Using Personality Inventories to Form Teams for Class Projects A Case Study

Rebecca H. Rutherfoord

Southern Polytechnic State University 1100 S. Marietta Parkway

Marietta, GA 30060 770+528-7400

770+528-5511 (fax) brutherf@spsu.edu

ABSTRACT Many Information Technology classes require some sort of team project. As part of research into using personality inventories to help form project teams, the author conducted a case study in a software engineering/systems analysis class using a control group methodology for group selection after giving a personality inventory to students. This paper will discuss concepts of personality inventories, how they can be used for group selection, the case study itself, and further discussion of how this can be applied in other classes. The primary personality inventory used is the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Categories and Subject Descriptors D.2.9 Management; K.6.3; K.6.4 General Terms Management Keywords Personality Inventories, Team formation, Team Projects 1. INTRODUCTION Many information technology courses require team projects. One of the difficulties in selecting students for these teams is in the criteria for selection. Faculty have the choice of letting students select their own groups or assigning students to groups. Most faculty have studied enough group dynamics to know that heterogeneous groups are usually the best. If students self-select their group, it is unlikely that heterogeneous groups will be formed. If faculty assign students to groups, several possible criteria may be used for group assignments. Criteria such as gender, prior classroom experiences, work experience and race are just some of the criteria that most faculty use in selecting their groups. [5] As part of an experiment, the author decided to use a personality inventory to help form project teams. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. SIGITE'06, October 1921, 2006, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Copyright 2006 ACM 1-59593-521-5/06/0010...$5.00.

The criteria used was the Keirsey Temperament Sorter instrument which established each students personality type. [6] The author gave the paper version of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter to the class, chose the groups based on personality type (control group and experimental groups) and then studied the results of the different groups through the term. 2. PERSONALITY INVENTORIES The Keirsey Temperament Sorter is available on the web at www.keirsey.org where students can take the inventory and get their personality type results. [6] The hardcopy is also available through the book Please Understand Me by Keirsey & Bates. [7] The two versions are slightly different. The current on-line version just gives the student part of their personality type for free. The student must pay for a more comprehensive description of their personality type. The four basic areas of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter follow the Myers-Briggs scale. The Myers-Briggs which was created in the 1940's by the mother-daughter team of Katherine Briggs and Isabel Briggs-Myers using the general ideas of Carl Jung. The test has 126 questions intended to show how different individuals prefer to use their observation and judgment to make decisions. [10] The four basic areas following the Myers-Briggs scale are: Extrovert versus Introvert (E/I); Sensing versus Intuitive (S/N); Thinking versus Feeling (T/F); and Judgment versus Perception (J/P). [5] Extraverts relate more easily to the outer world of people. Introverts relate more easily to the inner world of ideas. Sensing individuals would rather work with known facts and Intuitives would rather look for possibilities and relationships. Thinkers base judgments more on impersonal analysis and Feelers base judgments more on personal values. Judgers prefer a planned, decided, orderly way of life and Perceptives prefer a flexible, spontaneous way of life. The Introvert/Extravert relate to your orientations, your direction of focus and source of energy; Sensor/Intuitive relate to perceptive functions; Thinker/Feeler relate to judging functions; and Judger/Perceptive relate to attitudes toward the external world outer life. 50-70% of the population are Extravert and 30-50% are Introvert. 60-70% of the population are Sensor and 30-40$ are Intuition. 30-40% of females are Thinking, where 55-70% males are Thinking and 60-70% of females are Feeling where 30-45% males are Feeling. This area is the only one where population differences are seen in gender makeup. 45-65% of the population are Judging and 35-55% are Perceptive.

9

These four areas then make up 16 basic personality types which all have distinct strengths and weaknesses. Table 1 shows these 16 different combinations.

Table 1 16 Personality Types [6] ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter has established four basic Temperaments. These are Guardians which include Supervisor (ESTJ), Inspector (ISTJ), Provider (ESFJ), Protector (ISFJ); Artisans which include Promoter (ESTP), Operator (ISTP), Performer (ESFP), Composer (ISFP); Idealists which include Teacher (ENFJ), Counselor (INFJ), Champion (ENFP), Healer (INFP); and Rationals which include Fieldmarshal (ENTJ), Mastermind (INTJ), Inventor (ENTP), Architect (INTP). (4) The top three personality types in the IT field are INTJ, INFJ, and ISFJ. [ 4] Research has shown that heterogeneous groups are normally the more creative, cooperative, and innovative. By creating groups that have different personality types, strengths and weaknesses can be balanced within the group. [7] Faculty who desire to use the Keirsey Temperament Sorter are encouraged to read the book Please Understand Me, or Please Understand Me 2. In these books Keirsey lists several characteristics, strengths/weaknesses, and learning styles of the different personality types. Since student teams need to understand how IT personnel interact with so many different groups, it is important to create teams who have various skills and abilities, as well as personality. [20] Table 2 shows the various areas of interactions that software team members must make. The initial handling of the creation of these teams can create a team which is much more cohesive and cooperative. Teams go through several stages as they organize and progress. The basic roles of the teams include the team leader and team members. These people are doers, who make things happen so that the team achieves its objectives. The team leader who is the person who brings the team together, presides at meetings, mediates disagreements, and interfaces with other parts of the organization. The team coach is the person who advises or coaches the team when they have problems working together. This person could be a person brought in when the group gets into difficulties. This person may also be called a facilitator. [20]

