|
Case Study 3
Staff & Team Development
The case of “THE TEAM THAT WASN’T A TEAM”. Members
had undertaken team training and personality profiling, including
MBTI. Yet they were still intolerant of each other, were reluctant
to assist others when the pressure was on, and were not growing
and developing as effective, productive organizational staff. A
2 day workshop, using the enneagram as the core model, changed all
that.
Presenting Problem:
A work team of 27 people, representing a variety of organizational
levels, was experiencing many tensions and irritations when required
to pull together in times of crisis. The manager wanted them to
understand each others’ strengths and focus less on things
that irritated them. She had undertaken many forms of management
and leadership training, and was eventually introduced to the enneagram.
She decided this was exactly what her team needed.
Enneagram Awareness:
The 2 day workshop was designed to run on consecutive Fridays. The
first day overviewed each type, and staff members were intrigued
as they identified themselves in the profiles. Emails sent after
day 1, were enthusiastic. “I was fascinated ... that everyone
seemed to be able to identify strongly with one of the nine personality
types. I was also interested in how different some of the personality
types were. When I heard the background and theory about some (types),
I was struggling to imagine how people could experience the world
this way. So, it was great, and I was surprised, when people put
their hands up and said “Yep! That’s me!” and
then talked about what life is like for them. Just excellent!”
Another said, “I really enjoyed it –
although it was quite confronting to acknowledge your “faults”...
I learned a lot about myself, but more importantly, I learned a
lot about the other people who attended. Knowing the characteristics
of each personality certainly helps explain why people react (or
don’t react) the way I would expect.” Another said,
“It was good to find out why I am the way I am. MBTI just
does not go far enough.”
Outcomes:
Day 2 focussed on the implications of each member’s type,
and how it played out daily in team interactions. Safe feedback
activities, referring to typical characteristics of each type, provided
an opportunity for individuals to reflect and identify those aspects
that related to themselves and their behaviour.
An action session laid the foundations for change.
For example : Types that found it hard to ask for help, asked for
specific assistance in current tasks from team members present.
Types who found it hard to say “No”, had an opportunity
to practice these skills and receive immediate feedback from others.
The “worriers” in the group were given the space to
discuss concerns, without others “drowning them out”.
Strategies were devised to ensure the worst did not happen! The
manager, a rather flamboyant and creative person, was able to hear
(in a way that was safe for team members) how her dramatic style
made life difficult when the team was frantically working to a very
tight deadline.
Each team member had the chance to explore how
they (in type) impacted the team’s functioning. The workshop
was constructive and practical. Long term improvements in understanding
and functioning were achieved.
back to top
|
