Thesis

ii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

ABSTRACT

Marta C. Malmberg

The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

(Under the direction of Dr. Matthew Pearsall)

The use of teams in the workplace has become a pivotal method of completing

challenging tasks. The present research examined data from 95 participants across 18

teams and found that certain personality traits, as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator (MBTI), have shown correlation with team performance. The teams were

composed of undergraduate and MBA students working together in semester-long

consulting projects. Each team was assigned one project leader who was an MBA

student with additional experience. The research showed that teams led by a project

leader with the thinking preference of the MBTI correlated with higher team performance

scores. Higher team performance scores were also correlated with higher team cohesion

scores. In addition, having heterogeneity of certain personality types was not found to be

more conducive for team cohesion and performance. All four dichotomies of the MBTI

were analyzed to identify additional correlated elements of team cohesion and

iii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

v

Chapter

I.

INTRODUCTION

1

II.

REVIEW OF COMMON LITERATURE

3

A. History and Development of the MBTI

3

B. Current MBTI Discussions

6

C. Recent Personality and Team Research 8

D. Personal Research Objectives

10

III.

METHODOLOGY 14

A. Participants14

B. Design Procedure 16

C. Measures 16

D. Correlation Analysis

19

IV.

HYPOTHESES

20

iv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

A. Prevalence of Types

25

B. Hypotheses Results

27

C. Additional Findings

36

VI.

DISCUSSION

38

A. Implications

38

B. Limitations 39

C. Suggestions for Future Research 40

D. Conclusion 41

VII.

APPENDIX

A. The T.E.A.M. F.O.C.U.S. “Rules Of Engagement” Model

45

B. IRBIS Documentation

46

C. The 16 MBTI Types

47

D. General Data

51

v The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1

MBTI Personality Type Functions

5

Table 2.2

MBTI Matrix 6

Table 5.1

MBTI Prevalence

26

vi The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

More than ever, businesses are relying on teams to solve their complex business

problems. As a result, personality research is emerging and growing as an integral aspect

of the use of teams in the workplace. The goal of my research is to provide insight into

the impact of personality on team cohesion and performance by analyzing the Student

Teams Achieving Results (STAR) program consulting teams at the University of North

Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School (UNC Kenan-Flagler).

The STAR program is a collaborative program that connects top MBA and

undergraduate students with corporate and not-for-profit organizations in consulting

engagements. Each student was accepted through an online application process including

a resume submission. The STAR program is directed by Dr. Paul N. Friga and seeks to

enrich students through building skills in leadership, teamwork, and problem solving.

The STAR program uses the T.E.A.M. F.O.C.U.S. model, developed by Friga, to help

teams solve their clients’ business problems (see Appendix A).

vii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

online version of the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) consisting of 48

forced-answer questions. Each question consisted of a statement that the individual would rate

as accurate or inaccurate on a five point scale. The MBTI is a personality inventory

modeled after the psychoanalytic theories of Carl Jung and is most commonly used in

occupational settings and aims to help users understand how they absorb information

from the world to make decisions.

Prior to beginning this study, the IRBIS Office of Human Research Ethics

viii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF COMMON LITERATURE

The following section reviews the existing literature on personality research and

the use of teams in the workplace. This literature review will include four areas of focus:

(A) a history and development of the MBTI; (B) current MBTI discussions; (C) recent

personality and team research; and (D) personal research objectives.

A. History and Development of the MBTI

In the early 1900s, Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory was the dominant

theory of personality research. Psychoanalytic theory promoted the idea that the

unconscious was the controlling driver of personality. Freud’s theory remained the

prominent belief until a group of neo-psychoanalysts, including Carl Jung (1875-1961),

diverged from Freud and proposed alternative theories.

ix The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

In 1923, Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs began their work on the MBTI by

integrating Jung’s four functions. The original goal of the MBTI was to make Jung’s

research “understandable and useful in people’s lives” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation,

2001, MBTI Basics, para. 1). In the 1940s, Myers and Briggs used their research

findings to aid people in selecting appropriate career choices and to help individuals

better understand personality differences among each other (The Myers & Briggs

Foundation, 2001). The MBTI is still widely used by many groups and individuals

seeking to understand individual personality types.

The four functions from Jung’s research — thinking, feeling, sensing, and

intuition — became the foundations for the MBTI. The MBTI incorporates each of these

four original functions as well as four additional functions to represent one end of a

dichotomous scale. The dichotomy created four scales and eight functions in total. The

eight functions are represented below on their respective dichotomous scales:

Extraversion (E) — Introversion (I)

Sensing (S) — Intuition (N)

Thinking (T) — Feeling (F)

Judging (J) — Perceiving (P)

x The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

MBTI Personality Type Functions

Extraversion (E)

Introversion (I)

People who prefer Extraversion tend to

focus on the outer world of people and

things

People who prefer Introversion tend to

focus on the inner world of ideas and

impressions

Sensing (S)

Intuition (N)

People who prefer Sensing tend to focus

on the present and on concrete

information gained from their senses

People who prefer Intuition tend to focus on

the future, with a view toward patterns and

possibilities

Thinking (T)

Feeling (F)

People who prefer Thinking tend to base

their decisions primarily on logic and on

objective analysis of cause and effect

People who prefer Feeling tend to base their

decisions primarily on values and on

subjective evaluation of person-centered

concerns

Judging (J)

Perceiving (P)

People who prefer Judging tend to like a

planned and organized approach to life

and preferred to have things settled

People who prefer Perceiving tend to like a

flexible and spontaneous approach to life

and prefer to keep their options open

Table 2.1. MBTI personality type functions. Adapted from Chittenden & McKenzie

(2013). Talking about: create new thinking. Retrieved from

http://www.talkingabout.com.au/MBTI.