Table 2 Contacts with Team Members (not complete) Team

Leader Team

Member Project Leader X

Database Designer X X Database Developer X

Users X X Hardware Purchaser X

Trainers X Team Leader X

Team Member X Team Coach X X

Bruce Tuckman, in his 1965 article on "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups" identified four basic stages. They are: Forming - teams succeed when they have clear, worthwhile, and compelling goals; Storming - teams will go through a thrashing about stage where they develop relationships; Norming - here the team sets objectives and goals, establishes operating rules, and selects needed training; Performing - the team works together to achieve the job for which they were formed. These four stages need to be recognized by all team members through an education process. Teamwork and cooperation are essential elements in any team. Compared with individuals, including management, teams come up with more ideas and are better able to pare them down to the best ideas. Moreover, teamwork helps people establish a shared sense of responsibility, reducing the amount of stress felt by any one person. This building of relationships helps improve their work in other areas as well. [5,11] Some other areas that deal with teams are creating cooperative teams. [4,9,14] Such teams are looking at ways in which they might create cooperative and collaborative environments. Project management principles also address team building. [13] Projects must include total quality management techniques in order to create software on time, within budget. Total quality principles is at the heart of good software development projects. [16,20,21] Part of the newest concepts dealing with team is the workgroup concept. [9] This type of team incorporates the concepts addressed earlier in this paper. Since this paper is primarily dealing with personality inventories, these various topics will not be covered. Other types of vocational and personality assessment include aptitude tests, employer self-selection tests, Strong Interest Inventory (SII), and Self-Directed Search (SDS). The author suggests readers go to these various sites for more information. [19]

3. THE CASE STUDY As part of the study of personality inventories on team formation, the author undertook an experiment with a graduate software engineering/systems analysis class during the fall term 2005. The class contained 22 students. The author was the professor for this particular course. The class was divided up into various control and experimental groups. The first night of class, the instructor gave the Keirsey-Bates Personality Inventory to each class member, and inventoried prior work experience, ethnic background and sex of each student. The author attempted to form groups where the only dependent variable was personality type (work experience, ethnic background and sex were spread out through each group). The second class the author broke the class up into 3 control and 3 experimental groups using the data from the personality inventory and backgrounds. The control groups were made up of only one personality type and the experimental groups were made up of different personality types. The personality types for each group are as follows:

Control Groups: Group 1: ESTJ Group 2: ESTJ Group 3: ISTJ

10

Experimental Groups: Group 4: INTJ, ENFJ, ISTJ, ENTJ Group 5: ENTJ, INFJ, ENTJ, ISTJ Group 6: ENFJ, ENFP, ESFJ, ENTP, ENTJ The author attempted to keep other factors evenly distributed across the various groups in order to keep other factors from possibly biasing the groups. These various factors were male/female, country of origin, and work experience. The male/female ratios were: MALE FEMALE Group 1 2 1 Group 2 2 2 Group 3 3 1 Group 4 2 2 Group 5 2 1 Group 6 2 2 The country of origin makeup were: INDIA CHINA AFRICA US MIDDLE EAST Group 1 1 1 1 Group 2 1 1 1 1 Group 3 1 1 Group 4 2 2 Group 5 1 1 1 2 Group 6 1 3 Prior work experience survey indicated: All groups had at least 1 person with No prior computer experience. All groups had at least 1 person with over 5 years of computer experience. The groups were given instruction on the basic personality types through class lecture. [6] They were also given various group dynamic techniques and methods throughout the semester. This was done to ensure a common playing field throughout the groups. The groups were all given the same software engineering development project - to create a system for the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) for game management. Throughout the semester several short surveys were taken to ascertain the groups' progress and adaptability. 3.1 Experiment Descriptions The first survey was taken about the 7th week after an additional major requirement was presented and added to the requirements of each group. The process for this assignment was as follows. First, the groups met in a 10 minute brainstorming session to come up with any new requirements which could be added to their system. The author wanted to see if any statistical variation occurred within the brainstorming output. The results were as follows: Control Groups 1 & 2 both had relatively small brainstorming output. Group 1 came up with 1 additional requirement, and 3 possible reports. Group 2 came up with 2 requirements and 2 reports. Control Group 3 came up with 3 additional requirements and 2 reports. Experimental Group 4 came up with 4 additional requirements and 3 reports. Experimental Group 5 came up with 5 additional requirements and 4 reports. Experimental Group 6 came up with 4 additional requirements and 4 reports. It appears from the brainstorming

