Team Exercise

"What Is a Team Personality?" with high-performance teams and justify these choices, (b) identify personality characteristics that hinder high-performance teams and justify these choices, and (c) resolve whether it is better to have teams composed of individuals with similar or dissimilar traits. Each group should select an individual who will present his or her group's findings to the class.

It's the unusual organization today that isn't using work teams. But not everybody is a good team player. This prompts the questions: What individual personality characteristics enhance a team's performance? And what characteristics might hinder team performance? Break into groups of five or six. Based on the research presented in this chapter, each group should (a) identify personality characteristics that are associated

Characteristics of a Good Team

There are many characteristics of effective teams, but every good team is usually because of a great, visionary leader. Here are some characteristics of a good team: 1. Are adaptable Good teams are adaptable to one another. The individuals in a good team know each other every well and they have learnt that it is important to be flexible to one another. The good team understand this and learns to be flexible in order to meet the needs and learn to accept ideas that are different from their individuals.

2. Be selfless
As the quote goes, There is no I in team. Members of a good team understand the importance of the organizational vision before their personal vision.They understand the importance of further the corporate goals before their own agendas. Sometimes this means that they have to give up their own leisure time; their time for their own businesses.

Personality and Individual Differences

The Official Journal of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID)

Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to

seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects. Ultimately they believe that human beings are biosocial organisms and that work on individual differences can be most fruitfully pursued by paying attention to both these aspects of our nature. They believe that advances are more likely to be made by the use of the hypothetical-deductive method, though empirical data based on sound research and providing interesting new findings, would of course not be rejected simply because they might not have a good theoretical underpinning. All in all, the traditional type of work on traits, abilities, attitudes, types and other latent structures underlying consistencies in behavior has in recent years been receiving rather short shrift in traditional journals of personality; Personality and Individual Differences aims to reinstate it to its proper place in psychology, equal in importance with general experimental work, and interacting with it to make up a unitary science of psychology.

Individual Team:

I think individuals are more effective than teams when performance demands skills or knowledge that is acquired slowly over a lengthy period of time. Examples of these situations would include doctors, lawyers, craftsmen, astronauts, leaders, clergymen, or other highly skilled individuals who typically work as solo practitioners. There are exceptions to this rule and they apply when they work that must be done is more than the practitioner can handle effectively by themselves. Here I'm thinking about instances like heart transplant surgery or groundbreaking class action law suits, which would require "teams" of practitioners to succeed. Individuals are "usually" more effective than teams when there is a crisis that requires immediate action and the individual in question has leadership skills. This is so because a crisis, by definition, is a high-stakes situation that is expected to get worse if action is not taken quickly. Here the individual has the advantage "if" they have the authority to take or order action, or perhaps the courage to exceed their authority.
http://www.4degreez.com/misc/personality_disorder_test.mv