From the eight personality functions described above, sixteen personality types

can be created. The personality type is composed of one letter from each of the

xi The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

MBTI Matrix

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

Table 2.2. MBTI matrix. Adapted from The Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2001).

Another large milestone for the MBTI occurred in 1975 when Myers, along with

colleague Mary McCaulley, opened the Center for Psychological Type (CAPT). CAPT

was created as a not-for-profit resource dedicated to helping individuals discover and

understand his or her personality type. Today CAPT not only provides personality typing

consultations, but this organization houses the Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Library as

well as the MBTI bibliography database (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2001). The

Library and MBTI database provide access to numerous articles, studies, and other

publications important to the field of personality research. Due largely in part to the

work of Myers and Briggs, the MBTI is now a widely recognized tool in personality

research and has been cited in thousands of publications around the world (“Mary &

Isabel's Library Online Catalog,” 2013).

B. Current MBTI Discussions

xii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

the MBTI test.

Some researchers claim the MBTI has diverged from its original intention and is

being wrongly used by individuals in corporate and research settings. In the 1940s

Myers and Briggs originally published their research to help individuals discover suitable

career paths. Today, however, many researchers, including Charles Coe, a researcher

from North Carolina State University, and James Michael, a researcher at Wagner

College, argue that the MBTI is misused. Coe (1992) believes that using the MBTI to

select potential employees is a misuse of the MBTI and that the results are not

quantifiably accurate. Similarly, Michael (2003) published a report demonstrating the

misuse of the MBTI in leadership development. In Michael’s report, he notes that many

participants who received leadership training held incorrect information about the

purpose of the MBTI. For example, after receiving MBTI training, some participants

wrongly believed that the MBTI provided information about with whom they are

incompatible, which he states is a misuse of the original design of the MBTI personality

instrument.

xiii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

poles (Pittenger, 1993). For example, if an individual’s actual personality fell near the

middle of the classification of an introvert or an extravert, the MBTI would force

classification into one of the two categories which can be misleading.

According to Pittenger (1993), the MBTI test is also not reliable because many

studies show that up to 50% of people who retake the test receive a different score in as

little as five weeks. Alternatively, the Myers and Briggs foundation has found that “on

retest, people come out with three to four type preferences the same 75% to 90% of the

time” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2001, Facts about the MBTI instrument

reliability, para. 2). In addition, research on the Big Five personality measured

personality in 5,266 job applicants. After six months, only three of the original job

applicants displayed significantly different changes in all five of the personality traits

showing that personality is enduring in nature and remains stable for each individual

(Hogan, Barrett, & Hogan, 2007).

Despite debates and potential shortcomings, the MBTI has repeatedly proven to

be a reliable and valid measure of personality used widely across the world. Even

researchers who hold strong viewpoints against certain aspects of the MBTI, such as

Michael and Pittenger, do not advise against the use of the MBTI as a personality

measure; rather they promote exercising caution in the use of the MBTI.

C. Recent Personality and Team Research

One of the major areas of growth in personality research has been in the

xiv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

researchers, especially in business settings, are seeking to better understand the

interactions between personality and teams.

Many studies have been able to find correlations between personality types and

the success of a team. Research by Suzanne T. Bell at DePaul University, for example,

used meta-analysis to analyze teams and found that several personality traits showed a

correlation with team performance (2007).

A key study conducted by the faculty in the department of Computer Science at

the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom examined the relationship between

personality type and team cohesion in software engineering teams. The study measured

five teams across a 12-week span and routinely tested for indicators of team cohesion and

performance. The findings of this study of five software engineering teams provided

evidence that certain MBTI combinations showed evidence of greater performance and

cohesion than others. More specifically, the results showed that “certain types of teams

were found to work consistently well over the project due to homogeneity in personality

type and others were found to be very cohesive due to a mixture of types” (Karn,

Syed-Abdullah, Cowling, & Holcombe, 2007, p.99). A publication in the Journal of Strategic

Management went as far as purposing that top management groups should be composed

of a mixture of MBTI types in order to create opportunities for insights by members of

different personality types (Hurst, Rush, & White, 2007).

xv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

leaders with MBTI profiles that were commonly associated with leadership. Other

research has also shown that four personality types in the four corners of the matrix—

ISTJ, INTJ, ESTJ, & ENTJ—(see Table 2.2) are found to be more equipped for project

management roles (Smith, 2001). The researchers at the University of Oviedo stated that,

“MBTI also helps in understanding group dynamics, analyzing shortcomings in an

individual’s style and how the style affects the group as a whole” (Montequin et al., 2012,

p.1,127).

Research on personality and teams has made tremendous steps forward in the last

few years as researchers seek to better understand the interaction between personality and

team performance and cohesion. Studies provide evidence that personality is not only a

predictor of team success, but that certain combinations of personality types and the

personality type of the project leader are also related to team performance. The following

study will examine each of these components as they are related to team cohesion and

performance.

