Working with a range of personality types and working styles

Any group of people responsible for any task will be composed of different personalities and styles of working. This applies to any decision-making or problem-solving group as well. Success requires the group to work together despite the differences. This can be a challenge. But, like any challenge, it can be overcome, worked with, and even used advantageously. That is, assuming the group has the will to do so.

In the previous two posts, I listed a number of pairs, representing a spectra of behaviors. A short list of this sort is not, by any means, complete or all-inclusive. Literally thousands of pages of books and research publications have been written on the subject; there is no way I can summarize a whole body of literature and science on this. My list serves the purpose of recognizing that there are numerous styles and approaches to making decisions. It also gives us the chance to look at how a diverse group of people interact in the setting of decision-making.

Personality style has a major influence on working style as well. The range of working styles is as broad as personality styles but I am going to break working styles down into a few major approaches people take, in no particular order:

• Likes to work alone on tasks
• Prefers to work as part of a team
• Starts at the beginning and works single-mindedly on the task until it is done
• Plans out every aspect of the task before doing any part of it
• Breaks the task into pieces and works through the pieces until the task is done
• Works on several tasks at the same time 
• Tries to take charge and impose their ideas on the team
• Puts off doing tasks until just before they are due

I am sure you can come up with more, but this is a good place to start. I will not try to tie these working styles to the personality spectra I discussed in the last two posts. Why? Because, in my experience, these working styles can be found in people of any of those personalities even though we might expect some correlation based on our perception of how people of a certain personality style work. 

Personality and working style are interrelated factors in how people work, and perhaps more importantly, work together. Some personalities complement each other, while others clash. The same thing applies to working styles. To complicate things, you can have people with the same personality type but different working styles and vice-versa. 

Let’s take a look at some of the ways working styles can inhibit good decision-making. We will also look at how different styles can clash in ways that also inhibit that process.

Those who like to work alone can range from those willing to work with others to those who will refuse to do so. Why do people prefer to work alone? In many cases it’s because they have been involved in group projects in school or at work with other participants who literally do nothing or wait until the last minute. The end result is that the rest of the group has to do that member’s part or see the entire project delayed. This, in turn, creates hard feelings and distrust of the individual(s) who behaves in this manner, which then will make the process of making a decision much more difficult and perhaps even impossible.

The opposite of this style is the person who prefers to be a part of a team. This can be a very good style for making decisions and solving problems as long is their participation is willing and based on the idea that a team can be most effective if each member is actively working. 

Clashes can develop between those who want to work alone and those who prefer to be part of teams. True team players can get frustrated with the “work-aloners” because they feel, with or without a basis, that those who are working alone either do not actually do anything or do not communicate adequately with the rest of the team. 

On the other hand, those who prefer to work alone have often had experience with individuals who prefer the working style of waiting until the last minute to start on a task and then pull the equivalent of an “all-nighter” and present the results to the group. This causes problems with those who prefer any of the other working styles because in a group decision-making effort, their input may not be provided in time to be considered in any detail in making that decision. In this way, potentially valuable information and data may be missing from the process, and thus may dilute the quality of the decision-making.

In my experience, no one really likes to work with someone who put things off until the clock nearly runs out. When there is someone on a team or part of a group charged with making decisions, or any other important task, whose style is to put things off, it causes many problems and clashes, along with resentment (on all sides), and thus is an impediment to effective decision-making.

Those who start on a task and work single-mindedly until it is done may seem to be really good team members, and definitely can be. My experience is that this working style can be a good impetus to those members of the group who may be tempted to put things off to go ahead and get started as well. But they also can be stymied by parts of a task that are difficult. The best of this working style is exhibited by those who can then turn to the other team members for help and suggestions for overcoming those difficulties. They can be true team participants. If they cannot ask for help, it can interfere with the process and cause delays.

Those who like to plan out every aspect of a task before beginning it can be very effective group members unless this planning process is drawn out and actually delays the process. Don’t get me wrong, at one time in my career I was a project manager and I understand and support the idea that with planning, any group effort is made more efficient. We need to understand what is involved in getting to a decision, such as what information we need, but we do not need to dwell on minutia to the point of never getting actually started. 

The working style of breaking a task or effort into component pieces and then working through them can help in the planning process from above. The issue I have seen with this working style is that they often just move ahead without consulting the group, presenting a solution on their own that may or may not reflect the consensus of the group.

Those who work on several tasks at once present an interesting picture. Much research has been done on the concept and effectiveness of multitasking. When applied to those who try to listen at a meeting, think about another task, send emails and texts about other projects, the research is pretty clear that effectiveness at all of the activities declines, sometimes steeply. In order for important decisions to be made effectively, the group needs to focus on that issue alone and not be distracted by other tasks. In many settings this is very difficult and can be impossible, especially in a business setting where many potentially important things are being addressed constantly. But we do need decisions to be made, and effective ones at that, so understanding how the specific decision fits into the overall picture of the organization, and how important it is, needs to be addressed when the decision-making process is begun.

Those who try to take charge and impose their ideas and solutions on a group actually inhibit effective decision-making. They prevent alternatives for consideration. I need say no more.

Overlay that with individuals who, despite apparent similarities, simply cannot (or will not) get along, and the fact that any group of people can actually make decisions approaches the miraculous! 

How, then, do decisions get made by groups of disparate people? That will be our next topic.