articles Learning to go psychometric Mentoring Teams: understanding behaviours

Teams: understanding behaviours

Freya Williams describes an approach that may be taken to build effective teams, based on the use of psychometric testing that creates an understanding of the inherent differences between team members and their resulting behaviours.

Freya Williams, BA, FIPD, has over twenty years experience in human resources.  She is fully qualified in using psychometric assessment material, and uses these skills in recruitment and coaching for personal development.  Freya has been a follower of the Schutz approach for the past fifteen + years.

Before designing a programme for teamwork, — that is, “enabling individuals  to work effectively with other people either as a team leader or team member” — we must first examine the various approaches that may be taken.  In his book, Will Schutz (1) describes commonly used methods that in his opinion should not be used; these are:

• Coerce — "People are hired and paid to work together; if they don't, fire them and hire people who will!"
• Compromise — "It is perfectly natural for people to disagree. When you are at work, forget about your disagreements; be respectful of each other. It is important to recognise and appreciate differences and to compromise our differences for the good of the team."
• Complement — "Recognition of diversity allows us to divide the task so that people do the things they are good at and complement the other team members."

When developing teams we may focus on giving people information about the way teams function, so that they have an intellectual understanding of the reasons for difficulties they may have relating to others in the workplace.  This knowledge will help them to know which behaviours will improve their situation.

Understanding how teams work is usually very helpful for improving team output, especially in the short term. Research shows that this is more likely to give a success rating of 75 per cent.  Some organisations create teams where team members have not worked together previously such as project teams, especially cross-functional teams.  In such team situations, research has shown that by leaving the team to 'get on' only 50 per cent of them will be successful.

Concordant decision-making

For a deeper, more lasting solution to the problems confronted by teams we need to look at concordant decision-making.  Organisational decision-making is commonly authoritarian.  In this mode, one vote, the boss's, determines the decision.  This often happens in SMEs and owner-driven companies.  The preferred method, taken by boards, committees and democratic bodies, is the vote of the majority — that is more than half.  What would happen in a properly participative team, one in which all members are asked for their input?  How would we arrive at consensus decision-making?

To achieve a collective opinion, the team would need to be empowered and taught to work well together in an open and creative atmosphere.  Concordant decision-ma king is a method that provides a structure, so enabling team members to make full use of their creativity and logic by capitalising on their ability to speak honestly to each other.  This method encourages the team to stimulate one another, so that they arrive at solutions that probably none of them would have thought of alone. Let's look at how this might show itself in the team by looking at atmosphere compatibility.

Atmosphere or cultural compatibility

One popular theory of compatibility is reflected in the phrase ‘Birds of a feather flock together'. This is true when members of our team prefer the same atmosphere or 'climate' or 'context'; in this situation we have a common basis on which to resolve differences.

Using Schutz's definitions, the atmospheres that form the bases for team decision-making are defined by Inclusion, Control and Openness.

Inclusion atmosphere

An atmosphere of high inclusion occurs when we have lots of contact, frequent meetings, communicate well and interact a great deal.

An atmosphere of low inclusion describes a situation in which our contact is low. We hardly see each other, we may be teleworking, we may have separate offices; we may even have our own tasks, which are completed in private.

Inclusion incompatibility occurs when one individual likes lots of contact, while another prefers to work alone in his/her own office. (This is similar to the difference that exists between introverts and extroverts.) The difficulty arises when the two people have disagreements. One wants to solve them by talking and meeting and the other individual wants to solve them through isolated individual action. This leads to an impasse.

Control atmosphere

An atmosphere of high control exists where there is a strict hierarchy within the organisation or team.  There is a clear line of authority and an expectation that the leader will give orders and the team will comply.

An atmosphere of low control exists where there is a minimal hierarchy, or a flat structure; this is often found in young IT software companies.  Plans are made at the last minute and there is a laissez-faire attitude.

Control atmosphere incapability occurs when one individual wants a dear structure and everything planned out ahead (he/she may be the Finance Director, for example) and the others want a democratic approach. The Finance Director wants the leader to make a decision and everyone else wants to discuss what to do next!

Openness atmosphere

An atmosphere of high openness exists when we are open about expressing our feelings and fears.  In such a situation the Finance Director can be open about his/her worries about the bank balance and the Sales Director can be open about not getting the big sale he/she had forecast. A no-blame atmosphere is needed for this to work well.

Low openness atmosphere exists in an organisation in which 'personal relationships' on or off the job are discouraged. This could be described as 'business-like' — that is, 'Leave your personal worries at home, you are here to work.'

Openness incompatibility happens when one individual wants a good discussion about his/her relationship with another person who prefers to stick to the business agenda.  It also shows itself where one individual wants to consider the feelings of the team, while another just wants to get the job done, no matter how.  In order to achieve high openness, the team members must feel safe from being fired or ostracised — that is, there must be a culture of no blame.