D. Personal Research Objectives

In the spring of 2013, I had the opportunity to be a part of a STAR consulting

project that was working with a retail client seeking to expand their fine jewelry offerings

into some of their smaller volume stores. Throughout the duration of this project, my

team spent a semester together analyzing data and creating recommendations. At the

initial stage of the project, we exchanged our MBTI information which helped us to

better understand one another.

Through my research on the impact of personality on team cohesion and

xvi The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

two primary goals: (1) provide insights into the optimal composition of future STAR

consulting team and (2) advance the field of personality research.

First, I aim to provide data-driven guidance for the optimal MBTI composition of

future STAR consulting teams. Currently, the STAR program director assigns students to

teams without considering the MBTI of each of the participants. The results of my study

may provide insights into selecting teams with certain MBTI personality profiles to order

to optimize the impact of personality on team cohesion and performance.

The second goal of my research is to add to the field of personality research by

providing analysis of unique data on high-performing consulting teams. My hope is that

this study may generate further discussions by researchers on the impact of personality on

team cohesion and performance. The methods of my study closely mirror the 2007 study

of software engineering teams performed at the University of Sheffield. In this study,

five teams were analyzed across a 12 week period and routinely measured to find levels

of team cohesion and performance. The similarities of my study on STAR consulting

teams with that of the software engineering teams may support or refute current research

on the impact of personality and teams.

xvii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

First, the consulting teams provided a unique sample for study. My study uses a

sample of MBA and undergraduate consulting students who were selected through a

rigorous application process. The teams were working closely with clients to solve actual

business problems. The caliber of individuals selected to the STAR program, combined

with the real client interaction of the consulting teams closely mirrors business settings in

a way that is often unattainable in a university setting.

Second, my research looks at the impact of a project leaders’ MBTI on team

cohesion and performance. Focusing on the project leader in the context of high-level

consulting projects will provide valuable insight that may be applicable to managers in a

business setting.

Finally, my research uses the MBTI as the measure of personality. Other research

has used varying personality measurements, but the MBTI was chosen for the STAR

consulting teams because the MBTI is well known for being a personality measure that

focuses on how individuals take in information from the world to make decisions. The

eight preferences of the MBTI shed light on how individuals interact in certain situations

and is therefore more likely to be a better personality inventory for measuring team

cohesion and performance. The MBTI’s growth and popularity can be attributed to the

success that individuals and teams have experienced while using this personality

xviii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

Understanding your personality type as well as the type of those you are working

with can be a powerful tool for teams. Some components of the MBTI also provide

information on how each preference interacts with other people. The feeling preference

is associated with a desire to keep harmony in team settings and the thinking preference

is often criticized for being overly task-oriented and less concerned with the people-side

of a situation (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2001). The MBTI can predict how these

preferences will affect the interplay between team members.

Based on prior research that supports a relationship between personality and

teams, I expect to see some overall similarities in my data that would match the

conclusions drawn by other researchers. For example, data collected about the MBTI in

specific populations shows that business settings attract a majority of certain personality

types, specifically extraverts and thinkers. Relative to the overall population, I expect to

see a skewed distribution of types. In addition, multiple studies have found that

extraversion relates very strongly to leadership. It would not be surprising to find that

more extraverts applied and were selected to be project leaders and also that the teams

with extraverted project leaders experienced more success, as measured by the variables

described in the following chapters.

I would not be surprised to find that teams with a variety of personality types

experienced more success. The Myers and Briggs Foundation is very clear that no type

is “better” than any other type. Likewise, each personality type brings a unique

xix The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The following methodology will first discuss the participants used in this

research, next describe the design procedure, then discuss the measures used in the

analysis, and conclude with a detailed overview of the correlation analyses used in this

study.

A. Participants

In the spring 2013 semester, 122 undergraduate and MBA students enrolled in

and completed the UNC Kenan-Flagler STAR program from January 2013 to May 2013.

MBTI data was either missing or not collected for 27 participants, resulting in 95

completed STAR participant profiles.

The participants were assigned by the STAR program director into 18 teams, with

each team ranging in size from five to seven members. One member of each team served

as the project leader. The project leader was an MBA student typically with prior

xx The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

The team members met before the start of the spring 2013 semesters at a

“kick-off” workshop. During this event, members were introduced to the STAR program and

received their client assignment. Each team was assigned a unique client to resolve a

business problem facing the client’s organization. The size, industry, and needs of each

client varied from team to team. An example of a STAR project may include working to

improve sales strategies for a medical device sales company or helping a retail client

improve marketing strategies to appeal to millennials. In order to complete these types of

tasks, the STAR team may need to collect information about the target market, perform

analysis on the competitors, or interview specialists in their respective fields. For many

of the students in the STAR program, this was their first experience working with clients

on real cases.

xxi The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

McKinsey,” 2013). The STAR program draws heavily from best practices used at

McKinsey & Company and therefore implements the MBTI as a way to familiarize team

members with each other’s tendencies.

B. Design Procedure

Data Collection & Synthesis

The data used in this research included (1) MBTI, (2) gender, (3) degree level, (4)

project leader distinction, (5) team performance, and (6) team cohesion for each

participant in the STAR program for the spring 2013 semester.

