BUILDING STRONGER TEAMS IN THE LIFE INSURANCE INDUSTRY: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF THE USE OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE SELECTION AND HIRING PROCESS

Transcription

1 BUILDING STRONGER TEAMS IN THE LIFE INSURANCE INDUSTRY: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF THE USE OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE SELECTION AND HIRING PROCESS by Cassandra Williams RUBYE HOWARD BRAYE, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair JOHNNY MORRIS, PhD, Committee Member LEE MEADOWS, PhD, Committee Member William A. Reed, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Business and Technology A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Capella University August 2010

2 UMI Number: All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI

3 Cassandra Williams, 2010

4 Abstract This research is a qualitative study of the use of personality assessment testing in the selection and hiring process and its impact on team building and team effectiveness. The industry that the study focused on was life insurance. The opinion is that teams are the most effective way to insure high production and gain efficiencies. Team composition receives very little mention in existing literature. This dissertation explores whether benefits exist when incorporating assessment testing into the selection and hiring process for a team. This study addresses two areas: whether the use of personality assessment inventory theory enhances the applicant selection and hiring process to support team building and team effectiveness in the insurance industry, and whether individual awareness derived from the use of assessment testing improves team building and team effectiveness in the insurance industry in ways that are similar to other industries. In order to address these questions, individuals who held the position of supervisor or manager of a team were interviewed and asked to give their perspectives. The outcome of these interviews supports the view that relationships may exist between assessment testing results, team building, and team effectiveness. The dissertation concludes with suggestions for future research relative to the exploration of the use of personality assessment testing in talent selection.

5 Dedication To Barney: My brother, thank you for being there when I needed you. You went out of your way to help me in any way that you could, even if it meant putting yourself last. You had an unspoken expectation that I finish this journey; it was critical to both of us. To my parents: You both have always been very supportive of my goals. Many times, you took over parental responsibilities for my daughter in order for me to get my lessons. I could not have asked for better parents. Momma, you pushed me to complete this degree. You would not allow me to give up! Daddy, this degree was in your plan for me. You were the only person in our immediate family who had earned a Ph.D. and I had to be the second one. You did not physically make it to the completion of this journey, but I know that you will celebrate with me in spirit. To Barry: Without you, I would have lost my grip! You have demonstrated to me true love, love that I can see and feel. You have totally supported me through it all and have done everything in your power to remove all obstacles. I do not know if I have enough time in this life to show you how much I love you! To Mina: During my comprehensive exams, when I wanted to give up, you wrote a letter to me that gave me the strength to continue. Your wisdom is beyond your years and you inspire me in so many ways. It is such a blessing to have you as a daughter! This achievement is for you! iii

6 Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to give thanks to my Creator, who placed this journey in front of me and gave me the strength and wisdom to put it behind me. I would like to thank those who have helped to guide me throughout my academic journey. To my mentor, Dr. Rubye Braye, the phenomenal woman who has guided me along this journey, you are full of knowledge and wisdom. You were just who I needed to complete this experience. I really appreciate you! Thank you to Dr. Toni Greif, who changed and guided my thinking early in the program and taught me what it means to be scholarly. I would also like to thank Dr. Greif for directing me to Dr. Braye. To Dr. Lee Meadows, just when I was praying for an individual with a Ph.D. to enter my life someone who understood the journey, I met you under unexpected circumstances. Dr. Johnny Morris, your knowledge and comments have been valuable to me. Thank you for sharing your wisdom. A special thank-you to Dr. Cornell West: You inspired me to keep moving forward even though our paths have not crossed. I would also like to acknowledge the following individuals who have shown their support in many ways throughout this journey: to my family, parents James and Othelda, Barney, Sharon, Gary (comic relief), Janice, Barry, Mark, Terrian, Nadine, Barry Jr., Mina, and Marlyn. Thanks to Qimmah: You fed my spiritual needs and inspired me with your wisdom. To my fellow Ph.D. companions and good friends, Rosalind Gaines, Toi Dennis, and Gianna Mitchell: We were all in this together, through it all. Especially to you, Ros we went through a lot of the bumps and bruises together; however, we made it! To Sherita and Keisha, although you were not able to finish this journey with us, you showed your support in so many ways. Sherita, I do not have to spell it out: You know. iv

7 Thank you to Janice D. for the emotional support that I needed so many times. To my Tighten Up s Gym family, Demetrius, Lasaundra, Myron, and Alan: Thanks for the stress relief! Thank you all! v

