Abstract
The members of high-performing teams function like horses all harnessed to the same wagon and pulling in the same direction. When team members do not, teams fall short of achieving desired outcomes. According to Lencioni (2002), teams most commonly derail when they exhibit one or more of these dysfunctions: absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results. In other words, dysfunction occurs due to “people issues”. Since all teams consist of fallible people, all teams experience these dysfunctions to some degree at some time.
Fortunately these limiting factors can be identified and overcome, given the right tools. Since these are people issues, the key for team leaders and members is to develop “people savvy” -- the ability to understand their own operating system as well as those of their team mates, and to create effective software to function well each other within the team.
Participants in this hands-on, interactive workshop acquire and practice a model and tools designed to develop their people savvy, thereby boosting team performance and gaining competitive advantage. They practice using this Enneagram model and related tools to help their teams overcome their dysfunctions. The Enneagram’s nine styles represent the nine different world views and human operating systems (HOS’s) that team members may bring into their team. By understanding and embracing their own HOS/style, participants learn how to build on the strengths of their HOS and mitigate its less functional impacts. They also learn to identify the styles/HOS’s of others, build bridges to them, and therefore enhance both individual and team functioning and results. Finally, they learn how to work ON their team, not just IN it, by identifying, understanding and enhancing their team operating system (TOS) – the separate entity that both evolves from the combination of the individual HOS’s and also goes beyond it.
Specifically, participants:
- Acquire a model and tools to understand individual and team behavior
- Learn to recognize the nine Human Operating Systems (HOS’s) of their team members
- Discover how to understand and enhance their Team Operating System (TOS)
- Practice applying the model and tools to enhance trust, conflict resolution, commitment, accountability and results-focus.
Introduction
Teams predictably manifest dysfunction in the areas of trust, conflict resolution, commitment, accountability, and results-focus, according to Lencioni (2002). According to Frankel, this is because their leaders and members lack the appropriate skills to handle these “people issues”. Of the eight reasons why successful people derail, he notes that the top four relate specifically to lack of competence in relating to people.
Zigarmi, Blanchard, O‘Connor, and Edeburn (2005) , too, stress that a leader’s key to success lies in developing the personal and interpersonal competencies (“insight and outsight”) necessary for “arousing, engaging and satisfying the motives of followers”(page 174). And the good news on the pragmatic level, according to Kouzes and Posner (1997), is that there are tools and “an observable, learnable set of practices” to overcome these dysfunctions.
In this hands-on BuildYourTeam With People-Savvy© process, conference participants are provided a powerful tool, a human development and interaction model, to get results by creating functional team dynamics. This model, the Enneagram, describes nine different ‘Human Operating Systems’ (HOS’s), each with its own worldview, source of motivation, and way of relating and working effectively with others.
Participants explore the workings of their own HOS and the other HOS’s they’re likely to interact with. They also learn how these HOS’s interact within a team to form a Team Operating System (TOS). They then explore ways to use the Enneagram tools to enhance their TOS and propel team performance by avoiding or overcoming the five team dysfunctions.
The Five Team Dysfunctions
The five dysfunctions are presented as a pyramid, with absence of trust at the base and the other four – fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, inattention to results -- layered on top of that base.
In small groups, participants are asked to consider each dysfunction, starting from the base, and identify specific behaviors they have noticed in teams they are familiar with that exemplify the particular dysfunction, as well as the impact it had on the team. For example:
Absence of Trust: “I noticed that people on my project team didn’t fess up to mistakes. As a result, we failed to correct critical faults in the product, got in trouble with the client, and lost money.” .
Fear of Conflict: “I noticed that people on a planning team were super PC with each other and always tried to be agreeable. So we ended up with plans with big holes we discovered later and had to go back and fix.”
Lack of Commitment: “Our budget meetings often ended up with vague action items. So people would go off in their own directions, and we’d get off target and frustrated with each other.”
Avoidance of Accountability: “I thought the junior support staff was heading the wrong direction, but I wasn’t clear about their role in the plan. So I hesitated saying anything to them, and they wasted thousands before anyone caught it.”
Inattention to Results: “Some key people on the proposal team were focused on getting recognition on a high-profile project, We couldn’t get them to negotiate the financial details, and we ended up with something that looked jimmy-rigged to the client.”