Data was collected and compiled by the STAR program director as part of the

UNC Kenan-Flagler course. Prior to analysis, all data was stripped of identifying

characteristics and individual data was aggregated to the team level. Analysis was

completed to look for correlation between the six metrics described above.

C. Measures

MBTI

xxii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

feeling was coded as “0;” judging was coded as “1” and perceiving was coded as “0.”

Gender

Participants’ gender was collected as part of this study to provide additional

predictors of team performance. Gender was recorded as either male or female. The

gender variable refers to the percent of students that are male or female on each team.

For the purposes of differentiating gender in the multiple regression analysis, male was

coded as “1” and female was coded as “0.”

Degree Level

The STAR teams consist of both MBA and undergraduate students. Degree level

refers to whether the STAR participant is an Undergraduate student or an MBA student at

UNC Kenan-Flagler. The STAR teams were mixed with about 70% of the team

comprised of MBA students and 30% undergraduate students. This ratio varied slightly

from team to team. MBA students were typically older than undergraduate students and

have additional working experience. By differentiating these two groups, it became

easier to measure the effects of age and work experience on performance. For the

purposes of the multiple regression analysis, the MBA students were coded as “1” and

the undergraduate students were coded as “0.”

Project Leader Distinction

xxiii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

example, the project leader may be in charge of coordinating the meeting time, location,

and content for a meeting. Project leader distinction was included as a possible predictor

of performance to examine the impact that this variable had a team performance. In the

analysis, the project leader was coded as “1” and team members were coded as “0.”

Team Performance

Information about team performance was collected at the conclusion of each

semester of the STAR program by receiving feedback from the each team’s client. Each

team member receives the same score. Team performance served as an additional metric

of each team’s performance throughout the duration of the project. Client’s rated the

overall team performance on a five point scale. The STAR team members were not

informed of the team performance score at any point during the grading process.

Team Cohesion

xxiv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

D. Correlation Analysis

The analysis was completed using both SPSS statistical analysis software and

Microsoft Excel Data Analysis tool pack. Correlation analysis was completed on the six

variables discussed in the previous section—(1) MBTI, (2) gender, (3) degree level, (4)

project leader distinction, (5) team performance, and (6) team cohesion.

Three different levels of analysis were used in order to identify different

relationships within the STAR data. The first level of analysis looked at the STAR

participants on an individual level. A correlation test looked for significant correlations

between the six variables discussed above. Microsoft Excel was used for this analysis.

The second level of analysis aggregated the STAR data to the team level. The teams

were averaged across the four dichotomies (E-I, N-S, T-F, J-P), degree level, gender, and

team cohesion. The team performance score remained the same as each team member

received the same score. By aggregating the data to the team level, more in-depth

analysis about the impact of the project leaders’ personality types could be observed.

Microsoft Excel was also used in this level of the analysis.

The third level of analysis again used aggregated team-level data, but looked at

the heterogeneity in each team by measuring the standard deviation of the variables

including personality across the four dichotomies, degree level, gender, and team

xxv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

CHAPTER IV

HYPOTHESES

Prior to analysis, six hypotheses were developed for testing. The hypotheses were

chosen based upon past personality research in team settings and researcher intuition.

Hypothesis 1: Teams with extraverted project leaders have higher team performance

scores than teams with introverted project leaders.

xxvi The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

Hypothesis 2: Teams with feeling project leaders have higher team performance scores

than teams with thinking project leaders.

Like individuals ranked highly in extraversion, individuals identified as having

the feeling preference not only tend to have an orientation focused on people and

communication, but also tend to be “tactful” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2001).

The personality traits used to describe feeling characteristics appear to correspond with

the responsibilities of the project leader. The strong match of characteristics may result

in higher team performance scores for teams with feeling-type project leaders because

they are better able to tactfully manage the teams’ needs. Therefore, I hypothesize:

Teams with feeling project leaders have higher team performance scores than teams with

thinking project leaders.

Hypothesis 3: Teams with more thinking members have higher team performance scores

than teams with more feeling members.

Research on software engineering teams found that the teams with a vast majority

of members with personality types typical of software engineers were the most consistent

throughout the project (Karn, Syed-Abdullah, Cowling, & Holcombe, 2007, p.99). Since

the “T” dichotomy is very common type for business school students, it would be

xxvii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

Hypothesis 4: Teams with more judging members have higher team performance scores

than teams with more perceiving members.

The “J” dichotomy is another very common personality attribute found in

business school students. The judging preference is often described at very orderly,

focused, and task-oriented (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2001). In addition, a study

of twenty technology innovators found that individuals with the judging preference

displayed greater task-oriented management of their email inbox than individuals with

the perceiving preference (Ludford, & Terveen, 2003). These preferences would seem to

be very integral to client satisfaction in high-level consulting projects, which require

complex tasks, structure, and important business decisions. Therefore, I hypothesize:

Teams with more judging members have higher team performance scores than teams with

more perceiving members.

Hypothesis 5: Teams with more feeling members have higher team cohesion scores than

teams with more thinking members.

