Individual Type Styles at the Parks Department

In this essay, I explore several aspects of case study 4, which concerns individual instruments and team assessments. In case study 4, a fictional group is provided a testing mechanism designed to foster self-awareness and apply that understanding to the team. The group, however, was facilitated by a manager who failed to control the exercise, how the individuals responded to the results, and the group dynamic. For example, individual test results became personal stereotypes which fostered inappropriate comments and resentment among team members.

I discuss several questions to evaluate the case study: what was the purpose of the self-assessment, how the explanation of the instrument could have been improved, the effectiveness of the exercise, and the end results of the intervention. I detail the reactions of the team members to the botched techniques used during the activity and provide advice on how the exercise could have been more effective for the group and beneficial to the client.

Question 1

The purpose of the individual assessment for the team was to encourage individuals to reflect on their roles in the organization and the contributions each person makes to the group. This is demonstrated in the case study, “It’s a way for team members to learn more about one another’s individual work styles” (Anderson, 2012, p. 214). Individually, the assessment instrument is intended to provide the person with a heightened self-awareness, demonstrate a language in which to discuss and understand their viewpoint, and give direct feedback (Anderson, 2012, p. 199). Testing instruments, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, are frequently used to improve group communication and dynamics, but also have important drawbacks.

When using an individual assessment in a group setting, emotional responses to the test results can occur as individual’s schemas are disrupted. For example, when Cindy from the case study found that her test result labeled her as “controlling”, she reacted defensively and eventually disengaged from the activity (Anderson, 2012, p. 215). Cindy viewed the test as a disruption from how she viewed herself, which caused her emotional distress. Others in the group embraced the labeling and began to use this information to form typologies and frame individual group member’s behavior within the context of the label. Anderson (2012) detailed in the case study the way one group member reacted to another who was labeled an “A”, indicating assertiveness: “…we shouldn’t let her , as one of the As, dominate the discussion, right?” (p. 216). Quickly into the test assessment, the group devolved into an overreliance on the test results, unsupported emotional upheavals, and disagreement.

Question 2

Lori explained to the group that the assessment was a measure of each individual’s personal style when interacting in a team, as well as the theoretical foundation of the test and its reliability, although it was not before the test administration (Anderson, 2012, 199). She also referred to the limits of the test, discussing that the test measures a general, preferred style rather than a definitive, unchanging style (Anderson, 2012, p. 214). She also allowed the group time to reflect on their results, which enables individuals to contemplate the feedback prior to continuing the activity (Anderson, 2012, p. 200). Despite this, there were several deficiencies in her presentation of the individual instrument’s results that seriously undermined the group’s ability to positively receive the information.

Lori did not discuss the reasoning behind the use of the testing or the theoretical underpinnings to the group prior to the instrument results. This disabled the group from being able to predict their results and fully engage the activity (Anderson, 2012, p. 199-200). She also was not sensitive to the group’s exhaustion from meeting participation during the day, which did not foster a safe and nonjudgmental atmosphere for the group’s test results. Additionally, Lori divided the group into sections which resulted in an adversarial relationship; the single “Q” was suddenly faced with the “A” group’s comments and analysis (Anderson, 2012, 215). This not only singled out that group member, but it encouraged the members to react uncomfortably to the activity due to its social awkwardness. Finally, Lori was unable to control the individuals from stereotyping and over-relying on the test results, as can be seen in Tasha’s comments about “A”s and in defending her label as a “W” (Anderson, 2012, 215). Ultimately, Lori failed to properly administer the test and to obtain meaningful individual and group information.

Question 3

Lori asked the group to divide into the “Q”s and the “A”s, which were not only the most diametrically opposed of the types, but it also left out any of the other four types from the test results. She asked the “Q” individual to evaluate the “A” group members, and asked the him a leading question about the “A”s style. She asked the “Q”, “…why don’t you tell us how you feel about the As. Do they dominate the discussion?” (Anderson, 2012, p. 215). This placed tremendous pressure on the individual to respond in a less-than-honest manner and made him visibly uncomfortable. These methods were not effective and were actually counter-productive. They were also damaging to the cohesion of the group. By dividing the group and opposing them, it fostered an adversarial mentality which undermines group cooperation. Additionally, by asking leading questions, Lori was informing the individual how to properly respond to her questions, instead of encouraging honesty. Finally, the opposition and unchecked stereotyping resulted in team members antagonizing each other for perceived negative group behaviors, which is a barrier to building a strong team.

There are several things I would have done differently than Lori that would have improved the outcome of the exercise. I would have discussed the reason for the testing and the theoretical background prior to administering the results (Anderson, 2012, 199). Also, I would have given the test several times over the weeks before the activity, to demonstrate how the test can fluctuate over time to discourage overreliance on the results (Anderson, 2012, p. 199). My approach would not have been to divide the team into two distinct groups. Instead, I would have divided the entire team by their type and engaged the group with internal discussion. This way, the atmosphere would have been less antagonistic and more inclusive.

Question 4

I would have responded to Tai by refocusing the conversation on the individuals themselves and how they influence the dynamics of the team as a whole. As Anderson states, “Changing individuals may be an important part of the change that an organization needs, but it is not likely to be the only change needed, since individuals work in interconnected systems” (2012, p. 196). I would shape the discussion towards how the testing is a way to gain personal self-awareness through reflection, and help pave the way for larger, organizational change. Also, I would focus on the group members embracing their own definitions and understandings of themselves so that the internal change comes naturally and is not forced (Anderson, 2012, 196). Emphasizing the individual reflection quality of the test would enable the members to focus on their contributions to and dynamics with the team.

Question 5

The results of the team intervention did not seem positive and appeared to undermine the group. Individuals were pitted against each other, were forced into saying uncomfortable things, and were left feeling either vulnerable or more powerful than others. The team learned the individual style types in the assessment, but this information was used irresponsibly to stereotype and target others. An important aspect of team dynamics that the group did learn was that the quieter “Q” type individual had valuable ideas that were submerged by more assertive personalities. “…the As tend to always speak first…but it's an hour later when our Q gets to speak that we learn so much more and get to a better suggestion because of what his ideas bring” (Anderson, 2012, p. 215). The client’s goals were not met in this group activity, as he wanted improved team interaction and for more openness between members. This activity encouraged dishonesty within the group to save face in uncomfortable situations and fostered antagonistic stereotyping.

Reference

Anderson, D. L. (2012). Individual interventions. Organization development: the process of leading organizational change (2nd ed., pp. 195-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.