Differences go more than skin deep
On the surface, the senior team appointed to set up a new engine plant at a large motor company fulfilled one obvious measure of diversity. The team consisted of an Asian man, a black man and two white men from three different countries, reflecting the workforce they were to manage.Over the next few months, however, it became apparent that their ethnic and national diversity did not make it a simple job to introduce the new working practices that the company wanted. While the team concentrated on designing the site and getting the right machinery, labour relations were deteriorating.Concerned by the situation, the chief executive appointed John to the team. He had both technical ability and experience in making the desired labour changes. His relationship with the other four members, however, rapidly became strained.John called in Rosalind Searle, an organisational psychologist at the Open University, and the team agreed to undergo Myers Briggs personality tests. These revealed that the four had very similar personalities and working styles: they shared a practical, fact-based, rational approach and a desire to know and plan things well in advance.John’s personality type was the complete opposite: an extrovert, his tendency was to work with others to understand the “big picture”, to ensure that everyone felt involved, and to leave planning to the last minute to take account of changes.”While on the face of it, this appeared to be a demographically diverse top team, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator revealed a different picture,” says Ms Searle. “A strong clash of personality types was developing.”Concern about white, male domination of Britain’s top boardrooms has led to a flurry of initiatives to redress the balance, including news this week of a government investigation into ethnic minority representation. However, the motor company case provides a cautionary note: diversity can be only skin deep.In a paper to be published shortly in the international journal Long Range Planning, Ms Searle and Paula Jarzabkowski of Birmingham’s Aston Business School say that understanding personality differences provides a more complete profile than more obvious variations in gender, ethnicity, social background or experience. This, in turn, is important in helping teams to be more effective.Teams with a balance of personality types tend to be better at solving problems but may be prone to conflict, as at the motor company. Facilitated workshops enabled this team to understand their lack of progress on work practices and their opposition to John. They began to appreciate his approach, as he did theirs.John suggested a staff competition to name the new engine. The team leader at first resisted, feeling it was his prerogative to name it. “But after he saw the impact this simple act had on workers’ involvement and read some of the suggestions, he conceded that they were a lot better than his original name,” says Ms Searle.The authors do not suggest that top teams can simply be selected for “behavioural diversity”. But they argue that personality assessments, for example when new members join, can help teams identify tendencies to excess, or areas of strategy-making that they may be prone to ignore.The executive team in another case study - a UK not-for-profit organisation - was good at generating new ideas but poor at implementing them. The chief executive decided to make changes, instinctively selecting similar, extrovert personality types.”This is a common trap because similarity breeds familiarity and understanding of each other,” the authors say. Chief executives should evaluate their own personality, since this is critical in influencing the team’s effectiveness.The new team at the non-profit body did not recognise the valuable role that their sole, departed “introvert” had played in controlling expenditure. Significant overspending in one area, and a failure to drive change across the organisation, left them struggling to attract new funds.Top teams containing very different personality types can be highly effective, provided they are aware of their differences and use them productively. The five-strong team at a property development company successfully managed innovative building projects for clients. An important part of their job was to reduce conflict between investors, architects and building contractors. It was a highly pressured business in which the price and delivery date were agreed in advance. Delays or mistakes could be costly.To check they were working as effectively as possible, the team used another psychometric measure, the Innovation Potential Indicator. This showed big differences between them on all four dimensions of work-style: consistency, adherence to established practices, propensity to challenge others, and desire to change things.Ms Searle, who followed the team for 30 months, says the five clearly respected and valued each other’s styles and worked hard to involve one another. They were able to change direction if necessary, were not afraid to question each other, and took a consistent approach to costing and implementing new ideas. On a sensitive project to construct an award-winning design by architects who had never had anything built before, the team completed the work not only on time but also under budget.
