Building team effectiveness through psychometric profiling. a scientific reality? A Dissertation by Sascha Michel

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quotation from the published or unpublished work of other persons.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
1.2. Research context
1.3. Overall research aims and individual objectives

1
2
3

2.1. Literature Review

5

2.1.1. Groups and teams
2.1.1.1. Groups
2.1.1.2. Workgroups to teams
2.1.2. Team effectiveness
2.1.2.1. Teams and performance
2.1.2.2. Models of team effectiveness
2.1.2.2.1 A process of team development
2.1.2.2.2. Functional and underlying models
2.1.2.2.3. Leadership, learning and mental models
2.1.2.2.4. A critical perspective
2.1.3. Teams and Personality
2.1.3.1. Personality and individual differences in teams
2.1.3.2. The five factors of personality
2.1.3.3. Understanding personality through psychometric profiling

5
5
5
7
7
7
8
9
10
10
11
11
13
14

3.1. Research Design and Methodology

16

3.1.1. Overview and approach
3.1.2. Data gathering and design
3.1.3. Sampling selection
3.1.4. Data collection
3.1.5. Qualitative data analysis
3.1.6. Methodological assumptions and limitations
3.1.7. Ethical considerations

16
16
17
18
18
19
20

4. Interview findings: Description, analysis and synthesis

21

4.1. Key team issues that impact on team effectiveness
4.2. A process of awareness
4.3. Understanding, awareness and individual differences
4.4. Indicating factors for improvement
4.4.1. Openness
4.4.2. Communication
4.4.3. Collaboration
4.5. Indicating factors for a framework of action
4.5.1. Different approaches
4.5.2. A Common language
4.6. Embedded learning over the longer term
4.7. Summary of findings

21
23
24
25
25
26
26
27
28
28
29
31

ID No 12819975

5. Discussion

32

5.1. Research objectives: Summary of findings and conclusions
5.2. The impact of psychometric profiling on team effectiveness
5.3. Improving and maintaining team effectiveness over the longer term
5.4. The role of context

32
32
34
35

6. Recommendations and suggestions for further research

36

7. Research limitations

37

8. Summary and conclusion

38

References

39

Appendices

42

ID No 12819975

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

ID No 12819975

6
8
9
21
23
24
25
27
29
30
30

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 indepth 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
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

Working
Group

Team

• Strong clearly focused leader
• Purpose same as broader organisational mission
• Performance a function of what members do as
individuals
• Shared knowledge for individual performance gains
• Individual goals and accountability
• Responsible for own results
• Individual

• Shared leadership roles
• Specific team purpose
• Performance includes individual and collective mutual
contribution
• Rely more than just sharing
• Discreet work through joint contributions
• Performanc greater than sum of individual parts
• Collective

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).

ID No 12819975

6

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
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

ID No 12819975

7

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).

Forming
• What is the
task?
• What
resources do
we need?
• How much
time is
needed?
• How often
will we meet?
• How will we
cooperate?

Storming

Norming

• Value of the
task is
questioned

• Developing a
positive
orientation to
the task and
each other

• Disagreement
and conflicts
emerge

• Norms of
Collaboration

• Reaction
against group
demands

• Cooperation

Peforming
• Achieving
group goals
• More formal
group
processes
• Divisions of
Labour
• Focus around
being
effective
around the
task

• Degree of
attachment to
the group?

Figure 2. Stages of Group Development

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.

ID No 12819975

8

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).

Functional

•Goals
•Task orientation
•Team design
•Feedback
Mechanisms

Underlying

•Team leadership
•Interdependency
•Team learning
•Mental models
•Mutual trust
•Interpersonal

Figure 3. Building effective teams

ID No 12819975

9

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
ID No 12819975

10

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.
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

ID No 12819975

11

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
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.

ID No 12819975

12

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
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

ID No 12819975

13

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

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-

ID No 12819975

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

ID No 12819975

27

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

28

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

29

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

ID No 12819975

30

without any programme of embedded 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

31

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

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

32

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

33

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

34

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

35

(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

36

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

ID No 12819975

37

wider 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

38

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), 174181.
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

39

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 metaanalysis 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), 2628.
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 highperformance 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

40

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

41

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.

ID No 12819975

42

•
•
•
•
•

Step 1
Setup and
Person Position
Implementation
Resp1

Senior

Step 2
Embed the Learning

Pre-workshop one to one coaching session. Asses learning needs.
Layout plan for ongoing learning and development
Establish any predeterined views or perspectives on psychometric profiling
Implement facilitated workshop style team development days
Psychometric
Time
Encourage ideas within the team on how to further learning Since
Sex

Experience

Industry

Country

Assessment

Male

No

Financial

United

12

• Offer one to one coaching as part of line management structure
• Encourage the sharing of profiles between teams and departments
• Set aside time in management meetings to disucss profiles and how teams are
keeping it fresh
• Keep profiles at the forefront. Create visual aids around the office. Include
example profiles in staff handbooks

• Include profiles in 360 and annual reviews
• Develop ongoing programs of workshops to refresh profiles and use them to
tackle new issues
• Revist assesments or re-test to look for new areas of development
Step 3
• Develop a mentor or buddy system to support management in how to integrate
Feedback and Maintain profiles into line management roles

Appendix D-Respondent Classification Index

ID No 12819975

43

Resp2
Resp3
Resp4
Resp5
Resp6
Resp7
Resp8
Resp9
Resp10
Resp11

Resp12

Management
Middle
Management
Middle
Management
Senior
Management
Senior
Management
Senior
Management
External
Consultant
Senior
Management
Senior
Management
Senior
Management
Senior
Management
Experienced
Team
Member

ID No 12819975

Services

Kingdom

Manufacturing
Radio
Broadcasting

Slovakia
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom

24

Canada

24

Female

No

Female

No

Male

Yes

Female

Yes

Technology
Secondary
School

Male

Yes

University

Canada

24

Male

Yes

Consultancy

12

Female

Yes

Manufacturing

Female

Yes

Male

Yes

Female

Yes

Healthcare
Financial
Services
Radio
Broadcasting

Canada
United
States
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom

Male

No

Manufacturing

United
States

44

36
12

8 Months
9 Months
12
36

8 Months

Appendix F- Thematic Analysis Overview

ID No 12819975

45

Appendix G- Example Comparative Thematic Process and Flow Chart (Carried out for each
Respondent)

ID No 12819975

46

Building team effectiveness through psychometric profiling. a scientific reality? A Dissertation by Sascha Michel

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Building team effectiveness through psychometric profiling. a scientific reality? A Dissertation by Sascha Michel

Similar to Building team effectiveness through psychometric profiling. a scientific reality? A Dissertation by Sascha Michel (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Building team effectiveness through psychometric profiling. a scientific reality? A Dissertation by Sascha Michel