Building better teams: the role of personality

Hudson’s recent study (Buseyne et al., 2024) examined, among other things, how personality traits influence team role behavior. This scientific research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Psychology, was authored by researchers from KU Leuven, imec research group ITEC, Hudson, and Université de Lille.

Why team roles matter

Team members naturally adopt different roles—some coordinate and organise, some provide steady support, and others bring fresh ideas.

Most teams need a mix of roles to be effective, but when roles are unbalanced, or when people take on roles that conflict with their natural tendencies, teams may struggle with unmet goals and reduced engagement. On the other hand, by recognising each team member’s likely role, team coaches and leaders can better align individuals with roles that play to their strengths.

What our research found

Our study involved real business teams, composed of long-term collaborators who were familiar with each other’s work styles and behaviors. These participants provided peer ratings of each other’s team role behaviour, using the Team Role Experience and Orientation (TREO) framework (Mathieu et al., 2015). We then correlated these peer ratings with self-rated personality traits, measured through Hudson’s Business Attitudes Questionnaire (BAQ).

These analyses provided us with insights into how team members with different personalities are likely to be perceived by their team mates in collaborative settings:

• Organizer: Team members identified by their peers as Organizers, score high on personality traits such as "Leading" and "Communicative." They are typically the ones who provide structure, coordinate tasks, and keep track of progress.
  
  
• Doer: As reliable executors, Doers score high on the facet "Cooperating”. Focused on task completion, they support the team in meeting deliverables.
  
  
• Innovator: With high scores in "Innovative" and "Open-minded", Innovators contribute creative ideas and strategies. They bring fresh perspectives, which is crucial for teams tackling new challenges or needing to think outside the box.
  
  
• Challenger: Challengers display traits such as "Critical" and "Strategic," and help the team avoid premature conclusions by asking critical questions, encouraging deeper analysis and the evaluation of alternative perspectives.
  
  
• Team Builder: Team Builders score high on “Motivating” and “People-oriented” traits, and foster a positive atmosphere within the group. They encourage collaboration and resolve tensions, cultivating a supportive team culture.
  
  
• Connector: Connectors score high on the "Socially Confident" facet, representing individuals who maintain external relationships and bring in resources or information from outside the team, extending the team’s reach and network.
  
  

These clear connections between personality facets and team role behaviors highlight how personality assessments can effectively predict team dynamics.

Interestingly, Mathieu et al. (2015) found that while self-assessments and peer-assessments of team roles were significantly related, the correlation was not very strong. In contrast, our study found much stronger links between peer-assessments of team roles and self-assessments of relevant personality traits. This finding suggests that while individuals may believe they typically fulfill a particular role, their behavior in team settings can be perceived differently by others—making personality traits a more reliable predictor of team role behavior than self-rated team role questionnaires.

Leveraging personality assessments to build high-performing teams

The findings from his study have practical applications, here are a few key ways these insights can be put to use:

Creating balanced teams: By assessing each team member’s personality traits and likely team role, leaders can ensure all essential roles are well-represented. This balance helps avoid common pitfalls like one person becoming overburdened or team members stepping into conflicting roles.

Improving hiring for specific team roles
Personality assessments can also be valuable during the hiring process, in helping to identify candidates whose traits align with the specific team roles that need to be filled. For instance, selecting someone with strong "Motivating" and "People-oriented" traits for a Team Builder role ensures the team has a cohesive, collaborative dynamic.

Encouraging employee development: Personality assessments offer a framework to guide employees toward roles that fit their natural tendencies. For example, an employee scoring high in "Critical" and "Strategic" traits, could be given roles that involve problem-solving and critical review, like analysing data or evaluating project plans. This allows them to provide added value for the team while sharpening their natural analytical strengths.

Building team awareness and appreciation: When team members understand each other’s strengths and preferred roles, it creates a culture of respect and appreciation. Facilitating discussions about these assessments can help each member recognise the unique contributions others bring, boosting morale and collaboration.

By applying personality assessments into team contexts, leaders and coaches can achieve a nuanced understanding of team dynamics and make informed decisions that support employee engagement and team performance. Our research highlights the importance of looking at personality not as a rigid set of traits, but as a dynamic tool for predicting real, observable behaviour in team settings.

References

Buseyne, S., Vrijdags, A., Said-Metwaly, S., Danquigny, T., Heutte, J., Depaepe, F., & Raes, A. (2024). Peering into the team role kaleidoscope: the interplay of personal characteristics and verbal interactions in collaborative problem solving. Frontiers in Psychology (15). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1345892

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M. R., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2015). Team role experience and orientation: a measure and tests of construct validity. Group & Organization Management (40), 6–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114562000