8 Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables List of Figures iv ix x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction to the Problem 1 Background of the Study 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Purpose of the Study 3 Rationale 5 Research Questions 5 Significance of the Study 5 Definition of Terms 7 Assumptions and Limitations 8 Organization of the Remainder of the Study 9 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 11 The Life Insurance Industry 11 Selection and Hiring Process 12 Organizational Teams 14 Personality Inventory Theory 22 Personality Assessments 29 Self-Presentation 47 Summary 48 vi

9 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 49 Research Questions 49 Research Design and Methodology 49 Sampling 51 Instrumentation 52 Data Collection 54 Data Analysis 55 Validity and Reliability 56 Ethical Considerations 58 Summary 58 CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 59 Pilot Study 59 Demographics 60 Team Building and Team Effectiveness 65 Personality Assessment Results 68 Conclusion 71 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 73 Discussion 73 Limitations 79 Recommendations for Future Research 80 Conclusion 81 REFERENCES 83 APPENDIX. INTERVIEW GUIDE 96 vii

10 viii

11 List of Tables Table 1. Energizing Preferences 25 Table 2. Attending Preferences 26 Table 3. Deciding Preferences 26 Table 4. Living Preferences 26 Table 5. The Five- Factor Model 34 Table 6. Research Question and Interview Matrix 53 ix

12 List of Figures Figure 1. Workflow management 15 Figure 2. Consent form response rate 61 Figure 3. Interview completion 62 Figure 4. Industry experience 63 Figure 5. Age range 64 Figure 6. Gender 65 Figure 7. Familiarity with personality assessment testing 66 Figure 8. Team structure 69 Figure 9. Behavioral responses to results 70 x

13 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem The focus of this research was building stronger teams in the life insurance industry by using personality assessment in the selection and hiring process. What is the value of utilizing personality assessment tools in the hiring process in order to build effective, efficient, cohesive teams? The basis for this study was that every organization is fundamentally a group of individuals working towards meeting common goals and objectives. Given the various facets of the individual personality and personality differences as measured by personality inventories specifically the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the possibility exists that an applicant personality assessment can be used in selection and hiring to predict an applicant s potential to mix and work well as a member of a team. Background of the Study The research was based on human resources practices in the life insurance industry, specifically those associated with the management group. The current school of thought for the industry is use of teams, as one effective means of managing workload. According to Morgeson, Reider, and Campion (2005), designing work around teams has become a fact of organizational life (Cascio, 1995; Hackman, 1990; Manz & Sims, 1993). To meet the challenges that organizations face such as changing technology and employee mobility, teams are being utilized to manage the variety of skill 1

14 interdependencies that characterize the modern world of work (Kaufman, 2005). For the purpose of hiring, the current practice for human resources departments is to prescreen potential associates, to include team members, utilizing a standard competency test that may include math, basic analyzing, and clerical skills testing. Other than from the applicant s resume and interview, the manager has no idea of the personality of the applicant. Increasingly leaders have the expectation that an effective team requires some awareness of personal tendencies of the individual on the team (i.e., how they mix with the existing team members as well as individual preferences or styles they may have). Understanding individual preferences may identify potential blind spots or areas of vulnerability on a team (Varvel, Adams, Pridie, & Ulloa, 2004). Statement of the Problem Limited research exists regarding the use of personality assessments during the applicant selection and hiring process to improve team building and team effectiveness, in the life insurance industry. According to Maddux and Wingfield (2003), people are the most critical part of any organization s success. The authors indicated that good people help ensure profitability, productivity, growth, and long-term survival (Maddux & Wingfield). Individual strengths and weaknesses are not fully acknowledged during the hiring process. The problem is that without such details, individuals may not work optimally within teams. Without individual personality and organizational (human resources, the hiring manager) awareness, the individual is unaware of their own abilities and may not be as effective. 2

15 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the use of personality assessments in the selection and hiring process as a way to build stronger teams in the life insurance industry. The research explored whether benefits exists when incorporating the MBTI into the selection and hiring process when the open position that needs to be filled is on a team. The majority of life insurance companies use the teaming concept as a means to process work. The opinion exists that the use of teams is the most effective way to insure high production and to gain efficiencies. The makeup of these teams generally consists of a diverse group of personalities. Personality is the emotional and behavioral characteristics of a person. In order to better understand behavioral characteristics of someone in the organization or the applicant who is attempting to become a part of the organization it helps to know about his or her personality (Robbins, 2005). This research studied whether a relationship exists between individual selfawareness and team effectiveness. The workplace hiring process in this regard may be viewed from the following perspectives: 1. Manager of individual contributors 2. One who participates in the hiring process 3. Manager of a team The current hiring practices only assesses how well the applicant interacts during the interview process, analysis of the applicant s resume, and how well their personality connects with those who interview them only. What sometimes happens is the applicant is hired and the manager discovers that the person may be mismatched with those who currently exist on the team. This team mismatch may result in less than desired 3

