Paper MA05
Using a Personality Inventory to Better Lead Your Team
Wayne Woo, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Cambridge, MA
ABSTRACT
The field of organizational psychology studies and attempts to understand the way people act in
groups. Behavior is in turn an expression of one’s personality. An individual’s personality
influences many areas of work life. It affects how he communicates with colleagues, how he
approaches a new task, how he manages a team, and how he views the organization. The result
of this on the company can be measured by the individual’s productivity and the cooperation of
those working close to him. As a manager and leader, understanding the personalities of your
team members can help to enhance team performance. This paper presents a tool that helps
managers achieve this understanding and discusses how to make use of it.
INTRODUCTION
Projects are worked on by teams of people and people are not robots. Teams might consist of
members from different functions, different expertise, different educational levels, different
cultures, different mindsets, and different personalities. Many of these differences are welcome
to ensure a balanced approach to solving the problem. Team leaders find strength in diversity.
At the same time, differences often lead to conflict. And discord harms productivity.
Conflicts rooted in superficial issues can be solved in a short amount of time through discussion
and rationalization on an objective basis. For example, if a co-worker is playing his music too
loud, you can ask him to lower the volume so that you can concentrate. Deeper conflicts, such as
those arising from clashes between people carrying strongly held beliefs, present more difficult
barriers to moving forward. For example, a free-spirited individual likely will not get along with a
meticulous micro-manager. The fundamental driver of these conflicts is the personalities of the
players. If a team is besieged with internal conflict, there is lack of the cohesion required for
expeditious and successful completion of goals. Not understanding the personality differences of
team members and how to mesh them into a complementary framework could put the manager
or leader at risk of failure to deliver on objectives. The author feels that by using simple tools, a
project or team leader can begin to understand the different personalities of team members and
use that understanding to better lead the team to success in completing objectives.
There are many papers written about management of SAS programmers (e.g. LaBrec and
Golder) and people in general. The message is given that effective management is rarely a
science based on hard rules, but rather relies on possessing “soft skills” such as emotional
intelligence. Instead of discussing the usual topics about recruitment, retention, performance
management, professional development, rewards, and organization, this paper is focused on the
“soft skill” of understanding your staff by using a personality inventory. This paper will not discuss
the theory of psychometric testing, e.g. issues concerning validity and reliability. In fact, we make
a light treatment of the concepts and prefer to apply the tools in an informal manner.
PERSONALITY INVENTORIES
Several synonyms describe these instruments – inventory, test, battery, assessment. The choice
of word will depend on preference and whether there is desire to avoid any negative
connotations. For example, we will not use the word “test” much because this conjures up
negative emotions and induces stress in the people being assessed.
Personality inventories measure a person’s personality by using several dimensions or scales.
Personality represents aspects of a human that remains fairly stable throughout a person’s
lifetime (Wikipedia). Inventors of a particular assessment have researched and defined the
1
dimensions based on years of study, field experience and data collection. The number of
dimensions of personality assessed in these instruments illustrate how complex human
personality can be. Taking an inventory usually results in a score for each dimension, which then
are de-coded into a meaningful narrative.
The most well-known personality typing instruments are the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). These inventories are fairly
elaborate and comprehensive and require trained administrators. Partly because of their
prevalence, they have their fair share of critics (e.g. see Gladwell). The author does not have
extensive knowledge of these instruments, nor formal training in psychology, so we will not
discuss the intricacies of these assessments. More information is available from the sources
listed in the references.
Other inventories are simpler and consist of a smaller number of dimensions of personality and
behavior. Examples include the “Five Factor Model” tests and DISC. DISC is an acronym for a
personality model derived from William Marston’s research and has four quadrants, one each to
represent the dimensions labeled as “dominance”, “influence”, “steadiness”, and
“conscientiousness”. These dimensions measure how a person deals with problems, procedures,
and other people. This paper will discuss an inventory that is an adaptation of this model. The
common feature in these inventories is the use of self-reporting, in which respondents are only
permitted to choose from a finite set of answers, often selecting a set of words that best describes
personal behavior.
