From 2008 to 2011, I worked as the leader of the human resources team at a Fortune 50 company. During that time, I had a challenging experience at one of the company’s manufacturing plants, which employed 1,200 people. Immersed in a list of negative key performance indicators, my challenge was to recover governance while facing the possibility of a plant shutdown.

Some of the issues that we were dealing with included a very controlled environment with restrictive labor laws, employee behaviors that contradicted corporate values, a high rate of absenteeism, unpaid wages and benefits, and jeopardized safety compliance.

The HR team seemed to be the “lightning arrester” in the middle of the storm — we had to solve every single challenging situation involving a worker. Was this right? That’s a story for another article, but the fact is that we handled it.

Team Role Assessment

Unfortunately, we didn’t have the benefit of using a team role assessment to assemble our task force, but I wish we had. Hogan’s personality tests and Team report would have helped us to design our task force to function most effectively by allowing us to better understand each team member’s strengths and weaknesses, potential derailers or dark-side personality characteristics, and key values and motivators. As I describe the actions we took to respond to the crisis, I’ll point out how a team role assessment would have served our team in this situation.

Our Action Plan

Our first action was to create a situation room. Any information we received had to be analyzed in that room, where we would work as a team to generate a timely, effective decision.

Once the situation room had been created, our second action was to define roles, a chain of command, and communication channels. Our strategy required team members to be relatively ambitious, reasonably hardworking, and good team players, who would not be driven by status concerns but would be willing to move into positions of authority or leadership roles when needed. An average Ambition score would have been ideal for this. The subscale Self-Confident would have needed to be high, as well.

Additionally, we saw the need to have some members of the team be dependable, planful, organized, reliable, and responsible, with high standards for their own and others’ performance. High scores on the Prudence scale would have been ideal to pinpoint these characteristics. Since we were facing a crisis, we also would have wanted team members with high scores on the subscale Calmness.

For our third action, we had to create a plan to maximize the use of our resources, including tasks, time, money, and people. We also had to assess potential consequences. For the most effective planning, it would have been ideal to have a combination of team members with above-average scores on the Not Spontaneous subscale, which would have indicated that they would take a planful approach and enjoy predictability, and team members with above-average scores on the Generate Ideas subscale, who would be good at brainstorming and thinking creatively.

The fourth action? Execution! This was the time for the team to demonstrate its effectiveness at making changes to our favor. For this, we needed team members who would have scored low on the Inquisitive scale. People who score low on this scale tend to be practical and levelheaded, take a pragmatic and hands-on approach to problem solving, and be good with application and implementation.

The fifth action was communication. This changed depending on the level of impact that we needed the message to have, from updating information every day or announcing difficulties or successes until we reached the final end, which was recovering the governance of the manufacturing plant. Since our audience was such a large group, we would have benefited from being able to look at the subscales Self-Confident, Likes Crowds, and Exhibitionistic, because we needed our communicator to be confident and appear comfortable in front of a crowd.

The Final Outcome

We finally did improve the key performance indicators in this manufacturing plant, and governance was recovered. The team was dissolved, but for me, it was the best management experience ever. This made me grow in my professional career.

While we managed to resolve our challenges without the use of a team role assessment, I can see in retrospect how the power of personality assessment would have made it easier for us to take an organized and purposeful approach to assembling our task force and correcting the key performance indicators to prevent the plant from shutting down.

To learn more about how you can use Hogan’s assessment solutions during a crisis, please call us at (918) 749-0632.

*This is a guest post authored by David Biggs, PhD, of Advanced People Strategies.

I have always been fascinated with teams and their impact on organizations. My most recent work in this area has been using the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) from Hogan Assessments.

• HPI – Measures everyday personality and can be used to predict job performance.
• HDS – Identifies potential personality-based performance and derailment behaviors.
• MVPI – Reveals a person’s core values, goals, and interests.

One of the advantages of using psychometrics is the ability to quickly discover a team’s underlying motivations and personality factors.

Schein (1990) warns that misalignment of team values and underlying assumptions can lead to serious organizational conflicts. I have certainly seen that in my career, with project managers falling out and physically coming to blows over resources.

The first step in the process of creating a better-functioning team is improving trust. This involves encouraging people to feel OK with being vulnerable, open, and honest in front of their coworkers. Improving trust is easier said than done. Putting ourselves at risk of failure or ridicule can be difficult to achieve. Individual differences are also a factor. For example, individuals who are more skeptical can be less trusting, especially under pressure.