16 productivity. With the increasing frequency of this occurrence, it may be time for new organizational paradigms relevant to how applicants are hired if the team concept is to continue. The use of assessment tests in a team setting can help to overcome performance obstacles by encouraging team members to better understand each other (Varvel et al., 2004). Previous hiring practices have not focused on personality assessment as a significant tool in the assistance of searching for the candidate that fits. Thorne (1987) made an assumption that is often overlooked during the hiring process; the assumption states that personality influences others. Because of the influence that an individual s personality has on others, the area of study becomes important (Varvel et al.). According to Dattner (as cited in Cummings, 2005), assessments can be cursory and misleading. The research focused on the use of one such personality assessment tool, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Researchers argue against the use of such tools in hiring practices due to its changing nature and subjectivity. They suggested that MBTI neither accounts for behavioral differences nor clarifies which characteristics of a particular function an individual may exhibit (Rideout & Richardson, 1989). Another argument against the use of personality assessments in the selection process is that it may disenfranchise job applicants and complicate the recruitment process (Rosse, Miller, & Stecher, 1994). According to Maddux and Wingfield (2003), when selecting team members, tapping into many viewpoints as possible by bringing together people with varied backgrounds and experiences is wise. Such a group allows for individuals with various behavior styles to be chosen. Behavior styles or personality types can be described in 4

17 many ways and personality assessment instruments can provide detailed feedback about a person s primary and supporting personality characteristics (Maddux & Wingfield). Rationale The reasons for conducting this research were the following: First, recognizing that every individual is a combination of psychological as well as physiological parts, the purpose of this study was to determine if value is present in the usage of personality assessment tools in the selection and hiring process. Second, the information from this study may be used to support team-building efforts. Research Questions The questions that were addressed in this research were as follows: 1. How can the use of personality assessment inventory theory enhance the applicant selection and hiring process to support team building and team effectiveness in the insurance industry? 2. How can individual personality awareness derived from the use of the Myers- Briggs type inventory improve team building and team effectiveness in the insurance industry in ways that are similar to other industries? Significance of the Study The significance of the study was to understand the possible relationship between individual personality awareness and team building and team effectiveness. Fundamental differences are present amongst individuals that may have an effect on team relationships and possibly team effectiveness. These differences shape behaviors, thought processes, and relationships minimally. According to Brown and Harvey (1996), recognizing these differences during the selection and hiring process, organizations could benefit greatly in two ways: 5

18 1. Increase the probability of hiring the right person for the job 2. Increase effective performance The Myers-Briggs Type Inventory is one test amongst many personal inventory theory tests that could serve as a valid tool to identify the likeness and differences amongst new hires. This test is presently used in organizations such as Apple, AT&T, and GE as well as many hospitals, educational institutions, and the military (Robbins, 2005). The MBTI is basically a 100-question personality test that asks people how they usually feel or act in particular situations (Robbins2005). The argument against using MBTI is based on the suggestion that the results are not closely related to job performance. A study conducted by Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, and Stone (2001) posited that interview questions appear to be logically related to personality variables. The results of this study suggested that interviewer rating of these variables might be more predictive of job performance than self-report personality scores (Iddekinge, Raymark, & Roth, 2005). MBTI and similar tests have been used since the early 1980s in an effort to increase understanding of how individuals interact in employment settings (Clarke, 2003; Houtz et al., 2003; Isaksen, Lauer, & Wilson, 2003; Torres, 2004). The objective of incorporating personal inventory tests into the hiring process is to increase effectiveness of the individual by making certain that they are in the right position. Personality differences may become an important factor. An applicant s personality has a positive or negative effect on organizational relationships globally and specifically within the team where the applicant has membership. Business leaders are taking on a very different perspective relative to organizational culture and relationships and its impact on success 6

19 (Varvel et al., 2004). Leaders are becoming aware that the difference between being successful and unsuccessful can be attributed to not only strategic planning, processes and procedures, but how well everyone in the organization can work together as well (Williams, 2007). These interactions may be enhanced by understanding individual characteristics (Hackman, 1987; Shaw, 1981; Varvel et al., 2004). Definition of Terms Applicant selection. The process of delivering an individual that meets the needs of a job and is the best fit for a company. Applicant selection is a planned approach that predicts performance and sets up success. Myers-Briggs Type Inventory. A personality inventory intended to make the theory of Carl Jung understandable and useful in people lives. The essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in the way individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998). Organizational culture. A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learns as it solves its problems that work well enough to be considered valid and is passed on to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Schein, 2001, p. 373) Personality assessment inventory theory. A personality assessment device based on large number of items to which the subject responds by indicating those that apply to or are descriptive of him or herself (Reber, 1985, p. 677). 7