While I expect to find that teams with more thinking members have higher team

performance scores than teams with more feeling members, I expect to find that teams

with more feeling members have higher team cohesion scores than teams with more

thinking members. The feeling preference is commonly associated with a people

xxviii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

other more favorably during the peer feedback process. Contrary to Hypothesis 3, which

states that more thinking members has a positive impact on team performance scores, this

hypothesis advocates that the feeling preference will have a positive impact on team

cohesion scores. Therefore, I hypothesize: Teams with more feeling members have

higher team cohesion scores than teams with more thinking members.

Hypothesis 6: Teams with greater heterogeneity in the proportion of sensing and intuitive

members have higher levels of team performance.

The final two hypotheses in this study seek to understand how the heterogeneity

of personality types impacts team cohesion and performance. A 2011 Forbes Insights

study looked at data from 1,245 executives and found that having diversity of personality

types was an important component of a corporation’s ability to maintain their competitive

edge. The idea of diversity of personality types has also been seen in research on

software engineering teams which showed that some teams were found to be more

cohesive when they had a mixture of certain personality types. For example, one

engineering team that experienced success during the project had a member, who was a

sensing type that spent time assisting other members of his team which demonstrated that

diversity of personality types provides additional insights to the team (Karn,

Syed-Abdullah, Cowling, & Holcombe, 2007).

xxix The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

types. Therefore, I hypothesize: Teams with greater heterogeneity in the proportion of

sensing and intuitive members have higher levels of team performance.

Hypothesis 7: Teams with greater heterogeneity in the proportion of extraverted and

introverted members have higher team cohesion scores.

xxx The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

CHAPTER V

RESULTS

After the analysis of the data from the UNC Kenan-Flagler STAR program was

completed, the results showed that some hypothesized personality types did have a

significant effect on team and client feedback, while other hypotheses did not. The

following sections will go into greater detail of the results of this study including the

prevalence of the personality types across different populations, the hypotheses results

and also additional findings from this study. Additional statistics can be found in

Appendix D.

A. Prevalence of Types

xxxi The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

STAR program show a higher prevalence of types ISTJ & ESTJ, but also a lower

prevalence of types ISFJ & ISFP. A study of 22,783 students at Ashridge Business

School at a leading management development program in the United Kingdom found

higher proportions of students had types ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, and INTJ (Carr, Curd, &

Dent, 2004). To further analyze the prevalence of types, Table 5.1 compares the

prevalence of each of the dichotomies in the United States population, the UNC

Kenan-Flagler STAR students, and a sample from Ashridge Business School. The sample from

Ashridge Business School was included to provide a reference of how the STAR program

students compared to other individuals in business settings.

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

MBTI Prevalence

General Population STAR Students Ashridge Business School

MBTI Type

P

re

va

le

nc

e

Table 5.1. MBTI prevalence. Adapted from The Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2001). &

Carr, M., Curd, J., Dent, F. (2004). MBTI Research into Distribution of Type.

Ashridge.

Table 5.1 shows that the data provided for the 95 participants who reported MBTI

data for the STAR program has a very different breakdown of personality types

xxxii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

“TJ” subgroup. As previous mentioned, both the thinking and judging components have

characteristics that are closely aligned with business skills, making it unsurprising that

the STAR students would have an abnormally large percentage of students in these

categories. The largest specific difference is seen in the “ESTJ” personality type. For

this personality type, the general population reports about 9% prevalence, while the

STAR students and the Ashridge Business school report 32% and 23% prevalence,

respectively. Popular personality websites commonly refer to ESTJ personality types as

“The Supervisor.” Additionally, the Myers and Briggs foundation describes the ESTJ

type as “Practical, realistic, matter-of-fact… Organize projects and people to get things

done, focus on getting results in the most efficient way possible… Forceful in

implementing their plans” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2001, The 16 MBTI Types,

para. 13). Given this description, it is not surprising that business school settings and

high-intensity consulting projects attract a larger proportion of ESTJ personality types

than the general population.

B. Hypotheses Results

xxxiii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

Hypothesis 1: Teams with extraverted project leaders have higher team performance

scores than teams with introverted project leaders.

Contrary to the original hypothesis, the analysis on the STAR data showed that in

general, teams with an extraverted project leader resulted in lower team performance

scores (r = -.27, ns). Although this correlation was not significantly lower, given the data

available, it does show that the original hypothesis, extraverted project leaders’ MBTI

types result in higher team performance scores, does not hold true in this analysis.

Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Hypothesis 2: Teams with feeling project leaders have higher team performance scores

than teams with thinking project leaders.

Similarly to the previous hypothesis, feeling project leaders’ MBTI types did not

result in higher team performance scores, (r = .56, p < .05). In fact, the opposite was

found to be statistically significant. Based on the data provided, teams with a

thinking-type project leader actually reported significantly higher team performance scores.

Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

The initial hypothesis was based on the personality attribute commonly associated

with feeling-type individuals such as a people-focused orientation and strong

xxxiv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

focus of the thinking preference outweighed the people-focused orientation of the feeling

preference, even for the project leaders.

Hypothesis 3: Teams with more thinking members have higher team performance scores

than teams with more feeling members.

After completing this analysis, it appears that having more thinking-type members

did have a slight, but insignificant effect on the team performance scores (r = .24, ns).