THE BEST INVENTORY
We now focus on an instrument called “My BEST Personality” that differentiates personality types
into the four dimensions labeled as “bold”, “expressive”, “sympathetic”, and “technical”. Hence,
we have the acronym “BEST”. The inventory is designed to be simple and makes it possible for
anyone to administer and interpret. It is most suitable as a self-awareness tool. Reading the
questions and providing answers takes only a brief amount of time. A readout is available soon
afterwards through self-grading. Explanations of scores and their meaning are provided in a
pamphlet. A user guide is available that provides greater context on the different personality
types, as well as background information on how the instrument was developed, its validity and
reliability.
The assessment consists of two parts. Questions in part one involve selecting one of four words
that best describes personal behavior. There are 17 of these word associations. The second
part has 15 questions that ask about behaviors in situational contexts. Given a situation, the
test-taker chooses the behavior or emotion that best represents their typical response. The
questions should be answered in relation to a work perspective. In reality, it is rare that a person
will display entirely different personalities between work and play. As mentioned above,
personality has been shown to be fairly constant in humans across situations.
To give the reader a flavor of the inventory, we present a few sample questions (Brewer, 2006).
More details are available from the BEST web site.
Examples of Questions
Part one:
Choose the word that “best fits” your behavior style:
(Q1) firm, calm, considerate, or expressive
(Q2) cordial, restless, cautious, earnest
2
Part two:
(Q3) I am thought of as displaying:
a) accuracy
b) directness
c) dependability
d) enthusiasm
(Q4) When I am under pressure, I feel:
a) that a logical approach is necessary
b) challenged
c) calm
d) that I am smooth and poised
Scoring and Determining Personality Type
The scoring of the BEST personality profile is very simple. Each answer corresponds to one of
the letters: B, E, S, T. In example Q1 above, “firm” corresponds to “B”, “calm” to “T”,
“considerate” to “S” and “expressive” to “E”. In example Q3, answer “a” corresponds to “T”, “b” to
“B”, “c” to “S” and “d” to “E”. The number of answers corresponding to each letter is added up.
There are 32 questions in total, so adding up the numbers across the four letters B, E, S, T
should give you 32. The letter (or dimension) that scores highest is the person’s dominant
personality type. The next highest is considered the secondary personality type. It is possible for
two types to exhibit equally high scores, resulting in a hybrid type. Let’s now describe
characteristics typical of each personality type. Much of the following material is gleaned from the
BEST user guide.
Bold personality types are stimulated by challenges and adventure. They tend to seek
dominance over a situation or people. They are aggressive and quick to act. They speak directly
and bluntly. Many traditional leaders likely score high in this dimension since they subscribe to a
command and control structure.
Expressive personality types are stimulated by being around people and influencing them to think
the same way. They generate a positive and enthusiastic environment. They are outgoing,
confident, optimistic, but also emotional. Charismatic leaders would likely score high in this
dimension.
Sympathetic personality types are patient, loyal, good listeners and willing to follow. They value
status quo and security. They tend to be passive and lack urgency, but also are good-natured
and accommodating. They do not display overt passion towards something, and at the same
time can be guarding and possessive. A lab technician who has worked the same type of job for
20 years would likely score high in this dimension.
Technical personality types are controlled, precise, logical and rule-oriented. They focus on
quality and can border on being perfectionist. Their meticulousness leads them to possibly
criticize other less detail-oriented people. The typical programmer might score high in this
dimension.
A person’s scores on the BEST inventory can reveal either a dominant/secondary typology or a
hybrid type. Having a dominant type means that the person is likely to exhibit the behaviors
associated with this type most of the time. Characteristics of the secondary type may be revealed
depending on situation context. Having a hybrid type means behaviors representative of both
types can be exhibited simultaneously or interchangeably.