Lencioni (2005) suggests that behavioral profiling might be key to improving trust within teams by giving team members an objective, reliable measure for understanding one another. This aids the team in admitting weaknesses and strengths to one another, which is part of building an effective team. It also provides the team with a common vocabulary for describing their differences and similarities.

We often use the Hogan assessments (HPI, HDS, and MVPI) for both individual and team development. At the 2020 Division of Occupational Psychology conference, a case study was presented that demonstrates the process of using the assessments for development in a team among whom skepticism made trust difficult to foster.

Despite the fact that teams vary widely in terms of their goals and composition, there is one right way to build a team, and many wrong ways, according to a new book by Gordon J. Curphy, Dianne L. Nilsen and Robert Hogan. The success of any team depends on having the right foundation in place.

In their book, titled “Ignition: A Guide to Building High-Performing Teams,” the authors provide insights into how to solve problems commonly faced by teams in today’s complex, fast-paced organizations. Case studies include combining teams as part of a re-organization, virtual teams, and matrixed teams, as well as fixing broken teams and developing high-potentials into effective team leaders.

“This book is the single best source available on how to carry out the fundamental task of building and maintaining a high-performing team,” says Curphy. “It outlines 40 team-improvement activities that are practical and effective. The exercises are based on the notion that teams need to do real work to become more effective.”

“Ignition” is intended as a reference book. Readers are encouraged to review the first two chapters to understand the overall considerations in building teams and how to set up and run team engagements. Then, chapters can be selected by the reader that most closely parallel the specific team issues they need to address.

The 15 “Ignition” chapters and 40 team improvement activities are linked to the Team Assessment Survey, which provides benchmarking feedback and helps teams pinpoint problem areas. In addition, downloadable supporting materials, such as PowerPoint decks, forms, handouts and articles are provided to help team leaders and facilitators more easily address team dilemmas and needs.

“Ignition: A Guide to Building High-Performing Teams” is available for purchase on Amazon for $49.99.

*This is a guest blog post authored by Melvyn Payne, Commercial Director at Advanced People Strategies.

I am privileged to work on a regular basis with leadership teams from a wide variety of backgrounds – both public and private sector. The big question that is usually being considered is “how do we become a high performing team?” 

These teams are usually made up of talented and successful individuals, and, typically, those same individuals expect their stakeholders to see the team as effective at what they do. 

When asked, team members can easily articulate what they would see as the characteristics of a high performing team and, equally, the key risks that cause a team to become dysfunctional, such as a breakdown of trust. 

So why is it that these groups of smart, experienced individuals, who clearly understand what might take the team’s performance to a different level, not take action? 

While most team members collectively agree they want to improve overall performance, there can often be a disconnect between what needs to change collectively and with what motivates the individuals – their personal values and ambitions. 

Consider two recent teams. Both identified similar issues which, if resolved, might take them to a higher performance level. The issues were the need for more open communication and the willingness to hold each other accountable. 

While the issues are the same, the teams themselves were very different. The first team is made up of engineers who need to collaborate on significant international projects. The second is a team of senior HR leaders looking to make a bigger impact on their organization. 

In the case of the engineers, assessment showed the majority are comfortable working independently and enjoy focusing on solving technical challenges. This meant that at a personal level there was less motivation to spend time talking to colleagues, especially about issues that might be more emotive. 

With the HR leaders, the majority value working with people – supporting and helping others in their work. In comparison, this may seem to lend itself to more communication. However, there was a reticence to challenge each other as this might appear confrontational. 

Both groups needed to understand the link between their personal and collective values, behaviors, and potential derailers to develop the ability to enhance interactions and focus on outcomes. High performance doesn’t happen by chance! 

Higher performance usually means more effort, and this requires commitment. It can be difficult to be committed to actions that seem counter to something we value or enjoy. In the case of teams, where people often share common values, this risk is amplified. In the complex world of improving team performance, do we always remember to align the collective ambition and expected team behaviors to what also engages and motivates team members at a personal level?

Building the perfect team isn’t about assembling an all-star squad of archetypes. It’s about find- ing contributors who are generous and respectful, but confident and charismatic, too— and picking the right leader who can pull them all together.  

IF CLASSIC CARTOONS like Scooby Doo, Captain Planet, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have taught us anything, it’s that only a team has the capacity and resourcefulness to solve a mystery or save the universe.