20 Team. A group of people who are interdependent with respect to information, resources, and skills and who seek to combine their efforts to achieve a common goal (Thompson, 2000). Team building. Development of working relationships amongst fellow members of an organization whose intent is to work towards an overall mission or objective, producing results that contribute to the organization s overall success (Heathfield, 2010). Team effectiveness. The system of getting people in a company to work together effectively. Team effectiveness can be determined by a number of factors, such as the right mix of skill and the right motivation (Bocco, 2010). Teamwork. Behavior by individuals in a group working toward a common goal that reflects ability to share credit with coworkers, support group decisions, and solicit opinions from coworkers (Novations Group, Inc., 2003). Type. A class or group distinguished by possessing or displaying some particular characteristic (Reber, 1985, p. 677). Assumptions and Limitations A number of assumptions exist for this research. These assumptions are as follows: Each manager or supervisor completing the interview was responsible for hiring employees. Each individual had experience in the management of teams, or was in an environment in which teams are utilized. The assumption is that these experiences will create answers that are relevant to the research questions (Bryman, 2004). The expectation was that each of the interviewees will answer all questions openly and honestly. 8

21 Following are limitations regarding the research: Purposeful sampling decreases the generalizing of findings (Creswell, 2003). Sampling was limited to those who voluntarily participated. Those who participated answered the interview questions as they think things should be and not how they currently operate. The sample size consisted of 20 individuals in the life insurance industry; the results of this study cannot be generalized to the entire management population in the life insurance industry. Managers who are interested in support of team building may use these study findings as a guideline. While the findings are helpful, the results of the study are not intended to be used as an authority on outcomes regarding personality assessment, team building or, team effectiveness. The researcher is an experienced team manager in the life insurance industry, with an understanding that bias may be introduced in the analysis of the data. In order to minimize bias, the researcher maintained objectivity when reviewing the data and minimized commentary and opinions. Organization of the Remainder of the Study The study is comprised of five chapters as required by the Capella School of Business and Technology. Chapter 1 introduced the study, describing the problem that was addressed, background of the problem, purpose, rationale, research questions posed, significance, definitions, assumptions, and limitations. Chapter 2 deals with a review of historical literature covering the study. Chapter 3 presents and explains the methodology used to collect and analyze the data for the study. Chapter 4 presents the study results. Chapter 5 provides a summary of the discussions presented and give recommendations for future studies in this area. 9

22 10

23 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review discusses teams, the selection process, personality inventory theory, team building, and team effectiveness as well as the life insurance industry. The review will discuss two personality assessment tests, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Big Five Personality Scale (the five-factor Model). The material will also review studies on the use of personal assessment theories in personnel selection as well as some of the concerns that are associated with the assessments. The Life Insurance Industry Life insurance organizations are concerned with the collection, investment, and disbursement of funds. Relative to total organizational structure, life insurance companies are most frequently line staff functional organizations (Black & Skipper, 1994), meaning those associates who are involved in the day-to-day operations of the organization. Individual segments of the life insurance organization may be arranged on a line basis with all operations reporting directly to a manager. The organizational structure that is most often used in these organizations is team structures. Cross-functional teams with decision power and rich network access are commonly recognized as more customer responsive than hierarchical structures (C. Smith, 2006). These teams are assembled especially within the administrative units to handle customer service (e.g., problem solving and complaint handling) without the need to always escalate issues to upper level management as in hierarchical structures. Sound performance in the life insurance 11

24 industry is characterized by team work, processing speed, ease of doing business, as well as good quality (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Mathieu & Rapp, 2009). Those responsible for hiring personnel have to be certain to put the right people in the right positions in order to obtain these goals and objectives. Executive members of the organization are responsible for hiring of department heads and other reporting officials. These department heads (managers and maybe supervisors) are responsible for hiring the administrative staff. Individuals who are responsible for hiring will be defined as managers and supervisors. Selection and Hiring Process Employees are a major contributor to organizational success and are vital to all organizations. Three key factors in this success are hiring the right employee, professional development of the employee, and employee retention. Once hired, new employees are on-boarded as quickly as possible, working cohesively with their team members (Fox, 2005). Hiring personnel is a critical job function for managers (Fiorenza, 2006). Good hiring decisions lead to more satisfied and productive employees who stay longer within an organization (Novations Group, Inc., 2003). Often, locating good candidates is a difficult task, causing the hiring process to require a significant investment of time. Discovering later that a new hire does not fit and must be let go wastes times, money, and resources, according to Wiley (2008). The basic process for hiring an individual into an organization requires mutual decision making. Ultimately, the organization decides whether or not to make a job offer and how attractive the offer should be. The candidates decide whether the organization and the job offer will fit their 12

