attributes and appreciate the contribution of others, is an important

contributing factor towards team effectiveness (Bradley and Hebert, 1997). Without this process of

awareness, acknowledging differences, and creating openness, traditional models fall short of

delivering a founded solution to building effective teams. However, a prevailing critique overall, for

all of these perspectives on developing teams, is that inevitably, individuals and teams enact their

own versions of reality and performance standards are specified by members within the social

system. Hence whichever approach is put forward in developing teams, success is determined by

the willingness of individuals to change (Hackman, 1990). This is what Katzenbach and Smith

(1994) alert to the fact that not all performance strategies work for all groups and warn against

individualism and reluctance to trust one’s fate to the commitment of another. With that, this does

raise the question around whether organisations can ensure learning is embedded, not in the short

term, but also sustainably over the longer term too.

5.3. Improving and maintaining team effectiveness over the longer term

It was raised in the literature review that the science of psychometrics presents a static view of

personality and behaviour, and may not endure or have a longer-term impact on individuals and

ID No 12819975 32

team effectiveness. This is what Buss (1989, cited in Fontana, 2000) and Fontana (2000), elude to

when raising concerns about the difficulties of assessing how people will behave in certain

situations, with personality fluctuating from one environment to another, rather than being

consistent. The research findings corroborate with these perspectives. More than half of respondents

cited examples of embedded learning, as it was feared that without any mechanism for keeping

learning at the forefront, individuals would revert to old behaviours. In cases where there was an

active attempt to embed this learning, those teams saw greater levels of improvement over the

longer term.

The main conclusions that can be drawn from this is that although personality profiling can have an

impact, building environments for openness and creating ‘aha’ experiences, with individuals

coming to know each other on a much deeper level, these ‘awakenings’ can be short lived. Whilst

FFM tools have been theoretically argued as trusted predictors of personality, in practice these

results show emphatically, implications for longer-term viability, which cannot be discounted.

Psychometric profiling may be robust in being able to identify patterns of behaviour, taking the trait

view of personality, but what it cannot do is predict how awareness interacts in social situations or

teams, continuously and consistently. However, what is most encouraging is that there is a huge

amount of value that can be harnessed from psychometric profiling, if organisations adopt ongoing

programmes of integration. This depends highly on the organisations skills, resource capacity and

expertise. This raises the question of how to come to a consensus on suitable methods of integrating

psychometric profiling over the long term in the myriad of different organisational contexts. This

brings us to the final question relating to context, and whether this has an influencing impact on

validating psychometric profiling as a credible tool for determining personality and behaviour over

time.

5.4. The role of context

The literature review revealed a number of critiques relating to trait theory, personality and the

situational issues of assessment. This led the researcher to explore context as part of these research

objectives, to evaluate to what affect it influences our understanding of the validity of

psychometrics, personality and teams. This was prompted by leading researchers and critics in the

field who argued that a static model can only predict behaviour in certain situations, being

redundant when situations change, and overall cannot be a sound predictor of performance in teams

ID No 12819975 33

(Pervin 1994; Kenrick and Funder, 1991, cited in Schneider and Smith, 2004; Varvel et al 2004;

Toehel and Barsoux 2012).

The findings revealed two aspects relating to context, which led to further insights into the validity

of psychometric profiling. Firstly, under extreme pressure or imminent change, individuals can

revert to old behaviours, even after having recently been through a facilitated psychometric

assessment. Secondly, while psychometric assessment is conducted out of context in ‘laboratory

settings’, the awareness gained during this process can still impact and improve team effectiveness

overall. Psychometric profiling may not predict future performance of how individuals may behave

under difficult situations, but what it can do is create the conditions and possibilities for change.

With a framework for allowing greater awareness of the underlying dynamics of the self and

personality, individuals are better equipped to deal with challenges and issues as they arise.

The main conclusion that can be made is that in some way situational variables are irrelevant. One

might agree with the argument that you cannot predict behaviours in the future, but that rings true

not only for psychometric profiling and personality, but with change in general. The part that

psychometric profiling can play is helping teams to deal with uncertainty and unpredictability. With

a new language or framework for understanding, individuals and teams are better equipped to deal

with change, making better decisions when dealing with complex situations, difficult relationships

and personalities.