Similar to Hypothesis 2, it is possible that the analytical characteristics of the thinking

function were beneficial to the team members, although based on this sample size, it was

not possible to determine whether this effect has any statistical significance although is it

worth not ruling out altogether. With a larger sample size and additional analysis, it may

be possible to find a correlation between the number of thinking-type individuals on a

team and the team performance score that that team receives. These results are

suggestive, but do not provide statistically significant evidence in support of Hypothesis

3.

xxxv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

increased. It is possible that having greater diversity of the thinking/feeling type was

beneficial to team performance.

The second interesting finding was that as the heterogeneity of the

thinking/feeling preference increased, the team cohesion variable also increased, (r=.46, p

< .10). This correlation could mean that as the diversity of team members with the

thinking/feeling preference increases, the teams experienced greater cohesion which

resulted in higher team cohesion scores at the end of the project. This finding is

inconsistent with a study on software engineers which found that the two teams with

similarity of personality type preferences common to engineers reported having the

highest levels of cohesion. The researchers remarked that the “ostensible success of these

teams had the effect of increasing cohesion as the projects reached their climax” (Karn et

al., 2007, p.108). It is possible that having differing viewpoints was actually beneficial

for the cohesion of the STAR teams due to the unique nature of the consulting projects.

Table 5.3 below shows the correlations for each of the measured variables of team

heterogeneity.

Hypothesis 4: Teams with more judging members have higher team performance scores

than teams with more perceiving members.

xxxvi The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

individuals were better suited to handle the consulting problems presented during the

semester. Additional analysis of future STAR consulting teams could provide more

insight into this finding.

Hypothesis 5: Teams with more feeling members have higher team cohesion scores than

teams with more thinking members.

It appears that the personality trait most closely related to “getting along” may not

be a strong predictor of team cohesion and performance either. According to the data

collected from the STAR teams, feeling-type personalities were only weakly correlated

with team feedback (r = .09, ns). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was not supported. Most

teams met for about a total of three hours on an average week. During weeks when

deliverable projects were due, the face-to-face time would increase substantially.

However, on normal weeks, perhaps most teams were able to easily get-along without

major issues because they were not together for longer periods of time.

Table 5.2 on the following page provides additional information about the

xxxviii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

Hypothesis 6: Teams with greater heterogeneity in the proportion of sensing and intuitive

members have higher levels of team performance.

According to the data from the 2013 STAR teams, the heterogeneity of the

sensing and intuitive members did not result in higher levels of team performance (r =

-.35, ns). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 was not supported. In fact, the opposite effect was

observed—teams with greater heterogeneity in the proportion of sensing and intuitive

members showed slightly lower, albeit insignificant, levels of team performance.

Although this finding is not consistent with previous research, it is possible that

the preferences of the sensing and intuitive types were in conflict. Sensing individuals

prefer concrete information and facts whereas those with the intuition preference identify

more with abstract ways of gathering information. This difference may have caused

tension in regards to the best ways to solve the business problems in the STAR teams.

Hypothesis 7: Teams with greater heterogeneity in the proportion of extraverted and

introverted members have higher team cohesion scores.

xxxix The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

Research from the University of Iowa provides a possible explanation for the

results observed with the STAR teams. In this study of 51 teams, the researchers found

that teams with higher levels of team extraversion were found to be more cohesive and

viable over time. However, curvilinear analysis showed that the teams that were either

high or low in extraversion were found to be more cohesive (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert,

& Mount, 1998). Based on this research, it appears that having heterogeneity of

extraversion/introversion may not be beneficial to teams, but rather having teams with all

members that are either extraverted or introverted may be more beneficial. It is possible

that teams with greater heterogeneity experienced less cohesion because the team

xli The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

C. Additional Findings

In addition to the original hypotheses tested in this study, other, unexpected

findings proved noteworthy. Firstly, there was a strong correlation between the

thinking-type personality and male gender (r = .64, p < .05). This result may be largely linked to

the skewed proportion of males in the STAR program. In this study, 69% of the students

in the STAR program were males.

A second interesting finding showed that thinking type project leaders did not

necessarily get higher individual team cohesion scores even though the team performance

scores were higher and team cohesion scores were higher. This may show that although

teams did better in the eyes of the client, and they rated the overall team higher, they did

not necessarily attribute that success to the project leader.

Despite the interaction that was seen with thinking type project leaders, overall,

there was a statistically significant correlation between the team performance score and

the average team cohesion scores (r=.65, p < .05). The team performance and the team

cohesion scores are independent of one another. The client had no knowledge of the

STAR team members’ scores and the STAR team members had no knowledge of the

score that the client assigns to the team. However, as teams work together throughout the

course of the semester-long project, undoubtedly some teams will have a better

xlii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

doing and result in higher feedback scores from the client as well. While these

similarities are not surprising, it does tell a story about the teams who received higher

ratings from both the client and each other.

xliii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION

A. Implications

The goal of this study was not to create a bias in the type of personalities that

should be allowed into the STAR program. Fortunately, the results of this study yielded

no such implications. The Myers and Briggs Foundation states clearly, “All preferences

are equally valuable and each type brings an important point of view when people

interact.

xliv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

that this is an area of study that could use addition research to uncover the driving

components of team cohesion and performance.

B. Limitations

This study, although relatively straightforward in analysis, was not without

limitations. The majority of the limitations came from the imperfect nature of analyzing

data from human participants in a dynamic environment. The limitations of this study

included a potential reporting bias, imprecision of the MBTI, and unavailable data.