25 needs and goals (Lin & Kleiner, 2004). Generally, the hiring process entails the following process: 1. Job analysis Before the selection process begins, there must be a good idea about what these people will do. 2. Recruiting The organization has to assess the pool of candidates that are interested in the job. 3. Candidate assessment Information is gathered about the job candidates in order to make a hiring decision. The information is mostly provided by the applicant themselves through their resume as well as through the job interview process. At this point psychological tests or personal assessments would be beneficial. 4. Reference checks Calling previous employers. In the process of selecting, interviewing, and hiring, much subjective thinking taking place. Just think of what managers tell about an applicant who makes the grade and gets hired, or what is said about those who leave the office, having failed to make the right impression (Morin, 2007). Too much significance ends up being placed on the feel about the applicant as opposed to how the applicant will fit in and how effective the applicant will be in the position. Fortunately managers can add objectivity to the process by using assessments (Morin). The Ideal Candidate Versus the Hired Candidate Employers are realizing that successful applicants may not be ideal employees (Moy, 2006). A goal of selection is to predict how well an applicant will perform on the job (Novations Group, Inc., 2003). Often times, inferences are made about an applicant after only a short interview. In most instances the interview does not provide a true representation of the candidate. This encounter could result in hiring a candidate after only briefly observing their behavior. For example one company was about to hire a 13

26 candidate who was seen as a great addition to their organization with a great resume and presentation only to realize that the personality assessment showed alarming unproductive behaviors, such as bogus sick days and long lunch hours (Beaton, 2007). Using a personality assessment, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or the Big Five Personality Scale, along with a structured interview will enhance a firm s productivity and results by having complementary personality styles (Beaton). A personality assessment will pick up where gut instincts may fail. By incorporating personality assessment testing an employer would have a wider base of information to make a solid decision. Organizational Teams Macy and Izumi (1993) found that the financial performance indicators of organizations show greatest improvement when changes are made in organizational structure, human resource management practices and technology. These types of changes have a significant impact on how effective people are at work (Adams, 2008). Kaufman (2005) determined that the organizational changes that had the greatest positive impact on financial performance included the creation and development of teams. Dyers (1977) attributed the emergence of the team concept to one of the great breakthroughs in organizational theory and practice. Teams are found in numerous settings such as businesses or educational institutions. The main goal of building a team is management of workload and workflow, improved employee motivation, and improved organizational productivity (Al-Rawi, 2008). The diagram in Figure 1 demonstrates the flow of work and how the work impacts organizational profitability. 14

27 Leadership and Efficient Staff Drive Throughput Drives Productivity Drives Profit Figure 1. Workflow management. The Team Concept Small groups are, quite simply, the basic organizational building blocks of excellent companies (Peters & Waterman, 1982). Guzzo and Dickson (1996) reported statistics from the early 1990s on the use of teams in U.S. organizations from a number of sources. In this same study estimates were provided from 1982 through 1993 suggesting that in 1990 as many as 47% of large U.S companies made use of work teams. The time frame between 1987 and 1990 appeared to have the strongest growth trend (Guzzo & Dickson). Many different types of teams exist: leader directed, total quality, continuous improvement, cross-functional, and informal (Dranitsarsi, 2009). The most frequently 15

28 cited team type utilized in 66% of the Fortune 500 companies surveyed, according to Kaufman (2005), was the problem-solving team. The problem solving team allows for a merging of thinking styles and the outcomes of their work is customer focused (Whitt, 2006). Additional studies (Applebaum & Blatt, 1994; Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992) showed 80% of organizations with 100 or more employees utilizing teams in some way, with 50% of employees in these organizations belonging to at least one team at work. Likert (1961) developed the idea of organizations as a series of interlocking groups and the manager as a linking pin (Likert as cited by Dyers, 1977, p. 11). According to Likert (1961), 24 properties and performance characteristics distinguish the ideal, highly effective team: [1.] Members are skilled in all the various leadership and membership roles and functions. [2.] The team has a well established, working relationship among its members. [3.] Members of the team are loyal to each other and to the leader. [4.] Values of the team are a satisfactory integration of the relevant values and needs of its members. [5.] Members and leaders trust and confide in each other. [6.] When members are performing linking functions, value and goals of the team are linked in harmony with each other. [7.] The more important a value to the team, the greater the likelihood that an individual member will accept it. [8.] Team members are highly motivated to achieve team goals. [9.] All team activities occur in a supportive atmosphere. [10.] The leader creates a cooperative rather than a competitive relationship among team members. [11.] The team helps each member develop his or her potential. [12.] Members accept willingly individual and team goals. [13.] The leader and members believe that each team member can accomplish the impossible. [14.] Mutual help is a characteristic of highly effective teams [15.] The supportive atmosphere of the highly effective team stimulates creativity. 16