6. Recommendations and suggestions for further research

The final objective of this research was to provide practical recommendations for the use of

psychometric profiling. It was concluded in the discussion chapter that psychometric profiling has

an impact on team effectiveness. The levels to which this can be achieved is affected by the actions

that are taken over time to embed learning. What this reveals is a number of practical steps that

organisations can take to ensure that psychometric profiling has a longer-term impact on team

effectiveness. The first recommendation is that organisations should be aware that in order to

deliver real value and team performance, they must align a programme of psychometric profiling

with a ‘coaching culture’ and ongoing one to one coaching. The benefits of this is that staff would

have regular interaction with their profiles and keep them fresh in their minds, especially when

exploring issues that may arise in a coaching session. The benefit of having this regular meeting is

ID No 12819975 34

that this framework is maintained as part of the day-to-day management language, ensuring the

highest possible levels of team effectiveness can be attained.

The second practical recommendation is to ensure organisations integrate profiles as part of their

management structure. This would be visible ways, including materials, reminders and reference

points back to their profiles. This could include feedback on the use of the tool in management

meetings, displaying individual profiles in common areas and encouraging teams to share profiles

amongst themselves. By keeping the profile at the forefront of day-to-day management, the

language becomes intrinsic to the organisation and in the longer term greatly impacts on team

effectiveness. This also helps to reduce the chance of old habits or bad behaviours resurfacing. A

full proposed implementation plan is laid out in Appendix B.

Although thorough research was conducted as part of this study, there are also other areas that could

benefit from the work of psychometric profiling and teams. For example, further research could

explore how awareness of individual differences, through psychometric profiling, could determine

effective team composition and team design. This could help to understand more about correlations

between team composition, personality preferences, and those that lead to greater team

performance. This could be helpful, not only in designing teams for success, but also in how

balancing personalities in teams impacts on employee morale, wellbeing and happiness at work.

Finally, another area of further research, linked to the recommendations made above, is in relation

to embedding or transference of learning. It would be helpful to learn more about transference of

learning, and which methods are most effective in ensuring team effectiveness over the longer term.

7. Research limitations

This research revealed valuable insights into psychometric profiling and teams. Whilst it has been

possible to deal with and answer all of the objectives of this research, there have been a few

limitations, which could support further research. The two limitations that need to be addressed here

are the inability to generalise findings based on the sample size taken, and the selection of

respondents as part of this sample. Although not uncommon for qualitative research to cover a

sample size of between 12-15 respondents, it must be said that a sample of this size cannot represent

the general view of teams in organisations. This sample simply gives a snapshot into how teams

function, while providing a starting block for future research. To advance this study, gain wider

ID No 12819975 35

perspectives and to evaluate the claims made in this research, it is recommended that a much larger

sample be taken.

Lastly, the convenience sampling method employed here, led to an imbalance of respondents who

were leaders or members of a team. If the researcher had been able to present a fairer representation

from both sides, then this could have helped to give a much more subjective view of the team

protagonists, rather than an objective one, from a leadership perspective. Given the exploratory

nature of the study, the above points have not hindered the ability for the researcher to meet the

research objectives. However, what is not known, in absence of these limitations, how this may

have impacted on the findings and conclusions overall.

8. Summary and conclusion

The purpose of this research was to explore the impact of psychometric profiling on team

effectiveness, to evolve our understanding about the science of psychometrics and the role of

personality in building team effectiveness. Personality profiling is an important factor for

determining how teams function effectively. Profiling in organisations has become widely used to

assess individual differences, but little was known about the impact this has on building better

teams and how this ties in with the plethora of existing theories and models for team effectiveness.

While most of the research has been conducted on testing psychometric tool validity, from a

quantitative perspective, little had been done to explore the impact on individuals through

qualitative study.

Using qualitative, narrative thematic analysis, the results of this study contributed to a deeper

understanding of personality and team effectiveness, by way of a process of awareness and a

fundamental framework or ‘common language’, which led to improvements and new actions. It was

questioned whether the initial awareness of a ‘common language’, which led to improvements and

team effectiveness, impacts not only in the short term, but longer term too. Whilst the study

revealed a process of development and learning which leads to greater team effectiveness, this was

partly impacted by persistent action, to embed and transfer the learning, by keeping psychometric

profiling in the forefront of the minds of the organisation. The conclusions that were drawn is that

psychometric profiling has an impact on team effectiveness, but is limited in the short term, unless

considerable steps are taken to embed and transfer learning.

ID No 12819975 36

References

ADAIR, J. E. (1987) Effective teambuilding : how to make a winning team, London, Pan.BARRY, B. & STEWART, G. L. (1997) Composition, process, and performance in self-managed

groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 62-78.BELBIN, R. M. (2000) Beyond the team, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.BELBIN, R. M. (2004) Management teams : why they succeed or fail, Oxford, Elsevier

Butterworth-Heinemann.BLOCK, J. (1995a) A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.

Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 187-215.BLOCK, J. (1995b) Going beyond the five factors given: Rejoinder to Costa and McCrae (1995)

and Goldberg and. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 226.BRADLEY, J. H. & HEBERT, F. J. (1997) The effect of personality type on team performance.

Journal of Management Development, 16(5), 337-353.CANNON-BOWERS, J. A., SALAS, E. & CONVERSE, S. (1993) Shared mental models in expert

team decision making. IN CASTELLAN, N. J., JR. (Ed.) Individual and group decision making: Current issues. Hillsdale, NJ England, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC, T. (2011) Personality and individual differences, Chichester, BPS Blackwell.

CHRISTOPHER, C. A. C., CECIL, P. & LANNY, E. (2003) Examining the effects of internal and external team learning on team performance. Team Performance Management, 9(7), 174-181.

CZARNIAWSKA, B. (2000) The Uses of Narrative in Organizational Research. Göteborg University. School of Business, Economics and Law.

DAY, D. V., GRONN, P. & SALAS, E. (2004) Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857-880.

DE DREU, C. K. W. & VAN VIANEN, A. E. M. (2001) Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309-328.

DECUYPER, S., DOCHY, F. & VAN DEN BOSSCHE, P. (2010) Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111-133.

DEVINE, D. J., CLAYTON, L. D., PHILIPS, J. L., DUNFORD, B. B. & MELNER, S. B. (1999) Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30(6), 678-711.

DIGMAN, J. M. (1989) Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality, 57(2), 195-214.

DIGMAN, J. M. (1990) Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417.

DIGMAN, J. M. (1997) Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246-1256.

EPSTEIN, S. (2010) The Big Five Model: Grandiose Ideas About Surface Traits as the Foundation of a General Theory of Personality. Psychological Inquiry, 21(1), 34-39.

FINCHAM, R. & RHODES, P. S. (1999) Principles of organizational behaviour, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

FONTANA, D. (2000) Personality in the workplace, Basingstoke, Macmillan.FRANSEN, J., KIRSCHNER, P. A. & ERKENS, G. (2011) Mediating team effectiveness in the

context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1103-1113.

ID No 12819975 37

FURNHAM, A. (1995) Personality at work : the role of individual differences in the workplace, London, Routledge.

GOLDBERG, L. R. (1990) An Alternative "Description of Personality": The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.

GOLDBERG, L. R. (1992) The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.

GULLY, S. M., INCALCATERRA, K. A., JOSHI, A. & BEAUBIEN, J. M. (2002) A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819-832.

HACKMAN, J. R. (1990) Groups that work (and those that don't) : creating conditions for effective teamwork, San Francisco, Calif. ; Oxford, Jossey-Bass Pub.

HENDRIKS, A. A. J. (1996) The Big Five as tendencies in situations: A replication study. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(4), 527-535.

HESLIN, R. (1964) Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics. Psychological Bulletin, 62(4), 248-256.

JARZABKOWSKI, P. & SEARLE, R. H. (2004) Harnessing Diversity and Collective Action in the Top Management Team. Long Range Planning, 37(5), 399-419.

KATZ-NAVON, T. Y. & EREZ, M. (2005) WHEN COLLECTIVE- AND SELF-EFFICACY AFFECT TEAM PERFORMANCE: The Role of Task Interdependence. Small Group Research, 36(4), 437-465.

KATZENBACH, J. R. (1994) Why Doesn't This Team Work? Harvard Business Review, 72(6), 26-28.

KATZENBACH, J. R. & SMITH, D. K. (1993) The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 111-120.

KATZENBACH, J. R. & SMITH, D. K. (1994) Teams at the top. McKinsey Quarterly, (1), 71-79.KATZENBACH, J. R. & SMITH, D. K. (2005) The wisdom of teams : creating the high-

performance organization, London, McGraw-Hill.KICHUK, S. L. & WIESNER, W. H. (1997) The Big Five personality factors and team

performance: Implications for selecting successful. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, 14(3/4), 195.

KLINE, P. (1997) Personality : the psychometric view, London, Routledge.KOZLOWSKI, S. W. J. & ILGEN, D. R. (2006) Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and

Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Wiley-Blackwell), 7(3), 77-124.LEPINE, J. A., BUCKMAN, B. R., CRAWFORD, E. R. & METHOT, J. R. (2011) A review of

research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 311-330.