results that the experimental groups came up with more possible requirements and more possible reports. After the exercise, a survey was taken to ascertain the level of possible frustration with the exercise. The control groups all showed a higher level of frustration on the sliding scale. Group 1 and 2 were all towards the very frustrated end of the scale. Group 3 was closer to the ok level. Groups 4, 5, and 6 were all ok to good exercise range. The scale is shown below. Question: How did you feel about the exercise as far as your level of frustration: 5_______4_______3______2_______1__ good exercise ok very frustrated A second exercise was done at week 9, again within a controlled time frame, where the groups had to produce a project management PERT (performance evaluation and review technique) chart. This chart had to display all of the phases of their project (those completed and those to come). The author wanted to see if there would be a difference in the PERT charts produced as far as amount of variation and detail. The control groups came up with their tasks, but did not embellish. The experimental groups all had much more content listed on their PERT charts. They incorporated many more topic areas, and drew more tightly identified time lines. It would appear that heterogeneous groups may have a more complete outlook than do homogenous groups according to this exercise. However, again it should be noted that we are dealing with a very small sample. A third survey around week 12was taken concerning the frustration of the individuals in the group with the other members concerning progress. Question: What is your greatest frustration currently with your group? Examining the answers from each group, the author noted that the control groups were experiencing more problems of a personal level - rather than technical. Even though the groups were the same personality type, they seemed to want to carry out the project themselves, or had problems with others in their group who did not pull their share. The experimental groups seemed to have more technical types of problems although personal problems were noted as well. Group 5 experienced some problems with an absent student. One group stated they didn't have enough time to work together. During each class period (twice per week) the author gave the groups a minimum of 20 minutes at the end of each class. It is difficult to ascertain what the problem was concerning this issue. The author had assumed that the students would have more difficulties in the heterogeneous groups since the personality types were mixed, but this did not appear to be the case with these groups. During the last week of the semester a final survey was conducted to ask the groups questions concerning their comparison of group work in this class with any previous group work. Question: How did your working in groups this quarter differ from previous group work? Looking at the general comments concerning the good points of each group, all

11

groups seemed to have similar comments. However, concerning the bad points of each group, the control groups had more negative comments than did the experimental groups. Of course, this cannot be attributed to just personality type, but it was an interesting comparison. General observation of watching the groups working together also displayed some interesting points. Groups 1 and 2 spent a lot of time arguing and rehashing who would be doing parts of the project (even though this was decided very early on). There seemed to be more general agreement (possible group think) and less discussion about other possibilities. There was also quite an interest in grades and being very clear on what is expected of them. Group 3 was very quiet (all of the group members are introverted) and it was difficult to see much interaction going on at all. This group seems very focused and responsible. Groups 4, 5, and 6 were very active. They carried on boisterous discussions and seemed to throw ideas out with a lot of variety. By understanding the basic learning styles, and seeing how the groups fit into these established patterns, the author made some assumptions concerning group formation, behavior and performance. 3.2 Assumptions The author assumed that the groups with the ESTJ personality types (groups 1 and 2) would be very opinionated and want to follow a traditional path. This seemed to be verified from the general survey questions, and observation of group behaviors. Group 3 (ISTJ) was very quiet, and private. Again, they wanted verification of what exact requirements were. These control groups followed the basic behavior and learning patterns as established by the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. This would indicate that personality can play an important part in the behavior of teams. The experimental groups showed a much more open and varied approach to problem solving. Since there were varieties of learning styles represented in each group (where the control groups all had the same learning style), these groups seemed to have the ability to listen and discuss several types of solutions and come up with the "best" one for the group. There was much more interaction going on between the members of these groups than in the control groups (as viewed during class). These groups also tended to stay during the allotted group meeting times, and also after class. By using personality inventories, or other similar methods to form groups, the author believes that software development teams can be strengthened. By calling upon the strengths of heterogeneous groups in problem solving, more innovative and productive ideas can be examined. By having a variety of strengths and weaknesses in the group, the group can better manage all problems which it has to handle. When everyone has the same basic strengths and weaknesses, the weaknesses are multiplied since there is no counter balance to cover for them. Another assumption is that many faculty assume that most students entering their programs are traditionally ISTJ or ESTJ. [9] However, Information Technology is attracting a variety of students into programs. According to the US Department of the Interior, the following table (table 3) lists possible jobs by personality type. As can be seen, computer related jobs

encompass many of the 16 personality types. [14] Faculty need to be aware that many different types of personalities are drawn into computer science or related fields. Computer Science is not longer just for mathematicians and electrical engineers. As can be seen from the table a variety of personalities may be interested in computing. It would appear from this list that SF personalities do not seem to be interest in the computer science or related areas, yet all the rest of the 16 types have possible computing jobs. [18]