One of the major limitations of this research was the potential reporting bias in

feedback scores. Team members, project leaders, and faculty advisors may have inflated

the scores they reported for each other because they were aware of the impact that their

score has on each individual’s grade in the course. Although all scores were reported

anonymously though an online survey, this does not eliminate the potential for this type

of bias to occur. As a result, the team cohesion scores may have been higher than if the

information was collected without an impact on individual course grades.

There are also limitations to the accuracy of the MBTI used as part of the STAR

program. The MBTI used in the STAR program was a shortened online version of the

MBTI test. The MBTI reporting strategy for the STAR program does not give

percentages for each of the four dichotomous scales in the MBTI. Percentages provide

greater detail into the strength of each personality factor. While this limitation impacts

the precision of the MBTI, it does not change the individual MBTI type for each

participant.

xlv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

unavailable data, the analysis still provided insight into some of the trends observed in

the UNC Kenan-Flagler STAR consulting teams.

C. Suggestions for Future Research

Personality research is an ever-evolving field. This introductory study looked at a

broad range of characteristics of personality and began to discover some of the

implications of personality in high-level consulting teams. Continuing this research over

several more years may provide increased understanding of the interactions that were

observed in this study. In addition, this study was completed retroactively using data that

was previously collected and compiled. For the future, more detailed data capturing

could help to improve the accuracy of the analysis. For example, the STAR program data

could collect the percentages of each of the MBTI dichotomies such that the degree to

which an individual possesses certain characteristics can be measured.

xlvi The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

It is interesting to note that the STAR program encouraged team members to

openly share their MBTI with each other in order to help foster an environment of team

cohesion. As a result, team members could have potentially been able to alter their

attitudes and actions towards certain team members based on this knowledge. A future

study could compare team cohesion and performance in teams where MBTI was not

shared prior to working together with teams, to situations, such as the STAR program,

where this information was shared. I would expect to find that knowing each other’s

MBTI was an important component to getting along in certain situations. Moreover,

teams that are instructed in how to implement their knowledge of each other’s MBTI

information would experience an even greater increase in team cohesion and

performance.

D. Conclusion

Through this introductory study of the MBTI in high-performing consulting

teams, I was able to uncover some areas that provide glimmers of insight for the STAR

program and composition of future STAR teams. First, MBTI is a powerful tool for

teams to use to enhance both cohesion and performance. The MBTI has been repeatedly

shown to help individuals learn how to interact more effectively based on MBTI

preferences. Through increased interaction methods, teams are better suited to optimize

performance.

xlvii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

MBTI and encouraged to share each other’s MBTI information at the kick-off meeting, it

may be beneficial for teams to revisit the MBTI training at the semester mid-point. By

revisiting this topic, teams will be reminded of each member’s MBTI and teams will also

be able to apply this information at a critical time in the project. Typically, teams do not

experience interpersonal trials in the initial stages of the project, but instead experience

trials in the latter stages of the semester. Therefore, having the opportunity to be

reminded of the MBTI halfway through the project may be more beneficial for teams.

Apart from being educated on the MBTI and implementing the MBTI in team

settings, the results of this study did provide some additional insights into potentially

constructing teams by using the MBTI as a guide. According to the STAR program, the

project leader role is a self-selecting position during the general application process. As

part of the application, MBA students are permitted to check a box indicating that they

would like to be considered for the project leader position. The data shows that more

extraverts were chosen as project leaders which could be a misrepresentation of the

general ability of introverts as project leaders because introverts may be less likely to

select for the project leader position. Instead of having the project-leader role

self-selected during the application process, it may be better for the STAR program to review

the application of all MBA students and nominate project leaders based on past

xlviii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

self-reflection which may be beneficial qualities for leadership.

Although some expected findings were not shown to be significant, this study did

yield some significant results. First, Hypothesis 2 showed that thinking project leaders

reported higher team performance scores than feeling project leaders. This result does

not mean that individuals with the feeling preference will not make good leaders, instead

it is merely a point to consider when selecting project leaders for future STAR teams.

Second, having heterogeneity of MBTI types in teams may not necessarily be best

for either cohesion or performance. Instead, it is possible that having people who are less

alike in certain components of the MBTI may lead to additional conflict. The exact

reasoning for this finding is unclear based on the data in the study; however it is an

interesting point to consider for the future of the STAR teams.

xlix The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

l The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

li The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

lii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

Appendix C: THE 16 MBTI TYPES

(The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2001)

ISTJ: Quiet, serious, earn success by thoroughness and dependability. Practical,

matter-of-fact, realistic, and responsible. Decide logically what should be done and work toward

it steadily, regardless of distractions. Take pleasure in making everything orderly and

organized – their work, their home, their life. Value traditions and loyalty.

ISFJ: Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Committed and steady in meeting

their obligations. Thorough, painstaking, and accurate. Loyal, considerate, notice and

remember specifics about people who are important to them, concerned with how others

feel. Strive to create an orderly and harmonious environment at work and at home.

INFJ: Seek meaning and connection in ideas, relationships, and material possessions.

Want to understand what motivates people and are insightful about others. Conscientious

and committed to their firm values. Develop a clear vision about how best to serve the

common good. Organized and decisive in implementing their vision.