LORD, R. G., DE VADER, C. L. & ALLIGER, G. M. (1986) A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410.

MASON, J. (2002) Qualitative researching, Los Angeles, [Calif.] ; London, Sage.MCADAMS, D. P. (1992) The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of

Personality, 60(2), 329-361.MCCRAE, R. R. (2010) The Place of the FFM in Personality Psychology. Psychological Inquiry,

21(1), 57-64.MCCRAE, R. R. & COSTA, P. T. (1987) Validation of the five-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90.MOSS, S. A., GARIVALDIS, F. J. & TOUKHSATI, S. R. (2007) The perceived similarity of other

individuals: The contaminating effects of familiarity and neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2), 401-412.

ID No 12819975 38

MOYNIHAN, L. M. & PETERSON, R. S. (2001) A CONTINGENT CONFIGURATION APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL GROUPS. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 327.

MUSSELWHITE, C. (2012) Leader Assessment. Leadership Excellence, 29(8), 7-8.O'NEILL, T. A. & ALLEN, N. J. (2011) Personality and the prediction of team performance.

European Journal of Personality, 25(1), 31-42.PERVIN, L. A. (1994) A Critical Analysis of Current Trait Theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2),

103.PERVIN, L. A. & JOHN, O. P. (1999) Handbook of personality : theory and research, New York ;

London, Guilford Press.RICHTER, A. W., DAWSON, J. F. & WEST, M. A. (2011) The effectiveness of teams in

organizations: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(13), 2749-2769.

RIESSMAN, C. K. (1993) Narrative analysis, Newbury Park, Sage.SALAS, E., SIMS, D. E. & BURKE, C. S. (2005) Is there a 'Big Five' in Teamwork? Small Group

Research, 36(5), 555-599.SAUNDERS, M., LEWIS, P. & THORNHILL, A. (2000) Research methods for business students,

Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall.SCHNEIDER, B. & SMITH, D. B. (2004) Personality and organizations, Mahwah, N.J. ; London,

Lawrence Erlbaum.SENGE, P. M. (2006) The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learning organization,

London, Random House Business.TALLENI, N. (1987) Computer-Generated Psychological Reports: A Look at the Modern

Psychometric Machine. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(1), 95.TOEGEL, G. & BARSOUX, J.-L. (2012) How to Become a Better Leader. MIT Sloan Management

Review, 53(3), 51-60.TUCKMAN, B. W. (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6),

384-399.VAN VIANEN, A. E. M. & DE DREU, C. K. W. (2001) Personality in teams: Its relationship to

social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(2), 97-120.

VARVEL, T., ADAMS, S. G., PRIDIE, S. J. & RUIZ ULLOA, B. C. (2004) Team Effectiveness and Individual Myers-Briggs Personality Dimensions. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(4), 141-146.

WHEELAN, S. A. (2010) Creating effective teams : a guide for members and leaders, Los Angeles ; London, Sage.

ZACCARO, S. J., RITTMAN, A. L. & MARKS, M. A. (2001) Team Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451.

ID No 12819975 39

Appendices

Appendix B-Implementation Plan

This is a suggested implementation plan based on the recommendations made

in this research. As the findings show, a persistent attempt to embed the

learning ensures greater levels of team effectiveness.

Appendix D-Respondent Classification Index

ID No 12819975 40

Person Position SexPsychometric Experience Industry Country

Time Since Assessment

Resp1Senior Management Male No

Financial Services

United Kingdom 12

Resp2Middle Management Female No Manufacturing Slovakia 24

Resp3Middle Management Female No

Radio Broadcasting

United Kingdom 36

Resp4Senior Management Male Yes Technology

United Kingdom 12

Resp5Senior Management Female Yes

Secondary School Canada 24

Resp6Senior Management Male Yes University Canada 24

Resp7External Consultant Male Yes Consultancy Canada 12

Resp8Senior Management Female Yes Manufacturing

United States 8 Months

Resp9Senior Management Female Yes Healthcare

United Kingdom 9 Months

Resp10Senior Management Male Yes

Financial Services

United Kingdom 12

Resp11Senior Management Female Yes

Radio Broadcasting

United Kingdom 36

Resp12

Experienced Team Member Male No Manufacturing

United States 8 Months

ID No 12819975 41

Appendix F- Thematic Analysis Overview

ID No 12819975 42

Appendix G- Example Comparative Thematic Process and Flow Chart (Carried out for each Respondent)

ID No 12819975 43