The Enneagram: Key to the Nine “Human Operating Systems” (HOS’s)
The Enneagram model is introduced briefly as a model of human behavior and set of tools to avoid or cure these dysfunctions. On the most superficial level, the Enneagram can be seen as describing the spectrum of human personalities, depicted on a circle (Exhibit 1). At this level, the nine types or styles can be seen as nine different personalities. More usefully, it can be seen as describing nine different perspectives or lenses on the world, as nine different ways of working, being and seeing.
Exhibit 1: The Enneagram
At the highest or deepest level, the Enneagram can be seen as describing nine different psycho-spiritual systems.
Participants are urged to approach the Enneagram pragmatically, at the “what makes people tick” level. From that perspective, the Enneagram can be seen as a user’s guide to the nine default human operating systems (HOS’s). Our type or HOS is our conditioned coping strategy. It is the way of being and doing that we evolved to help us deal with what we needed to deal because of the interplay between our predispositions and our experiences and environment.
As applied to communication, the Enneagram approach holds that the more we understand our own HOS, and the better we are at identifying and understanding the HOS of the other person, the better we can design our messages and make the other appropriate choices to ensure effective communication and relating. Ultimately this is what it takes to write better software to connect our HOS’s.
Identifying and Exploring Individual Styles / HOS’s
Next participants take the QUEST assessment (Exhibit 2) to determine their most likely type / HOS. ,
Exhibit 2: QUEST
They then preliminarily validate their type by reading the following brief profiles of the types.
The Nine Personality Types of the Enneagram
1. The Reformer. The principled, idealistic type. Ones are conscientious and ethical, with a strong sense of right and wrong. They are teachers, crusaders, and advocates for change: always striving to improve things, but afraid of making a mistake. Well-organized, orderly, and fastidious, they try to maintain high standards, but can slip into being critical and perfectionistic. They typically have problems with resentment and impatience. At their Best: wise, discerning, realistic, and noble. Can be morally heroic.
2. The Helper. The caring, interpersonal type. Twos are empathetic, sincere, and warm-hearted. They are friendly, generous, and self-sacrificing, but can also be sentimental, flattering, and people-pleasing. They are well-meaning and driven to be close to others, but can slip into doing things for others in order to be needed. They typically have problems with possessiveness and with acknowledging their own needs. At their Best: unselfish and altruistic, they have unconditional love for others.
3. The Achiever. The adaptable success-oriented type. Threes are self-assured, attractive, and charming. Ambitious, competent, and energetic, they can also be status-conscious and highly driven for advancement. They are diplomatic and poised, but can also be overly concerned with their image and what others think of them. They typically have problems with workaholism and competitiveness. At their Best: self-accepting, authentic, everything they seem to be—role models who inspire others.
4. The Individualist. The introspective, romantic type. Fours are self-aware, sensitive, and reserved. They are emotionally honest, creative, and personal, but can also be moody and self-conscious. Withholding themselves from others due to feeling vulnerable and defective, they can also feel disdainful and exempt from ordinary ways of living. They typically have problems with melancholy, self-indulgence, and self-pity. At their Best: inspired and highly creative, they are able to renew themselves and transform their experiences.
5. The Investigator. The perceptive, cerebral type. Fives are alert, insightful, and curious. They are able to concentrate and focus on developing complex ideas and skills. Independent, innovative, and inventive, they can also become preoccupied with their thoughts and imaginary constructs. They become detached, yet high-strung and intense. They typically have problems with eccentricity, nihilism, and isolation. At their Best: visionary pioneers, often ahead of their time, and able to see the world in an entirely new way.
6. The Loyalist. The committed, security-oriented type. Sixes are reliable, hard-working, responsible, and trustworthy. Excellent “troubleshooters,” they foresee problems and foster cooperation, but can also become defensive, evasive, and anxious—running on stress while complaining about it. They can be cautious and indecisive, but also reactive, defiant and rebellious. They typically have problems with self-doubt and suspicion. At their Best: internally stable and self-reliant, courageously championing themselves and others.