Role compatibility

Atmosphere compatibility refers to the climate, culture or ground rules within which we interact — the stage setting.  Role compatibility refers to the parts we play with respect to each other as we interact.

As shown below, there are two types of role incompatibility.

• Confrontive where we both want to initiate behaviour and neither of us wants to receive it. It leads to open confrontation, or power struggles or subtle manoeuvring.
• Apathetic where we both want to receive behaviour and neither of us wants to initiate it. This is more covert and harder to identify; its most noticeable symptom is apathy, and nothing gets done. Either I 'forget' to do something or 'think you were doing it'. 

Examples of inclusion compatability/incompatability are given below.

• Inclusion role compatibility occurs when I like to invite you to meetings and you are happy to be there.
• Inclusion confrontive incompatibility occurs when we both want to initiate the meetings, but don't want to be just invited.  We both want to choose where we go and with whom.
• Inclusion apathetic incompatibility occurs when we both want to be asked but neither of us was; we both hang back. For example, we would like a meeting to discuss the new project but neither of us made the effort to contact the other.

Examples of control compatability/incompatability are given below.

• Control role compatibility occurs when one likes to give direction and the other likes to take it — an ideal mentoring project!
• Control confrontive incompatibility is when we have a power struggle because we both want to give direction. We may well become over focused and miss the point of the argument.
• Control apathetic incompatibility happens when we both want to be told what to do. This can be seen in teams with an indecisive leader and unimaginative team members.

Examples of openness compatability/incompatability are given below.

• Openness role compatibility means that we both like to initiate a degree of openness and are both satisfied with that.  We have a relaxed chat about all things and are not scared to admit failure.
• Openness confrontive incompatibility occurs when one individual decides not to initiate openness with some people — that is, he/she chooses. This can be disruptive in teams when one person can 'confide' in a few people but not all the team.
• Openness apathetic incompatibility means that all parties would really like to have an open relationship but are too scared to initiate it. This can happen in a blame culture. As an external consultant I am often told lots of things that everyone in the team needs to know, which individual members do not reveal to one another.

A psychometric instrument, such as Firo-Element B, which gives objective measurements to the team can be used to measure the above. It is particularly useful when working with newly composed teams and can also be used if there are two members of a team causing great difficulties for the remainder.  Feedback and a discussion, using examples from the workplace, follow the testing.

This approach allows the team to explore their behaviours in working together but it is through a measurement that is non-confrontational.  It can appeal especially to those liking figures as a base starting point.  The facilitator could explain the inclusion, control and openness described here and ask the team how it can put things right.

Inclusion; Control; Openness accompanying theory

How many times have you been 'told' to go to a meeting rather than wanting to go? Commitment, for individuals, is about wondering how much energy they will devote to the meeting or team, how much time they will put in and take from other activities. If, for example, an individual who wants to be captain of a team thinks he/she may not be, then he/she might make excuses not to go; alternatively if elected captain, the same individual is likely to pour in lots of energy to the project!

Understanding how teams work is usually very helpful for improving team output, especially in the short term. As a facilitator, it is good to watch how the team gets to know one another during stage 1 (the inclusion phase). We find that it is often through discussing other trivia, such as holidays for example. Observe, for instance, how committed people are. Do they come unprepared? Do they falter? How punctual are they? Do they really want to be there?

Stage 2 is about levels of responsibility, competition to be leader, methods for decision-making and distribution of power. How much power and responsibility is each individual happy with?   One person may want the team to admire him/her, so might show off or name drop.  If one of the team members is not happy with the leader, he/she may be very critical and blame others.  Many team members feel like leaving at this point, but rarely do.

Stage 3 is the most advanced stage and only happens when all the issues with the first two stages are dealt with. The boundaries are set, but the team needs to

decide how open it will really be.  Individuals may ask the following questions.  Shall we keep it superficial?; this is, after all, work.  Would the team still respect or like me if they knew all about me?  Can I really tell them that the big sale I promised in the budgets isn't going to happen and why?

It is a good idea to get the team to discuss these three stages, if it is a new team, what do they expect to happen? If it is an existing team, then get plenty of behavioural examples to illustrate these areas.

Training objectives

The objectives of the training are to:

• develop a better understanding of team colleagues, their roles, their needs and expectations
• improve skills at communicating thoughts and feelings about self and colleagues
• identify own strengths in team activity and learn to apply them
• recognise own limitations and the implications
• develop own confidence in contributing to and influencing team colleagues
• develop a climate of co-operation and trust within the team
• develop an action plan for improving team effectiveness at work.

Conclusion

Failure to be aware of atmosphere, or cultural, differences in a team leads to confusion,  disagreement about each specific issue and lowered productivity.  More time and energy is spent on personal disagreements than getting the team to finish the work.  Unless, therefore, the team recognises this and deals with it directly, it will have difficulty agreeing on the details of the project.

Reference

(1) Will Schutz, The Human Element Workbook, Jossey-Bass, 1994.

TRAINING JOURNAL  March 1999