了解性格冲突有助企业决策
从表面上看，一家大型汽车公司任命的高层管理团队显然达到了种族多样化的要求。这支为组建新发动机车间而成立的团队由一名亚裔人、一名黑人和两名白人组成，他们来自3个不同的国家，也体现了他们将要管理的工人构成。
但在接下来的几个月里，有关种族和国籍等方面的多样性显然并没有使推行这家公司所希望的工作方式变得更加容易。就在管理团队集中精力设计工地和购置机械设备的时候，劳工关系开始恶化了。
出于对形势的担忧，首席执行官任命约翰加入团队。他既有技术业务才干，也有改善劳工关系的经验。但是，他和另外4名管理团队成员的关系，也迅速紧张起来。
于是约翰求助于公开大学组织心理学家罗萨琳德?希尔（Rosalind Searle），而整个团队也同意做麦耶斯?布里格斯（Myers Briggs）个性测试。测试显示，这4人的个性与工作方式都非常相似：务实、以事实为根据、以理性为主导、对事情都想预早了解并作出计划。
约翰的性格类型则完全相反：他性格外向，倾向于和别人共事来了解“大局”，确保每个人都有参与感，而且喜欢把制定计划的工作留到最后一刻，以照顾到各种变化。
“虽然从表面上看，这似乎是人员搭配多样化的高层领导团队，但‘麦耶斯?布里格斯性格类型指标’却呈现不同的画面。”希尔女士说，“性格上的严重冲突在不断加深。”
出于对男性白人把持各机构高层董事会的担心，导致英国最近一系列计划出台，力求达到平衡的局面，例如本周就有报道说，政府要调查少数族裔在各部门所占的比例。然而，这家汽车公司的例子却提供了一个警示：强调多样性可能过于肤浅。
希尔女士和伯明翰阿斯顿商学院的保拉?加扎科维斯基（Paula Jarzabkowski）女士即将在国际刊物《长远规划》（Long Range Planning）上发表一篇论文，她们在文中说，比起性别、种族、社会背景和经历等较为明显的差异，了解性格上的差异可以对人有一个更全面的认识。而这也对改善团队的工作效率十分重要。
性格类型较为平衡的团队往往更善于解决问题，但也可能会像那家汽车公司那样发生冲突。通过参加由专人辅导的工作坊培训，使这支团队明白到为何在推行工作方式时没有进展，以及为何会和约翰作对。他们开始欣赏他的方式，而他也开始欣赏他们。
约翰建议为新引擎开展一场员工命名比赛。但一开始却遭到团队负责人的反对，因为他觉得命名是他自己的特权。“不过当他看到了这个简单的举措在调动工人参与方面的作用、以及读了一些建议之后，他承认这些建议比他设想的名字要好得多，”希尔女士说。
两位作者不主张仅仅根据“行事风格的多样性”来挑选高层管理团队。但她们争辩说，个性评估――例如用在新成员加入时，能帮助团队发现是否有过度的倾向，或识别他们可能会忽视的决策领域。
另一个案例中的管理团队――英国一个非盈利组织――很善于出新点子，但执行能力很差。首席执行官决定进行改革，并且本能地选择了相似的、外向型性格的人。
两位作者指出，“这是一个普遍的陷阱，因为相似性导致熟悉感，并有利于相互理解。”首席执行官们应该评估一下自己的性格，因为这对影响团队工作效率十分关键。
这个非盈利性组织的新团队并未意识到，已离职的唯一“内向成员”在控制开支问题上扮演过可贵的角色。在某一领域开支过大，并在组织内部推行改革失败后，他们便疲于争取新的资金。
只要能意识到性格上的差别并有效地加以利用，成员性格类型各不相同的高层管理团队可以有很高的效率。一家房地产开发公司的5人管理团队就为客户成功管理了富有创意的建筑项目。他们工作的一个重点就是在投资者、建筑师和承建商之间减少冲突。这种工作压力很大，价钱、交付日期都得事先谈好。任何拖延或失误都会带来很高的代价。
为了检验工作是否有效地进行，这支团队采取了另一种心理测量方式：创新潜能指标。它在4个行事风格的层面上显示出大不相同：连贯性、对固有做法的遵守、挑战别人的倾向，以及改变事物的欲望。
希尔女士跟踪了这支团队30个月，她说这5个人非常尊重和重视彼此的工作方式，并努力相互配合。必要时他们能改变方向，而且并不介意互相提问，对于开支和新创意的执行，他们都采取连贯一致的做法。在一个敏感的项目上，他们需要根据一个获奖的设计方案开展工程，而负责设计的建筑师以前的作品从未被采纳过。但是这支团队不仅按时完成了工作，而且还将开支控制在预算以内。