7. The Enthusiast. The busy, productive type. Sevens are extroverted, optimistic, versatile, and spontaneous. Playful, high-spirited, and practical, they can also misapply their many talents, becoming over-extended, scattered, and undisciplined. They constantly seek new and exciting experiences, but can become distracted and exhausted by staying on the go. They typically have problems with impatience and impulsiveness. At their Best: they focus their talents on worthwhile goals, becoming appreciative, joyous, and satisfied.
8. The Challenger. The powerful, aggressive type. Eights are self-confident, strong, and assertive. Protective, resourceful, straight-talking, and decisive, but can also be ego-centric and domineering. Eights feel they must control their environment, especially people, sometimes becoming confrontational and intimidating. Eights typically have problems with their tempers and with allowing themselves to be vulnerable. At their Best: self-mastering, they use their strength to improve others’ lives, becoming heroic, magnanimous, and inspiring.
9. The Peacemaker. The easy-going, self-effacing type. Nines are accepting, trusting, and stable. They are usually creative, optimistic, and supportive, but can also be too willing to go along with others to keep the peace. They want everything to go smoothly and be without conflict, but they can also tend to be complacent, simplifying problems and minimizing anything upsetting. They typically have problems with inertia and stubbornness. At their Best: indomitable and all-embracing, they are able to bring people together and heal conflicts.
Copyright, 1998 The Enneagram Institute. All Rights Reserved.
[The Enneagram Institute, 3355 Main St., Route 209 Stone Ridge, NY 12484, Tel: 845-687-9878, fax: 845-687-7486,
[email protected]]
Then, in triads representing three different HOS’s, participants introduce themselves to each other by describing the primary identifying characteristics of their HOS’s. They use the descriptions from the QUEST and, most importantly, their own self-knowledge.
Exploring HOS Dynamics and the Five Dysfunctions Within A Team
Still in triads, participants then explore the connection between their HOS’s and the five dysfunctions. Each person states the connections as s/he sees them. For example:
A SIX might say, “I tend to be skeptical, so I’m slow to trust others. It takes me a long time to trust new people on a team”,
A NINE might say, “It may look as if I trust people because I don’t express any doubts in order to avoid conflict. So I keep my issues hidden and just silently withdraw from some people or resist committing.”
A THREE might say, “Accomplishment and looking good are hugely important to me. So if I see things headed the wrong way and can’t get the team’s attention, I may loose my commitment to the team’s goals and go my own way.”
Other people offer observations or ask questions as appropriate.
Enhancing the Team Operating System (TOS) to Overcome the 5 Dysfunctions
Participants then apply the Enneagram tools to charter their team so as to avoid or overcome the five dysfunctions.
Triads merge into mock teams of six to analyze their team operating system (TOS) – the way their constituent HOS’s interact and play out in the functioning and performance of the team itself as well as the team “personality” that emerges. They address these questions:
What does our team profile look like (HOS’s represented, not represented, etc.)? What’s our “energy”?
What are our team strengths (our functionalities)?
What are our potential team weaknesses / dysfunctions?
How can we build on our strengths and minimize our dysfunctions? (What systems and agreements are necessary?)
Back in the whole group, participants share and compare their approaches. For example:
“Our TOS is so heavy, serious and results-oriented that we might push past conflicts without working through them. We’re also going to get a coach to help us understand our conflict patterns so we can avoid them. We also came up with a written team commitment to take time to surface and resolve conflicts as they occur. We’re going to post that on the wall of our meeting room and read it at the start of meetings.”
“Our TOS tends toward withdrawal. We suspect that could both reflect and exacerbate trust issues, leaving us open to all the other dysfunctions. So we decided to organize a facilitated retreat to get to know each other better. We’re also going to have a weekly lunch together, separate from our formal business meetings.”
“Our TOS is very interactive and process-oriented, and we like to have fun with each other. We realized we could lose sight of results if we’re not careful. So we appointed John, who’s a bit more of get-it-done guy, as our call-to-action person. We also decided to put all our individual and team action items into our calendars and do a weekly status toward results teleconference.”
Summary/Wrap Up
Participants are asked to share their top take-aways from their experience, and also to make a specific action commitment based on it.
They are also pointed to an on-line assessment to verify their HOS as well as to some resources to deepen their understanding of their own and other HOS’s.