This guide provides examples and best practices of using JTPW™ Personality Radar graph for effective team building. JTPW™ Personality Radar graph is included in personality assessment reports available with Jung Typology Profiler for Work™. Target audience: team building coaches, workshop facilitators and practitioners. JTPW™ Personality Radar can be effectively used for practical team building and career development purposes by practitioners even if they are not experts in Carl G. Jung approach to personality.
Contents
JTPW™ Personality Radar (or Personality Radar further in this article) is a graph that visually represents and summarizes the strengths of the key workplace-related behavioral qualities (behavioral indices). These key workplace-related behavioral qualities can be grouped into 5 categories as follows:
|
Category
|
Behavioral Qualities
|
|
Leadership
|
Power, Assurance, Visionary, Resourcefulness
|
|
Communication and interpersonal relations
|
Communication, Extraversion, Sociability
|
|
Empathy
|
Empathy and, to a certain extent, Sociability
|
|
Diligence
|
Conscientiousness, and, to a certain extent, Self-control
|
|
Rationality and Analyticity
|
Rationality
|
JTPW™ Personality Radar (or Personality Radar further in this article) is a graph included in personality assessment reports available with Jung Typology Profiler for Work™. JTPW™ Personality Radar can be effectively used for practical team building and career development purposes by practitioners even if they are not experts with Carl G. Jung approach to personality.
Figure 1 An Example of JTPW Personality Radar
* Behavioral qualities are in % (0-100). The median is 50% and represented by the dotted circle
Carl G. Jung’s approach to personality can successfully be applied for the purposes of effective teaming. A commonly used method includes educating the team members about their Jungian Personality Type and its behavioral patterns and perception characteristics. This way, team members learn to understand what drives other people’s actions, their values and goals. Understanding of these aspects is a key factor to establishing effective collaboration among the team members and enhancing team productivity.
This approach, although proved successful, still has practical limitations. These limitations are due to substantial behavioral differences of the individuals that can take place within the same Jungian type. Therefore, it is found practical and useful, to characterize the workplace-related and teamwork-related specifics of individual realization of the Jungian type, in the framework of the 5 categories of the behavioral qualities defined above in the previous chapter, in addition to the traditional approach.
Fundamental steps in effective team building include identifying the level of compatibility among the team members and between the team and its leader.
This can be achieved by side-by-side comparison of the Personality Radars of the participants. This includes two key aspects:
· Granular level: the pattern and expressiveness of individual behavioral qualities of the two Radars
· Category level: the pattern and expressiveness of the groups of behavioral qualities in each category (5 categories total).
When analyzing the Radars of two team members working together, look for the qualities that are expressed at a similar level. Their collaboration will be more effective in the work activities that are affected by the behavioral qualities with similar level of expressiveness, because their approach to these work activities is going to be more cohesive.
For example, look at sample Personality Radar results Figure 2 Respondent A and Figure 3 Respondent B, below.
Respondents A and B will work in consistent manner in activities requiring Conscientiousness, Assurance, Visionary qualities.
On the other hand, in work activities engaging their personality qualities that have substantial differences in the level of expressiveness, the respondents should be put in or directed to strive for a mutually complimenting type of cooperation. E.g. each respondent will be focused on the tasks or activities that are most suitable based on the qualities that are more in line with their stronger qualities. Consider, for example, the same sample results, Figure 2 Respondent A and Figure 3 Respondent B, above. While on the same project, Respondent A should take initiative in such activities or task that require stronger Resourcefulness, Communication, Sociability qualities; whereas Respondent B should be responsible for the aspects requiring stronger Self-control and Empathy qualities.
Consider the following example below,Figure 4 Supervisor and Figure 5 Subordinate. The Supervisor possesses expressed Leadership qualities whereas the Subordinate possesses moderately expressed Leadership qualities. Therefore, in their interactions, the Supervisor will take a strong leadership role.
Team members with strong leadership qualities may also be present in the team. Consider another team member, Figure 6 Subordinate 2. This subordinate possesses overall more expressed Leadership qualities than the other Subordinate from the previous example (Figure 5 Subordinate). Therefore, in such cases, the Supervisor may want to try to leverage this situation, by e.g. delegating more responsibility or encourage more initiative in some areas.
Two individuals with strong leadership qualities may compete over leadership role in the team. In some cases, such competition may become adversarial and negatively affect overall team cohesiveness and performance.
Consider Figure 5 Subordinate. The team member’s Diligence-related qualities (Conscientiousness at 82% and Self-Control at 75%) predominate over the rest. Note that team leader’s Diligence qualities are not as expressed (Figure 4 Supervisor). In it may be advised to the team leader about this strong area of the subordinate so that he/she can leverage it in accomplishing functional tasks; so they learn to complement each other in achieving common goals rather than arguing over different points of views.
Consider Figure 6 Subordinate 2 who possesses expressive Empathy as opposed to the Figure 4 Supervisor. In this case, the Supervisor, by knowing that Empathy is not his strongest quality, may want to engage this subordinate into the matters requiring more empathy (e.g. customer service tasks or support other team members), or to obtain this subordinate’s opinion about certain actions, in order to broaden supervisor’s own perspective.
People who are high on Empathy should learn not to be upset when they interact with individuals with low score on Empathy and do not receive warm responses.
Often, people who high on Empathy become the consolidating “glue” within the team thanks to their ability to understand concerns and feelings of others.
Review the Communication and Interpersonal relationships group of qualities (Communication, Extraversion, and Sociability) to see if there are any communication deficiencies within the team, and pay attention to the level of relative differences. The deficiency in Communication skills results in a lack of understanding among the team members.
The deficiency in Sociability may be an obstacle to effective delegation and collaboration. Consider Radar data in Figure 5 Subordinate where Sociability is low 18%. As a rule, such people prefer working independently and avoid delegation to or involvement of others.
Pay attention to the level of relative difference in Rationality of the team members. Substantial differences on Rationality scale may result in substantial divergence in how the team members see the current situation and its development. This is particularly evident when one member’s Rationality is below the median whereas another one’s is above.
Look for and be aware of group “blind spots” (group-level weaknesses), based on Radars of individuals in the group. For example, consider a group consisting of Figure 4 Supervisor and Figure 5 Subordinate. Both possess lower than median Empathy and this means chances both of them (as a group) have difficulties in establishing a warmer, more humane relationship with others at work.
It is possible to obtain Group Personality Radar representing group as a whole and showing the areas of strengths and deficiencies of the group. For instance, Figure 7 Group Personality Radar Example reveals sociability deficiency of the group.
Figure 7 Group Personality Radar Example