3
USING THE RESULTS FOR TEAM BUILDING AND MANAGEMENT
A search of SAS conference proceedings reveals at least a few papers about the role of
personality assessments in improved personal and team interactions (e.g. Loren, Robinson,
Flannes). However, in each of these papers, there is a focus on the more elaborate Myers-Briggs
type inventory (MBTI), so we will adapt our discussion specific to the BEST profile. As mentioned
previously, Myers-Briggs requires professional administration by a trained individual (see
http://www.myersbriggs.org/using-type-as-a-professional/qualify-to-administer-the-mbti-tool/).
Because of the formality, the fun of it is removed and it becomes a clinical exercise. Test-takers
are likely to approach it with apprehension.
In contrast, the BEST tool can be used as part of team building, even adding fun to team
functions. It does not require much time to fill out. Team members can reminisce about their
high school days while trying to remember the definition of words that they have not studied since
preparing for the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test). The author has taken advantage of warm days
to have teams sit outside to fill out the inventory. Having a relaxing setting creates a sense of
ease and enhances self-reflection.
Each leader or manager should realize that team building is necessary to build a spirit of
cooperation and common cause. When a team gets into a rut or the atmosphere become stale,
team building exercises can lift it into a new phase of refreshed performance and focus. The
agenda should include a series of short activities that engage the participants. The BEST tool
would fit into that part of the schedule. The administrator of the assessment needs to convey a
non-threatening message to participants. For example, it’s wise not to use the word “test” to
avoid inducing stress. There should be emphasis on the informality and rationale of the
instrument. The facilitator should encourage honest self-reflection when completing the items on
the inventory. The entire exercise must create value for both the team-building event as well as
the manager.
What are some messages that a team leader might impart to the team while discussing results?
The first should be that differences represent strength. Next, you should talk specifics depending
on the findings. For example, technical persons might be advised to take a succinct and “to-thepoint” approach in communicating with a bold person. A bold person might make a good leader,
but having too many together on the same project may lead to intractable disagreements.
Sympathetic types might be expected to be quiet and prefer to work in peace rather than attend
numerous meetings. Expressive types should not be offended if their enthusiasm is not visibly
shared by sympathetic types. There are many more messages that can be crafted once the
leader understands the basic characteristics of each personality type.
As with anything in management, you need to combine the results seen from this inventory with
other sources of information, decide whether people have been accurate and truthful in their
answers, and then integrate it all to come up with a plan for optimizing team performance. For
example, a bold person who has indicated desire for a leadership role and who has performed
well can be delegated a management role in select tasks. Someone who is quiet and shy, has
performed adequately, and is a sympathetic type should be nurtured slowly without undue
pressure to speak up or actively participate in meetings, because she will already be likely to
deliver on the important stuff. A technical type who has shown meticulous detail in writing wellstructured SAS code might not be the best peer reviewer of the work of a relatively sloppy
programmer who does not document and format code consistently.
As a last thought, much of successful team leadership results from astute conflict resolution. A
conceptual model of team development was introduced by the American psychologist Bruce
Tuckman. The phases are named “forming”, “storming”, “norming”, and “performing” (Wikipedia).
The second stage implies conflict and it is here where understanding personalities can lessen the
potential for conflict so that the norming and performing stages can occur. Teams are valuable
when they are productive, not fighting.
4
A WORD ABOUT TIMING OF EVALUATION
There are papers and advices about administering personality assessments during the
interviewing and hiring process and using the results as a basis for candidate selection (e.g.
Furlow, 2000). However, the author hopes you have noticed that this paper discusses the use of
such instruments in the context of existing teams or when a new team is formed from employees
already part of an organization. Under these circumstances, the mindset of the test-taker is
different than someone who is seeking a job. For example, a person would not feel pressured to
answer a certain way in order to get hired. Also, when taking such a battery is not a condition for
employment, team members will be more receptive. Ideally, there is already a stable relationship
between manager and employee. This would add value to the team relationship rather than risk
damaging it.
Asking team members to take a personality inventory is not without possible controversy. In
general, psychological testing can evoke some strong emotions among employees about privacy.
However, the BEST battery is non-invasive and does not probe sensitive personal issues.