29 [16.] The team knows the value to constructive conformity and knows when to use it. [17.] All members are motivated to communicate fully and frankly all the information relative to the team s activity. [18.] Members use the communication process to serve the interests and goals of the team. [19.] There is a strong motivation to receive communication. [20.] There are strong motivations to try to influence other members as well as to be receptive to be influenced by them. [21.] Team processes enable members to exert more influence on the leader and to communicate far more information to him or her. [22.] The team is flexible and adaptable because of the ability of members to influence each other. [23.] Individual members feel secure in making decisions. [24.] The leader is selected carefully. (pp ) Although these are significant characteristics, currently no one definition of characteristics that make up a good team exists. Team Building Teams are serious business in today s economy as companies realize the value of teaming in creating greater employee involvement, levering human resources, fostering innovation, and shoring up the bottom line (Al-Rawi, 2008). According to Ross (2008), high-functioning teams are what make high-performing companies click. Ideally, teams merge individual skills into a whole with greater capabilities. In addition to enhanced productivity and performance, the team model can also help employee retention by making each individual more dependent on others (Hersch, 2008). One of the many tasks of a manager is to build this team of individuals. Team building involves a number of critical decisions. This includes selecting the right people for the team. It has been suggested that the skills, knowledge, and motivation needed to function effectively in a team go beyond the technical skills often measured in traditional selection contexts (Barrick et al., 1998; Guidon, 1998). Although work is 17

30 commonly organized around teams, little research is available on how to select team members (Morgeson, Reider, et al., 2005). According to Marcellino (2005), an abundance of empirical studies are available, but no unified theoretical model of team development exists because teams by their very nature are multidimensional and complex (Kline, 1999; Salas, Rozell, Mullen, & Driskell, 1999). The right mix depends upon the characteristics of the existing members as well as those of the people that are added. Clay (2007) offered these seven characteristics of a team: 1. Shared purpose and direction 2. Motivating goals 3. Commitment to individual and team roles 4. Multidirectional communication 5. Empowerment 6. Reliance on diverse talents 7. Mutual support and trust According to Ross (2008), a team is governed by shared attitudinal and behavioral norms, which are understood within the group. Robbins (2005, p. 238) suggested that the composition that makes up the team effectiveness model is comprised of the following: 1. The ability of the members 2. Personality 3. Allocating roles 4. Diversity 5. Size of the team 6. Member flexibility 18

31 7. Member preference Woodcock and Francis (1981) considered team building a process of planned and deliberate encouragement of effective working practices whilst diminishing difficulties or blockages which interfere with the team s competence or resourcefulness (p. 3). The authors detailed some of the reasons behind team development as 1. Authoritarian approaches are no longer acceptable and team management becomes an effective style. 2. Teams motivate and sustain their members and energize people towards achievement. 3. Teams can be created to become problem solving units which harness multidisciplinary skills. 4. Decision making may be expedited using the team approach. 5. Interpersonal difficulties, confusion over roles, and inadequate performance are issues are more likely to be resolved in a team environment. (pp ) Teamwork Team members should develop the communication and interaction patterns that influence how well the team works together. In most definitions teamwork is related to a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Al-Rawi, 2008). According to Michalski and King (1998), all teams are groups of individuals but not all groups of individuals necessarily demonstrate the cohesiveness of a team. The use of personal inventory theory may give the hiring manager data to assess where the individual would stand in that group. Building a team affords one the wonderful opportunity to bring out the best in others and solve problems 19

32 in the process (Mallory, 1991). When a team is assembled, the leader brings individuals who symbolize diverse experiences, skill, personalities, and social backgrounds. Embracing and appreciating these differences may foster greater productivity and increase satisfaction for employees (Kummerow & Hirsch, 1986; Provost & Anchors, 1987; Rideout & Richardson, 1989). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator may be very useful tool for team building. Personality variables have been shown to predict some variability in team performance and outcomes (Barry & Stewart, 1997; DeJong, Bouhuys, & Barnhoorn, 1999; O Neill & Kline, 2008). Knowing the various personality types of persons within a team may help members to better understand each other (Wethayanugoon, 1994). Several personality assessment tests are available for use to classify individuals: the Big Five Model of Personality, DISC, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), and the Occupational Personality Questionnaire, to name a few. The assessments are not without their disadvantages. One disadvantages of using a test such as the MMPI is that the test is used to identify social maladjustment. According to psychologists, although the test has value, it tends to flag otherwise normal individuals as pathological (Pepper, Kolesnikov- Jessop, & Hermann, 2005). Another disadvantage may be that given the results of the assessment tests an individual may be labeled creating limited possibilities (Culp & Smith, 2001). Influential Factors Many factors can influence the experience of working in a team and further can influence the team overall. These factors include interpersonal aspects, team communication and trust amongst members, behavioral motivational drives based on the 20