As working adults, sometimes it can feel like we’re being asked to handle similarly complex undertakings. But in a world devoid of talking dogs, superheroes, and pizza-eating reptiles, a sense of duty to something greater than one’s self doesn’t come naturally—or, quite frankly, easily. To maximize the advantages of teamwork in the workplace, and to avoid the common pitfalls, the environment must encourage individual members to set aside self-driven interests while pursuing a collective goal.

This is precisely where a leader is supposed to emerge. An effective leader is expected to galvanize a team’s superior performance toward common aims. Although being able to envision the future, inspire trust, and repeatedly make good decisions are keys to a leader’s competence and reputation, none of those qualities demands the communal mind- set that cultivates selflessness and productive kinship.

So if having a capable and reliable trailblazer at the helm is no guarantee of success, let’s consider which characteristics enable a group of individuals to actually band together and move forward as a singular, like-minded unit. In other words, what does it take for a team to not only get something done, but get it done well?

What Are the Key Ingredients to a Good Team?  

Personality, personality, personality. At its basic core, a team is merely a collection of diverse characteristics (i.e., individual members) being asked to work in concert to accomplish an objective.

To do so, each person must restrain certain propensities or desires for the betterment of the team. When looked at collectively, individual pro les can provide pivotal insights into the dexterity of the team. A team’s drive, passion, self-imposed obstacles, and blind spots are the sum of the personalities involved. We know successful teams get this blend of personalities right. Whether or not “getting it right” has a universal formula is another matter entirely.

In a 2017 article in Harvard Business Review, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Ph.D., and Dave Winsborough found that certain roles need to be fulfilled to optimize team functioning. Ideally, you want the following generic types of people operating in a team:

• Results-oriented team members to keep the plan on track.
  • Relationship-focused team members to socialize ideas and align people.
• Process and rule followers to ensure team compliance with organizational policy.
• Innovative thinkers to keep the team ahead of evolving and future needs.
• Pragmatists to ensure the feasibility of the team’s way forward.

This model presents an easy-to-understand roadmap for staffing, or at least coaching, individual team members to position themselves into a role. Here, everyone has a place and a part to play.

But does this approach merely glorify our cartoon ideals, insisting every gang of heroes needs a range of archetypes present to succeed? What happens when individuals could excel at multiple roles, or when a person simply has no cookie-cutter role to play? Granted, this isn’t the only organizing structure aimed at identifying and arranging archetypical team members according to broad- stroke ideals. But it’s one we’ve favored in the past.

No matter to which role-based model one ascribes, most agree that to extract maximum value, the assessment of team members’ pro- les in relation to a role (as well as any resulting inferences) should be data-based. Furthermore, most team evaluations highly recommend results be examined in consideration of the team’s strategic imperatives, operating environment, and understood goals.

When working with team members on accelerating individual and team performance, the emphasis on each role can depend on the team mission and how that fits into the organizational plan and business landscape.

In TQ: The Elusive Factor Behind Successful Teams, Gordon Curphy astutely points out that when describing the Rocket Model (a team-based approach to development), “teams build TQ [team effectiveness quotient—the capacity for becoming a high-functioning team] when they understand the factors contributing to team performance, get feedback on those factors, and address the gaps.”

How a team approaches their development and tasks varies based on the context (volatile, stagnant, or gradually changing), organization- al constraints (how much is the company driven by regulation versus market needs?), operational characteristics (multinational, government- run, or locally confined), and the line of business in which the team resides.

Furthermore, to the best laid strategies and plans, there are unforeseeable, uncontrollable, and irrational variables that often seem to derail progress. To paraphrase the adage: “Teams plan. Markets and organizations laugh.”

Considering these factors, it’s not unreasonable to assert that a team’s optimal constitution of role representation is somewhat bespoke and fluid. And despite a role not being personified, success is still possible with the right components. If this sounds eerily familiar to the trappings of which characteristics will predict senior leadership success in a particular time and place, you’re not alone in your déjà vu.

Just like with leadership, all the planning, data, and experience in the world might not help a team get to where it needs to be. And similarly with leadership, there must be a common thread differentiating the teams that have all the right ingredients but still fall at from the teams whose members’ interdependent personalities bring big wins for the organization.

Effective Teams Try Smarter 

It’s tempting to buy into the idea that cognitive or creative abilities are the answer to predicting success across the board. After all, if a team is expected to face a series of challenging scenarios, it seems logical to assume that intelligence and innovativeness can be the keys to staying on track. That is to say, despite one’s expected role, a bit of cognitive horsepower and creativity in each team member would do the trick vis-à-vis strategic acumen.