Table 3 Jobs by Personality Type ISTJ Comp Operator Comp Programmer CIO

ISFJ Comp Operator

INFJ Inf-graphics Design

INTJ Comp Programmer Inf-graphics Design

ISTP Comp Repair Comp Programmer Software Developer

INFP Inf-graphics Design

INTP Software Designer Systems analyst Comp programmer Database Manager

ESTP Comp Programmer Software Developer

ENFP Inf-graphics design

ENTP Systems designer Technical trainer Computer analyst

ESTJ Computer analyst Technical trainer Project manager CIO Database manager

ENFJ Program designer

ENTJ Program designer Network int spec

ISFP

ESFP ESFJ By knowing personality types of all team members, the team leader can understand where the problem solving characteristics are applicable. Also, each group member who understands the personality types of other members can open up avenues of cooperation and collaboration to a greater extent. The strongest teams are those that have heterogeneous personalities. This also helps avoid group think which is a danger when teams are made up primarily of the same personality type. The author believes strongly that using a personality inventory can help establish not only heterogeneous groups, but also create groups who understand and appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of all team members. 4.0 OTHER COURSES This type of study is simply designed to show how personality inventories (of any type) can be used to help create heterogeneous teams for project work. Many IT courses use group projects especially at the junior/senior level. Since this

12

is not subject matter based, the concept can be applied to any group project situation. It allows the faculty member to know their own students better, and allows team members to know and understand their own team members strengths and weaknesses. The only danger can be making too many assumptions about knowing other personality types and how they should react. Using this method along with team dynamic information can help teams perform at their best and allow for personal and group growth. The author highly recommends this for choosing project teams.

References [1] AdvisorTeam, Keirseys Four Temperaments,

http://www.advisorteam.org/the_four-temperaments/, 2006 [2] ActiveWin, Review IT Trends, www.activewin.com,

2006 [3] Clarion,Self-assessment Resources,2000, Online.

Internet. Available WWW http://www.clarion.edu/library/ CAREERPAGE/Self-assessmenttests.html [4] Grudin, J., "Computer-Supported Cooperative Work:

History and Focus", IEEE Computer, May 1994 [5] Henriksen, L., "Structuring and Planning of Interoperable

Workgroups", IEEE Software, Aug. 1994 [6] Keirsey,D.,KeirseyTempermentWebsite,

http://keirsey.com, 2006 [7] Keirsey, D., and Bates, M., Please Understand Me, Del

Mar, California: Prometheus Book Company, 1984 [8] Keirsey Tests,

http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/kerisey.htm, 2006

[9] Mistrik, I., and Schuler, W., "A Framework for Cooperative Software Development", IEEE Software, Aug. 1994

[10] Moad, J., "Psych Tests for MIS Staff: Is This Nuts?", Datamation, July 1994

[11] National Computer Systems,1999 Million Conference: Keynote Presentations,1999, Online. Internet. Available WWW http://www.ncs.com/assessments/top/ keynote.htm

[12] New Life, Parallel Identifying Terms Used in Various Temperament/Personality Inventories, 2000, Online.

Internet. Available WWW http://www.new-life.net/ persnty3.htm

[13] Page-Jones, M., Practical Project Management: Restoring Quality to Data Processing Projects & Systems, Dorset House Publishing Co., 1985

[14] Palmer, J., and Fields, N., "Computer Supported Cooperative Work", IEEEComputer, May 1994

[15] Paulish, D., and Carleton, A., "Case Studies of Software-Process-Improvement Measurement", IEEE Computer, Sept. 1994

[16] Seadle, M., "TQM for Applications", Enterprise Systems Journal, Oct. 1994

[17] Team Technology, Keirsey Temperament and Myers Briggs, http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/keirsey-analysis.html, 2006

[18] US Department of Interior, Connecting Personality Type with Careers and Jobs,2000. Online. Internet.

Available WWW http://www.doi.gov/octc/typescar.html [19] Vocational and Personality Assessment,

http://www.deakin.edu/au/studentlife/careers/planning/vocational-assessment.php

[20] Wesner, J., et. al., Winning with Quality, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1995

[21] Wu,B.,build a Self-Managing total Quality Organization to Minimize Risk in Re-Engineering,IEEE, Aug. 1994

13