33 needs of each individual contributor, as well as social aspects (Maddux & Wingfield, 2003). Interpersonal aspects of teams are partially defined by interactions which are affected by levels of individual interpersonal ability. Identifying factors that influence can assist in identifying what affects group experiences and how to best design interventions for group experiences (Bales, 1950; Goleman, 2006; Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Interpersonal Communication Working in a team means interacting with others. Each individual brings differing needs and varying motives that influence interactions (Goleman, 2006; Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Individuals can improve the interpersonal aspects by understanding such unconscious factors as prejudices from past experiences, as well as behavioral motivators, in them selves and others (Goleman; Napier & Gershenfeld). If individuals can understand and appreciate their own styles, as well as those of other team members, interpersonal relationships can be much less confusing and frustrating (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Innate temperamental differences between individuals play an important role in shaping interpersonal interactions and have a bearing on group experiences (Amato & Amato, 2005; Horowitz et al., 2006). For example individuals with certain personality profiles desire harmony within a group environment and a strong level of teamorientation and support. Other individuals are invigorated by competition with, and a level of interdependence from, others in the group (Tieger & Barron-Tieger, 1998). If some group members prefer closer interpersonal relations and other members want more distant relations, recurring personality clashes and lower productivity can result (Bolman & Deal, 2003). 21

34 Difficulties in interactions may arise, and individual dissatisfaction results, when one member does not understand the motivating needs of another member (Lancellotti & Boyd, 2008). When motives behind a specific behavior are unknown, interpersonal interactions often are perceived as ambiguous or confusing, leading to miscommunication between interacting persons (Horowitz et al., 2006). If groups can learn to sense and understand the inner thoughts of, and driving forces within one another, groups can more effectively navigate through interactions (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Personality Inventory Theory Psychologist C. G. Jung (1921/1926) theorized that random behavior resulted in an individual s inbred tendency or personal preferences relative to the way they used their thoughts. According to Myers (1998), the essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in the way individuals prefer to use their perceptions and judgment (p. 3). Jung s theory was that individual behavior could be understood by assessing personality preferences (Culp & Smith, 2001). In his studies, Jung suggested that predictable differences are present in the way people prefer to digest information, how they organize it and reach conclusions. When these differences are not recognized and accepted problems may occur. Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers-Briggs developed a psychometric instrument, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, using Jung s theory of psychological types (Bradley & Hebert, 1997). The indicator was developed based upon discovering that many people are performing jobs not suited to their preferences (Krumwiede, Sheu, & Lavelle, 1998), with work results less than perfect. According to 22

35 personality type theory, individuals are predisposed to one of four preference alternatives in their behavior: 1. How a person is energized designated by extrovert (E) versus introvert (I) 2. What information a person perceives designated by sensing (S) versus intuition (N) 3. How a person decides designated by thinking (T) versus feeling (F) 4. The lifestyle a person adopts designated by judging (J) versus perceiving (P) Jung (1921/1926) noted that all possible combinations of the four preference scales result in 16 distinct personality types (ISTJ, ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISTP, ISFP, INFP, INTP, ESTP, ESFP, ENFP, ENTP, ESTJ, ESFJ, ENFJ, and ENTJ). According to Martin (1997), knowing how the combinations relate to each individual can tell a great deal about an individual, how they communicate, what is important the kinds of activities and career preferences, as well as what motivates. This information has potential value in the workplace. Usage of the MBTI may give the manager a clear understanding of the potential employee s natural tendencies. Both critics and supporters say that the indicator endures because it does a good job of pointing up differences between people, offers individuals a revealing glimpse of themselves and is a valuable asset in team building, improving communication, and resolving personality-based conflict (Shuit, 2003). The MBTI is intended to be an inventory of basic preferences rather than a measure of traits such as the individual s values, likes, or dislikes. Basic preferences as it relates to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator identifies whether the individual is an introvert or extrovert, the process used for decision making as well as how the individual 23