Emphasizing the value, both for the team and the individual, behind the exercise and
communicating adequately about its purpose and informal nature can go a long way towards
calming any apprehension. The BEST web site states that the inventory should be “fun and
informative, and designed to be a positive, growing experience for each participant” (BEST
Instruments).
The objective of this exercise should be a determination how best to structure group interactions
by accounting for the team members’ personalities. We also seek guidance on how to optimally
assemble sub-teams that have the “right” mix of personality types, as well as skill sets, to work
together to reach the team’s objective. Finally, we want to identify special characteristics
possessed by our team members in order to incorporate them into performance assessments and
career development. To achieve these ends, it is important to share the results openly and
candidly discuss the meanings behind them.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON TEAM MANAGEMENT
The author recently took a course on cross-cultural communication to better appreciate the global
nature of today’s work teams. One lesson touched on the need to carefully identify whether an
observed behavior is personality-based or culture-based. Culture involves the norms, values,
and behaviors people have adopted due to belonging to a group. However, like superficial
conflicts, cultural differences can often be identified and reconciled through education of team
members to create better awareness and understanding. As described above, personality-based
differences will be more difficult to change because they are stable over time. Because these two
dimensions are subtly different, it’s important to recognize and account for both elements when
forming and leading optimal teams.
Continued training in management topics is important to develop a manager’s repertoire for
effectively leading the team. Conceptual areas not covered in this paper include recognition of
people’s conflict types, dealing with difficult people, emotional intelligence, project management,
effective communications, and the list goes on. Information about each area can be found in
literature or via professional training. Even though the topics will come under different subject
headings, there will be common themes that make them appear to meld together into something
coherent.
CONCLUSION
This paper has really only touched the surface of team management. There are many
challenges, often subtle, in leading a team of people to great performance. The toolset for this
endeavor is fairly expansive, but ultimately consists of many simple tools. An informally
administered personality inventory, such as BEST, is one such tool. Done with tact, the results
can yield a wealth of data for the manager to combine with other observations and discussions to
5
optimally set up interactions among team members. Ultimately, management is more art than
science, so soft skills such as understanding personalities is essential to success.
REFERENCES
BEST Instruments, LLC. BEST User’s Guide.
James Brewer. My BEST Profile. Form 1. Revised 2006. http://www.bestinstruments.net.
Leslie Furlow. Job Profiling: Building a Winning Team Using Behavioral Assessment. Journal of
Nursing Administration, Vol. 30 No. 3, March 2000.
Malcolm Gladwell. Personality Plus. New Yorker, September 20, 2004.
Paul A. LaBrec and Daniel Golder. March 2006. Challenges in Managing a Large (20+) SAS
Programming Group. Proceedings of the Pharmaceutical Industry SAS Users Group annual
conference.
Judith F. Loren. April 2000. People Smarts for Career Growth. Proceedings of SAS Users
Group International annual conference.
Fabian Robinson. September 2008. Effective Problem Solving in Teams. Proceedings of the
Northeast SAS Users Group annual conference.
Steven Flannes. May 2004. Effective People Skills for the Project Manager: A Requirement for
Project Success and Career Advancement. Proceedings of SAS Users Group International
annual conference.
Wikipedia. Personality tests. Retrieved Feb 23, 2009 from
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_tests>
Wikipedia. Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing. Retrieved Feb 23, 2009 from
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forming-storming-norming-performing>
Bob Weinstein. Nov 2000. Pros and cons of psychological testing. Retrieved Feb 23, 2009 from
<http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-5025293.html>
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the statistical reporting team at Novartis Vaccines and others who have taken this
inventory recently so that I could confirm the instrument’s usefulness. Thanks to my managers
who have supported the use of this tool in a team-building setting and for allowing me to present
this paper.
CONTACT
Comments and questions are welcome. Please address them to:
Wayne Woo
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics
Cambridge, MA
E-mail: wayne.woo@novartis.com
SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or service names are registered trademarks or
trademarks of SAS Institute Inc. in the USA and other countries. ® indicates USA registration.
Other brand and product names are trademarks of their respective companies.
6