But cognitive studies don’t tend to offer much in terms of linking the “g factor,” as it’s known, to specific behaviors that support targeted goal attainment. Furthermore, intelligent people, just like everyone else, consistently make poor decisions.

And not every team’s ongoing mission compels the need for strategic thought leaders. In fact, for many teams, these traits can serve as a detriment if they’re predominant among members; there are plenty of tactical teams that need to rethink processes and adapt to quickly changing parameters without the distraction of constant brain- storming, what-ifs, and paralysis by analysis.

Nevertheless, cognitive ability and creativity, as well as related newer-age concepts like learning agility and coachability, endure in the talent management zeitgeist.

Regardless of the label used, experts often conclude the secret to high-performing teams is that they try smarter. What they often fail to acknowledge is that the search for a singular, linear construct predictive of a group’s penchant to try smarter together is, at best, quixotic; this is another likely reason why an approach advocating a balanced distribution of roles also periodically gains more traction.

Rather than continue to wax nostalgic on the benefits and drawbacks of a role-based model or examine the limitations of focusing on a group’s collective intellectual capabilities, we propose

an idea that introduces a blend of characteristics. This recipe for team success includes ensuring each team member engages a continuous improvement mindset, maintains other members’ confidence in his or her contribution toward goal achievement (and vice versa), and continuously questions the rules of engagement when approaching an unforeseen challenge.

More specifically, team members should:

• Be willing to learn, un- learn, and then relearn— constantly.
  • Default to an optimistic attitude grounded by realism and emotional control.
• Be prone toward action, but also toward continual evaluation of the biases embedded in their determinations.

Having observed high- performing teams in varying situations, we also arrived at the conclusion that some form of moderated humility can be the ultimate accelerator of team performance. Although high-performing teams can spontaneously take shape if the right characteristics are present, these teams can achieve even better results when they show humility and learn from one another’s mistakes.

What Is Team Humility? 

In a 2013 study in Organization Science, Brad Owens and colleagues noted that humility is a characteristic based in behavior that emerges during social interaction and is recognizable in others. Key behavioral characteristics that define humility include trying to view yourself accurately, being able to appreciate the strengths and contributions of others, and being open to new ideas and feedback regarding your performance. Humility shouldn’t be confused with deference or lack of confidence.

Research shows humility in leaders can positively impact an organization by propagating employee empowerment and increasing the likelihood team members will demonstrate organizational citizenship behaviors. More importantly, humility may also have a substantial positive impact on a company’s bottom line. For example, studies have shown that humility is associated with increased follower performance, team performance, and reduced turnover.

Still, humility can’t be the only missing piece to the puzzle of maximizing team performance. Overdone, collective humility can have the opposite effect. If left unfettered, members may inadvertently build a team culture that sends signals to other teams and leaders that they are insecure—or worse, incapable. The same dynamics may eventually affect team members’ levels of self-efficacy and confidence in one another. Thus, a team’s level of humility needs to be counterbalanced by optimism, persistence, and openness to change.

At first glance, the idea of humility and self-assuredness working together might seem counterintuitive. But we think there’s a form of confidence that complements humility, and that this blend is the unifying super- power a leader should instill in team members.

In our view, the success of teams depends on what type of charisma is demonstrated by those who have assumed or are vying for ownership of the team goal (or facets thereof). The psychologist David McClelland found charisma comes in two forms: socialized and personalized. Only one complements humility well.

Personalized charismatic team members are primarily concerned with obedience and immediate goal achievement; they’re not as considerate of the way in which something is accomplished or with other team members’ needs. Socialized charisma, however, is a different story. If the team member leading an initiative brings socialized charisma to the scene, he or she will truly care about other team members as well as the best interests of the group overall. People with socialized charisma are more likely to communicate and listen to others, as well as encourage ethical behavior.

Several studies find that success is more likely to be achieved when project leaders are socially charismatic, as they will look to align their vision with followers’ needs and goals, versus demanding implementation. Furthermore, research shows socially charismatic leaders tend to inspire their fellow team members to be autonomous, empowered, and responsible.

Team dynamics can make or break cooperative goal achievement. An engaging, effective team leader will have a far easier time guiding a team if he or she cultivates members who consistently demonstrate humble self-assuredness. Additionally, teams will be successful if they have the following:

• Members who have different personality characteristics.
  • A leader (or leaders) who can pull individuals together despite competing agendas to achieve a common mission and goal.
• A willingness to try smarter by listening, evaluating, and correcting.
  • A combo of humility and socialized charisma to support the constant search for feedback in a way that increases self-efficacy and empowerment.