36 processes information. It has become the most widely used instrument for nonpsychiatric populations and has been used extensively in business. The MBTI provides a systematic process for identifying, understanding, and applying knowledge about an individual s personality, particularly within a workplace setting (Bierbaum, 2005). It also promotes self-awareness for team building and career development purposes (Carlson, 1989). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is proposed as a framework to discuss personality types and their potential influence on team effectiveness. Team effectiveness is defined as gathering the right mix of skills and the right motivation in order to work towards a common goal. According to Amato and Amato (2005), in complementary teams with different personality types, team performance is enhanced when individuals understand and accept personality differences. Kroeger and Thuesen (1992) suggested that diversity of psychological types results in successful group performance. Each type has something positive to contribute by sharing information, perspectives, and insights on how to accomplish a task (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). The authors posited that a typologically diverse team may take longer to accomplish a project, but the end result will always be better. The MBTI can provide an effective framework for helping team members recognize strengths available from diverse team members, avoiding conflict related to personality differences (Kummerow & McAllister, 1988). Dranitsaris (2009) provides some basic general and work characteristics associated with MBTI preferences. These characteristics are exhibited in the Tables 1 through 4. 24

37 Table 1. Energizing Preferences Extraversion External Involved with people and things Action-oriented Introversion Internal Territorial Work with ideas and concepts Note. Dranitsaris, General characteristics Outwardly directed Develop ideas through discussion Willing to share what they think or feel Inwardly directed Deep interests Energy gained by being alone Work characteristics Communicates with energy and enthusiasm Focus on people and things in the external environment Perceptive of external/informal standards Keep energy and enthusiasm inside Like to think before responding In meetings, verbalize already well thought-out conclusions 25

38 Table 2. Attending Preferences Sensing Specifics Reality Facts Intuition Sixth sense, hunches Big picture Abstract Note. Dranitsaris, General characteristics Use experience to solve problems Seldom make error of fact Patient with routines Like complexity and theories Follow their inspirations Future-oriented; see possibilities Work characteristics More interested in facts and actualities Dislike people overcomplicating things Like to present details of their work first More interested in possibilities Like the novel and unusual Refer to general concept Table 3. Deciding Preferences Thinking Logical Categorize Objective Feeling Circumstance Mercy Appreciate Note. Dranitsaris, General characteristics Use logic to reach conclusions May appear impersonal without intending to More likely to intellectualize their feelings Use values to reach conclusions Pick tact over truth Prize harmony; dislike conflict Work characteristics Prefer to be brief and concise Persuade through logic Objectively examine consequences Prefer to be sociable and friendly Freely give and desire appreciation In meetings, seek involvement with people 26

39 Table 4. Living Preferences Judging Planned Outcome-oriented Fixed Perceiving Options Spontaneous Pending Note. Dranitsaris, General characteristics Use thinking/feeling function Seek structure and schedules Feel stress until decisions are made Use sensing/intuitive function Leave things open; hate to miss out on anything Feel stress if forced to decide too quickly Work characteristics Want to know the best way to do things; serious about deadlines Like things decided in advance and expectations to be clear In meetings, focus on the tasks to be done Prefer spontaneity Tend not to follow up Communicate options and opportunities Attitudes and Preferences According to Jung s (1921/1926) psychological type theory, individuals are born with a predisposition for function and attitude preferences. Having four pair of opposing attitudes and functions in total, a person has a preference for one from each group (Dranitsaris, 2009). Because people prefer these functions, they tend to occur naturally and are used more often. They are more accessible and comfortable to use. These functions and attitudes become stronger and over time. Although the preferences come easily, other functions and attitudes may be used based upon situational demands. Using the less dominate functions may take more focus as they are not as comfortable (Myers, 1998). One point to remember; preferences are not set they are dynamic. People select how to behave in most situations. 27

40 Defining Personality Assessment Most personality theorists believe that the whole personality of an individual can be defined as the various traits, or characteristics that an individual possesses, plus the way in which the traits are related to and interact with one another (Argyris, 1962; Bales, 1950). Personality traits are described as characteristics that are stable over time motivated by needs that drive the behavior of a person and are psychological in nature (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008). The authors opine that personality is believed to have energy fueled by such need systems as the need to maintain an adjustment of the self in relation to the world. Amato and Amato (2005) contended that the effectiveness of group project teams is most likely related to the personality characteristics of each individual. Personality assessment tools such as the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator can help groups to understand their intrinsic preferences that contribute to actions and reactions within group settings (Amato & Amato). Personality is believed to play a critical role in the effectiveness of team experiences. Misunderstandings relative to personality differences has a tendency to create tension. Understanding and accepting preferences in others based on their personality can lead to improved experiences. The common thread of typology is that there are many ways of being normal according to individual personality type. Knowledge of typology lets understanding replace judgment and criticism, contributing to more productive and fulfilling relationships (Kirby, Barger, & Pearman, 2003). Knowledge of typology may provide insight into how to use the strengths of each type while anticipating less developed functions and the associated challenges. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator may provide 28