INTJ: Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving

their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long-range explanatory

perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Skeptical and

independent, have high standards of competence and performance – for themselves and

others.

liii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

amounts of data to isolate the core of practical problems. Interested in cause and effect,

organize facts using logical principles, value efficiency.

ISFP: Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what’s going on

around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame.

Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike

disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others.

INFP: Idealistic, loyal to their values and to people who are important to them. Want an

external life that is congruent with their values. Curious, quick to see possibilities, can be

catalysts for implementing ideas. Seek to understand people and to help them fulfill their

potential. Adaptable, flexible, and accepting unless a value is threatened.

INTP: Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical

and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible,

and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of

interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.

ESTP: Flexible and tolerant, they take a pragmatic approach focused on immediate

results. Theories and conceptual explanations bore them – they want to act energetically

to solve the problem. Focus on the here-and-now, spontaneous, enjoy each moment that

they can be active with others. Enjoy material comforts and style. Learn best through

doing.

liv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

realistic approach to their work, and make work fun. Flexible and spontaneous, adapt

readily to new people and environments. Learn best by trying a new skill with other

people.

ENFP: Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life as full of possibilities. Make

connections between events and information very quickly, and confidently proceed based

on the patterns they see. Want a lot of affirmation from others, and readily give

appreciation and support. Spontaneous and flexible, often rely on their ability to

improvise and their verbal fluency.

ENTP: Quick, ingenious, stimulating, alert, and outspoken. Resourceful in solving new

and challenging problems. Adept at generating conceptual possibilities and then

analyzing them strategically. Good at reading other people. Bored by routine, will seldom

do the same thing the same way, apt to turn to one new interest after another.

ESTJ: Practical, realistic, matter-of-fact. Decisive, quickly move to implement decisions.

Organize projects and people to get things done, focus on getting results in the most

efficient way possible. Take care of routine details. Have a clear set of logical standards,

systematically follow them and want others to also. Forceful in implementing their plans.

lv The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

ENFJ: Warm, empathetic, responsive, and responsible. Highly attuned to the emotions,

needs, and motivations of others. Find potential in everyone, want to help others fulfill

their potential. May act as catalysts for individual and group growth. Loyal, responsive to

praise and criticism. Sociable, facilitate others in a group, and provide inspiring

leadership.

lvi The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

lvii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

REFERENCES

Barrick, M., Stewart, G., Neubert, M., & Mount, M. (1998). Relating member ability and

personality to work-team processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.

Bell, S. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615.

Carr, M., Curd, J., Dent, F. (2004). MBTI Research into Distribution of Type. Ashridge.

Retrieved from http://www.ashridge.com/website/IC.nsf/wFARATT/MBTI%20

Research%20into%20Distribution%20of%20Type%20%282nd%20edition%29/$

file/MBTIResearchIntoDistribution2.pdf

Chittenden, C., & McKenzie, S. (2013). Talking about: create new thinking. Retrieved

from http://www.talkingabout.com.au/MBTI

Coe, C. (1992). The MBTI: Potential uses and misuses in personnel administration.

Public Personnel Management, 21(4), 511-522.

Ellis, A., Abrams, M., Abrams, L. D., Nussbaum, A., & Frey, R. J. (2009). The study of

personality: Introduction. Personality Theories: Critical Perspectives,

1-25. doi:10.4135/9781452231617

Friga, P. (2009). The mckinsey engagement: A powerful toolkit for more efficient and

effective team problem solving. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

lviii The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality.

Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303–307.

Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership

advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal,

54, 528-550.

Hogan, J., Barrett, P., Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and

employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 92(5), Sep 2007,

1270-1285. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1270

Hurst, D., Rush, J., & White, R. (2007). Top management teams and organizational

renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 87-105.

doi:10.1002/smj.4250100708

Karn, J.S., Syed-Abdullah, S., Cowling, A.J. & Holcombe, M. (2007). A study into the

effects of personality type and methodology on cohesion in software engineering

teams. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26:2, 99-111.

doi:10.1080/01449290500102110

Ludford, P. & Terveen, L. G. (2003). Does an individual's Myers-Briggs type indicator

affect task-oriented technology use? Human-Computer Interaction - Interact '03,

623--632.

"Mary & Isabel's Library Online Catalog." 2013. Center for Applications of

Psychological Type. Retrieved November 18, 2013 from

http://www.capt.org/MILO/

lix The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

development? Apply with caution. Journal Of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 10(1), 68-81. doi:10.1177/107179190301000106

Montequin, V., Fernandez, J.M., Balsera, J., Nieto, A. (2012). Using MBTI for the

success assessment of engineering teams in project-based learning. International

Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 1127-1146. doi:

10.1007/s10798-012-9229-1

Nurturing Europe’s Spirit of Enterprise: How entrepreneurial executives mobilize

organizations to innovate. (2011). Forbes Insights. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/forbesinsights/europe_entrepreneurs/index.html

Pittenger, D.J. (1993a). Measuring the MBTI...and coming up short. Journal of Career

Planning and Employment, 54(3), 48-52.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2013). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, N.J:

Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Smith, L. (2001). The effects of project manager personality profiles on projects. En

Proceedings of the project management institute annual seminars & symposium.

Nashville, Tenn.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2001). Retrieved October 14, 2013 from

lx The Impact of Personality on Team Cohesion and Performance

Working with McKinsey. (2013). Retrieved October 18, 2013 from