When teams and leaders focus on leveraging collective strengths and seek advice around shortcomings, they have a far better chance of seizing the right opportunities and maximizing gains. Although adjustments will be necessary, this approach puts teams, and ultimately organizations, in the best position for success.

*This article was authored by Ryan Ross and Michael Sanger, and was originally published in The Teams Issue of Talent Quarterly. Visit their website to purchase the full issue as well as all previous issues.

“Why can’t they just act like adults!”

“It’s like herding cats!”

Although teams are our default organizational unit, team leaders often struggle to get individuals to cooperate and coordinate. Partly, that’s down to the fact that each individual has their own agenda for getting ahead, which they balance with getting along with everyone else.

Getting along is the hard part. We became hard-wired through evolution to prefer our own kind and to distinguish friend from foe. Although we are inclined to cooperate, we are also hard-wired for competition and war, which makes coordinating with others tricky. Science is now telling us more about how to manage people and teams to activate neural pathways for either trust and collaboration or conflict and competition. Here’s how to harness our neuropsychology to build better teams.

Keep teams small

There is a right size and a wrong size for teams. Amazon boss Jeff Bezos thinks it’s small – he has the “2-pizza rule” – no meeting should take place with more people present than can be fed from 2 pizzas. The late Harvard professor Richard Hackman agrees, remarking, “My rule of thumb is no double digits. Big teams usually end up wasting everybody’s time.” Bottom line: keep teams between 5- 10 people.

The reason smaller teams work is to do with the limits to our ability to hold and sustain good working relationships. Although research strongly suggests that the human brain got bigger and smarter as we learned to cooperate, evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar concluded that we have real cognitive limits. 150 people is about as large as anyone’s social circle can meaningfully be, but a group of around 5-10 people was an optimum working group. As the number of people in a team increases, the number of connections rises exponentially – by the time there are 15 people on the team there are over 100 possible interactions to deal with:

Build cohesion, trust and, safety

Google spent years pursuing the idea that good teams came from having the brightest and most skilled people on board. But they were wrong.

Studying hundreds of Google teams revealed that one of the most critical factors differentiating good from poor teams was how safe they were for people to be open and share ideas. Underpinning psychological safety in teams is the neuroscience of trust.

Paul Zak of Harvard identified oxytocin as a critical precursor to feelings of trust and trustworthiness. Oxytocin is sometimes administered to new mothers to stimulate bonding with babies – and Zak found that at work raising oxytocin levels reduces social distance and fear of others. His lab has spent years looking at promoters and inhibitors of oxytocin production in the workplace:

Zak reports that promoting trust is good for business: staff in high-trust organizations are more productive, collaborate better with their colleagues, suffer less chronic stress and are happier with their lives.

Harness mood for good

One of the more remarkable findings in the last 25 years has been the discovery of mirror neurons in the brain. Put simply, mirror neurons react when we see another person have an experience – as if it were ourselves having that experience. Although there is a lot of scientific debate about their direct impact on our behavior, it is commonly understood to be critical to our sense of empathy and understanding, as in, we can feel what the other person is experiencing.

Mirror neurons suggest that emotions don’t just come from inside us (“I feel excited”), they can also be produced unconsciously from seeing someone else feel excited or pleased. That matters, because researchers have learned a lot about the ripple effect that passes emotions through a team, and generates a collective emotional state. Teams respond consciously or unconsciously to how other team members are feeling, and to the emotions of the team leader. Since humans tend to put more weight on negative events and feelings than good, leaders who display bad moods, or who create stress and unhappiness in others, will impact the team and lose follower regard.

Acting positively, and supporting an upbeat climate in the team, will increase engagement and boost productivity.

Choose diversity carefully

Suzanne Bell is a prominent teams researcher who helps NASA choose the mix of personalities for space missions. Her work suggests that personality – how you are deep inside – will impact team performance, especially in combination with others. Having conscientious, detail-oriented people on a team is good news, as is having people on board who are warm and agreeable. Having worrying, negative types is not so good.

Yet a mix of backgrounds, personalities, qualifications and genders can have useful effects if the task is right. R&D and design teams benefit from having a mix of backgrounds; having different personalities helps entrepreneurial teams.But humans have trouble working with those different from ourselves, and sometimes negative effects from mixing people up are seen.